Low Branching or Forking Trees

Low Branching or Forking Trees

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Low Branching or Forking Trees
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/7413e1a312f84800?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 27 2008 8:35 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Low Branching or Forking Trees

When you propose a classification system there often may be revisions needed upon further reflection and input from others. I recently proposed an organizing structure for measuring multitrunk trees and odd growth forms. One item that needs to be revisited is the idea of low branching trees. Pines and hemlocks typically do not stump sprout, but in areas that have been cut they are often represented by low forking trees that split just above ground level. As they grow these two stems grow into a single massive trunk. Dale Luthringer in his Cook Forest dataset refers to these as "doubles", meaning low forking trees, not multiple trunks that have grown together. Don Bertolette commented that it has been common practice among foresters to define a "forked tree" as one that branches below 4.5' above root collar, and to take measurement of both forks above swelling. When the tree is small it is easy to differentiate the branches from the main trunk. These can be measured using the standard single stem protocol in which the girth is measured at the narrowest point below the branching or forking and the height noted. However when these branches or forks grow larger they merge into a larger mass in which the individual branches and forks can not be measured or separated. Theoretically these trees should be measured at the narrowest point below 4.5 feet and the height noted, as they are by definition a single stem tree with a single pith at ground level. However as this measurement incorporates not only the main trunk, but the girth of the branches/forks as well these girths are exaggerated with respect to simple single trunk trees. For that reason they are generally put aside in a separate no-mans-land category in which they are neither multitrunk or single trunk trees. I propose these be considered a special sub-class of single trunk trees. Their girth should be measured at the narrowest point below the fork or branching with the height of measurement noted, at 4.5 feet, and if possible at any point 4.5 feet or above at which the individual stems or branches can be separately measured and that height noted. This should be the new protocol whether or not the individual branches can be separated or not. In other words this should apply to both smaller and larger examples of low branching trees. For listing purposes, these can be considered as a separate category or included in the multitrunk listings for size comparisons. For American Forest listings, their criteria requires simple the narrowest measurement below 4.5 feet as the girth of the tree.

basswood.jpg (32047 bytes)

This is a photo of the national champion Basswood. Scott believes it is a single trunk tree that is very low branching, and has several photo of other basswoods with low braches to support his argument. It very well may be single stem at ground level. The girth for American Forest purposes should be measured at the narrowest point below 4.5 feet. For ENTS purposes this tree would be listed as a low branching tree and measured using the criteria outlined above.

Ed Frank

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 27 2008 9:05 pm
From: James Parton

Ed,

Will & I found a White Pine in a field near the Kellogg Center that
was a single trunk that branched very close to the ground. Will took a
photo of me with it. I think it is what you are describing here.

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/fieldtrips/north_carolina/kellogg_center.htm

James Parton

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 27 2008 9:23 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

James,

Yes that is what I am talking about. I finished making page for the next
update, I just need to link them and publish tomorrow. It will have the
Kellogg Trip photos in it, including your supplemental ones.

Ed

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 8:34 am
From: "Edward Frank"

Don,

Yes I am entertaining suggestions. Your comments was one of the reasons I made this addition initially. What you seem to have added below was the caliper measurement of each branch at the narrowest point below 4.5 feet. My plan for the section on these multitrunk trees, etc is to have a basic measuring protocol on the index page, then for each category or sub-category have a link to other pages that discuss the category in greater detail. My initial thought is that the caliper idea might be worth doing for a special tree, but might be overkill for every such tree measured. If you read most of my posts, the presentation style is just how I organize my thoughts on the subject, rather than the final word on the subject.

Ed

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 10:58 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Ed and Don,

Subject to thinking about it a little more, I support a special measurement protocol for low branching trees. Beyond the protocal, what ENTS needs is an Internet-developed reporting form for measuring trees that guides a measurer through the measuring process. There might need to be several forms, one per tree form. We all likely agree that we want to collect considerably more data than the champion tree programs collect, but include their measurements for compatibility and support of programs like Scott's, BVPs, Will Fells, the Illinois program, etc.

It might take a little time for people to discipline themselves to take the extra measurements that a standardized form would call for, i.e. to follow the full protocal, but as the results accumulated, I think more and more measurers would come on board. The database generated would be first and foremost for historical documentation purposes rather than meeting the requirements of champion tree contests although the latter would be a secondary outcome and in support of the state efforts.

Don, I'm very pleased to see your strong participation with Ed in thinking through measurement protocols for these really undisciplined tree forms. Please keep the momentum rolling. Great stuff.

Bob

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 12:28 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Scott, Ed,

It is obvious that basswood you sent a photo of has multiple piths at 4.5
feet. Wouldn't that alone exclude it from consideration by AF? Obviously
they accepted it, but I never would have. It is a bummer that the Smokies
can't claim the title with a single-pithed specimen when trees like this are
on the list [like the co-champs Jess found (left), and I found (right)].

Will

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 12:47 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Will,

There is no doubt that your basswoods are beautiful trees. The problem here
is one of definitions.

The criteria is single pith at ground level not a single pith at 4.5 feet.
In your tree measuring guidelines it says: "If the tree has more than one
pith at ground level it is a multiple-stemmed tree. Note I did not say 4.5
feet above the ground.... Some trees, like flowering dogwood or
rhododendrons, may branch well below 4.5 feet but have a single pith at
ground level. In the case of such trees, I would measure the narrowest point
below the lowest fork. All trees do not conform to our set standards, but we
can always set new ones!"

