Tree height ties?   Edward Frank   May 24, 2007 18:45 PDT  ENTS, What do you think about tree height ties? If you look at American Forests, trees that are within so many points of each other are considered to be ties for when considered champion tree status. This allows for some of the vagueties of measurement errors. Our measurements are very accurate, but they are not perfect. Should we consider trees within say a foot or two of each other to be a tie, or should we simply say the one with the higher measurement be considered the tallest? If we want to consider trees to be ties within a certain range, what should that range be? For reference on tree climbs versus laser measurements, Will Blozan is typically getting less than a foot of difference between the two readings. Ed Frank Re: Tree height ties?   Thomas Diggins   May 25, 2007 10:04 PDT  Hi y'all, Within a foot certainly seems reasonable to consider trees as "tied" for a particular top spot (we COULD argue six inches also, given the accuracy and precision of laser measures). In Zoar we've found two American basswoods over 128'. The one with the higher measured height by a couple inches takes nearly two hours to reach, and is often inaccessible on foot due to high river flow. The shorter is a twenty minute walk into a commonly visited area of the gorge - a much more easily shown "tallest" member of the species. Tom Tree height ties- back to Ed   Robert Leverett   May 25, 2007 13:02 PDT  Ed,    Given that we continually to strive for accuracy improvements, but acknowledge that our best efforts still carry some error, trees within +/- 1.0 feet of height of one another could be validly listed as co-champions. In Rucker index calculations, we would still include the tallest members.    Your question points to the need for a discussion on what kinds of ENTS-wide lists we want to maintain similar to the National Register of Big Trees or state lists. I would vote for 3 ENTS-wide lists maintained on the website with provision for co-champions. The lists would be:    1. Champions of height    2. Champions of girth    3. Champions of spread    4. TDI champions based on the 300 point system    Trees of the same species within +/- 1.0 feet in height of one another would be height cochampions.    Trees of the same specie within +/- 1.0 inches of girth would be cochampions.    Trees of the same species within +/- ??? feet of spread would be cochampions.    Trees within ??? (2 points?) of TDI points would be cochampions.    There is potentially a big marketing advantage to us to now maintain these lists on the website. Data coming in from different geographical regions is now at such a level to warrant list maintenance.    We do need a few more Ents out there in locations of under-coverage. Hopefully, Beth will be able to persuade some folks in the Missouri-Illinois region to come on board with us. And as soon as Will Fell single-handedly puts out that monstrous southern Georgia-northern Florida fire, may we see some numbers crop up for species like the long leaf pine.    As of June 29th, I will officially retire and then plan to take many more trips to measure, measure, measure. My buddy Howard Stoner and I hope to scout out great New York cottonwoods and other flood plain species in the Hudson River Corridor. We're hoping that our sister Holly Post can join us. It will be eastern New York on the rise. I do want to visit some of the eastern PA sites and gather data in that sector. I'm hoping that Dale Luthringer, Scott Wade, Carl Harting, Ed Frank, and Anthony Kelly will allow me to be an honorary member of the soooper doooper PA team. Then there will be the trips to the southern Apps to play catchup with my buddies Will and Jess.    In terms of general coverage, if we can all cheer on John Knuerr who visits Maine fairly often, we can strengthened our data set from the Pine Tree State. While I don't expect Maine to challenge southern New England, we still need the data.    Elsewhere, Larry Tuccei is proving to be a one man army down in Mississippi, but I'm sure he could use the help from another, maybe someone in Alabama. And of course we have Dr. Don Bragg out in Arkansas who hopefully can squeeze some minutes here and there to measure.    We hope that when Paul Jost gets his new upgraded model of Simmons(?) laser rangefinder, he'll test it out on some of the potentially big/tall tree sites in Wisconsin. Paul doesn't need lessons from anyone on tree measuring. He is a true expert. We just need to hear from him more.    Well, enough rambling. The holiday weekend approaches and it is off to Robinson State Park tomorrow to peruse the tuliptree habitat with Ray Weber and Dr. Karen Searcy of UMASS. On Monday, it is over to Mount Greylock to check on the champion red spruce and scout out cool areas of hemlocks. Bob RE: Tree height ties- back to Ed   Edward Frank   May 28, 2007 19:03 PDT  Bob, Looking at your list, the height champion, girth champion, and TDI (height/girth) champion seems reasonable. I am having trouble convincing people to measure crown spread, so its viability as a champion list is questionable.   Volume is another list to consider as several people are now measuring volumes. Volume can be incorporated to some extent into the TDI format. We can not leave out Rucker Index lists. I would not include ties for the Rucker index. TDI - I would think 5 to 10 points. For girth I think we should be more lenient at maybe 6 inches girth? just a suggestion... Ed RE: Tree height ties- back to Ed   Robert Leverett   May 29, 2007 07:06 PDT  Ed,    Six inches of girth leeway for cochampions may be okay at the high end of the size scale, but what about the little trees? There six inches might represent a significant percentage of total girth. What do you think? Bob RE: Tree height ties- back to Ed   Edward Frank   May 29, 2007 12:53 PDT  Bob, I guess the best option would be to not allow any tolerances with girth. Girth is girth. Ed Re: Tree height ties- back to Ed   Jess Riddle   Jul 04, 2007 17:00 PDT  Hello all, I'm catching up on some old e-mails, and wanted to through in my two cents on ties and what record lists to maintain. I agree with Ed that height, girth, two-factor TDI, and Rucker are the most important record lists to maintain. I think spread is untenable as a comprehensive or authoritative list, but we should certainly track what measurements we do have. I would encourage a girth-height TDI over a girth-height-spread TDI. If spread is given the same weight and girth and height, I don't think the list will reflect very well which trees we intuitively view as the largest or volume; should five feet of spread for a hemlock count as much as 17' of height or 22" of girth? The one foot margin for height champions seems good to me. I think we do need some tolerance for listing girth co-champions. If a moderate to large tree grows on a slope, minor error or multiple interpretations of correct girth can easily result. What about listing trees within one percent as girth co-champions? I don't think that solution is ideal, but it should be practical and give reasonable results. Jess Re: Tree height ties- back to Ed   Edward Frank   Jul 04, 2007 18:00 PDT  Jess, I think the height/girth is the more applicable of the TDI concepts in most cases. For some trees, such as some of the open grown sycamores and live oaks that crown spread is a major component and the 3-factor TDI should be maintained and calculated. As for whether or not spread is as important height and girth in the impression of tree size, I would argue that the impression of size does not matter -the value of spread as a component in the impression of a tree size is entirely subjective- it is a viable, measurable, independent statistic and as valid as any other measured parameter. Therefore the three parameter TDI is in my opinion an excellent way to compare trees within a species. Ed   Home