Will,
Bob,
On
12/21/07
I volume modeled the Bridle
Trail Hemlock using the Macroscope
25. This was the first
tree I’ve measured using this technique where I was able to see
that the tree actually was larger in circumference higher up the
tree, when compared to lower sections.
Here’s the stats:
14ft
CBH x 118ft high x 792ft^3
Height
up
section
monocular
circumference
diameter
fm
ground
length
value
1
1
N/A
18.8
5.99
2
1
N/A
16.6
5.29
3
1
N/A
15.3
4.87
4.5
1.5
N/A
14
4.46
7
2.5
N/A
13.1
4.17
14.1
7.1
2.92
11.1
3.53
23.3
9.2
2.89
11.3
3.61
30
6.7
2.67
10.8
3.44
33.7
3.7
2.74
11.1
3.53
54.3
20.6
2.18
9.6
3.07
59
4.7
2
9.1
2.9
65.1
6.1
2.05
9.6
3.05
I
used frustum of cone formulas from 1 to 65.1ft, cone formula for the
top 52.9ft section, and volume of a cylinder for the bottom section
to come up with a total of 792cubes.
I’m
afraid to say this, but I think I’m getting the volume modeling
bug… this being only the sixth tree I’ve measured using this
technique, I figured I’d try it out on the fat Walnut
Creek Beech up in Erie.
I didn’t take the macroscope 25
with me, since I figured it wouldn’t even be standing anymore (it
was cracked almost ¼ way through a last
time I saw it over a year ago).
To my surprise it was still standing, with no visible crack!
I did get some lower circumference measurements with the
tape. The last time I
measured this tree on
2/22/04
I had it to 15.9ft CBH x 119.3ft+ (vertical).
On
12/28/07
I found a better vertical shot to 120.1+ft high and it grew to 16ft
CBH. Here’s
the stats:
16ft
CBH x 120.1+ft high
x 121.4ft^3 (bottom section only)
Height
up
section
circumference
diameter
comments
fm
ground
length
2
2
19.7
6.27 couldn’t
get any lower due to root flare on slope
3
1
17.7
5.64
4.5
1.5
16
5.1
7
2.5
13.7
4.36
Computed
volume for the bottom section = 121.4ft^3 (includes base cylinder
volume)
If
we could assume the entire top was conical (which it wasn’t, it
split into two decent sections ~50ft up) that would give ~562ft^3.
If we could add those two volumes together, then we could be
looking at a 684ft^3 tree. Just
a thought, I don’t recal any beech in
the macroscope 25 volume database yet.
I’ve
got new pics of both trees, but don’t
have access to them at the moment.
Dale
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 8 2008 12:06 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net
Dale,
Good show. I note that the multivariate regression equation with 2
independent variables I submitted in an earlier email misses the
modeled volume by a huge amount. I think the big miss follows mostly
from the use of the cone for the upper 52.9 feet. There may be a
dependency of the regression model on a paraboloid shape in the
upper reaches of the trunk. Regardless, that regression model is now
toast.
Bob
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 8 2008 5:58 am
From: "Will Blozan"
Dale,
You have obviously been hanging around too much with others infected
with a
similar disease. I'm sorry to say, it is terminal. My sympathies...
No American beech has been measured as far as I know. That thing is
HUGE!
Jess and I have modeled tuliptree, northern red oak, yellow buckeye,
red
maple, mountain silverbell, cherrybark oak, bald cypress and
loblolly pine
so far and Bob may have a few other species.
I'd like to climb that Bridle Trail Hemlock someday, preferably
before it
gets HWA.
Great work!
Will
