Dissection of red maple fusion

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

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by Don » Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:47 pm

Mario/Will-
You've brought forward some really excellent examples of single- versus multi-stemmed issues. While we're temporarily on hold at AF's MGWG on this issue, we should be addressing as soon as next month, and your examples will be likely to undergo considerable scrutiny.
There's a part of me that remains detached, as that part of me is very pleased to see our MGWG paying close attention, and more likely to result in an informed decision.
That said, the rest of me wishes to fan the fire. When trees such as your examples are viewed, they are small enough to make some good guesses. When attaining 'giant' sizes, and the mythical middle of the bole pithlines are 7-10' apart, I have a real hard time keeping my mind open.
The thing that makes it difficult for all of us is when the tree(s) have managed to "cover up" the bulging and approach a round appearing cross-section. But hey, that's what they pay us the big money for!
Kudos to both of you for your cross-sections, both different, both informative!
-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: 1560
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by Don » Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:49 pm

Will/Mario/Ed-
With your permission, I'd like to bring this thread to AF's MGWG's attention, both for the cross-sectioned images as well as your dialogue, from #1 through #20. Would you mind?
Thanks for your quality explanations!
-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
mdvaden
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by mdvaden » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:36 pm

Will Blozan wrote:Mario,

Excellent photos! I like the two-way cut to show more than one angle. I can't believe that plum had not failed yet... Redbud does that a lot here. The first slice of the tree you asked about was not near the ground. It was a fused section of the tree higher up. I cut it simply for the purpose presented.

Like Ed, I would not call the cedar a single tree for measurement purposes. There is an eight-stemmed silver maple here in my town (current NC State Champion) that was planted by the late owner. He bought it at a nursery and brought it home in the trunk of his car. Apparently he planted it too deep or something and it died but sent up root sprouts. Now it is a "forest" of large stems fused (and some not) into a 7 foot diameter mass. Single root system, same seed or cutting, but not a single stem. It is an imposter, and the other trees he planted the same day are single stem and barely 2.5 feet diameter. The fused beast clearly shows what happens as a collective effort. Each individual stem of the fused beast is smaller than the individual trees planted the same day.

Are cedars rooted from cuttings? Is it possible there was more than one cutting (or seed) put in a pot to help ensure success? I ask this since when I see multi-trunked plantings of some non-fertile varieties (Chaemacyparis, etc.) I KNOW they did not fork.

Like Ed said, we are simply perceiving trees differently. I am a purist.

Will
Will ...

Yes, I agree, the Cedar would not at all fit for measurement purposes to qualify. Or at least if it got huge, the largest stem only would be measured.

The more I think through all this stuff though, the more sense it makes to me whether a tree is a single trunk for measurement purposes would depend on whether all of it germinated from one seed, and grew on one root system.

Then, whether it was one trunk or fused ( from one seed and root system) it's measurement would depend on where the stems parted ... at what height and how that fits American Forest's criteria for measuring.

I'm amazed that trees like that flowering plum did not fail sooner. Heck ... that bigger stem was wedged-down to a mere few inches of size and attachment, pinched and hidden inside the wood.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by mdvaden » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 pm

Don wrote:Will/Mario/Ed-
With your permission, I'd like to bring this thread to AF's MGWG's attention, both for the cross-sectioned images as well as your dialogue, from #1 through #20. Would you mind?
Thanks for your quality explanations!
-Don

Sound good ...

If you even need slightly larger photos from my small collection, I can always email or share a bit more resolution too.

Seems like no interesting removal should go away without a good 'ol photo shoot to preserve it's story
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by mdvaden » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Don wrote:Mario/Will-
You've brought forward some really excellent examples of single- versus multi-stemmed issues. While we're temporarily on hold at AF's MGWG on this issue, we should be addressing as soon as next month, and your examples will be likely to undergo considerable scrutiny.
There's a part of me that remains detached, as that part of me is very pleased to see our MGWG paying close attention, and more likely to result in an informed decision.
That said, the rest of me wishes to fan the fire. When trees such as your examples are viewed, they are small enough to make some good guesses. When attaining 'giant' sizes, and the mythical middle of the bole pithlines are 7-10' apart, I have a real hard time keeping my mind open.
The thing that makes it difficult for all of us is when the tree(s) have managed to "cover up" the bulging and approach a round appearing cross-section. But hey, that's what they pay us the big money for!
Kudos to both of you for your cross-sections, both different, both informative!
-Don
If I understand you correctly ... what you shared is why my mind thinks that if there's a huge tree ... and it's possible it''s form or state could be from more than one way of developing, we should measure and go with what we see, if it's not possible to dissect the tree and prove that a certain change happened and resides within that could disqualify it.

In other words, if there's a 50% suspicion, but it can't be proved, then the case ain't been proved.

If there is proof, then by all means go with the proof.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by mdvaden » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:45 pm

Hee ... hee ...

