| Massachusetts
Rucker Index |
John
Eichholz |
|
Dec
04, 2006 20:03 PST |
ENTS:
With the recent discoveries in Robinson State Park and our
ongoing
monitoring of Mohawk Trail State Forest and Ice Glen among other
Massachusetts tall tree sites, I thought it appropriate to
revisit the
state Rucker index (10 species.) Tulip tree has been in
the top ten
for a while, with a surprisingly tall but very small stand being
present in Northampton in a very urban setting. With the
Robinson
tree, though, tulip tree jumps a few steps up to number three
among
tall tree species in Massachusetts.
With Eastern Hemlock in the number four spot at nearly the
northeastern
height limit, and that tree clearly a significant outlier among
a very
wide distribution, tuliptree seems unlikely to lose its new
spot. What
is not clear is if there is any possibility of the hickories or
sycamore passing hemlock for number four, possibly in some as
yet
undiscovered valley or flood plain site. Also unclear is
the long term
prospects for further height growth in one or several of the
young 130+
sugar maples in Trout Brook and on Clark ridge at MTSF.
When looking at the age classes of the trees on the list,
another thing
that stands out is the age class of trees. The white pine,
hemlock,
red oak and beech are all old trees, at least in context.
The hemlock
and beech are probably "very old". (I haven't
seen the oak yet.) On
the other hand, the white ash, sugar maple and bitternut hickory
are
all younger, probably originating well into the 20th century.
It is
something to consider, which species keep adding height slowly
over the
decades, and which species rely on rapid growth in even aged
stands to
reach their maxima. I don't have answers, only questions.
What does
stand out as remarkable, though is the individual trees of
species that
clearly can make rapid growth but which have persisted in the
forest to
reach great age and girth without losing their integrity.
In this part
of the country, beech, ash, and maple all fit the profile.
It is an
open question whether tulip tree also does.
Here is my best guess at the current Massachusetts RI-10:
| Species |
|
Height |
|
Girth |
|
Location |
| White Pine |
|
168.4 |
|
10.4 |
|
MTSF |
| White Ash |
|
151.5 |
|
6.2 |
|
MTSF |
| Tulip Tree |
|
140.9 |
|
10.5 |
|
Robinson SP |
| Eastern Hemlock |
|
138.5 |
|
10.3 |
|
Ice Glen |
| Sycamore |
|
137.0 |
|
? |
|
Easthampton |
| Shagbark Hickory |
|
135.4 |
|
5.0 |
|
Ice Glen |
| Sugar Maple |
|
134.4 |
|
5.0 |
|
MTSF |
| Northern Red Oak |
|
133.5 |
|
9.3 |
|
MTSF |
| Bitternut Hickory |
|
131.8 |
|
4.3 |
|
MTSF |
| American Beech |
|
130.5 |
|
8.4 |
|
MTSF |
| Rucker Index 10 |
|
140.2 |
|
7.7 |
|
|
John Eichholz
|
| RE:
Massachusetts Rucker Index |
Robert
Leverett |
| Dec
05, 2006 05:25 PST |
John,
Good post. Your questions and musings make it
imperative that we
scour the landscape looking for small groves and isolated trees
of the
big height producers. We're well on the way to establishing the
extreme
northeastern height limits of a good dozen and a half species.
I've
combed the wetlands and towns for outstanding sycamores and will
be
mightily surprised if we top the one in Easthampton. There are
no others
in my database that break 130. By contrast, we have a good chance
of
locating another 2 or 3 tuliptree sites with a 130-footer or
two. I have
my doubts about a 140-footer, but would bet on a 130-footer.
Winter is a
good time to comb the valleys. The lesser traffic densities make
travel
and urban tree-measuring less of a pain.
Bob
|
|