Bruce- While currently folks are weighing in on the veracity of these accounts, I hope that Ed or somebody is accumulating them in a "reference conditions" folder...an accumulation of these over time will be valuable in 'currently' unforeseen ways!
-Don > Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:37:25 -0500 > Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Ents, > > I can send a pdf if you are interested in Bromley 1935. > > Bruce > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Bruce Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bob, > > > > Bromley focused only on southern NE (MA, CN, RI). The President of > > Dartmouth College measured a white pine on the ground in Hanover, NH > > at over 250 ft tall in the late 1800's (I don't have the reference or > > exact #'s here). There were 6 or 7 heights measured in NH at over 250' > > by people who should have known how to measure accurately in NH in the > > 1800's (I have the box of original citations from my dad somewhere). > > > > Bromley's examples: > > "At least we do not have today any white > > pines of 250 feet in height and 6 feet in diameter as recorded by Dwight > > (1821, Vol. I, p. 36) or 264 feet, as a Lancaster, New Hanlpshire, tree was > > reported to have been; or the trees at Blandford, Massachusetts, said by > > Enlerson to have been 223 feet in height. Probably, however, sonle of the > > very large trees in the original forest reached a height of 200 feet." > > > > Bruce > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bruce, > >> Trees measured by foresters on the ground and accurately reported in > >> reputable journals is a whole different kettle of fish. Ground-based > >> measurements by professionals are more believable. But were there foresters > >> around in the mid-1800s? I thought that was in the pre-forestry era. What > >> did Bromley's 1935 article say? Can you give us a quick summary? > >> Bob > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Bruce Allen" <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:39:34 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > >> Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 > >> > >> Ents, > >> > >> While the 300 feet tall may sound incredible by todays standards, > >> there are quite a few reports of white pine over > >> 250 feet tall in the historical literature. Some measured by foresters > >> on the ground. Bromley's 1935 article in Ecology > >> comes to mind. It stands to reason that the most productive sites no > >> longer grow EWP. My dad wrote an article for > >> the Journal of Forestry (rejected) where he suggested that EWP do not > >> grow as fast today as they have historically, he > >> suggested that site quality and cat ion exchange capacity were > >> probalby the issues. I would add climate change, Ozone, Sulfur > >> dioxide, high grading > >> and acid rain as other potential threats EWP growth rates. SOx and > >> Ozone are known to slow or stop EWP growth at > >> high concentrations. > >> > >> my two cents. > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:37 AM, JACK SOBON <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Bob and Tim, > >>> Finding a 200' pine in Charlemont today would certainly be newsworthy. > >>> But > >>> in a couple of decades, I believe Charlemont will claim such a height > >>> based > >>> on the growth of pines there now. I don't think a 200 footer would have > >>> been that unusual in 1849. Old growth was still being harvested in > >>> non-agricultural areas at that time and the memories of the original > >>> forest still persisted. To be newsworthy the tree's height would have to > >>> be > >>> substantial. There are two other possibilities. First, that the > >>> measuring > >>> was less than accurate, say with a 4' stick (or not quite 4' > >>> long) stepping > >>> off the lengths so the actual length was say 280 feet. Second, the whole > >>> thing could have been a hoax to give Charlemont bragging rights. If so, > >>> it > >>> seems probable that in subsequent issues of the newspaper there would have > >>> been letters suggesting it. Tim, have you checked that out? Perhaps the > >>> Greenfield source could be checked. > >>> Jack > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 9:10:28 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 > >>> > >>> Tim, > >>> Yes, I do understand that. I'm just amused at the life that the story has > >>> taken on. The newspaper account of the alleged 300-foot pine has served to > >>> release a combination of curiosity, doubt, desire, nostalgia, etc. in the > >>> rest of us with respect to the trees of the past. I expect that our > >>> curiosity centers on the genetic capability of each species: what it was > >>> in > >>> the past (probably unknowable) and what it is today. > >>> Bob > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Timothy Zelazo" <[email protected]> > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:35:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > >>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 > >>> > >>> Bob: > >>> > >>> The large tree article (the only one I found) was just one article from > >>> hundreds I've found over the years doing research. Many of the articles > >>> dealt with the Quarry operation at The Natural Bridge, and they were a big > >>> help educating us about the quarry history etc. In 1838, Nathaniel > >>> Hawthorne (An American Notebook) wrote about the natural bridge and the > >>> chasm, this also helped us understand the site. A good interpretive > >>> program > >>> should include history, science, and culture. I don't live in the past, I > >>> never thought I was living in the past, and I don't want to live in the > >>> past. I live for the present, I sometimes think about