Question for all:
Has anyone done any research as to the advantage that superior masts
gave to opposing navies? As a historical note, England was getting its masts
from Poland and Scandinavia until it began logging in the New World. I don't
know if it would have been that much of a factor in the Revolutionary War, but
it seems more likely for the War of 1812. One of the first efforts to conserve
trees during the Colonial Period was done by the British. Any white pine over
two feet in diameter was given the king's mark to be saved. Enforcement was
very difficult, of course. The live oaks of the south were also put into
reserve because of the wood's superior ability to withstand cannon balls.
Where do you think the name "Ironsides" came from?
Ed Nizalowski
Newark Valley, NY
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Lee Frelich
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 10:03 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities
Will:
If the 125 foot mast came from a 180 or 200 foot tree, then there
probably wouldn't be a lot of knots at the 125 foot level, since the
branches would be at higher levels. When they first started exploring
for mast trees, there were probably a lot of older trees present, which
might have less taper and larger upper diameters. Also, trees in the
north have lower height:dbh ratios than in the south. Maybe thats why
they took their mast trees from more northerly latitudes. White pine
seems to change its trunk shape more with latitude than hemlock.
Lee
Will Blozan wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Great thoughts. One thing to keep in mind is the pines chosen for mast sage
> would likely be super tall and young so as to be relatively free of knots. I
> would think the presence of multiple knots in the top section of a mast
> would substantially weaken it.
>
> I'll look at my notes on the white pines I have climbed. Just an
> observation; in general, they are far smaller in upper girth as compared to
> hemlock. Thus, you would need a taller pine to get the same dimension at say
> 100' than a hemlock.
>
> Will F. Blozan
> President, Eastern Native Tree Society
> President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.
>
> "No sympathy for apathy"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Joslin
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities
>
> Jack that is great info! I think that using middle and upper crown
> diameter measurements from our current tallest white pines we may be
> able to extrapolate a decent ballpark figure for what the heights were
> for these "mast" pines.
>
> Carolyn, great thinking to consider working backwards from known mast
> heights and diameter.
>
> Tall white pine could be described as having different taper trunk form
> and taper "classes". For instance Jake Swamp in MTSF has a relatively
> narrow DBH for the height, and has an elongated narrow trunk shapewith
> more a spire-like top. Thoreau tree in MSF has a much thicker overall
> trunk diameter and maintains the column, at 120 feet it still has good
> diameter though not 3.5 feet. It is starting to approach Her Majesty's
> class mast pine. However the location of Thoreau in an exposed position
> with the upper crown already well above surrounding hardwoods makes me
> think this fine tree is maxing out. Jake Swamp is another case and may
> represent the potential for reaching colonial ship mast size. It appears
> relatively young based on CBH, it's surrounded and protected by other
> tall pines, it's in an optimal growing location low on a steep slope
> (plentiful groundwater, soil deposition and type) and the grove is
> protected from west and northerly winds events by surround ridges and
> mountains.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from others (Will et al) who've documented
> CBH/DBH at different heights in big white pines as to what the
> possibilities are for extrapolating the heights of trees that were used
> for masts.
>
> If anyone can come up with some decent algorithms to calculate total
> heights from known mast requirements we may have the best guess yet.
> -AJ
>
> JACK SOBON wrote:
>
>> Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
>> I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two
>> standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed
>> square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and
>> bark.
>> The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24"
>> x 24" at the tip
>> The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30"
>> x 30" at the tip
>> This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six
>> foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet
>> up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt
>> swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were
>> cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent
>> trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size,
>> soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.
>>
>> Jack Sobon
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Carolyn Summers <[email protected]>
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Sent:* Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
>> interest about growth possibilities
>>
>> BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be?
>> Isn't
>> that what most of the biggest and best were used for?
>>
>> (In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
>> --
>> Carolyn Summers
>> 63 Ferndale Drive
>> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
>> 914-478-5712
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: x <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]
>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
>>> To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
>>>
>> interest about
>>
>>> growth possibilities
>>>
>>> a couple things I have noticed
>>>
>>> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional
>>>
>> area where
>>
>>> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
>>> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions
>>>
>> and yet
>>
>>> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
>>> protection
>>>
>>> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
>>> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years
>>>
>>> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows
>>>
>> the trees
>>
>>> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees
>>>
>> higher
>>
>>> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas
>>>
>> the trees
>>
>>> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
>>> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)
>>>
>>> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
>>> microclimate and soil....
>>>
>>> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they
>>>
>> have
>>
>>> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
>>> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a
>>>
>> couple
>>
>>> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
>>> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
>>> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????
>>>
>>> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I
>>>
>> definitely
>>
>>> don't say it's impossible.
>>>
>>> -Larry
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "spruce" <[email protected]
>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
>>> To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]
>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
>>> aboutgrowthpossibilities
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:
>>>>
>>>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:
>>>>
>>>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>>>> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
>>>> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>>>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>>>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>>>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>>>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>>>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>>>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>>>> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
>>>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>>>> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatŠ.² etc.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>>>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
>>>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
>>>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>>>> has produced.
>>>>
>>>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>>>> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
>>>> still has a diameter of something like 20², someone could read that
>>>> report and say, ³Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2² in diameter, so
>>>> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
>>>> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20² in diameter in a young forest
>>>> can be 100¹ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
>>>> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
>>>> 20² near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.
>>>>
>>>> As for amount of light required‹the amount of crown exposure above
>>>> adjacent trees‹for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
>>>> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
>>>> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
>>>> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be ³emergent.²
>>>>
>>>> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
>>>> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
>>>> ³emergent,² meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
>>>> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
>>>> mixed with, cannot really compete.
>>>>
>>>> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
>>>> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
>>>> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
>>>> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
>>>> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer‹extend further down‹
>>>> than a co-dominant tree.
>>>>
>>>> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
>>>> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
>>>> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
>>>> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
>>>> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
>>>> short, or rather thin foliaged.
>>>>
>>>> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
>>>> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
>>>> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
>>>> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
>>>> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.
>>>>
>>>> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
>>>> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
>>>> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
>>>> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
>>>> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.
>>>>
>>>> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
>>>> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
>>>> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
>>>> crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
>>>> trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
>>>> branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
>>>> they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
>>>> co-dominant positions.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
>>>> surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
>>>> in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
>>>> position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
>>>> or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
>>>> emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
>>>> height as an emergent.
>>>>
>>>> --Gaines McMartin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>>>> Send email to [email protected]
>>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>>>> To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
>>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>> --
>>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>>>
>> <http://www.nativetreesociety.org/>
>>
>>> Send email to [email protected]
>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>>> To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
>>>
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
