Your resonses and the fact that you completely dodged the direct question proves that you know nothing about either 2F or 2G except numbers on a piece of paper. Do really expect an 8% difference in sampling areas in a given year to be regarded as statistically significant?
Without a doubt the 8% difference is significant when you consider that 2F is being managed at almost twice the DD as in 2G. It is also significant because a 34% regeneration rate is 36% the rate that is considered to be good.
What you fail to realize is that our herds are no longer being managed based on the carrying capacity of the habitat. It is being managed based on the ability of the forests to replace the existing canopy. Therefore the only thing that is relevant in determining DD is herd health and the per cent regeneration.