ENTS Terminology

ENTS Terminology	Bob Leverett
	Nov. 29, 2007

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ENTS Terminology
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/17658eb6ef2a86f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 2:51 pm
From: dbhguru

ENTS,

Earlier today, in an off-list conversation, Gary Beluzo suggested that we need to develop an ENTS vocabulary that is truly descriptive of what we do. The vocabulary needs to be ecology driven and richly suggestive of the uniqueness of what we do and how we go about doing it. A superb analogy to what Gary is suggesting is what the peak baggers have done in describing mountain forms. Topographic Prominence and Spire Analyses are excellent examples of how the fuzzy, imprecise terminology of mountain form (summit, peak, mountain, ridge, etc,) has been lifted out of the muck of under-differentiation and elevated to the lofty perch that it deserves. In ENTS, certainly terms like Rucker Index or Rucker Height Index fits what Gary has in mind, but Gary sees a need to take the terminology further, dispensing with the language that is the rightful domain of the forest-based professions, because it doesn't fit what we do. I couldn't agree with Gary more, and after our conversation, I f
elt a surge of excitement. I thought to myself, YES, this is exactly the direction we should be heading.

So at the least, I guess Gary and I are suggesting the development of an ENTS dictionary of terminology, something to keep the insomniacs among us (Ed and I are charter members) busy into the wee hours of the morning. In a sense, we've been doing this all along. Gary is the originator and conceptualizer of the term dendromorphometry and he has been my silent partner in its development. I think his silence is about to end, but the specific terms fitting this ENTS-spawned discipline are just the tip of the iceberg. Gary would extend ENTS terminology into the qualitative realm of tree awareness - exciting stuff. Can any of us imagine where this could end up if the productive, imaginative intellects of Lee, Gary, Don, Ed, Tom, Will, Jess, feel free to roam untethered from the specialized and restrictive vocabularies and concepts of the forest disciplines.

By an ENTS-specific terminology, Gary isn't suggesting that we come up with our own term to supplant existing ones from the present forest disciplines. Gary is talking about what we do that is unique or at least different in degree. We've been pecking around the edges of this all along. Our coining of the term CBH is an example. We simply need to buckle down and formalize what we've been doing and think big. Wow, two Percocets instead of one and I'm suddenly projected into rarified atmosphere.

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ENTS Terminology
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/17658eb6ef2a86f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 5:36 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

ENTS,

I can't believe I am saying this **cough** choke** but I would like to encourage conservatism in our adoption of new terminology. As Bob L. says, we should not be constrained by the definitions, methodology, and terminology of other groups and organizations, but should be leading the way. However there is no reason to dismiss or ignore those things these groups have done well or conventions simply because they are older. If the measure or term that has been developed is useful and meaningful, we should keep it. We should not be arguing in favor of using a square wheel, when an existing round wheel works better. We need to be constantly striving for quality, rather than something different for the sake of uniqueness.

The greatest invention of mankind is the concept of language. The purpose of language is to communicate information and ideas among ourselves. In technical fields new terms are developed to describe what is found. These terms are best designed to distinguish subtle differences between similar objects or events. Developing the language skills to express these distinctions allows us to conceive new ideas that would not be possible otherwise. There is a trend in may circles however to devise new terminology, not to better describe and communicate about things they are finding, but to distance themselves from others unfamiliar with the terms. The rise of jargon is a plague upon us all. The concepts are rarely so complex that a lay person or someone educated in a different field could not understand them, but the jargon was developed to make themselves unintelligable to all but the anointed few. ENTS needs to avoid the trap of developing an undecipherable jargon of its own. Thi
s would only serve to marginalize our group.

We need to be elite in the quality of our measurements and work, but not elitest in our use of language, or in our attitudes toward others. We need to communicate what we are doing to the broadest group possible. Then these people can use that information to effect decisions regarding the future of the timber industry, and conservation issues placed before them. The language used by mountain climbers is poetic. I am sure we could inspire others with a more colorful and poetic language of trees and forests. But most of the language needed to do so is already within our vocabulary. We should develop new terms and definitions as they are necessary to understand the processes and object we are investigating. We must however remain grounded in the idea that the purpose of language is communication rather than obscurification. We need to become better writers, more poetic or inspiratinal writers perhaps, rather than invent a new language for what we are doing.

