Multi

Multi-trunked Trees (RE: Discovery of a Whopper-- PHOTOS?)	dbhg-@comcast.net
	Jan 03, 2005 04:08 PST

Will:
Gary didn't have his camera. We'll return to take photos. After my enthusiasm waned, I decided on reporting the provisional status. While at the tree, we were inclined to give the Whopper every benefit of the doubt. However, the two trunks look like two trees as opposed to big branches. How often do you encounter what you judge to be a single tree that splits into two trunks in which the individual trunks have all the characteristics of single trunk trees as opposed to big limbs?
Bob

More on the whoppers	Robert Leverett
	Jan 03, 2005 07:53 PST

Will, Dale, Ed, Ed, et al.:

    The fine cottonwoods and sycamores of the Westfield and Little
Rivers floodplain made me ever more aware that good riverine habitat
throughout the East affords us many new opportunities for big tree-tall
tree discovery. Be our new finds single or double-stemmed trees, there
are whoppers waiting to be found by ENTS Ents.

    The high probability of the Westfield cottonwood being two trees
fused together masquerading as one raises the question of how we
categorize trees in our ENTS lists for our purposes. Do we distinguish
naturally coppicing flood plain specimens of cottonwood and silver maple
as their own class? Do we have a separate class for fused trees? Can we
distinguish between these two classes without the application of
scientific tests? What about a photographic essay on these two classes?
With our abundance of talented
photographers-scientists/foresters/arborists, we could post a series of
images to reveal characteristics of trunk fusion to watch for.

Bob

Whopper Measuring	edward coyle
	Jan 03, 2005 19:04 PST

Bob,

I may not be the most qualified to offer an opinion here, but I have been
known to go out on a limb, from time to time.
If a tree forks below 4.5' it is measured to the biggest trunk.
If a tree has a branch at 4.5' it is measured to the smallest point below
that.
If it is an obvious coppice, it is measured at the lowest point above
whatever fusion, grafting is going on.
If it may be a coppice, having root bridged into a nice 'U' crotch, it is
below the 4.5' mark and measured as above.
If the tree has fused for some distance and has no obvious seam running to
the ground, we have hundreds of max girth measurements for many undeniable
single stemmed species as a guide.
Will and I have argued about a few trees just like this, but his way, when
there is uncertainty, is to note that it may be a double, and move on. There
is very little value in over assessing a single tree, especially where it
concerns a champion for a species.
I'm sure you could name a few national champs that are obviously not
single trees. This detracts from an accurate database for species potential,
and puts into question what we are willing to do in order to find a bigger
one.
Just my thoughts.

Ed C

Re: More on the whoppers	Michele Wilson
	Jan 03, 2005 19:06 PST

Perhaps the "standards" utilized by another "champion trees" system might
help in the fusion/low fork dept. I think it might be via American Forests
Foundation, something like that, connected (still?) to American Tree Farm
System. I know that years ago, a huge red oak in Buckland was said to be
one tree based on where it forked so it became a champion at the time.
Perhaps you were there, Bob. Russell, any comment on the base of that tree
you want to offer? Remember how many of us debated that tree over and over
at the time?
Michele

Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	Robert Leverett
	Jan 04, 2005 05:21 PST

Ed:

   Thanks for weighing in. You belong in these discussions as much as
any of us do.

   There are several subjects we might discuss here. So here goes.

   I note the rules you cite for measuring a large multi-stemmed tree
are the types in use by one or more organizations, including AF and the
state big tree programs. For the purpose of reporting a tree to AF or a
state, of course, we use their rules. However, should we in ENTS concern
ourselves with the rules being used in the big tree contests for
strictly ENTS purposes? Not that I think you are suggesting that we do,
but just for the record, to my mind, the question for us should be: how
do we in ENTS see and want to report the big trees? What classes do we
want to create, and why, for the purpose of documentation and comparison
that may proceed along several lines.

   Colby Rucker and I thought about expanded comparisons a lot. Colby
had, by far, the more refined thinking of the two of us. He put a lot of
effort into devising a better system of comparison of multi-trunked
trees, while preserving the 4.5-foot rule. I confess that I've always
been more interested in seeing ENTS adopt a more complete reporting
system for big trees with complex trunk and limb structures. Of course
the most complete system is doing what the ENTS team did for the
Middelton Oak, but that's obviously out of the question.

   The system of reporting only the largest trunk measurement where
there are multiple trunks seems to me to miss the whole point of
comparisons. If the point of split is changed by a few inches, what was
a 20-foot circumference tree shouldn't shrink to a 9 or 10-foot
circumference. By gum it ain't right! One the other hand, what should
be done? Well, if we're trying to reduce a tree to a single composite
measurement, the multi-stemmed trees will always present us with
headaches. For my purposes, which aren't better than those of any of the
rest of you, just my thinking, I would want to see the following
numbers.

   1. Total height
   2. Longest limb extension
   3. Average crown spread
   4. Height at branching point
   5. Circumference at base
   6. Circumference at narrowest point between base and branching point.

   7. Circumference of each trunk above branching point when that can be
determined.

   This series of measurements would certainly not be taken for all
trees in our collective database - just the biggest ones. I think I
would like to begin applying the above or something close to it for the
biggest trees in Massachusetts.

   Another topic is figuring out a "tree complex":

   1. One tree sprouting from a single seed

   2. Multiple trees that have fused together

   3. A root suckering organism that has multiple fused trunks that
probably started from a single tree

   4. A trunk coppicing structure - one root system, multiple trunks.

   Oh my aching head! Well, your turn, Ed. Will? Don? Lee? et al.?

Bob

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	Willard Fell
	Jan 04, 2005 06:26 PST

For Multiple stem trees, what would be the relationship of the total
basal area (cross sectional area) of the two stems above the split
compared to the area immediately below the fork? Would this give you an
acceptable comparison of size?

Willard H. Fell Jr.
District Forester
Georgia Forestry Commission
18899 US Hwy 301 N.
Statesboro, GA 30461

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	Robert Leverett
	Jan 04, 2005 07:17 PST

Will:

Several of us have advocated this from time to time. I like computing
both measures for a tree especially if the separate trunk or limb
measurements can be done relatively quickly. The additional numbers
provide a much better profile of a tree we wish to document.

Bob

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider--MY HARD ASS RESPONSE	Will Blozan
	Jan 04, 2005 18:31 PST

Hey all,

I realize that I do not know it all (hard to admit ;) but I think that the
Earth has blessed all trees and plants with multiple, but single seeds to
reproduce. The seed sprouts a single stem, and that is an individual. What
the tree does from there is to be considered by ENTS, but the
accomplishments of a single stem are what I am interested in. A silver maple
planted in a yard, without disturbance, remains a single stem. A
flood-battered silver maple on a river may be broken and sprout multiple
stems. Both are "way cool" individuals, but I still maintain that a coppiced
clump of sprouts is a collective effort.

I would be interested to know the relationship of the combined
cross-sectional area of a coppiced silver maple as compared to a
single-stemmed tree on the same site and same age. I suspect it will be
larger in basal area, but not necessarily larger in volume. Maybe, but I
don't know.

I am a purist, as Ed Coyle can attest!

Will

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider CANOPY BIOMASS	Will Blozan
	Jan 04, 2005 18:31 PST

Will F.,

I have often wondered about the relationship of a single stem to a coppice
with regard to total mass. A six foot diameter single stem would of course
be much larger than six, one-foot diameter stems fused into a massive base.

I have further wondered about the relative relationship of cross-sectional
area (a tallied "slice" taken perpendicular to the axis of the tree,
inclusive of all branches and limbs) over the height of a tree, and even
though the limbs and branches get smaller higher up, they are more numerous
(at least in angiosperms) and the cross-sectional area may remain more
constant than we might think (maybe not). For a conifer, the decreasing
relationship from base to top would typically be more linear, especially
when young. On a huge tuliptree like the Sag Branch tree modeled last year,
it may taper gradually but hold onto more mass (i.e. cross-sectional area)
higher up as opposed to a conifer.

I have no idea what this may mean but I have often thought about it. Such
studies may lead to more arguments for old-growth canopy diversity, as
aerial biomass is potentially substrate for a more diverse ecosystem. How
the distribution of canopy biomass changes may be very important in
understanding the development of an "old-growth" state. I would love to see
the changes in the near-linear cross-sectional relationship of a young tree
change into a more diverse and interesting form over time. Some graphs of
aerial biomass of ancient trees could be quite bizarre! Perhaps a
"definition" of the "gnarl factor" could be derived!

