==============================================================================
TOPIC: Heritage Pines of Massachusetts
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/0f3819fc07d377f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 8:21 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


ENTS,

The list increasingly makes sense to me as a criteria for single-trunk, heritage class pines in Massachusetts (all New England?). A girth of 12 feet or more combined with a height of 100 feet or more seems to be a sufficiently restrictive criteria, yet inclusive enough to foster statewide interest and competition. Setting the height criterion too high, as I'm inclined to do, restricts the eastern side of Massachusetts from having any entries. That is not good.

I will next work on a list of multi-trunk, fused trees as a separate list. Because of the allowance of a fusion of two separate trees, the requirement for trunk girth will be greater, perhaps 14 feet. Thoughts, anyone?
Special note to Elbert Bowler,
In this list I have highlighted the two Mount Tom pines that make the list. I believe there may be one of two more pines on the reservation. The second list, to which I allude, will include double-trunk pines that meet the criteria for that class. There is at least one for Mount Tom.
I'm unsure of how State officials will ultimately regard these lists. In the past, the foresters have almost always been silent. The recreational specialists tend to be interested in them, but feel a little initmidated unless someone else maintains the list - which is no problem. The conclusion I am starting to reach is that the lists, whatever they may be, must be adopted by a coalition of parties interested in Mount Tom to give them a higher level of popular support. They will eventually gain official recognition if enough people support them.
Bob

== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 8:31 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Bob-
Any kind of age data?
-Don

== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 11:55 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Don,

As you would realize, age data are much harder to come by. I have ball park ages for all the trees, but exact ages for only a few.

Bob

-

== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 12:35 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE



Bob-
As I looked at your data columns, my eyes kept butting up against the far right column, like an old typewriter. Aren't most of the age data based on obtainable core portions with estimates where center of bole was rotted/hollow? I would think that if asterisked, that this data would be meaningful.
Particularly if an ENTS member or consultant with dendro-chronologist skills were available to cross-reference other adjacent trees that might perhaps be available, to fill in the voids...?
-Don

== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 1:39 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Don,

The pines are scattered over a large geographical area, and as the list grows to include many new landowners, not all owners will allow their trees to be cored. If we think a pine is exceptionally old, we might seek permission, but the age data are always going to be harder to gather. I'd rather put the pines in a general age class unless there is a reason to try to get an age based on either a full or partial core. Just my thinking at this point in time. It will probably change tomorrow.


Bob

== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 1:55 pm
From: phil stevens

I have a red oak with a girth of 16 ft in barre can I get it on a list or register ? 

== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 2:32 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Phil,

The lists we maintain are by and for ENTS. Other lists include historical trees and the champion tree list. Your oak sound very worthy for inclusion on a list of significant hardwoods. We would need to create such a list. I hope others will weigh in with advice/suggestions. I could see a list of hardwood trees meeting a criteria.

Bob

== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 2:50 pm
From: "Edward Frank"


Bob,

Dale is keeping a list of his hardwood trees that are 12 x 100. Your criteria says: "A girth of 12 feet or more combined with a height of 100 feet" That translates to 1440 ENTS Points. I would add an OR for some total of ENTS Points that would allow trees that are much fatter, but somewhat shorter than 100 feet to make the listing. I would think a value of say 1800 points might be good. That is an arbitrary number but would include 15 x 80 foot trees. Since ENTS points is basically an analog in structure to tree volume, why should not trees that are fatter but shorter, but actually larger in volume be included on the listings?

Another option that I think would be one worth considering would be use the Tree Dimension Index criteria for listing trees of a species. If the tree in question receives a total % TDI that exceeds a set % TDI value, then that tree would be added to the list. In this case for a New England list the maximum heights and girths could or should be the maximum girths and heights of the species from New England. This would allow smaller species to be included on the Big Tree List, not just the biggest trees per se. The smallest tree listed on the White Pine list (FMTSF Report 2006), using the national maximums (207 for height) was 125%. Jess has compiled a good starting list for maximums for various species. This might be compiled as a separate listing, but would give the TDI concept an actual trial.

Ed

== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 4:56 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Ed,

The door is wide open to a discussion on tree lists, their value, and which ones would we want to compile as an ENTS-wide effort. The 12 x 100 heritage pine criteria is admittedly arbitrary. I capriciously chose the dual criteria to: (1) focus attention on the two dimensions of that species that catch the eye, and (2) reflect the stature of the species in the kinds of comparisons that we make. I wanted heritage trees for Massachusetts to reflect significant height and girth based on what is growing out there. If we turn up too many 12-footers, the girth criteria might need to be increased. The height criteria is minimal considering what very ordinary white pines achieve given 100 years or more of growing time. I was also firing for effect to see how the combination struck some of you.
I have white pine lists based on other criteria such as: height >=150 ft or girth >= 12 feet or ENTS points >=1500. Perhaps the best approach is still to use the 3 criteria separately, i.e. a pine is accepted if it meets any of the 3. If I use the above criteria, I have 132 pines in my database for Massachusetts that make the list. If I up the point requirement to 1800, the number of trees on the list drops to 97. I kind of like that. The 1800 value you suggest may be about right. However, the criteria as applied assumes a single tree. If I include doubles, the list count goes to 154. If I up the requirement of the doubles to say a 14-foot circumference and a point total of 2000, the count drops to 141. What's the right combination? I don't want to summarily exclude the doubles. Maybe we need to keep them in a separate list. We've talked before loosely about the role of the doubles. Maybe it's time to get serious and adopt a standard.

