Larry,
The N. red oak grow in the open - a lawn tree. It had gotten its roots
down into a sewer. Yum. Yum.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "x" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:12:28 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam
Bob,
was the Smith College tree growing out on the lawn though or at least
heavily thinned out forest? Still very impressive indeed to reach
16'cbh in 130 though even if it was.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of over-estimating ages:
There is a mall patch of forest near Mase Mountain, NJ where the trees
are not at all crazily tall and rather thin, maybe 10-18"DBH, and
don't show ANY signs of having old bark or major root systems or
scraggily, staggish tops, I mean they look like 50-75 year old trees
by every possible criteria and they are not growing on exposed
outcrops or on the top of a ridge and yet one got cut down on the edge
and the patch turns out to be a over a century and a half old! That is
somewhat unusual since other areas with similar looking trees have
proven to be a good deal younger. The area was a small flat area near
ravines and steeper slopes, maybe it got clearcut multiple times and
then heavily farmed and then burned over and that killed the
productivity or something (I have a feeling the soils aren't naturally
the greatest in many areas here to begin with with all the gravel and
clay dumped by the edges of the glaciers). I have to say some of the
areas of the NJ highlands that were known to not just have been cut
(well this is almost all) but also farmed or had old building on them
at one time often seem to grow back kind of slowly compared to areas
that had just been logged. At least that is a building suspicion since
some of those areas have trees that appear to have barely grown for
the last 30 years while some other spots I notice now look to have a
bit larger trees than they used to, a few such spots seem to have
40-50 year old trees only 3" dbh.
SIDE NOTE:
does anyone have any concerns about coring? has it really been proven
to not allow fungus rots and insects to more easily create havoc??
-Larry
*From:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:56 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Forest Park with Bart and Sam
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/>
