What year were you fighting fires in and around Mt Palomar. A buddy and I really had a fun time hiking Mt Palomar, very surprisingly good size mountain. I think it tops out around 6k . How about those Incense Cedars? Some of the best examples of Incense Cedar I have come across.
On Nov 18, 1:55 pm, DON BERTOLETTE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc- > Just a quick comment that ties KY, Palomar, and Big Cone Doug Firs...in the > 1980's, I was part of a 20 person Daniel Boone NF (KY) firefighting crew sent > out west to fight fires...one fire we ended up at was around the base of Mt. > Palomar. Our task was to defend the Mt. Palomar Observatory, cutting > firelines in anticipation, and watching for spotting fires. There were two > trees of interest to me, and and one, especially for the predominantly SE Ky > locals; the big cone doug firs and the coulter pines. The coulters because > they were deadly if they were to fall on you (several were snuck into our red > fire bags), and for the doug firs...I believe they were relict species, which > despite the passage of an ice age, time, and changing climates, were able to > persevere in a favorable environmental niche. > BTW...brilliant? I was only a mediocre forestry student, but thanks...:>) > > > > -DonRB> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:07:36 -0800> Subject: [ENTS] Re: old trees > in the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > [email protected]> > > I love the interaction between Don and Ed on > the genetic aspects to> the Chinkapin Oak. You guys are brilliant! I really > find this> interesting stuff, it is almost as if certain tree populations > being> isolated were on islands and able to evolve differently than a > general> population. In the southern parts of California there is a sub-> > species of Douglas Fir that evolved larger than normal cones. I> believe they > are called Big Cone Douglas Fir, I saw several of them> on a day hike in > Polomar State Forest outside San Diego. Judging from> what Ed has stated > should I assume that these Douglas Fir became> isolated and developed this > particular trait or is it a result of the> tree species huge range and what > we are witnessing is a genetic> drift? I believe that Chinkapin Oak does grow > as far north as New> England and are present in Western Masscahusetts and W. > Vermont but in> low numbers. Perhaps Bob and can anwser this: Is there a > distict> differance between these trees here in New England vs what you see > in> Kentucky?> > On Nov 17, 6:44 pm, DON BERTOLETTE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:> > Ed-> > I think we had different visions of the populations that we > were speaking of.> >> > The removal of a single wolf tree from an ecosystem > is as you say not likely to have an effect, genetically.> >> > In the case of > a western coniferous forest in a clearcut operation, the common industry > practice used to be to remove all trees of commercial value and leave the > rest for 'wildlife' trees or 'seed' trees, to meet the increasing constraints > placed on timber sales. Talk about counter-productive!> > The removal of > 'populations' and the retaining of wolf and seed trees does affect the > genetics of subsequent forests (non-coppice reproducing species).> > I have > unrealilstically posed 'wolf' trees, 'seed' trees as examples, although it > was once common.> > The USFS program collecting cones of genetically superior > trees, for seed collection and reforestation is well-founded and has been > viable for at least a half century that I'm familiar with personally, albeit > for a wider array of genetic traits.> >> > But to get back to Beth, Neil and > Ryan, I think their most interesting point, was that it was clear from the > chinkapin oak population discovered, that age and dbh predictably didn't have > a good correlation. Having spent part of October visiting ancient foxtail and > bristlecone pine forests (2K and 4K max ages, respectively) in Eastern > California, it's clear that oldest of old-growth trees don't always have > predictable relationships with height/dbh/crown spread superlatives. The > ability of these trees to continue living with a mere fraction of their > phloem/cambium periphery intact, is amazing...as are the misshapen chinkapin > oaks in KY's 'Inner Bluegrass Region'. > > -Don> >> > From: [EMAIL > PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [ENTS] Re: old trees in the Inner Bluegrass > Region of KentuckyDate: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:21:51 -0500> >> > Don,> >> > By > genetic selection you can only constrain things that are genetically > controlled. If a certain developmental form is the result of environmental > factors rather than genetic control, a phenotype, rather than a genotype, > then two widely different looking specimens may have the same essential > genetic make-up. Therefore eliminating trees that have a particular form > resulting from environmental factors will not affect the genetic make-up of > the species at all. I don't know and really doubt there is any difference in > the genetics of between a fat old wolfy hemlock and tall columnar hemlocks in > the same general setting. So removing the tall columnar trees will not > affect the frequency of multiple tops or lateral branching expressed in the > trees if they are subject to the conditions favoring multiple tops, nor will > it mean that the trees grown from the multi-top trees will show any more > tendency to form multiple tops than columnar tree if the condition for > producing columnar trees is present.