Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Picus Sonic Tomography for the Quantification of Decay in White Oak (Quercus alba) and Hickory (Carya spp.)

Elizabeth A. Gilbert and E. Thomas Smiley
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 2004, 30 (5) 277-281; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2004.033
Elizabeth A. Gilbert
1Capital Tree Relocators, Austin, TX, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
E. Thomas Smiley
2Arboricultural Researcher, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, NC 28278, U.S. and Adjunct Professor, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

The Picus Sonic Tomograph is a noninvasive tool for assessing decay in trees. It works on the principle that sound waves passing through decay move more slowly than sound waves transversing solid wood. By sending sound waves from a number of points around a tree trunk to the same number of receiving points, the relative speed of the sound can be calculated, and a two-dimensional image of the cross-section of the tree, a tomogram, can be generated. Picus tomography and visual inspection were used to evaluate 27 cross-sections from 13 trees. The tomograms correlated closely with the visual assessment of decay. In 10 samples where no decay was present, Picus found no decay. In the remaining 17 samples, Picus detected less decay than was observed visually. Differences in most cases were small (average of 5% of total area). In terms of predicting the location of decay, on average 3% of the total area was a false positive (where the tomogram showed that decay was present but the cross-section did not), and an average of 8% of the area was false negative (the cross-section showed decay that was not seen on the tomogram).

Key Words
  • Hazard trees
  • tree risk analysis
  • tree failure

A number of products and techniques are now marketed for detecting and assessing decay in trees, reviews of which can be found in the literature (Mattheck and Breloer 1994; Nicoletti and Miglietta 1998; Harris et al. 1999; Lonsdale 1999). Equipment and techniques such as the Resistograph®, drilling, and the increment borer involve drilling through the bark into the xylem (Smiley and Fraedrich 1992; Costello and Quarles 1999). There may be some disadvantages associated with drilling (Harris et al. 1999). The Picus Sonic Tomograph (Argus Electronics GmbH, Rostock, Germany) was developed as a noninvasive method to quantify and locate wood decay.

Sonic tomography is a technique used to produce an image of the internal structure of a solid object by recording differences in the speed of sound wave transmission. The Picus Sonic Tomograph consists of a set of sensors (typically 8 to 12) that are connected to the trunk by pins (roofing nails) 0.8 to 2 mm (0.03 to 0.7 in.) in diameter (Figure 1). Sound waves are produced by tapping each sensor with a small hammer. The Picus system measures the transmission time from each impact with the hammer to each sensor. By measuring the distances between sensors, apparent sound velocities are calculated by the system software, from which wood density is determined. Using these data, a two-dimensional image, or tomogram, of the tree cross-section is generated.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Picus setup showing sensors and modules.

This research project was undertaken to determine whether the Picus Sonic Tomograph can detect decay and to determine the correlation between tomograms and the amount and location of actual decay in trees.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Listen

A Picus Sonic Tomograph was provided by Argus Electronics GmbH, Rostock, Germany. Trees were located at the Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory in Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S. Tomograph measurements were taken on 27 cross-sections from 13 trees thought to have decay. Eight to 10 sensor pins were equally spaced around the trunk and driven into the sapwood in a horizontal plane according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A sensor was magnetically attached to each pin and tapped three times with a steel hammer. A tomogram was created for each cross-section. All the tomograms were calculated using the July 2002 Picus software release.

The trees were felled with the numbered pins left in place. Sections were cut at a distance of about 2.5 cm (1 in.) either side of the sensor pin plane. The circumference of each section was measured and an average diameter calculated by dividing the circumference by π. Cross-sections were photographed using a digital camera. Measurements were taken between sensor pins, using a tape measure, so that the “Free Geometry” option in the Picus software could be used to generate the tomogram. The photos and tomograms were scaled using Adobe Photoshop® and printed one image to one sheet.

A grid with 5 mm (0.02 in.) squares was printed onto a sheet of clear plastic (transparency). Each square was marked as either decayed or not decayed for both the cross-section photograph and the tomogram. Areas considered decayed on the tomogram appeared as pink or blue (areas that appeared green in the tomogram are transition areas between sound wood and decay and were not considered decayed). The area containing decay was determined for each photographic cross-section. In areas of the photographs where decay was not clearly defined, the actual trunk cross-section was visually examined to clarify whether decay was present. Decay was defined as the absence of wood or wood soft enough to be deflected with finger pressure. If a square contained both decayed and sound wood, it was considered decayed. These measurements were used to evaluate both the area of decay and the location of decay. Area of decay was calculated as a percentage of squares identified as decayed divided by the total area of wood. For the tomograms, the area of decay was calculated by the Picus software. The correlation between the amount of decay indicated by Picus and that identified by visual evaluation was calculated.

Accuracy of the Picus’s ability to locate decay was determined by comparing the actual location of decay in the photographic cross-sections with their tomograms. Grid squares where the tomogram showed decay and the photograph showed no decay (false positives) were counted, as were the grid squares where the photo showed decay and the tomogram did not (false negatives). Area of the squares was recorded as a percentage of the total area of the cross-section. Accuracy was calculated by dividing the area of false positives plus the area of false negatives by the total cross-sectional area.

RESULTS

Listen

Of the 27 cross-sections measured, 17 were found to have some decay and 10 were found to have none. In all cases where no decay was visually evident, the same result was reflected in the tomogram.