Ed Frank

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 5:49 pm
From: dbhguru

Ed,

The new terminology I envision applies mainly to new processes that we develop/adopt. The Rucker analysis is a case in point. There is nothing out there in other disciplines that defines what we do when we apply Rucker analysis. If perfectly good terms and definitions already exist, I'm not suggesting coming up with new terminology just to be different or elitest. For instance, I wouldn't redefine DBH. We added CBH - a small addition, but it clarifies what we're doing. If something already exists, works well, and is used by the many, I certainly wouldn't advocate creating a system of new synonyms. I obviously was unclear on that point.

In the case of dendromorphometry, we need the term. We certainly are not doing forest mensuration. Dendromorphometry may justify some new terms, but I'm not adocating going all out. Most of the concepts are mathematical and draw from the different branches of mathematics. However, a process may deserve a name if we have to constantly refer to it in oblique fashion. Hope this cleas up what the captain meant to say.

Bob

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 6:05 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

To the Infamous Bobby L,,

I am sure you not advocating otherwise. I just wanted to try as best I could to nip in the bud any leanings toward rampant Jargon development.

Ed

To those of you not in the loop. there are rumors, I am sure false, that the Infamous Bobby L. once toured in the 80's with RUN DMC as was one of the first white rappers, leading the way for luminaries such as Vanilla Ice and Eminem. I am sure these are not true, but...

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 6:19 pm
From: "Jess Riddle"

Bob, Ed, Gary, Ents;

I agree the development of new terminology can be valuable, but I want
to stress the need for caution. I think Ed articulately pointed out
the potential pitfalls of developing terminology; language can become
a barrier to participation in ENTS. I'm not sure I see where new
terminology can add value at this time. I agree 100% that 'Rucker
Index' was I needed term. It would be ridiculous for use to go around
saying all the time 'you know, that thing where you take the ten
tallest trees at each site'. I'm much more sceptical about
'dendromorphometry'. I don't understand why we can't just say 'tree
measuring' and remain accessible to everyone. Yes, we are going
beyond what has been done in the past in tree measuring and forest
mensuration, but can't we just let the quality of our data and
techniques tell people that we're improving on what has been done
before? If a new term is truly useful, we probably won't need to
discuss weather we need a new term; the need for the term will be
self-evident. The discussion should be on what term best fills that
need.

cantankerous Jess

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 6:31 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Jess,

Biology: why don't we just say "study of life"
Geology: "Study of earth?"
Geomorphometry??? Why add the MORPH part?
Physiology: maybe you get the point.

I don't see your resistance to the term that so well describes the action.
"Tree measuring" says absolutely nothing about what "Dendromorphometry"
says. Dendromorphometry is the measurement of tree form or shape, not trees.

I have added it to my WORD dictionary.

Will

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 6:48 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Will,

If you have added it to your WORD dictionary, that pretty much ends the debate.

Seriously, the term's meaning is decipherable from its roots and I think is a more apt description than 'tree measuring', but Jess's point about not adding new terms for the sake of new terms is the same as I was making in the previous post.

Ed

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 6:56 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Ed,

I don't foresee many new terms being added really. Dendromorphometry is such
a perfect fit to me. Beyond that and "Rucker" isms I struggle to think of
others right now.

Will

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 7:14 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Will,

We have Rucker Index, we have used the term Tree Dimension Index, there should be some name for the idea of percentage of cylinder occupation, the term dendromorphometry. The term reiteration is not well known and is restricted in usage. We use other terms that are already defined, but are not in wide use by the general public that could be defined in our "dictionary" like paraboloid, and neloid. I like girth rather than circumference. Therefore GBH or G1.5 or other variation should be defined as a non-standard acronym.

Even terms using standard language need to be defined - multitrunk, coppice, grove, etc. if we are using them in a specific way to mean a particular instance of what may be one several differnt usages. Footprint of a tree or the canopy is one of several different interpretations from standard meaning of footprint I am sure we will develop new terms as we progress - it seems inevitable even if we can not envision them now. If we could envision them now we would be using them already because of their utility. There are terms in general usage that require definitions also. So the idea of an ENTS dictionary is worthwhile even if we do not develop a large unique vocabulary

Ed

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 7:21 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Agreed!