Oh, ENTS, when will we stop!!!

Will B.

RE: Multi-trunked Trees (Part 1)	Edward Frank
	Jan 04, 2005 20:53 PST

Multi-trunked Trees

I have been considering this question for some time. Over the last month
or so I have corresponded off-list to several people on various aspects
of the problem of dealing with these multi-trunked specimens. I find
myself in the untenable and unsatisfactory position of agreeing with
both sides of the question. The problem essentially is do we want to
treat a multi-trunked tree specimen as a) a single individual, b) a
group of individual trees each of whom is represented by a single trunk
or stem, or c) some combination of both as a "group individual?" The
second question is how should we deal with these specimens in our
measurements and our database.

There is a jumble of questions, concerns, and ideas that should be
addressed on these issues. I have been postponing posting to the group
trying to find some way to articulate these varied issues into a
coherent form. I mentioned to Bob L. That I was going to reintroduce
the subject after the first of the year, and all of you have beaten me
to the punch. The comments below are not in any particular order, and I
will be asking a number of questions that I hope other people in ENTS
will be willing to address. To a large degree I believe this is a
question of what should be done so input is from everyone is solicited
in this discussion and worth considering whatever their background.

From my perspective as I drive back and forth to work everyday, or walk
in the woods I see multi-trunked trees along the highway and along the
trails. Until you start looking for them I don't believe you really
notice how many of them are out there. For some species they are an
uncommon example, for others they occur more frequently, for others they
seem to be the dominant form for that tree species. For many species,
the natural form of the tree is to have multiple trunks. I believe
these trees should be considered differently from trees that are
naturally single trunked. I don't think we are considering them fairly
under the current methodology. How many interesting specimens are not
being measured because: a) they will not stand-out in terms of height,
or b) because it is too unclear how to consider cbh for multi-stemmed
trees? Especially when plugged into a system is designed for
documenting single stemmed trees. I would support a measuring system
that allows both objectives to be achieved.

A couple of points I would like to address before jumping into the main
questions and Bob L.'s measurement ideas.

Fused Trunks: Will Blozan says in his ENTS measuring document: "Some
ENTS members use the "slice test". Basically, if the tree was cut at 4.5
feet above the ground, would the tree hold together? I have trouble with
this, as a tree that would fail one year would pass the next. I think of
it more as a "pith test". If the tree has more than one pith at ground
level it is a multiple-stemmed tree. Note I did not say 4.5 feet above
the ground. This is because the 4.5 foot height is a forestry standard
and is an arbitrary and convenient place for most people to measure a
tree. Some trees, like flowering dogwood or rhododendrons, may branch
well below 4.5 feet but have a single pith at ground level. In the case
of such trees, I would measure the narrowest point below the lowest
fork. All trees do not conform to our set standards, but we can always
set new ones!"

I like this argument - either something is a multi-stemmed tree or not.
It should not matter if the stems grow together, that does not change
something from being a multi-stemmed tree to a single stemmed tree.
This should not be something that changes over time unless all of the
other stems die out. the question still remains as to whether these
multi-stemmed trees should be considered as one individual or many
individuals.

Scott Wade wrote (Nov. 29, 2004): "When I measure for Longwood gardens
on their "big tree tour," I am often pressured to measure multi-stemmed
large trees (birch linden magnolia) at a height below 4.5BH, when I can
see the enclosed bark lines running down past that, or there is a gap
between one or two of the stems. I want to measure the largest stem at
4.5 BH, they want to drop down to the narrowest spot of single trunk
below 4.5 BH. I don't like to measure low on a large tree, as I think it
misrepresents the size. I am rambling now. Please tell me what you
think."

Will Blozan wrote (ENTS Measuring Guidelines, 2004): Girth is a
dimension taken at a point 4.5 feet above average soil level. This
measurement is called circumference at breast height (CBH). If a burl or
other atypical growth formation is encountered at this point the least
distorted girth below this point is used; otherwise ‘it can be measured'
above breast height. Colby Rucker wrote (Aug 2003): When a fork, burl
or low-branching habit causes the trunk to have its smallest girth at
some point below breast height, many of the big-tree registries have
allowed that lower girth to be entered as cbh. This has given such trees
an unfair advantage over competitors that have a similar lower girth but
taper to breast height, where their circumference is less. Colby Rucker
elaborated on this in a short piece called the "Rule of 73, " a
numerical model to correct for the increased diameter gained by
measuring the tree at some height below breast height. It is in the
measurement section of the website.

In answer to your question, I would measure where possible at a point
below the first major branching as per what Colby stated above. For the
trees we measure around here, I would say that measuring the trunk at
"narrowest point below the lowest fork" would overestimate the
circumference less, than measuring above the fork a 4.5 feet would
underestimate the circumference. If the trunk below the fork is too
distorted to give an accurate measurement below the fork, then measure
it at cbh with a note that it is above the lowest fork of the tree. The
actual height above ground level where the measurement was taken should
be listed for any not circumferences not taken at standard heights. The
"rule of 73" correction would not be applied to any raw or reported
data, but could optionally be used by a researcher for his own
evaluation purposes. For trees with separate stems or stems fused at
ground level, then the cbh should be taken at breast height of the
largest individual stem, and the number of stems in the specimen noted.
If the stems are fused from the ground level to some height above
breast height, then the lowest point of separation for the largest stem.

A similar consideration for dwarf trees is where to measure cbh or its
equivalent. I proposed that this circumference be measured just above
the root flair, below the lowest branching of the tree, and the actual
height of the measurement would be listed.

(End of Part 1 -January04, 2005)

Multi-trunked trees	Edward Frank
	Jan 04, 2005 20:30 PST

Multi-trunked Trees (Part 2)

As I said there are several issues I would like to discuss with members of
the group. The first question I want to ask the group is:

1) How many trees are multi-trunked?

When I drive down the road and start looking for them, I see many more
multi-stemmed trees than I ever noticed before. Give it a try and see if
it is just my mis-perception on this question. It seems to me that
multi-stemmed trees are much more common in areas that have been repeatedly
logged or cut than they are in areas that have not been logged. Lee
Frelich has been looking at the disturbance and regrowth of forest subject
to natural blowdowns and logging operations. I understand that the
regrowth from natural blowdows tends to form higher quality timber than is
often achieved from regrowth after logging. Is that correct Lee? I don't
see as many multi-trunked trees in areas of old forest as I do in areas
heavily cut. This may be because of the manner of reforesting or that over
time more of the multiple stem trunk die out over time. What about the
rest of you?

2) Are multi-stemmed trees more common in areas disturbed by logging than
in older forests? Are they more common in areas subject to frequent
natural disturbances than those relatively undisturbed over time? What is
the cause of this disparity, if there is a difference?

I see many tree specimens of a almost every species that have multiple
stems. Some species seem more likely to have just a second stem, while
others may have multiple stems. Dale Luthringer in post Sept 23, 2004
talked about a large black willow, "This one was conspicuous because it
did not appear severely multi-stemmed from a distance as other large ones
I've come across. I'd say there were probably two main fused trunks on this
tree, with possibly up to 5 more, but it had ample time to cover over most
of the fuse marks. I had to take the circumference at 18" off the ground so
that I didn't skew my results as too large. I ended up taking the
circumference at the tree's waist which was only 18" from the ground.
...This is the largest black willow I've come across to date that wasn't
obviously multi-stemmed."

3) What species most commonly have multiple stems? What percentage of
specimens of each different species are actually doubles, or multi-stemmed?
How about a listing of common multi-stemmed species and guestimates of
what percentage are singles, doubles, and multi-stemmed trees?

When driving down the streets here, I see many sugar maples are used as
roadside plantings. Many of the smaller, younger specimens have multiple
stems. Slightly older trees often look as if they have formed by the
fusion of multiple stems. The oldest trees typically look like they have a
single trunk, but the cross-section of the tree may be irregular rather
than round. I wonder how many of these fat older trees are really fused
multi-stemmed trees. I am thinking along the lines of street trees,
because this is where I see this phenomena, and wonder about whether they
are singles or multiples I have noticed this most commonly with sugar
maples, but it could be happening with other species also, Bob L.'s
cottonwoods for example. For the arborists and foresters out there:

4) When trees like this are cut down, is it common or uncommon to find that
these large trunked single trees are really fused multiples? If they are
fused multiples, how could we have determined that prior to the tree being
cut down?

