Josh et al.:
We have white pines with 48 inch internodes in northern Minnesota,
growing on the Canadian shield granite. They quickly decline in growth
rate once they reach 60-70 feet and reach a maximum of 80-90 feet on
rock and 110-120 feet in hollows that have some accumulation of silty
soil. Large internodes or reaching 150 or 180 feet in 100 years does
not mean the trees will be able to reach 250 feet in height.
Hydraulic limitations, as explained in the article I mentioned a few
days ago, limit the height of trees, regardless of how fast they may
approach the height limit. Ultimate heights are determined by constancy
of water supply, length of growing season, and as Jess mentioned certain
nutrients such as Ca and Mg that somehow allow the tree to create a
better plumbing system. Ultimately, however, all of these things work
together to determine at what height the tree can supply water for the
highest twigs.
Why don't trees grow taller? By Mark Fulton, Bemidji State University.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb10/toc.html
Lee
Josh Kelly wrote:
Gaines, Jess, Will,
Great conversation. Jess, I like your line of reasoning, reminds me
of our conversation of possible tree height differences on calcareous
vs. mafic substrates (your Horse Cove report may shed more light on
that).
Gaines, please keep these stimulating topics coming!
One thing to remember about growth curves is that many of them have
not been updated since the days of Frothingham and Ashe (early 1900's)
and they were observing lots of old-growth systems in coming up with
their curves and surly did not observe all growing sites, nor did they
have access to the measuring equipment and methods we have today.
They report 180 ft tall poplars, but claimed it took 150 years to get
them there - ENTS has documented 170 ft Liriodendron with less than
100 years of growth on many sites. If you haven't seen it, the
Chattooga drainage is an absolute freak show of eastern conifers and
has record or near record heights for nearly every eastern conifer
species that grows there. Sites like Cliff Creek and the kind of
information discovered by some of the people on this list (too many to
recount; Pederson, Frelich, Blozan, and Leverett are a few) have led
me to not get in the least bit dogmatic about the information in the
Silvics Manual. Though it is clearly an outstanding resource,
innacuracies and incomplete information have made it into the Silvics
Manual and many other tree references. Many of the folks in ENTS have
spent their careers refining and correcting that information;
unfortunately all of that work will be drowned out by sources with a
larger microphone until it gets published in some form outside of
ENTS. One of the things I really appreciate about ENTS is a
passionate yet unbiased quest for truth and knowledge running strong
in the group. In many ways, ENTS is the myth busting organization of
Eastern forest ecology.
For several years, I was skeptical that second growth forests grew
taller trees than old-growth forests in the Southern Appalachians.
I'm still not totally sure of that, however, after participating in
ENTS outings and discussions for a couple of years I can say this:
second growth forests in the Southern Appalachians grow tall trees at
least an order of magnitude more frequently than old-growth forests on
comparable growing sites. There are mysteries of forest ecology and
tree physiology to be unlocked in this phenomenon. Another phenomenon
that bears looking into is at what successional stage our cove forests
peak in above ground biomass? How about total biomass, animal,
vegetable and fungal? I'm pretty sure there are major surprises and
insights to be discovered in all of these questions.
Shew, I've gotten all excited, and it's late! Time to go to bed!
Josh
On Jan 11, 10:06 pm, Jess Riddle <[email protected]> wrote:
Gaines,
The longest internode we saw at the Cliff Creek site was 55", and I
believe we saw two consecutive internodes up to nine feet. Those
internodes were certainly formed during wet years, but we were not
specifically searching for long internodes either. The pines may be
older than 75 years, but I would be surprised if they are over 100.
The top of one of the tallest pines was bent at about 45 degrees, so
its annual upward growth is likely well under a foot. However, some
of the slightly less tall pines were still well formed. The site has
an unusual combination of level terrain in the immediate vicinity of
the trees, but steep sheltering terrain close enough to shade the
flat. The site was also unusual for the juxtaposition of white pine,
and in general conifer dominance, with calciophilic species like paw
paw.
Your approach to the question of maximum pine heights has been very
interesting to me. To me, the information emphasizes how the current
growth rate of a tree is influenced by its current height. On the
best sites the white pines may not be growing especially well for
their age, but they are still growing well for their height. I also
wonder how the site influences the relationship between current height
and growth rate. Moisture and nutrient supply, especially calcium,
might enhance water supply to the tops of trees and help maintain
growth rates to greater heights.
I wish I had more time to discuss this topic.
Jess
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Gaines McMartin
<[email protected]> wrote:
Will:
Nodes 50 inches apart are not that uncommon. I have seen that even
on my trees, but not often. White pine trees for a period of a few
years can commonly average over 3 feet per year. But by age 25 or so
the growth rate begins to decline. To get even 140 feet in 50 years,
the AVERAGE for the entire period would have to be about 3 feet,
considering it takes several years for the growth to get up to the
max. I have some trees that have averaged three feet or a bit more,
for periods of 8 to 12 years, and my site index here is only 95 feet.
I have seen some trees when they are over 40 years old put out a
really spectacular growth shoot. But that will happen in an odd
year--the same tree may grow only 18 inches the next year. I am
talking about averages--sustained growth.
Now if you have seen a white pine tree with 50 inch internodes each
year, or as an an average for a period of 12 years or so, then
anything may be possible! Now that is something I have never heard of.
One thing you should be aware of--sometimes a white pine may seem
to have an internode of 6 or 7 feet. I have one such tree. But that
is a mistake--what happens, very rarely, but it happens, is that the
whorl of branches for one year can be stripped by bird perch, leaving
what seems to be one spectacular internode.
In the Norway spruce topic I mentioned the very unusual growth
curves for NS. SUNY Syracuse determined that after the trees reach
4.5 feet tall, the crowth curve for over 50 years is absolutely flat.
That is very unusual. Most trees, even tuliptree, have a period of
very fast growth when they are very young, but at some point well
before 50 years the growth curve begins to bend. So it is with white
pine.
And, as I pointed out earlier,the point of the topic I created, the
faster the juvenile growth rate, the faster the decline in that growth
rate so that after 55 years it is no faster than white pines growing
on very ordinary sites.
--Gaines
--------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/11/10, Will Blozan <[email protected]> wrote:
Gaines,
As for the age, I'll let Jess weigh in on that one. They are very strikingly
young with growth internodes around 50" on fallen trees if I remember
correctly. Jess?
As for not fitting current models of growth- that's what ENTS is all about!
Bring the truth and refute the standard.
I'd send some photos but they have disappeared with my stolen laptop.
Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.
"No sympathy for apathy"
