Will/Michael/ENTS- In the simplest scenario, all other things being equal, the disturbance regime of these areas goes a long ways towards explaining their growth patterns...
-Don > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing > expedition 1-2010 > Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:44:17 -0500 > > Mike, > > Very true. I think we humans may be inadvertently responsible for these > trees to finally fully express their potential. As such, are they > artificial? > > Will F. Blozan > President, Eastern Native Tree Society > President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc. > > "No sympathy for apathy" > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Michael Davie > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:34 PM > To: ENTSTrees > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing > expedition 1-2010 > > I think the reason that these second-growth stands tend to be the > taller ones would be due to a couple of factors. The fact that the > area was cut at one time would create a densely competing stand of > evenly-aged trees, in excellent soils and on good sites. The trees, > growing as a unit, have not been through enough great disturbances to > start battering the crowns and texturing the canopy. They protect each > other from wind, to a certain extent. As they get older and more > broken up in the tops, with more canopy gaps and individual exposure, > they might be more likely to become shorter, overall, or at least they > might even out. I don't know how often we would naturally get such > total removal and regeneration of a forest stand on a site like this, > even with hurricanes and downbursts (but sure, maybe), so these types > of tall forests may not be possible without being clearcut in the > first place. > Mike > > On Jan 12, 12:18 am, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote: > > Josh, ENTS- > > > > So why would second growth be taller than old growth, unless the old > growth > > was really second growth "once removed"? I think if younger trees are > > growing larger and faster than their ancestors, they must have been > released > > from some environmental constraint, which might relate to climate change, > or > > species mix degradation in the forest. > > > > Steve > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Josh Kelly > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Will, Gaines, > > > > > The "Type Map: Gennett Lumber Company Tract No. 309f.g. Graham Co. > > > North Carolina" by John Wasilk (sound familiar) and Party from June, > > > July 1935 clearly shows an abandoned field adjacent to second growth > > > coves we visited, but depicts the coves, like the 99% of the rest of > > > the 13,055 acre tract, as "virgin". The more I think about it, the > > > more I think those coves were logged sometime from August 1935-late > > > 1937, when the USFS acquired the tract. The wagon road that led to > > > the abandoned field gave better access to that exceptional spot than > > > was available to Poplar Cove, so now we are left with exceptional 2nd > > > growth, rather than exceptional old-growth. I'd wager many of the > > > poplars in that stand regenerated in the late 1930's while a few are a > > > decade or two older. For all of you botanically inclined ENTS, I have > > > started to key in on a couple of tall tree and high-productivity-site- > > > indicating herbs. They are Goldie's Fern (Dryopteris goldiana) and > > > walking fern (Asplenium rhizophyllum), both basophiles or > > > calceophiles. A number of the tall tree spots in the Smokies have one > > > or both of these species as well as "Wachacha Flats" -the name I > > > propose for the exceptional 2nd growth area at Kilmer. > > > > > For all of you of you folks interesed in LiDAR and tall trees, I am > > > compiling an article from information contributed by Paul Jost, Jenn > > > Hushaw (Nichols School masters student at Duke), Hugh Irwin (ENTS, > > > SAFC), Will Blozan, Jess Riddle, and myself. Included in the article > > > will be a narrative about our experiences utilizing LiDAR data and > > > some notes on its accuracy and precision in the mountains of North > > > Carolina. It will also include some fancy smancy maps! > > > > > Josh > > > > > On Jan 11, 7:22 pm, "Will Blozan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Gaines, > > > > > > I have a 170 footer in Big Creek; 69 years at BH. The Kilmer trees may > > > only > > > > be 75 years old. > > > > > > Will F. Blozan > > > > President, Eastern Native Tree Society > > > > President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc. > > > > > > "No sympathy for apathy" > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On > > > > > > Behalf Of Gaines McMartin > > > > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:20 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [ENTS] Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest LiDAR ground-truthing > > > > expedition 1-2010 > > > > > > Will: > > > > > > Thanks for the very exciting account of your survey in Joyce > > > > Kilmer. Maybe you know, but there have been reports of site indexes > > > > of up to 140 feet for tuliptree. Second growth can really be > > > > something if given just a little time. I don't have any data for > > > > tuliptree growth rates past 50 years. It may be out there. > > > > > > --Gaines > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/