I have questions about the biology of these multi-stemmed trees. Why do
they form? How do the grow? How do they maintain their multiple stems?
When you are looking at a tree, think of an ope grown specimen, it has a
certain form, shape, and symmetry depending on the species. Each branch on
that tree is in competition with the other branches for light from the sun,
and nutrients and water from the roots. Their size are constrained by
their physical strength. In one sense they also are cooperating to some
degree, with each branch feeding the roots and trunk of the tree. Over
time as the tree grows taller, the number of branches low on the tree
decrease, with a few examples growing larger, longer, and thicker, while
the other branches die off. A similar process occurs in the forest when
trees first sprout from the forest floor. When a clearing first opens
dozens of sprouts carpet the entire floor. Over time these sprouts grow
into saplings. At the same time their number decrease by competition with
other saplings over light, water, and nutrients. As they grow older the
forest continues to thin, slowing, but not stopping, only when the trees
achieve a degree of maturity. At this stage the forest floor may be
relatively open and the trees spaced some distance apart.

5) Why don't the multi-stemmed trees lose these extra stems in the early
stages of growth? Why do they maintain multiple stems over a long course
of time? Why aren't these extra stems the first to be thinned out?

6) Is there some benefit to forming a multi-stemmed clump rather than an
individual tree? If so, what is this benefit, and why does it only happen
some of the time?

I see that in many cases of doubles, each of the halves of the double are
often nearly the same size in height and diameter. I think in these cases
each stem is approximately equally competitive with the other, so they
manage to maintain this balance as they both grow. I know I could post
photographs of trees with their bases cropped out in which the overall form
of a single trunked tree, a double, and a multi-trunked tree in which these
three groups could not be distinguished based on the form of the canopy.

It could be argued that the individual stems of these doubles and
multiples are each individual trees, because one of more of the multiple
trunks could die and the rest would continue to grow, or have a spurt of
renewed growth from canopy release. Alternatively it could be pointed out
that branches on a single tree may die, and the other branches continue to
live. So the argument is valid for both the analogy that they are
individual trees, and that they are just branches of the same organism.

Measuring multi-stemmed trees: If you are going to measure multi-stemmed
trees the measurements should be collected for the largest individual stem
to enable direct comparison, apples and oranges not withstanding, with the
dataset from single stemmed individuals. Therefore the height and cbh of
each individual stem should be measured, rather than just measuring the
tallest stem of the group, and the fattest stem of the group. Measurements
used for comparison should be made of a single stem. (I wonder what the
height/diameter ratios of these stems look like compared to single stemmed
treees?) The canopy spread of each individual specimen can also be
measured. It requires a fair amount of time. This is an approach
advocated by Will Blozan (Nov 24, 2004). I wonder if we decide that if
these eventually are to be considered single group individuals, if the
composite canopy spread might not be a more appropriate measurement.

(Part 2 - to be continued)

Giant Calipers	Edward Frank
	Jan 04, 2005 22:25 PST

You know for doubles with defined trunks like squished together 8's you
could physically measure the diameter of each section of the double (or
triple) using a big pair of calipers in lieu of a cbh measurement. Perhaps
something makeshift like one of those folding wooden rulers.

Re: Giant Calipers	Bruce P. Allen
	Jan 05, 2005 04:44 PST

Ed, Will, Ents,

One thing to consider is that trunk fusion is an ongoing
process. Long-term studies run into the fusing of previously independent
stems. The point where they fuse goes up through time, eventually two
stems become one.

Bruce

Re: Multi-stemmed trees	Lee E. Frelich
	Jan 05, 2005 05:51 PST

Ed:

Yes, trees have better growth form in areas that have not been
logged. This is due to highgrading in some areas, loss of nutrients in
some areas, and the coppicing effect in some areas.

In a 1953 blowdown in the Porcupine Mountains in sugar maple, red maple,
red oak, basswood, yellow birch forest (with very few white pine, white
spruce and hemlock), the areas that were salvaged have many multiple
stemmed trees that are crooked, whereas the areas not salvaged have
straight trees with much bigger trunks. All the species in this forest
except the conifers will stump sprout, especially younger trees up to 80
years old. Older trees die if the top is lost.

One of the main ways to identify the boundary of old growth stands in the
northern hardwoods is the presence of multi-stemmed trees, which signal the
end of the old growth. The one exception to this is basswood, which
sometimes sprouts a ring of smaller trees around the mother tree in the
absence of disturbance.

In other forest types, such as floodplain forest of cottonwood and silver
maple, stump sprouting is more common and occurs after natural disturbances
such as wind and fire.

Oak forests, especially northern pin oak, northern red oak and white oak
stump sprout prolifically after fire or logging, and multiple-stemmed
trees are the most common, especially in forests that have frequent fires.

Aspen forests root sprout, rather than stump sprout, and multiple stemmed
trees are therefore not common.

Lee

Giant Calipers, fusion, and classes of trees	Robert Leverett
	Jan 05, 2005 06:10 PST

Bruce:

   Good point. From your knowledge of tree physiology, through fusion,
to what extend does the previous two organisms act like one? Is there
any reason to treat fused trees as a separate category of organism?
Again, what are the merits of ENTS adopting three classes of trees for
the purpose of documenting:

   1. Single-stemmed trees

   2. Fused trees

   3. Coppice structures beginning with a single base-root assembly and
thereafter branching into multiple stems.

   On reviewing the images of the big Westfield cottonwood organism,
there is virtually no doubt that it is the fusion of two trees.
Cottonwoods within the area are capable of reaching a 20-foot
circumference, but this is not one of them.

   I think that president Will Blozan has already cast his vote - no
special class for fused stems. I am inclined to agree, but believe the
idea is worth discussing.

   Man, Ed Frank just laid a heavy on us. There's enough material in
his last e-mail to keep the thread going for a long time. But the time
to shine the light on these elusive classes had arrived. As we discuss
the classes, or potential classes, of trees we want to track, I hope
everyone in ENTS will keep in mind that we do not need to feel
restricted by the AF compromise formula used for judging champion trees.
We shouldn't telescope our thinking down to seeing the formula as a
constraining influence. Why do I say this? Well, maybe I'm reading more
into the thoughts of others than I should, but I get the feeling at
times that some of us keep the formula in the backs of our minds as some
kind of litmus test that we must satisfy in terms of acceptability of
proposing alternative systems. It is a little like requiring that
anything we do on a personal computer is fine so long as it is
accomplishable on an old IBM PC. My point is that we can acknowledge the
role of the old IBM PC in the history of computing and even support some
lingering user groups, but we shouldn't use the limits of the IBM PC to
restrict our direction or growth. So sayeth the Burl-belly.

Bob

Re: Giant Calipers, fusion, and classes of trees	Bruce P. Allen
	Jan 05, 2005 06:33 PST

Bob,

I usually refer to stems, not individuals. It rather difficult to identify
a genetic individuals in the field. The point at which an individual
branches range from below ground root suckers, to the root collar, and to
any point on the above ground stem. If you are talking about the biggest
tree - you are probably referring to an individual rather than a
stem. Eventually you run into the definition of what is a tree, usually a
single stemmed organism greater than 3 meters (?).

In terms of the ability of a tree to inspire awe (probably related to total
above ground biomass and height), single forest growth stems are much more
impressive to me.

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	edward coyle
	Jan 05, 2005 07:30 PST

Hey Bob,

I looked through the ENTS site guides for measuring girths and
multistemmed trees. The AF rules are there, and probably should remain. Not
that they make perfect sense, but they are an accepted standard that most
people can relate to.
If we Ents redefine altogether the methods to measure trees, and we could,
the numbers would mean nothing to anyone else. We can't even get people to
measure using sine top/sine bottom.

We could have a category for coppices. It could not be compared with
anything else. A multi trunked silver maple could not be compared to a
single stemmed one. What would be the point? You could get some mind blowing
numbers if you included the included bark bunch though.
Some have suggested adding the stems greater than 3" dbh to quantify the
plant. Good idea for the coppice category.

I'm glad there's still so much to do with the single stemmed tree
documentation that it could be forever before I have to consider coppices,
rhododendron, or dwarf forests.

