NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Ongoing research projects by ENTS and individual members

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by Don » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:49 am

Tom
From the AF Spring 2012 National Registry:

Champion REDCEDAR Western Thuja plicata 1945 761 159 45 931 WA Olympic NP F.W. Mathias
Or, Circumference = 761; Height = 159; Crown = 45; for an AF Total of 931 points.

I do not know when this tree was last measured, nor by whom, using which Method of Height Measurement. But it has withstood a significant measure of time, nigh on 70 years...I have looked at the image associated with it (http://www.americanforests.org/bigtree/thuja-plicata/), and can see no reason to doubt its circumference claim (short of knowing the exact path that managed to miss the many burls).
-Don
Last edited by Don on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

Joe

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by Joe » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:02 am

OK, got it. I may fire off some random comments on this subject when I get a chance. It's a great subject!
Joe

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by Don » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:12 am

On a separate note, I agree with Ed with regard to a standard height for measuring tree heights. It does capture the sense of dimension that most of us as humans perceive standing at the tree's base.
But for those of us who have experienced truly giant trees, dbh is a poor measure of "giantness". And perhaps oft as not, these giants refuse the columnar-cylinder-above-basal-flair-mode. In some small measure (pun enjoyed but not intended), these giants get their due with the relatively few modeling efforts undertaken by some of our fellow eNTS measurers, and from my meager knowledge base, some folks on the West Coast doing great work.
For the trees that do follow a columnar cylinder above a basal flair mode, we could asterisk a couple of additional girths...at a minimum, diameter at breast height, and one at the interface of the columnar cylinder and basal flair, as measured by an average of several macroscope readings ('calibrated by a macroscope reading at dbh'?, as a check).
As valuable, but more of a pain to measure, a measure of the around the base would provide some of the measures that could yield a estimate of basal volume. Circumferential anomalies such as burls, fire scars, exposed roots, all characteristics of the disturbances these giants have experienced over time will certainly stress those trying to take a measure of the base's circumference...but perhaps they deserve the time and energy spent?
-Don
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Historical Douglas Fir heights

Post by Don » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:52 am

Tom-
And finally, a snippet from Wikipedia:

A redcedar over 71m tall, 4.5m in diameter and over 700 years old stood in Cathedral Grove on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, before it was set on fire and destroyed by vandals in 1972. That tree now lies in "Giant's Grave", a self dug grave created by the force of its own impact.[16]

-Don
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

User avatar
KoutaR
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:41 am

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by KoutaR » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:02 am

Bob,

How long would one essay be? How long would one volume be?

Kouta

User avatar
dbhguru
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:34 pm

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by dbhguru » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:46 am

Kouta,

I think an essay should be around 3,000 words for those species for which we have lots of data and historical information. Species for which we have little information might get as few as 300 words. The most important big tree species like sequoias, redwoods, and eucalypts might need longer essays, say 4,000 words for each.

It is up to us where we stop a volume. I could see limiting a volume to the top 25 or 30 species for a geographical region. I'm thinking of public interest. But if we need more than 25 or 390, so be it.

Although I respect the positions of those who value the small trees for inclusion, as much as the largest ones, I doubt that the general public is that interested in the very small species. For example, how many people care about maximum size of a flowering dogwood as compared to an American sycamore? I may be wrong, but I don't see wide interest in the smaller species. In addition, there isn't much historical information on the small stuff. Nonetheless, if Ents come forward and volunteer to cover lots of smaller species, I'm happy to see them included. I just don't want to see a few dedicated Ents burdened with the whole project when dividing it up wouldn't be a burden to anyone.

Kouta, I see this book as always evolving through periodic updates - assuming that we can figure out an Internet way of making this happen. I'm waiting to hear Ed weigh in with responses to what has thus far been presented.

Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Co-founder, Native Native Tree Society
Co-founder and President
Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest
Co-founder, National Cadre

User avatar
edfrank
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by edfrank » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:12 pm

Bob,

People will be more responsive to what they perceive as a real book as opposed to internet available PDF files as we have done previously. It should be compiled offline as individual word documents for each specie, each with their own author or authors. Photos need to be properly credited, and care taken not to inadvertently plagiarize other peoples texts. Public domain stuff, Wikipedia, etc. are fine so long as they are credited. Critiques of published height data is fair game so long as the quotes are minimal.