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 8:04 pm
From: dbhguru

Jess,

While I concede the point that we don't want to stampede into an exercise of artificial vocabulary building with nitpicking terminology that does little more than splits hairs, I'm inclined to stand my ground on dendromorphometry. If the lackluster discipline of calculating board feet can be graced with a handle like forest mensuration, what we are doing deserves to be described a little more imaginatively than just being called tree measuring. I suppose I can imagine an artificial tree measuring language that would repel new recruits, if we took it too far, but I don't see any danger of us doing that. In truth the process for us is from the bottom up. Terms like CBH get introduced out of need. Perhaps my suggestion of going toward an ENTS dictionary was a bit too premature. So, I here by withdraw the suggestion.

In a less organized vein, there will be terms one or another of us will introduce that will not endure the test of time. That is as it should be. We can agree among us to give each new term a thorough testing to insure we don't fall into a pit of stilted, artificial terminology. But in terms of how we organize our efforts and expend our time, some promotion is not a bad thing.

Gary Beluzo was trying to open up our thinking to new approaches to describing what we do, or could be doing, including breaking of new ground in his field of ecology. But there really isn't much danger of us going off the deep end. There are sufficient checks and balances, the chief one being that if nobody, other than its originator, picks up on a term, that term dies a painless death. The originator may sulk for a time, but will get over it. We're all grown folks - - I think.

Bob

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 8:08 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Bob,

Don't throw away the idea of an ENTS dictionary yet - maybe we can start with a basic glossary on the website.

Ed

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 8:11 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Bobby L.

I refuse to grow up!!!

Ed

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 8:12 pm
From: dbhguru

Steve,

WEll, either "canopy shadow" or "crown shadow". I like both. Coin toss time?

Bob

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 8:15 pm
From: dbhguru

Ed,

Okay. Most of the terms would be existing ones brought together for convenience. Your identification of paraboloid and neiloid being a good case in point.

Bob

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 29 2007 8:17 pm
From: dbhguru

Good for you, Ed. Staying young and playful is more a sign of maturity than what we see in Washington D.C. today. Now about those old Superman and Captain Marvel comic books you were going to lend me......

Bob

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 5:37 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Ed, WIll, and Jess,

I am in total agreement.

Gary

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 5:41 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Bob, Jess, and others,

No harm in having a working dictionary, some ENTS will see the value and some not. I think it would be useful to those folks who read our material and are trying to understand what we are doing. I have no doubt that as ENTS evolves so will the language; the dictionary could be a useful reference so I am inclined to strongly encourage it.

Gary

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 5:41 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Agreed Ed, good suggestion.

Gary

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 5:50 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Bobby and Steve,

To me "canopy" shadow suggests, well, the canopy of the forest. So this word may be best reserved for larger-scale measurements (which I am sure will be a natural progression in the pantheon of dendromorphometrists). In fact as soon as Bobby can go out and play in the forest he will advance from measuring the canopy of his ceiling to the canopy of the forest. For the individual tree I would prefer "crown shadow". Just my two cents.

Gary

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 5:58 am
From: "Will Blozan"

Steve Sillett was emphatic that a tree has a crown and a forest has a
canopy.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 6:04 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

cool!

Gary A. Beluzo

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 6:55 am
From: Steve G

Bob-

I guess "crown shadow" would be a better term, since it reduces it to
an individual tree.

Might terms indicating tree size( i.e.: typical, large, very large,
exceptional) relative to expected specie's size for the local area
also be useful?....or relative to general aspect of the local forest?
An example would be an Eastern Hemlock at 120' and 10' CBH would be
"exceptional" here in N Ohio, but perhaps only "typical" or "large''
in GSMNP, while the reverse might be the case with Pin Oak in Ohio vs.
the N.C. Piedmont.

This would of course be somewhat subjective, but still might be
useful.

Steve

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 6:59 am
From: "Will Blozan"

Steve,

That's what the TDI system does, ranks the relative "size" of a tree based
on its peers. It can be based on whatever parameters you want; all hemlocks
in Ohio, all hemlocks above 39 degrees latitude, all hemlocks greater than
10' cbh, etc......

