Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Response Of Forest-Grown Trees To Topping

Kenneth L. Carvell
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) December 1978, 4 (12) 279-284; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1978.069
Kenneth L. Carvell
Division of Forestry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Species, number of study trees and control trees, location, average diameters and percent of crown left after topping.

    SpeciesStudy areaNumber of topped treesNumber of control treesAverage diam. of topped treesAverage diam. of controlsPercent of crown left after topping
    cmcm
    Beech, AmericanMaryland303019.623.950.4
    HickoryMaryland282820.516.969.2
    Oak, chestnutPennsylvania303030.530.052.4
    Oak, northern redPennsylvania303037.438.957.2
    Oak, whiteMaryland303024.321.348.3
    Pine, VirginiaMaryland303018.418.062.7
    SweetgumMaryland242419.726.239.3
    SycamoreMaryland7743.252.736.1
    Yellow-poplarPennsylvania303034.529.045.3
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Annual height growth of study trees after topping by crown classes (in cm).

    Crown Class
    SpeciesDominantCo-dominantIntermediateOvertopped
    Beech, American503737—
    Hickory43533718
    Oak, chestnut11610210776
    Oak, northern red11010799—
    Oak, white56562735
    Pine, Virginia413012—
    Sweetgum64632605
    Sycamore8543——
    Yellow-poplar13112079114
    Average77684728
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Average basal area growth (in cm2) by species for five-year period before and after topping for Maryland study area.

    Topped treesControl trees
    Species1967-19711972-19761967-19711972-1976
    Beech, American40507060
    Hickory40403030
    Oak, white60606070
    Pine, Virginia50405040
    Sweetgum50407080
    Sycamore170190160190
    Average50506060
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Average basal area growth (in cm2) by species for four-year period before and after topping for Pennsylvania study area.

    Topped treesControl trees
    Species1969-19721972-19761967-19711972-1976
    Oak, chestnut80807070
    Oak, northern red120110120130
    Yellow-poplar240210220180
    Average170130130130
    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Multiple regressions and coefficients relating basal area growth since topping (G) with percent of crown remaining after topping (H) and diameter breast high (D), and levels of significance.

    SpeciesMultiple regression equationMultiple regression coefficientSimple correlations (r-values)
    H,GD2,GD2,H
    Beech,
    AmericanG = 0.0242+ 0.00032D2 + 0.00008H0.69**0.0040.685**−0.048
    HickoryG = 0.0286 + 0.0001 8D2 − 0.00002H0.62*−0.0490.624**−0.071
    Oak, chestnutG = 0.0035 + 0.00019D2 + 0.00086H0.59**0.458**0.514**0.347
    Oak, n. redG = 0.0324 + 0.00034D2 + 0.00068H0.54**0.1460.545**0.248
    Oak, whiteG = 0.0425 + 0.00012D2 − 0.00007H0.48*0.0120.483*−0.040
    Pine, VirginiaG = 0.0431 + 0.00049D2 − 0.00039H0.76**−0.1790.690**0.206
    SweetgumG = 0.0198 + 0.00037D2 − 0.00003H0.77**−0.0570.775**−0.034
    SycamoreG = −0.083 + 0.00054D2 + 0.00179H0.95*−0.1750.935**−0.353
    Yellow-poplarG = 0.0365 + 0.00031 D2 + 00339H0.57**0.521**0.2560.051
    • r = simple correlation coefficient

    • ↵* = significant at 0.05 level

    • ↵** = significant at 0.01 level

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 4, Issue 12
December 1978
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response Of Forest-Grown Trees To Topping
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Response Of Forest-Grown Trees To Topping
Kenneth L. Carvell
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1978, 4 (12) 279-284; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1978.069

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Response Of Forest-Grown Trees To Topping
Kenneth L. Carvell
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1978, 4 (12) 279-284; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1978.069
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Literature Review
    • Location and Description of Study Areas
    • Field Procedure
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire