e., 27 trees with a maximum of 24 sample branches each, was estimated. equation(5) dMNtotalij=Mtotalij⋅qgMMij⋅qdgdMNtotalij=Mtotalij⋅qgMMij⋅qdgIn the last step we had to determine the dry needle mass for all branches of each sample tree. Therefore we built the ratio between dry needle mass and branch basal area (bba), since the latter one we had for all branches. equation(6) qnmbb=dMNtotalbbaEq. (6) was calculated separately for each sampled branch of each of the 27 trees in each stand and then modelled depending on the crown section. equation(7) qnmbb=a+b⋅csl+c⋅csmqnmbb=a+b⋅csl+c⋅csmEq.

(7) was then used to estimate the dry needle mass of all branches of all 27 sample trees in each stand. equation(8) dMNtotal All=qnmbb⋅bbadMNtotal All=qnmbb⋅bbaFinally, the branches with a base diameter < 10 mm, which were not part of the 3P-sample, GDC 0449 had to be added. We counted all these branches and then assumed an average branch base diameter of 8 mm and with this, calculated DAPT mw their dMNtotal All according to Eq. (8). Since we calculated the specific leaf area for each crown section separately (see below)

we also had to calculate the total dry needle masses (dMNjk) of each jth crown section of each kth sample tree. We therefore summed the dry needle masses (dMNtotal All) of all n branches (indicated by i) of each crown section of each sampled tree. equation(9) dMNjk=∑i=1ndMNtotal AllijkApplying

www.selleck.co.jp/products/Docetaxel(Taxotere).html the law of error propagation, and thus calculating the standard error of the needle mass of an individual tree (dMNtree) from the standard errors of the ratios q in Eqs. (5), (6) and (7), we achieved an average standard error of ±10.5%. This is just slightly above the result of a similar approach done by Eckmüllner and Sterba (2000) who had a CV of ±8.8%. In a second step we calculated the specific leaf area from the dry mass of 100 needles. Out of the dMNsample the mass of 50 needles was measured with an accuracy of 0.001 g and doubled to get the dry mass of 100 needles. With the relationship between specific leaf area and dry mass of 100 needles ( Hager and Sterba, 1985) we calculated the specific leaf area for the respective branch. The polynomial model describing this strong relationship is only plausible up to 600 g dry mass of 100 needles, i.e., higher needle weights result in an implausibly increasing specific leaf area. Hence, for all branches with a dry mass of 100 needles higher than 600 g, the specific leaf area was set to the specific leaf area of a branch with 600 g dry mass of 100 needles. The specific leaf area was now available for one sampled branch per crown section and for 9 trees per stand (for the pole stands, the two thinned and the 2 un-thinned stands were pooled).