Jon,
To follow up on my last response with a bit more discussion, the Adirondacks of upstate NY have a vast old growth acreage. Much of it consists of it is the the southern reaches of the Park where the river network is minimal and the forests consist of late successional hardwood species, plus hemlock, of course. To be more specific, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, American beech, and yellow birch are abundant in the lower and middle elevations. Other species like red maple, white ash, American basswood, black cherry, etc. are represented too, but not prevalent until you get into more disturbed areas. Red spruce can be found in places, as can be white pine, but these were species that were logged heavily in the 1800s where accessible (Hudson River). In fact, the Hudson River corridor was the way into and out of the Adirondacks during the heyday period of logging. Trees throughout the old growth areas of the Adirondacks exhibit advanced age characteristics. Eastern hemlocks 200 to 350 years old are common. Hemlocks over 400 and a few over 500 years old also can be found. The late successional species have perpetuated themselves for many tree generations - at least that is what we expect. Lee may want to weigh in here. This is really his area of expertise. But given the strong neighborhood effects of these species, one expects compositional stability. This suggests that the forests of 1600 would have looked similar to what we see today. I'm unsure of what people with romantic notions of the forests of the past think they would have seen had they been present in the 1600s or earlier. What I believe happens is that the romanticists (to use a label) read popular accounts of the virgin forests of the past, and without much thought, extend those descriptions to all eastern old growth, be it north or south, in low elevations or high - unless the vast differences in terrain and climate are called to their attention. However, the appearance of the original forests didn't impact all early chroniclers the same way. The great Harvard historian Frances Parkman visited the Adirondacks during the 1800s when old growth was the rule rather than the exception. He found the site of downed trees and the tangle of vegetation extremely depressing. He was prone to depression anyway and evidently the sight of old growth made it much worse. Then there were descriptions such as those by Cotton Mather. The pious New Englanders hated the virgin forest. They saw it as a "howling wilderness" and the abode of the devil. I presume they wanted to see a gentle English countryside of fields and manicured woodlands. I am also reminded of the discoveries of Dr. David Stahle in the early 1990s. He discovered "virgin Forest" almost in his backyard. The Cross Timbers post and black oak forests of eastern Oklahoma revealed themselves to him as stunted old growth that most people don't give a second glance to. He has confirmed several hundreds of thousands of acres of Cross Timbers forestland in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Forests very close to the Cross Timbers composition exist in western Arkansas and Missouri. Dave predicted that there is a counterpart to the Cross Timbers in the Northeast. Basically, it exists as noncommercial cliffside forests and forests growing on the tops of mountains. These wooded areas never grew big trees, yet their arboreal citizens can be quite old, witness the pitch pine forests of New York's Shawangunks. Other examples of upland mountain forests represent the other extreme. Balsam fir in New England's higher mountains usually cycle through life-spans of 60 to 90 years. Fir waves represent periodic die-off. Yet, this is one type of an old growth environment looked at from the point of view at the landscape scale. This having been said, some forest researchers do not include these short rotation forests as old growth. Their definitions usually require trees for dominant species at or near their maximum achievable ages and a significant percentage at 50% of their maximums. This definition is usually applied at the stand level as opposed to the landscape level. And so it goes. I am sympathetic to authors such as the one who wrote the article you passed to us. I recognize that they are trying to counterbalance the voices of exploitative forces. But like everything else in nature, the answers are not nearly so pat as our desire to simplify would make them. Just a few more thoughts on this Thanksgiving morning. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "jon parker" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:01:35 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Historic eastern forest stature Thank you for the responses, both of you, and mostly for the relief I felt! To me the difference in most second growth forests across the east and some old growth stands I believe I have seen is obvious, but I had concerns. Today I was hiking in Stokes State Forest in Eastern Pennsylvania, where there were many Hemlock stands, but sadly a great number of them there are also suffering from hemlock woolly adelgid. -Jon On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] -- 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]
