ENTS- I have reprint copies of a couple of old botanical texts, one first printed in 1896, the other 1922. Both mention the potential height for white pine at 220' or taller. Looking at other species in the text, most are at what we would consider to be in the normal range for typical maximum heights: 120' for red pine, 100' for hemlock, 100' for white oak, etc. This leads me to believe that 100 or so years ago white pines 220' tall were perhaps infrequent but not that exceptional. Books like these had no pressure or reason to exaggerate size.
Interestingly a few other species are listed at heights they seem not to attain anymore: 180' for pecan, 200' for tuliptree, and 170' for bur oak. Steve On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, DON BERTOLETTE <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[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]<entstrees%[email protected]> > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up > now.<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]<entstrees%[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]
