==============================================================================
TOPIC: National Register of Big Trees
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/484c2b9544fb04c7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 11:40 am
From: doncbragg@netscape.net
http://pictures.aol.com/ap/singleImage.do?pid=7810t-IL8NhsXb-TpgFGbKm1zG63aZBOOwShv4xQp5Fd3Ig%3D
http://pictures.aol.com/ap/singleImage.do?pid=7810t-IL8NhsXb-TpgFGbKm1zBn1Idp-FlVov4xQp5Fd3Ig%3D
ENTS--
Not to throw further gas on the fire, but for those of you wondering
about Gary's reference to the co-national champion baldcypress from
Mississippi, the first image is of this co-champ, with its
exaggerated buttress (that's Gary standing next to the tree).? The
second picture is of a true giant cypress, with Gary standing next
to its 40-ft CBH base.? Important note:? this tree isn't even the
biggest cypress at Sky Lake--there is a tree not far from this one
with a 46-ft CBH!
The difference in height between these trees is not much--perhaps a
few feet.? I would guess there isn't a dramatic difference in crown
spread, either--the first cypress wins the AF title because of its
girth (which, by the way, rapidly tapers after 5-6 feet).? From a
volume perspective, this comparison isn't even close...
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don C. Bragg, Ph.D.
Research Forester
USDA Forest Service
Southern Research Station
DonCBragg@netscape.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions expressed in this message are my own, and not
necessarily those of the Southern Research Station, the Forest
Service, or the USDA.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Smith <garycsa@bellsouth.net>
To: ENTSTrees <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 2 May 2008 9:42 pm
Subject: [ENTS] Re: National Register of Big Trees
Will,
Best you don't go see the co-champ taxodium distichums.
You might have a stroke.
gs
On May 2, 9:26?pm, "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Thanks for posting the link Ed. However, quick perusal
indicates this may be
> one of the lamest yet released. Front cover: do a pith trace
people! ?Jess's
> nomination of the largest Tsuga Search hemlock did not make it
in yet his
> and Josh's red spruce did. And the white cedar! How many trunks
can you
> combine into "one" tree? The same old stuff regurged
again and the credible
> stuff not acknowledged. For example, again the "red
hickory" on Porters
> Creek, TN which is really a bitternut is STILL on the list (and
mismeasured
> as well). The NPS sent AF voucher specimens to nominate it as a
bitternut
> champ over a decade ago. The trees need ENTS more than ever!
>
> Yuck.
>
> Will
>
>> From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com]
On
> Behalf Of Edward Frank
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 8:48 PM
> To: ENTS Google
> Subject: [ENTS] National Register of Big Trees
>
> American Forests has released its much-anticipated 2008-2009
National
> Register of Big Trees, the definitive list of the largest known
of 826
> species. A 240-foot-tall ponderosa pine, an Ohio buckeye at
McDonald's
> Hamburger U, and a sycamore with a girth of more than 35 feet
are among the
> 733 trees crowned as national champs. A new rule this year that
trees have
> to be remeasured within 10 years to remain on the list caused
the most
> sweeping changes in the Register's 68-year history. ?
>
> But there's more to a champion than just its size. Big trees
are symbols of
> all the good work trees do for the quality of the
environment-and our
> quality of life. Big Trees provide more cooling shade and more
places for
> wildlife to perch and nest. They sequester more carbon dioxide,
trap more
> pollutants, and clean more of the air and water.
>
> Although trees often outlive us, they succumb to age, disease
and insects,
> wind, rain, drought-all , all to often, the chainsaw buzz of
development.
> It's our responsibility to maintain a healthy environment that
allows trees
> to grown to champion status.
