Tim-

Climbers sure are a colorful bunch!

-Don
 


Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:18:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: A Great Day with John and Andrew
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]




On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Timothy Zelazo <[email protected]> wrote:







On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:22 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:



John,


No, you've nailed the RHI for Mohawk down pretty well. One point I would 
emphasize though is that the Norway spruce that we measured to 129.2 feet. is 
very significant. Even though it isn't a native species, the height is the best 
we've done for New England.


 A question that makes sense to raise is how do the 10 trees in Mohawk's RHI 
compare to other areas of New England, Northeast, the entire East? I'm unsure 
of the absolute Northeast maximum heights for a few species at this point, but 
I think that a useful index for a site might be the following.


RRI  = Sum(heights of 10 species in the RHI for a site)/Sum(champs of height 
for the 10 species in the site RHI but extended to a designated geographical 
Area). Here RRI = Relative Rucker Index.


MTSF scores around 0.96 for this index. Another index is:


        RRI = (RHI for site)/(Top RHI for geographical area).


For this variation, for the Northeast, MTSF = 0.99. That's not freaking bad for 
a little state forest in populous Massachusetts. As Austin Powers would say, 
"Yeah Baby"!


John, it was great to get out with you and Andrew. Lots of fun. Very rewarding.


Bob







----- Original Message -----
From: "John Eichholz" <[email protected]>
To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:09:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] Re: A Great Day with John and Andrew

Bob, ENTS:

It was great to spend the day with you, to meet Andrew, and to set
some records!.

Trout Brook basin does have some impressive hemlocks, along the brook,
and just below the Norway spruce stand.  There are more than a handful
above 120', and they don't seem old.  That is at 300m elevation, and
the 120's continue along a branch of the brook up to about 400m.
Above that there are some much older, larger ones, but they are in the
115' range.  The 152.8' pine is in a cluster of equally impressive
young pines at about 220m, at the mouth of the brook and just above
the highway.

Once we got past the pines, we saw trees blown down, including some of
the hemlocks along the bank.  Past the fork in the brook. in the flat
area before cove we found a tangle of downed ash, maple and basswood.
We were looking for a red maple that I had measured to 128' in 2006.
We first measured a tall sugar maple, 129.5' x 5.5' which we got to
just before reaching the red maple.  We found the tall red maple
leaning and partly uprooted, and the crown appeared to have broken off
in places, but still had a bushy top.  The highest top I measured was
125.5', a loss of 2.5'   It may still be the MTSF height leader, but
it is now competing with black cherry for a spot on the first Rucker
iteration for MTSF.  The white ash champ came next, and we found it
easily because it stood out and it is at the entrance to the cove.  We
easily found tops above 150', and as Bob said we converged on 152' as
the height of the tallest top.  It has held a height above 150' for
three years, so it place in history seems secured.  Close by this tree
is a sugar maple that has been the tallest in MTSF, and likely still
is, although it lost 2.2' to 132.2' x 5.1'c.  There were several other
maples in the 120's.  I don't remember finding any other ash above
140', but there were loads in the 130's, and a black birch at 106.9' x
4.9' by the brook.

On leaving we skirted up to the Norway spruce plantation, there
finding the champ in good shape and grown, and continued on to scout
the ledgy old growth area high above the road.  We had fun spotting
lots of maples to 125' and ash to 135', some of them quite large.  My
favorite was a 124' x 9.7' sugar maple right next to a 117.3' x 9' red
maple, among scenic moss covered boulders.

Our main objective over time is to reconfirm a RI 10-P index, and to
find out which trees have staying power on the list.  For now Trout
Brook has 4 of the top 11 height leaders for MTSF, black cherry being
the other, and for now the MTSF Rucker Index remains at 136.0.  Bob,
do you have any substitutions for this list?

John


Mohawk Trail State Forest Rucker Index November 2009
        sp        ht        cbh        dom
        WP        169.3        10.4        07/16/09
        WA        152.3        6.5        11/13/09
        NRO        133.5        9.3        11/25/04
        BNH        133.2        4.6        10/17/07
        SM        132.2        5.1        11/13/09
        EH        130.8        10.9        05/27/05
        AB        130.5        8.4        04/09/06
        ABW        126.9        5.5        04/25/06
        BTA        126.0        3.9        04/26/06
        RM        125.5        5.5        11/13/09

        RI 10        136.0
        RI 5        144.1

-- 
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]





-- 
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]



-- 
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]             
                          
_________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1

-- 
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]

Reply via email to