Branch stub definition

• To: "forest@nic.funet.fi@GEMS" <forest@nic.funet.fi>
• Subject: Branch stub definition
• From: Jeff Stone 387-6672 <JSTONE@galaxy.gov.bc.ca>
• Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:54:00 -0800 (PST)
• A1-Type: MAIL
• Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
• Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
• Hop-Count: 1
• Importance: normal
• Mr-Received: by mta SATURN; Relayed; Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:57:49 -0800
• Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:54:00 -0800 (PST)
• Priority: normal
• Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:54:00 -0800 (PST)
• Resent-From: forest-owner@nic.funet.fi
• Resent-Message-Id: <01HOSKIUT3KK8WY59U@palmu.metla.fi>
• Resent-To: mesinfo@pihta.metla.fi
• X400-Mts-Identifier: [;94759003305991/3876034@GALAXY]

  For the description of dead trees, branches are usually 
  distinguished from branch stubs based solely on a length 
  (e.g., 50 cm). This could exclude complete branches found at 
  the top of a tree. To get around this ideally, one would just 
  measure the length of all branches and not worry about such a 
  classification but sometimes such a distinction is necessary.
  
  I'm interested in knowing (1) other definitions of branch stub 
  or conversely branch (existing or new are okay) and (2) for 
  arbitrary lengths the ecological significance (e.g., not large 
  enough for nesting or perching).
  
  
  Thank you for your assistance.
  
  Jeff Stone
  Research Scientist
  Research Branch, FPDS        Phone: 1 604 387 6672
  Ministry of Forests          Fax:   1 604 387 8197
  Victoria BC Canada V8W 3E7   email: jstone@galaxy.gov.bc.ca

• Prev: request for journals
• Next: Duratex, Brazil
• Index: Forest mailing list March 1995
• Thread: Forest list subjects in March 1995