Table 5 Full regression model coefficients by species to predict probability of dead cambium from bark char codes. Species are arranged in ascending order of bark thickness using bark thickness equations in FFE-FVS. N.S. indicates regression coefficient is not significant; all other coefficients are significant (p-value < 0.05). Empirical standard error estimates are in parentheses.

Lodgepole pine

−2.9241 (0.22)

3.0063 (0.16)

5.8827 (0.17)

7.6328 (0.27)

−0.0214 (0.01)

−0.3605 (0.07)

Whitebark pine^a

−2.5654 (0.36)

2.8636 (0.49)

4.1890 (0.50)

N/A

N.S.

—

Western white pine^a

−1.6112 (0.70)

2.4877 (0.53)

4.2776 (0.50)

N/A

−0.0299 (0.12)

—

Western redcedar

−1.5430 (1.38)

3.6535 (1.18)

5.7411 (1.27)

6.7834 (1.74)

−0.0569 (0.03)

—

Engelmann spruce

−3.6534 (0.47)

3.2280 (0.52)

5.0967 (0.51)

6.4749 (0.54)

N.S.

N.S.

Western hemlock^a

0.2731 (0.50)

2.1288 (0.33)

4.2023 (0.34)

N/A

−0.0645 (0.01)

—

Subalpine fir

−2.7920 (0.20)

3.7472 (0.30)

4.9345 (0.30)

5.8406 (0.35)

N.S.

−0.5522 (0.11)

White fir

−1.3171 (0.16)

0.7437 (0.17)

1.5257 (0.15)

3.2526 (0.16)

−0.0071 (0.01)

—

Incense cedar

−2.2271 (0.28)

1.2907 (0.29)

2.2325 (0.27)

3.4036 (0.29)

N.S.

—

Ponderosa pine

−3.8583 (0.31)

1.6447 (0.31)

2.5123 (0.31)

4.1280 (0.32)

0.0027 (0.01)

−11.520 (0.05)

Douglas-fir

−3.3762 (0.24)

1.1384 (0.24)

2.5326 (0.21)

4.1168 (0.24)

−0.0069 (0.01)

−0.4412 (0.05)

Western larch

−2.2604 (0.60)

1.8632 (0.53)

3.0776 (0.57)

4.0688 (0.64)

−0.0691 (0.01)

—

Sugar pine

−2.2186 (0.38)

1.5593 (0.38)

2.9937 (0.36)

3.8950 (0.36)

−0.0083 (0.01)

—