Larry- You're asking some good questions, and from this far away, I couldn't begin to give you good answers to all of them.
For much of New England, Bob Leverett has begun to assemble enough characteristics across a wide array of species and can make some pretty good guesses on old tree ages...the guesses are based on such things (but not limited to) bark characteristics (orientation, depth of furrows, etc.), lower branch diameters, gnarliness of limbs and branches (especially where exposed to weathering), plant associations, etc. -Don From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:52:40 -0500 Don, True, but I've never heard of forest grown red oaks that far north at 48" dbh and 150ish or less years old. Yard grown maybe, that's a different beast. It still seems hard to believe that they are not left over remnants of the original old-growth or at least very, very old, like 250+ old second growth remnant trees, however much there is evidence of selective and clear cutting or whatever other signs here and there scattered through the forest and even if the forest is overall only 80-100 or 120-160 years old. It would seem to me that there must be some incredible soil and conditions there, if they really are only 120-160 years old. Why should that one patch have amazing growing conditions just because it shows signs of various past disturbance? Wouldn't it be more likely they are some much older trees that happened to escape than that they are much younger (160 or less) and amazing specimens growing under amazing conditions?? I'm curious how ones makes estimates for age. If those oaks could be 120 years old, in MA, then I'm utterly lost.... -Larry From: DON BERTOLETTE Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam Larry- Without weighing in on the countless acres of forests Bob has walked through in the last couple of decades, forest scientists have well documented the notoriously poor correlation between age/height/diameter. -Don From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:59:52 -0500 Bob, Wow, you really think they are only 120-160 years old?? 48" dbh by over 100' tall, no low branching (doesn't appear to be growing in the open on some lushly fertilized plain), old bark- how many 250+ year old ones look much older or are much larger that far north? The red oaks in my backyard (northern NJ) are at least 140 years old and only maybe somewhat over 1/2 that size. And while they shows signs of age I don't think the bark looks quite as old as one those, although it can be tricky to judge. Some of the ones 5 miles from me are at least 160 years old and maybe only 20" dbh and look far younger too. Neither of these two sites is a cliff or open ridge site. (aged by a fallen tree in each which was sliced through with a power saw and then rings counted) And I know of plenty of 120 year old patches across northern NJ and none of the red oaks on them looks remotely as large or old as those ones, not even wildly close. And it has a similar look and size to one in a patch called never cut. I wouldn't think MA would have better growing conditions, although perhaps not having been right on the terminal moraine or having had less fire damage helps? You really don't think they are a good 250 years old?? Granted I haven't looked over older forests 1/100th as much as you have, but I still find it a bit shocking to imagine it would be only 160 nevermind 120 years old. -Larry From: Bob Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam Larry The oaks are certainly not young trees, but the surrounding forest has seen a lot of human disturbance and consequently does not qualify as old growth. We frequently speak of old trees but most of us don't refer to them old growth trees. We apply The concept of old growth at the forest scale as opposed to the individual tree scale. Hope this clarifies my not calling the area old growth. How old are the oaks? Somewhere between 120 and 160 years I'd guess. Bob Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2010, at 7:05 PM, "x" <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, wow, those red oaks really aren't old-growth??? they look bigger than lots of stuff on OG sites and Forest Park can't have growth rates like down in NC or LA. -Larry From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam Larry, No old growth in Forest Park that I've seen so far. Mature second growth is all over the place. We'll gradually cover all the hot spots. Bart Bouricius lived next to Forest Park for 6 years. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "x" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:48:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam Guru, wow, very nice trees there! How much of the park is old-growth? Looking at the satellite image it looks like it has been quite riddled with tennis courts and ballfields and roads (and on the outskirts lots of apartment complexes and gold courses). Did that all occur in areas away from the old-growth? -Larry From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 5:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam ENTS, Bart Bouricius, Sam Goodwin, and I went to Forest Park today to measure and document trees. I'll get right to the numbers and then describe the attached images. The measurements are listed in the order taken. Species Height Girth White pine 131.3 9.5 Pitch pine 89.0 6.7 American beech 100.6 8.8 American beech 108.8 9.5 N. red oak 98.0 12.8 W. oak 103.0 9.2 Black birch 105.5 9.0 White pine 134.5 10.5 White Pine 97.7 9.9 N. red oak 108.1 12.5 Hemlock 131.9 8.8 White pine 134.4 6.8 Hemlock 128.9 9.5 White pine 130.9 White pine 133.0 White pine 120.9 White pine 133.7 Hemlock 113.9 Hemlock 114.3 The two hemlocks were sweet. Description of images follow. WP134_5.jpg shows the 134.5-foot white pine. Beech2AndSam.jpg show the 108.8-ft tall, 9.5-ft girth American beech. Very impressive for Massachusetts. PPAndBart.jpg shows the 89-ft tall, 6.7-ft girth pitch pine. It's a beauty. NRO12_5AndBart.jpg shows the 108-ft tall, 12.5-ft girth N. red oak. A very impressive tree. NRO12_8AndBart.jpg show the 98-ft tall, 12.8-ft girth N. red oak, also very impressive So, to this point, we have measured 6 white pines to over 130 feet and 4 hemlock to over 120, with 1 over 130. Sweet! Bart knows of another section of the park with good potential. There are likely many black birch and beech over 100 feet. We're edging toward a RHI. I now believe it will be between 108 and 109. Bob Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
