Trees without any data

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

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Erik Danielsen
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Erik Danielsen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:06 pm

I'm still having trouble finding the maxlist itself after searching via both the site's internal search function and searching externally through google. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I've been using the maximums list posted on Matt's profile blog, which lacks data for some of the species highlighted in green here.

In particular I'm curious about the numbers for Quercus prinoides as I've found some nice patches of them in zoar valley.

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

Re: Trees without any data

Post by edfrank » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:35 pm

There has been an ongoing debate about the proprieties of releasing the entire maxlist among major contributors. It is not posted on either the BBS or website at the moment.

As for your specific question we have only 1 tree on our list, so it is by default our champion in all categories. You may have a larger specimen at Zoar. I proposed a few days ago releasing at least a maximum height list with state only location information so people would have something to go by, but the post has not recieved any responses.

Quercus prinoides Oak, Dwarf chinquapin height 29 cbh 21.2 Max spread 26 average spread 23 Open grown yes yes yes Arnold Arboretum Boston, MA MA Jul-09 Doug Bidlack http://www.nativetreesociety.org/fieldt ... in_oak.htm

I did not search the NTS database. It may have additional data.

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

User avatar
Erik Danielsen
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Erik Danielsen » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:59 pm

I see. A max height list with state-only information is in fact something I've found myself wishing for; it'd make a nice reference. For example, now I know roughly what height range would be considered noteworthy for that particular species, which will help focus my measuring since I know what to look for.

User avatar
Jess Riddle
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:59 am

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Jess Riddle » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:01 pm

climbatree,

Did you check staghorn versus smooth sumac? All the smooth sumac I saw in South Dakota were shrubs less than head height, but New York has some of the largest staghorn sumac I've ever seen. Regardless of species, 30" will be a new girth record. The spread will be hard to beat too. Any more information on the locations and habitats?

Ed,

I've had similar thoughts while updating the MaxList. It has been kind of painful to enter numbers that I know are way smaller than what a species can do, but those numbers are the only ones we've collected. My thought was to start doing a "Most wanted list" with regular posts on individual species, similar to what Matt Markworth has done with the Tree of the Week forum. Each post would highlight a species that we have either no measurements for or measurements from only one or two small trees. The posts would include some information that might be helpful in finding larger individuals like the species range, any species it might be confused with, and common habitats. The one thing we will have to be careful with in filling in the unmeasured species is making sure they are identified correctly. Most of these species will be fairly obscure, and many will be difficult to separate from more widespread relatives.

Jess

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

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Climbatree813 » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:32 pm

The latest one (the Wisconsin one) was a staghorn sumac. The first two were smooth. The larger of the smooth was in the middle of the woods basically with a clearing large enough for it and a few companions to grow to significant size. The other one was in the stereotypical spot for a sumac (open land, grassy area, sumac grove.) The staghorn (though not even a state record) was respectable and was also growing in an open grassy area.

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

Re: Trees without any data

Post by edfrank » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:59 pm

Jess,

Why don't you compile a 10 most wanted list for tree measurements - indicate whether they have been measured or not, and if they are represented on the list by small examples? I am not familiar enough with the trees and their potential sites to do so myself, but I try to fill in the other measurements and charts as you suggested.

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

User avatar
Erik Danielsen
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Trees without any data

Post by Erik Danielsen » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:34 pm

I've got a surprise of a Staghorn sumac to add today, which I'll also include in a longer post (with picture) over in the NY forum about a recent Zoar Visit. Unlike many of Zoar's superlative trees, this sumac requires no hike at all to access- it's sticking way out above a cluster of normal-height sumac right next to the Vail Road parking lot, pretty much right behind the sign explaining the chestnut plantation. The base of the sumac is completely invisible and inaccessible due to dense, hostile vegetation, so I didn't record a girth and can only provide a solid height-above-line-of-level-sight. That height is 37.5 feet. Adding 4 feet as a conservative height-below-line-of-level-sight (my eye level is 4'2" and the ground was level if not sloped down) would yield 41.5 feet in height. If that holds up in winter (should be able to get that number plus girth once the briars freeze back), how would that hold up against the large Staghorn sumacs you've noted in NY state, Jess?

I was told an interesting story recently about an unusually thick sumac growing near a friend's sugarbush here. The tree is no longer standing but apparently yielded some wide and excellent turned bowls which I may have the chance to see sometime.

Post Reply

Return to “Measurement and Dendromorphometry”