Inner Bluegrass Region KY

Inner Bluegrass Region KY

I want to share with fellow tree enthusiasts some exciting discoveries
and forest ecology research in the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky.
This region is based primarily of Ordivician limestone and sits upon a
slightly higher formation called the Jessamine Dome. The soils of the
region are among the most valuable in the commonwealth. It is the
location of the first settlements in Kentucky [Fort Boonesborough,
Harrodsburgh, Danville, Logan's Fort, Bryan's Station, etc.] during the
late-1700s. Of course, horse farms still dominate the region. Thus,
there is little forest across the region. The exception to this is the
Palisades formation along the Kentucky River.

Floracliff Nature Sanctuary

I was asked by Beverly James, preserve manager, to look into the age
structure of Floracliff Nature Sanctuary along the Inner Bluegrass in
southern Fayette County [http://www.floracliff.org/about.html]. I was
not too hopeful in the potential for old trees because the preserve is
close to a major corridor [now I-75], has a series of fields within the
sanctuary, is close to Lexington, KY, and, from an earlier visit, is
dominated by a second-growth forest being overrun by bush honeysuckle.
Yet, on the first visit, Beverly and her assistant Althea Wiggs, brought
me to some very interesting looking chinkapin oaks, trees that seemed a
bit out of place in the second-growth forest. Sure enough, their ages
indicate they are out of place. In fact, they are from another time.

Floracliff - Ryan McEwan and the oldest-documented tree in KY;
tree #2.

Floracliff- TreeNineteen - Tree 19

With a great crew, now including Dr. Ryan McEwan of U. of Dayton, Ciara
_____ (volunteer asst. at Floracliff) and Chris Boyer (undergrad at
Eastern KY U), the six of us cored 20 living chinkapin [or chinquapin,
if you prefer]. The first tree we cored came in at 372 yrs, the oldest
documented tree in KY at the time. that record did not last too long,
however. The second tree came in at 398 yrs, now the oldest-documented
tree in KY. About half of the remaining sample shows chinkapin oaks from
a different era living in Floracliff.

Floraclif - Tree16TallMerge - Tree 16

Below is the 'prelim' age structure for the chinquapin oak at
Floracliff. These are ring counts, except for the two oldest individuals
(who are cross-dated versus the other oak chronologies in eastern KY),
so many of these ages could be ±5-10 yrs. We have not ring counted just
the most interesting individuals.

Tree    Date/Rings        Comments
1        1637/372 yrs    cross-dated
2        1611/398 yrs    cross-dated
3        109 yrs            ring count
4        153 yrs            ring count
5        147 yrs            ring count - shows a release from competition in 1920s
6        351 yrs            ring count
7        321 yrs            ring count
8        212 yrs            ring count - rotten tree, ~ 1/2 of the radius
9        219 yrs            ring count
11      315 yrs            ring count
12      349 yrs            ring count
14      287 yrs            ring count - rotten tree
16      344 yrs            ring count
17      370 yrs            ring count
19      341 yrs            ring count
20        81 yrs            ring count - tree next to main trail

At least nine trees over 300 yrs [I think there are 1-2 more that will
come close to 300 yrs]. What amazes me is that six of these trees are
~340 yrs and 3 of those are ~ 370 yrs or older - WOW!

Griffith Woods

Griffith Woods, KY - is a hickory next to an old-looking chinkapin.

Related: under the direction of Ryan, most of this crew spent a couple
days at Griffith Woods, a representation of the oak-blue ash savanna
thought to be a settlement-era ecosystem that dominated the Inner
Bluegrass [http://www.friendsofgriffithwoods.org/index.html]. This
notion, however, is being challenged by the work of Ryan McEwan and
Julian Campbell. A small, but powerful sample of remnant oaks and ash
across the Greater Lexington area indicates that they are indeed old
trees; many date to the late-1600s and early-1700s.

from the South Savanna of Griffith Woods. The four main trees are from L to R: blue ash, chinkapin oak, blue ash [yellow leaves in the background] and chinkapin oak [large tree closer and on the right].

