Mount Peak/MTSF   John Eichholz
  Nov 23, 2003 19:41 PST 

Hi All,
The story of Mount Peak, (the little forest in the shadow, figuratively
and literally, of MTSF) continues with this installment...

This Rucker Index sport is kind of a LeMans 24 hour thing! There was a
crash in the 4th hour as the 116' ash couldn't be confirmed, instead
falling firmly in the 111'+ range. This was certainly humbling, and
pointed out the value of training and repeated sampling of a tree's
height. Red maple pulled ahead of the lesser birches with a 96' showing
and black birch surprised me with a strong 100' triple measure. Yellow
birch was kept out of the top 10 but improved its showing with a 85'
reading, nicely bracketed by an 86' and a farther away reading at 83'.
Trees that were repeatedly remeasured increased their lead as the
readings settled down and the highest tips were found. The interesting
thing for those who slowed down was the gurgling spring under the second
WA at 111'h, 6.5' cbh. Nightime fell, the trees were still there and
the equipment was functioning, but the operator was having trouble at
the controls due to lack of light. There is a lot more ground to cover
yet.

All this seemed to indicate the usefulness of multiple Rucker
iterations. A measurement can be confirmed by remeasuring from
different places, but multiple trees in a height range is even
stronger. Empirical evidence shows my tolerance to be within a foot or
so either side of the mean, with remeasurements at different tips
picking up 2',3', 4' or infrequently even more height. Also, rereading
angles I can vary between 0.2 and 0.4 degree on one or both readings,
with the extreme variation being 0.8 degree. Usually I can get the
readings to settle into a 0.2 degree range with repeated sampling.
Rangefinder readings seem more consistently repeatable, if only because
+/- a yard is quite a bit. Repeated readings in the dark confirm little
if anything.

Is it me or does the Bushnell 500 need a fair amount of twig to get a
reading? The single top twigs of ash just don't trigger it over 30
yards or so. I need to drop to a branch node to get a reading.

One thing I am noticing, is when I look at the ratio of my heights with
the MTSF/MSF/Ice Glen maximums (in my full data bank), my strongest
trees are the birches. Would this be another way to look at forest
composition? I am thinking the relative strength of a species or family
might say something about the soil/aspect/history that a straight height
or size listing won't. Just another piece of the puzzle to look at.

I am also looking at the top ten list using repeatable heights, sort of
the average height of the tallest trees once the outliers are stripped.
I notice on the MTSF iterations, either the top few or the top few after
the tallest seem to cluster. This gives more weight to site history,
because it looks at the predominant dominants, not just the few that got
missed last logging. Watching this over time might be instructive.

Here is the list as of today:

abbr    m_hgt    CBH    c_hratio    species
WA    111.78    5.9    0.76    White Ash
WP    110.36    0    0.67    White Pine
NRO    110.24    8.8    0.84    Northern Red Oak
SH    104.34    3.5    0.79    Shagbark Hickory
SM    102.06    0    0.74    Sugar Maple
BB    100.03    4.7    0.86    Black Birch
EH    99.89    6.6    0.73    Eastern Hemlock
BA    99.45    5.1    0.78    Bigtooth Aspen
BH    99.37    3.5    0.77    Bitternut Hickory
RM    96.90    0    0.79    Red Maple

Rucker Index    103.44   

Yay! He gets his full point gain!

and #2:

abbr    m_hgt    CBH    c_hratio    species
WA    111.11    6.5    0.75    White Ash
WP    108.40        0.66    White Pine
NRO    105.98        0.81    Northern Red Oak
SH    103.62    3.8    0.79    Shagbark Hickory
SM    99.51        0.72    Sugar Maple
BH    98.90    3.9    0.77    Bitternut Hickory
BA    96.17        0.75    Bigtooth Aspen
EH    96.09        0.70    Eastern Hemlock
BB    94.73    4.3    0.82    Black Birch
RM    91.83    4    0.75    Red Maple

Rucker Index    100.63

(Abbreviations followed by common name)

