MTSF The long update Process Has Begun

MTSF: The long update Process Has Begun

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The long update process has begun
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/d2ff19b831233a5c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 21 2008 7:31 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

ENTS,

Today I returned to MTSF with the intention of continuing to update my white pine measurements for that unique Massachusetts state forest. I concentrated on the Trout Brook region of Mohawk, which has a scattering of pines, most of which are relatively youngn and growing fast. I'm pleased as punch to announce that 4 more pines have entered the 10-foot circumference, 140-foot height class. In addition, one very large pine, the Trout King Pine has made it to 12.0 feet in circumference and is now 148.8 feet in height. It will make it to the 12 x 150 club in one or two more years. It is a single-stemmed tree - not cheater. A second tree has made it into the 11.0-foot circumference, 140-foot height class. The last time I measured the tree, it was under 11 feet in girth and 140 feet in height. Its exact dimensions are: Girth = 11.1 feet, Height = 140.2 feet.
The Trout Brook watershed now has two single-stemmed pines in the 12-foot girth, 140-foot height class. I am fairly sure that the Trout King's volume approaches 700 cubic feet. At present, I think it is around 670 cubes. It is packing on the wood and will certainly exceed 700 cubes within 10 years.
In Trout Brook, there are two 150-footers, or at least was the last time I measured them. On my next visit, I'll confirm them. I don't think Trout Brook has any other candidates for the 150-foot club for the present.
The amount of labor to update the MTSF white pine inventory is daunting. I am alternately opmistic and pessimistic. I basically am doing the update solo, but for the most part, it remains a labor of love. Hopefully, I won't run out of measuring gas.
My fascination with big trees not withstanding, I do think updating the big pines list is an important job to complete. For one thing, the list points to what kind of performance we can expect out of a white pine forests on good sites that are left to grow for different lengths of time. In Mohawk, we presently can examine stands that are about 60 years old and compare them to adjacent stands that are around 100 years old. We can carry the comparison process further by examine stands between 130 and 150 years old, and finally, examine a stand with trees around 170 to 190 years. The self-thinning process can be observed as it has progressed over decades.
The huge sizes of the pines in the Elders Grove speak eloquently to the capabilities of the great whites to pack on wood for over 200 years. Of course, forest managers will not likely manage for such ages, but what modern day lumberman pass off as maturity in white pines is not maturity - not even close. An entire generation of lumberman may have lost sight of the full capabilities of the species. Oldtimers may understand, but their time has passed. Mohawk Trail State Forest has the power to educate.

Bob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 21 2008 8:50 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Bob-
Does your updating of heights include updating of cbhs? What kind of precision would you anticipate on repeated replication of cbh measurements? I think it would be very interesting to have comparison data between meristematic growth (at the top, as measured by height) and cambial growth (at the bottom, as measured by circumference).
-Don

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 6:08 am
From: ForestRuss@aol.com

Joe:

Well said!

Russ Richardson

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 6:31 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Joe,

Well stated. As you know, I religiously followed the work of Karl Davies. I believed he was making a significant contribution to our understanding of real economic maturity. He also was adroitly raking over the coals the loose methods that were being employed by forest planners in assessing annual growth and its translation to value. He is sorely missed.
I am watching the pines of Mohawk pack on the wood, and in the case of a number of them, modeling them for volume. I see no sign of any of the healthy trees in the under 180 year age range shutting down. Certainly not all the big trees are healthy and it is pretty easy for even a non-forester such as myself to recognize early signs of decline. The point is that entire stands in Mohawk are continuing to pack on the wood despite the decline of specific trees. Such is the case of the Trout King, which is currently around 670 cubic feet of trunk volume. Even if only 40% of the wood in this huge pine is usable for lumber purposes, that is over 3,000 board feet.
The question now, I guess, is whether a mill would even take such a large tree. I was told by the extension forester in NH, that mills up his way don't take trees over a particular size anymore. If that is true throughout New England, I would guess that the fate of bigger trees on commercial properties is sealed. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Bob

