The contributing fixed effects in the model are presented in Table \ref{209209}, with the remaining fixed effects tested, but not used in the model presented in Supplementary Material 1 to avoid confusion. The fixed effects of replication show some differences across the experiment but do not show any particular trend (with the exception of diameter which is due to the sampling constraints described in the method). In spite of the high correlation between diameter and height, sampling type (Replicates 6, 7 and 8 in Table \ref{209209} and Sampling Type in Supplementary Material 1) only shows influence over diameter, this is because height was measured pre-harvest on all (living) trees, while diameter was one of the main visual indicators for selection during harvest, and measured under bark post-harvest. It was not surprising that sampling type has little effect on other traits, as (with the exception of height) correlations with diameter are weak (-0.25, -0.3, -0.22, and -0.23), as seen in Table \ref{725813}. Staking had a small effect on growth-strain, but this increase is more likely due to tension wood development while the trees were not staked, but had fallen over in the storm. Staking shows little bias toward particular families, however is concentrated toward the southern end of the experiment where wind funneled between two hedges. The outer-most rows/columns (Edge effects) of the experiment show a small effect in growth-strain, diameter and height (see Table \ref{209209}). It should be noted there were a buffer rows at the southern end of the block, but not on any other side. Remaining fixed effects all show negligible influence (Supplementary Material 1).