Gary, When I looked for New England LiDAR earlier this year, there was no statewide coverage for any of the New England states. Some local governments, though, had acquired data. Log on to your specific local government web sites and search locally within them for GIS or LIDAR and browse around the results to find out if data is available for areas that you may be concerned with. There is a bit more data available than has been collected by the USGS Lidar web site.
Paul On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Gary A Beluzo <[email protected]> wrote: > Josh, > > I look forward to the LIDAR article (I presume in the ENTS bulletin?). > North Carolina us way ahead of MA in terms if LIDAR coverage ( oh boy I can > see I have opened MA to a full verbal assault by my fellow southern ENTS > brothers. > > > Gary > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Gary A Beluzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Will, >> >> This gets us back into the heart of the NATURAL (AUTOPOIETIC) versus >> MAN-AGED (Artificial) debate which is so critical for ENTS to undertake. It >> really goes to the crux of what to call these forests and how to think/talk >> about them. We shouldn't simply accept the understanding and pronouncements >> of traditional forestry now that systems ecology is available. >> >> Gary >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Will Blozan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Mike, >>> >>> Very true. I think we humans may be inadvertently responsible for these >>> trees to finally fully express their potential. As such, are they >>> artificial? >>> >>> 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 Michael Davie >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:34 PM >>> To: ENTSTrees >>> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing >>> expedition 1-2010 >>> >>> I think the reason that these second-growth stands tend to be the >>> taller ones would be due to a couple of factors. The fact that the >>> area was cut at one time would create a densely competing stand of >>> evenly-aged trees, in excellent soils and on good sites. The trees, >>> growing as a unit, have not been through enough great disturbances to >>> start battering the crowns and texturing the canopy. They protect each >>> other from wind, to a certain extent. As they get older and more >>> broken up in the tops, with more canopy gaps and individual exposure, >>> they might be more likely to become shorter, overall, or at least they >>> might even out. I don't know how often we would naturally get such >>> total removal and regeneration of a forest stand on a site like this, >>> even with hurricanes and downbursts (but sure, maybe), so these types >>> of tall forests may not be possible without being clearcut in the >>> first place. >>> Mike >>> >>> On Jan 12, 12:18 am, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Josh, ENTS- >>>> >>>> So why would second growth be taller than old growth, unless the old >>>> >>> growth >>> >>>> was really second growth "once removed"? I think if younger trees are >>>> growing larger and faster than their ancestors, they must have been >>>> >>> released >>> >>>> from some environmental constraint, which might relate to climate >>>> change, >>>> >>> or >>> >>>> species mix degradation in the forest. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Josh Kelly >>>> >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Will, Gaines, >>>>> >>>> >>>> The "Type Map: Gennett Lumber Company Tract No. 309f.g. Graham Co. >>>>> North Carolina" by John Wasilk (sound familiar) and Party from June, >>>>> July 1935 clearly shows an abandoned field adjacent to second growth >>>>> coves we visited, but depicts the coves, like the 99% of the rest of >>>>> the 13,055 acre tract, as "virgin". The more I think about it, the >>>>> more I think those coves were logged sometime from August 1935-late >>>>> 1937, when the USFS acquired the tract. The wagon road that led to >>>>> the abandoned field gave better access to that exceptional spot than >>>>> was available to Poplar Cove, so now we are left with exceptional 2nd >>>>> growth, rather than exceptional old-growth. I'd wager many of the >>>>> poplars in that stand regenerated in the late 1930's while a few are a >>>>> decade or two older. For all of you botanically inclined ENTS, I have >>>>> started to key in on a couple of tall tree and high-productivity-site- >>>>> indicating herbs. They are Goldie's Fern (Dryopteris goldiana) and >>>>> walking fern (Asplenium rhizophyllum), both basophiles or >>>>> calceophiles. A number of the tall tree spots in the Smokies have one >>>>> or both of these species as well as "Wachacha Flats" -the name I >>>>> propose for the exceptional 2nd growth area at Kilmer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> For all of you of you folks interesed in LiDAR and tall trees, I am >>>>> compiling an article from information contributed by Paul Jost, Jenn >>>>> Hushaw (Nichols School masters student at Duke), Hugh Irwin (ENTS, >>>>> SAFC), Will Blozan, Jess Riddle, and myself. Included in the article >>>>> will be a narrative about our experiences utilizing LiDAR data and >>>>> some notes on its accuracy and precision in the mountains of North >>>>> Carolina. It will also include some fancy smancy maps! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Josh >>>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 11, 7:22 pm, "Will Blozan" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Gaines, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> I have a 170 footer in Big Creek; 69 years at BH. The Kilmer trees may >>>>>> >>>>> only >>>>> >>>>>> be 75 years old. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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 7:20 PM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing >>>>>> expedition 1-2010 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Will: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks for the very exciting account of your survey in Joyce >>>>>> Kilmer. Maybe you know, but there have been reports of site indexes >>>>>> of up to 140 feet for tuliptree. Second growth can really be >>>>>> something if given just a little time. I don't have any data for >>>>>> tuliptree growth rates past 50 years. It may be out there. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> --Gaines >>>>>> >>>>> >>>
