Trunk
Taper |
Rory
Nichols |
Mar
11, 2004 22:03 PST |
ENTS:
Looking at conifers it’s easy to notice that the trunk
doesn’t taper the same amount from tree to tree. What actually
dictates a tree’s thickness as you move up the trunk? I assume
a variety of reasons, but I’ve noticed trees that are about
the same girth and height growing not too far from one another
with noticeably different volumes of the main trunk.
Rory
|
RE:
Trunk Taper |
Joseph
Zorzin |
Mar
14, 2004 04:15 PST |
Rory,
Lots of reasons. First, in an unthinned stand of conifers, there
will be
less taper- as the shape "naturally" adjusts to the
amount of wind that
the tree "feels". In a dense stand, the trees support
each other, so
they'll grow with less taper. This is why thinning such a dense
stand in
mid age might result in a lot of "blow down". If the
stand had been
thinned from an early age and kept thinned, most trees would
develop
taper.
As to why individual trees vary in the amount of taper in a
particular
stand- could be lots of reasons. A more vigorous tree will have
a larger
volume- it might be more vigorous because it's a superior
genetically,
or just had better luck on where it got started- that is a
better
micro-environment.
JZ |
Re:
Trunk Taper |
greentreedoctor |
Mar
14, 2004 21:46 PST |
While
maybe the largest contributor, I wouldn't limit loading to wind.
Snow & ice can cause loading and stimulate reaction wood. Conifers
can develop compression wood on the leeward side, while
broadleafs can develop tension wood on the windward side. Also,
tree growth is stimulated by the sun (phototropism) and gravity
(geotropism). While a southern coastal pine
plantation may have like bole taper, once you move towards the
mountains, taper can and does differ. Tight
stand trees do share the load, but let a tree emerge to fill an
opening or dominate above the canopy, and both loading and
reaction wood is increased. Also, wounding,
erosion and even compaction can effect taper.
I would think that forest management is not limited to juvenile
thinning; that mature stands can be successfully thinned without
widespread failure. Highgrading is an
unfortunate forestry practice contrary to present day
agriculture. But so is preventing the
harvesting of overmature old growth. I suspect
that some of the same people that vilify highgrade harvesting
are also old growth protectionists. Don't get
me wrong-I am for the preservation of old growth and believe in
preserving champions, notable specimens and dwindling old growth
remnants. I just perceive a conflict. On
the one hand, we should only harvest the more inferior trees, on
the other, we should protect aged giants that are nigh returning
to the forest floor from which they ascended. Not
every greenhorn forester may be able to start their own private
consulting firm. They may have to actually have
their employer's interest at heart and treat trees as marketable
crops for a number of years before they're able to eke out a
living on their own. Though they rarely
find their way into our discussions, arborists are mostly about
preservation, while foresters are mostly about harvesting. We
look at trees differently...
An observance from a layperson,
Randy |
|