Paper · 1987 · Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Allometric relations of deciduous (Larixoccidentalis) and evergreen conifers (Pinuscontorta and Pseudotsugamenziesii) of the Cascade Mountains in central Washington

Stith T. Gower; Charles C. Grier; Daniel J. Vogt; et al.

7
claims
9
verbatim quotes
49
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Logarithmic equations for estimating component biomass and projected leaf area from stem diameter and (or) sapwood cross-sectional area were computed for western larch (Larixoccidentalis Nutt.), lodgepole pine (Pinuscontorta Dougl.), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii (Mirb.) Franco) in a mixed conifer stand in the Cascades of central Washington. Regression equations for estimating foliage biomass reported in this study did not compare favorably with foliage biomass allometric relations from other studies. For a given diameter, western larch supported a greater current foliage mass than lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir (P < 0.001); however, the total foliage mass of lodgepole pine was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than western larch. Despite lodgepole pine supporting a total foliage mass approximately twofold greater than western larch, allometric relations between foliage area and stem diameter were not different (P > 0.05) between the deciduous and evergreen conifer. Western larch supports a needle morphology that provides a greater photosynthetic surface area per unit of carbon invested than evergreen conifers in this environment.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliage biomass regressions compared unfavorably with regressions in other studies.

Taxon
western larchLarix occidentalise1
Outcome
Regression equations for estimating foliage biomasse0
Direction
did not compare favorablye0
Comparator
foliage biomass allometric relations from other studiese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Larix occidentalis
Larix occidentalis · TaxonWalter Siegmund (talk) · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Regression equations for estimating foliage biomass reported in this study did not compare favorably with foliage biomass allometric relations from other studies.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 352–514 · show in text ↑
e1

“western larch (Larixoccidentalis Nutt.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 154–193 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At a given diameter, western larch had more current foliage mass than lodgepole pine.

Taxon
western larchLarix occidentalise0
Outcome
current foliage masse0
Direction
greatere0
Qualifier
For a given diametere0
Comparator
lodgepole pinee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Larix occidentalis
Larix occidentalis · TaxonWalter Siegmund (talk) · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For a given diameter, western larch supported a greater current foliage mass than lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir (P < 0.001)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–638 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At a given diameter, western larch had more current foliage mass than Douglas-fir.

Taxon
western larchLarix occidentalise0
Outcome
current foliage masse0
Direction
greatere0
Qualifier
For a given diametere0
Comparator
Douglas-fire0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Larix occidentalis
Larix occidentalis · TaxonWalter Siegmund (talk) · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For a given diameter, western larch supported a greater current foliage mass than lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir (P < 0.001)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–638 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Lodgepole pine had more total foliage mass than western larch.

Taxon
lodgepole pinePinus contortae0
Outcome
total foliage masse0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
western larche0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the total foliage mass of lodgepole pine was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than western larch.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 649–747 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lodgepole pine supported approximately twice the total foliage mass of western larch.

Taxon
lodgepole pinePinus contortae0
Outcome
total foliage masse0
Direction
greatere0
Value
approximately twofolde0
Comparator
western larche0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“lodgepole pine supporting a total foliage mass approximately twofold greater than western larch”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–851 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliage-area versus stem-diameter allometry did not differ between western larch and lodgepole pine.

Taxon
western larchLarix occidentalise1
Outcome
allometric relations between foliage area and stem diametere0
Direction
not differente0
Comparator
lodgepole pinee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Larix occidentalis
Larix occidentalis · TaxonWalter Siegmund (talk) · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“allometric relations between foliage area and stem diameter were not different (P > 0.05) between the deciduous and evergreen conifer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–986 · show in text ↑
e1

“western larch (Larixoccidentalis Nutt.), lodgepole pine (Pinuscontorta Dougl.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 154–232 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Western larch needles provide more photosynthetic area per carbon invested than evergreen conifers.

Taxon
Western larchLarix occidentalise0
Organ / stage
needlee0
Outcome
photosynthetic surface area per unit of carbon investede0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
evergreen coniferse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Larix occidentalis
Larix occidentalis · TaxonWalter Siegmund (talk) · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Western larch supports a needle morphology that provides a greater photosynthetic surface area per unit of carbon invested than evergreen conifers in this environment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 988–1155 · show in text ↑