Pine Tree modeling:  MSF, MTSF   Robert Leverett
  Aug 29, 2005 06:21 PDT 
ENTS:

     Friday, Saturday, and Sunday saw yours truly out in the forest
doing reserve boundary work, measuring, and modeling.

Campfire Pine, MSF

     Friday was spent in Monroe State Forest. After finishing the
boundary work, I decided to remeasure the Campfire Pine. It is a double
and heretofore, I had its combined trunk circumference listed as 12.9
feet. As a consequence of Friday's measurements, its height increased
slightly from 148.0 to 148.3 feet. Its double trunk is now 13 feet
around, but with my trusty RD 1000, I was able to separately model the
larger or main trunk. As a single trunk, it would be 10.5 to 10.8 feet
around. The RD 1000 works well to permit the analysis of fused trunks by
modeling each individually. The point of fusion produces a distorted
ellipse. I also measured a new tall tree American basswood for Monroe
State Forest. At 110.8 feet, it pushes the Rucker index of MSF to
122.43. That's not bad.

Tecumseh Pine, MTSF

    Saturday saw Holly Post and me model the bulky Tecumseh tree in
MTSF. I'll cut to the chase. Tecumseh computes to a hefty 931 cubes,
thus eclipsing the Saheda tree by 115 to 120 cubic feet. Tecumseh's
height is now 161.6 feet. It has grown 1.4 feet in two years since Will
Blozan climbed it. Tecumseh's circumference is 11.7 feet.

    I spent a good deal of time locating the center point between the
down hill and up hill sides. From the mid-slope spot I chose as 4.5 feet
above base, at that level, it is 4 feet to the base on the up hill side
and 5.33 feet on the down hill side.   So as of the end of August 27th,
the Tecumseh tree was proclaimed as the largest pine in MTSF.

Hiawtha-Mohawk Pine, MTSF

    On Sunday, I braved the rain alone and went to MTSF to model the
sister pine of Big Bertha, which was the largest pine in MTSF before she
died. Big Bertha was 14.6 feet around - a whopper. I had quickly
measured her sister tree last fall on an outing with John Knuerr, Susan
Scott, and John Eichholz. However, I didn't establish a good base point
for that tree. On Sunday I did. Then I valiantly tried to model its
confusing trunk. What a challenge!

    The tree grows on a slope. At 2 feet above the mid-point of the
slope, the pine is a solid 14.5 feet around. At 4.5 feet above its
mid-slope base, it narrows to 12.5 feet. It holds most of that shape,
narrowing from a diameter of 4.0 feet to 3.7 feet at 31 feet above the
base. It then become wider. It spreads as two large trunks and one small
trunk emerge from an 8-foot fused section of trunks. There is a lot of
wood in that 8-foot section, folks. The tree's diameter bulges to 4.1
feet at just below the point at which the trunks become distinct. I
actually measured a diameter of 4.22 feet, but I doubted my measurement
due to my shaky hand. I arbitrarily shaved off 0.12 feet of diameter.

    By 50 feet above the base, two distinct trunks have emerged and both
are very close to 2 feet in diameter and neither tapers perceptibly for
another 35 to 40 feet. My original diameter measurements with the RD
1000 were 24 inches at both 49 and 86 feet, but I arbitrarily reduced
them to 23.9 and 23.8 inches to compensate for handshake. From 49 feet
to 86 feet, I also reduced the volume from what a frustum of a cone,
over that length, would have given by using a factor of 0.30 instead of
0.33. From 86 to 137 feet, I reduced the factor from 0.33 to 0.25,
having observed that the conical form sometimes overstates the volume of
the final section when that section is several tens of feet long. The
last 4.6 feet of height were ignored in terms of modeling. I included
the final section as part of the limb structure.

   After computing trunk volume, I added 4% volume for the limbs, a
moderately conservative figure. Incidentally, the 3rd trunk is
considerably smaller than the first two. I modeled it as 1/7th the
volume of either of the larger two. This actually may be liberal.

