DETERMINATION OF PINUS SYLVESTRIS L. TRUNK DIAMETER BASED ON STUMP DIAMETER IN DIFFERENT BOREAL CONIFEROUS FOREST CONDITIONS OF PERMSKII KRAI (RUSSIA)

Abstract

Sometimes there are situations when it is necessary to determine the size of cut
logs in the logging area in its absence. Mostly such situations arise in the detection
of illegal logging. They can also occur in the case legal harvesting, when the tenant
of a forest plot does not receive the scheduled volumes of timber for which he paid
the money. In this case, the diameters of the felled trees are determined by the tree
stumps. Recalculation of diameters is carried out on special tables developed in the
early 20th century. Studies conducted in Krasnoyarsk, Khabarovsk, Bryansk
(Russia), Gomel (Belarus), showed the need to refine the data of scaling tables for
local conditions. Large discrepancies between actual and tabular trees appear with
the increasing diameter of the tree. Studies of the relation of the formation of the
butt log of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in the Perm region was carried out in 2015-
2016. Forest plots were selected in different forest types of the middle taiga
(Nirobskii forestry) and southern taiga (Perm urban forestry). Measurement of trees
was carried out in pure pine stands at the age of 75-130 years. The stand density of
the plantings was of 0.6-0.8. In each forest type the replication of studies was
threefold. Studies have shown that trunks of pines formed a fuller bole in the Perm
region, than the established scaling tables. For trees 40cm in diameter,
recalculation leads to underestimation of the pine tree trunk diameter by 1-2
diameter class. That is understating the actual volume of felled tree by (16-20 %).
There were no significant differences in the formation of the pine bole between the
forest zones or by the corresponding types of forest. Also, there were no significant
differences between forest types, which allows using a single conversion scale for
the taiga part of the Perm Territory. Due to the fact that the relative completeness
of the comparative stands were close, the influence of the distance between the
trees on the development of the butt of pine trunks was not detected.