| ENTS
Direction |
foresto-@npgcable.com |
| Jun
10, 2005 10:03 PDT |
Bob-
The older I get, the more I try to discern where the line is
drawn between
hubris and humility...as I read your post below, I sense a
similar concern. I
think that you've taken accuracy and precision measures of
height and breadth
to its limit (there is a point of diminishing returns)...without
having a
sense of the depth and breadth of your ancillary data that
accompanies the
superlative individuals, I'd ask if your fellow investigators
feel like ENOUGH
data is being collected with regard to site qualities? It's so
hard to
anticipate the data needs of the future tree nerd, that it's
hard not to
collect TOO much data...where that line is drawn is a bigger
question than I
can answer.
By the way, these thoughts come from the last couple of days
spent traipsing
about in Norway's woods (roughly encapsulated by a triangle
between
Oslo/Bergen/Kristiansand. Some of it managed, much of it
not...gorgeous
country to be still around after all these generations/cultural
events...
-DonB
|
| RE:
ENTS
Direction |
Robert
Leverett |
| Jun
10, 2005 13:04 PDT |
Don:
Have we taken site and individual tree
measuring to the point of
diminishing returns? From some perspectives and for some
purposes, I
imagine we have. Squeezing another decimal point out of our
methods
would seem to be overkill. But for a certain class of
unprotected forest
sites, courtesy of our intense, and to some, fanatical focus, we
have
become uniquely qualified to recognize and quantify their
special
attributes. Who else does it or has done it? There is no other
game in
town. Our over-focus, and that is my term, has recently allowed
us to
help others see what they didn't see before. They acknowledge
that
unprotected sites like Mohawk truly are exceptional and worthy
of
special protection. But we have a special situation developing
on our
hands.
So back to the question about site variables.
We'll be trying to
understand forest productivity in the Deerfield for years. Of
that I
have no doubt. I won't see adequate answers in my lifetime, but
hopefully, I will see a wider appreciation for what those
forests
represent and a commitment by EOEA and DCR to protecting them in
reserves.
Bob
|
| RE:
ENTS
Direction |
Don
Bertolette |
| Jun
12, 2005 09:41 PDT |
Bob-
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'VE FOUND THE BALANCE ON INDIVIDUAL TREE
MEASUREMENT ACCURACY/PRECISION, I WAS TRYING TO PROMPT
DISCUSSION OF THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF MEASUREMENTS OF SITE
QUALITIES I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT
LEVELS/PRIORITIES FOR DIFFERENT 'CLASSES' OF SPECIAL FOREST
SITES.
FROM A FOREST RESTORATION PERSPECTIVE, THE CURRENT PRODUCTIVITY
CAN'T BE INDEPENDENT OF THE 'REFERENCE CONDITIONS' FOR THE
DEERFIELD CORRIDOR. KNOWING THE HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF THE AREA
IS CRITICAL TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PRODUCTIVITY MAY HAVE BEEN
PRESETTLEMENT...KNOWING THE RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SPECIES OF
THE AREA WOULD BE INVALUABLE, AND PERHAPS AVAILABLE FROM POLLEN
ANALYSIS FROM NEARBY BOGS AND COVES THAT OFFER
SOIL/POLLEN/MACROFOSSIL ACCRETION.
IT'S CRITICAL NOT TO TRY TO FREEZE A SPACE IN TIME, BUT TO KNOW
ITS PROCESS AND WHEN WE'RE INHIBITING/IMPACTING/ENHANCING IT IS
ESSENTIAL IN THE LONGER VIEW.
Bob
|
| RE:
ENTS
Direction |
Edward
Frank |
| Jun
16, 2005 18:43 PDT |
Don and Bob,
If you look at what is being done today in the environmental
field and
in public science, you see a large number of organizations each
using
many of the same generalizations. Some (many?) of the generalizations
made about the environment contain factual errors or exaggerations,
and
consist of more arm waving, publicity, and sound bites than
actual
science. ENTS is not yet doing enough broad range descriptions
of the
site qualities in all of our sites. It is a process that must be
worked
through. It is critical that as an organization the information
we do
have is accurate. We are accomplishing that remarkably well with
regard
to tree height measurements. The goal now is, I believe, to
expand our
observations using this strong foundation into other aspects of
site
quality. This must be done maintaining the same criteria for
accuracy
as is done with the tree height measurements. I am constantly
encouraging more detailed site descriptions, similar to what
Jess Riddle
posts, for more of our sites. Bob and others are working on how
to do
other types of numerical analysis based upon out tree
measurements.
Both should be done hand-in-hand for a particular site. This
should not
be a competition but collaborative effort between observational
and
numerical site analysis. Each methodology adds dimensions to
characterizing site qualities that are limited or lacking in the
other.
This is the direction I believe the organization should be
going.
I really like the idea of adding pollen analysis to the mixture.
It can
give a perspective over time that provides context for our
current
observations. We might find forest as represented prior to human
occupancy, forest as affected by native American peoples, forest
as it
was during early European colonization, and the forest as it
evolved
from colonial times to the present. It certainly is something
worth
figuring out how to implement.
Ed Frank
|
| RE:
ENTS
Direction |
Darian
Copiz |
| Jun
17, 2005 06:53 PDT |
|