Ed

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	Edward Frank
	Jan 05, 2005 08:19 PST

Ed,

I think it is important that we keep measuring methods that can be compared
to those used by other groups like the AF. I want to keep track of the
tallest and fattest stem of a coppice of silver maples. This could be
treated as a single tree in the main data set, so that we have the capacity
to compare our information with other data sets, and to compare our coppice
measurements with those of single stemmed trees. For the most part our
measurements are comparable to the AF categories, we just use a different
methodology to generate the numbers.
The thing I think should be considered is whether or not we should create a
special category for multi-stemmed trees or coppices that contain
additional measurements to the standard tallest/fattest stem/canopy
measurements. I think there are many interesting multi-stemmed trees or
coppices that would be interesting to examine. Not everyone would want to
do this. It would be somewhat of an intermediate stage between the basic
measurements we are doing now, and the detailed tree mapping being
conducted by Bob Van Pelt.

If we decide to create a special category for these specimens, it is a
worthwhile effort, in my opinion, to try and define our terms and
categories for these specimens and develop some initial guidelines for
measurements. They seem to be an afterthought in most measuring
guidelines, do not make up a large portion of the measurements, and
generally do not provide all that much useful information in the AF
listings for example. So yes if we defined different rules for measuring
coppices, we would not have much but our own measurements to compare.
Better standards should developed, and there is no reason why we should not
develop them.

This is one reason I wanted to make sure the ENTS database had the
capacity to link to an additional external dataset - The single largest
stem information could reside in the main database, while the additional
coppice measurements could be maintained in a separate subset of the database.

You said:

Some have suggested adding the stems greater than 3" dbh to quantify the
plant. Good idea for the coppice category.

This is something to consider, at least it is a start. If you are looking
at a tree with a wide variety of stems from finger sized to a couple feet
in diameter, it might not be practical or useful to measure every wisp of
stem. I personally am interested in some of the smaller tree species,
dwarfed forests, and shrubs like rhododendron so a 3" diameter measurement
would not be a useful criteria at this lower end of the measurement
spectrum. Perhaps something more like stems at least 3 inches in diameter,
or at least 20% the diameter of the largest stem in the grouping.

Ed Frank

Okay, I'm a purist. Am I right or wrong?	Robert Leverett
	Jan 05, 2005 10:26 PST

Ed and Ed:

   In my comments, I don't mean to sound like I reject taking the same
measurements as American Forests and the state champion tree programs or
employing their rules for their purposes. I have no problem with that. I
also acknowledge that we should keep ourselves in a position to make
comparisons to the data of others - all kinds of comparisons. So, the
more measurements, the better.

   The thing that we absolutely do NOT want to do is dilute our data and
analyses with the junk that is buried in most of the big tree lists. We
shouldn't in one breath acknowledge how bad the data are and in the next
breath advocate using it. To link our data to lists of unknown accuracy
would go against everything that the select group of ENTS measurers has
been working for. However, to the extent that we can identify lists that
are of high quality, temporarily extending our database through
linkages, for comparison purposes only, might not present a problem. So,
I would not close the door to establishing some data links, but the
burden of proof MUST remain on the others. The operative assumption on
our part about the worth of other big tree lists is: guilty until proven
innocent. End of story.

   With respect to the acceptance and spread of our methods, there are
several key reasons why our techniques will remain slow to catch on, but
thinking on the matter, that is as it should be. Like the Marines, we're
looking for a few good men and women. Besides, picking up just one Scott
Wade is worth infinitely more than signing on a hundred poorly trained
measurers or otherwise competent forest specialists who remain hung up
on doing it the old way. Scott Wade came, he saw, and he conquered. He
watched us, understood what we were doing, and why, and now he's ready
to make major contributions.

I hate to harp on this subject, but nothing concerns me more than
insuring the integrity and accuracy of the ENTS database and the
negative implications of mixing our data with that of others or feeling
that we should adopt any of their rules - unless they make sense to us.
That should be the operative test. Do their rules make sense to us? But
I've said my piece. I'll now turn the podium over to Will Blozan, Lee
Frelich, Bob Van Pelt, Dale Luthringer, Tom Diggins, John Eichholz,
Howard Stoner, Jess Riddle, Paul Jost, Mike Davie, John Knuerr, Gary
Beluzo, etc. Comrades, please tell me if I'm full of you know what, and
if you tell me I am, I'll pipe down on this subject and quit being a
purist.

Bob

RE: Multi-stemmed trees	edward coyle
	Jan 05, 2005 10:33 PST

Ed,

I just wanted to comment on your observations of street trees and their
poor growth forms. It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of
tree pruning, that the poorest specimens are being used. Multiple leaders,
main branching crosses, etc. This is also true for trees and shrubs from
nurseries. They are pruned to have a full form, with no regard to the
structure, or future problems that will result.

Most trees, and branches, do not integrate one another upon contact. By
that I mean, begin to share a common transport system. They simply grow
larger, one engulfing the other, to the demise of the lesser. In the case of
equal size trunks in a tight "v" crotch, they simply exert increasing
pressure as they continue growing. The bark remains as a barrier until the
ever increasing load on the original wood, where they met, can no longer
support it. They never 'fuse', but are separated by the included bark. All
this to say that generally, one does not see evidence of multiple trunks,
within the main trunk, when taking down these street, open grown, trees. I
have seen the lateral grafting of branches, rarely, so I suspect it could
happen with upright growth, especially suckers before they develop a thick
bark. It's not the norm.
I would like to hear from anybody on this.

As for how multi-stemmed trees are able to grow. They are like separate
trees, having a common pith, that bifurcated at a certain point (who knows
why) above the roots. Each side capable of forming a perfect tree, but
lacking the space to do so. So you get two perfect halves or whatever
fraction) which would be the same as one whole tree. Leaders (stems) are
different than branches, and are not 'shed'.

Ed

Re: Okay, I'm a purist. Am I right or wrong?	Edward Frank
	Jan 05, 2005 10:40 PST

Bob,

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I was saying. We take many of the
same measurements as AF for example, tree height, girth, canopy spread. I
do not want to start another set of measurements that do not include those
basic measurements. In this way we are backward compatible with all of our
own single stem measurements and we can compare our data with those
collected by other groups. I am not advocating incorporating other data
sets into our database, merely maintaining backward compatibility with
existing datasets.

As for the American Forests tree formulas. There is a link to their big
tree formula on our measurement index page. The big tree formula is
referred to in many posts, a link describing how it works is appropriate and
needed somewhere on the website. It is not an endorsement of AF
measurement techniques, nor is it a critique of those techniques. The
merits and failings of the AF methodologies compared to ENTS methodologies
is repeated over and over in the material in the measurement index, so I
did not opt to include any specific disclaimer of their methodologies.

Ed

RE: Okay, I'm a purist. Am I right or wrong?	edward coyle
	Jan 05, 2005 11:07 PST

Bob, burlmeister,

I would be the last to trounce the ENTS data, or methods! I would never
advocate intermingling our data with that of anybody else, unless they did
it our way, and it was verified. But we measure at 4.5'. We didn't make that
up. But we use it for a common reference point. After all, it's an arbitrary
point on a tree, One of convenience.

Eventually, and it seems closer every week, everyone will be measuring as
we do. I can picture our champion tree data being considered as definitive,
and a model for others to follow.

Ed C

RE: Okay, I'm a purist. Am I right or wrong?	Robert Leverett
	Jan 05, 2005 12:05 PST

Ed and Ed:

Please don't think I've taken offense at any thing either of you have
said. Absolutely not. Nor do I mean to sound as if my taking potshots at
AF or the state programs. Those programs exist for very different
purposes to what we do and that's always been my central theme along
with the tree height accuracy issue.

In my e-mail responses, I'm usually not talking only to the originator
of the e-mail, but to anyone i think might eventually read these posts.
In my responses, I often seek to reinforce certain messages. I know for
the ENTS faithful, I can sound repetitious, and am, but I see message
reinforcement as very necessary.

In this period of rapid ENTS ascendancy, we need to continually make
distinctions between what we seek to do versus the missions of the big
tree programs AND (and it is a big AND) who should be considered as the
authoritative data source for an area of knowledge. In some cases, there
may not need to be a distinction, but when it comes to understanding the
distribution of tree sizes, maximum dimensions, and capabilities, in the
EAST, ENTS has emerged as supreme and so long as we don't get too
uppity, we have a right to be proud of our position, defend it, and push
the technology.

   I know that I speak for not only myself, but Will Blozan as well, in
conveying our feeling of immense pride in what the rest of you are doing
and have already accomplished in the name of ENTS. I just want you all
to be recognized for the expert tree measurers that you are and battles
that some of you have had to wage are always close to the surface of my
thinking. Dale Luthringer's hassle rises to near the top of the list.
But enough of that. Back to the good stuff.

