| Quabbin
Reservation and Belchertown, MA |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
| Nov
05, 2005 08:13 PST |
Ed,
I spent yesterday in Massachusetts's
60,000 acre Quabbin Reserve with forester friend Bruce Spencer.
We remeasured the largest and tallest white pines in the
Reserve. I had measured them back in the early 1990s with Bruce,
but my methods were not as effective in those days. Anyway, the
Spencer Pine is Quabbin's largest. It is 12.6 feet in
circumference and 121.3 feet tall. It had its crown broken out
in the 1938 hurricane. Otherwise it would be 10 to 15 feet
taller. It is a very old columnar tree. Modeling its trunk and
limbs yielded 756 cubes. I think that may slightly understate
its volume. Another couple of modelings will be required.
A second great pine that also was broken
up by the 38 hurricane measured 12 feet around and 119.1 feet in
height. It has about 120 less cubic feet in its trunk and limbs.
These are the largest pines in Quabbin.
The tallest tree in Quabbin is a white
pine that measures 142.6 feet in height and 9.3 feet in girth.
Two other pines were measured to over 140. There might be a
couple more in the stand. But those trees are 160 to 170 years
old. It is possible that one or two could eventually make 150,
but I doubt it.
On the way home, I measured a huge pine
in a conservation area in Belchertown, MA. It is noticeable from
U.S. Route 202, but it isn't apparent how large it is until one
scampers down the bank and gets close. I have named it the
Belchertown Bully. Not because it is a tree bully, but because
it makes you want to say "Bully", like Theodore
Roosevelt. It measures 12.6 feet around at breast height and
just eclipses 136 feet. A first modeling gives 626 cubes for the
big tree.
I was able to model to trees in the
8-foot circumference range also. I'm up to 39 white pines
modeled. The multiple linear regression coefficient is 0.956 at
this point. Today and tomorrow, I hope to model 3 or 4 more
pines, more at the lower end of the size spectrum. The greater
volume variability is at the upper end and including enough
larger trees will almost assuredly drop the regression
coefficient somewhat, although I think it will always be at
least 0.90.
Well, though I'm nursing a miserable
cold, can't let that stand in the way of the tree mission, so
it's hi ho, off to modeling I go.
Bob
|
|