JP,
Lee beat me to the punch. I was going to say basically the same thing. Since the Wild Earth initiative of the early 1990s to identify old growth in the East, we have been successful in inventorying somewhere between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 acres. Places like Big Reed Pond in Maine (5,000+ acres), the Porcupine Mountains (30,000+), the Great Smokies (150,000 acres), Adirondacks (350,000+ acres), Catskills (64,000+ acres), etc., etc., etc. are probably close to what they were in pre-settlement times, at least in terms of composition and age structure. In terms of big trees, the big ones we find in the recesses of these old growth reserves are most likely comparable to what grew in pre-settlement times. The massive hemlocks of the southern Appalachians are a case in point (until recently, anyway). What has changed are the forests in the flood plains, the rich agricultural areas, and the areas that are repeatedly cut - the re-growth areas. This is Lee's point about the accuracy of the author's statement, i.e the author is probably accurate when old growth is compared to the second growth that covers most of the landscape today. A situation that may well make the accuracy of author's statement come true in the near future is the invasion of insect pests and alien blights. If we continue to lose species, then the remaining old growth will become compositional different. In many places that is occurring now. The loss of the magnificent eastern hemlocks of the Smokies to the hemlock woolly adelgid is one example. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Frelich" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:56:28 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Historic eastern forest stature JP: Its not accurate. There are still forests in the Great Smokies Mountains NP, Adirondacks, Cook Forest PA, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and northern Minnesota (and many smaller areas) that are representative of forest from presettlement times. The comparison is is more accurate when old growth is compared to the second growth that covers most of the landscape today. Lee jon parker wrote: > ENTS, > I found this article while doing a search for old growth around the > Delaware Water Gap. > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/23/769735/-If-you-go-out-in-the-woods-today... > > It's a liberal editorial but the second half has some rather > hyperbolic descriptions of what the land here was like pre-settlement. > Specifically the author claims that there are no places in the East > Coast left that can compare to the way things used to be, and the only > place to really get a sense of that past is in the great Białowieża > national forest in Poland. I suspect a bit of exaggeration > (especially the illustration included) but I wonder if the sentiment > is accurate? > JP > > -- 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]
