Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Sample crotches were attached to a large tree at points 30 cm (12 in.) above and below the crotch.
- Figure 2.
The experimental setup consisted of a half-inch line attached to the free side of the codominant stem and run through a block to a dynamometer attached to a tractor.
- Figure 3.
Breakage pattern when a rod is installed in the conventional location below the crotch.
- Figure 4.
Breakage pattern when a rod is above the crotch.
- Figure 5.
Pattern of breakage when no rod is installed.
- Figure 6.
Comparison of breaking strengths on red oak crotch systems with no bracing (control), traditional rod placement at the crotch, and rod located above the crotch.
- Figure 7.
Comparison of breaking strengths on red maple crotch systems with no bracing (control), traditional rod placement at the crotch, and rod located above the crotch.
- Figure 8.
Forces involved in different brace rod locations.
Tables
- Table 1.
Bracing treatments applied to codominant stems of two tree species. Rods were located above the crotch a distance equal to the diameter of the stem or below the crotch in the conventional location. There were 11 red maple and 10 red oak control crotches had no rod installed.
Species Rod placement Brass Steel Red maple above 2 6 at crotch 3 7 Red oak above 7 8 at crotch 6 3 - Table 2.
Regression equations and r2 values for red oak and red maple to determine the force required to break a codominant stem with one of two rod placement locations or nonrodded controls. Diameter (dia) was measured 30 cm (12 in.) below the crotch; it ranged from 4.9 to 15.6 cm (1.94 to 6.15 in.)
Species N Rod placement Equation to determine force in lb r2 Red maple 10 at-crotch 447 (dia) – 526 0.64 8 above 859 (dia) – 1,722 0.89 11 control 546 (dia) – 1,051 0.79 Red oak 9 at-crotch 820 (dia) – 2,024 0.89 15 above 1,541 (dia)– 3,975 0.72 10 control 603 (dia) – 1,337 0.94
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.