Well, I don't know what the accuracy of current methods are when estimating tree volumes but it's not likely to be more than plus or minus 10% if you're including all the crown. With a digitilized scan done by my the technique I'm fantasizing about - I should think it would be accurate to plus or minus a tenth of a percent which would be orders of magnitude better.
Regardless of that issue- I think it's urgent for us to start putting real dollar signs on all the currently intangible values- which are more likely to be significant for large trees- the larger the trees, the greater for those intangible values. Though there may not yet be market values for these considerations- if we pretend that there are- maybe they'll happen. For example, let's say we do come up with a value system- then say, the state wants to buy a property to add to an existing state forest/ park- when they negotiate with the owner they should have to factor in such values- because we'll all demand it. After all, when people appraise something like antiques- there is no logic to it other than supply and demand. If a landowner were told that the value of their property was something beyond what some real estate appraisser says- then it will be so if they believe it. Much of our economic system is "faith based", not logical- so we must all have faith in the true values of large trees and old growth forests, c'est nes pas? Joe On Sep 27, 10:50 am, "Will Blozan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