>
> National Register of Big Trees
>
> http://www.americanforests.org/downloads/bigtrees/2008_NB_Tree_Reg.pdf
>
> ?image001.jpg
> 18KViewDownload
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 12:02 pm
From: doncbragg@netscape.net
ENTS--
There is definitely a need in the scientific community for the
maximum dimensions of trees to be accurately measured and available
for use.? The use of champion tree data to help certain aspects of
research programs can be quite pervasive, even if not well
recognized.? For example, a lot of forest simulation models (the
popular gap models, for instance) define parts of their optimal
growth equations using species-specific maximum heights and
diameters.? A number of height models use champion tree heights as
an asymptote to fix the upper height possibilities of a species,
while other models use parameters like maximum tree age to define
response functions.? I believe the evidence is strong that we can
use champion trees to help better define the shape of
height:diameter functions that are used in many vegetation
simulators.? Other issues related to relative tree size include the
ecological role of supercanopy species (e.g., eastern white pine) in
managed landscapes, or vertical structure of forests and their
relationship to ecosystem function, etc.? Most people using the
champion tree data do not likely pay close attention to the source
of the data, and its reliability.? This, in turn, could have
dramatic results on the outcomes of their simulations.
The first thing I noticed about the most recent National Register of
Big Trees is the number of ENTS-nominated trees that are on the
list.? I think it's great that at least some of these trees have
reliable measurements.? The next thing I noticed was that there are
still major problems with the AF register--Will highlighted a great
example with that picture of a multi-stemmed northern whitecedar.?
To me, this does seem to suggest that ENTS may have something of
incredible value to offer the public (scientific or otherwise).?
Exactly how this arises, and how it can/should be implemented is up
for debate within ENTS.? However, as editor of the Bulletin of the
ENTS, I will be willing to work with whatever arises, once it is
formally defined and accepted.
Don
p.s.:? For those that recently submitted trees to the AF register,
note that it can take a couple years to see them appear in print and
on their website--if I understand the process right, they issue a
new register once every two years, and if you miss their publication
deadline, it could be a while...it took about 2 years for the champ
shortleaf pine I sent them to appear...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don C. Bragg, Ph.D.
Research Forester
USDA Forest Service
Southern Research Station
DonCBragg@netscape.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions expressed in this message are my own, and not
necessarily those of the Southern Research Station, the Forest
Service, or the USDA.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 1:32 pm
From: "Will Blozan"
Pathetic is the softest word I can think of right now. The second
tree is
SWEET! Speaking of volume:
5000 ft3+ of NATIONAL CHAMPION CYPRESS!!!
Will
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 4:22 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Ed-
At what height from the ground would you measure the each tree's
girth?-Don
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 4:46 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
Don,
The initial girth should be measured at 4.5 feet at the standard
height. With the tree with the bulging base, since it is an atypical
growth pattern, to better characterize the tree a second girth
should be taken at a point above the anomalous basal swell. I have
wondered with the champion tree if the base of the tree is really
sprouted from the ground, or if it grew atop a stump? A standard can
not be devised to anticipate every contingency. When there is an odd
shaped tree, it is up to the measurer to take what additional
readings are needed to properly characterize the tree form. You have
ask me this several time before.
Ed
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 4:58 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Ed-
Yes, I have asked similar questions before, because there are many
trees out there that may not fit the standard mold. My initial
experience measuring trees (USFS) had standards for most trees, but
two of the three trees here are definitely not of the "standard
mold".
I ask, not to confront you, but to further refine the standards that
ENTS is assembling. Superlative trees often are outside of the
standard mold, almost by definition.
For what it's worth, I agree with your answers...:>) I have, with
some difficulty obtained such difficult second dbhs...usually with
what I brung, as one doesn't always anticipate such non-standard
mold scenarios. I guess the point is, for state/national champions,
ENTS should pull out all stops on accuracy issues!
Well done!
-DonB
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 5:04 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net
Don,
I like the way you talk, i.e. "ENTS should pull out all stops
on accuracy issues! ". We have made that our slogan, our motto,
so we need to make sure that we live up to our talk.
Bob
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 5:11 pm
From: Beth Koebel
Ed and Don Bragg,
I would have just taken or at least tried to take the
girth above the buttress. I guess you are right Ed,
you should always take the "standard" measurements.
Beth
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 5:13 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
Don,
I have tried to assemble a listing of various multitrunk and odd
forms and figure out how to best measure them in the discussion on
the website: http://www.nativetreesociety.org/multi/index_multi.htm
The idea was to provide some guidance for measuring these other
relatively common form, more of an approach than hard black and
white standards. I tried to define what was meant by each of the
categories I devised, and used input from yourself , Dale, and
others to augment the system. Still, there are trees out there that
do not nicely fit even these expanded categories.
