Bruce,
Yes, I would appreciation the pdf. Thanks. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Allen" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:37:25 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 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] -- 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]
