New mission?
Posted: Sat May 30, 2020 4:46 pm
ENTS,
As the clock ticks away, NTS seems to be fading away. Lately, we've been indebted to Brian Beduhn for keeping us afloat with meaningful data on the southern Appalachian tall tree hotspots. Different people have taken a turn at posting, but the daily number of posts for such a distinguished organization as we have been has been anemic. Our accomplishments over the years and the many references to and use by others of our data speaks to a continuing need for our contributions.
Over the past three years, I've devoted a lot of my time to assisting others quantify the amount of carbon stored in trees. Ten years ago, it was not a predictable direction for me to be traveling today. So, what precipitated the added mission?
With the rise of biomass for energy generation, growth rates of trees came under increasing scrutiny. Biomasss advocates made claims about when trees grow the fastest that favored what they had in mind. But it isn't as though there haven't been plenty of fine minds working on the carbon sequestration issue for decades. The USFS research stations, prominent academics, government scientists, tree companies, etc. have all been involved. And today, we find a number of computerized volume-biomass models available to researchers, managers, and the general public. So, why should I have thrown my hat into the ring. Please have a look at the attachment. It tells the story of Monica's Pine (MP) in back of our house, only 88 horizontal feet away. I have plenty of access to it, and have volume modeled it.
The 51-diameter reticle measurement made of MP's trunk giving 282.7 ft^3 of trunk volume is probably accurate to between +/- 1 and 2%. Adding limb volume from the FIA-COLE model percentage factor adds another 44 ft^3. I maintain that the 326.7 ft^3 is the above ground volume to as an accurate a determination as we can make using our methods. Converting this volume to biomass and then carbon is accomplished through accepted factors. For example, oven-dried white pine weighs 22.3 lbs/ft^3, green volume. White pine biomass is 52.1% carbon. Going from elemental carbon to CO2 is merely the case of multiplying by 3.664 (usually given as 3.67). So going from green volume to dried biomass and then to carbon, and finally carbon dioxide is through a completely accepted process. For MP, we have 326.7 x 22.3 x 0.52.1 x 3.664 = 13,907.4 lbs of CO2. Expressed in metric, we have 6,311 kg or 6.321 metric tons.
Now, you'll see in the attachment that other models range from 7,980.8 down to 3,118.3 kg. That's a heck of a spread, and the popular I-Tree model gives 3,840 kg. We in NTS have a role in the game if we want it and that is to evaluate these other models. I hope others of you see this as a valuable mission and will join me. So far, it is Jared Lockwood and myself. We'll happily share all our tools to go from soup to nuts.
Bob
As the clock ticks away, NTS seems to be fading away. Lately, we've been indebted to Brian Beduhn for keeping us afloat with meaningful data on the southern Appalachian tall tree hotspots. Different people have taken a turn at posting, but the daily number of posts for such a distinguished organization as we have been has been anemic. Our accomplishments over the years and the many references to and use by others of our data speaks to a continuing need for our contributions.
Over the past three years, I've devoted a lot of my time to assisting others quantify the amount of carbon stored in trees. Ten years ago, it was not a predictable direction for me to be traveling today. So, what precipitated the added mission?
With the rise of biomass for energy generation, growth rates of trees came under increasing scrutiny. Biomasss advocates made claims about when trees grow the fastest that favored what they had in mind. But it isn't as though there haven't been plenty of fine minds working on the carbon sequestration issue for decades. The USFS research stations, prominent academics, government scientists, tree companies, etc. have all been involved. And today, we find a number of computerized volume-biomass models available to researchers, managers, and the general public. So, why should I have thrown my hat into the ring. Please have a look at the attachment. It tells the story of Monica's Pine (MP) in back of our house, only 88 horizontal feet away. I have plenty of access to it, and have volume modeled it.
The 51-diameter reticle measurement made of MP's trunk giving 282.7 ft^3 of trunk volume is probably accurate to between +/- 1 and 2%. Adding limb volume from the FIA-COLE model percentage factor adds another 44 ft^3. I maintain that the 326.7 ft^3 is the above ground volume to as an accurate a determination as we can make using our methods. Converting this volume to biomass and then carbon is accomplished through accepted factors. For example, oven-dried white pine weighs 22.3 lbs/ft^3, green volume. White pine biomass is 52.1% carbon. Going from elemental carbon to CO2 is merely the case of multiplying by 3.664 (usually given as 3.67). So going from green volume to dried biomass and then to carbon, and finally carbon dioxide is through a completely accepted process. For MP, we have 326.7 x 22.3 x 0.52.1 x 3.664 = 13,907.4 lbs of CO2. Expressed in metric, we have 6,311 kg or 6.321 metric tons.
Now, you'll see in the attachment that other models range from 7,980.8 down to 3,118.3 kg. That's a heck of a spread, and the popular I-Tree model gives 3,840 kg. We in NTS have a role in the game if we want it and that is to evaluate these other models. I hope others of you see this as a valuable mission and will join me. So far, it is Jared Lockwood and myself. We'll happily share all our tools to go from soup to nuts.
Bob