     The resulting measurements and obvious manipulations gave me 1,001
cubic feet of trunk and limb volume. My raw calculations were close to
1,200, which I absolutely did not believe. However, I do believe that
this extraordinarily chunky, odd-shaped tree may be a 1,000-cubic
footer. At this point the Hiawatha-Mohawk Pine deserves the benefit of
the doubt.

     Rain and intervening vegetation caused me many measurement
problems. I turned the air blue at times. Over the next several months,
I will spend a lot of time with this huge, contorted pine. But for now,
it goes into the books as 141.6 feet in height, 12.5 feet in
circumference, and 1,001 cubes volume. However, I do acknowledge that
even with the reductions, the volume of the Hiawatha-Mohawk Pine may be
over-stated by as much as 100 cubic feet. It is just a gut feel - but
that remains to be determined. At this point, I proclaim it as the
largest pine by volume in MTSF and the second 1,000-cubic footer in
Massachusetts. That is worth a celebration, even if premature.

     As a final comment, the extremely complex shape of the
Hiawatha-Mohawk tree makes trunk modeling via conventional log methods
futile. Forget looking up volumes in tables. The big tree must be broken
up into many segments, with each segment being studied a long, long
time. The chances for significant error pop out at every change of
curvature. For now, the Hiawtha-Mohawk Pine has a second name - the
Puzzle Pine.

Bob


Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society

RE: Guess What?   Robert Leverett
  Aug 29, 2005 13:27 PDT 

Ed

Lots of good questions. In the case of the double-trunked tree, at 4.5
feet above base level, the trunks were distinctly identifiable except
for the point of fusion that flatten the larger trunk enough to make
some adjustment advisable, but I didn't try to come up with an
adjustment factor. I just took the diameter up to the point of fusion.
That became the minor axis of an ellipse. The major axis was at 90
degrees and considerably more. So the basic form is of an ellipse with a
flat spot on one side. Contact between the trunks continues too far up
to allow a measurement to be taken of the larger trunk just above breast
height. I didn't spend time observing/examining bark behavior at the
point of trunk separation since that point was too high up the tree to
be consider at 4.5 feet.

   In terms of the value of the factor to reduce volume from conical, I
once went through some extended modeling of what I thought to be the
forms of the last 20 to 30 feet of conifers like hemlock and white pine
and found that 1/4 instead of 1/3 took care of most of the concave
sections. The analysis is pretty loose.  Basically, I'm trying to stay
slightly conservative.

Bob   

    The bark covers the fused area, but doesn't obscure the curvature of
each trunk.   
RE: Guess What?   Robert Leverett
  Aug 30, 2005 08:17 PDT 

Russ,

   The slope is less, no more than 30%. The spot we use at the base as
the point from which to locate 4.5 feet up the trunk is as close to
mid-slope as we can get. However, as you know, standing up-slope and
looking down-slope the ground can also slope from left to right or vice
versa. Colby Rucker always tried to locate the spot where he judged that
the seed fell and sprouted and judge where that point projected
horizontally out to the perimeter of trunk meets the ground at some
location. Making that determination isn't always easy, but is the right
way to go.

   From where I established the base for the Hiawatha-Mohawk tree, I did
go to the opposite side of the trunk and go up 4.5 feet and take the
girth. It was 12.3 feet. I suppose that to be fair, I should have used
12.4 feet as the girth at 4.5 feet above the base.

   Properly locating the base was a very important issue with Colby. I
tended to be sloppy, but now that I'm doing the volume measuring, I am
forced to be much more careful.       

    I also am beginning to pay much closer attention to the variety of
shapes and contours at points where multiple trunks emerge on large
pines that split into more than one trunk, but are definitely one tree.
The variations on the theme are mind-boggling when trying to simplify
with simple geometric solids.

    There is a huge amount of wood between the point at which two trunks
become apparent to the point at which they actually diverge. On the
Hiawatha-Mohawk pine, the distance is about 8 vertical feet. Modeling
this section is a bear!

Bob