Same is true for coast redwood, the tallest measured redwood is
considered relatively young. The same is true for many tree species in
Mohawk Trail State Forest, max height potential is reached by relatively
young trees for a given stand, the white ash in Mohawk are good
examples. The older trees have big CBH but much less height. That's why
I think that scaling up a tree like Jake Swamp to the dimensions
required to produce a "Royal Navy" mast may get very close to revealing
the height class of the pines were that produced those masts. Or even
better use one of Jess Riddle's north Geogia 180's, they may already be
close to meeting royal navy spec.
-AJ
Will Blozan wrote:
Gaines,
BTW, the tallest known eastern white pine, the "Boogerman Pine" is likely
over 350 years old. As far as volume goes- it is small!
The tallest white pines will soon be the young ones Jess Riddle found in
northern GA. These trees are around 70-80 years old and over 185'.
Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.
"No sympathy for apathy"
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Gaines McMartin
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Projected heights
Andrew, Bob, Don, etc.:
I think you need to be very careful with these projections. The
problem I have with any model based on any existing white pine trees
is that the theory that there were 250 (or whatever) foot tall white
pines in the past is besed on the idea that those trees were much
older than the tallest we see today. From the white pines we see
today we can be fairly sure that trees of similar ages did not grow
significantly taller--we have enough data to say that trees of the age
of the present tallest white pines are at or very near the maximum
possible for any white pine not signigicantly older.
But there were, in the past, white pines that at least had the
opportunity to grow taller for something like 400 years. None of the
present tallest white pines, as far as I know, approach that age. If
they do, they have reached their maximum height. But, of course, if
the very tall white pines in virgin forests, like the one preserved in
the Cook Forest, were 400 years old and not 250 feet tall, we could
look and see if they are growing on the best kind of growing site. It
is on the assumption that the much older white pines of the past had a
longer time to grow very tall, and were growing on a superior growing
site, that the theory of 250 white pines must be based
Now my concern is that the older a white pine gets, the more its
trunk taper near the top changes. The taper near the top of old--200
year or so--white pine trees increases as their age increases even
more. I don't think you can really do a good model of the form of a
very, very old white pine, and do height projections, based on data
from other old, but not nearly so old white pine trees.
--Gaines Mcmartin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/10/10, Andrew Joslin <[email protected]> wrote:
To deal with the variations in a real world non-uniform white pine trunk
taper would it be possible to pick a tree that we have volume data on,
(either a Smokies, Mohawk or Cooks tall white pine), use it as a model
case, apply its irregular form/taper to the values required for a Royal
Navy mast and see where the height falls so-to-speak? This would have a
fairly high margin of error since we know the form of a white pine top
so variable, might be able to get within 15-20 ft. which is better than
nothing. But... if this exercise was done across say 20 of the tallest
white pines in the east the margin of error might be reduced to
something usable.
Is there a way to come up with a value for average thickness of bark and
cambium/sapwood at the base of the trunk and at the upper end for a
mature white pine to factor in approximately what the top and bottom
diameter of the log section needed to be before it was shaped into a
mast sized log? Maybe it's too early in this thought process to start
trying to work on that variable.
Not being very mathematically inclined I can only suggest possibilities
but can't actually come up with the algorithms.
-AJ
Bob wrote:
Don, ENTS,
The following formula projects the remaining height of a tree
using a main log and an assumption about overall trunk form. I will
use computer symbols for the mathatical operators.
Let
R1 = radius of lower end of log
R2 = radius of upper end of log
L. = length of log
H. = height of remainder of tree
P = form factor
P = 0.5 for paraboloid
P = 1 for cone
P = 1.5 for neiloid
Then
H = [L * R1^(1/P)] / [R2^(1/P)- R1^(1/P)]
If you apply this formula, you quickly see than assuming a conical
form leads to a greater height than assuming a paraboloid form.
The actual trunk form may change several times, so that this
approach to projecting remaining height probably can't be reliably
used for many conifers - especially older ones. I'll give examples in
another email. Typing on this iPhone is a pain in the #%*.
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