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 6:37 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Don,

I record both. I present a lot of height data on the list, but I have the corresponding circumference data and could present it. I've tracked particular trees very closely over the years, others less so. I've also experimented with various lists and thresholds, some more for promotional purposes than scientific investigation. Either way, I have a ton of data.
At a broad-brush level of treatment, I guess one could simply say that on good sites, left to grow for up to 120 years or more, predictably tree volume continues to increase. That's a no-brainer. The big question for all of us is: at what rate? That's where the additional measurements that some of us ENTS are taking may one day point the direction to a reassessment of the roles of the bigger trees - if for no other reason that the real amount of carbon sequestration. Then maybe not. What are your thoughts?

Bob

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 7:03 am
From: ForestRuss@aol.com

Bob:

I'm too far (in time and space) away from the New England woods right now
but from Appalachia...

I think that the days are numbered for the commercial harvesting of
oversized trees. A few years ago there was only one sawmill left in WV that was
prepared to mill out trees larger than 40"... a few years ago I also attended a
Forest Guild annual meeting in Coastal Oregon where I heard several foresters
lament that trees generally grew so fast that many managed properties were
starting to fill up with trees that were above the commercial size ceiling
imposed by a combination of modern milling technology and the general small size
of the second, third and fourth growth timber being cut. I can almost
anticipate portions of New England could also be headed in the same direction.

Russ

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 7:41 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Russ,

I think that most of the wooded landscape of New England that is intended for some kind of management gets thrashed frequently enough so that big trees are in no danger of taking over. However, on protected properties, the story is different and certainly for Mohawk Trail State Forest. A diameter distribution study for different areas of Mohawk would indeed be interesting. There would be areas loaded with trees between 20 and 30 inches in diameter. A few areas would have a not insignificant number of trees in the 30 to 40 inch class. Very few trees as a percentage of total are above 40 inches, but where they are encountered, they can seem more densely distributed than is actually the case.
The 35 white pines I have in my database for Clark Ridge in MTSF average 36.1 inches in diameter. The 105 white pines I have for the Trees of Peace site average 31.5 inches in diameter. I am inclined to want to do more with diameter distributions than I've done in the past to get a better assessment of how the timber community would assess these tenuously protected properties.

Bob

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 8:03 am
From: ForestRuss@aol.com

Bob:

I guess that the Appalachians may then take the lead for really big trees.
It is not unheard of for red oak trees to be over 40" in diameter at less
than age 80 and I am not sure if I have seen a 100 year old white pine here yet
but I've seen 40 year old plantation planted white pine trees up to 30" in
diameter.

One interesting thing goin on right now in Ohio is the white pine
co-op....it seems that they have been planting the trees on lots of old farm land for
decades and there is almost no market for the timber being produced....white
pine does incredibly well on some of the Ohio land and I'd love to be around
when some of those stands hit 100 years....unfortunately I'll have to get into
the Guiness Record Book to see that happen!!

Russ

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 10:51 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Bob-
It's hard for me to not think of an array of curves (comparing height change and girth change) and lines (of regression where periodic annual increments go from net loss to net gain). Not! Seeing the gnarly red maples, er, they meant red oaks, in yesterdays posts I see O-g bark characteristics!!

But in their latter years, growth is hard fought at the tips and the cambium, and the tree's decisions as to where they bank their earnings could be determined by such 'curves and lines'.

My earlier question came from musing about how accurately we measure circumference. Playing the devil's advocate, I'd probably weigh in on the side predicting problems with precision. As a challenge, I would expect that ANY five Ents measuring gurus, measuring girth at breast height/base height would come up with readings that varied in tenths of a foot, if done independently (with no prior knowledge of where others took their measurement). I pose the opinion that girth is typically measured relatively casually. I would suggest that from the pool of all tree girth measuring images that ENTS has, most of them (more than half) visually appear to be taped incorrectly (in the case of a perfectly vertical tree, the tape will wander above and/or below a level (perpendicular to an assumed perfectly vertical pith) line around the trunk; and in the case of an imperfectly vertical tree, the tape will also wander above/below (perpendicular to an assumed IMperfectly vertical pith) the planar (but not level) line around the trunk.

