Reflections on Full Figured Trees

Reflections on Full Figured Trees	Bob Leverett
	Oct 25, 2007

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reflections on the full figured trees
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/b3da3923729cc534?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 25 2007 3:49 pm
From: dbhguru@

ENTS,

Before Larry Tuccei Jr. came aboard, we had a huge hole in our coverage of the trees and forests of southern Alabama and Mississippi. There are giants in the Earth down there and ENTS needs to know about them. The BVP-Blozan modeling of the enormous Middleton Live Oak opened a lot of eyes. ENTS was no longer just about pursuing tall, straight trees of a couple dozen species. The big spreaders had truly arrived for us courtesy of the venerable Live Oak. Then along came Larry Tucei Jr. and our eyes were open even further. Questions started to arise. How many Live Oaks were there in various size classes. In particular, as Larry continued to make finds, I became curious about the distribution of Live Oaks that exceed 25 feet in girth. For me, a 25-foot girth (7.96 feet in diameter) separates the real giants of girth from this merely big girth trees. I know it is all relat ive, but sometimes a number feels right as a guage and can help us to better frame a concept. For instan
ce, with respect to the concept of tree bigness, great girth and spread catch the eye of most folks. Height is important for some of us and is conspicuous in conifers. But when we go from a specific dimension such as girth or height to a more elusive judgement call of overall bigness, we have to craft definitions that work for us. The 3 tree measurements used in the National Register is one system, but a tradeoff to retain simplicity. That's fine for the public at large, but Ents can, and should, go beyond that system of measuring bigness.

Okay, but how can we best capture the "biggness" of a species like Live Oak? How many times on our list before has one of us asked that question? Well, we go through phases, I guess and I've come full cycle in hopes that others of you are interested in pursuing the subject again. It fits into an ENTS book project that Will Blozan and I discussed early this week about profiling a selection of great eastern trees ala Van Pelt style. We would travel to individual trees of great size and measure them, research their history, photograph them, and develop a narrative about each one. Measurements that come to mind to capture bigness include:

1. Distance around tree at contact point with ground, i.e. the tree's footprint,
2. Girth at 4.5 feet,
3. Area cast by tree's shadow, i.e shadow-print (theoretical),
4. Full height,
5. Greatest spread,
6. Height to first major limb,
7. Longest single limb,
8. Largest girth for a limb,
9. Trunk volume.
10. Limb volume

This is quite an ambituous collection of measurements and involves a ton of work. So that the number of trees measured this way would be relatively few. Some examples of trees that might be included follows.

1. Sag Branch Tuliptree
2. Usis Hemlock
3. Pinchot Sycamore
4. Pine Plains Sycamore
5. Sunderland Sycamore
6. Angel Oak
7. Several other of Larry's Live Oaks
8. Several of the largest Bald Cypresses
9. The largest volume loblolly pine we know of
10. The largest volume white pine we know of

To reach the widest audience, we would need to cover most eastern states. The effort could gain wide attention. Comments? Suggestions?

Bob

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 25 2007 4:14 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Bob,

This is an excellent subject for discussion again. I want to point out the untility of the Tree Dimension Index concept in expressing the size of a tree with respect to others of the same species. Another ratio that might be considered as useful would be a volume/height ratio. This would emphaisze the fat trees over the skinny ones.

I really would alos like to see some consideration given to some multitrunked speciemens. Some of the 20+ feet diameter merged trunk silver maples are really impressive to look at and as I have arugued before individual trunks are not truely equivalent to an individual tree as they are sharing root systems, ground, and air space, but should be a unique class of their own.

For 3 below I am guessing you are meaning something like a crown - footprint?
The limb volume and trunk volume could be combined to form a trunk/limb ratio.

I am not sure if you are writing for the public that the entire focus should be on bigness. I would like to see documentation of trees that are very old, trees as one member described as "aged with adversity." It would be neat to see a photo of a unspectacular tree in size that turned out to be 6 or 700 years old- think Black Gum. Those twisted and aged white cedars are spectacular. Stunted trees growing atop a mountain are amazing - the point is that I don't think that bigness should be the only criteria considered. What about bi-little trees? Such as the national champion rhododendron that isn't hundreds of feet tall.

Ed

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 25 2007 4:42 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Bob-
I like this 'cycling'! In this one, would you be getting the criteria below, per species; or across all species, seeking the superlative?
And by #3, was it your intention to obtain the 'shadow' of the tree, from a perpendicular solar incidence angle (an 'equatorial sun', straight overhead)?
And while your focus here is on size, I too, like Ed's suggestion of environmentally challenged tree categories (usually in the 'age' superlative category).
-DonB

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 6:39 am
From: edfrank@

Joe,

I have many more thoughts on the Aesthetics project. But I have been not feeling well al summer and have a couple other subjects that need completed first. I hope to get back to it this winter. The ideas have been stewing in my head, I just hope that something will come of it.

Ed

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 10:03 am
From: dbhguru@

Joe,

We agree with you. The aesthetics part is very important. Ed has spearheaded that one. It has been dormant, but we'll pick up the thread again.