Bob

== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 5:21 pm
From: "Edward Frank"


Bob,

Keeping the three as separate criteria may be the way to go. I think 12 feet is a reasonable girth criteria. Perhaps if the thee criteria are to be considered separately, a height of 125 should be considered. That would weed out many of the shorter pines in the 12 x 100 to 12 x 125 scale. Also this would mean that the ENTS points of the other two minimum criteria would equal the 1800 points of the ENTS point category. If the points were raised to 2000, that symmetry would only be achieved by a 12 & 140, OR 13 & 120, neither of which "feels" like the appropriate thresholds.

Actually as I think about it, 12 girth, 140 height, or 2000 ENTS might be reasonable.

With regard to doubles, my first stab would be to go 1.5 x girth, and 1.5 x the ENTS points. If the basic numbers were 12 - 140 - 2000, then the doubles would be 18 - 140 - 3000. That seems a bit restrictive, but you could see how the numbers fell. This would mean that the doubles were truly big examples of doubles.

My suggestions referred specifically to the MA Heritage Pines listings. For trees in general, aside from white pines, the height should be something more like 100 feet. This works well for oaks in this area and a number of other species. I would think the list criteria might need to be adjusted for the different maximum sizes for different species of interest, which is why I suggested the TDI % as a cross-species listing basis.

Ed

== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 1 2008 11:43 pm
From: "Edward Frank"


Bob,

I am sorry for these multiple posts. The idea just keeps rolling around in my head. I guess there is lots of empty space up there for it to roam around. For your Massachusetts Heritage Pine Listing I offer these comments. I am not a big fan of a linked criteria like 12 x 100. I would prefer each criteria for inclusion be independent, 12 foot girth and 100 foot height would not be workable numbers as they are not limiting. Nor as I suggested previously do I think upon reconsideration that the ENTS points should necessarily reflect a combo of the min imum of the other two numbers. If it did then what would be the point of having it at all? It would by necessity then already need to meet one of the existing criteria. it should represent a tree that is notable in size that just falls short of both of the other threshold values, but that in the resulting combination is still noteworthy in terms of volume. I am sure you have juggled the numbers in various combinations. I would suggest something like Girth 14 feet - regardless of height, height 140 feet - regardless of girth, and a point total of 1800 as a starting point.

As for doubles. I said in an individual email that if you had two trees of equal diameter touching each other, and you wrapped the tape around both, ignoring the indentations, the resulting girth would be about 1.6 times that of one of the single stems 2(pi)r + 4r versus 2(pi)r. As a first stab I suggested 1.5 times the minimum girth and point criteria for a double. That may be overly restrictive upon reflection. A more reasonable multiple may be 1.3 x the minimum girth, and 1.3 times the minimum ENTS points. For the numbers I suggested that would mean a double would need to be 18 feet in girth, and have 2340 ENTS points.

For a broader application beyond just the MA Pines, I still think the TDI option is viable as suggested earlier; "I think would be one worth considering would be use the Tree Dimension Index criteria for listing trees of a species. If the tree in question receives a total % TDI that exceeds a set % TDI value, then that tree would be added to the list. In this case for a New England list the maximum heights and girths could or should be the maximum girths and heights of the species from New England. This would allow smaller species to be included on the Big Tree List, not just the biggest trees per se. The smallest tree listed on the White Pine list (FMTSF Report 2006), using the national maximums (207 for height) was 125%. Jess has compiled a good starting list for maximums for various species. This might be compiled as a separate listing, but would give the TDI concept an actual trial."

Ed

== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 12:55 am
From: Beth Koebel

Bob,
 
There is one drawback that I see right away and that is in hardwoods you have the "big" trees such as tulip, walnut, oak, hickory, etc and then you have the "small" trees such as dogwood, hawthorns, crabapples, etc.  I would think that it would be hard to find criteria that would fit both "classes".  For example, lets say we set one perameter at 15' circumfence one would never see a hawthorn on the list.  On the other hand,  it would be great if a list would exist.
 
Beth

== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 1:13 am
From: James Parton

Bob & Don,

Though it limbs out close to the ground the Kellogg Field pine appears
single trunked below the limbs.

That is a heck of a list of impressive pines. I hope to find some of
this huge size as time goes on. I just love White Pine!


http://www.nativetreesociety.org/fieldtrips/north_carolina/kellogg/kellogg_conference_center.htm 

JP

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:13 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Ed,

Yes, I follow your line of thinking. Adjustment based on TDI is a sophisticated refinement, but a logical one. I'm not going to likely find many heritage hickories here in Massachsetts if the 12-foot girth is a requirement.

Bob

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:26 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Beth,

So far, I've taken the chicken's way out by focusing just on white pine and a few large hardwoods. To extend the list, Ed is on the right track to use TDI to set the qualification bar for different species. More later. I'm heading to New Jersey today. Be back tomorrow to continue the discussion.

Bob

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 5:29 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net


Ed,

You're doing some darn good thinking. I'll digest what you have written and respond tomorrow evening. I'm headed to New Jersey today and will return tomorrow. Thanks for jumping in on the subject of lists. ENTS should be taking a firm lead on pushing the list enevlope.

Bob