American Forest criteria reads: "If the tree forks record in inches the
smallest circumference between 4 1/2 feet and the ground below the lowest fork
excluding dead branches and epicormic sprouts. Also record the height above
the ground line where measurement was taken, in inches." Also: "In order
to properly measure circumference, it must be determined whether the tree in
question has a single trunk that can be measured or whether it represents
two or more trees growing very close to one another. Trunks that have clear
separation at or near the ground should be considered separate trees and
measured accordingly. Also if the circumference measurement below the lowest
fork places the measurement at the ground, it should be considered separate
trees."

Ed Frank

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 12:59 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Ed,

Based on the picture, the basswood would be excluded by the definitions
stated below. It is at least two stems at ground level, and should be
measured as such.

The other photo in your previous email had epicormic sprouts that Scott
stated would form new trunks. True, but they are epicormic, and "by
definition" should be excluded.

It is a beautiful tree(s), too.

Man, I guess I could have nominated another huge spicebush I found last week
with the lowest girth measurement...

Will

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 3:05 pm
From: Ed_Frank

Bob,

Who would receive and compile the data from the internet submission
forms? (One of my concerns is that I don't know how to create one.)
A leaflet or booklet that goes through the steps that could be used in
the field would be the way to go. I am thinking that the overview on
the Multitrunk index page could be summarized with the preferred
measurements to be taken listed in a bulleted format. I could format
it so that it could be printed out in a booklet format from MS Word.
We could measure things until the cows come home, so we need to figure
out what we want to include, what are key measurement, beyond what I
have outlined already in the current document.

I would strongly encourage that digital photos of any of the odd tree
forms be taken to accompany the measurements to better illustrate
exactly waht was measured. For low branching trees we should also add
1) height of the lowest branch, 2) list whether the lower girth
measurement is made on a single discrete stem, or whether it is a
girth that includes merged branch, fork and trunk wood.

Ed

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 4:42 pm
From: Ed_Frank

Will,

[ENTS I have posted this four times, this last from the website - for
some reason my server does not seem to be sending the message - I
apologize when and if the other three copies show up. I have emailed
comcast and complained]

I have not seen the tree Scott sent the photo about. He feels that at
ground level it would have a single pith. I have no opinion on the
matter. His point was that the epicormic sprouts or other low formed branches
might have grown to form the larger branches like the ones on big basswood
in the photo. By definition at this stage the epicormic sprouts would be
excluded from any measurements.

That is the reason I am suggesting a subcategory so that these trees
will not be intermixed with the clearly single trunk trees like the ones in
your photos.

You should make a list of trees to be nominated before the next update
to the AmFor list is made, so that you do not forget them when the due
date rolls around again.

Ed

"I am not bound to please thee with my answers."
William Shakespeare

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 28 2008 6:58 pm
From: Michael Davie

As far as that multi-stem basswood being a "champion", I say,

"bah."

But, the register is what it is, and that's fine. What can you do
about it? Nothing. ENTS can maintain it's own records. And yes, by all
means, within ENTS data parsing, separate those that are multi-stemmed
into their own, special category, so that there will be no confusing
them. Seems like a good idea. If it needs to be more clearly defined
as to what is a multi-stemmed tree for ENTS categorization, I say err
heavily on the side of separating low-branching trees, ignore
arbitrary conventions like "dbh" and make a new formula or ratio,
maybe weighing what percentage of diameter are limbs at what
percentage of height...well, maybe not. Something ridiculously
complicated should do the job; but maybe something relatively simple
and elegant can be devised. Not by me, mind you.
I do believe though, for ENTS purposes of collecting and storing data,
if it becomes an issue or will become one it really should get
resolved satisfactorily (as satisfactorily as possible, that is). I
don't think I'm capable of coming up with a formula, but if someone
else does I'll try and add helpful comments.

Mike

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 6:32 am
From: pabigtrees

ENTS

I originally sent in the photos to show how a single pith tree could
become what appears to be a multistemmed tree (multiple piths at
ground level). At what point do epicormic sprouts become branches, I
don't know? Anyone can guess if the tree has any number of piths, but
they are guesses. The Nat'l Champ basswood was nominated in 1980. It
was also featured in the Penn Charter books. 1933 and 1982. There is
no way it is 300 years old, but that is what people thought back
then. This tree was planted in the mid 1800's and wasn't pruned to
form a nice single stem. It is on the register and won't be removed
until it is dead. I have no authority over any of that, I only
inherited it. I was trying to help Ed build a new way to look at
trees like this and trees that typically look like this. Silver
maples are mostly found to be coppices. It is rare to find a single
stem tree. I have, but they are rare. How do we represent this form,
and measure it better. In the Penna. program I took the easy way out
and listed the trees as single stem and mutliple stemmed. I want to
list the biggest single stem, and the biggest tree, whatever it may
look like.

I have thought about how to measure coppiced trees before, and
couldn't come up with an easy way to do it. Here is one for you. How
would you measure this Hemlock?

http://www.pabigtrees.com/trees/images/Pendle%20hill%20hemlock.jpg

I measured the main trunk. Who knows if that is another tree, or a
branch that was left.

Scott

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 7:50 am
From: James Parton

Scott,

My mothers's big Silver Maple appears to be a single trunked tree. But
yes, most of them I see are multitrunked.

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/fieldtrips/south_carolina/hannah/hannah_oak.htm

JP

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 8:59 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Scott,

That's a puzzler of a hemlock. I've encountered sites where large numbers of hemlocks tend to split into double trunks at heights of 8 to 50 feet and other stands where a very subordinate trunk start at a few feet off the ground. Still other stands show none of these forms. I presume there is a genetic component to these variant forms. Measuring them is a challenge.

Bob

Home