However, most of these trees show an incredible increase in ring widths soon after
European settlement, suggesting the Inner Bluegrass was initially
forested prior to Euro-settlement. Initial cores from Griffith Woods
seems to suggest something similar [ref available here:
http://academic.udayton.edu/RyanMcEwan/Pub/Pub.htm . I'll send Ed some
pix of these trees, too.

neil pederson

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:34 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Neil,

Outstanding! You don't post offen, but when you do it is dynamite.

Bob

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 2:46 pm
From: James Parton

Neil,

Outstanding! Those are some really nice oaks. The remind me of some I
have seen at the Carl Sandburg Estate, but these may be even older.

JP

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 4:50 pm
From: Michael Davie

Neil, that's fantastic! I believe that there are very similar trees in
middle Tennessee, remnant ancient chinkapin oaks, bur oaks, and blue
ash are scattered around, though these are often large and open-grown.
Even when I was young and not paying as much attention to tree rings,
I would notice that the isolated gnarly chinkapins would have
extremely tight rings. I visited a friend who owned a tree company
there, he was using whole portions of trees to build tree houses, and
had some chunks of a modest size chinkapin oak laying around he took
down at someone's house, I remember it being close to 300 years,
though I can't remember exactly what I counted (this was probably 13
years ago). There are limestone cliffs over the Harpeth River near my
parents with small, ancient-looking chinkapin oaks, redcedar, and blue
ash hanging off them. They tend to get those bark and crown
characteristics that set them apart when they get so much age.
MD

==============================================================================
TOPIC: old trees in the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/a371d83ecbe85ed3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 14 2008 4:52 am
From: neil

ENTS et al.,

We are all excited by this. Floracliff has been struggling a bit as a
preserve. So, it was a great find by the crew, something that needed
to be shared with a larger group of like-minded folks like ENTS.

I want to be clear about these trees: they are obviously left over
trees, cull trees if you will. But, I think their value is still
great. Not only have they been witnessing changes in the environment
since well before Daniel Boone stepped foot into KY, I think they are
an important link to the past in an area that has more legend right
now than facts. I am also hoping they will be one of the cores of
recovery of the Inner Bluegrass landscape. I understand that they were
not 'superior' trees when the area was cut and that they might
represent genetic inferiority. There was likely a significant loss in
genetic variation with the logging. Yet, I have a gut feeling most of
their shape is determined by what they struggled to survive, direct
competition, rather than weak genes. Plants seem to carry multiple
copies of their genes. And, if the new discipline/area of study
epigentics is any indication [see this week's NY Times Science Times],
genes are dynamic; the DNA system might be way more dynamic than we
had thought. Hope might genetically spring anew from these old
chinkapin trees.

The other thing I think about is putting these trees in a Michael
Pollan's 'Botany of Desire' framework: though 'inferior' to those who
logged the area, they have characteristics that made them superior for
long-term survival. Now that they are recognized, they will be put on
an even higher pedestal. It kinda reminds me of our grassy, but
culturally-created lawns. Trees wins out over grass in areas with
sufficient precipitation, but 'lose' when modern western humans are
involved.

neil

==============================================================================
TOPIC: old trees in the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/a371d83ecbe85ed3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 17 2008 4:27 am
From: neil

Beth,

That is great - I love the look of chinquapin oak [or chinkapin,
however you wish to spell it. I'd be careful on estimating tree age
from external characteristics. The last tree on the list was larger
than most trees cored & yet ~ 1/4 of the potential ages. It lives next
to a trail and an ephemeral stream. I'd guess it has less competition
and more moisture availability yr round VS the other trees.