Bob

RE: Okay, I'm a purist. Am I right or wrong?	Bruce P. Allen
	Jan 05, 2005 12:51 PST

Ed,

I measure dbh at 1.37 meter unless the tree has a buttress or fluting, then
I measure 1 meter above visible buttress to get an accurate estimate of
basal area. For Cypress and Tupelo, that is often 3 or 4 (or more) meters
up the tree. Every picture I see of a person measuring in the middle of a
buttress makes me wonder about their methods.

Bruce

RE: Okay, I'm a purist. Am I right or wrong?	edward coyle
	Jan 05, 2005 15:11 PST

Hey Bruce,

I'm not trying to be funny, but my understanding (limited) of basal area is
to determine volume for a tree, or stand of them. You are working with some
odd shaped trees to be sure, but aren't you losing a good deal of volume by
excluding that conical shell of wood from 4 meters down to whatever flare
exists at the base?
For all I know, cypress mills turn them off with a lathe to make posts.

Ed C

Re: More on the whoppers	Fores-@aol.com
	Jan 05, 2005 16:41 PST

Michele:

With some of the large single stemmed red oak trees I have seen in WV, I
would say that the old red oak in Buckland was a single tree but it grew up
along a stonewall in a fertile growing site and probably spent a majority of its'
younger years on the edge of a sheep pasture so the crown developed
extremely close to the ground....it could have been nipped by sheep or horses a
couple of times in the early 1800's and developed a bifurcated stem.

Russ

Re: Giant Calipers, fusion, and classes of trees	dbhg-@comcast.net
	Jan 05, 2005 18:49 PST

Bruce:
I do agree with you Will and probably many that the single-stemmed individuals are the most impressive.
Bob

Buttresses	Bruce P. Allen
	Jan 06, 2005 04:38 PST

Ed,

I am more interested in basal area as it relates to total tree volume. If
you measure the cross sectional area in the middle of the buttress, you
greatly over estimate the volume of the tree above that point. In general,
the buttress, while substantial, is still a small fraction of a trees above
ground biomass. Some Tupelo trees will have a dbh of 2.5 to 3 meters but
taper
down to 50 cm at 3.5 meters above the ground. Yes, a very odd shape, but
not unusual. Also, we are interested in basal area increment/diameter
growth rate and we have no idea how this relates to buttress growth, only
that over periods of decades, it can grow up the tree.

Bruce

Make list by type, quantity of trunks, then height	silversail
	Jan 06, 2005 08:33 PST

Though I am very far from an authority, I vote for a separate list for
multi-trunkers. Why should they have to compete for height with a single
purpose trunker. They have spent their lives following more than one path
and deserve credit for that effort.

Re: Make list by type, quantity of trunks, then height	Don Bertolette
	Jan 06, 2005 20:22 PST

I agree that multi-trunkers shouldn't be cast aside...Arizona's multi-trunk
cottonwood Champ shouldn't be disrespected!
Concept of 'genetic volume' comes to mind.
-DonB

Back to the multi-stemmed giants	Robert Leverett
	Jan 07, 2005 06:11 PST

ENTS:

Our discussions about the place and role of multi-stemmed trees are
timely. I have wondered about some of the reports of the giant chestnuts
of bygone days. At least two have been reported as having diameters of
17 feet or more. It is interesting to contemplate the possibility of
them being a system of fused stems. Chestnuts in the 6 to 8-foot
diameter range occurred in many places, but I am under the impression
that larger chestnuts would have been very uncommon, although they did
occur. I generally think of a 10-foot diameter as being the upper limit.

Thinking about the situation in human terms, a 6-foot human is
thought of as fairly, though not exceptionally, tall. But there are no
12-foot humans. The analogy between humans and trees may not hold, but
to pursue it a bit further, if a 7-foot diameter chestnut is a large
one, but not exceptionally large, then a 14-foot diameter chestnut would
be analogous to the 12-foot human. Doesn't happen. So, on a ratio and
proportion basis, a 17-foot diameter chestnut would correspond to a
14.6-foot human. I emphasize that the analogies and comparison process
may not hold, but again, maybe they do. When I see enough mature trees
spread over varied terrain that are able to reach a particular diameter
class, I form an opinion of what the species can do in the region.
Reports of over-sized trees immediately generate suspicion. More on this
topic later.

Bob

Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society

Re: Back to the multi-stemmed giants	wad-@comcast.net
	Jan 07, 2005 08:42 PST

ENTS

I was pondering some formulas for MS (multi-stemmed) trees. tell me what you think.

average circumference of all stems > 3" dia at the break. plus the cbh of the trunk at it's narrowest point below 4.5', divided by two. for it's cbh points.

(((L1+L2+L3+L4)/4)+C)/2

example (not a real tree): leaders of 50, 69, 88, 57 have an average of 66" circ. say the main trunk measures 150 circ at 2.5 ft. so the points awarded would be 108?

That way this tree would appear smaller than a single trunk specimen?

I was thinking of something to get us started, and this was the first thing I came up with.

The only other thing that popped in my head was that there would be two seperate databases. one for single stem and one for multistemmed.

Currently the points system sort of balances the two types by awarding full points for height and girth. A single stem tree is typically taller than a MS tree with similar girth.

Another option could be to weight height heavier, and give girth less than a full point for MS trees.

example- a single stem tree has a height of 140' and a cbh of 144" for points of 284.
a MS tree has a height of 92' and a circumference of 201" at 2.5'. give it 3/4 point per inch circ. for being MS, and your total is 243, instead of 293 if it were a full point.
This scores it lower than the sinsle stem, but still shows a large tree.
.
I am thinking out loud here, and you won't hurt my feelings by adding, subtracting, or dismissing these ideas. So fire away!

Scott

Re: Back to the multi-stemmed giants	edward coyle
	Jan 07, 2005 09:23 PST

Scott,

We could measure them the same as we do the others, but include the total
stems over 3"cbh, and put the numbers in a separate coppice category. That
way comparison could be made with ease between the two if someone was
looking at total volume, area, height, or something.
For those branching below bh, and for those joined in a way which couldn't
be measured separately until above that point, some5thing must be decided.

Ed

Re: Back to the multi-stemmed giants	wad-@comcast.net
	Jan 07, 2005 14:09 PST

Ed, ENTS

If we brainstorm some, and get as many ideas on the table, then maybe we could choose a method to track the different habits. a column that said coppiced, y/n, then number of stems, and maybe split height?

Scott

Re: Multi-stemmed trees	Jess Riddle
	Jan 09, 2005 20:26 PST

I think you've cleared up something about forest in north Georgia that had
been puzzling me for quite some time. Third generation forests in the
area that have grown up after clear-cutting 20 or 30 years ago contain a
high proportion of coppices. Conversely, mature second growth forests in
the region, presumable developing after physically similar clear-cutting,
contain only scattered coppices and few basal scars or other evidence of
deceased stems. The difference between the age of the trees originally
cut and the age of the trees recently cut and the corresponding difference
in tendency to stump sprout seems to explain the situation. Thanks for
the information.

Jess Riddle

Re: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	Edward Frank
	Jan 10, 2005 20:41 PST

Bob,

You posed a question:

"...the rules you cite for measuring a large multi-stemmed trees are the types in use by one or more organizations, including AF and the state big tree programs. For the purpose of reporting a tree to AF or a
state, of course, we use their rules. However, should we in ENTS concern
ourselves with the rules being used in the big tree contests for strictly
ENTS purposes? Should we concern ourselves with how other organizations,
like AF, define their rules for measuring trees, for trees measured for
ENTS purposes?"

I would say the answer must be YES. Look at the question in a couple of
parts. Say you are going to do background overview of tree growth in an
area and you have ten sets of data. You will recognize that all of the
height data is not of the same quality, but other descriptive information
or conclusions are relevant to your investigation. What most researchers
would do is summarize all of the data available. They may note your
reservations about portions of the dataset, but will include all the data.
At the present time the ENTS data set simply isn't big enough or have a
wide enough geographic distribution to fill in all of the holes in any
forest overview summary. If you have ten sets of data, and one may be more
accurate, but is a different format from the others, what data are you
going to use? I would guess in most cases the data included in the
summary, for better or worse, would be whatever set has the most numbers.
If we want the ENTS data to be used it must contain the same basic
information as the standards used by other measuring groups. We measure
height using a different methodology, but we generate a height value that
is compatible with other height measurements. We use the same numbers for
canopy spread. If we want our girth measurements to be comparable, we need
to generate a number directly comparable with the measurements used by
these other data sets. If we make new rules for measuring multi-trunked
trees, we need to make sure we are measuring one set of numbers that are
directly comparable to the AF standards - the height and girth of the
largest single stem of the group.

