length vs height

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

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

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

Re: length vs height

Post by mdvaden » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:00 pm

Will Blozan wrote:Midslope NEVER changes; upslope does. It is a constant- the only constant in a tree measurement...

Will
I think there is a chance it can change, but rarely. Did you follow the waterfall giant sequoia topic? Personally, I think the downhill "trunk" of the waterfall giant sequoia is actually a huge root that grew for so many centuries, if not a thousand or more years, where some may define it as "trunk". In oddball situations like that, or like one coast redwood I call "Jabba", there's a chance over centuries, that some unusual growth could alter the interpretation of midslope. But the oddballs would be rare.
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: length vs height

Post by Don » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:08 am

Mario
I think your use of the term 'oddball' is accurate, and such oddballs are certainly what could/should come under the category of "exceptions to the rule"...we've seen that it's very difficult to come up with a single set of rules that applies fairly to such a wide array of forms that 787 species (that's just the eligible species!) can "achieve".
That said, I'd love to see of the 'oddballs' you speak of, and others that you haven't mentioned but could fall under such a category!
-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
sradivoy
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: length vs height

Post by sradivoy » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:08 pm

"The problem with these kinds of discussions is that tree measuring quickly becomes complicated when we truly get serious. Methods increasingly become mathematically driven, which sends a lot of folks running for the door and paying little attention to what is described in the literature. "

I agree with you on this Bob. The suggested approach that I mentioned in my OP might serve as a simplified alternative for novice tree measurers (including myself)who aren't as passionate about the mathematics as they are the trees.

Stefan

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

Re: length vs height

Post by Don » Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:36 pm

Stefan-
I think your suggested approach for a simplified alternative is fine...especially if labeled as so...too often, records of casually measured trees in the past have been later quoted as 'fact'. You don't have to do much of a 'literature search' to find out the topic is rife with "casually measured" trees.
That said, I understand your point about passion and mathematics...they don't always come in pairs! I struggled through my algebra/trig classes.
-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

Post Reply

Return to “Measurement and Dendromorphometry”