If our goal is to characterize the tree form, rather than to simply
generate numbers, then we must rely on those doing the measurements,
to take not only the standard protocols, but whatever additional
measurements are appropriate for that particular odd tree. Do you
have any suggestions how this might be better codified, implemented,
or emphasized in the measuring guidelines? Anyone else have any
ideas? Clearly the tree with the bulging base is not in any real
sense the biggest when compared to other trees with a more standard
form. That is one of the dichotomies of maintaining lists, you need
standards to make the trees on the list comparable, but not all
trees are standard in form.
Ed
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 6:07 pm
From: Gary Smith
Don Bragg,
If you read this, were any of those big Arkansas Tupelo gums, nyssa
aquatica, large enough to be considered as a potential national
champ?
I was thinking there was a real big one discovered over there
sometime
last year.
Gary S.
p.s. those tupelo gum and cypress seeds from Sky Lake germinated
very
well. I have a low spot along a creek bottom where they will
eventually be transplanted.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 7:30 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Ed-
I think that we continue to be in agreement here...for non-standard
forms, ENTS has to rely on the judgement of the nominator. Perhaps
some direction for the nominator that spells out the responsibility
to describe the tree (species, landform it's found on (swamp, bog,
riparian zone, hillside, ridgetop), tree shape as it differs from a
typical cylinder, where the girth(s) was/were taken).
I've been thinking from several different approaches, that it may
appropriate that ENTS might want to view superlative trees in the
following light:
1) Discovery, measure it with whatever you've got on you, like an
initial triage, get good location (GPS, or specific description) and
access info
2) Candidacy, where the tree is measured with the current ENTS
standard (variably, Laser distance meter, sine method, clinometer)
3)Nominee, where a crack ENTS team travels to site, uses state of
the art equipment, technique (tape drop).
I guess I'm suggesting 'appropriate technologies', recognizing
economies of scale...
-Don
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, May 6 2008 9:01 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Ed-
My father-in-law sent me the following URL:
http://www.shangralafamilyfun.com/trees.html
which provides what may be the ultimate challenge for ENTS
Dendromorphologists, particularly a challenge for the rules
chairman...;>}
-DonB
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, May 7 2008 5:39 am
From: doncbragg@netscape.net
Ed--
When we were examining this tree, you could see along the base that
there was a large mass of dead wood underneath it--I suspect this
tree sprouting, probably on the top of a cut stump, sometime in the
early 20th century, and then grew over the top of the decaying
stump.? Baldcypress, unlike most conifers, can stump sprout, but
usually does this most effectively when relatively young, and so I
think this is a less likely (but still plausible) explanation for
this stump.
Looking at this "champion", it is quite obvious that the
stem isn't old at all--probably not even a century old, and maybe
even a few decades short of that.? The Senator Baldcypress and the
Sky Lake cypress are definitely FAR older than this tree, probably
by quite a few centuries.? The volume differences between these true
champs and the AF co-champ are both telling and stunning...
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don C. Bragg, Ph.D.
Research Forester
USDA Forest Service
Southern Research Station
DonCBragg@netscape.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions expressed in this message are my own, and not
necessarily those of the Southern Research Station, the Forest
Service, or the USDA.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, May 7 2008 5:59 am
From: doncbragg@netscape.net
Gary--
The biggest tupelo gum I had measured personally would have
dethroned their champs at the time, but it was not as big (484 AF
points) as the one on their most recent list (516 AF points).? I had
nominated the tupelo from the White River NWR to be the Arkansas
state champion (which had been vacant), but this also failed,
because someone else had found an even bigger one!? The interesting
part of this one is that new Arkansas state champion tupelo gum has
a circumference of 432 inches, a crown spread of 87 feet, and a
height (tangent-based, I'm sure) of 110 feet, for a total AF point
score of 564 points--48 points more than the current national
champion!!? I'm not sure if the Arkansas Forestry Commission hadn't
submitted this one to the national register yet, or it was sent in
too late, or it just didn't get considered.
I haven't seen the Arkansas state champion tupelo gum, as it is on
private property and relatively hard to access...
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don C. Bragg, Ph.D.
Research Forester
USDA Forest Service
Southern Research Station
DonCBragg@netscape.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions expressed in this message are my own, and not
necessarily those of the Southern Research Station, the Forest
Service, or the USDA.
|