Jack:
OK, now I am on your side. I have been on the fence all along, but
I do have to admit the possibility--not that there were general
forests of these 250 foot tall trees, but that there could have been
individual trees and/or limited groves of trees approaching that
height.
The picture I have from the old Wassau insurance ad was really an
eye opener for me. The trunks of these trees were really huge. I
would guess in the 5 to 6 foot range. And they were growing in a
forest and close together!! There are no white pines like that alive
today. White pines can live to over 400 years as ENTS has verified,
and they do have the capability to add height until they die. Yes,
there has been a lot of time for white pine forests to re-grow, and we
don't have any 250 footers showing up, or anything really close. But
we don't have a lot of white pine forests with trees 300 years old or
older either. There may be a few, or a few individual trees, but I
don't have any reports that these are generally on premier class 1, or
top class 2 growing sites, and in addition growing on sites with
competition and/or crown position factors, that would encourage
maximum height growth.
So was it possible there were 250 foot tall white pines? Yes, I
think so. But I draw the line with the reports of the 425 foot tall
Douglas fir in Washington. Now that is bunk!!
--Gaines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, JACK SOBON <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Gaines, Ed Frank, Bob, ENTS,
> I would be highly suspect of historical white pine height measurements
> of standing trees, but I believe all the reports are of felled specimens.
> As for measuring felled trees, I have dropped thousands of white pine in the
> 80-120' range and measured a few hundred. The trunk occasionally fractures
> at upper branch whorls and the top 3 or 4 feet might have to be looked for
> nearby but the tree's trunk is still intact and easy to measure after
> limbing. I think that if someone wanted bragging rights to an exceptional
> tree, they probably had it verified.
> The other stumbling block to this maximum height issue seems to be the
> exposure and canopy height issue. Most of you are envisioning a typical
> forest canopy on gently rolling ground. In such forests, I doubt the trees
> would have reached 200 feet. However, in a rugged landscape there are
> occasional pockets where trees can be much taller without being unduly
> exposed. In these rare cases, a pine could reach 250 feet and still be
> protected. I attach a sketch illustrating my point. The top drawing shows
> a forested ridge with the sun behind it. As you will see, the canopy height
> is not parallel with the ridge but tends to even out the profile. It is
> shorter at peaks and higher in hollows. Check this out for yourself at
> sunrise or sunset. It is easier this time of year with the leaves off and
> the sun so low. The lower drawing shows how a single 250 foot pine growing
> in a ravine can be way above other trees and still not be too
> exposed. The moist, fertile environment and quest for sun would encourage
> such growth. This would be a rare condition of course hence the relatively
> few historical reports of such trees. To my knowledge, none of the tallest
> pines measured recently (MA 169', CT 172', PA 182', NC 207') are growing in
> such a protected site and none are of the diameters of the historic
> examples. For instance, the Charlemont, MA pine felled in 1849 was seven
> feet in diameter 10' from the stump and 5' diameter 50' from the stump. Our
> tallest pine today has a 44" DBH!
> Every one is looking for reasons why it couldn't be true instead of how
> it might be true. Is 250' really that far-fetched? Where are the
> optimists?
>
> Jack Sobon
--
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]
