Trees without any data

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

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

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

Trees without any data

Post by edfrank » Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:24 pm

I compiled a listing of native trees in the continental United States using the search function on the USDA plant database http://plants.usda.gov/java/ It consists of 1261 species or hybrids that meet their definition of a tree. I did not include all of the subspecies in the generated list. We all know that some species of shrubs or even subshrubs may in some cases reach the 15 foot height specified, but may still be missing from the list. The next step was taking the most recent ENTS Max list compiled by Jess Riddle and compare it to the all trees list I generated. I marked all of the species appearing on the Max list in green. We have on our list a few species, subspecies, or varieties that are not on the all trees master list. These have been added and color coded gray. The species that do not have any measurements on the max list are left as white or no color.
list.JPG
list.JPG (54.83 KiB) Viewed 1376 times
A quick scan shows there are many more species for which we have no measurements than species for which we do have measurements. There may be a handful of species for which we do have some data but do not appear on the list. Also for many of the species on the Max List we have only a handful, or even measurements from a single specimen. There are hundreds of species out there to be measured, and certainly many of the unmeasured species can be found near where most of you live. We do not have numbers on our max list for several of the extremely tall western species; the Douglas fir, western red cedar, coastal redwood, giant sequoia, sugar pine, western hemlock. There are good measurements of these species from both ground based surveys and climbs and tape drops, they just have not been entered into out data set. However for the vast majority of smaller western species, nobody has any accurate measurements at all. So if you vacation out west, take along your measurement gear and get some numbers.
tree list.xlsx
(82.07 KiB) Downloaded 69 times
Edward Forrest 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
Don
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Don » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:45 am

Ed-
Good effort! I was trying to do a similar exercise, but not with the Plants dBase...a much more complete listing! Mine had less species, but more overlap...
Re Western trees, we trying!
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
ElijahW
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:04 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by ElijahW » Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:49 pm

Well done, Ed. Thank you for doing the work.

Elijah
"There is nothing in the world to equal the forest as nature made it. The finest formal forest, the most magnificent artificially grown woods, cannot compare with the grandeur of primeval woodland." Bob Marshall, Recreational Limitations to Silviculture in the Adirondacks

User avatar
tsharp
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by tsharp » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:28 am

Ed:
You used Jess's maxlist as a basis of trees measured. His list is primarily eastern trees. Try using the Trees Database species listing and you should be able to pick up a number of western species.

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

Re: Trees without any data

Post by edfrank » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:06 pm

Turner, yes I used Jess's max list. I wanted to use something that was neatly compiled and I wasn't sure that the database had all of the tree species that were measured on his list had been entered. I will post a revised list when I get a chance. This was simply a quick compilation and I will add the trees in the DB as soon as I get time.

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

Climbatree813
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:06 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Climbatree813 » Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:55 pm

For Eastern Shrubs/Trees I have good numbers on Smooth Sumac (three that shatter AF numbers) and Red Osier Dogwood. I have gotten numbers for Pussy Willow but I have absolutely no clue how to measure circumference. Pussy Willow is all but exclusively a clump in my area. Just a bunch of branches that make up one big willow. Bebb's Willow is one I believe I have found but is really really tough to distinguish in my opinion. A species I did not see on the list that I have specimen up to 15 ft tall is Bog Birch. I found a number of specimen growing alongside some dogwood near my home.

That's about all I got. Every time I try to identify Willow or Hawthorn I end up frustrated and confused. =) You want numbers in the Database or elsewhere?

Also, I think I can boost our Eastern Larch/Tamarack numbers some. I found a bog in Northern Minnesota not long ago with some of the largest I had ever seen. From the surface I did not see any quite as large as the MN/AF record, but certainly as tall, and I really only explored the surface of it.

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

Re: Trees without any data

Post by edfrank » Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:31 pm

Please post the numbers here and add them to the Database if the heights have been measured accurately using ENTS methodologies - laser rangefider/clinometer, tape drops, pole measurements, etc. The height measurement stuff in in our tree measurement guideline pdfs here on the BBS http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=297&t=3293 and or the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_height_measurement Girth measurements can be taken using the method outlined in the Tree Measruing guidelines or this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_girth_measurement The Wikipedia articles I know are correct because I wrote them. For a clumping tree like the pussy willow, measure the girth at 4.5 feet on the tallest branch.

Hawthorns are a real pain. Some references list as many as 1000 different species and sub species that are all but indistinguishable. For some you need to see how the bud out, what their flowers look like, and there fruit all of which are not happening at the same time. This is a summary of what I found when looking about hawthorns when faced with them in our Allegheny River Islands Wilderness research. http://www.nativetreesociety.org/specie ... lemmas.htm

Ed 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

Climbatree813
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:06 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Climbatree813 » Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:57 pm

Well I lost my data for the tallest of the three sumac, but that was not what they were significant for anyways. Measured heights with a pole and with clinometer/rangefinder methods.

Smooth Sumac
Circumference at 4.5 ft: 12 inches
Height: 25.25 ft
Average Canopy Diameter: 13 ft


Click on image to see its original size

Smooth Sumac
Circumference at 4.5 ft: 23 inches
Height: 21.25 ft
Average Canopy: 7.27 ft


Click on image to see its original size

I'll see when I am home again at some point if I can measure the tall sumac. I have a lot of impressive smooth sumac its just a matter of gathering in the data from the last number of years.

Red Osier Dogwood
Circumference at 4.5 ft: 11.5 inches
Height: 18 ft tall
Average Canopy: 9 ft

Unfortunately the Bog Birch numbers got lost when my old phone died. I'll see if I can remeasure at some point.

And the Tamarack Bog that I need to get back to (extends for hundreds of acres worth):

Click on image to see its original size
Last edited by Climbatree813 on Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Trees without any data

Post by edfrank » Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:18 pm

Very cool - This is the type of response I was hoping the post would generate. Bring on the love for some of these unmeasured species!!
"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

Climbatree813
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:06 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Climbatree813 » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:57 pm

Found a staghorn sumac today. The thing that impressed me so much on this individual was the canopy. This one is located in Stevens Point, Wi. The other two, both smooth sumac, are both in Medina, MN.

Staghorn Sumac
Circumference at 4.5 ft: 30 inches
Average Canopy: 31.5 ft
Maximum Canopy: 34 ft
Height (Measured with measuring pole): 26.5 ft


Click on image to see its original size


Click on image to see its original size

So, looking at this picture, every sumac leaf you see is this one tree. The canopy is enormous. I thought it was a grove of a bunch of sumac until I followed them down to the source where they all branch at about 4 ft 8 inches above the base.
Last edited by Climbatree813 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Measurement and Dendromorphometry”