Will

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 10:48 am
From: "Jess Riddle"

Gary,

Thanks for posting this. I think this explanation has been missing
from the discussion. I don't see those advantages as being as
valuable as the rest of you seem to see them, but that's alright.
We've had the discussion now.

Jess

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 10:54 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Jess/Will/Gary-
I couldn't help but think, after reading your post below, whether you wanted to 'preach' only to the choir, or to a broader constituency?
-BDon

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 12:08 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

ENTS-
As independent politically as I am, I find myself on the 'reactionary' end of the continuum that is ENTS members opinions on establishing new terminology. I have never let new information preclude my consideration (definition of ignorance), but I haven't been often an advocate of "change for change's sake" either.

For many years, ecologists (forest or otherwise) have referred to what is posted below as 'crown shadow' and 'canopy shadow', as crown cover or canopy cover, to refer to individual or stand level measurements.
To use 'shadow', if used literally, would introduce error for all locations away from the equator. As one who practiced a wide array of photogrammetric techniques, I understand what was intended by the use of the word 'shadow', but I don't think you buy anything through its use over "cover"
I would be interested ENTS members opinions in what is inaccurate or imprecise in the long-used/accepted concept of "cover"?
-BDon

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 12:14 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Gary-
I totally agree...the first rule of composition and discourse is to define your terms...
-BDon

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 12:25 pm
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"

Jess,

How is it going up there in the Hinterlands? Any snow yet?
Any monster trees yet, have you seen tulip trees?

Hope these electrons find you well.

Gary

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 12:33 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Jess,

True, I was reacting solely to your comment that belittled the term
dendromorphometry. I did not intend to shift focus from your core issue.

However, I find your assertion that people will not join or participate in
ENTS discussions because of our choice and use of terms that have been
coined by us (for the good reasons such as Gary described) rather bizarre.
If these terms are intimidating, so what? Who do we need to discuss them
with before we use them? Our discussions are often not general, but very
specific to what we do, and I see no need to cater to a generalized
audience. We have a whole array of top-notch scientists in ENTS, many of
whom have been with us for nearly a decade. This is our discipline and what
we do. I see no need to downplay our work and call it tree measuring.

Yes, it is a narrow base of participants the discussions and membership
draws upon, and that is because- quite frankly- we are elite. We have ~150
people on this list and it steadily grows. Have you thought that maybe our
growth is because we are "cutting edge" and not a feel-good, conventional,
status-quo big tree interest group like American Forests? We are pushing our
discipline to the limits- otherwise I wouldn't be here. The Tsuga Search
Project that you are such a huge part of is WAY off the charts! We have gone
where no one has gone before!

I'm sorry, but I don't quite see the pressing problem that you see.

Respectfully,

Will

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 12:37 pm
From: dbhguru

Don,

I'm easy. Crown cover works for me.

Bob

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 2:58 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Jess,

If as you say we are scaring away people from joining the discussions by the use of terminology like dendromorphometry, is your solution in this example to have more freindly titles for our discussions? What other steps could be taken to better encourage people to participate in the discussions, or to post trip reports, or questions? As the Infamous Bobby L. says there will always be a group that participates regularly, a group that doesn;t participate in the discussions at all, and a middle group that sometimes participates and posts to the discussion list. How can we encourage this third group to participate more frequently? How can we attract a broader membership while maintaining our dedication to measurement accuracy?

Ed

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 30 2007 9:46 pm
From: James Parton

ENTS,

ENTS is a group that is supposed to deal with all aspects of trees.
From tree measuring to folklore. If one is intimidated by something
they can ask for an explanation of the term or participate in
something less " technical ". ENTS should be an organization with many
facets. The scientific elite is only one part. But members have to
post on more varying topics. I have yet to see anyone post on
woodworking, arts, music or many other topics quoted in ENTS. " The
Eastern Native Tree Society (ENTS) is a cyberspace interest group
devoted to the celebration of trees of the eastern North America
through art, poetry, music, mythology, science, medicine, and wood
crafts. " This says it all. What ENTS is and should be. I am new here
but this is my opinion. As for me, I like the scientific side of ENTS.
I have been an Amateur Astronomer for a large part of my life & know
the sky probably as well as Will knows GSMNP. Big words &
abbreviations bother me not. But the math? I will need a calculator!
Christmas & being out of work a month back has got me short on money.
I aspire to buy a lazer & clinometer and wade into this tree measuring
aspect of ENTS. For now I am doing CBH/DBH measurements only.

