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 

Ed, ENTS,
I agree that good site descriptions are important. Two factors I find
particularly relevant are soil and rainfall. I've attached two websites
that may be useful for everyone:

rainfall: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/precip.html
soil: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/

Darian