Lee,
I am really understanding what Joe Zorzin and other foresters have been
telling me for a long time, namely that N. red oaks are real growing
machines - in favorable conditions, of course. Your examples resonate
with their experiences. What was your assessment of the age of the oaks
from the photos? I can get more images.
Larry.
There are many places I routinely visit where oaks that are 150 to 200
years old won't be over 24 inches in diameter. It really does give us
pause to think about what may grew in the riches areas - now agricultural
fields or housing developments.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Frelich" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:07:07 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam
Bob:
Red oaks are almost always younger than people think they are--the
exception being stunted trees on rocky soil on mountain tops like
Wachusett,and near the Lake of the Clouds overlook in the Porcupine
Mountains. In general, red oaks tend to have very wide rings. We have
some forest grown red oaks 40-48 inches dbh in southern MN that are
120-150 years old. I had a 50 inch dbh red oak on one of my plots in the
Porcupine Mountains at 47 degrees latitude, and that tree may have 200
years old. It was partly hollow, and now is a very large piece of coarse
woody debris.
Lee
[email protected] wrote:
> Larry.
>
> A huge N. red oak grew on Smith College campus that was over 16 feet
> in girth. The local horticulturist promoted it as over 200 years old.
> Others thought it to be near 300 years. The tree got damaged in a
> storm and was cut down. It proved to be 130 years old. That really
> made me reassess much of what I'd seen. I thought the tree was
> approaching 200 years. The Forest Park oaks look similar to the Smith
> tree. They grown in glacial till - very deep and on slopes. I think
> these and other trees grew exceptionally fast. Maybe we can get some
> cores. Where is my friend Neil Pederson when I need him? He has dated
> many, many oaks in Massachusetts and New York and could give more
> insights. I'll get more images of the trees.
>
> Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DON BERTOLETTE" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:35:15 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2010 9:02 PM
> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2010 6:59 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2010 5:53 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> <mailto:[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.
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/>