The bottom line is. ENTS should be fun as well as educational. A
fringe benefit is that we can contribute to the scientific community
on what is known about trees. A great example is the Tsuga Search
Project. As Bob says " We all are equal in the eyes of the trees "
Anyway, I am through rattling on now......

James Parton

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 1 2007 12:03 am
From: dbhguru

James,

You have caught the spirit of ENTS. Actually, we have delved into other aspects of trees many times in the past. Recently, we've been buried in science, but have not forgotten the other aspects. We'll return to them in time. One way we might do that is for each of us to choose a favorite forest and write an essay about it in a holistic sense as opposed to a numerically based description. I have done the holistic type of writing many times in the past. It is just that when I get my head into mathematics, I stay submerged for long periods. I'm about ready for a breather, though.

Bob

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 1 2007 6:24 am
From: "Will Blozan"

Russ,

I seriously doubt that the dripline has anything to do with the extant of
the root system. A tree has far fewer obstacles to its crown growth than the
rocks, other roots, streams, or other impenetrable barriers underground. A
friend of mine has hybrid polar root sprouts a full 300 feet from the parent
tree, which has a ~60 foot spread.

Will

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 1 2007 10:15 am
From: doug bidlack

I like the term CBH. I was using the term before I
joined ENTS on my own little spreadsheet. When I saw
that Ed and now Gary were using GBH, I wondered which
term was better. Naturally I first thought CBH
because that is what I had been using. It's amazing
how you get to defending things simply because that's
the way you've done it in the past. Anyway, I think
my original reasoning had to do with a circle and how
radius, diameter and circumference were the terms used
for defining that circle. After all the recent posts
about how uncircular trees are I figure that girth is
probably better than circumference, because girth does
not imply circularity.

Doug

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 1 2007 2:08 pm
From: dbhguru

Doug,

I tend to be sloppy and go back and forth between CBH and on occasion GBH. In truth, I think GBH is the correct term. As Ents, we need to severe our ties to tradition where tradition misleads us.

Bob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 2 2007 6:20 pm
From: "Jess Riddle"

Ed,

Good questions, and unfortunately I don't have good answers. Most of
the things I can think of, we're already doing. When people do post,
they usually get courteous and informative replies, and you, Bob, and
Will are wonderful about welcoming new members. I'm faced with
essentially the same question every week when I try to get students to
engage in the labs I teach, so if I stumble across something that
works, I'll let you know.

Jess

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 2 2007 6:26 pm
From: edfrank@comcast.net

Jess,

Teaching s labs is odd. When I was doing Historical geology labs at Minnesota, one day there was going to be a partial eclipse of teh sun in the middle of teh lab session. I told everyone their assignment for teh day was to go to the commons and watch the eclipse. Some people argued we should look at brachiopods instead. Strange people...

Ed

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 2 2007 6:36 pm
From: "Jess Riddle"

Gary,

Syracuse got its first real snow a couple of weeks ago, and we had
another four or five inches this weekend. No humongous trees yet.
The sad fact of the situation is I haven't been hiking in two months,
which I think makes it the longest I've gone without hiking over the
past decade. Tuliptrees are easy to come by though even without going
on any long treks. Of course, you know about the nice stand at Green
Lakes State Park. In a tract of woods adjacent to where I live,
tuliptrees grow within a stones throw of quaking aspen, and failed to
colonize an old field; instead the old field supports a pure sugar
maple stand, something you would never see in the southern
Appalachians. In general, tuliptrees around here drop out pretty
quickly as you gain elevation onto the edge of the Allegheny plateau.

Jess

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 2 2007 7:45 pm
From: dbhguru

Jess,

Don't think that Will, Ed, and I don't appreciate and take seriously your cautions. We definitely do. As a group, like Tom Diggins has said, we form a heck'uva brain trust. However, on the elitism thing, we really aren't likely to go to extremes on adopting new terminology for the heck of it. If one of us goes too far, others will rein him/her in. Of that I have little doubt.

Sounds like you have your hands full at SUNY. Just remember, if you get free weekend, don't forget, ya gotta place to stay in Florence, MA.

Bob

Home