All, I've gone back through my notes on this beech tree. We shot the tree from the point of the view in the picture. The lower site line was 2˚ @ 76.5 yards = 8.01'. Normally you add the lower site line because the base of the tree is almost always below your eye point when shooting on 'level ground'. However, as you can see in the picture of the tree, the base is actually uphill from the shooter. The foreshortening of the zoom lense of the camera makes this more noticeable than it was in person. I think there is a reasonable chance we should be subtracting 8' instead of adding, giving one 127.6'. I think we need to withdraw this number until this tree can be remeasured.
Sorry Guys, On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Jess Riddle wrote: > Steve, > > Beech rarely dominant sites in the southeast, except at high > elevations. It does occur scattered at multiple sites with 170' > tuliptrees, but still struggles to reach 120'. I've never been to a > tall tree site where beech was the second tallest species. > > It would be great to see some black maple numbers from a fertile site. > > Jess > > > > On 11/15/09, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Sand Run revisited >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Jess, ENTS- >> >> I didn't realize the beech was that exceptional---its height must >> be due to >> its location in the valley and competition with the tuliptrees; I >> think >> Randy measured the circumference also. I'm no sure how frequent a >> tuliptree/beech association is in the south, but tulips are by far >> the >> predominant tree in this area, followed by beech. The latitude is N >> 41' 08. >> The aspect of the site was that of a relatively young forest in >> vigorous >> growth, with most trees having tall, straight, clean boles(see red >> oak >> photo), with hardly any gnarl factor, other than the 157' tulip in >> the >> earlier photo. The soils and topography must greatly influence the >> growth >> potential. >> >> Other measured trees were a bitternut hickory at 123.7', red oak at >> 124.7', >> slippery elm at 121', white ash at 123', and sycamore at 121.95'. >> As I >> mentioned earlier, sugar/black maples were relatively scarce, but >> in the >> 120' range. The canopy height in a general sense was 120-130'. >> Most of the >> mature tulips were 130-140'. Other nice trees were black and white >> oaks, and >> basswood, which I plan to measure later this year, as well as >> hemlock which >> are in a different area of the park. >> >> >> Attached are a Rucker height index, which will likely increase with >> different species, and a few more photos. >> >> >> Tuliptree 158.1 8'4'' N 41' 08.030 W >> 81' 33.697 >> Bitternut Hickory 123.7 >> Red Oak 124.7 N 41' 07.986 W 81' >> 33.728 >> Slippery Elm 121 >> American Beech 143.6 >> White Ash 123 >> Sycamore 121.95 >> Walnut 106 >> Butternut 95 >> Cottonwood 124 >> >> R.I. Height 124.1 >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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]