> >> > In a general population there are > really only two main factors that result in genetic differentiation. So long > as the tree can easily cross-pollinate or interbreed the genetic make-up of > the population tends to be pretty uniform. A large distance say from one end > of a species range to the other may result in genetic drift. The species at > one end of the range may express different physical characteristics than > those trees at the far end of the range because trees at the opposite ends of > the range do not freely interbreed because of the distance. Whether this is > because of a genetic difference or not is another question. Some genes are > expressed because of environmental triggers and may be expressed differently > in different areas. Other genetic traits, similar to blue eyed vs brown eyed > traits in humans, may occur in different frequencies at different ends of the > range. Some traits may be missing completely when comparing one end of the > range to the other. But within the same general area where interbreeding can > control in a contiguous population, the genetic make-up is for practical > purposes uniform, even if the trees express different phenotypes. > >> > The > other places where genetic variations occur are in disjunct populations and > in populations in extreme environments. In these areas less frequently > occurring genetic trait may be concentrated, while others are eliminated > completely. Isolation from the general population allows any favorable > mutation of genetic make-up to spread more quickly that is possible among the > general population with a larger genetic pool. All species tend to show some > genetic change through time, but he change is most rapid in isolated > populations. If you look at the evolution of species over time, what you see > may not be the slow change over time you expect, but a more rapid change. An > isolated population develops a different genetic profile more quickly. Then > if it is merged again with the general population through the natural ebb and > flow of population boundaries with climate change, this change if > advantageous may spread quickly through the general population, may spread > and coexist as a separate entity across the range of the original population, > or even replace the members of the original parent population with the new > variety.> >> > To focus the point once more, I don't think there is any real > genetic difference among the population of wolf trees and the population of > columnar trees in a given locality, so eliminating one form will not change > the genetic makeup of the population in general. Do I think some trees are > genetically superior to others? Of course, individual trees may have > different genetic compositions and some are "superior" to others. That is > why efforts to save the biggest and best hemlock trees are worthwhile, > because INDIVIDUALS may have superior genetic characteristics. Looking at a > population scale, the populations in an area tends to be pretty uniform in > genetic make-up. The population contains genes representing all the genetic > variability available.> >> > Ed> >> > "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, > And sorry I could not travel both. "Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain > Interval. 1920.> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----> > From: DON > BERTOLETTE> > To: [email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 17, > 2008 3:12 PM> > Subject: [ENTS] Re: old trees in the Inner Bluegrass Region > of Kentucky> >> > Ed-I of course realize that you were constraining you > comments to those species that rely on coppice reproduction. Leaving fat old > 'wolfy' hemlocks, while taking tall columnar hemlocks, for example, is likely > to retain genes that favor multiple tops, and lateral branching preference. > Both phenotypes are needed for the diversity that favors survival, but the > latter is sought after by the logger/mill interests.-DonRB> >> > From: [EMAIL > PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [ENTS] Re: old trees in the Inner Bluegrass > Region of KentuckyDate: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:57:05 -0500> >> > ENTS> >> > It > is hard to lose genetic diversity in a species short of eliminating the > entire population except for a handful of specimens or by selectively > eliminating a specific genetic characteristic. Timbering is basically a > non-selective process. The trees that sprout up after logging have pretty > much the same genetic characteristics as the original population. They just > don't have the same environment in which to grow. Trees or species that are > adapted to extreme environments are the most vulnerable to genetic loss. > These are populations that tend to concentrate genetic characteristics that > are uncommon in the overall population and tend to preserve any advantageous > mutations that would be lost among the larger genetic pool of the general > population. The characteristics that are concentrated are still present in > the general population and given enough > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
