Ed, It's devoid of any old conifers and has obviously seen timber management. There are a handful of relic trees along with some old growth characteristics showing. It's one of those "fuzzy" sites. Some on the very liberal wing of ENTS might call it old growth, but I'm not willing to commit to that yet.
Dale On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Edward Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > Dale, > > Please explain what is your definition of old growth? At amny of your old > sites, you have numerous old trees, but are reluctant or won't call it old > growth. What is your definition? What is the difference between say this > site and what this site would look like if it were old growth? > > Ed > > http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ > http://primalforests.ning.com/ > http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957 > > The fat red oak Gordon mentioned wasn't hard to find. It was right behind > campus growing right on the edge of the ravine. Turned out to be quite a > nice tree at 17.6ft CBH x 116.2ft high. Although I wouldn't consider the > ravine forest old growth, it did have a number of old trees including white > oak, black oak, and scarlet oak that should make it into the 200 year age > class. Staghorn branching, bark balding, CWD, and snags were evident > throughout much of the stand, so one could probably classify it as > approaching secondary old growth status. > > -- > 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]