John
RE: Mount Peak/MTSF   john-@bcn.net
  Nov 25, 2003 18:35 PST 
Hi All,

Just a quick report on my latest cruise. I spent a couple hours
reconfirming some heights from before, and managed to add a few feet here
and there. Then up to the saddle area to check it out in the daylight. I
found several White Ash in the 110' range, then came across one at 119.5',
a record for the site. This one remeasured at 120.3', and at 117' from a
place I coudn't see the base. All of these ash have nice vigorous tops,
and should be beautiful with a few more decades growth. Near the tall ash
I measured a Bigtooth Aspen to 107.8', another site record. This one had
nicely furrowed bark to the crown, at about 50', so I guess its been there
a while. Below these trees was a Red Maple at 103.7'. Finally I found
one I could identify for certain, again with furrowed bark to the base of
the crown then the juvenile smooth bark above. The Rucker index now stands
at 106.22, with every tree (almost) over 100'. (Spreadsheet attached)

Mount Peak west face

Species         Height cbh     latin name
White Ash 119.51 5.5 Fraxinus americana
White Pine 110.36 0 Pinus Strobus
Northern Red Oak110.24 8.8 Quercus rubra
Bigtooth Aspen 107.77 5.7 Populus grandidentata
Sugar Maple 106.21 0 Acer saccharum
Shagbark Hickory104.34 3.5 Carya ovata
Red Maple 103.67 6.3 Acer rubrum
Bitternut Hickory100.18 4.1 Carya cordiformis
Black Birch 100.03 4.7 Betula lenta
Eastern Hemlock 99.89 6.6 Tsuga canadensis


Rucker Index 106.22 5.65
RE: Mount Peak/MTSF   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Nov 26, 2003 15:02 PST 

John:

What are growing conditions like on the east side of Mount Peak? Do you know of any secluded hollows in the ridges around Charlemont that might have a few super growth individuals? I'm curious as to how many locations we can compile with white ash trees over 130 feet? As of now the 130-footer locations are as follows:

1. Base of Todd Mtn: 1 tree
2. Todd-Clark Ridge, north side, very many trees
3. Indian Flats, Clark Ride, south side, cluster of trees
4. Ash Flats, Clark Ride, south side, larger cluster of trees
5. Trout Brook, east-facing side of ridge, many trees
6. Fife Brook, 1 tree
7. Dunbar Brook, several trees
8. Ice Glen, several trees


   There must be more, but where? It is easy to break 115 on an ash, but add 15 feet and the number of locations falls dramatically. However, white ash is a star performer for us and it is very wide spread, so who knows what a concerted search could turn up.

Bob
Mount Peak:  Tree update   John Eichholz
  Jan 26, 2004 23:31 PST 
Hi All,
Here is a quick progress report from Mt. Peak in Western Mass. Snow
cover is firm here, so travel is optimum, even on slopes. I have been
sampling on the west face of the mountain (my backyard), an area of
about 150 acres located a couple of miles southeast of Mohawk Trail
State Forest. In general, the tallest groves of trees are on the toe
slopes and a concave bowl between two peaklets. However some species
maxima are turning up at the base of the mountain, and are remnants,
roadside or boundary trees.

As this site is very close to the magnificent MTSF sites, these Mt Peak
profiles perhaps may eventually indicate something about the role of
high-grading vs. age in tree size?

I have been searching for wide, as well as tall trees, and have a first
pass at a "Ents points" index. Older birch, ash and hickory make the
Ents points list, even though they are much shorter. The trees common
to both lists are all fairly old, but only the sugar maple and the
yellow birch are very old, ~150 years I would say. Most of the trees on
the site date to 1915 or later due to logging activity.

There are several large White pines on the site, none very old but
semi-field type. A list of the largest is included in the attached
spreadsheet.

