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/>