I often gaze at a spreading tree in an open meadow or field standing near a woodland as a backdrop and marveled at the tree's elegance. Dimensions become unimportant. Symmetry, color, reflection, and just the overall presence expresses itself in ways that calm, sooth, and inspire that bit of poet in all of us. Surely this effect deserves exploration as much as applying mathematics to determine physical boundaries and limits.

Bob

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 28 2007 1:13 pm
From: dbhguru

Doug,

You have a point, but I suspect that large in the minds of most people has more to do with occupied space than with mass. It is the visual impact that probably make the impact, although if something is hollow, it probably doesn't count with most folks. A cosmic star analogy might be a red giant versus a white dwarf. Ideally, we include both volume and mass. The question is where do we get the most authoritative figures for species density. I've seen variations for a species in the lists that I've seen. I presume densities must be for kiln dried wood.

-

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 28 2007 1:45 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Bob and Doug,

I think that the weight of elephants is used rather than their length because it makes them seem larger in relation to other animals. There are animals taller and longer, but skinnier. If you double the length of an animal you can say it is twice as long, if you double its height, you can say it is twice as high, if you double the width you can say it is twice as wide. So by any one length measurement one animal is twice as big as the other. By volume, or it's proxy weight, the larger animal will be 8 times heavier (so long as they have the same shape). 8x is more impressive sounding than 2x, so they use that figure. For trees the size comparison should be with volume if you are thining in 3d, however since they are skinny cylinders height is also a uesful comparisons. You could use mass, with the denser wood tree of the same volume being "bigger" and that is perfectly valid, but it doesn't have the emotional impact of height, girth, or volume. Also you would need to determ
ine the amount of hidden hollows within the tree to be fair.

Ed Frank

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 28 2007 2:26 pm
From: dbhguru

Ed,

Good point. Trying to factor in hollowness would stretch us a BIT too thin. Starting out years ago, "bigness" seemed such a simple, natural concept and I accepted the big tree formula on faith, but as I thought more and more about the real shapes of trees, the bigness concept no longer seemed simple. In the past several years, we've poked plenty of holes in the champion tree formula, although I wouldn't want to abandon it altogether. I do like Will's TDI system better, but see all these measurments as providing alternative views and worthy of inclusion.

I think that periodically hashing out the idea of bigness, although repetitive sounding to the casually interested, is perfectly normal and desirable for real big tree enthusiasts.

Bob

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 28 2007 3:36 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Ed-
Displacement by volume would get you the most accurate measure...rather difficult to manage for most old-growth! And imagine the size of the graduated beaker!!!
I do know folks here at the Forestry Science Lab in Anchorage, are doing work with LIDAR and complicated algorithms to get at the displacement of trees in a forest. With some success. Of course, their scale of estimation is towards that of measuring forests, but as with everything associated with remote sensing imagery, dollars will get you the scale you want!
-DonB

Doug-
Ed's point aside (variations in density would not change volume), it's interesting that a hardwood's annual addition of wood (cellulose) makes the wood stronger, the faster that it adds it on. As opposed to softwoods which mostly turn brasher (brittle) when growing faster. I know this doesn't seem intuitive.
From my perspective, density (mass per unity volume) is a feature of the tree that varies from species to species. That density when compared to that of water (at specific temperature/pressure) is known as the specific gravity. My question to you was would the specific gravity change over time as a tree went from young growth to old-growth. For the answer, I can only offer speculation...much as juvenile wood (annual increment of cellulose during first ten years, for example) has a lower specific gravity than mature wood (after ten years), I'd think that given no core rotting tendencies, that the rigors of aging (response to environmental stresses) would result in 'tension wood' (for example, buttressing at base, underside/upperside of branches added to support lateral growth), also of a higher specific gravity.
Again from my perspective, when dealing with superlatives, if a tree such as Ironwood champion tree has a specific gravity of 1.37 and another species of similar physical dimension is 0.97, I would suggest that there might be a factor applied in some mythical champion tree superlative listing...now we've ventured way into 'tree nerd' territory!
-DonB

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 30 2007 1:42 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Doug,

I guess we will need to disagree on this. I think volume or weight is used to make the elephant seem bigger in relation to other land animals. I find this to be a tendancy in many fields. A particular characteristic is emphasized to make that parameter which is better, bigger, faster, or greater stand out and the object with that parameter therefore is the best in some way. Look at how advertising works - everything is better in some way than its compettitors. Elephants in the same way are better because they are more volumous or masive. I agree that thye are big, I simply think this parameter is used to mentally exagerate the effect.

Ed

-

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 30 2007 1:54 pm
From: dbhguru

Doug,

I think Ed will agree with the points you make. He's emphasizing the emotional impact that volume has. But in ENTS, we can display both volume and mass and have separate lists. We're not looking to maintain tree popularity lists in ENTS, but to broadly explore all ways of viewing trees.

Anyway, I am making a place for mass in my spreadsheets. I just need a list of reliable densities by species.

Bob

-

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 30 2007 3:49 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

I would be more impressed with the more beautiful tree, not the heaviest or oldest or most rare. Of course beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Joe

Home