Table 3.-Regression coefficients, standard errors, and R Values for esti-
 mating weights of tree components.a
 Species Component B, B, B2 S.E. R

 Slash Foliage 0.628 1.038 2.045 .148 .85
 Slash Branches -0.259 2.843 0.360 .094 .94
 Slash Bolebark 0.898 1.571 0.902 .069 .94
 Slash Bolewood 0.887 1.564 1.557 .067 .96
 Slash Lateral 0.094 2.392 0.000 .185 .79
 roots
 Slash Tap roots 0.158 1.799 1.384 .110 .93
 Loblolly Foliage 0.772 1.732 0.949 .170 .90
 Loblolly Branches 0.675 1.767 0.871 .170 .90
 Loblolly Bolebark 0.907 1.473 0.744 .144 .90
 Loblolly Bolewood 1.046 1.569 1.338 .106 .96
 aEquation of form Log Y = B, + Bi (Log Xi) + B2 (Log X2) where Y = tree
 component dry weight grams; X, = diameter outside bark at groundline cm;
 X2 = total tree height in meters.

 soils. This may explain the difference in magnitude of response
 to water table control between the two species. Nutritionally,
 loblolly pine is considered a more nutr:ent demanding species
 than slash pine, and the amount of applied fertilizer may have
 been only minimal for loblolly pine. Response to water table
 treatments by tree components was similar to that of fertili-
 zation, as the greatest biomass increase was in foliage weights
 and the second greatest was in holewood. Average percentage
 increases in slash pine biomass of tree components were 140%,
 135 %, 109%, and 91% for foliage, bolewood, branches, and bole-
 bark, respectively, for the 46-cm water table over production on
 the fluctuating water table; and 95%, 88%, 74%, and 62% for
 foliage, bolewood, branches, and boleba:rk, respectively, on the
 92-cm water table. It is significant that the major increases
 were in bolewood-a usable portion of the tree. J

 Roots
 Because of the poor general growth of the loblolly pine on
 this site, only slash pine roots were sampled. Roots of the latter
 were subdivided into fine roots (<0.5 cm diameter), lateral
 roots, and taproots. Fine roots were sampled only in the top
S15 cm of the soil profiles.
 Fine root production in the surface soil was increased 145%
 by fertilization (Tables 2, 4). In contrast to above-ground bio-