the past, and I use > >>> what I learned about the past to help me in the future. It was just one > >>> tiny > >>> article about one large tree. > >>> > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Don, Dan, et al, > >>>> We seem to want to thrash this one around a little more. Well, there is > >>>> no > >>>> harm in that. > >>>> Dan, the point about the 400-foot Doug fir is well taken. However, a > >>>> point to remember about white pines is that this eastern species grows in > >>>> fairly well drained sandy to sandy-silty soils and there is plenty of > >>>> that > >>>> still around the New England countryside. When you get really rich soils > >>>> with ample moisture, you don't get white pines. This doesn't prove that > >>>> there aren't other environmental factors involved, but the point does > >>>> need > >>>> to be taken into consideration. Thinking about possible factors that > >>>> might > >>>> adversely impact growth today, I can immediately think of two. I am > >>>> unsure > >>>> of how susceptible white pines are to current levels of air pollution and > >>>> then there are chemical compounds and elements in the soil, i.e. soil > >>>> pollution. Maybe Lee has a take on pollutants. > >>>> Tim, > >>>> Looks like you let Pandora out of the box when you cited that newspaper > >>>> article. I'm glad you did because it opened the door to a more serious > >>>> discussion about the limits of growth of each species that interest us. > >>>> One > >>>> species that I am especially interested in is fraxinus americana. I'd > >>>> like > >>>> to think that western Massachusetts is one of the geographical regions > >>>> that > >>>> especially favors the species. Sweet Thing agrees. > >>>> Bob > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Carolyn Summers" <[email protected]> > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:13:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > >>>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 > >>>> > >>>> I think he’s right. I believe in the 300-footer. Maybe part of our > >>>> resistance to believing is our incredible sadness that we weren’t there > >>>> to > >>>> see it. > >>>> -- > >>>> Carolyn Summers > >>>> 63 Ferndale Drive > >>>> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706 > >>>> 914-478-5712 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: "Miles, Dan" <[email protected]> > >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >>>> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:40:00 -0500 > >>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >>>> Conversation: A Large Tree article in 1849 > >>>> Subject: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 > >>>> > >>>> ENTS- > >>>> > >>>> This article reminds me of the story of a 400 ft. tall Douglas-fir cut > >>>> down in Seattle around the turn of the 20th century. I thought this was > >>>> a > >>>> tall tale told by my grandfather until I did a little research and just > >>>> found out it was probably true. Even for a Doug Fir (extraordinary > >>>> specimens still grow to 300 ft.) a hundred feet taller seems incredible > >>>> by > >>>> today’s standards, though there are still thousands of acres of virgin, > >>>> old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest, as I can attest to from > >>>> personal > >>>> experience. However, little of it is on fertile soil in protected > >>>> valleys. Before millions of acres of the best tree-growing land was > >>>> taken, perhaps one in a billion ancient firs grew to 400 ft., whether by > >>>> genetic potential, conditions, or pure chance. That isn’t likely to > >>>> happen > >>>> again. > >>>> > >>>> As for New England’s white pine country, surely we will never know how > >>>> fertile the best soil was, as it was the first to be exploited and > >>>> degraded > >>>> centuries ago, along with the taking of all of the best pines. How then > >>>> can > >>>> we evaluate the possibility of a 300 ft. pine based on incomparable > >>>> current > >>>> conditions and populations, and on a few unreliable records? How many > >>>> ancient eastern white pines are there left growing under ideal > >>>> conditions > >>>> on which to base a comparison? I think none. I vote that > >>>> one-in-a-billion > >>>> 300 ft. tall eastern white pines once lived! > >>>> > >>>> Now follow this link: > >>>> > >>>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_can_a_Douglas-fir_grow > >>>> > >>>> and you’ll see reliable-looking records for several Douglas-firs over 400 > >>>> ft. tall cut down as late as the 1920’s. > >>>> > >>>> Dan Miles > >>>> -- > >>>> 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] > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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] > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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] > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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] > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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] > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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] > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Bruce P. Allen > >> Springfield, NH > >> Home 603 763-4672 > >> > >> -- > >> 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] > >> > >> -- > >> 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] > > > > > > > > -- > > Bruce P. Allen > > Springfield, NH > > Home 603 763-4672 > > > > > > -- > Bruce P. Allen > Springfield, NH > Home 603 763-4672 > > -- > 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] _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/ -- 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]
