| Surprises
in Tree Measuring |
Robert
Leverett |
| Sep
20, 2005 12:44 PDT |
ENTS:
In off-list emails, Ed Frank, John Eichholz,
myself, and others are
involved in a detailed review of basic tree measuring concepts
and
definitions. Our numerically driven discussion is the kind that
can
drive non-quantitative folks bonkers. But alas, it's a dirty job
and
someone has to do it.
A word about the philosophical underpinnings
of our obsession. We're
no different than other people who are intense about their
interests. We
want to do the job right regardless of who else is involved in
tree
measuring and for what reasons and along the way we expect to
improve
existing measurement methodologies, develop new ones, and make
some neat
discoveries. It is all part of our passion.
From time to time, I stop to reflect on
what we are discovering or
confirming in ENTS that I didn't previously know. For me, its often
patterns of species development. At other times, it's single
numbers. I
would be curious as to the lists that others might have in terms
of what
has surprised them most. Anyone care to share his/her biggest
numerical
surprises with the rest of us? Non-numerical surprises? For
example, one
of the biggest ones for me was the volume of the Middleton Oak
as
determined by BVP. Another was Michael Davie's incredible
167-foot
pignut hickory in Asheville, NC. A third is the cluster of super
white
pines in northern Georgia that Will and Jess found. A fourth is
that PA
has 140-foot hemlocks and Massachusetts doesn't. A fifth is that
the
white ash is the tallest Massachusetts hardwood. A sixth is the
reversed
roles played by hemlock versus white pine going from North to
South. In
northern latitudes, the white pine appears to be the bulkier of
the two
species, often by a substantial margin. That relationship is
reversed in
the southern Appalachians. I could go on. Dale, has this
stimulated your
thinking about your biggest surprises?
Bob
|
|