03, 2005 17:13 PST
I have been looking over our large accumulation of trip reports
over the last several years by ENTS members. Let say upfront
that I think
a good detailed description of a particular site is as important
tree measurements. I will continue to encourage people who visit
worthwhile site to post a description of the site to the
even if they did not take any tree height or girth measurements.
One of the goals of the group however is still to document tall
these sites using our accurate measurement methodologies. A
measure we try to compile for a site is a Rucker Index (RI).
This is the
average height of the tallest individual of each of the ten
found on the site. Measurement of additional trees allows us to
greater detail at each of these sites. We can caculate multiple
of the RI, and look at how other shorter species fit into the
I started looking at the trip reports published on the website.
Georgia as a test example, basically because we had only a few
from the area. Of the thirteen sites for which we had reports.
tree measurements. A pretty good percentage, especially
considering that I
crop out, even a mention of a different site written as an
aside, as a
separate page on the website. Of the remaining ten sites, only
sufficient numbers of measurements to calculate a 10 species
I went back through the reports to see how many would support a
rucker index consisting of five species (RI5). Four additional
the three with 10 species index, had sufficient measurements to
RI5 index. Of the remaining three sites, two of them had
just 4 species. The last had five species, but did not include
on the site. I started a table for Pennsylvania, but it is not
I actually would like to see a broader measurement where
includes as large a number of species as possible from a site. I
joining the measurement club and will try my best to paractice
what I preach.
I want to suggest that we try to calculate RI5 indexes for all
which we have sufficient measurements, and continue to calculate
RI for all site for which we have sufficient measurements. The
the RI index would allow a comparison of a wider number of
sites. What do
the rest of you think?