AF MGWG Report

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

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

Post Reply
User avatar
dbhguru
Posts: 4537
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:34 pm

AF MGWG Report

Post by dbhguru » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:11 am

Hi All,

The AF MGWG had its monthly telephone conference yesterday. We discussed the history of the National Register, the origin of the 1/4th crown spread factor, a database of maximums, when Level 4 Cadre members would be called in to settle a dispute or measure a challenging tree, etc. I had presented by email an extract of trees in the National Register database that were greatly mis-measured. We discussed the politics of challenging measurements passed up the line through state coordinators. It was a productive meeting.

What emerged through the discussions clearly for me is the overwhelming need for a national database of species maximums. The AF coordinator is often put in difficult political situations in sending nominations back for re-measurement. The coordinator needs ammunition for situations when a nomination is turned back. Lack of compliance on submitting all the relevant information is one reason. That is largely procedural. But when it comes down to the measurements, the coordinator needs strong justifications for not excepting a nomination. People are going to get miffed.

Since we don't have the people power to cover the whole U.S. and re-measure every suspect candidate, continuing to compile a database of species maximums eventually organized at the state level would provide AF with a filter to identify suspect nominations. It would be one of the most valuable contributions NTS could make.

In the meantime, Don and I continue to press forward on guidelines for Level 4 measurers, i.e. the National Cadre.

Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Co-founder, Native Native Tree Society
Co-founder and President
Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest
Co-founder, National Cadre

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

Re: AF MGWG Report

Post by Will Blozan » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:09 pm

Bob,

Indeed that would be a great ruler to judge nominations- one we have discussed for years. This makes it very important for tree measurements to be taken all over the range of the species- not just their maximums. This is an opportunity for citizen science to be incredibly beneficial and reap real benefits. Every tree dimension is useful- record or not.

Will

User avatar
dbhguru
Posts: 4537
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:34 pm

Re: AF MGWG Report

Post by dbhguru » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:54 pm

Will,

I'm feeling pretty optimistic that NTS is going to be able to play an increasingly important role in helping AF cull out mis-measured trees. There is a course that events must take, and it won't all be smooth sailing, but we're definitely holding the high ground. And I absolutely agree with you that all measurements we take have value. As we increase the range coverage of more and more species, we'll fine tune our understanding of all those species. This is a role that you, I, and others saw for NTS years ago.

Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Co-founder, Native Native Tree Society
Co-founder and President
Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest
Co-founder, National Cadre

Post Reply

Return to “Measurement and Dendromorphometry”