Tallest three eastern sites compared

General discussions of measurement techniques and the results of testing of techniques and equipment.

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: Tallest three eastern sites compared

Post by Will Blozan » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:26 pm

Don,

I'm not exactly sure about your last comment... but if I were to envision a TDI system used in champion tree lists it would be as follows:

All trees measured (NTS approved methods) for girth, height and maximum spread (the TDI is based on maximums).
Every species would have a maximum point ranking of 300 (this would be a single tree with all known maxima, BTW).
Co-champions would be trees within 30 points (10%).

Of course, knowing what trees define the 100 mark for each metric would be essential to know. This information would have to reside in a "master list" easily assessable to all. In this way the TDI is not as "portable" as a point-based system. For example, before I go out in the woods I consult a champion tree list and know that I need to find an " X" species with "X" amount of cumulative points to be a champion. In contrast, with the TDI system I would have to know all three max dimensions as well as the highest score to know if I had a champion. It can be done but it is not a single number easily stored in my head for multiple species...

I think the CA and PA champion tree lists include the maximum for each dimension as well as the highest point total. I think this is a great idea and allows for more than one beastly tree to be acknowledged. With the TDI system this would be ideal as all three maximum dimension holders would be represented and the individual with the highest relative ranking (and co-champs) would be as well. This allows the super-tall forest trees to reside with the fat, open-grown trees in fields. Alas, that is the beauty of the TDI system- it levels the playing field so all can come out and play!

Will

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

Re: Tallest three eastern sites compared

Post by edfrank » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:04 pm

Will, Don

Actually it would not make much of a difference if a new tree had a value in excess of the 100% value. You might get some values over 300%, but they would still be ordered right for the most part. (The values over 100% would be over-weighted with respect to the other dimensions, but if it were enough to affect the championship status of that individual species the TDI values could be recalculated for it and all the champion candidates for that one species, otherwise it would be OK). The 100% standard for dimensions could be posted on an accessible location and used for a set period of time, then it would be updated based on the newest and greatest dimensions and the TDI values recalculated for those species affected by the changes when the base numbers are revised.

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
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: Tallest three eastern sites compared

Post by Will Blozan » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:23 pm

Ed,

I agree but in this day of live databases I would- ideally- like to see the numbers automatically updated regularly. However, a set schedule could be good so we wouldn't feel like they could change overnight.

Will

Post Reply

Return to “Measurement and Dendromorphometry”