I think that we have talked about this before a few years ago. Suppose that you could video conference between two i-phones, one in your hand and another on an RC airplane or dirigible to allow video or still imagery to be taken. The i-phone's gps might give locations. Can you remote access control an iphone? Probably not, but I bet a droid phone could be made to do it. ...just kind of brainstorming...
PJ On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM, DON BERTOLETTE <[email protected]>wrote: > Gary- > How about helium filled part balloons...;>} Wait, you.ve probably seen > that before! > -Don > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing > expedition 1-2010 > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:29:13 -0500 > > > Thanks Paul, will do. > > BTW, have you run into any neat gadgets for remotely viewing the canopy > that are affordable? I have been wondering whether a webcam on a cable > system controlled from the ground would work. One of my Limno buddies is > building a submersible out of PVC pipe, remote control props and webcam for > his aquatic class..I wonder what could be used to explore a canopy remotely > (ballon, cables, telescopic pole, etc). > > Gary > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Paul Jost <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> > [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]> > [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]> > [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]>[email protected] > [mailto:<[email protected]> > [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]>[email protected] > [mailto:<[email protected]> > [email protected]] > > On > > > Behalf Of Gaines McMartin > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:20 PM > To: <[email protected]>[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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up > now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/> >
