Page 29 of 31

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 21st, 2011, 11:59 am
by JSGandora
In that case, wouldn't it be so much better to get a guide that had lots of empty space for extra notes since the original purpose of the guide is to ID things? And since you don't need the ID portion you would just use a guide for writing trivia about the tree, so then what would be the purpose of getting a field guide with pictures instead of drawings. From the wiki, Sibley (with drawings) is the only field guide that has tons of writing space and National Wildlife Federation (with pictures) has little to none.

Sorry for the questioning but now I'm even more unsettled as to which field guide I should get.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 21st, 2011, 1:11 pm
by Cheesy Pie
Where can I find old Forestry tests to study?

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 21st, 2011, 1:13 pm
by JSGandora
Cheesy Pie wrote:Thank you. And Nylhvsso, can you show us the practice test?
JSGandora wrote:It can be found here: http://scioly.org/wiki/2012_Test_Exchange#Forestry
blazer wrote: All of the species are contained between the eastern and western regions of the audobon, as the list was based off them. Sibley contains all but 9: Soaptree Yucca, Bebb Willow, Pacific Willow, Scouler Willow, Frosted Hawthorn, Blue Paloverde, Jumping Cholla, Red-osier Dogwood, and Kukui. NWF contains all but 4: Black Hawthorn, Frosted Hawthorn, Toyon, and Kukui.
Thanks for your reply.

For people who are going to use books that don't contain some of the trees, how are you going to deal with that? Are you just going to completely memorize those? Or would you just rather get a less practical field guide with all the trees?

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 21st, 2011, 1:14 pm
by FueL
Yes, basically when you're looking for a field guide, information > pictures/ID-related sections. When my partner and I were searching for a field guide for birds, we picked the most detailed one we could find, the Smithsonian handbook. It had extensive info on habitat, behaviors, nesting, and trivia, but as a trade off each bird only had one pretty bad photo of your average male, adult, breeding-plumage specimen.

Imo, the #1 priority for picking a field guide is its content, not necessarily writing room since most books have some blank margins anyway, and if the info is already there you don't need to write it in (<-- also a major pain in the butt, and hard to keep organized). That's how it was for birds, trees might be a bit different since there are multiple aspects to IDing (profile/fruit/seed/leaf as opposed to just.. the bird).

Of course, you could always use your field guide for IDing, but the stations go by so fast you don't want to waste valuable time flipping through your guide.

Haha no problem, I remember how clueless I was when I first started out in ornithology two years ago.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 7:19 am
by JSGandora
Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 2:12 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
JSGandora wrote:Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
Have you considered either a) if they allow a binder then photocopying the book into it or b) taking the second book if the first binders are not allowed? For fossils, my school would just find every single good fossil book and photocopy all relevant pages into the binder, and put in a lot of internet info. It worked extremely well, even though the binder was extremely heavy.
If they don't allow a binder, and instead do a second book like for ornithology, I'm going to use Sibley, and for the second book either Audubon or a dendrology textbook.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 4:43 pm
by Kokonilly
PacificGoldenPlover wrote:
JSGandora wrote:Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
Have you considered either a) if they allow a binder then photocopying the book into it or b) taking the second book if the first binders are not allowed? For fossils, my school would just find every single good fossil book and photocopy all relevant pages into the binder, and put in a lot of internet info. It worked extremely well, even though the binder was extremely heavy.
Speaking from experience, I'd rather organize a binder my own way and have a better handle on the information than just cram every bit of information I possibly can into a binder. I read every page of my (inherited) Fossils binder and added information here and there, and we did pretty well, if I do say so myself.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:03 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
Kokonilly wrote:
PacificGoldenPlover wrote:
JSGandora wrote:Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
Have you considered either a) if they allow a binder then photocopying the book into it or b) taking the second book if the first binders are not allowed? For fossils, my school would just find every single good fossil book and photocopy all relevant pages into the binder, and put in a lot of internet info. It worked extremely well, even though the binder was extremely heavy.
Speaking from experience, I'd rather organize a binder my own way and have a better handle on the information than just cram every bit of information I possibly can into a binder. I read every page of my (inherited) Fossils binder and added information here and there, and we did pretty well, if I do say so myself.
I'm not saying just cramming every stray thing you can find, but just organizing every tree, adding photocopied info from 2 or three books, get some internet information, scan every page before you put it in, etc. Having a well-organized binder and putting as much stuff in as possible are not mutually exclusive.
Our team hasn't even brought a book for fossils, they just put all the pages inside the binder, and they did pretty well also.

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:15 pm
by tuftedtitmouse12
JSGandora wrote:Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
hm, did you look at peterson?

Re: Preliminary:Forestry

Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 5:35 pm
by PacificGoldenPlover
tuftedtitmouse12 wrote:
JSGandora wrote:Thanks for the advice. In that case, I'm probably going to get Sibley. I think Audobon is the only guide that has all the information however it is bad for competition because of its format and it is split into two books. Sibley has nearly as much information as Audobon and it is all in one book. National Geographic looks good too with information however it doesn't have range maps which is a big disadvantage. National Wildlife Federation doesn't much information to begin with.
hm, did you look at peterson?
If Peterson Trees is anything like Peterson birds, then don't use it. It's okay for images, but it doesn't have enough information to make it worthwhile.