Gaines, I agree that the silvics manual is a fantastic resource. My point is that it will limit our thinking if we take it as natural law in print.
You are totally correct that some of the sites we are documenting may be outliers - the cove we just measured at Kilmer being an example. It has poplars 20ft taller than any rich cove of its age within five miles. So, either my our age estimates and historical information are wrong, or there is something different going on there. " As for the tuliptree growth curves--although the best tuliptrree > sites are not so common that they are discussed in the manual, I > mentioned earlier that site indices for tuliptree of 140 feet have > been found and the data published years ago. That would make 170 foot > 100 year old tuliptrees quite possible." How about in 69 years? Josh On Jan 12, 10:30 am, Gaines McMartin <[email protected]> wrote: > Josh: > > A word or two in defense of the Silvics manual. Much of the data > included, if not all, has been extensively peer reviewed. This is a > truly excellent resource. That is not to say that it is perfect. We > will see another edition in a few years--the information is constantly > being reviewed, updated, and improved. Unfortunately complete new > editions can be done only at fairly long intervals. Are there > mistakes? I would assume so, but I am a pretty good mistake finder, > and I can't really say I have found any over the years in this > publication. But that is different from developing new information > that may be better, more accurate than the old. > > As for the tuliptree growth curves--although the best tuliptrree > sites are not so common that they are discussed in the manual, I > mentioned earlier that site indices for tuliptree of 140 feet have > been found and the data published years ago. That would make 170 foot > 100 year old tuliptrees quite possible. > > I believe the white pine data is not out of date, but it may not > account for truly exeptional sites, as in the case of the tuliptree > data I cited, which it is not, after all, intended to include. This > site in northern GA, even if the trees are not only 75 years old, is > clearly exceptional, and in any case might not earn a citation in the > "Manual." Occasionally the manual does mention the truly exceptional, > the "outlier"--it is not really consistent in this regard. > > As for "myth busting": I am on board with that. > > --Gaines > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > On 1/11/10, Josh Kelly <[email protected]> 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"
