Bruce, Bob, Almost without a doubt we are not seeing present day white pine growing or the best sites. What I am wondering is just how much of a difference there is in height when comparing a "best conditions" site with and "average conditions site?" If the difference would be say 30%, which seems a reasonable first start, and the current tallest white pine in New England is 160 feet, then the tallest if 30% bigger would be 208 feet tall. That does not seem completely unreasonable. I really doubt that difference of height from growing condones would reach 56%, which would be required to get a 250 foot tree. In addition, not only would there need to be a single tree that height, but there would need to be a cluster of trees near that height in order to shield each other from the wind and weather. A lone tree could not stand out that high above the general canopy layer and not have its top broken. The trees are limited but the height of the canopy of the surrounding forest, and by their own genetic predisposition.
In southern Australia and Tasmania there are forests with a two tier canopy - the Eucalyptus regnans - forms an upper canopy and the other species form a shorter canopy, but still there are many Eucalyptus trees that are tall, rather than a single one. It is interesting speculation on how tall some of the white pines might have been. I tend to be skeptical but can't demonstrate that trees of this height did not exist. Ed Check out my new Blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ (and click on some of the ads) -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
