| Leaving
no stone unturned |
Robert
Leverett |
| Apr
18, 2005 05:51 PDT |
ENTS:
Courtesy of John
Eichholz, John Knuerr, Howard Stoner, Gary
Beluzo, Susan Scott, and myself, other than high production
industrial
forests, MTSF may be the most measured forest of less than
10,000 acres
on the planet for the purpose of profiling its large trees and
its tall
trees, with the obvious emphasis being on the latter.
Yes, the above is
quite a statement to make. But for those of you
who have endured our many posts, chronicling every new find,
all I can
say is thanks for your indulgence. Our emersion in this single
modest-sized property of approximately 6,800 acres is probably
as much a
study of ourselves and what drives us as it is the meticulous
documentation of a Massachusetts state forest. For this I know;
had we
maintained records of all the hours we've spent measuring and
remeasuring in MTSF, we would be far, far out on the curve of
diminishing returns. But the Rucker index for MTSF does continue
to
crawl upward, albeit a tenth of a point at a time, and for that,
we are
grateful. However, I believe we are at the point where I can
confidently declare an upper limit to MTSF Rucker index for
tree
height. I think it can be placed at between 135.5 and 135.8.
There is a caveat. The sleeper species
to get to the 135.8 is the
bitternut hickory, a species of considerable potential when in
competition with other species that reach great height. So, it
is
entirely possible that we could add two or three tenths of a
point to
the current index off bitternut hickory alone. And other
species, like
black cherry, offer further opportunities for gaining a tenth of
a point
or two. So why can't we reach 136 on the scale? Well, two
species will
hold us back from doing that, American beech and bigtooth aspen.
If I go
back and remeasure the current champions, I will almost
certainly find
that their crowns have broken up and that they are shorter.
We're likely
to lose at least 5 points on the beech and perhaps as much on
the aspen.
So, I sheepishly admit that I have avoided returning to
remeasure either
tree. There, I've admitted it. I've gotten that off my chest,
but we'll
have to bite the bullet this year. I dread it.
Beyond finding the
overall upper limit to the MTSF Rucker height
index, we are homing in on individual species maximums. So, I'll
go out
on the proverbial limb. I will state confidently that sugar
maple will
NOT make 140 feet in MTSF - nor elsewhere in western
Massachusetts. It
does make 130 feet, but only rarely. Sugar maples, in their
prime, over
120 feet can be amply attested to for the best sites and sugar
maples
over 100 feet are common as weeds. The species seems to plays
all its
height growth cards within the range of 100 and 135 feet in New
England
and probably the entire Northeast. By contrast, in the Smokies,
the
sugar maple can reach perhaps 20 feet more in maximum height.
I should point out that the
complete story of the sugar maple and a
dozen other species must await a study headed by Lee Frelich. So
the
above is just a little tidbit, but it portends much, much more
in the
way of authoritative proclamations from ENTS. We could make
predictions
for other species similar to the above, but better that wait for
the
conclusion of the study that Lee heads. I should point out also
that the
first study is just to establish maximums based on a few broad
variables. Subsequent studies will turn to environmental
variables and
involve far more science.
I'll close this
e-mail with some brief comments to our newest
members (now 111). We welcome all of you to the East's premier
tree
measuring organization. When it comes to determining tree
dimensions, you
have found your way to the mountain, the Mecca. As a
consequence, you
can ignore most of what you read about maximum dimensions for
eastern
trees that come from other sources. If you have a question, ENTS
is THE
authority. It doesn't matter who in what college or university
or
organization or profession measures trees with what equipment,
and for
how long. For a variety of often complex reasons, they rarely
get
accurate results, especially on difficult to measure trees. This
is not
idle bragging on our part. We test ourselves over and over and
we have
perfected our techniques to the point that we are often within
inches of
taped height. We apply our trade like indigenous animal trackers
who can
spot the most inconspicuous animal signs and then follow them
faithfully
without needing high tech gadgetry. We are at one with the
trees. It
isn't a case of higher education or professional status, though
most
have that, but examples of individual devotion, of total
dedication.
Virtuosos in our minds. Obsessed, to others.
As a consequence of
our standards, we do NOT accept measurements
from other sources for the reasons we often explain in our list
discussions as posted in our website discussions on tree
measuring.
If my resolve were
weakening to stay absolutely pure in this
department (out of sympathy for others), Will Blozan provided me
with a
refesher of what happens when others (with credentials) go forth
to
measure. It has to do with a Colorado blue spruce. I'll let Will
tell
the story if he chooses.
But basically, we
leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of
excellence at being the best at what we do. And as we gain new
members
who catch the tree measuring fever and who strive to be the
best, I have
no doubt that the exploits of those of us who started the ball
rolling
will be surpassed. Will we be jealous? Absolutely not. Records
were
meant to be broken.
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
|