Hello ENTS, I'm impressed and excited about how close the tape drops and ground-based measurements are coinciding. Obviously the ground measuring side is where people need the most convincing. After doing the Joe Norton tape drop I believe that tape measuring is an area where accuracy cannot be taken for granted. The climber must practice due diligence to get the most accurate measurement possible. Clearly that is not easy, trees are live entities with irregular forms, there are points in the process where small or large manual measuring errors can occur. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the ground measuring techniques are probably surpassing and in the future as rangefinders and technique improves, ground measuring will surpass manual tape measurement as the gold standard. While Bob was happy to see that the ground-based measurements were within .1' of the tape drop, I was equally happy to see that the tape drop was so close to the the rangefinder/clinometer measurements. From a climber's perspective I'm going to doubt my measurement and use the ground-based measurement to verify that I haven't made some small or gross error. It was a magic moment when Bob called the tape drop measurement up to me and verified that the numbers were very close.
On the subject of increased foot traffic near our tallest New England pines... most of these notable trees are not on level ground, the steep grades typical in Mohawk increases the possible negative effects of ground disturbance, ie: erosion potential. Definitely a challenging balancing act to figure out how to bring more people to safely appreciate these trees without hurting the trees and forest we love. As was discussed by some of the folks present in the grove on Saturday, none of us wishes to change the forest context by building stairs, boardwalks, clearing ground detritus, taking out all the hazard deadwood up in the trees or dead standing tress etc. etc. More thought and consideration is required. -Andrew [email protected] wrote: > ENTS, > > Yesterday, I was showing Julie Darcey areas of MTSF. Julia is a > graduate student at Boston College. She is a science and medical > journalism major. She wants to write an article on the return of big > trees to New England forests and the role of ENTS in searching for the > big trees and old growth and establishing accurate data on the big > trees. > > While in the Trees of Peace Grove, I used the opportunity to remeasure > the Joe Norton tree. I returned to the Joe Norton tree. I'm obsessed > with getting the most accurate ground-based height that I can for that > tree. Courtesy of where Andrew placed his pole, I could finally get a > fairly good fix on the sprig that Andrew identified as the top in his > climb. The sprig is located in a part of the crown that is ordinarily > hard see, and consequently, hard to measure from the ground. It isn't > the spot in Joe's crown that I ordinarily measure. However, by > shifting around and shooting from different spots, eventually I got > through to Andrew's twig. My shots ranged from 163.0 feet to 164.0 > feet in height. The average of these extremes is 163.5 - exactly what > the tape drop showed. This kind of result has happened before and it > adds credence to our claim of accuracy in our ground-based > measurements. I've not had any personal doubt about our ability to > measure from the ground to +/- 0.5 feet and often to +/- 0.25 ft - > provided we can see the target and are sufficiently motivated to spend > the time taking careful measurements, looking for patterns, > continuously check on the calibration of our equipment, and do some > statistical analysis. The process is labor intensive, but it is what > we do. > > So thanks to Andrew's climb, we now have a good fix on the Joe Norton > tree, named for Grand Chief Joseph Takwiro Norton of the Kahnawake > Mohawks in Canada. Incidentally, Joe Norton was present at the > dedication of his tree in July 1997. > > So, as of now, what are the 15 tallest trees in Massachusetts and why > stop at 15? At present, there are 15 trees above 156 feet in height, > and 156 is a convenient cutoff point. There are maybe 10 additional > pines between 155.0 and 155.9. So, I'm just cutting the list off at a > convenient place. > > The heights in the table below reflect the latest climb data where > available. Trunk volumes are the latest projections based on > differential growth rates that we've computed as likely for each tree. > > Tree Location Species Height Girth Volume Last Climbed > > Jake Swamp MTSF WP 169.3' 10.5' 585 ft^3 Will Blozan 2008 > Mike Davie 2001 > Will Blozan 1998 > > Saheda MTSF WP 165.6' 11.8' 705 ft^3 Will Blozan 2007 > Will Blozan 1998 > > Tecumseh MTSF WP 164.1' 12.0' 784 ft^3 Will Blozan 200? > > Joe Norton MTSF WP 163.5' 9.5' 446 ft^3 Andrew Joslin 2009 > Will Blozan 2001 > Van Pelt 2001 > > Algonquin MTSF WP 162.3' 9.1' 401.0 ft^3 > > Lee Frelich MTSF WP 161.0' 8.6' 350.6 ft^3 > > Frank Decontie MTSF WP 160.9 10.3' 502.0 ft^3 > > L. Frank Decontie MTSF WP 160.5' 7.0' 225.0 ft^3 > > Joseph Brant MTSF WP 160.3' 11.1' 613.0 ft^3 > > Thoreau MSF WP 160.2' 12.5' 830.0 ft^3 Will Blozan 2004 > Van Pelt 2004 > > W. Commanda MTSF WP 157.5' 10.6' 563.0 ft^3 > > John Brown MTSF WP 157.3' 8.1' 303.6 ft^3 > > Bryant Bryant H. WP 156.5' 10.1' 508.0 ft^3 > > Sacajawea MTSF WP 156.4' 10.2' 492.0 ft^3 > > Mirror MTSF WP 156.0' 11.0' 556.0 ft^3 > > Can we really know that the above trees are the only ones at 156 ft or > more in Massachusetts? No, not unless we measure every worthwhile > candidate, but to use an old expression, trees in this height class > are scarce as hen's teeth. Most landowner's have over-growth > matchsticks that they tout as their big/tall pines. Trees in > graveyards and in parks can be large, but if isolated are usually not > over 110 or 115 feet. A couple of city parks in the Connecticut River > Valley have white pines in the 130s, but that is exceptional. Eastern > Mass just doesn't grow the exceptionally tall pines due I think to the > type of bedrock. > > One great tree not in the above list is the Ice Glen Pine. I can't get > numbers over 155 feet for its height. My present determination is a > hair under 155. However, the Ice Glen pine's girth is an impressive > 13.05 ft and its volume is now around 940 ft^3. This brings me to an > interesting observation. The volumes of these very tall trees vary > greatly from a wimpy 225 cubes to 940. That is a ratio of over 4 to 1. > > One question that always arises when I talk about the all trees is how > do we know that we have them all? Given the search time, we'll almost > certainly find a few more stands in the valley regions of western Mass > with pines in the 130-139-ft height range and a few individual pines > in the Deerfield Valley in the 140 to 149-ft height class, but not > many. I'd certainly be excited to confirm a few more 150s in Mass, but > I will be surprised if we find over half a dozen more. Call it > intuition. more likely, it is a product of having searched for years > and having developed a pretty fine search pattern for where to look. > > As a final contribution, the latest summary count of 150s in > Massachusetts follows: > > Location # 150s > > MTSF 86 > Bryant Homestead 5 > Ice Glen 3 (one questionable) > Monroe SF 1 > ------ > 95 > > Bob > > P.S. Two acknowledgements. Again, our thanks to Andrew Joslin for his > climb and tape drop measurement of the Joe Norton tree, yesterday, and > thanks to my friend Tim Zelazo for bringing official attention to the > great Mohawk pines. Tim has a heck of a job on his hands to insure > that the pines are appreciated and made available to some extent to > the public, but not over-exposed. Excessive attention can lead to soil > compaction around the roots of pines. At least, this is what I've been > told. Thoughts of others? > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