Mt Peak               
Rucker index #1               
Species        Height    CBH
White Ash        119.5        5.5
White Pine        115.4        8.8
Northern Red Oak    115.2        8.6
Sugar Maple        114.5        8.8
Bigtooth Aspen    107.8        5.7
Shagbark Hickory    104.7        3.4
Red Maple        103.7        6.3
Bitternut Hickory    100.2        4.1
Black Birch        100        4.7
Eastern Hemlock    99.9        6.6
Average        108.1        6.3

Ent index (?)                    cxh
White Pine        115.4        8.8        1016
Northern Red Oak    115.2        8.6        991
Sugar Maple        114.5        8.8        1007
Bigtooth Aspen    107.8        5.7        614
Red Maple        103.7        6.3        653
Eastern Hemlock    99.9        6.6        659
White Ash        99.6        8.7        866
Shagbark Hickory    95.3        7.1        676
Black Birch        88.2        7.8        688
Yellow Birch    76.6        8.4        644
            101.6        7.7        _*781*_


                
John Eichholz
Charlemont, Massachusetts
Re: Tree update   Fores-@aol.com
  Jan 27, 2004 06:19 PST 
John:

Do you remember us walking around your farm in the early days of you living
in Charlemont?

Mount Peak has some excellent sites for timber especially white ash and white
pine. In the 1970s and early 80s I worked on Mount Peak farm owned by Larry
and June Kruz and we also did a good bit of pruning in some of the better
young pines. During my period working with the place we conducted at least two
forest improvement cuts with the very best and tallest trees kept for growth and
aesthetic purposes.

Have you located the small glacial pond near the top of the peaks?

In my own experience, I was extremely impressed by some of the stands of
white pine in the Chickley River. Across the valley from your farm on some of the
south east facing slopes there are some exceptional areas of sugar maple.

There was some serious gravel mining at the base of Mount Peak during the
1950s and 60s. I think if you were able to look at some of the very old topo
maps and compare the pre-gravel mining topography to the current condition of the
lower slopes of Mount Peak, you should be able to notice some extreme
similarities between the pine at the base of Mount Peak and the base of Todd Mountain
where the MTSF pine are located.

Russ Richardson
Re: Tree update   John Eichholz
  Jan 27, 2004 10:41 PST 

Russ:

I may have a faint memory of such. Perhaps while reviewing the Chap. 61
management plan? There are some nice areas of Ash developing near the
peak, below the "saddle". Also, on the other side of the peak on the
Kruz property I have seen some large maple and ash way up high. If you
guys left nice ones a bit lower in auspicious sites they are probably
fine trees by now.

The base of the mountain is characterized by gravel outwash terraces,
and one big gravel pit right behind my house. Just above the pit on
either side is where the larger white pines are left. There are a
couple of small pine stands that are nearing 110' at a fairly young age,
maybe 60-70 years? and 5'to 6' cbh. There was some blowdown right there
in the wind event of June 1988, so I think the some parts of the site
have a natural exposure to such.

Beside the small pond there are several glacial/vernal ponds between
layers of rock near the peak, mostly on the east face because of the
strong dip to the east of the bedrock creates ledge cavities. I wonder
the difference in the rate of soil accumulation due to the bedrock dip
on either side of the mountain? I think the west side has more boulders
and the east, more slabs.

John
Site comparisons   Robert Leverett
  Jan 27, 2004 07:16 PST 

... I've never believed that there are any land
or climate features peculiar to Mohawk Trail State Forest that would
distinguish Mohawk from adjacent areas of the Deerfield River Valley and
Gorge as exemplary tree growing habitat. Differences between Mohawk and
other areas lie in how the land has been treated by its various owners
over time. As John and the rest of us develop more site indices up and
down the Deerfield River corridor, we will get a pretty good idea of how
the intense land use maintained over long time periods has impacted the
growth potential of the species we track. There will need to be a lot of
statistics used since we're looking at a variety of habitats, species
compositions, and age structures. Superimposed is the different land
uses over time. Taking a big picture approach maybe the only way to
evaluate such a complex mix of input variables to arrive at some type of
quantification.