Format. Initially it should be published as a eBook, Kindle through Amazon is the best place. We can set the book up through Amazon's Createspace which freely offers both eBook and print distribution. Initially the book should be put on KDP for the first 90 day as a downloadable eBook. The royalties from this outlet are 90 to 70% of the sale price. The price should be at least $10 with the money going to fund the website, database, fliers for events, and so forth. After 90 days we should go with one of the Print-on-Demand options. We could use Createspace through Amazon for POD, but really Smashwords is a better option. The book at this point would remain on Amazon as an eBook, just at a lower royalty rate. Smashwords offers a distribution package for $39 that includes libraries, etc. which is worth the price. The cost for the POD book would be whatever it costs for the print plus a fee for the distribution/sales plus a fair profit for the NTS.

People respect more what they pay for, and the book should be sold rather than just given away. Whether the authors share oin the profits or donate them all to the NTS is up to the participants. That being said, when the book is on KDP select initially, we can have up to five free days where the book is given away to generate interest and later sales.

The photos need to be sized to dispaly optimally on the Kindle readers, but we would not be constrained for the later print version. We would need to purchase an ISBN number for print sales and distribution through Smashwords. It we initially set it up in Createspace, they will provide a ISBN number for both their print and eBook editions. We would need a different ISBN number for use with Smashwords as we can't use the Createspace number.

Edward Frank
"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

User avatar
dbhguru
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:34 pm

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by dbhguru » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:14 pm

Ed,

Sounds like the way to go, i.e. an eBook through Amazon. I figured that you'd have a good handle on the best way to go. After I finish the chapter for Joan Maloof, I'll start a draft for the white pine. Anyone who wants to join me as a coauthor is fine.

Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Co-founder, Native Native Tree Society
Co-founder and President
Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest
Co-founder, National Cadre

User avatar
edfrank
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by edfrank » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:03 pm

Doug,

I see no problem with taking multiple girths at different heights. One for the US standard, and one for the standard of that country, and more as appropriate.

Ed
"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

User avatar
DougBidlack
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: NTS Book Project on Big Trees of the World

Post by DougBidlack » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:54 pm

Ed,

I'm glad that it doesn't bother you to take a couple measurements since it really isn't that hard. I guess I was especially thinking about Europe where those on the continent would measure girth at 1.3m and those in England would measure at 1.5m. I could see some people in England being somewhat upset seeing German and French measurements of say Q. robur at a lower level which may increase their measurements just a bit.

If I understand Don's comments correctly, I think he was saying that we could try to measure the volume of the lower portion of the tree trunk. This would actually give a better representation of the lower portion of the tree trunk that is closer to us humans. I tried this once with the Ohio state champion white oak when I measured the girth at 1 foot increments from 1 foot to 8 feet as well as at 4.5 feet. Will Blozan then calculated an approximate volume below 8 feet. I was doing this for the same reason that Don mentioned (at least I think so); namely to take out weird formations like burls which seem to have a habit of forming right at breast height. I know most people can't reach to 8 feet, but this could be a good use of Bob's photographic measuring technique. Do you think this would be too much work? I would actually love to do this.


Bob,

you mention 25 to 30 or so trees and yet the 40m height limit would result in over 50 trees for eastern North America as Kouta pointed out. Are you thinking of making the height limit higher? Also, Im wondering about the term big trees. Are we really just interested in tall trees. What about high volume trees that are not very tall like live oak. Bob Van Pelt included the top 20 volume trees in his 'Forest Giants of the Pacific'. This is maybe not so easy for the eastern trees because there doesn't seem to be as sharp a drop off in size as in the west. It makes drawing the line so very difficult. Selecting the top basketball teams for March Madness seems like a walk in the park by comparison!

Doug

Post Reply

Return to “Current Research Project Listings”