ENTS,
Today John Knuerr and I tracked down the champion white ash in Trout Brook
and remeasured it. Its prior height as determined by John Eichholz a couple of
years ago was 151.5 feet, tops in the Northeast. However, the top sprig appears
dead. We got 149.3 feet after multiple measurement attempts. There is still a
lot of understory that blocks vision, so we can't absolutely rule out a higher
point. We'll return in about a month when the crown will be more visible.
However, at present, the tree drops out as the tallest of its species for MTSF
and in its place is the other 150-footer on the south side of Clark Ridge.
This brings me to a point. Trees can die and drop out of the RHI for a
site. Other trees can come into the list. Still other trees can gain or lose
height and still remain in the list. What this inevitable change of the index
means is that we can lose sight of the potential of the site to grow tall
trees, which is partly what we are attempting to measure with the RHI or RI for
short. We are, of course, also taking instantaneous shots of the forest,
capturing status at a moment in time. The following tables show the historical
and present indices of MTSF.
Historical Index
HeightSpeciesCircumferenceENTS PointsDOM
169.4 WP10.41832.27/1/2007
151.5 WA6.2582.411/20/2004
138 SM11.41793.410/18/2002
133.5 NRO9.31154.611/25/2004
131.8 BNH4.3243.74/24/2006
131 HM10.71499.89/21/2003
130.5 AB8.4920.84/9/2006
128 RM6.6557.64/15/2006
127.7 BTA3.5156.410/24/2002
126.9 ABW5.5383.94/26/2006
136.8 Rucker Index
Present Index
HeightSpeciesCircumferenceENTS PointsDOM
169.4 WP10.51867.69/7/2008
150.1 WA6.2577.04/30/2006
134.4 SM5336.010/23/2006
133.5 NRO9.31154.611/25/2004
131.8 BNH4.3243.74/24/2006
130.5 AB8.4920.84/9/2006
130.3 HM11.11605.411/26/2006
128 RM6.6557.64/15/2006
126.9 ABW5.5383.94/26/2006
126 BTA3.5154.44/27/2006
136.1 Rucker Index
When I report a site index in the future, I will include its historical
Rucker Index HRI along with its present RI, called a PRI (present Rucker Index)
for properties where the more detailed level of reporting is warranted. That
would generally be the case for properties that are visited frequently like
MTSF. I would hope Dale will do the same for Cook Forest, Tom Diggins for Zoar
Valley, and Will for the GSMNP.
One way we might implement the concept is to show the two indices in ratio
form: PRI/HRI. For MTSF that form would yield 136.1/136.8. Thoughts, anyone?
Bob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