    From what I've seen so far, the impacts of poor cutting practices
manifests itself in a difference of 25 to possibly as much as 45 points
on the Rucker index. But one has to make a site by site comparison
because rich sites can take a lot more abuse than poor sites. the toe
slopes of ridges often receive enrichment from runoff from cutting
operations carried on above them, i.e. nutrient pooling does take place.
So we have to be careful in assigning causal factors to small high
growth spots. I've seen dozens of places along the railroad grades in
the Deerfield river corridor that probably have benefited from the old
runoffs from above. The story might have been very different had the
land been flat.

Bob
Re: Tree update   John Eichholz
  Jan 27, 2004 12:15 PST 

Joe:
I am wondering about the difference between stands on similar sites, and
similar age profile (last harvest date the same, or something) but
different past history with respect to type of harvest. My supposition
is that sites with more frequent high grading would have a sort of
handicap when it comes to tree growth. I also suppose factors like seed
life, shade tolerance, browsing and pasturing, erosion, and yes,
forestry would be components of the effect. But there would be a certain
probability when it comes to offspring trees succeeding to the canopy
that would increase with each successive treatment over time for the
type of trees left behind after a harvest. With high grading, this site
would have a disadvantage over time, but after how long?
John
Re: Tree update   Fores-@aol.com
  Jan 27, 2004 15:54 PST 
John:

When a woodlot is highgraded, especially when the process is repeated, the
retards are generally the ones left to reproduce and the impact of having the
genetically superior trees removed will rapidly show a decline in the vigor and
diversity of the species present with noncommercial species becoming dominant.
A highgraded woods will still look highgraded fifty years after the fact and
only silvicultural intervention will likely change the course of such a
dysgenic development.

The best example I can think of is an area on private land near Hawley State
Forest. In that property there was an exceptionally large old sugar maple
that had a severe crook and twist in the bole about 25 feet up. Upon looking the
property over I was encountering sugar maple trees of a variety of diameters
that displayed the same type of defect. Although the first thought I had was
ice damage, that theory rapidly died as I ran out of reasons to explain how
every sugar maple in that area had a crook in a similar height above the ground.
It really took me back when I came into a nearly pure sugar maple stand that
ranged from 4" saplings to 20" sawtimber and all the sugar maples had the
same shaped crook at the same height....none of the ash, red maple or red oak in
the area had any similar feature.

Finally, in certain ways, highgrading has not been as serious a threat to the
forests as it has become in the past 35 years. Up until the late 1960s more
timber was cut by portable sawmills that moved onto properties and basically
cut everything that would make a "buggy whip." Until that time, many areas had
bridges and roads that could not be traveled by the heavy "modern" log trucks
with self loaders and the only was to get the material out of the woods was a
few boards at a time on a one ton farm truck. In those situations, the
harvesting was nearly always a clearcut (or close to it) and the forest that
regenerated often developed into some of the best even aged woodland we have today.

With the eventual arrival of the large stationary sawmills with permanent
locations, trucking unprocessed logs to the mills became such an expense that all
sorts of economic decisions were being made in the woods that never took
place before and all sorts of low value, junky wood that was formerly utilized
became the foundation many of our current privately owned forests.

Unfortunately, this trend, as Joe has eloquently described and ranted on
repeatedly appears to be expanding.

When I participated in Earth Day 1 over a third of a century ago, there is no
way I would have expected people to gradually become more stupid towards the
way they treat the forest. It is really unfortunate to say but I must agree
with Joe in saying that foresters are the greatest threat to truly sustainable
forestry.

Russ Richardson
Re: Tree update   john-@bcn.net
  Jan 27, 2004 16:03 PST 
Bob:
Oh, I've been busy hiking around. I had my rangefinder impounded for a
while, and the weather has slowed me down a bit, but just today I added
another fraction of a point (attached). I got into some nicer hemlock
that compared to the others seemed to shoot upward. I also found a 13.1'
cbh white ash with an extremely hollow center at the base. I think I
could crawl inside it, but you could see right through. I'm looking
forward to spring. There are a few sites I want to check out farther from
home.
John

Mount Peak Rucker Index  Jan 27, 2004
Speculations   Robert Leverett
  Feb 24, 2004 11:04 PST 

