Ed
I'm inclined to agree. Branch modeling rears it's head as
critically important to determing volume for these big spreaders.
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2009, at 6:35 PM, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott, Bob, Others,
>
>
> If you look at the data from the Middleton oak, there are some
> interesting numbers. The Middleton oak tree was 10.44 feet in
> diameter (32.8 feet girth), and 67.4 feet tall. The main trunk
> volume was 970 cubic feet, while the heavy branches, down to a
> diameter of 1.5 inches, had a volume of 3,850 cubic feet. The
> branches had 4x the volume of the trunk itself.
> http://www.nativetreesociety.org/projects/middleton/middletonproj.htm
> If there is to be a consideration of the largest sycamore, I would
> think we should be looking for one that not only has a fat trunk,
> but one with numerous big branches. If it doesn't have the big
> branches, then a tree with a smaller girth, but bigger branches is
> likely to be larger in volume. That is considering the common
> growth form of open grown sycamores is one with broad heavy branches.
>
> Ed
>
> <john_goodway.jpg>
> John Goodway Sycamore
> http://www.pabigtrees.com/trees/species/platanus_sycamore.htm
>
> <sunderland.jpg>
> Sunderland Sycamore
> http://www.nativetreesociety.org/species/sycamore/great_sycamores_of_the_northeast.htm
>
>
>
> Check out my new Blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ (and
> click on some of the ads)
> --
> 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]
