deletions | additions       diff --git a/Results.tex b/Results.tex  index 527f7a0..5a7964d 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, while forest growers often prefer to have fast growing trees as to shorten rotation lengths increasing 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 8 GPa \cite{nzs3603}. To met these stiffness grades at age two some compromise with the level of growth-strain in the stems is needed.Volumetric shrinkage is moderately negatively correlated with stiffness and strain. Growth and density show only small correlations with all other wood properties.   \begin{table}   \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c }%{ p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm} p{2cm} }  & Density & Volumetric Shrinkage & Acoustic Velocity & Stiffness & Strain \\   Diameter & 0.15 [0.06, 0.24] & -0.10 [-0.20, -0.02] &-0.02 [-0.12, 0.07] & 0.02 [-0.07, 0.12]& 0.12 [0.03,0.21] \\   Density & & 0.12 [0.03, 0.22]&-0.03 [-0.13, 0.06] &0.22 [0.14, 0.32] &0.023 [-0.07, 0.12] \\   Volumetric Shrinkage & & &-0.37 [-0.45, -0.29] &-0.33 [-0.42, 0.25] &-0.26 [-0.35, -0.17] \\   Acoustic Velocity & & & &0.96 [0.95, 0.97] &0.61 [0.56, 0.68] \\   Stiffness & & & & & 0.61 [0.54, 0.67] \\   \end{tabular}   \caption{Pearson correlation between wood properties at the individual stem level. 95\% confidence intervals in brackets.}   \end{table}  All stems measured within each family were averaged to give correlations between properties at the family level. All correlations increase in strength when compared to individual stem correlations. A very strong positive relationship is evident between growth-strain and stiffness at the family level. This means that reducing growth-strain will require reducing wood stiffness at the population level. On the positive side, \textit{Eucalyptus} species have such high wood stiffness that a reduction would not have practical implications from a wood processing viewpoint.  \begin{table}   \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c }  & Density & Volumetric &Density &Volumetric  Shrinkage & Acoustic &Acoustic  Velocity & Stiffness & Strain \\ &Stiffness &Strain  Diameter &0.18 [-0.13, &-0.17 [-0.46, 0.15] &-0.43 [-0.66, 0.14] &0.27 [-0.04, 0.54] &0.25 [-0.07, 0.52] &0.19 [-0.12,  0.48]&-0.54 [-0.73, -0.27] &0.47 [0.19, 0.69] &0.47 [0.19,0.69] & 0.39 [0.09, 0.63]\\  Density & &-0.29 [-0.56, 0.03] &0.20 [-0.11, 0.49] & 0.37 [0.06, 0.62]& 0.32 [0.01, 0.58]\\ && 0.27 [-0.04, 0.54] &-0.20 [-0.48, 0.11] &0.01 [-0.30, 0.32] &-0.12 [-0.41, 0.20]  Volumetric Shrinkage &&& -0.59 [-0.76, -0.34]  & & &-0.71 [-0.84, -0.51] &-0.71 [-0.84, -0.51] & -0.65 [-0.81, -0.43]\\ -0.55 [-0.73, -0.28] &-0.47 [-0.68, -0.17]  Acoustic Velocity & & & &0.98 [0.97, 1.0] & 0.88 [0.79, 0.94]\\ &&&&0.98 [0.95, 0.99] &0.80 [0.65, 0.89]  Stiffness & & & & & 0.89 [0.80, 0.95]\\ &&&&& 0.79 [0.64, 0.88]  \end{tabular}   \caption{Pearson correlation between average family values for measured wood properties. 95\% confidence intervals in brackets.}   \end{table}  We have made some alterations to the original Chauhan \& Entwistle method to convert it from a research to an operational technique; the effect of these changes should be negligible. The linear error introduced by using large-end diameter rather than average diameter of the stem will result in a slight reduction of all reported strains over the original method. Leaving the small-end intact (that is, not cutting it as in the original splitting test) does not release as much strain as the original method, again lowering the growth-strain value over all samples, however, given that a single measurement is now taken, rather than two, measurement error is reduced. Further work is required to determine the accuracy and precision of both tests and to separate natural within-stem variability, from variability between stems.  Genetic gain per unit of time for a breeding programme depends on four elements: variability for the trait under selection, selection intensity (proportion of individuals selected), accuracy of prediction (proportional to heritability) and time required for turning a breeding cycle. New phenotyping techniques, like rapid growth-strain testing, increase selection intensity (as more trees are able to be assessed), and reduce selection time (as trees can be less then two years old when tested). As far as we are aware, variability for early wood properties is not smaller than at typical selection age, and the degree of genetic control is also similar \citep{apiolaza2011}.