Research ArticleArticles

Predicting Wood Decay in Eucalypts Using an Expert System and the IML-Resistograph Drill

Denise M. Johnstone, Peter K. Ades, Gregory M. Moore and Ian W. Smith
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 2007, 33 (2) 76-82; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2007.009

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    Figure 1.

    (A) Eucalyptus praecox cross-section at 1 m (3.3 ft) in height on the east limb, southern aspect, Expt. 1. This photograph shows the graph trace positioned at drill location with the drilling direction from right to left. The wood is entirely sound at the point of drilling. (B) Eucalyptus praecox cross-section at 1 m (3.3 ft) in height on the east limb northwestern aspect, Expt. 1. This photograph shows the graph trace positioned at drill location and the drilling direction from right to left. The wood is decayed between 4 (1.6 in) and 15 cm (6 in) along the graph trace as indicated by the arrows.

  • Figure 2.
    Figure 2.

    Decay predictions on IML-Resistograph graph trace placed on the drilled location on the Eucalyptus radiata, tree 1, Expt. 2, 0.5 m (1.7 ft) in height. The photograph shows the east to west aspect as drilled with the IML-Resistograph F400S. (A) The whole section; (B) an enlargement of the graph trace on the section. These photographs indicate the accuracy of the decay prediction in Expt. 2.

  • Figure 3.
    Figure 3.

    Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus, cross-sectional diagrams and graph traces, tree 2, Expt. 3. This figure shows the tree 2 cross-section at 0.4 m (1.3 ft) in height from Expt. 3. (A) A drawing based on graph trace data from IML-Resistograph F300S. Raw data (C) is shown immediately above and (B) top right shows a drawing based on the actual tracings. Enclosed areas represent decayed wood; the dotted line is the division between bark and wood

  • Figure 4.
    Figure 4.

    Predicted total area of decay using the expert system in millimeters squared versus total actual area of decay in millimeters squared in Expt. 3. Tree cross-sections from Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus. Trend line = linear regression. P < 0.0001, r2 = 0.7584, n = 17.

  • Figure 5.
    Figure 5.

    Predicted distance of decay using the IML-Resistograph F300S versus actual distance of decay, Expt. 3. Predicted linear distance of decay from bark to bark in millimeters from the IML-Resistograph F300S data versus actual linear distance of decay from bark to bark in millimeters. Tree cross-sections from Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus. Trend line = linear regression. P = 0.002, r2 = 0.402, n = 30.

  • Figure 6.
    Figure 6.

    Predicted location of decay from IML-Resistograph F300S versus actual location of decay, Expt. 3. Distance to decay from bark in millimeters from IML-Resistograph F300S data versus actual linear distance to decay from bark in millimeters. Tree cross-sections from Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus. Trend line = linear regression. P < 0.0001, r2 = 0.3003, n = 56.

Tables

  • Table 1.

    Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of devices that measure wood decay.

    Type of deviceEase of interpreting resultsRelative costReliability in EucalyptsInvasiveness in EucalyptsPortability
    X-ray diffractionHigh1High1High2High3Low1,2,4
    Thermal and microwaveHigh1High1Probably high1Low1Low1
    Imaging nuclear magnetic resonanceHigh1Very high1Probably high1Low1Low1
    Imaging neutron imagingHigh1Very high1Probably high1Low1Low1
    Transmission acoustic devicesModerate5–7Low7UnknownModerate7,8High5,7–9
    Constant feed drillsHigh8,10–12,24Low11Probably high24Moderate12,13High8,10–12
    Compression metersModerate10,14,15Low11Moderate16,17Moderate15High10,15
    Electrical conductivityModerate8,10,18Low19Low20Moderate8,10High8,10,21
    Breaking core samplesLow22, 26Low22Unsuitable3,22,26High22High22
    Computerized tomographyHigh1,23,25High1Probably high1,20,23,25Low1,23,25High23,25

    • References: 1. Bucur 2003, 2. Evans et al. 1995, 3. Downes et al. 1997, 4. Bergsten et al. 2001, 5. Ouis 2003, 6. Mishiro 1996, 7. Wade 1975, 8. Nicolotti and Migietta 1998, 9. Smiley and Fraedrich 1992, 10. Seaby 1991, 11. Isik and Li 2003, 12. Rinn et al. 1996, 13. Kersten and Schwarze 2005, 14. Barrett 1987, 15. Cown 1978, 16. Moura et al. 1987, 17. Greaves et al. 1996, 18. Harris 1992, 19. Blazé 1992, 20. Wilkes and Heather 1983, 21. Shigo 1991, 22. Mattheck et al. 1995, 23. Nicolotti et al. 2003, 24. Costello and Quarles 1999, 25. Gilbert and Smiley 2004, 26. Matheny et al. 1999.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Predicting Wood Decay in Eucalypts Using an Expert System and the IML-Resistograph Drill
Denise M. Johnstone, Peter K. Ades, Gregory M. Moore, Ian W. Smith
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 2007, 33 (2) 76-82; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2007.009
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords