Gaines,
Super information! Thanks. Please keep it coming. It is good to get really reliable information about Norway Spruce. DCR's Bureau of Forestry (here in Massachusetts) is targeting every Norway Spruce plantation established in the 1930s for elimination, claiming that their all dying, which they aren't. I want a T-shirt that say's "I'm Bullish on Norway Spruce". Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "spruce" <[email protected]> To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2010 4:31:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: Honorary native tree--a possibility?: Norway spruce ENTS: I just went into the species section of the website and looked up the Norway spruce stuff. I saw a few things I think I should follow up on. I thought this topic, being more recent would be the best place to do that. I have been on a kind of crusade to correct some misinformation about Norway spruce. There is a lot written in popular tree books that is flat wrong. I don't see much of that misinformation among ENTS members, and that is a joy to me. I won't go into a long catalogue of what has been said in books about what a lousy tree Norway spruce is, except to say that at one point I was so disgusted that I thought I had to do something--at least a little--to set the record straight. My target was Michael Dirr, who wrote the "Manual of Woody Landscape Plants," probably the most used reference guide of its sort today. I called, and in a very reasonable way quoted to him what he said about NS and explained why it was not fair. He readily agreed, and his subsequent edition, while not giving NS all the praise it might deserve, is now much more fair. A lot of books with mis- information are still out there, of course, and many of these are "set" and will not go through new editions. I should have done more, I guess, with a few others. AFA's "Knowing Your Trees" is another prime offender. Michael Dirr, and myself also, are big fans of Oriental spruce (Picea Orientalis). Anyway, I saw some reference to the reproduction of NS and some speculation about the lack thereof in some places. In many areas it reproduces readily, including on my timberland in Western MD. In some cases a lack or reproduction may have to do with the specific strain involved. But generally it reproduces in the cooler and wetter parts of the range where it is planted in the US. In one case I saw a virtual carpet of seedlings under an old stand of NS. I never see any reporduction here around Winchester. About "specific strains," etc. Norway spruce is just about the most variable species I am familiar with. Another species with a large degree of variability is red maple. Norway spruce has an extremely wide natural range. It intergrades with the so-called Siberian spruce, but some taxonomists consider the two to be one species. Many NS that have been planted in this country in the past have been from inappropriate seed sources, and thus have not grown very well, and hence some excuse for the bad press NS has had over the years. There is variation in the bark, needle length, degree of weep of the foliage, color, branching angles and "sweep," etc. etc. This variability is one of the really wonderful things about the species. If you plant a line of NS for a screen, each tree will be an individual and not look like all the others. Behind my house in Arlington, VA where I lived for a number of years, there was a line of NS. Anyone not really familiar with NS could look at that line and think there were four different kinds of trees planted there. But NS seedlings, even if grown from a very good seed source, include a high proportion of "runts." The stand near Glady, WV which I have talked about in some earlier posts is a good example. The dominant trees there are spectacular, but many of the trees that were growing with them are--or were--rather poor. When I got permission to do some study there and to cut down some trees, I couldn't bring myself to cut any of the beautiful dominants, but I cut a couple of smaller, slower growing ones and measured and counted rings. I say the trees I cut were "runts," but at the time they were about 95 feet tall. When was NS first planted? I discussed this a little in an earlier post. I have heard on what I think is good authority-- two sources-- that it was planted during colonial times. I mentioned earlier trees that I thought were planted near 1835. The time these trees were planted is somewhat better than a guess. I have on a number of occasions done some research--talking to trees owners and learned about local history--and felt that there was some good evidence for those dates. I don't know of any ring counts of very old trees. I want to correct a bit what I said about the group of trees in Addison, PA. These are, I now remember, next to a craft shop run by the Augustine family. I talked to the owner a few years back--he was in his late 80's at the time--and he had letters in his family records that dated the planting of these trees to 1870. I said before that they were 130 years old--make that 140. These are worth a bit of a detour to see if you are in the area. I had believed all I read in books about NS trees until I saw these trees--what an eye opener that was for me. And being able to talk to Mr. Augustine before he died was a joy to me. These trees in Addison, PA will always be close to my heart. I have not seen them for about 7 years--I hope they are still OK. The neighbor downwind was at that time doing all she could to get them cut down as a hazard. I hope none have blown down. Somewhere someone expressed a concern about NS trees stability in wind. They are not especially prone to windthrow, contrary to some opinions. But they are not outstandingly windfirm either. I would rank them about average for conifers. I never see nay blown down inside a forest stand, but in the open they may be. Growth rates: I referenced a study on that done at SUNY Syracuse. I can summarize. On the best sites, after reaching a height of 4.5 feet, on the better sites--generally class II soils, which are not uncommon--they will grow to about 112 feet tall after 50 years. This is comparable to white pine on similar sites. But at that point the growth rate of NS has not begun to diminish--the growth "curve" is still a flat ascending line. So they will maintain their fast growth rate for a longer period than white pine, but after 60 years or so it begins to decline. On my timberland, my trees are just a bit ahead of the growth curves established by the SUNY Syracuse study. For a period in their youth, white pine may grow a bit faster, but from 40 to 60 years, my bet is with Norway spruce, at least if a good strain is involved. Really, which tree grows faster depends on the strain of each. I have seen good NS outstrip poor white pine very easily. So don't draw any overall conclusions based on one comparison. One more thing--this is important. I don't have any scientific documentation for this, but I believe NS is especially sensitive to some lawn weed control chemicals that work through activity in the soil. Roundup is fine. I wish I had more specific info, but I have seen NS decline or die in so many places after these chemicals were used, I would warn anyone who has any of these trees in their yard to be very, very careful. I have not only observed this problem--I think this is what I have observed (no proof)--but I was also told about the problem some years ago by a forester in MD who was working on their outstanding/champion trees program. Well, I hope I have remembered everything. If not, I will post again. --Gaines