BTW funny timing ENTS'ers: Floracliff and two other KY forests,
including the 2000+ acre old-growth Blanton Forest, are featured in
the book "Wildlands Philanthropy: The Great American Tradition". A
nice article was written up in the local paper Saturday -
http://www.kentucky.com/601/story/592954.html - w/ accompanying short
articles on the three KY forests.

neil

On Nov 16, 8:39 pm, Beth Koebel wrote:
> Neil,
>
> Those ages are great! I am glad that you sent photos also as I believe I have found my first chinquapin oaks at a park in Pacific, Missouri. I now have to reevalute the age estimate for those trees.
>
> I will send a seperate email about the park and Pacific, Missouri later as soon as I find the connector between my camera and my pc.
>
> Beth
>
>

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 17 2008 6:54 am
From: "Ryan McEwan"

All:

I would like to second Neil's main point- these trees may have passed
through a bit of a genetic bottleneck due to human activities...but my gut
tells me that we have only begun to discover the genetic flexibility trees.
Plus, these trees were growing right on rocks, on a palisade, I would
not infer much from their form. I bet you could grow "ideal" trees from one
of their acorns.

Than, again, if we think their form is a little off from the ideal, I think
maybe that is an indication of our (non-biologically supportable) bias, not
any real evaluation of the inferiority of the tree!!! This whole rat-race
we are all involved in is ultimately about evolutionary fitness, and these
trees have had about 200 extra years of acorn crops, so I reckon they are in
much better shape than their fancy, straight-trunked, cousins who met the
saw long-ago!!

Ryan McEwan
The University of Dayton
http://udbiology.com/content.php?id=1664

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 17 2008 8:57 am
From: "Edward Frank"

ENTS

It is hard to lose genetic diversity in a species short of eliminating the entire population except for a handful of specimens or by selectively eliminating a specific genetic characteristic. Timbering is basically a non-selective process. The trees that sprout up after logging have pretty much the same genetic characteristics as the original population. They just don't have the same environment in which to grow. Trees or species that are adapted to extreme environments are the most vulnerable to genetic loss. These are populations that tend to concentrate genetic characteristics that are uncommon in the overall population and tend to preserve any advantageous mutations that would be lost among the larger genetic pool of the general population. The characteristics that are concentrated are still present in the general population and given enough time they could be potentially be concentrated again in an isolated population trying to adapt to the same extreme environment. Any true genetic variations limited to the isolated or extreme environment population would be lost with the effective elimination of the host population. Again simple cutting is non-selective, so it would require the population be removed and conditions altered so that the locality is not repopulated by the sprouts or offspring of the timbered or otherwise removed species.

Ed

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 17 2008 12:12 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Ed-
I of course realize that you were constraining you comments to those species that rely on coppice reproduction. Leaving fat old 'wolfy' hemlocks, while taking tall columnar hemlocks, for example, is likely to retain genes that favor multiple tops, and lateral branching preference. Both phenotypes are needed for the diversity that favors survival, but the latter is sought after by the logger/mill interests.
-DonRB

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 17 2008 2:21 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Don,

By genetic selection you can only constrain things that are genetically controlled. If a certain developmental form is the result of environmental factors rather than genetic control, a phenotype, rather than a genotype, then two widely different looking specimens may have the same essential genetic make-up. Therefore eliminating trees that have a particular form resulting from environmental factors will not affect the genetic make-up of the species at all. I don't know and really doubt there is any difference in the genetics of between a fat old wolfy hemlock and tall columnar hemlocks in the same general setting. So removing the tall columnar trees will not affect the frequency of multiple tops or lateral branching expressed in the trees if they are subject to the conditions favoring multiple tops, nor will it mean that the trees grown from the multi-top trees will show any more tendency to form multiple tops than columnar tree if the condition for producing columnar trees is present.

In a general population there are really only two main factors that result in genetic differentiation. So long as the tree can easily cross-pollinate or interbreed the genetic make-up of the population tends to be pretty uniform. A large distance say from one end of a species range to the other may result in genetic drift. The species at one end of the range may express different physical characteristics than those trees at the far end of the range because trees at the opposite ends of the range do not freely interbreed because of the distance. Whether this is because of a genetic difference or not is another question. Some genes are expressed because of environmental triggers and may be expressed differently in different areas. Other genetic traits, similar to blue eyed vs brown eyed traits in humans, may occur in different frequencies at different ends of the range. Some traits may be missing completely when comparing one end of the range to the other. But within the same general area where interbreeding can control in a contiguous population, the genetic make-up is for practical purposes uniform, even if the trees express different phenotypes.

The other places where genetic variations occur are in disjunct populations and in populations in extreme environments. In these areas less frequently occurring genetic trait may be concentrated, while others are eliminated completely. Isolation from the general population allows any favorable mutation of genetic make-up to spread more quickly that is possible among the general population with a larger genetic pool. All species tend to show some genetic change through time, but he change is most rapid in isolated populations. If you look at the evolution of species over time, what you see may not be the slow change over time you expect, but a more rapid change. An isolated population develops a different genetic profile more quickly. Then if it is merged again with the general population through the natural ebb and flow of population boundaries with climate change, this change if advantageous may spread quickly through the general population, may spread and coexist as a separate entity across the range of the original population, or even replace the members of the original parent population with the new variety.

To focus the point once more, I don't think there is any real genetic difference among the population of wolf trees and the population of columnar trees in a given locality, so eliminating one form will not change the genetic makeup of the population in general. Do I think some trees are genetically superior to others? Of course, individual trees may have different genetic compositions and some are "superior" to others. That is why efforts to save the biggest and best hemlock trees are worthwhile, because INDIVIDUALS may have superior genetic characteristics. Looking at a population scale, the populations in an area tends to be pretty uniform in genetic make-up. The population contains genes representing all the genetic variability available.

Ed

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 17 2008 3:44 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Ed-
I think we had different visions of the populations that we were speaking of.

The removal of a single wolf tree from an ecosystem is as you say not likely to have an effect, genetically.

In the case of a western coniferous forest in a clearcut operation, the common industry practice used to be to remove all trees of commercial value and leave the rest for 'wildlife' trees or 'seed' trees, to meet the increasing constraints placed on timber sales. Talk about counter-productive!
The removal of 'populations' and the retaining of wolf and seed trees does affect the genetics of subsequent forests (non-coppice reproducing species).
I have unrealilstically posed 'wolf' trees, 'seed' trees as examples, although it was once common.
The USFS program collecting cones of genetically superior trees, for seed collection and reforestation is well-founded and has been viable for at least a half century that I'm familiar with personally, albeit for a wider array of genetic traits.

But to get back to Beth, Neil and Ryan, I think their most interesting point, was that it was clear from the chinkapin oak population discovered, that age and dbh predictably didn't have a good correlation. Having spent part of October visiting ancient foxtail and bristlecone pine forests (2K and 4K max ages, respectively) in Eastern California, it's clear that oldest of old-growth trees don't always have predictable relationships with height/dbh/crown spread superlatives. The ability of these trees to continue living with a mere fraction of their phloem/cambium periphery intact, is amazing...as are the misshapen chinkapin oaks in KY's 'Inner Bluegrass Region'.
-Don

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 18 2008 10:55 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Marc-
Just a quick comment that ties KY, Palomar, and Big Cone Doug Firs...in the 1980's, I was part of a 20 person Daniel Boone NF (KY) firefighting crew sent out west to fight fires...one fire we ended up at was around the base of Mt. Palomar. Our task was to defend the Mt. Palomar Observatory, cutting firelines in anticipation, and watching for spotting fires. There were two trees of interest to me, and and one, especially for the predominantly SE Ky locals; the big cone doug firs and the coulter pines. The coulters because they were deadly if they were to fall on you (several were snuck into our red fire bags), and for the doug firs...I believe they were relict species, which despite the passage of an ice age, time, and changing climates, were able to persevere in a favorable environmental niche.
BTW...brilliant? I was only a mediocre forestry student, but thanks...:>)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 18 2008 1:59 pm
From: Marcboston

What year were you fighting fires in and around Mt Palomar. A buddy
and I really had a fun time hiking Mt Palomar, very surprisingly good
size mountain. I think it tops out around 6k . How about those
Incense Cedars? Some of the best examples of Incense Cedar I have
come across.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 18 2008 3:45 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Marc-
It would have been in the late 80's just before we moved to Massachusetts...I recall a state park nearby that we did some lining around when we first got there...there's some very nice mixed conifer forests in the mountains between San Diego and Riverside (culminating in 10,384' San Jacinto). With amazingly low population density, considering how close the megalopolis of Los Angeles is.
-DonRB>

Home