I am not saying we can not do better with our measurements. I am not
saying we are bound in our thinking by their methodology. I am saying we
need to be able to generate as a subset of our measurement data numbers
that are directly comparable to those generated by the AF guidelines, and to
a lesser extent various state organizations.

If we want to compare our data with these other datasets, even if it is
just to point out the weaknesses in these other methodologies, we again
need to generate numbers that are directly comparable to their numbers. It
is to our benefit to have those numbers for our own usages.

If you look at numbers from historical sources, we need to be able to
compare our measurements with theirs. When I was was researching phosphate
mineralogy on Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico I read everything written about the
subject, even descriptions from the 1880's written in German. The older
information was not directly useful, but it was important to provide
context to the other information I compiled. One of the problems with
convincing people that global warming was that the older temperature data
was taken in different places using a different protocol than the more
recent measurements. Therefore the two sets of measurements were not
directly comparable. We need to make sure that at least on extractable
subset of our data are directly comparable to historical information in
order to maximize their utility.

We should take more comprehensive measurements of coppiced trees, we should
think about the best height at which to take cbh so that it is
representative of the "truth", but we we need to make sure we take the
generic measurements as well so we can maximize the usefulness of our
dataset and allow for us to make the broadest comparisons as possible.

Ed Frank

Re: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	wad-@comcast.net
	Jan 11, 2005 05:33 PST

Ed, ENTS

I can see your point. If we decide to alter the reporting on certain trees, the data should include the AF style of reporting, and we can add some new numbers to represent a lower circumference measurement, or number of stems etc.

Scott

RE: Whopper Measuring, whopper problems to consider	Robert Leverett
	Jan 11, 2005 05:54 PST

Ed:

   We are not in disagreement on this subject. I agree with everything
you've said. There's no reason not to take the circumferential and crown
spread measurements that are employed by AF and the states. In my
arguments, I don't mean to imply that those measurements shouldn't be
taken so we can, when we wish, make comparisons or provide compatible
data to others.

   For those on the list who may wonder why I place so much emphasis on
forging our own path, well, we could talk about that for a hundred
e-mail exchanges, but I would summarize by saying, that the present
system of determining champion trees yields too little data that is of
value, is encumbered with too much baggage from the past, and mixes tree
forms that are so variant as to render comparisons of questionable
value. Still, there may be some usefulness to the AF and state-level
lists beyond promotion the value of a few big trees. There may be a good
deal of historical value at least in terms of circumferential data.

    So long as we don't look to these other lists as being some how the
"official" ones and having in the backs of our minds seeking and winning
approval from other tree-measuring organizations, then the benefits of
taking those 3 little measurements carries no negatives.

    This having been said, I am convinced that we should be trying to
devise a system that more clearly captures volume-size by taking and
weighting more measurements. To completely ignore what happens below
4.5 feet above ground level never seemed rational to me. However, we
would continue to take the 3 used by AFs. We would just add to those
three and we would continuously explore the results, comparing and
contrasting as we went.

     So, we aren't in disagreement. I guess I'm just always concerned
with what I perceive to be the collective ENTS state of mind. Maybe
I've traveled a little too far down the path as its self-appointed
guardian. We have 105 members, all independent thinkers, but not all
equally experienced in judging the pros and cons of the current lists
and our participation in other systems. There's room for a lot more
discussion on this subject. Who chooses to be next? Will Blozan, what
say you?

Bob

Double Trunked Trees	Edward Frank
	Jan 12, 2005 19:08 PST

ENTS,

Are double trunked trees fundamentally different from multi-trunked trees?
Is there some biological difference that allows double trunked trees to
grow in areas where single trunks are the norm - as opposed to multitrunked
that tend to form in areas that have been timbered?

How does it work biologically when limbs are shed?

Ed Frank

RE: Double Trunked Trees	Robert Leverett
	Jan 13, 2005 05:28 PST

Ed:

I remember Anthony Cook asking me what I thought the story was with
the abundance of hemlocks in Cook Forest State Park that split into two
easily recognizable trunks anywhere from 5 to 35 feet above base level.
A few of the largest of these are doubles, but the majority are single
trees that split into two.

Bob

Double Trunked Trees and question to Lee	Robert Leverett
	Jan 13, 2005 08:12 PST

Ed:

To continue the thread that you began. I think the physiology of tree
development splits trees into two broad classes, those that have a
single dominant stem that is genetically programmed to set the pace of
upward growth. The dominant stem grows straight as in the spruces. At
the other end of the spectrum we have species like oaks that don't have
a single dominant stem. When this genetically controlled stem growth is
combined with a tree's response to loss of limbs and injury that
releases dormant buds, tree shapes become bewilderingly complex. So we
have species that don't trunk sprout versus those that do. We have
species that root sprout versus those that don't. Then of course there
is the trees response to light flooding in from the sides versus down
from the top.

In southern New England, to me silver maples and black willows
present the quintessential stump-trunk sprouting species to examine.
Cottonwoods are in there, but lawsy, lawsy, just look at the silver
maple forms in swamps versus yards, versus, areas that get some
flooding, but not a lot.

There's a lot of physiology to deal with in terms of what to expect
out of each species. So I'll stop at this point and turn the subject
over to the real experts. Lee and others, what say you?

Bob

Re: Double Trunked Trees and question to Lee	wad-@comcast.net
	Jan 13, 2005 08:45 PST

Bob, Ed

One thing to add is that there is a balance that the tree wants to maintain as a system. If a limb is lost from another tree falling onto it, the tree reacts by trying to replace the lost canopy as quickly as it can to re-balance the canopy to root zone ratio. I believe that is why suckers that grow from around a wound grow so fast. The tree has to make x amount of sugar to support y amount of mass. When a tree is cut to the ground, the suckers that form grow at an amazing rate.

It only takes one nibble of a terminal bud from a deer to get a two stem tree.

Also, a tree that is alternately branched will have more of a tendency to maintain a single leader, where a tree that is oppositely branch will tend to form two. This is not a rule though, as anything can, and will, happen in nature.

Scott

RE: Double Trunked Trees and question to Lee	Robert Leverett
	Jan 13, 2005 10:24 PST

Scott:

   Thanks for the additional insights. Lots of field experiments come to
mind in terms of statistically documenting the forms we commonly see
trees take on and how the percentages differ by species. I'm conditioned
to seeing multi-stemmed willows with bulbous, heavily burled trunks. I'm
accustomed to seeing tuliptrees with single trunks. Where oaks are
common, I'm accustomed to seeing heavily coppiced forms after logging or
fire. I'm accustomed to seeing multi-trunked forms of silver maples in
wetlands, but on occasion, I'll encounter a handsome stand of
single-trunked silver maples, where coppicing is the exception.

   I wonder what kind of job ENTS could do putting together form charts
for the species that interest us. For instance, what might the the limit
of the spread to height ratio for mature tuliptrees, white oaks, white
pines, etc. What other general form variables might we be interested in.
I know Lee likes to to crown to trunk ratios. I wonder if the live oak
sets the record for maximum spread to height ratios?

Bob

Re: Double Trunked Trees and question to Lee	Lee E. Frelich
	Jan 14, 2005 05:54 PST

Bob:

Not much is known about why some trees sprout and others don't, across
species or within species, or within one tree, since the probability of
sprouting changes over a trees lifetime.

We can speculate that unique events in the evolution of each species has
led to the type of sprouts, and that unique disturbance history in each
stand leads to a pattern of single stemmed or multiple-stemmed trees.

Most of the stuff in the literature is observational (i.e. trees sprout
more when young than old, intense fire makes aspen more likely to sprout on
some sites and less likely on others). There isn't much known that is
mechanistic, so we can't make any sense of it or make any predictions.

Lee

RE: Double Trunked Trees and question to Lee	Robert Leverett
	Jan 14, 2005 06:28 PST

Lee:

Thanks for the further clarifications. The topic of sprouting and
tree form has suddenly leaped to the top of my current list of
interests. In terms of tree form, are there any new measurements we can
add to what we already are collecting in ENTS that might prove of future
scientific value to you and the other ecologists. In terms of what we
are able to collect as a group, if you could have a wish list, what
measurements would you like to see us take?

