Bob. I guess I don't look at the trees with my focus on one or two species, but am interested in finding as many as possible. I really don't understand the process of focusing on a few species. I know that in one example of hawthorns, other people were not even seeing the species at all in spite of the fact that in front of them were 40 foot high specimens representing the tallest in the state, and including a national AF Champion. I just don't get the blinders or filters- I see all of them - the tall pines, the striped maples, etc. I don't think I miss a good example of a particular tree species because I am not focused on that species alone. You have in the past suggested that early on the more commercial species are the ones you noticed first when exploring forest, then you broadened your perspective to see others. I hope I am not misrepresenting what you implied. Perhaps focusing on a particular limited number of species is part of your process. I don't know - I find the smaller species as interesting as the tallest, but I will admit I am impressed by really tall trees and really fat trees. I am interested in the interactions between the trees and other forest components, I am interested in the processes of the forest. Tall trees are just one thing to look at in the forest, and I tend to look at the forest broadly rather than focusing on a few species. However whatever works the best for you is what you should do.
Ed Join me in the Eastern Native Tree Society at http://www.nativetreesociety.org and in the Primal Forests - Ancient Trees Community at: http://primalforests.ning.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:19 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rucker Index Thoughts Ed, I couple more thoughts to add to what you've said, and said well. Sometimes it is good to go into a forest with blinders on to all but one or two species as opposed to wandering about trying to stay sensitive to all species. When I activate my stripped maple filter, the large, bright green leaves stand out in the understory and I can quickly and easily home in on stripped maples that are above 50 feet in height. So far in MTSF, I've measured three striped maples over 60 feet and have this beautiful understory species pretty well mapped out. I'll soon turn my attention onto witch hazel. I'll have to install another mental filter to be active from 20 to about 35 feet maximum - I think. I completely agree that documenting the growth maximums for all species, short and tall can provide us with a much better understanding of the growth potential of an area. Some of the shorter species may be far more useful than personally have heretofore understood. The ones growing in southern New England forests are usually shortlived. Consequently, we can see many more of them through their entire life cycles and therefore have a better opportunity to catch more at their peak heights. That's far less likely for species that live for three or more centuries and are economiclaly valuable at 60 years of age. Bob -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Edward Forrest Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ENTS, A listing of this sort also has other advantages. It is what Colby described as a complete species profile for the site. It allows easy calculations of various Rucker Indexes. But also by having this list, you can look at it and it will jump out at you that "Oh, I saw a taller Sassafras just the other day than the one listed here." You can see at a glance if there are taller trees you just haven't measured. Most people really into it know how tall the tallest species are, but the heights of the shorter species may not be as completely at the tip of your tongue. A listing of all the species measured tells you at a glance what species you haven't measured. This is often just an oversight, or they have not been measured because they are not that tall, but a listing such as this begs for missing data and measurements to be taken. Ed ENTS, I might suggest that the best way to keep up with the Rucker Indexes for all of the sites would first to have a listing of all the trees from the site, ordered however you want. Then a second listing for the site would include only the tallest tree of each species, and every species measured at the site should be included, and have this list sorted tallest to shortest. Whenever a new taller specimen is found for a species, the old would be deleted from this tall list and the the new one inserted at the proper place in the hierarchy. Calculating a Rucker Index would then just consist of copying the contents of the top 5, 10, or 20 cells to an adjacent column, summing those, and dividing by the number of cells. That is what I did with Dales RI20 listings and our composite listings for the Allegheny River Islands. It worked very well. Ed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
