ENTS, 



  



      A challenge presented to ENTS from tree land is how to compute plausible 
increases in trunk volume that accompany increases in radial growth. The 
calculations depend on not so obvious assumptions about trunk form. Canonical 
forms such as neiloid, cone, and paraboloid may serve as guides, but like 
people, trees are individuals and defy easy classifying with respect to their 
exact form. However, for conifer species like pine, hemlock, and spruce, we can 
do a pretty fair job of calculating trunk volume of individual trees if we can 
first establish good trunk form factors for the trees being measured. For the 
white pines on which I have specialized, F values typically range from 0.333 to 
0.45, with mature trees usually between 0.38 and 0.42. The F value for old 
growth specimens can reach 0.45, but can also be as low as 0.35. The volume 
implication is considerable for a change of only 0.1 in the form factor. 



      A problem that I have been dealing with for some time now is the mistaken 
perception that the big pines in places like MTSF that exhibit narrow annual 
rings such as 1/20th of an inch have basically stopped growing. However, a 
narrow ring on a big tree can still represent a significant increase in volume. 
I think smart tree people know this, but there are a heck of a lot of dumb tree 
people out there. 



     The attached Excel workbook tackles the problem of computing and comparing 
volume increases on the basis of radial increases. Like previous Excel 
workbooks, I've set this one up to allow operator input in green cells and 
protect the rest. Calculations are all automatic. So anyone can use the 
spreadsheet without understanding how it was built or the included formulas. 
The example shown in the spreadsheet is as follows. 



      Suppose we have two trees with the following dimensions. 



  



            Tree #1                                   Tree #2 



  



             Radius       = 1.75 ft               Radius       = 1.0 ft     



             Height        =  149 ft               Height        = 85 ft 



             Form Fac  =  0.38                   Form Fac   = 0.35 



  



        Suppose that for a new season of growth, tree #2 grows radially 
0.020833 ft (0.25 inches) and 1.1 feet in height. Further suppose that tree #1 
grows 0.8 ft in height. If the overall volume increase is the same for the two 
trees, what must be the radial increase of tree #1? The attached spreadsheet 
allows this and similar problems to be easily solved. 



            The answer for the above example is 0.003624 ft (0.043484 inches) 
of new radial growth for tree #1. At the example rates of radial growth, tree#2 
will increase its radius by an inch in just 4 years. By contrast, it will take 
tree#1 a surprising 23 years to add an inch of radial growth. However, for the 
year in question, the volume increase is the same for the two trees.   



       I can imagine some one looking at a stump of a tree comparable to tree 
#1 and believing that for all practical purposes, the tree had stopped growing. 
The increase in height would not be obvious from the ground except to an 
observer that recognizes new candle growth on pines, but even then, it wouldn’t 
look like much. However, from the standpoint of carbon sequestration, the two 
trees are performing equally. Like Rachel Maddow says on MSNBC, talk me down. 
Maybe I’m missing something. 



      The patterns of annual increase in radial growth and height versus the 
corresponding volume increase is what I am investigating for the white pines in 
MTSF, on Mt Tom State Reservation, Broad Brook in Florence, and at selected 
sites elsewhere in Massachusetts. I’m attempting to do the job in a way that 
allows me to  manipulate the inputs to spreadsheet-based models and then with 
the help of others, independently test the results. Past tree climbs of Will 
Blozan , and hopefully in the future of Jeff Lacoy and Andrew Jostlin, will be 
invaluable to ground-truthing. I know the time will come when computer modeling 
will supply all the answers, but I believe that we will still need field 
techniques at least for a decade or two. 



      On a different topic, the big tree reports from our valued European Ents 
are making me salivate. I never even thought of places like the Czech Republic 
, Bosnia , Bulgaria , etc. as the locations of great trees. Two of my wife 
Monica's pianos were built in the Czech Republic . I am beginning to think more 
seriously about a trip to that part of the world. I must confess that the 
political situations in some of those places leave me nervous, but if ENTS is 
going to do the job that we are destined to do, the risks may have to be 
taken.    



  



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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Attachment: ChgOfRadiusVolAnalyzer.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet

Reply via email to