BTW, a suggestion- to check how accurate current methods are for measuring the volume of large trees- I suggest going to a forest that is about to be logged- no doubt you can find some really big trees- then measure them- then when that tree is cut, it should be easy to gather all the crown, in pieces and measure the volume of them by placing in a tank filled with water (specially designed of course) whereupon the displacement of the water would give an accuratge measurement- and the cut logs could easily be measured extremely accurately before haulded off to the mill. The actual physical measure by this method should be extremely accurate- then compare that to various methods now being considered (of which I know nothing other than rough measurements for merchantable logs).
Joe On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, the Forestmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
