Don,
Yes, I agree. They tell an important land use story. I recall a conversation from last winter with a timber manager near Schuylerville, NY. He was a pretty savvy fellow and told interesting stories from his dad and grandfather's time. They confirmed that the big stuff grew in what is now Hudson River valley farmland. In those days, the timber in the mountains was considered to be very poor except for some of the stuff growing in the lower coves. We've both heard those accounts before. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Bertolette" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:01:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: Projected heights Bob The Fischer Dioramas and their portrayal of land use change patterns comes to mind... Don Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS... On Jan 12, 2010, at 6:39 AM, [email protected] wrote: Josh, Several years ago, Will and I begin talking about the possibility that many species appear to reach their greatest heights earlier than we would have thought and then stagnate or lose height in advancing age. Tuliptrees in the Smokies fit that profile well. There is no shortage of old growth specimens in the Smokies to measure, and while they tower, they aren't the tallest of their species. It is the second growth tulips that rule. Here in western Massachusetts, white ash also fits the profile. And it isn't just Will's, Jess's and my observations. John Eichholz's independently confirmes the white ash hypothesis. Stands of white ash seem to reach their maximum height evelopment between 60 and 120 years and then decline. Stands often fall apart, except for a few individuals that get their second wind and go on to rival the best of the heights in the earlier, tighter stands, or almost so. Let's say an ash grows fast for 75 years, reaching a height of 125 feet. That represents an average growth rate of 20 inches per year. Let's assume that over the course of the next 75 years, the tree averages only 4 inches per year. Barring damage, this equals another 25 feet. Theoretically, the ash should be 150 feet in height at the mature age of 150 years. We should see this happen at least a few times in the high growth Berkshire sites that we monitor, but we don't. We have only confirmed 2 white ashes to 150 feet in the Berkshires from the many sites we've studied. There appears to be either a greater height stagnation of crown breakage is more than a random event - a virtually guaranteed one. Moving southward to the Smokies, we can add roughly 20 feet to the Berkshire maximums. But we'll see largely the same patterns. I don't know what the mechanical and biological factors are for Liriodendron tulipifera and Fraxinus americana, but ENTS can determine the growth patterns and maximums through our expertise and persistence. I'm sure there will eventually be a peer reviewed paper in there after we've collected the necessary data. So many tree, so much time required to do the measuring right. The role of ENTS in developing height profiles for different species is an on-going affair. Hopefully our expertise will become more widely excepted when the paper on the sine versus tangent method gets published. Drs. Lee Frelich and Don Bragg are working on that now. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Kelly" < [email protected] > To: "ENTSTrees" < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 11:24:27 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: Projected heights 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"
