National Register of Big Trees  
  

==============================================================================
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.