Surfbum: Ok, you give me reason to argue agains the point I just made. Yes, most of the data on which the research I cite is from second growth, probably mostly "old field" sites, where the soil profile has been modified by farming. Research like this to be of maximum use should be specific to different kinds of sites--at least divided into data for old field sites, and other sites where the soil has been more or less undisturbed. Good point.
Second: although the new article in the silvics manual no longer includes the statement, the previous version said that white pine trees, when they have become old--I am not sure at what age specifically--retain a residual growth rate of 4 inches per year as long as the tree lives. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the tree would increase in height by 4 inches each year, but it allows for that possibility. As we know storm damage, maybe even large birds perching, can affect top growth. But if a tree is 200 years old and 180 feet tall (I am not saying that is any kind of norm), and continues to grow 4 inches per year, then, potentially at least, the tree could be 210 feet tall in another 100 years. Of course, an iffy proposition, given the hazards of damage, etc. Also, I once saw a picture of the lower 30 feet or so--actually I still have a copy of the picture--of virgin growth white pines. It was attached to an advertisement for Wassau insurance. I wish I could show that photo here now--maybe I can do that later--, but these trees were unlike anything alive today. They were absolutely huge, making me think of virgin sitka spruce, doug fir, or something. Now I know a lot of pictures from the "old days" are mislabeled, but these were to my eye clearly eastern white pines. Now looking at the lower 30 feet of a group of trees may not tell us anything about the height of these trees, but I can say with some confidence that nothing like the white pine trees in this picture is alive today. If there were, I would not be surprized if they were over 200 feet tall. I have to count myself as an "open minded" skptic about white pines over 200 feet tall, or at least significantly over, as the "early" reports would have us believe. Yes, I saw the report of the 207' white pine. I guess I can trust this report. But many are skeptical about trees that once were supposedly taller than they are now. The most famous case in point is the Founders Tree in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. It was once supposed to be the talest tree at 364'. Later when it was re- measured, with better equipment, or more carefully, maybe, it turned out to be 346 feet tall. Then the story was that the top was blown out of it, but there was never any evidence that it ever suffered any top damage. So.... --Gaines -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Jan 3, 5:31 pm, "x" <[email protected]> wrote: > if it really all bares out that is some interesting stuff (although one > wonders if they didn't study only plots that had been farmed or clear cut > before or bruned over which might alter things) > > one thing though is there has already been a reliably measured white pine > over 200'- in the catalochee area of the smoky mtns - 207' a few years back, > although the top recently broke. > > > -- 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]