Russ, Lee, Will, Dale, Colby, et al:

       I had a positive response from chief forester Jim Dimaio over the
e-mail I recently sent about #44 in Mohawk. Jim's interest and favorable
responses ar in contrast to the very guarded support of his
predecessors. I may be jumping the gun, but I believe that DCR is
developing a sense of pride in the MTSF superlatives. I am optimistic
that DCR is interested in taking the high road in recognizing that
"Mohawk ain't no ordinary place" and accepting our view of its
resources. The old growth, the maturity of the regrowth forests, the
range of growing habitats for the represented species, and the still
unrealized forest potential continue to make Mohawk an exciting place
for those of us who love beautiful forests. I admit that confirming the
44th 150-footer didn't provide me with the head rush that I've felt in
the past as we reached new thresholds. Yesterday, I felt more of a
comfort and sense of well being for the forest. It is just doing what it
is supposed to be doing and in the process giving us insights into what
are the full potential of forests in the Deerfield and Cold River
gorges.

      As to what the future holds in the way of realized potential, we
have high hopes that one or two more 150-footers will be added to
Mohawk's list at the end of this year's growing season. The Pocumtuck
pines are growing like weeds and have lots of potential to add
150-footers in the future, certainly over the next decade. Other areas
of Mohawk also have the potential for adding 150-footers, but at a
slower rate than the youthful Pocumtuck grove. Could Mohawk ever match
Cook Forests total number of 150-footers? Probably not. I tend to see a
number like 60 as the upper limit.

      One species in Mohawk that has been a sleeper for us is black
cherry. We're hopeful that we can add one this season in the 120-foot
class. With John Eichholz now scouring Mohawk along with John, Gary, and
I, it is just a matter of time until we reach that threshold.

     What is the upper limit to the Rucker index for Mohawk? Can we
predict it at this point? Well, given our current knowledge, I'd say
that between 134 and 135 is as much as Mohawk can do. In fact, I would
place a ceiling of 135 on the entire Deerfield River-Cold River region.
That would take in an area from where the Deerfield enters Massachusetts
from Vermont to the confluence of the Deerfield and Connecticut.

     Let's say that I'm right about the 135 ceiling. How would that
compare with the potentials of Cook Forest, Zoar Valley, and Fairmount
Park? I would guess that all of them will eventually reach 136.0,
perhaps 136.33 and that is probably the ceiling for forests in the
Northeast.

     It is interesting to speculate about the forests of the past. I
would imagine that some PA forest hit 140 in years past. I would guess
that some West Virginia forest of years past reached 142 or 143. The
Smokies have likely produced an index of 155 to 160 within a Cook
Forest-sized area. They are near or at that now. I believe the Smokies
will stay slightly ahead of the super growing region of northwestern
South Carolina and Congaree. So I quote the Smokies figure as the
eastern forest ceiling. Hey, that has a nice ring to it - eastern forest
ceiling.

    The variation in the Rucker index from 33 degrees to 43 degrees
latitude north is between 22 and 25 points. The variation between 33 and
47 degrees jumps to about 45 points. I don't know what happens below 33
degrees. I imagine that the best of the southern Alabama and Mississippi
forests could hit near 140, at least once upon a time. We need some
fixes from the deep South, especially in the Mississippi and Louisiana
region. Unfortunately we don't have in ENTS qualified measurers in that
region.

    Anyone else care to speculate on the range of the Rucker index from
north to south?. Speculation is free.

    BTW, It occurred to me that Dale's 160-foot tulip tree in Kentucky
sets the western ceiling for the species. Neat!

Bob

Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
Re: Speculations   John Eichholz
  Feb 24, 2004 22:18 PST 

Bob and all:
In the interest of showing just how nice a spot MTSF is, I would like to
relate to the list my recent experience. I visited, last Tuesday and
yesterday, a single cove in the forest just above the bridge at Zoar
Gap. The area I was working in was no more than 25 acres, and consisted
of several branches of a small seasonal stream and their surrounding
banks, upwards to the base of the boulder field that makes up most of
Clark Mountain. I spent perhaps 5 hours in all, and came up with enough
readings to write a Rucker index of 120.8.