Bob

scientific requirements (requests) for champion tree data	Don Bragg
	Jan 18, 2005 06:10 PST

Bob--

I have a few thoughts in regards to your question as to what ecologists may like to have measured from champion trees. Given conventional uses, circumference/diameter at breast height (C/DBH) or its accepted equivalent (e.g., adjustments made for buttressing or burls), height, and crown spread are the most useful, as most allometric relationships can be estimated from these numbers. Certainly geographic location (as precise as possible, including driving directions, if permitted). I think it would also be valuable to include information on the physical structure of the tree (e.g., one or many trunks) and location (cove, ridgeline, etc.). Ideally, other information on local stand density (basal area, or trees per acre), site quality (site index, or other information on soil type). I would also suggest taking at least three photographs of the tree from different perspectives, with a standard scale or reference item placed alongside the trunk. One photo would be the standard shot of the bottom of the bole, another would be shooting up the bole towards the crown, and another (if possible given stand conditions) would be from a distance showing the full height and breadth of the tree.

Volumetric information, while nice, would depend strongly on the method of its calculation, and could be derived directly from any of a number of published empirical relationships. Crown volume would likewise be nice to have, but may not be easy to determine and therefore hard to justify, given the degree of effort required. Other indices (e.g., ENTS or AF points, or Rucker Index) can be derived from the data already collected.

As another scientist who periodically uses champion tree data for my research, the most valuable contribution an organization like ENTS can provide is an easily accessible, reliable set of measurements using up-to-date techniques. Additionally, these measurements must follow acceptable scientific protocols and be able to withstand question or challenges (i.e., be repeatable by an outsider). The actual rule set used to dimension a tree, so long as it makes sense, becomes convention and the nuances are of less consequence.

Think of it this way--currently, the most commonly used and accepted big tree measurements are those provided by American Forests, or cited in some silvics manuals. I myself have used these numbers for several projects. We are all aware of the potential errors for some of these trees, but it is the most accessible source of information available. The state-level lists maintained by many states can supplement this data, but may also be prone to significant errors. ENTS needs to ensure that these errors are not included, especially if they are a result of methodology. A citable source is also invaluable to their use in scientific circles. Websites are becoming increasingly used in scientific papers, but many researchers prefer technical outlets (rigorous peer-reviewed outlets are considered the best).

I would also love to have a list of past champions/individuals maintained in a similar format/level of detail. Just because a big tree has expired does not make its dimensional information of any less value (at least for many applications).

Ideally (and you asked for a wish list), I would love to have a peer-reviewed journal devoted to enumeration of the big tree data you collect. I also know that few if any existing journals are interested in publishing this kind of information. What is the possibility of ENTS sponsoring something like this, even if it is an e-journal? I think that ENTS collection of archival email threads is a start, and the level of detail in many descriptions is great and much more useful scientifically than provided by American Forests, but we do not have the decades-long reputation as a provider of big tree data, and therefore incur much more skepticism that our efforts deserve.

Just some thoughts...
Don Bragg

RE: scientific requirements (requests) for champion tree data	Robert Leverett
	Jan 18, 2005 07:46 PST

Don:

Thanks. Your thoughtful response is just what a number of us have been
looking for. The e-journal is an intriguing idea. Maintaining all the
measurements needed for comparisons, ala Ed Franks suggestions, is a
given and adding additional measurements of scientific value is exactly
where we have been wanting to go. The photographs via a standard
protocol is a good idea.

What has always been exciting to me to think about has been the great
potential for ENTS to make valuable contributions to science by
providing a reservoir of scientifically defensible tree measurement
data, data of uniformly high accuracy. That is where some of us see our
greatest contribution. I see my own contribution very much that way. I'm
never going to do all the heavy scientific analysis that those such as
Lee and yourself will do, but I can pioneer better measurement methods,
collect data, and work to organize the overall collection effort.

Incidentally, Lee Frelich, Will Blozan, and I have been working on a
database for general ENTS use that includes all the measurements you've
suggested. We're thinking along the same lines. A version suitable to
general ENTS usage will soon be passed along. Again, thanks for the
excellent input.

Bob

Multitrunked - What Measurements?	Edward Frank
	Jan 21, 2005 21:48 PST

ENTS,

Bob Leverett posed the question of what measurements would be most useful
for scientific purposes of multitrunked trees? Don Bragg provided a nice
discussion of the question (below). Will Blozen expressed the opinion
that he is most interested in the potential for what a single stem of a tree
is able to do, while Bob Leverett stated that multitrunked trees were at
the top of his interest menu at the moment. So there are a wide variety
of interest levels in the issue. I would suggest a set of minimal criteria,
desired criteria, and optimal criteria for measurements, based upon the
time available and practicality of collecting a series of measurements of a
multitrunked coppice.

Minimal:

a) species - common name and scientific name
b) The number of significant trunks. I would use a basic denotation (d)
= double, (df) = double fused, and (m#) = multiple with number of
significant trunks. A significant trunk would be any trunk greater than 3"
in diameter at breast height, or 1/4 the diameter of the largest trunk in
the coppice.
c) The girth (cbh) and height of the tallest trunk. The entire issue of
measuring girth needs to be discussed in more detail. If a girth for a
branch of trunk fused at the base is taken at some height other than breast
height that height needs to be noted.

Desired Information ( all of the above plus):

a) The canopy spread of the tallest trunk.
b) The height and girth of both trunks of a double, and/or the height and
girth of each of major trunks of a multiple.
c) The girth of each of the significant trunks of a multiple.
d) The composite canopy spread of the entire coppice.
e) Basic description of the tree form and growing location.

Optimal information (all of the above plus):

a) The height, girth, and canopy spread of each major trunk.
b) More detailed tree description and detailed description of the location
as outlined by Don Bragg. His comments are listed below.

Ed Frank

Don Bragg wrote (01-18-2005):
"I have a few thoughts in regards to your question as to what ecologists
may like to have measured from champion trees. Given conventional uses,
circumference/diameter at breast height (C/DBH) or its accepted equivalent
(e.g., adjustments made for buttressing or burls), height, and crown spread
are the most useful, as most allometric relationships can be estimated from
these numbers. Certainly geographic location (as precise as possible,
including driving directions, if permitted). I think it would also be
valuable to include information on the physical structure of the tree
(e.g., one or many trunks) and location (cove, ridgeline, etc.). Ideally,
other information on local stand density (basal area, or trees per acre),
site quality (site index, or other information on soil type). I would also
suggest taking at least three photographs of the tree from different
perspectives, with a standard scale or reference item placed alongside the
trunk. One photo would be the standard shot of the bottom of the bole,
another would be shooting up the bole towards the crown, and another (if
possible given stand conditions) would be from a distance showing the full
height and breadth of the tree."

Multitrunked Trees (part 3)	Edward Frank
	Jan 24, 2005 15:21 PST

Multi-trunked Trees (part 3)

At this juncture we have had some good discussions on multi-trunked trees,
but a number of questions remain unanswered. Some perhaps people on this
list can answer now, others probably must wait until we gather more
information and have time to figure them out.   I would like to summarize
some of what was determined and restate the questions remaining.

1) The problem essentially is do we want to treat a multi-trunked tree
specimen as a) a single individual, b) a group of individual trees each of
whom is represented by a single trunk or stem, or c) some combination of
both as a "group individual?"

Bob Leverett has expressed an interest in expanding our measurements of
multi-trunked trees. These are outlined initially in a post dated Jan 04,
2005. Will Blozan on the other hand (Jan 04, 2005) expressed the opinion:
"The seed sprouts a single stem, and that is an individual. What the tree
does from there is to be considered by ENTS, but the accomplishments of a
single stem are what I am interested in."

As I see it the answer is all of the above. If some people are interested
in doing more detailed measurements of multi-trunked trees, and they are
going to measure them using ENTS high standards, there is not reason not to
support the effort and publish the results on the website. The standard
measurements of height, cbh, and crown spread should be taken for the
largest stem of the coppice so that data from the multi-trunked tree can be
directly compared to those single stemmed trees, and additional information
and measurements can be taken of the other stems and incorporate into a
separate data set focusing on multi-trunked specimens.

2) How do these multi-trunked trees form?

