deletions | additions       diff --git a/Results.tex b/Results.tex  index bda7263..e211fb1 100644  --- a/Results.tex  +++ b/Results.tex 
...
\caption{Narrow sense heritability of measured wood properties, calculated as per Equation \ref{gse}.}   \end{table}  Wood processors pay premiums for timber stable and stiff --ref--, stiff,  while forest growers often  prefer to have fast growing trees as to shorten rotation lengths increasing profitability --ref--. profitability.  The preferences are not always aligned, particularly within wood properties. Stiffness, used for grading logs, is positively correlated with growth-strain with a Person correlation coefficient of 0.61, a substantial unfavourable correlation requiring a trade off between the two. While zero growth-strain is desirable to be economically viable to process, some unknown maximum value below which little economic loss is experienced exists. Stiffness is already used for log grades, structural timber in New Zealand requires a minimum of --val, ref-- while in Europe structural timber requires --val ref--. To met these stiffness grades at age two some compromise with the level of growth-strain in the stems  is needed --describe more--. needed.  Volumetric shrinkage is moderately negatively correlated with stiffness and strain --same as other literature?-- Growth and density show only small correlations with all other  wood properties. \begin{table}   \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c } 
...
\caption{--Person?-- corolation between average family values for measured wood properties.}   \end{table}  The effect of the alterations made to from the rapid method should be negligible. The linear error introduced by using big end diameter rather than average diameter of the stem will result in a slight lowering of all reported strains over the original method. Leaving the small end intact (i.e. not cutting it as in the splitting test) does not release as much strain as the original method, again lowering the growth-strain value over all samples.While accuracy of the splitting test has been investigated –refs–, precision has not.  Further work is required to determine the accuracy and precision of both tests and to  separateit from the  natural variability within the stems from variability between  stems.