Five miles away at my family's land on Mt Peak in Charlemont, my first 5
hours yielded a Rucker index of 97. Four months later, with many days
searching high and low, I have pushed it to 110. The area needed to
achieve the 110 on Mt Peak is about 175 acres, including many coves and
basins similar to the MTSF Zoar cove.

The MTSF Zoar cove is not home to the monster pines the forest is famous
for. The tallest of the several white pine is 137'. But, the hardwoods
are spectacular. I easily spotted a 127' red oak, a 131' white ash, a
122' bigtooth aspen, an old growth type bitternut hickory at 120', and a
117' black cherry. There is only one mature eastern hemlock on the
site, and it is 115'. I have yet to find hemlocks that exceed 106'
anywhere on Mt Peak. As for the other species, I have in no way scoured
all the likely candidates in this cove.

The bedrock geology of the sites are different formations, but both are
schist formations. Zoar gap faces more northerly than Mt Peak, by 30
degrees or so. The species mix is identical. Mt Peak probably receives
less rain than Zoar, due to its location in the rain shadow of Hawks
mountain. Rain data from my yard and Zoar Outdoor on Rte 2 bears this
out. But, are these site factors the cause of the difference in tree
height?

Mt Peak has trees in the age class of MTSF. What it also has is a recent
history of several diameter cuts on different areas and, the lower part
was pretty much cleared off in 1912 to 1915. With its steep grades and
grazing earlier this century, there was likely erosion. The diameter
cuts served to remove the best tall growing trees except on the
margins. What is left is still a beautiful forest, but is it likely to
achieve the height class of MTSF with normal treatment and time? I
don't know, but perhaps by characterizing individual sites both in and
away from MTSF we may begin to unravel the mystery.

Rucker indices for the two sites below. The Zoar cove index is just
what I saw. I'm sure Bob has more in there.

Cove above Zoar Gap       
Species    Height     CBH
White Pine    137.3    9.0
White Ash    131.3    6.3
Northern Red Oak    127.6    6.8
Bigtooth Aspen    122.5    3.9
Bitternut Hickory    120.1    6.8
Black Cherry    117.2    6.2
Basswood or Elm (?)    116.4    6.5
Eastern Hemlock    115.0    6.3
Sugar Maple    114.7    8.0
Red Maple    106.8    0.0
Average    120.9    6.0

Mt Peak west face       
Rucker index #1       
Species    Height    CBH
White Pine    124.8   
White Ash    119.5    5.5
Northern Red Oak    115.2    8.6
Sugar Maple    114.5    8.8
Bigtooth Aspen    107.8    5.7
Eastern Hemlock    106.5    5.7
Shagbark Hickory    104.7    3.4
Black Cherry    103.7    5.0
Red Maple    103.7    6.3
Bitternut Hickory    100.2    4.1
Average    110.0    5.9



John Eichholz
Charlemont, Massachusetts
Re: Speculations   Colby Rucker
  Feb 25, 2004 07:31 PST 

John,

Your comparisons of Mt. Peak and Zoar Gap are very interesting.   I put the
two indexes side by side, with the numbers to either side. In all cases,
the ZG specimens were taller than their MP counterparts, but the order was
quite similar. I then drew a line between the same species. By that, one
might say that Mt. Peak was not so good for bitternut, which prospers in
more mesic conditions. On the other hand, MP seemed more advantageous for
sugar maple, red maple and hemlock.

I then scanned our list of indexes for different sites, picking out those
that, at least for the first five species, were similar to MP/ZG. The
candidates were Monroe, Dunbar, Ice Glen, Anders, Hearts Content, and Cook.