Lee Frelich (Jan 05, 2004) wrote:
"One of the main ways to identify the boundary of old growth stands in the
northern hardwoods is the presence of multi-stemmed trees, which signal the
end of the old growth. The one exception to this is basswood, which
sometimes sprouts a ring of smaller trees around the mother tree in the
absence of disturbance. In a 1953 blowdown in the Porcupine Mountains in
sugar maple, red maple, red oak, basswood, yellow birch forest (with very
few white pine, white spruce and hemlock), the areas that were salvaged
have many multiple stemmed trees that are crooked, whereas the areas not
salvaged have straight trees with much bigger trunks. All the species in
this forest except the conifers will stump sprout, especially younger trees
up to 80 years old. Older trees die if the top is lost. In other forest
types, such as floodplain forest of cottonwood and silver maple, stump
sprouting is more common and occurs after natural disturbances such as wind
and fire. Oak forests, especially northern pin oak, northern red oak and
white oak stump sprout prolifically after fire or logging, and
multiple-stemmed trees are the most common, especially in forests that have
frequent fires. Aspen forests root sprout, rather than stump sprout, and
multiple stemmed trees are therefore not common."

3) Are double trunked trees fundamentally different from multi-trunked
trees? Is there some biological difference that allows double trunked
trees to grow in areas where single trunks are the norm - as opposed to
multitrunked that tend to form in areas that have been timbered?

I pose this question again. Scott Wade wrote (Jan 13, 2005): "One thing
to add is that there is a balance that the tree wants to maintain as a
system. If a limb is lost from another tree falling onto it, the tree
reacts by trying to replace the lost canopy as quickly as it can to
re-balance the canopy to root zone ratio. I believe that is why suckers
that grow from around a wound grow so fast. The tree has to make x amount
of sugar to support y amount of mass. When a tree is cut to the ground, the
suckers that form grow at an amazing rate. It only takes one nibble of a
terminal bud from a deer to get a two stem tree. Also, a tree that is
alternately branched will have more of a tendency to maintain a single
leader, where a tree that is oppositely branch will tend to form two. This
is not a rule though, as anything can, and will, happen in nature."   This
is something that could be investigated statistically.

This is part of an answer, but though I may be wrong, it strikes me that
there is something fundamentally different between double trunked trees and
those with multiple stems - a different process or mechanism involved. You
see double trunked conifers, when these trees don't tend to stump sprout.
I know that in some cases a double trunked tree is really just two
individual trees that happen to have grow close together from separate
seeds and somehow maintained a balance allowing both to continue to grow.
On the Cook Trail at Cook Forest State Park, PA is a maple/pine double
where the bottoms are "fusing' together. This may also happen in
multi-trunked trees on occasion, but I would think this to be a relatively
rare occurrence.

4) Do you get multiple trunked specimens of trees that don't stump sprout?
How do these form?

5) What should be considered a trunk in a multi-trunked tree?

Ed Coyle wrote (Jan 05, 2005): We could have a category for coppices. It
could not be compared with anything else. A multi trunked silver maple
could not be compared to a single stemmed one. What would be the point? You
could get some mind blowing numbers if you included the included bark bunch
though. Some have suggested adding the stems greater than 3" dbh to
quantify the plant. Good idea for the coppice category.

I suggested an alternative definition of what is a trunk (Jan 05, 2005):
This is something to consider, at least it is a start. If you are looking
at a tree with a wide variety of stems from finger sized to a couple feet
in diameter, it might not be practical or useful to measure every wisp of
stem. I personally am interested in some of the smaller tree species,
dwarfed forests, and shrubs like rhododendron so a 3" diameter measurement
would not be a useful criteria at this lower end of the measurement
spectrum. Perhaps something more like stems at least 3 inches in diameter,
or at least 20% the diameter of the largest stem in the grouping.
6) How do we distinguish trees that are forming a coppice growing from the
same root structure, maybe from the same stump sproutings, from trees of
the same species that happen to be growing close together?

7) Aspen fields forever: Some species such as Aspen grow by root
sprouting. It has been reported that entire fields of aspen may be
genetically identical, all having grown from the same initial tree by root
sprouting. This is an interesting phenomena, but how should we deal with
these situations? I would say that generally these tree species do not
form tight clumps and each individual stem should be considered a separate
tree. I am not very familiar with this phenomena and would like to hear
what others with more experience have to say on the matter.

8) What measurements should be taken for multi-trunked trees?
Bob Leverett Proposed (Jan 04, 2005)

The system of reporting only the largest trunk measurement where were are
multiple trunks seems to me to miss the whole point of comparisons. If the
point of split is changed by a few inches, what was a 20-foot circumference
tree shouldn't shrink to a 9 or 10-foot circumference. By gum it ain't
right! One the other hand, what should be done? Well, if we're trying to
reduce a tree to a single composite measurement, the multi-stemmed trees
will always present us with headaches. For my purposes, which aren't better
than those of any of the rest of you, just my thinking, I would want to see
the following numbers.

   1. Total height
   2. Longest limb extension
   3. Average crown spread
   4. Height at branching point
   5. Circumference at base
   6. Circumference at narrowest point between base and branching point.
   7. Circumference of each trunk above branching point when that can be
determined.

   This series of measurements would certainly not be taken for all trees
in our collective database - just the biggest ones. I think I would like to
begin applying the above or something close to it for the biggest trees in
Massachusetts.

I proposed (Edward Frank, Jan 21, 2005) :

Minimal:
a) species - common name and scientific name
b) The number of significant trunks. I would use a basic denotation (d) =
double, (df) = double fused, and (m#) = multiple with number of significant
trunks. A significant trunk would be any trunk greater than 3" in diameter
at breast height, or 1/4 the diameter of the largest trunk in the coppice.
c) The girth (cbh) and height of the tallest trunk. The entire issue of
measuring girth needs to be discussed in more detail - post to discussion
list Jan 25, 2005. If a girth for a branch of trunk fused at the base is
taken at some height other than breast height that height needs to be noted.
d) location

Better Information ( all of the above plus):
a) The canopy spread of the tallest trunk.
b) The height and girth of both trunks of a double, and/or the height and
girth of each of major trunks of a multiple.
c) The girth of each of the significant trunks of a multiple.
d) The composite canopy spread of the entire coppice.
e) Basic description of the tree form and growing location.

Optimal information (all of the above plus):
a) The height, girth, and canopy spread of each major trunk.
b) More detailed tree description and detailed description of the location
as outlined by Don Bragg. His comments are listed below.
c) GPS location

Don Bragg wrote (01-18-2005):
"I have a few thoughts in regards to your question as to what ecologists
may like to have measured from champion trees. Given conventional uses,
circumference/diameter at breast height (C/DBH) or its accepted equivalent
(e.g., adjustments made for buttressing or burls), height, and crown spread
are the most useful, as most allometric relationships can be estimated from
these numbers. Certainly geographic location (as precise as possible,
including driving directions, if permitted). I think it would also be
valuable to include information on the physical structure of the tree e.g.,
one or many trunks) and location (cove, ridgeline, etc.). Ideally, other
information on local stand density (basal area, or trees per acre), site
quality (site index, or other information on soil type). I would also
suggest taking at least three photographs of the tree from different
perspectives, with a standard scale or reference item placed alongside the
trunk. One photo would be the standard shot of the bottom of the bole,
another would be shooting up the bole towards the crown, and another (if
possible given stand conditions) would be from a distance showing the full
height and breadth of the tree."

8) What is a "tree complex?":

Bob Leverett wrote (Jan 04, 2005)
   1. One tree sprouting from a single seed
   2. Multiple trees that have fused together
   3. A root suckering organism that has multiple fused trunks that
probably started from a single tree
   4. A trunk coppicing structure - one root system, multiple trunks.

9) From knowledge of tree physiology, through fusion, to what extend does
the previous two organisms act like one? Is there any reason to treat fused
trees as a separate category of organism?

10) Scott Wade suggested a formula for comparing mutitrunk diameters with
those of single trunked trees (Jan 0, 2005). I was pondering some formulas
for MS (multi-stemmed) trees. tell me what you think. - Average
circumference of all stems > 3" dia at the break. plus the cbh of the trunk
at it's narrowest point below 4.5', divided by two. for it's cbh points.

(((L1+L2+L3+L4)/4)+C)/2

Example (not a real tree): leaders of 50, 69, 88, 57 have an average of 66"
circ. say the main trunk measures 150 circ at 2.5 ft. so the points awarded
would be 108?

At this point I don't think we have enough numbers to determine an
appropriate comparison, but it is something worth thinking about.

11) In my proposal (Edward Frank, Jan 21, 2005) I suggested an additional
measurement of the composite canopy spread of all of the trunks in a
multitrunked tree. Comments?

Home