Don,
Good points. However, I wasn't clear on what I meant by age not being a factor - or at least not a big factor. I'm speaking of individual city/town trees. In these old New England towns, there are plenty of 120 to 160-year old trees. Under ideal growing conditions, this should be sufficient for a scattered population o 140-foot white pines. At least, I would think so. I suppose we must turn to growing conditions. Certainly trees growing in yards and along streets are under stress, but there are plenty of greenways, parks, shallow ravines, etc. Frequency and severity of disturbance are assured factors. Developed areas that were formerly paved or brown space don't do well. Old estates probably do best. Least amount of disturbance there. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "DON BERTOLETTE" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:15:36 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: more 140's Ed- While I'm certainly out of my element, or at least have been for more than a decade, but I disagree with Bob, it's both a lack of age AND its history of disturbances...you can't go into an area, clear it for agriculture, experience an industrial revolution, and logging over several hundred years and expect to have the resilience the area had back when it was kicking out some big trees. It's going to take many more years...and probably the best you can hope for is to see things set on a trajectory that approaches it's past glories, rather than to watch it continue to diverge. ENTS is on the right track doing its best to preserve those core areas demonstrating enough remaining resilience (one measure could be the capacity to approach past tree height/circumference/volume maxima). -Don From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: more 140's Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:21:59 -0500 Ed No lack of age. Disturbance history is a different situation. I don't have an answer yet. Bob Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:55 PM, "Edward Frank" < [email protected] > wrote: John, Bob, How much of the lack of heights in the Connecticut River Valley is related to the age of the trees and disturbance history rather than the terrain? Ed Check out my new Blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ (and click on some of the ads) ----- Original Message ----- From: John Eichholz To: ENTSTrees Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 8:50 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: more 140's One could make a sort of contour map, with colors or lines to delineate the height class observed. It would be neat, and would show the correlation of terrain and height, as it exists. -- 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] Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. -- 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]