One tree with two roots that grew downward into stems ... or two trees that fused ... ??

Only a couple of hundred feet from the Klootchy Spruce, Oregon's previous champion Sitka Spruce that broke a few years ago.
Attachments
natural_graft.jpg
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by Don » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:51 am

Mario-
That's probably as good of job of putting words in my mouth as it gets...:>)
Short of destructive sampling (felling the tree and slicing off cookies until the scenario is clear), it's a by god guess on the monster trees. I could select a bunch of registry trees between 500 and 1000 AF point scores that I would comfortably describe as multi-stemmed. That is to say, two trees. They would have two piths emerging from the groundline (if the original groundline can still be determined), each of which display distinct concentric annual ring sets. The fact that they kept growing closer together until making contact, then bulged out as the pressure displaced the contact area, then over time grew over with a seemingly single sheath of bark...what is my failsafe decision maker? If they were two separate genus/species would you say they are one? Neither would I. You have my answer I guess.

Do they belong in the registry, to my way of thinking? Yes and no. It's not fair to single-stemmed trees to compete with two-, three-, and more-stemmed monsters. So I favor separate but equal categories, or as a compromise, a single column entry for single-stemmed species champs and asterisked multi-stemmed champs. I mean, they're big, what part of Big Trees aren't we understanding?

So I suppose I might have been able to respond to your question in a shorter fashion, but there you have it...what are your thoughts?
-Don

mdvaden wrote:
Don wrote:Mario/Will-
You've brought forward some really excellent examples of single- versus multi-stemmed issues. While we're temporarily on hold at AF's MGWG on this issue, we should be addressing as soon as next month, and your examples will be likely to undergo considerable scrutiny.
There's a part of me that remains detached, as that part of me is very pleased to see our MGWG paying close attention, and more likely to result in an informed decision.
That said, the rest of me wishes to fan the fire. When trees such as your examples are viewed, they are small enough to make some good guesses. When attaining 'giant' sizes, and the mythical middle of the bole pithlines are 7-10' apart, I have a real hard time keeping my mind open.
The thing that makes it difficult for all of us is when the tree(s) have managed to "cover up" the bulging and approach a round appearing cross-section. But hey, that's what they pay us the big money for!
Kudos to both of you for your cross-sections, both different, both informative!
-Don
If I understand you correctly ... what you shared is why my mind thinks that if there's a huge tree ... and it's possible it''s form or state could be from more than one way of developing, we should measure and go with what we see, if it's not possible to dissect the tree and prove that a certain change happened and resides within that could disqualify it.

In other words, if there's a 50% suspicion, but it can't be proved, then the case ain't been proved.

If there is proof, then by all means go with the proof.
Last edited by Don on Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:06 am, edited 2 times 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

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by Don » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:56 am

Mario-
Until show otherwise, I have my doubts that two trees, with two separate pithlines and each having their own set of concentric annual ring sets at the groundline, can fuse into one pithline with one concentric ringset. I think your first supposition is closer to the mark...what a weird thing...is there any reasonable excuse for the depression the kid is standing in? Could there have been a nurse tree that eventually rotted and eroded away?
Belongs to "Trees of Mystery" down the road a piece!
-Don

mdvaden wrote:Hee ... hee ...

One tree with two roots that grew downward into stems ... or two trees that fused ... ??

Only a couple of hundred feet from the Klootchy Spruce, Oregon's previous champion Sitka Spruce that broke a few years ago.
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
mdvaden
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by mdvaden » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:19 pm

Don wrote:Mario-
Until show otherwise, I have my doubts that two trees, with two separate pithlines and each having their own set of concentric annual ring sets at the groundline, can fuse into one pithline with one concentric ringset. I think your first supposition is closer to the mark...what a weird thing...is there any reasonable excuse for the depression the kid is standing in? Could there have been a nurse tree that eventually rotted and eroded away?
Belongs to "Trees of Mystery" down the road a piece!
-Don
Knowing how much nurse tree stuff is in the area ... my guess leans heavily toward a nurse tree and the log or stump decayed and vanished.

Actually, the Klootchy Creek tree had to be a nurse tree too. Virtually no mention of it is written in articles. But it's very obvious from looking at the lower trunk that it had to have germinated about 12 feet above the ground centuries ago. There are still the tell-tall creases up and down the lower trunk. It's just so old, that the long roots have grown fat and developed to look a lot like as if one trunk grew from ground up.
Attachments
Klootchy_Spruce_600.jpg
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
AndrewJoslin
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Dissection of red maple fusion

Post by AndrewJoslin » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:24 am

Really great photo series! I'm impressed at how well the stems are refusing over the bark inclusion. It looks better (stronger) in the cross sections than it does from the outside.

Thanks for all the effort required to put that together!
-AJ

Post Reply

Return to “Measurement and Dendromorphometry”