Posted:

**Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:57 pm**This is a question to all dbh and volume gurus of NTS. It is about the biggest spruce of this park (pictured above). We estimated its volume as 40 cubic meters quickly in our head (actually in Michael's head) at the tree. Now we think the estimation may be too low. We made the estimation assuming conical form, but old trees often have more parabolical form. If we use the circumference above the buttresses at 2.6 m (480 cm) as the base of a 56.2m tall paraboloid, we get 52 m3. When we add a few cubes for the buttresses and the branches we end up in almost 60 m3. Probably the real volume is somewhere between the conical and the parabolical estimate.

My question: How would you estimate the volume from these numbers and assuming the top is intact and the tree has a form similar to the American conifers familiar to you?

Height: 56.2 m

Circumference at different heights:

At 1.3 m: 671 cm

At 1.5 m: 631 cm

At 2.2 m: 503 cm

At 2.6 m: 480 cm (above the buttresses)

We know that more measurements are needed for a good estimation, so this is rather a best guess than an estimate.

Kouta

My question: How would you estimate the volume from these numbers and assuming the top is intact and the tree has a form similar to the American conifers familiar to you?

Height: 56.2 m

Circumference at different heights:

At 1.3 m: 671 cm

At 1.5 m: 631 cm

At 2.2 m: 503 cm

At 2.6 m: 480 cm (above the buttresses)

We know that more measurements are needed for a good estimation, so this is rather a best guess than an estimate.

Kouta