I'm not sure of the order, but I'll put Cook last, owing to tuliptree on the
second line. Of course, the Cook acreage is large, and includes three
clearly identifiable forest groups, by elevation. In the springtime, from a
distance, these are "color coded," with dark green (conifers) at the top,
gray (oaks) in the middle, and light green (tuliptree) at the lower
elevations. The complete Cook profile shows red maple and sugar maple doing
best at the higher elevations, which are less inclined. Some elusive
parallels are seen with Mt. Peak, which I'll guess is a bit more
elevated/exposed than ZG.

A complete forest height profile for both MP and ZG, including all the
smaller species, from your black birch on down, might tell us more.
Although it can be argued that a single specimen can skew the numbers, I'm
always surprised how well the profiles hold up, Chase Creek being an
example.

Compare the MP/ZG structures with the various sites on our index list, and
see how you'd characterize those that appear similar.

Colby
Speculations - Bob and John's combined efforts   Robert Leverett
  Feb 25, 2004 09:53 PST 

Colby and John:

   A broader sweep of the small area you were in, John, would produce an
index of around 125. Adding an acreage roughly equivalent to the 175
that you included on Mt. Peak would produce an index of 131.47. So the
difference in the two areas is even more dramatic and there is the
possibility of the index going slightly higher over the next several
years. I think 132 would be the limit for the north side of the
Clark-Todd ridge complex.

   Because of the circumneutral soils, hemlock does not figure into the
mix as an important player. I've never broke 120 on Tsuga on the north
side. There is certainly a chance of that at the extreme northern end of
the MTSF.

    John, I plan to go to MTSF on Sunday with John Knuerr and Jarred
Trout. Might you be able to join us?

   The indices computed for an area of about 200 acres follows:

Our combined effort (your BNH is included)
Species Height Circumference
WP 161.20 11.20
WA 147.40 9.50
SM 130.60 7.90
NRO 130.60 7.00
AB 130.00 7.80
BTA 127.70 3.50
ABW 125.50 5.90
RM 122.40 6.50
BNH 120.10 6.80
BC 119.20 4.90
Averages 131.47 7.10


Bob
Re: Speculations   John Eichholz
  Feb 25, 2004 21:25 PST 
Colby, Bob:

That's quite a project you have spelled out. I'll start by extending
the comparisons of three forest structures: Mohawk Trail State Forest,
MTSF limited to the 200 acres, and the 175 acre Mount Peak western
face. The first thing I would say, is the species mix is very similar.
The exception is Mt Peak uses black birch and shagbark hickory, while
MTSF has beech and basswood. The order of the species mirrors their
local height potential, regardless of site.


I lined up Mt Peak's and MTSF's top three Rucker levels as you said.
First, I notice the spread of the Rucker indices is similar for MT Peak
and MTSF, 6 or 7 points from the first level to the third. That would
indicate to me a mature, or well filled Rucker index.


I made a column comparing the trees on Bob's list for the 200 acre north
and east face of Todd-Clark mountain as a benchmark, with the trees in
the Rucker levels. (See the attached spreadsheet) This will show the
relative strength of the species. The value in that column varies from
96% to 77% for Mt Peak, and (using the second level MTSF) from 111% to
96%. I can't imagine why, but the top ten species do not vary wildly in
their excellence. That said, Mt Peak has a peculiar strength in shagbark
hickory (outlier)(or MTSF a weakness) and is pretty good in yellow birch
and hophornbeam. It does poorly in pine, ash, and interestingly,
bitternut hickory. Maybe if we could find a few old growth shagbark at
MTSF they would reach the 120' class. MTSF as a whole does better in
hemlock, maple and hickory elsewhere than the north face of Clark Mountain.


Compared to other sites on the tall tree preserves, our region fares
poorly with the hickories, and lacks the dominant tuliptree and sycamore
that show up often in comparable sites. Looking at the shorter species,
our region fares well among the birch family.


I think of comparing with Ricketts' Glen and Walnut Creek Gorge in
addition to those you mention, as the ranking of species is similar.
Comparing to Rickett's Glen, I would say their oak does poorly, and
their hemlock, well. Is that a sign of higher acidity?

John Eichholz
Charlemont, Massachusetts