Modeling Results and #77   Robert Leverett
  Oct 24, 2005 08:29 PDT 
ENTS,

     For me, the weekend was rainy (enough, enough), but otherwise
productive. I was able to remodel the Tecumseh tree and do 5 new trees.
The multiple linear regression coefficient from 31 trees now stands at
0.935. The independent variables for the model are: total height, CBH in
ft (I just like the number), dbh in inches at 50 feet, and dbh in inches
at 100 feet.

    The biggest technical challenge with the Rd 1000 is to get reliable
measurements at heights of 100 feet up the trunk. So, much works remains
to be done to refine the numbers taken aloft. From about 75 feet down,
we're in good shape, but reliability goes way down after that.

     After remodeling the Tecumseh tree, I turned my attention to
another big tree in the Elders Grove. We call it the Benchmark Tree. As
of this growing season, it has just made 11 feet in circumference and is
now 150.2 feet tall. Yep, that's #77 for MTSF in terms of white pines
and #78 for all species in the 150 Club. Not bloody bad folks. I also
measured a white pine at the upper leach field to potentially serve the
same purpose as the Massesoit pine did this past ENTS rendezvous at the
lower leach field. The new pine, which I called the Boulder pine,
because it has several large boulders close by, is between 146.0 and
147.0 feet. My actual measurements of yesterday of the tree were 146.1
feet, same as the Massasoit tree, and 146.8 feet. The 146.1 is in the I
put in the books - staying on the conservative side. The tree's
horizontal offset is -3 feet, i.e. high point is slightly behind trunk.
This new tree has even better climbing visibility than the Massosoit
Tree. Measurers are 20 feet above the base and around 70 yards distant
from the crown points being measured. Seventy yards is a better distance
to minimize angle errors than the 100-yard distances we were shooting
for the Massosoit tree. The modeled volume of the Boulder Pine is 343
cubes. It looks to be a little more, so I'll do several more modelings
of it, but if understated, I doubt that additional measurements will add
more than 20 cubes. The regression prediction is 360 cubes. BTW, the
remodeled volume of the Tecumseh tree is 720 cubes with a predicted
750.

    Here are some interesting comparison of the dimensions for 5 white
pines that have been modeled.

Tree       Height CBH' DBH"-50 ft   DBH"-100 ft    Tot Vol ft^3

Ice Glen    154.3 13.0' 39.1        26.0           1041    

Tecumseh    161.3 11.7   35.0        24.5            720

Massasoit   146.1   9.0   27.9        13.0            466

Boulder     146.1   8.7   23.0        13.9            343

HQ Hill     117.0   7.8   17.3         5.3            182

   The Ice Glen pine is probably 270 years old. The Tecumseh tree about
180 and the HQ Hill pines is about 90 years old. The age ratio of max to
intermediate to min is 3 to 2 to 1, using the min as the base. The CBH
ratio is of max to min 1.7 to 1.5 to 1. The total volume ratio of max to
min is 5.7 to 4.0 to 1. Of course these are different trees and there is
no way of knowing what the dimensions of the larger two trees were at 90
years. The HQ Hill is growing in a favorable spot and it is tempting to
believe that in time it will reach a girth of 11 feet and has the
potential for reaching 160 feet in height. It is also tempting to
project a volume increase of at least 3 to 1 in a doubling of its age.
A linear extrapolation based on age would place the volume of the HQ
Hill pine at 121 cubes at 60 years. It might have been even less. An
objective of the modeling is to develop separate volume, height, and dbh
curves regressed against age for stands at 60, 120, and 180 years. We
have plenty of pines to model in the 60 and 120 year age classes, but
only one stand in the 180. We have plenty of isolated trees in the 180,
but they often don't have a history of stand development influence.

Bob

Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society