Joe, What do you mean by "orders of magnitude"? That would imply at least ten times more accuracy, but in what units?
Will F. Blozan President, Eastern Native Tree Society President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of the Forestmeister Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:58 PM To: ENTSTrees Subject: [ENTS] Re: Sneak preview Hey Bob, I know next to nothing about the sophisticated methods ENTS people use to determine tree volumes- I only know standard, basic, simple methods of tree measurements used by field foresters. But, I should think that there must be some way using the best technology in the world today to get an exact 3 dimensional image of any tree- using something like radar or some other electromagnetic radiation- by moving the energy generator AROUND the tree- sort of like a giant scan of a hospital patient. The scan could scan the shape to great detail in 3-D, then incorporate that into data into a holograph in order to project it- and I'm sure mathematical geniuses could easily then use that data to calculate the volume of the tree to an order of accuracy orders of magnitude beyond current ENTS methods. And, while at it, why not use penetrating energies such as the hospital scan to give a true internal image of the tree which could then be studied for whatever reasons, such as the work done by Alex Shigo to determine the course of "discoloration and decay"- or to discern the value of the tree for wildlife habitat (assuming some hollows in the tree). And, if this is done for many trees close together- it could be useful to Gary Beluzo who I recall is interested in the emergent properties existing in forests- and for that, having such information and modeling tools- might be significant in such research. Just a crazy thought. <G> Joe On Sep 25, 9:06 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Beth, > > The proposed ENTS point formula admittedly works best for trees with long straight trunks that can be modeled with a regular geometrical form, principally a neiloid, cone, or paraboloid. I chose the cone for illustration purposes, but either of the other two forms would have worked just as well. > The question of what kind of formula works for a big spreader like the live oaks that Larry measures is probably not going to be adequately determined for a long time. There is just too much wood tied up in the complex network of limbs. The ENTSPTS formula is not the answer for trees of that shape, but then neither is the champion tree formula. Consider the table below. > > HGT CIR SPD CHP PTS ENTSPTS > 50 12 12022472 > 6524120383374.4 > 13024120448748.8 > > For trees with spreads of 120 feet, we know there is lots of wood committed to the limbs. Looking at the entries in the table, it is apparent that ENTSPTS does not capture limb wood. The champion tree formula actually does better, but going from rows 2 to 3 is just not logical for the champion tree formula. A 130-foot tall tree with a 120-foot crownspread implies a lot more wood than the spread of points of 383 to 448 indicates. > The problem we're experiencing in calculating an absolute number of points for a tree stems from the one size fits all approach. I understand that it was for simplicity's sake and to try to get the general public involved, but the formula doesn't work well enough for a group like ENTS. > For a system of relative comparisons, TDI works well and we may never get beyond that, i.e. relative comparisons. However, for white pines in New England, I need more of an absolute measure. The amount of limb mass for a tall, straight conifer may not be more than 5% or 6% of trunk volume. So, I don't have to worry too much about the limbs and can apply the proposed formula. By contrast, the limb volume versus trunk volume ratio may approach 50% for live oaks. I wouldn't apply to formula to trees of those shapes. So, the search must go on. > I apologize to the list for not making it clear that I had conifers in mind for the proposed formula. Very clumsy of me. > Sorry you won't be able to make it to the rendezvous. The one in 2009 will be in Cook Forest. That is considerably closer to help for time and expense travel. > > Bob > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Beth Koebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob, > > Not being a math major (I had to drop CAL I because I couldn't understand it), it looks like you are using a cone to measure the volume as the "gold standard" and then using the new ENTPTS2 to get the measurements that are often taken, height and circumfence, to match it. If this is the case, then would this work also for trees like palms or any other tree in which there is a trunk without branches for say 50 or so feet then a relatively flat crown(umbrella shaped)? How about the classic hardwood shaped tree (golf ball on a tee)? > > BTW, I am not going to be able to make it to the ENTS gathering in Oct. as it is too close to my projected closing. Sorry, I wish I could've made it. Maybe the next one. > > Beth > > "Information is moving--you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." > Washington DC, May 2, 2007 George W. Bush > > --- On Wed, 9/24/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [ENTS] Sneak preview > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 9:25 AM > > ENTS, > > Folks, it is time to reconsider our two ENTS methods of ranking the size of trees: ENTSPTS and TDI. The TDI system is sound. No modifications needed there, but ENTSPTS is ailing, the reason being that the number of points awarded does not track well enough with increases in trunk volume . The following table compares the effect of tree size increases using the old way of calculating ENTSPTS ( height x circumference) , a proposed new way of calculating ENTSPTS ( [height x Circumference ^2]/100), and an abbreviated version of the champion tree formula ( 12 x circumference + height). > > Height Circ VOL-CONEratio ENTSPTS ratio ENTSPTS2 ratio Champ Tree Pts ratio > 50884.8 400 32 146 > 5012190.8 2.3600 1.572 2.3194 1.3 > 5016339.2 4.0800 2.0128 4.0242 1.7 > 1008169.6 2.0800 2.064 2.0196 1.3 > 10012381.6 4.51200 3.0144 4.5244 1.7 > 10016678.4 8.01600 4.0256 8.0292 2.0 > 1508254.4 3.01200 3.096 3.0246 1.7 > 15012572.4 6.81800 4.5216 6.8294 2.0 > 150161017.6 12.02400 6.0384 12.0342 2.3 > > Looking at the table, we see that the ratio of the volume of the largest tree to the volume of the smallest is 12 to 1. The ratio of ENTSPTS of the largest tree to the smallest is 6 to 1. The ratio of modified ENTSPTS of the largest to the smallest tree is 12 to 1 (just what we want), and the ratio of modified champion tree points of the largest to smallest tree is 2.3 to 1. The change in modified ENTSPTS tracks perfectly with conical volume. Each ratio in the above table is the current entry divided by the first entry in the respective column, not the preceding entry in the column. The purpose of the ratio columns is to show how points track with changes in volume as measured by a form such as the cone or paraboloid. > The reason I chose a scaling factor of 100 for modified ENTSPTS is to bring the point total more in line with numbers that come from the champion tree formula. Additionally, it is computationally simple. I leave out hypothetical crown spread in the table. However, were we to include realistic crownspreads for the size trees indicated by height and circumference, the ratio of the points of the largest tree to the smallest would increase slightly - perhaps 2.5 to 1. > I've discussed the new system of ENTSPTS with Ed off list. Ed is solidly behind it. Ed also mentioned that John Eichholz had once before pointed out the value of C^2 versus C as the factor dealing with circumference. I mentioned the proposed new method briefly to Will in a recent phone conversation and told him I'd shortly present some analysis. The above table is the first step in that direction. > Thoughts anyone? > Bob- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