I'm posing this scenario, with best-case-scenario perfectly circular girthed sample trees. I am quite familiar with the challenges added by 'real world' trees with irregular circumferential shapes.

In a perfect 'measurers' world, we would determine the "path" of the most accurate circumference measure, and mark the tree (discreetly of course) such that subsequent measurements could be taken, that more accurately replicate past 'plane' of past measurements.

Sorry for the rambling, just had my morning coffee!
-DonRB

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 2:44 pm
From: the Forestmeister

Bob, no doubt very large trees may someday not be merchantable- but I
suspect that's more true of softwood and not hardwood- especially if
the hardwood is veneer- I believe that veneer mills are well suited
for processing large veneer logs- since they don't saw them, they turn
and peel them. If you want to see a really excited procurement
forester, just find one working for a veneer mill and show him some
30-40" DBH veneer quality oak, cherry or hard maple. I'd be shocked if
the guy/gal said, "oh, no, they're TOO big!".

Now, the reality is that most timber is cut prematurely- the
difference in size between what they cut and being too big- is VAST.
It's not likely to happen that many stands in the NE will be "saved"
by having too large trees. Very good quality oak sawtimber should be
grown to 24" DBH or more- but seldom is. Excellent pine should be
grown to upwards of 30" DBH or more but seldom is- and these sizes are
nowhere near being too big to saw.

Often when trees get into the really big size- 35" DBH or more- they
often have defects that make them undesirable- few are going to be
veneer quality. Very few very large veneer quality trees on commercial
forest land are going to be left- so I wouldn't plan on this problem
of mills not being able to handle the big trees as a way to increase
the number of huge trees in our NE woodlands.

On public lands which are managed for timber, if not private, they
should be making an effort to grow very large, very fine quality
trees- not just because we like them but because it's great economics-
real capitalism- investing in the future.

Of course they should also make a point of retaining very large trees
which just happen to be beautiful or at least interesting
aesthetically or scientifically. Instead, it seems, that many public
foresters are gung ho to clearcut many stands with absurd rationales-
such as wildlife enhancement. In my opinion, far more wildlife will be
found in magnificent, old forests than in the wastelands the state of
Mass. is now producing on our public forests.

Joe

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 2:54 pm
From: the Forestmeister

Bob, I would find it interesting if someone could do an economic
analysis of the best stands in MTSF. And by that I mean- determine the
raw economic value of those trees as timber, then do the type of
growth analysis that Karl Davies did- then find out from mills how
much they pay for timber of that size and quality- then calculate
"rate of growth of value as a function of existing value"- that's
forestry economics in nutshell- it's no different than asking what
your rate of return will be on the $1,000 treasurey bond you bought.
Now, as Karl would say, we need to know what the markets will be in
future years- that is, assuming the mills can continue to cut large
trees, if such large trees become extremely rare, yet the quality of
the wood stays high, and inflation occurs for such rare high quality
large logs- that's right, a lot of "guestimation" is needed for long
term forestry economics- but the point of doing this would be to
present a convincing argument that it's great capitalism to grow
really huge trees- rather than the current mantra which is that most
timber in the NE is mature by 75 years- sure, it's mature from the
point of view of the harvester- who is doing a completely different
economic analysis- he's thinking about the cost to harvest that tree
compared to the profit from that tree- that is, the net profit from
harvesting that tree- which has nothing to do with the rate of return
on investment, which is the only economics that makes sense for the
owner (and here we're not including other intangible values such as
pure aesthetics or carbon sequestration).

Once the proof is in that growing trees to a huge size - we might be
able to see a lot more really big trees in our landscape. Of course,
the establishment will fight this idea tooth and nail.

Joe

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 22 2008 4:27 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Don,

You're on the mark. We have tended to be more casual on our girth measurements. We know how to be precise. We just need to apply our knowledge.

Bob

Home