Area of Decay

There was a high correlation between the amount of decay detected by the Picus and the amount actually present in the cross-sections (r2 = 0.94) for all cross-sections. For cross-sections where decay was present, the correlation coefficient is r2 = 0.90.

In 14 of 17 cross-sections, Picus calculated slightly less decay than was visually apparent (Table 1). The average discrepancy between the percentages of decay found in these cases was 6% (standard deviation 5.0%). In three cases where Picus calculated decay to be greater than that measured by visual evaluation, the average discrepancy was 1% (standard deviation 1.1%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Area and location of decay determined by Picus or visual examination and a comparison of the two measurements on all trees in the study.

Location of Decay

In samples where decay was present, on average 2% of the total area of the sample was false positive where the tomogram showed that decay was present but the cross-section did not. False negatives (where the cross-section showed decay that was not seen on the tomogram) were present on average in 9% of the readings (Table 1). The average percentage accuracy for samples where decay was present was 89%.

DISCUSSION

Listen

The Picus Sonic Tomograph did an excellent job of identifying tree cross-sections containing decay. If any significant decay was present in a section, Picus was able to detect it.

In cross-sections with decay, Picus did a very good job of determining the area of decay and location of the decay. Results show that, on average, Picus shows less decay in the samples than is found by visual inspection, although the amount by which the two figures differ, in most cases, is small.

As with any drilling method to assess decay, the depth to decay is determined at only a few locations around the stem; therefore, if the pattern of decay is irregular, the level of accuracy will rapidly drop. Compared to other methods of decay detection that require drilling, Picus gives an image across the whole cross-section.

The “Free Shapes” option in the Picus software, for measurement of tree geometry, was used for all samples in this study because it was found to calculate the most accurate tomogram. Using this option, the distance between all sensors is measured. The alternative is to make the assumption that the cross-section is either circular (which requires measurement of the circumference) or elliptical (where measurement of the diameter at the widest and narrowest planes is required). Most cross-sections were irregular in shape. In this study, the distance between sensors was measured after the Picus data had been collected and the cross-section of the trunk had been cut. In the field, this procedure is would be done with a set of large calipers in the standing tree. Argus Electronics is currently developing a large electronic caliper. The data measured with this device will be sent directly to the Picus program.

Tomogram quality near the bark appeared to be lower than in other portions for the cross-section. The decreased quality is probably due to a lack of straight-line sound transmissions in this curved area. Improvement of the handling of the edges would be beneficial because this is a critical area in terms of the stability of the tree.

Borer holes approximately 1 cm (0.4 in.) diameter were apparent in certain cross-sections (e.g., white oak 8, Figure 2), but they were not revealed in the tomogram. These holes are not of a size that would affect the stability of the trunk. The lower limit to the size of defect that the Picus can detect depends on the size of the tree, number of sensors, and type of wood. The higher the density of the wood, the smaller the defect that can be detected. In general, the smallest detectable defect is in the range of 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in.) (Lothar Göcke, personal communication).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Photographs and tomograms of selected trunk cross-sections used in this study.

Acknowledgments

Listen

We would like to acknowledge the following people who have contributed to this research project: Lothar Göcke of Argus Electronics (www.argus-electronic.de) and Steffen Rust of the Institute of Forest Botany and Forest Zoology, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany, for technical assistance with the Picus; Elden LeBrun for technical support; James G. Williams, a statistician with the Department of Forestry, retired, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina; and Bruce Fraedrich, director of the Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories for his assistance and support.

  • © 2004, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

LITERATURE CITED

Listen
  1. ↵
    1. Costello, L.R., and
    2. S.L. Quarles.
    1999. Detection of wood decay in blue gum and elm: An evaluation of the Resistograph and the portable drill. J. Arboric. 25(6): 311–317.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Harris, R.W.,
    2. J.R. Clark, and
    3. N.P. Matheny.
    1999. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 687 pp.
  3. ↵
    1. Lonsdale, D.
    1999. Principles of tree hazard assessment and management. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, UK. 388 pp.
    1. Mattheck, C.G., and
    2. K.A. Bethge.
    1993. Detection of decay in trees with the Metriguard stress wave timer. J. Arboric. 19(6):374–378.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Mattheck, C., and
    2. H. Breloer.
    1994. The Body Language of Trees. The Stationary Office, Norwich, UK. 239 pp.
  5. ↵
    1. Nicoletti, G., and
    2. P. Miglietta.
    1998. Using high-technology instruments to detect decay in trees. J. Arboric. 24(6): 297–302.
    OpenUrl
    1. Smiley, E.T.
    1998. Countersinking for tree bolts. J. Arboric. 24(5):245–246.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Smiley, E.T., and
    2. B.R. Fraedrich.
    1992. Determining strength loss from decay. J. Arboric. 18(4):201–204.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 30 (5)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 30, Issue 5
September 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Picus Sonic Tomography for the Quantification of Decay in White Oak (Quercus alba) and Hickory (Carya spp.)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Picus Sonic Tomography for the Quantification of Decay in White Oak (Quercus alba) and Hickory (Carya spp.)
Elizabeth A. Gilbert, E. Thomas Smiley
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 2004, 30 (5) 277-281; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2004.033

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Picus Sonic Tomography for the Quantification of Decay in White Oak (Quercus alba) and Hickory (Carya spp.)
Elizabeth A. Gilbert, E. Thomas Smiley
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 2004, 30 (5) 277-281; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2004.033
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • hazard trees
  • tree risk analysis
  • tree failure

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire