White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

spruce
.
. Jan 3 2010, 6:18 pm
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 6:18 pm
Subject: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.
There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
species relative to each site.

For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
rate--roughly one foot per year.

So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
as ice and wind breakage.

I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

--Gaines Mcmartin















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities" by x



x
.
. Jan 3 2010, 6:31 pm
From: "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:31:42 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities
.
if it really all bares out that is some interesting stuff (although one
wonders if they didn't study only plots that had been farmed or clear cut
before or bruned over which might alter things)

one thing though is there has already been a reliably measured white pine
over 200'- in the catalochee area of the smoky mtns - 207' a few years back,
although the top recently broke.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
> of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
> the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
> those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
> are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
> speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
> be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
> sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
> max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
> 200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

> This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
> Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
> http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

> This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
> information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

> --Gaines Mcmartin

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities" by dbhg...@comcast.net



dbhg...@comcast.net
.
. Jan 3 2010, 7:16 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:16:10 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Gaines,

Very interesting. Thanks for digging the research up. I anxiously await hearing what others like Lee have to say.

ENTS white pine measurers are divided into two camps, the liberals and conservatives. The liberals allow for the possibility of pines in the 250 feet and over class. Conservatives consider 200 feet to be the maximum for the species with an occasional pine getting taller to perhaps 220 feet in historical times. I am a member of the latter group.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 5:18:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
species relative to each site.

For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
rate--roughly one foot per year.

So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
as ice and wind breakage.

I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

--Gaines Mcmartin

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Edward Frank
.
. Jan 3 2010, 7:19 pm
From: "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:19:34 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Bob,

Maybe you should have said realists and delusionalists...

Ed

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Gaines,

Very interesting. Thanks for digging the research up. I anxiously await hearing what others like Lee have to say.

ENTS white pine measurers are divided into two camps, the liberals and conservatives. The liberals allow for the possibility of pines in the 250 feet and over class. Conservatives consider 200 feet to be the maximum for the species with an occasional pine getting taller to perhaps 220 feet in historical times. I am a member of the latter group.

Bob


Reply to author Forward









Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities" by spruce



spruce
.
. Jan 3 2010, 8:14 pm
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 8:14 pm
Subject: Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities
.
Surfbum:

Ok, you give me reason to argue agains the point I just made. Yes,
most of the data on which the research I cite is from second growth,
probably mostly "old field" sites, where the soil profile has been
modified by farming. Research like this to be of maximum use should
be specific to different kinds of sites--at least divided into data
for old field sites, and other sites where the soil has been more or
less undisturbed. Good point.

Second: although the new article in the silvics manual no longer
includes the statement, the previous version said that white pine
trees, when they have become old--I am not sure at what age
specifically--retain a residual growth rate of 4 inches per year as
long as the tree lives. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the
tree would increase in height by 4 inches each year, but it allows for
that possibility. As we know storm damage, maybe even large birds
perching, can affect top growth.

But if a tree is 200 years old and 180 feet tall (I am not saying
that is any kind of norm), and continues to grow 4 inches per year,
then, potentially at least, the tree could be 210 feet tall in another
100 years. Of course, an iffy proposition, given the hazards of
damage, etc.

Also, I once saw a picture of the lower 30 feet or so--actually I
still have a copy of the picture--of virgin growth white pines. It was
attached to an advertisement for Wassau insurance. I wish I could show
that photo here now--maybe I can do that later--, but these trees were
unlike anything alive today. They were absolutely huge, making me
think of virgin sitka spruce, doug fir, or something. Now I know a
lot of pictures from the "old days" are mislabeled, but these were to
my eye clearly eastern white pines. Now looking at the lower 30 feet
of a group of trees may not tell us anything about the height of these
trees, but I can say with some confidence that nothing like the white
pine trees in this picture is alive today. If there were, I would not
be surprized if they were over 200 feet tall.

I have to count myself as an "open minded" skptic about white pines
over 200 feet tall, or at least significantly over, as the "early"
reports would have us believe.

Yes, I saw the report of the 207' white pine. I guess I can trust
this report. But many are skeptical about trees that once were
supposedly taller than they are now. The most famous case in point is
the Founders Tree in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. It was once
supposed to be the talest tree at 364'. Later when it was re-
measured, with better equipment, or more carefully, maybe, it turned
out to be 346 feet tall. Then the story was that the top was blown
out of it, but there was never any evidence that it ever suffered any
top damage. So....

--Gaines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 3, 5:31 pm, "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> if it really all bares out that is some interesting stuff (although one
> wonders if they didn't study only plots that had been farmed or clear cut
> before or bruned over which might alter things)

> one thing though is there has already been a reliably measured white pine
> over 200'- in the catalochee area of the smoky mtns - 207' a few years back,
> although the top recently broke.
















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities" by x



x
.
. Jan 3 2010, 8:23 pm
From: "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:23:28 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

wasn't the smoky mtn pine at 207' feet though just a few years ago? so how can the current era max be 200'?

From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 6:16 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Gaines,

Very interesting. Thanks for digging the research up. I anxiously await hearing what others like Lee have to say.

ENTS white pine measurers are divided into two camps, the liberals and conservatives. The liberals allow for the possibility of pines in the 250 feet and over class. Conservatives consider 200 feet to be the maximum for the species with an occasional pine getting taller to perhaps 220 feet in historical times. I am a member of the latter group.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 5:18:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
species relative to each site.

For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
rate--roughly one foot per year.

So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
as ice and wind breakage.

I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

--Gaines Mcmartin

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities" by Andrew Joslin



Andrew Joslin
.
. Jan 3 2010, 8:42 pm
From: Andrew Joslin <and...@natureclimber.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:42:24 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 8:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities
.
Spruce, I think you will find that ENTS who have been measuring and
studying white pine for a long time will agree that historical max
heights for the species were likely in the low 200's. We've discussed
this extensively and the conclusions is we'll probably never know but
the probability of a white pine reaching 250' is very low. There has
been verified exaggeration of white pine heights right up into recent
history. Human nature being what it is, the same dynamics of height
exaggeration (How big was that fish you caught?) combined with
non-standard or inaccurate measuring techniques contributed to the 250'
heights reported in the 1800's for the New England states.

Here are some measurements on the Boogerman Pine recorded by Will
Blozan, first two entries in the list:
http://www.nativetreesociety.org/bigtree/webpage_tall_tree_list.htm

Will is probably the most qualified eastern U.S. tree measurer and I'm
sure can speak with high credibility about the Boogerman Pine
measurements. No disrespect meant to the rest of the very talented ENTS
tree measurers :-)

Andrew Joslin
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
spruce wrote:
> I have to count myself as an "open minded" skptic about white pines
> over 200 feet tall, or at least significantly over, as the "early"
> reports would have us believe.

> Yes, I saw the report of the 207' white pine. I guess I can trust
> this report. But many are skeptical about trees that once were
> supposedly taller than they are now. The most famous case in point is
> the Founders Tree in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. It was once
> supposed to be the talest tree at 364'. Later when it was re-
> measured, with better equipment, or more carefully, maybe, it turned
> out to be 346 feet tall. Then the story was that the top was blown
> out of it, but there was never any evidence that it ever suffered any
> top damage. So....

> --Gaines
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Jan 3, 5:31 pm, "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> if it really all bares out that is some interesting stuff (although one
>> wonders if they didn't study only plots that had been farmed or clear cut
>> before or bruned over which might alter things)

>> one thing though is there has already been a reliably measured white pine
>> over 200'- in the catalochee area of the smoky mtns - 207' a few years back,
>> although the top recently broke.
















dbhg...@comcast.net
.
. Jan 3 2010, 9:40 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:40:01 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities
.

Andrew,

Not that it changes anything, but we like to keep everyone informed. Will and I measured the Boogerman together. The Boogerman is a Blozan-Leverett confirmation.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Joslin" <and...@natureclimber.com>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 7:42:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities

Spruce, I think you will find that ENTS who have been measuring and
studying white pine for a long time will agree that historical max
heights for the species were likely in the low 200's. We've discussed
this extensively and the conclusions is we'll probably never know but
the probability of a white pine reaching 250' is very low. There has
been verified exaggeration of white pine heights right up into recent
history. Human nature being what it is, the same dynamics of height
exaggeration (How big was that fish you caught?) combined with
non-standard or inaccurate measuring techniques contributed to the 250'
heights reported in the 1800's for the New England states.

Here are some measurements on the Boogerman Pine recorded by Will
Blozan, first two entries in the list:
http://www.nativetreesociety.org/bigtree/webpage_tall_tree_list.htm

Will is probably the most qualified eastern U.S. tree measurer and I'm
sure can speak with high credibility about the Boogerman Pine
measurements. No disrespect meant to the rest of the very talented ENTS
tree measurers :-)

Andrew Joslin
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

spruce wrote:
> I have to count myself as an "open minded" skptic about white pines
> over 200 feet tall, or at least significantly over, as the "early"
> reports would have us believe.

> Yes, I saw the report of the 207' white pine. I guess I can trust
> this report. But many are skeptical about trees that once were
> supposedly taller than they are now. The most famous case in point is
> the Founders Tree in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. It was once
> supposed to be the talest tree at 364'. Later when it was re-
> measured, with better equipment, or more carefully, maybe, it turned
> out to be 346 feet tall. Then the story was that the top was blown
> out of it, but there was never any evidence that it ever suffered any
> top damage. So....

> --Gaines
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Jan 3, 5:31 pm, "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> if it really all bares out that is some interesting stuff (although one
>> wonders if they didn't study only plots that had been farmed or clear cut
>> before or bruned over which might alter things)

>> one thing though is there has already been a reliably measured white pine
>> over 200'- in the catalochee area of the smoky mtns - 207' a few years back,
>> although the top recently broke.

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities" by Carolyn Summers



Carolyn Summers
.
. Jan 3 2010, 10:19 pm
From: Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:19:42 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

As a liberal and a delusionist, I think I should resent that, but I¹m
deliberately not going to take the bait!
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
914-478-5712

From: Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net>
Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:19:34 -0500
To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Bob,

Maybe you should have said realists and delusionalists...

Ed

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957
<http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957>

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: dbhg...@comcast.net

> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 6:16 PM

> Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> Gaines,

> Very interesting. Thanks for digging the research up. I anxiously await
> hearing what others like Lee have to say.

> ENTS white pine measurers are divided into two camps, the liberals and
> conservatives. The liberals allow for the possibility of pines in the 250
> feet and over class. Conservatives consider 200 feet to be the maximum for
> the species with an occasional pine getting taller to perhaps 220 feet in
> historical times. I am a member of the latter group.

> Bob

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities" by Andrew Joslin



Andrew Joslin
.
. Jan 3 2010, 10:19 pm
From: Andrew Joslin <and...@natureclimber.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:19:56 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growthpossibilities
.
Gold standard.
-AJ

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
dbhg...@comcast.net wrote:
> Andrew,

> Not that it changes anything, but we like to keep everyone
> informed. Will and I measured the Boogerman together. The Boogerman is
> a Blozan-Leverett confirmation.

> Bob

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Joslin" <and...@natureclimber.com>
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 7:42:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
> about growthpossibilities

> Spruce, I think you will find that ENTS who have been measuring and
> studying white pine for a long time will agree that historical max
> heights for the species were likely in the low 200's. We've discussed
> this extensively and the conclusions is we'll probably never know but
> the probability of a white pine reaching 250' is very low. There has
> been verified exaggeration of white pine heights right up into recent
> history. Human nature being what it is, the same dynamics of height
> exaggeration (How big was that fish you caught?) combined with
> non-standard or inaccurate measuring techniques contributed to the 250'
> heights reported in the 1800's for the New England states.

> Here are some measurements on the Boogerman Pine recorded by Will
> Blozan, first two entries in the list:
> http://www.nativetreesociety.org/bigtree/webpage_tall_tree_list.htm

> Will is probably the most qualified eastern U.S. tree measurer and I'm
> sure can speak with high credibility about the Boogerman Pine
> measurements. No disrespect meant to the rest of the very talented ENTS
> tree measurers :-)

> Andrew Joslin
> Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

> spruce wrote:
> > I have to count myself as an "open minded" skptic about white pines
> > over 200 feet tall, or at least significantly over, as the "early"
> > reports would have us believe.

> > Yes, I saw the report of the 207' white pine. I guess I can trust
> > this report. But many are skeptical about trees that once were
> > supposedly taller than they are now. The most famous case in point is
> > the Founders Tree in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. It was once
> > supposed to be the talest tree at 364'. Later when it was re-
> > measured, with better equipment, or more carefully, maybe, it turned
> > out to be 346 feet tall. Then the story was that the top was blown
> > out of it, but there was never any evidence that it ever suffered any
> > top damage. So....

> > --Gaines

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On Jan 3, 5:31 pm, "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> if it really all bares out that is some interesting stuff (although one
> >> wonders if they didn't study only plots that had been farmed or
> clear cut
> >> before or bruned over which might alter things)

> >> one thing though is there has already been a reliably measured
> white pine
> >> over 200'- in the catalochee area of the smoky mtns - 207' a few
> years back,
> >> although the top recently broke.

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Discussion subject changed to "White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities" by Steve Galehouse



Steve Galehouse
.
. Jan 3 2010, 11:33 pm
From: Steve Galehouse <srgaleho...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:33:34 -0500
Local: Sun, Jan 3 2010 11:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Gaines, ENTS-

A sort of interesting article from about 40 years ago regarding white pines
from different provenances can be found here:

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/p...

Steve

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 5:18 PM, spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
> There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
> be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
> make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
> growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
> can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
> species relative to each site.

> For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
> poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
> possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
> if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
> best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
> see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
> unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
> that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

> OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
> I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
> tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
> any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
> age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
> the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
> rate--roughly one foot per year.

> So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
> growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
> site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
> include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
> as ice and wind breakage.

> I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
> can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
> significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
> good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
> life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
> 20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

> To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
> of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
> the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
> those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
> are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
> speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
> be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
> sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
> max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
> 200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

> This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
> Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
> http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

> This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
> information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

> --Gaines Mcmartin

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<entstrees%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
















DON BERTOLETTE
.
. Jan 4 2010, 1:58 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:58:02 +0000
Local: Mon, Jan 4 2010 1:58 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Bob/Gaines-

Guess things are different in the East...I thought that site index was the result of height grown per hundred years...

-Don

Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:16:10 +0000
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Gaines,

Very interesting. Thanks for digging the research up. I anxiously await hearing what others like Lee have to say.

ENTS white pine measurers are divided into two camps, the liberals and conservatives. The liberals allow for the possibility of pines in the 250 feet and over class. Conservatives consider 200 feet to be the maximum for the species with an occasional pine getting taller to perhaps 220 feet in historical times. I am a member of the latter group.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 5:18:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
species relative to each site.

For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
rate--roughly one foot per year.

So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
as ice and wind breakage.

I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

--Gaines Mcmartin

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/
















Timothy Zelazo
.
. Jan 4 2010, 6:57 pm
From: Timothy Zelazo <timzel...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:57:09 -0500
Local: Mon, Jan 4 2010 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Don:

Site index (SI): a measure of forest site quality (i.e., the actual or
potential productivity of a site) based on the height of dominant trees at
a specified age. Twenty-five years is oftern used for Southern pines.

A numerical indication of the quality of a given site for production of a
given species of tree. The number assigned to the site represents the
average height in feet of dominant trees of that species after fifty years
of growth.

Good question.

Tim

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:58 PM, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Bob/Gaines-
> Guess things are different in the East...I thought that site index was the
> result of height grown per hundred years...
> -Don

> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:16:10 +0000

> From: dbhg...@comcast.net
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> Gaines,

> Very interesting. Thanks for digging the research up. I anxiously await
> hearing what others like Lee have to say.

> ENTS white pine measurers are divided into two camps, the liberals and
> conservatives. The liberals allow for the possibility of pines in the 250
> feet and over class. Conservatives consider 200 feet to be the maximum for
> the species with an occasional pine getting taller to perhaps 220 feet in
> historical times. I am a member of the latter group.

> Bob

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
> To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 5:18:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth
> possibilities

> There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
> be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
> make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
> growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
> can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
> species relative to each site.

> For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
> poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
> possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
> if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
> best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
> see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
> unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
> that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

> OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
> I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
> tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
> any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
> age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
> the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
> rate--roughly one foot per year.

> So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
> growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
> site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
> include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
> as ice and wind breakage.

> I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
> can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
> significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
> good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
> life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
> 20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

> To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
> of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
> the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
> those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
> are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
> speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
> be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
> sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
> max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
> 200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

> This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
> Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
> http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

> This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
> information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

> --Gaines Mcmartin

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<entstrees%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<entstrees%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>

> ------------------------------
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/>

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<entstrees%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
















JACK SOBON
.
. Jan 5 2010, 6:21 pm
From: JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Jan 5 2010 6:21 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Dear Gaines,
Thanks for keeping the White pine height debate alive.
I read the white pine info at the link you referenced but didn't glean the same information that you did. First off, nowhere was there indicated a maximum height potential, regardless of site index. Second, the charts showing growth increments are for sites in the Southern Appalachians, the Southern extreme of White pine's range. The historic reports of 250+ trees are all in New England, at the center of its range. Third, site index does not take into account the micro climate and topography. We've all seen those damp, sheltered hollows and ravines where nutrients collect, the ground stays wet all through the growing season, and mosses cover everything, where trees are protected from wind and are substantially taller and healthier than those outside the area though of similar age. That's where the tallest trees are now and would have been historically. Not a lot of trees in the 250' class, just a handful scattered across the
Northeast but certainly thousands of trees over 180' (our current Northeast tallest pine).
Also, according to that chart, the height difference between trees growing on the poorest sites to those on the best is 60 feet, not 20.
As for annual growth after 55 years being about a foot, I've felled trees in the 55-80 year old class where I've measured the annual height growth for the last three years over 30" per year. A chart for the Southern Appalachians won't necessarily apply to New England.
Though the account of a 300 foot pine in Charlemont, Massachusetts may be stretched, surely some of the other 250'+ accounts must be true. They had accurate measuring devices then. Though they lacked the techno-gizmo's of today, they were not primitive. There were surveyors, builders, and others skilled in measuring then. When I measure old structures from the 1700's, they are typically within a quarter inch on a sixty foot length. A modern steel measuring tape can vary that much from winter to summer with thermal expansion. Just because we don't have them today, doesn't mean there weren't 250 footers then. Nowhere in New England are there now pines growing in an ideal spot (like that I mentioned above) where they have been undisturbed for 400 years!
Jack Sobon

________________________________
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: ENTSTrees <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 5:18:59 PM
Subject: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
species relative to each site.

For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
rate--roughly one foot per year.

So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
as ice and wind breakage.

I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

--Gaines Mcmartin

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com















dbhg...@comcast.net
.
. Jan 5 2010, 6:46 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:46:20 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Tues, Jan 5 2010 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Jack,

Good points. I am always curious about the silvicultural data sets used to generate growth curves. As you point out, conditions can vary a lot even within yards. Today, Bart's and my walk in Forest Park confirmed once again where the best growing conditions are.

Obviously we'll never know if there were once 250-foot tall pines. The problem for us is that we have no way of distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable ones. Even when a measurer has outstanding credentials, large errors can be made. I won't go over the many examples we have. You know many of them as well as I. However, it is fun to think about the possibility that there were once 250-footers in the East.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "JACK SOBON" <jackso...@verizon.net>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 5:21:01 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Dear Gaines,
Thanks for keeping the White pine height debate alive.
I read the white pine info at the link you referenced but didn't glean the same information that you did. First off, nowhere was there indicated a maximum height potential, regardless of site index. Second, the charts showing growth increments are for sites in the Southern Appalachians, the Southern extreme of White pine's range. The historic reports of 250+ trees are all in New England, at the center of its range. Third, site index does not take into account the micro climate and topography. We've all seen those damp, sheltered hollows and ravines where nutrients collect, the ground stays wet all through the growing season, and mosses cover everything, where trees are protected from wind and are substantially taller and healthier than those outside the area though of similar age. That's where the tallest trees are now and would have been historically. Not a lot of trees in the 250' class, just a handful scattered across the Northeast but certainly thousands of trees over 180' (our current Northeast tallest pine).
Also, according to that chart, the height difference between trees growing on the poorest sites to those on the best is 60 feet, not 20.
As for annual growth after 55 years being about a foot, I've felled trees in the 55-80 year old class where I've measured the annual height growth for the last three years over 30" per year. A chart for the Southern Appalachians won't necessarily apply to New England.
Though the account of a 300 foot pine in Charlemont, Massachusetts may be stretched, surely some of the other 250'+ accounts must be true. They had accurate measuring devices then. Though they lacked the techno-gizmo's of today, they were not primitive. There were surveyors, builders, and others skilled in measuring then. When I measure old structures from the 1700's, they are typically within a quarter inch on a sixty foot length. A modern steel measuring tape can vary that much from winter to summer with thermal expansion. Just because we don't have them today, doesn't mean there weren't 250 footers then. Nowhere in New England are there now pines growing in an ideal spot (like that I mentioned above) where they have been undisturbed for 400 years!
Jack Sobon

From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: ENTSTrees <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 5:18:59 PM
Subject: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

There is some research about the growth rates of white pines that may
be of interest to white pine enthusiasts. For a bit of background to
make the context of the research I am quoting clear: in forestry,
growing sites for various eastern trees are classed by how tall a tree
can grow in 50 years. This is called the "site index" for each
species relative to each site.

For white pine, the site indices range from 60 feet--for a rather
poor site--to as much as 120 feet for the best sties. It may be
possible that there are some sites with an index of over 120 feet, but
if so, I assume they are very, very rare. In fact, most commonly, the
best white pine sites are between 90 and 100 feet, which I commonly
see quoted for most class II soils. I believe 120 feet is fairly
unusual--I know of one just site, a very rich stream bottomland site
that is probably a class I soil, that may have that kind of potential.

OK, enough for the basic background. Here is the interesting thing
I just learned: If a white pine grows 120 feet in 50 years, this same
tree on this same superior growing site, after age 55, will not grow
any faster than a tree growing on a relatively poor site--index 60. At
age 55, both trees--the one growing on the relatively poor site, and
the one growing on the very rich site, will be growing at the same
rate--roughly one foot per year.

So, all the difference between the height of a white pine tree
growing on an excellent growing site, and the one growing on a poor
site, occurs during the first 55 years. Of course this does not
include any factors that may distinguish sites based on factors such
as ice and wind breakage.

I think this reflects on the question of how tall white pine trees
can grow, in that those growing on the very best sites may not grow
significantly taller than those growing on the lesser, but still very
good sites. Thus, if a growing site is rated at 120 feet, over the
life of a white pine tree, the final height of the tree will be just
20 feet taller than a tree growing on a site of index 100.

To explain a bit more, if we want to speculate on the possibility
of white pines growing to 200, or the oft quoted height of 250 feet,
the idea that the 200 plus trees grew on the very best sites, and
those sites are now no longer available for growing pines because they
are now farmalnd, or whatever, should be less of a factor in our
speculations. The difference in the ultimate height of the trees will
be only 20 feet or so. So even if we want to argue that the best
sites could grow pines taller than what we now see--about 175 feet
max--then the potential was for 195 or so, certainly not much above
200, and certainly not 250 or anything like it.

This research is summarized (with citatiion) in the USDA Forest
Sefvice manual titled "Silvics of North America." The URL is:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

This is written from a forestry perspective, but contains a lot of
information about tree growth, etc of interest to any tree lover.

--Gaines Mcmartin

--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+ unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

-- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Gaines McMartin
.
. Jan 5 2010, 8:55 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:55:43 -0500
Local: Tues, Jan 5 2010 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.
Jack:

I agree with your general ideas about the limitations of the study
and the limitations of its implications. I want to make it clear that
the only point I was referring to was this part:

By age 55, the rate of annual growth is about equal on all sites (9).
For example, in stands with a site index of 36.6 m (120 ft), maximum
growth of 1.0 m (3.4 ft) per year occurred at age 14; whereas, with a
site index of 18.3 m (60 ft), maximum growth of 0.5 m (1.5 ft) per
year did not occur until age 23. By age 55, however, annual growth for
all sites was about 0.3 m (1.0 ft) per year.

And I have to admit I did not make myself clear on the other point: You say:

Also, according to that chart, the height difference between trees
growing on the poorest sites to those on the best is 60 feet, not 20.

I did not mean to imply that the difference between the growth on
all sites was only 20 feet. I was using the more limited range of
site indices only because it is only sites rated at 100 to 120that
are likely to produce the tallest pines. Of course those pines
growing on sites rated at only 60 feet will be 60 feet shorter than
those growing on a site rated at 120 feet after 50 years.

I accept your point that there are sites that include some special
factors not covered by this study. In my answer to the point made by
surfbum, I pointed out that most if not all of the stands considered
in this study were probably stands grown on sites that had some soil
disturbance, perhaps from farming, as with “old field” sites. Your
points here I think expand our understanding of other limitations that
the kinds of sites included in the study might involve.

But on the other side, I AM using the phrase “might include.” I do
think that this study has some broad implications about the future
growth of white pines and the possibility that white pines may in the
future, and/or did in the past, achieve the very great heights
attributed to them.

Before I read the summary of this study, I had assumed that the
very best sites would continue to produce superior growth of white
pines throughout the life of the trees. I had read about the growth
curves that have been determined for other species. What is commonly
the case is that trees growing on the best sites will continue to grow
faster than trees growing on the poorer sites, but over time the
difference diminishes because the drop off in growth rates of trees
growing on the poorer sites is slower than it is for trees growing on
the better sites.

What really surprised me about this study of white pine is that
after only 55 years the drop off in the growth rates of white pines on
the best sites is so great, that in fact all the difference in growth
rates completely disappears after 55 years. This is completely
counterintuitive. To my mind, it simply doesn’t make sense! But this
is not the first time my sense of how things work or should work has
been shown false by research.

Now for me the bottom line is that this study would “seem” to
suggest that the idea that some absolutely superior sites may not, as
we might think, produce trees of absolutely superior heights,
something like 30 to 50 feet greater. This study suggests that the
difference may be only 10 or 20 feet. Now this has really surprised
me, to say the least!

Yes, we need more research. But this study, while not eliminating
the possibility that there may be certain kinds of sites that will
support the continuation of fast growth rates well beyond the age of
55, it does, I think, raise very serious questions about the
assumptions that I and others may have had about the sustainability of
especially fast growth rates of white pines on superior sites.

This does make me think that the possibility of 250 foot tall white
pines less likely than I had previously thought. If the growth rates
of white pines on the best sties are not sustained, then trees would
have to live a very, very long time undisturbed to reach 250 feet.

You can draw different conclusions about whether 250 foot pines
existed in the past or will exist in the future. All I am trying to
say is that the information produced by this study does bear on the
question, and would seem to suggest that the possibility is less than
it would be if some sites, even if only the potentially limited
variety of sites covered in this study, could continue to support very
superior growth rates for white pines over a period of time much
longer than 55 years.

Is this a fair interpretation?

Personally, I would like to believe that white pines did/could grow
to 250 feet. That is a thought I could cherish. Eastern white pine is
a truly noble species. I think it is the most beautiful of all the
pines I have seen, and that includes the magnificent sugar pines
growing in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. I am just finding it harder,
after reading about this study, to maintain that cherished thought.

--Gaines
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 1/5/10, JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Dear Gaines,
> Thanks for keeping the White pine height debate alive.
> I read the white pine info at the link you referenced but didn't glean the
> same information that you did. First off, nowhere was there indicated a
> maximum height potential, regardless of site index. Second, the
> charts showing growth increments are for sites in the Southern Appalachians,
> the Southern extreme of White pine's range. The historic reports of 250+
> trees are all in New England, at the center of its range. Third, site index
> does not take into account the micro climate and topography. We've all seen
> those damp, sheltered hollows and ravines where nutrients collect, the
> ground stays wet all through the growing season, and mosses cover
> everything, where trees are protected from wind and are substantially taller
> and healthier than those outside the area though of similar age. That's
> where the tallest trees are now and would have been historically. Not a lot
> of trees in the 250' class, just a handful scattered across the
> Northeast but certainly thousands of trees over 180' (our current Northeast
> tallest pine).
> Also, according to that chart, the height difference between trees growing
> on the poorest sites to those on the best is 60 feet, not 20.
> As for annual growth after 55 years being about a foot, I've felled trees
> in the 55-80 year old class where I've measured the annual height growth for
> the last three years over 30" per year. A chart for the Southern
> Appalachians won't necessarily apply to New England.
> Though the account of a 300 foot pine in Charlemont, Massachusetts may be
> stretched, surely some of the other 250'+ accounts must be true. They had
> accurate measuring devices then. Though they lacked the techno-gizmo's of
> today, they were not primitive. There were surveyors, builders, and others
> skilled in measuring then. When I measure old structures from the 1700's,
> they are typically within a quarter inch on a sixty foot length. A modern
> steel measuring tape can vary that much from winter to summer with thermal
> expansion. Just because we don't have them today, doesn't mean there
> weren't 250 footers then. Nowhere in New England are there now pines
> growing in an ideal spot (like that I mentioned above) where they have
> been undisturbed for 400 years!
> Jack Sobon
















spruce
.
. Jan 5 2010, 11:16 pm
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Jan 5 2010 11:16 pm
Subject: Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.
ENTS:

Another point--I admit a bit off the point of the topic I myself
started here--is that the reports of 250 foot white pines came from a
time when there were not the same means so widely available for
measuring the heights of standing trees. And, as a part time logger
who has cut down some 80 plus foot white pine trees, I can report that
they are not easy to measure once cut down. This is because when a
very tall tree crashes to the ground, it really does "crash." I have
taken careful measurements of many of the trees I have cut down, and
often the top is shattered. This is particularly true of white
pines. To measure a tall white pine after I have cut it down I really
have to do some reconstruction of the top, which usually shatters and
and the pieces are scattered a bit. Now, if this happens with mere 80
footers, I can imagine that a much larger section of the top of a 200
plus white pine will be shattered, and scattered, after falling. This
can make accurate measurements of a tree that has been felled a little
more difficult than one might think.

How much the top of a tree shatters when it is felled depends very
much of the species. Norway spruce shattter relatively little, while
a tall tuliptree ( I think this is the proper name for this species,
not "yellow poplar," if you will indulge me) shatters more than any
other kind of tree that I have experience with. With a tall tuliptree
that I might want to measure, the top often shatters so badly that
without taking much more trouble than I would normally have time for,
I will just make a rough quess about the length of the shattered part.

--Gaines















Edward Frank
.
. Jan 6 2010, 1:34 am
From: "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:34:53 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 1:34 am
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Jack, ENTS,

I will admit I am skeptic about white pine trees growing to 250 feet tall. By that I mean I doubt the veracity of these claims and believe that they are most likely exaggerations or measurement errors, but I will not rule out the small possibility that some of the trees actually were that high. What I am wondering is what you and other ENTS think about the processes that lead to these great heights.

If you look at a ridgeline of an old growth forest that contains white pines, you often see a general canopy top, and there are white pines sticking out as a supracanopy tree above the general canopy top. These trees stick out maybe 30- 40 feet above the rest. Would these trees have stuck out 90 feet above the canopy? Would they be growing with many other white pines that they were forced to grow this high to get enough light? Would there be other giant trees present of other species that push the general canopy height upward.

In general white pines are like paint brushes. There is a long trunk and the live branches form a brush at the upper end of the trunk where it extends into the canopy and above the canopy, with few live branches below. How far above the canopy does a tree need to stick to obtain enough light? Like that always have the actors cliché - what is there motivation for growing really tall once they are a reasonable distance above the general canopy? On a structural side of it, the tops that are sticking out are subject to wind damage much more so than the branches within the overall canopy and therefore would break more often. Essentially they are limited by wind damage to how high they can stick up. Would the general canopy height be overall taller, perhaps populated by other white pines in a near monoculture grove, so that they would provide each other with protection from the wind?

I am trying to envision how these tall trees would look in relation to the rest of the forest, why they would form that way, and how they would work in the wind an weather.

Ed Frank

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: JACK SOBON
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

...Though the account of a 300 foot pine in Charlemont, Massachusetts may be stretched, surely some of the other 250'+ accounts must be true. They had accurate measuring devices then. Though they lacked the techno-gizmo's of today, they were not primitive. There were surveyors, builders, and others skilled in measuring then. When I measure old structures from the 1700's, they are typically within a quarter inch on a sixty foot length. A modern steel measuring tape can vary that much from winter to summer with thermal expansion. Just because we don't have them today, doesn't mean there weren't 250 footers then. Nowhere in New England are there now pines growing in an ideal spot (like that I mentioned above) where they have been undisturbed for 400 years!
Jack Sobon


Reply to author Forward









dbhg...@comcast.net
.
. Jan 6 2010, 10:27 am
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:27:19 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 10:27 am
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Gaines,

You raise some very important points that I've often wondered about. We often give past reports on tree dimensions a level of credibility that they probably don't deserve, especially when we know nothing of who measured trees or how it was done. We assume that if a tree was measured on the ground, it would have been done with a high level of accuracy, that whoever was doing the measuring had a reason to to take extra time trying to get the most accurate measurement possible. I'm unsure of why it would have been any different in the past versus today.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 10:16:02 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

ENTS: Another point--I admit a bit off the point of the topic I myself started here--is that the reports of 250 foot white pines came from a time when there were not the same means so widely available for measuring the heights of standing trees. And, as a part time logger who has cut down some 80 plus foot white pine trees, I can report that they are not easy to measure once cut down. This is because when a very tall tree crashes to the ground, it really does "crash." I have taken careful measurements of many of the trees I have cut down, and often the top is shattered. This is particularly true of white pines. To measure a tall white pine after I have cut it down I really have to do some reconstruction of the top, which usually shatters and and the pieces are scattered a bit. Now, if this happens with mere 80 footers, I can imagine that a much larger section of the top of a 200 plus white pine will be shattered, and scattered, after falling. This can make accurate measurements of a tree that has been felled a little more difficult than one might think. How much the top of a tree shatters when it is felled depends very much of the species. Norway spruce shattter relatively little, while a tall tuliptree ( I think this is the proper name for this species, not "yellow poplar," if you will indulge me) shatters more than any other kind of tree that I have experience with. With a tall tuliptree that I might want to measure, the top often shatters so badly that without taking much more trouble than I would normally have time for, I will just make a rough quess about the length of the shattered part. --Gaines
-- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Will Blozan
.
. Jan 6 2010, 10:53 am
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:53:49 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

ED,

I am in agreement with your ideas. There could only be a few reasons for
white pines to exceed the heights we see today. The simplest of course,
would be competition for light. That competition would be imposed by another
object or tree blocking the light. What would that object be? Most likely
other white pines. I think we can agree that in New England there are no
species of trees that would impose a competitive influence on white pine
height growth. Ever. Same could be said of the southern Appalachians if we
are talking of trees 250 feet tall.

You would need a tight grove of super trees to sustain one that tall. For
example, the Boogerman Pine is surrounded by dozens of other white pines of
similar or even older ages (~350) yet it is the only one over 180’. Out of
the entire cove it grows in it likely has had the perfect location and
disturbance history to allow it to dominate above all others. Even at its’
prime it was but 40 feet taller than the surrounding forest. It was not 90
feet and had no reason to get so tall. As it turns out- the top was smashed
by a wind event whereas the main canopy below was untouched. Assuming a
40-50 foot emergence average for mature white pine, for the Boogerman Pine
to be 250 feet tall the surrounding canopy would have to be 200 feet tall.
The associated non-pine trees around the Boogerman Pine are tall- but none
exceed 165’. Tuliptree 165’, hemlock 158’- we know these species and they
are not going to reach 200’.

If there were no external factors (storm damage, insect damage, drought,
fungi, etc.) influencing the height of a white pine I believe they could
reach 250 feet. This would only happen “under their pown influence” and may
have happened a few times in the past. But still I highly doubt it- I
suggest there was simply no reason.

Will F. Blozan

President, Eastern Native Tree Society

President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

_____

From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Edward Frank
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:35 AM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Jack, ENTS,

I will admit I am skeptic about white pine trees growing to 250 feet tall.
By that I mean I doubt the veracity of these claims and believe that they
are most likely exaggerations or measurement errors, but I will not rule out
the small possibility that some of the trees actually were that high. What
I am wondering is what you and other ENTS think about the processes that
lead to these great heights.

If you look at a ridgeline of an old growth forest that contains white
pines, you often see a general canopy top, and there are white pines
sticking out as a supracanopy tree above the general canopy top. These
trees stick out maybe 30- 40 feet above the rest. Would these trees have
stuck out 90 feet above the canopy? Would they be growing with many other
white pines that they were forced to grow this high to get enough light?
Would there be other giant trees present of other species that push the
general canopy height upward.

In general white pines are like paint brushes. There is a long trunk and
the live branches form a brush at the upper end of the trunk where it
extends into the canopy and above the canopy, with few live branches below.
How far above the canopy does a tree need to stick to obtain enough light?
Like that always have the actors cliché - what is there motivation for
growing really tall once they are a reasonable distance above the general
canopy? On a structural side of it, the tops that are sticking out are
subject to wind damage much more so than the branches within the overall
canopy and therefore would break more often. Essentially they are limited
by wind damage to how high they can stick up. Would the general canopy
height be overall taller, perhaps populated by other white pines in a near
monoculture grove, so that they would provide each other with protection
from the wind?

I am trying to envision how these tall trees would look in relation to the
rest of the forest, why they would form that way, and how they would work in
the wind an weather.

Ed Frank

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile
<http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957> &id=709156957

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----

From: JACK SOBON <mailto:jackso...@verizon.net>

To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:21 PM

Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about

growth possibilities

...Though the account of a 300 foot pine in Charlemont, Massachusetts may be
stretched, surely some of the other 250'+ accounts must be true. They had
accurate measuring devices then. Though they lacked the techno-gizmo's of
today, they were not primitive. There were surveyors, builders, and others
skilled in measuring then. When I measure old structures from the 1700's,
they are typically within a quarter inch on a sixty foot length. A modern
steel measuring tape can vary that much from winter to summer with thermal
expansion. Just because we don't have them today, doesn't mean there
weren't 250 footers then. Nowhere in New England are there now pines
growing in an ideal spot (like that I mentioned above) where they have been
undisturbed for 400 years!

Jack Sobon
















spruce
.
. Jan 6 2010, 12:23 pm
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.
Jack, Ed, ENTS:

A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
heights of standing trees—that is unquestioned. The main question is
“did they?” Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
that if some one with a “scientific” mind did careful measurements,
these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
style I have seen them, i.e. “early lumberman reported that….” etc.

One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
they cut down, is a focus on data such as, “at a height of 120 feet
the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,” or some such thing. They
report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
has produced.

So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
still has a diameter of something like 20”, someone could read that
report and say, “Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2” in diameter, so
then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20” in diameter in a young forest
can be 100’ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
20” near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

As for amount of light required—the amount of crown exposure above
adjacent trees—for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
suppressed. Added to this I believe should be “emergent.”

A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
“emergent,” meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
mixed with, cannot really compete.

The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer—extend further down—
than a co-dominant tree.

The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
short, or rather thin foliaged.

White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
co-dominant positions.

Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
height as an emergent.

--Gaines McMartin















JACK SOBON
.
. Jan 6 2010, 4:08 pm
From: JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Dear Gaines, Ed Frank, Bob, ENTS,
I would be highly suspect of historical white pine height measurements of standing trees, but I believe all the reports are of felled specimens. As for measuring felled trees, I have dropped thousands of white pine in the 80-120' range and measured a few hundred. The trunk occasionally fractures at upper branch whorls and the top 3 or 4 feet might have to be looked for nearby but the tree's trunk is still intact and easy to measure after limbing. I think that if someone wanted bragging rights to an exceptional tree, they probably had it verified.
The other stumbling block to this maximum height issue seems to be the exposure and canopy height issue. Most of you are envisioning a typical forest canopy on gently rolling ground. In such forests, I doubt the trees would have reached 200 feet. However, in a rugged landscape there are occasional pockets where trees can be much taller without being unduly exposed. In these rare cases, a pine could reach 250 feet and still be protected. I attach a sketch illustrating my point. The top drawing shows a forested ridge with the sun behind it. As you will see, the canopy height is not parallel with the ridge but tends to even out the profile. It is shorter at peaks and higher in hollows. Check this out for yourself at sunrise or sunset. It is easier this time of year with the leaves off and the sun so low. The lower drawing shows how a single 250 foot pine growing in a ravine can be way above other trees and still not be too
exposed. The moist, fertile environment and quest for sun would encourage such growth. This would be a rare condition of course hence the relatively few historical reports of such trees. To my knowledge, none of the tallest pines measured recently (MA 169', CT 172', PA 182', NC 207') are growing in such a protected site and none are of the diameters of the historic examples. For instance, the Charlemont, MA pine felled in 1849 was seven feet in diameter 10' from the stump and 5' diameter 50' from the stump. Our tallest pine today has a 44" DBH!
Every one is looking for reasons why it couldn't be true instead of how it might be true. Is 250' really that far-fetched? Where are the optimists?

Jack Sobon

________________________________
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: ENTSTrees <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 11:23:12 AM
Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Jack, Ed, ENTS:

A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
heights of standing trees—that is unquestioned. The main question is
“did they?” Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
that if some one with a “scientific” mind did careful measurements,
these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
style I have seen them, i.e. “early lumberman reported that….” etc.

One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
they cut down, is a focus on data such as, “at a height of 120 feet
the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,” or some such thing. They
report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
has produced.

So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
still has a diameter of something like 20”, someone could read that
report and say, “Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2” in diameter, so
then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20” in diameter in a young forest
can be 100’ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
20” near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

As for amount of light required—the amount of crown exposure above
adjacent trees—for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
suppressed. Added to this I believe should be “emergent.”

A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
“emergent,” meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
mixed with, cannot really compete.

The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer—extend further down—
than a co-dominant tree.

The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
short, or rather thin foliaged.

White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
co-dominant positions.

Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
height as an emergent.

--Gaines McMartin
--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

250' Pine.jpg
1343K View Download















x
.
. Jan 6 2010, 4:36 pm
From: "x" <surfbum5...@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.
a couple things I have noticed

1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional area where
some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions and yet
without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
protection

2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows the trees
at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees higher
up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas the trees
tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
microclimate and soil....

listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they have
hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a couple
now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I definitely
don't say it's impossible.

-Larry

--------------------------------------------------
From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest aboutgrowthpossibilities

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
> heights of standing trees that is unquestioned. The main question is
> did they? Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
> that if some one with a scientific mind did careful measurements,
> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
> style I have seen them, i.e. early lumberman reported that . etc.

> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, at a height of 120 feet
> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches, or some such thing. They
> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
> has produced.

> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
> still has a diameter of something like 20 , someone could read that
> report and say, Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2 in diameter, so
> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20 in diameter in a young forest
> can be 100 tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
> 20 near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

> As for amount of light required the amount of crown exposure above
> adjacent trees for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be emergent.

> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
> emergent, meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
> mixed with, cannot really compete.

> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer extend further down
> than a co-dominant tree.

> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
> short, or rather thin foliaged.

> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
> crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
> trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
> branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
> they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
> co-dominant positions.

> Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
> surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
> in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
> position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
> or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
> emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
> height as an emergent.

> --Gaines McMartin

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Gaines McMartin
.
. Jan 6 2010, 4:42 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:20 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.
Jack:

OK, now I am on your side. I have been on the fence all along, but
I do have to admit the possibility--not that there were general
forests of these 250 foot tall trees, but that there could have been
individual trees and/or limited groves of trees approaching that
height.

The picture I have from the old Wassau insurance ad was really an
eye opener for me. The trunks of these trees were really huge. I
would guess in the 5 to 6 foot range. And they were growing in a
forest and close together!! There are no white pines like that alive
today. White pines can live to over 400 years as ENTS has verified,
and they do have the capability to add height until they die. Yes,
there has been a lot of time for white pine forests to re-grow, and we
don't have any 250 footers showing up, or anything really close. But
we don't have a lot of white pine forests with trees 300 years old or
older either. There may be a few, or a few individual trees, but I
don't have any reports that these are generally on premier class 1, or
top class 2 growing sites, and in addition growing on sites with
competition and/or crown position factors, that would encourage
maximum height growth.

So was it possible there were 250 foot tall white pines? Yes, I
think so. But I draw the line with the reports of the 425 foot tall
Douglas fir in Washington. Now that is bunk!!

--Gaines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 1/6/10, JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Dear Gaines, Ed Frank, Bob, ENTS,
> I would be highly suspect of historical white pine height measurements
> of standing trees, but I believe all the reports are of felled specimens.
> As for measuring felled trees, I have dropped thousands of white pine in the
> 80-120' range and measured a few hundred. The trunk occasionally fractures
> at upper branch whorls and the top 3 or 4 feet might have to be looked for
> nearby but the tree's trunk is still intact and easy to measure after
> limbing. I think that if someone wanted bragging rights to an exceptional
> tree, they probably had it verified.
> The other stumbling block to this maximum height issue seems to be the
> exposure and canopy height issue. Most of you are envisioning a typical
> forest canopy on gently rolling ground. In such forests, I doubt the trees
> would have reached 200 feet. However, in a rugged landscape there are
> occasional pockets where trees can be much taller without being unduly
> exposed. In these rare cases, a pine could reach 250 feet and still be
> protected. I attach a sketch illustrating my point. The top drawing shows
> a forested ridge with the sun behind it. As you will see, the canopy height
> is not parallel with the ridge but tends to even out the profile. It is
> shorter at peaks and higher in hollows. Check this out for yourself at
> sunrise or sunset. It is easier this time of year with the leaves off and
> the sun so low. The lower drawing shows how a single 250 foot pine growing
> in a ravine can be way above other trees and still not be too
> exposed. The moist, fertile environment and quest for sun would encourage
> such growth. This would be a rare condition of course hence the relatively
> few historical reports of such trees. To my knowledge, none of the tallest
> pines measured recently (MA 169', CT 172', PA 182', NC 207') are growing in
> such a protected site and none are of the diameters of the historic
> examples. For instance, the Charlemont, MA pine felled in 1849 was seven
> feet in diameter 10' from the stump and 5' diameter 50' from the stump. Our
> tallest pine today has a 44" DBH!
> Every one is looking for reasons why it couldn't be true instead of how
> it might be true. Is 250' really that far-fetched? Where are the
> optimists?

> Jack Sobon
















dbhg...@comcast.net
.
. Jan 6 2010, 4:58 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:58:35 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
.

Jack,

One fallout benefit of this discussion/investigation is to identify ever more precisely where we find our tallest trees and the gradient of heights as we move up/down a ridge. It's a worthwhile discussion. Let's keep it going. Did you read about the 131.5-foot white pine in Forest Park? I think that is about as high as we're going to find them at this point in time.

We're gradually locating the pockets of tall pines in the Valley and I think we can safely say, they will never (in our lifetimes) rival those in the mountains. The mountain great whites rule.

Bob

spruce

Jan 6 2010, 5:26 pm
From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:26:15 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 5:26 pm
Subject: Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

ENTS:

Here is another factor that must be included in the discussion of
potential white pine heights--GENETIC STRAIN. We are talking about
white pine trees as if we were talking about just one thing, but we're
not. There are white pines, and there are WHITE PINES.

I tend to write discussions that are over long, so I will try to
keep this as short as possible.

First: with some species of trees, the 'superior' individual trees
produce offspring that also show superior growth traits. This is true
of some species, not others, for reasons I am not sure anyone really
understands. But it is possible that when white pines were
originally, and subsequently, cut down, it was the best trees that
were cut. With white pine the potential shipmast trees were cut
first. This kind of "high grading" can result in a degredation of the
genetic strain. The white pines we see today may not have as high a
proportion of the "superior genes" as previous stands. Individual
trees growing in the same area don't necessarily have the same growth
potential based on the variation in individual tree genetic make up.
Many of us have walked through the woods and seen some individual tree
that just seems to be more vigorous and straight than its neighbors.
Yes, most often such differences can be from chance, or very localized
environmental factors. But also genetics plays a part.

Second, on a larger scale, there are different genetic strains that
grow naturally in different areas. One assumption that people make is
that the genetic strain of white pine--and any other species for that
matter--growing in a specific area is also the one best adapted to
grow best in that area. This has proven to be false, not only with
white pine trees, but other species as well. One example I know of
personally is a planting of white pines along Clover Run not far from
Parsons, WV. This stand, a reforestation project, may now be
something like 60 years old. I have to admit I have lost track of its
exact age now. But this stand is old enough to show some real
results. It is considered to be a real "stunner" by all the foresters
that know about it, and its reputation has travelled far and wide. So
much so, someone took the initiative to find out what the seed source
was. It turns out that the seed used for this stand was not from the
local area, but from an area near Asheville, NC. It is growing far
better than any other stand anywhere near it, and I mean within at
least 100 miles or more.

So the point here is that we can look at a pine tree that is X
number of feet tall growing on a really wonderful growing site, and
say, OK, this is how tall white pines can grow here. Well, that ain't
necessarily so.

--Gaines















Edward Frank

Jan 6 2010, 5:43 pm
From: "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:43:52 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

Basically, No you are incorrect. In order to change the genetic footprint of the species you would need to cut only those superior trees, kill all of their offspring, and not cut any of the poorer quality trees, over the course of tens of generations. Essentially all of the big trees in a stand were cut, so there was no selection. The genetics of the big trees having been there for hundreds of years would be represented in the smaller trees that were too small to cut. Even after the initial trees were removed, those trees with superior genetics would tend to out-compete those that were the offspring of poorer trees and would dominate the second growth forest. If you did this a hundred times you would not get a genetic drift, .unless you were targeting a specific genetic definable trait while at the same time leaving all of the other competing traits intact, People have suggested this before, and the idea is simply wrong. You can't change the genetic footprint by cutting all of the big pines, and it is unlikely that targeted high grading would even have a noticeable effect without dozens of generations of repetition. There are specific environmental effects that can cause a genetic drift, but not generic logging operations.

Ed Frank

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957
First: with some species of trees, the 'superior' individual trees
produce offspring that also show superior growth traits. This is true
of some species, not others, for reasons I am not sure anyone really
understands. But it is possible that when white pines were
originally, and subsequently, cut down, it was the best trees that
were cut. With white pine the potential shipmast trees were cut
first. This kind of "high grading" can result in a degredation of the
genetic strain. The white pines we see today may not have as high a
proportion of the "superior genes" as previous stands.

Reply to author Forward









Carolyn Summers

Jan 6 2010, 6:25 pm
From: Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:25:14 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be? Isn't
that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

(In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
914-478-5712

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net>
> Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
> To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> a couple things I have noticed

> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional area where
> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions and yet
> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
> protection

> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows the trees
> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees higher
> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas the trees
> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
> microclimate and soil....

> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they have
> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a couple
> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I definitely
> don't say it's impossible.

> -Larry

> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
> aboutgrowthpossibilities

>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
>> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatŠ.² etc.

>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>> has produced.

>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
>> still has a diameter of something like 20², someone could read that
>> report and say, ³Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2² in diameter, so
>> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
>> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20² in diameter in a young forest
>> can be 100¹ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
>> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
>> 20² near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

>> As for amount of light required‹the amount of crown exposure above
>> adjacent trees‹for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
>> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
>> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
>> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be ³emergent.²

>> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
>> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
>> ³emergent,² meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
>> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
>> mixed with, cannot really compete.

>> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
>> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
>> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
>> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
>> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer‹extend further down‹
>> than a co-dominant tree.

>> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
>> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
>> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
>> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
>> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
>> short, or rather thin foliaged.

>> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
>> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
>> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
>> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
>> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

>> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
>> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
>> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
>> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
>> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

>> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
>> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
>> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
>> crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
>> trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
>> branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
>> they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
>> co-dominant positions.

>> Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
>> surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
>> in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
>> position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
>> or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
>> emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
>> height as an emergent.

>> --Gaines McMartin

>> --
>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Andrew Joslin

Jan 6 2010, 6:58 pm
From: Andrew Joslin <and...@natureclimber.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:58:13 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

I'm no expert on tall square sailed ships but on the ones I've seen the
mast is constructed in sections. This makes sense for a variety of
reasons but one might be if the top section of a mast blows out in a
storm (like a tree) lower sections can remain functional and the broken
section can theoretically be replaced.

Check out this photo of the USS Constitution:
*http://tinyurl.com/yzp5plr*

Good thought though.
-AJ

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Carolyn Summers wrote:
> BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be? Isn't
> that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

> (In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
> --
> Carolyn Summers
> 63 Ferndale Drive
> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
> 914-478-5712

>> From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net>
>> Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
>> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
>> To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
>> growth possibilities

>> a couple things I have noticed

>> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional area where
>> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
>> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions and yet
>> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
>> protection

>> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
>> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

>> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows the trees
>> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees higher
>> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas the trees
>> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
>> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

>> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
>> microclimate and soil....

>> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they have
>> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
>> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a couple
>> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
>> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
>> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

>> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I definitely
>> don't say it's impossible.

>> -Larry

>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
>> To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
>> aboutgrowthpossibilities

>>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

>>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

>>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>>> heights of standing trees that is unquestioned. The main question is
>>> did they? Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>>> that if some one with a scientific mind did careful measurements,
>>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>>> style I have seen them, i.e. early lumberman reported that . etc.

>>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, at a height of 120 feet
>>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches, or some such thing. They
>>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>>> has produced.

>>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>>> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
>>> still has a diameter of something like 20 , someone could read that
>>> report and say, Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2 in diameter, so
>>> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
>>> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20 in diameter in a young forest
>>> can be 100 tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
>>> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
>>> 20 near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

>>> As for amount of light required the amount of crown exposure above
>>> adjacent trees for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
>>> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
>>> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
>>> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be emergent.

>>> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
>>> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
>>> emergent, meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
>>> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
>>> mixed with, cannot really compete.

>>> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
>>> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
>>> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
>>> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
>>> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer extend further down
>>> than a co-dominant tree.

>>> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
>>> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
>>> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
>>> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
>>> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
>>> short, or rather thin foliaged.

>>> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
>>> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
>>> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
>>> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
>>> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

>>> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
>>> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
>>> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
>>> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
>>> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

>>> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
>>> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
>>> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
>>> crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
>>> trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
>>> branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
>>> they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
>>> co-dominant positions.

>>> Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
>>> surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
>>> in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
>>> position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
>>> or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
>>> emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
>>> height as an emergent.

>>> --Gaines McMartin

>>> --
>>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>>> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>>> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

>> --
>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















DON BERTOLETTE

Jan 6 2010, 7:59 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:59:40 +0000
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 7:59 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines-

How about 390' redwood in California?

-Don

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
> From: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

> Jack:

> OK, now I am on your side. I have been on the fence all along, but
> I do have to admit the possibility--not that there were general
> forests of these 250 foot tall trees, but that there could have been
> individual trees and/or limited groves of trees approaching that
> height.

> The picture I have from the old Wassau insurance ad was really an
> eye opener for me. The trunks of these trees were really huge. I
> would guess in the 5 to 6 foot range. And they were growing in a
> forest and close together!! There are no white pines like that alive
> today. White pines can live to over 400 years as ENTS has verified,
> and they do have the capability to add height until they die. Yes,
> there has been a lot of time for white pine forests to re-grow, and we
> don't have any 250 footers showing up, or anything really close. But
> we don't have a lot of white pine forests with trees 300 years old or
> older either. There may be a few, or a few individual trees, but I
> don't have any reports that these are generally on premier class 1, or
> top class 2 growing sites, and in addition growing on sites with
> competition and/or crown position factors, that would encourage
> maximum height growth.

> So was it possible there were 250 foot tall white pines? Yes, I
> think so. But I draw the line with the reports of the 425 foot tall
> Douglas fir in Washington. Now that is bunk!!

> --Gaines
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> On 1/6/10, JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Dear Gaines, Ed Frank, Bob, ENTS,
> > I would be highly suspect of historical white pine height measurements
> > of standing trees, but I believe all the reports are of felled specimens.
> > As for measuring felled trees, I have dropped thousands of white pine in the
> > 80-120' range and measured a few hundred. The trunk occasionally fractures
> > at upper branch whorls and the top 3 or 4 feet might have to be looked for
> > nearby but the tree's trunk is still intact and easy to measure after
> > limbing. I think that if someone wanted bragging rights to an exceptional
> > tree, they probably had it verified.
> > The other stumbling block to this maximum height issue seems to be the
> > exposure and canopy height issue. Most of you are envisioning a typical
> > forest canopy on gently rolling ground. In such forests, I doubt the trees
> > would have reached 200 feet. However, in a rugged landscape there are
> > occasional pockets where trees can be much taller without being unduly
> > exposed. In these rare cases, a pine could reach 250 feet and still be
> > protected. I attach a sketch illustrating my point. The top drawing shows
> > a forested ridge with the sun behind it. As you will see, the canopy height
> > is not parallel with the ridge but tends to even out the profile. It is
> > shorter at peaks and higher in hollows. Check this out for yourself at
> > sunrise or sunset. It is easier this time of year with the leaves off and
> > the sun so low. The lower drawing shows how a single 250 foot pine growing
> > in a ravine can be way above other trees and still not be too
> > exposed. The moist, fertile environment and quest for sun would encourage
> > such growth. This would be a rare condition of course hence the relatively
> > few historical reports of such trees. To my knowledge, none of the tallest
> > pines measured recently (MA 169', CT 172', PA 182', NC 207') are growing in
> > such a protected site and none are of the diameters of the historic
> > examples. For instance, the Charlemont, MA pine felled in 1849 was seven
> > feet in diameter 10' from the stump and 5' diameter 50' from the stump. Our
> > tallest pine today has a 44" DBH!
> > Every one is looking for reasons why it couldn't be true instead of how
> > it might be true. Is 250' really that far-fetched? Where are the
> > optimists?

> > Jack Sobon

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/















DON BERTOLETTE

Jan 6 2010, 8:15 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:15:10 +0000
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:15 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Ed/Gaines-

Unfortunately, it seems that in the short term, all our machinations have little effect, good or bad...

-Don

From: edfr...@comcast.net
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:43:52 -0500

Gaines,

Basically, No you are incorrect. In order to change the genetic footprint of the species you would need to cut only those superior trees, kill all of their offspring, and not cut any of the poorer quality trees, over the course of tens of generations. Essentially all of the big trees in a stand were cut, so there was no selection. The genetics of the big trees having been there for hundreds of years would be represented in the smaller trees that were too small to cut. Even after the initial trees were removed, those trees with superior genetics would tend to out-compete those that were the offspring of poorer trees and would dominate the second growth forest. If you did this a hundred times you would not get a genetic drift, .unless you were targeting a specific genetic definable trait while at the same time leaving all of the other competing traits intact, People have suggested this before, and the idea is simply wrong. You can't change the genetic footprint by cutting all of the big pines, and it is unlikely that targeted high grading would even have a noticeable effect without dozens of generations of repetition. There are specific environmental effects that can cause a genetic drift, but not generic logging operations.

Ed Frank

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957
First: with some species of trees, the 'superior' individual trees
produce offspring that also show superior growth traits. This is true
of some species, not others, for reasons I am not sure anyone really
understands. But it is possible that when white pines were
originally, and subsequently, cut down, it was the best trees that
were cut. With white pine the potential shipmast trees were cut
first. This kind of "high grading" can result in a degredation of the
genetic strain. The white pines we see today may not have as high a
proportion of the "superior genes" as previous stands.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/















Gaines McMartin

Jan 6 2010, 8:39 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:39:08 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Ed:

Wow, I had no idea that it would take that much and that long to
have an effect. I admit I really don't know much about the subject,
having read some, perhaps very unscientific articles on the subject a
long time ago. I remember reading one about the genetic degradation
of longleaf pine quite a while ago--maybe 20 years or so--and it may
have been in American Forests, not a bastion of highly regarded peer
reviewed research.

The last article I read that would have any bearing on the subjest
was about attempts to select and breed a superior strain of black
cherry, and the thrust of the article was that such attempts have
failed, maybe because of the genetic complexity of the species.

If you can refer me to any research on the subject, I would be very
appreciative.

--Gaines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Gaines,

> Basically, No you are incorrect. In order to change the genetic footprint
> of the species you would need to cut only those superior trees, kill all of
> their offspring, and not cut any of the poorer quality trees, over the
> course of tens of generations. Essentially all of the big trees in a stand
> were cut, so there was no selection. The genetics of the big trees having
> been there for hundreds of years would be represented in the smaller trees
> that were too small to cut. Even after the initial trees were removed,
> those trees with superior genetics would tend to out-compete those that were
> the offspring of poorer trees and would dominate the second growth forest.
> If you did this a hundred times you would not get a genetic drift, .unless
> you were targeting a specific genetic definable trait while at the same time
> leaving all of the other competing traits intact, People have suggested
> this before, and the idea is simply wrong. You can't change the genetic
> footprint by cutting all of the big pines, and it is unlikely that targeted
> high grading would even have a noticeable effect without dozens of
> generations of repetition. There are specific environmental effects that
> can cause a genetic drift, but not generic logging operations.

> Ed Frank
















Gaines McMartin

Jan 6 2010, 8:46 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:46:05 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Don:

Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

--Gaines
------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Gaines-

> How about 390' redwood in California?
















DON BERTOLETTE

Jan 6 2010, 8:46 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:46:53 +0000
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:46 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines, Ed, Bob, Jack-

Just a quick aside...comments of breakage from falling is a real issue, especially these days for a logger trying to get in, and get out. But in older times, with cheaper labor loggers would lay down beds of adjacent foliage/branches/limbs to absorb the energy of the falling tree.

Cautionary comment...the redwood forests of Northern California are rife with redwood stumps some 10 to 20 feet high, with notches chopped into them for springboards that allowed fallers (wielding axes, later chainsaws) to ascend to a point where the log approached the shape of a cylinder. These decisions weren't those of sportsmen, wagering on tree height, but as fallers trying to maximize mill value against cost of transport to the mill.

-Don

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:08:26 -0800
From: jackso...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Dear Gaines, Ed Frank, Bob, ENTS,
I would be highly suspect of historical white pine height measurements of standing trees, but I believe all the reports are of felled specimens. As for measuring felled trees, I have dropped thousands of white pine in the 80-120' range and measured a few hundred. The trunk occasionally fractures at upper branch whorls and the top 3 or 4 feet might have to be looked for nearby but the tree's trunk is still intact and easy to measure after limbing. I think that if someone wanted bragging rights to an exceptional tree, they probably had it verified.
The other stumbling block to this maximum height issue seems to be the exposure and canopy height issue. Most of you are envisioning a typical forest canopy on gently rolling ground. In such forests, I doubt the trees would have reached 200 feet. However, in a rugged landscape there are occasional pockets where trees can be much taller without being unduly exposed. In these rare cases, a pine could reach 250 feet and still be protected. I attach a sketch illustrating my point. The top drawing shows a forested ridge with the sun behind it. As you will see, the canopy height is not parallel with the ridge but tends to even out the profile. It is shorter at peaks and higher in hollows. Check this out for yourself at sunrise or sunset. It is easier this time of year with the leaves off and the sun so low. The lower drawing shows how a single 250 foot pine growing in a ravine can be way above other trees and still not be too exposed. The moist, fertile environment and quest for sun would encourage such growth. This would be a rare condition of course hence the relatively few historical reports of such trees. To my knowledge, none of the tallest pines measured recently (MA 169', CT 172', PA 182', NC 207') are growing in such a protected site and none are of the diameters of the historic examples. For instance, the Charlemont, MA pine felled in 1849 was seven feet in diameter 10' from the stump and 5' diameter 50' from the stump. Our tallest pine today has a 44" DBH!
Every one is looking for reasons why it couldn't be true instead of how it might be true. Is 250' really that far-fetched? Where are the optimists?

Jack Sobon

From: spruce <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: ENTSTrees <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 11:23:12 AM
Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Jack, Ed, ENTS:

A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
heights of standing trees—that is unquestioned. The main question is
“did they?” Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
that if some one with a “scientific” mind did careful measurements,
these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
style I have seen them, i.e. “early lumberman reported that….” etc.

One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
they cut down, is a focus on data such as, “at a height of 120 feet
the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,” or some such thing. They
report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
has produced.

So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
still has a diameter of something like 20”, someone could read that
report and say, “Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2” in diameter, so
then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20” in diameter in a young forest
can be 100’ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
20” near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

As for amount of light required—the amount of crown exposure above
adjacent trees—for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
suppressed. Added to this I believe should be “emergent.”

A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
“emergent,” meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
mixed with, cannot really compete.

The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer—extend further down—
than a co-dominant tree.

The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
short, or rather thin foliaged.

White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
co-dominant positions.

Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
height as an emergent.

--Gaines McMartin
--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/















DON BERTOLETTE

Jan 6 2010, 8:49 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:49:02 +0000
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:49 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines-

If you've not already done so, check out the recent National Geographic with coverage on redwoods...such points are discussed there!

-Don

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:46:05 -0500
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
> From: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> CC: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net

> Don:

> Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
> taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
> the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
> is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
> might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
> someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
> beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
> conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

> --Gaines
> ------------------------------------------
> On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

> > Gaines-

> > How about 390' redwood in California?

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/















Gaines McMartin

Jan 6 2010, 8:55 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:55:12 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Don:

Got it--thanks! I should look again at what was said on that
topic--I can't remember, even though I read the article.

--Gaines
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Gaines-

> If you've not already done so, check out the recent National Geographic with
> coverage on redwoods...such points are discussed there!

> -Don

>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:46:05 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
>> about growth possibilities
>> From: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
>> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> CC: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net

>> Don:

>> Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
>> taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
>> the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
>> is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
>> might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
>> someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
>> beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
>> conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

>> --Gaines
>> ------------------------------------------
>> On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

>> > Gaines-

>> > How about 390' redwood in California?

> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
















Will Blozan

Jan 6 2010, 8:54 pm
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:54:04 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:54 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

As my kids would say- CHECK IT!

Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gaines McMartin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:46 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Don:

Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

--Gaines
------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

> Gaines-

> How about 390' redwood in California?

Koch et al 2004.pdf
1188K View Download















Will Blozan

Jan 6 2010, 8:56 pm
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:56:06 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:56 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

As my kids would say- CHECK IT!

Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gaines McMartin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:46 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Don:

Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

--Gaines
------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

> Gaines-

> How about 390' redwood in California?

Koch et al 2004.pdf
1188K View Download















Will Blozan

Jan 6 2010, 8:58 pm
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:58:39 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 8:58 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

As my kids would say- CHECK IT!

Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gaines McMartin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:46 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Don:

Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

--Gaines
------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

> Gaines-

> How about 390' redwood in California?

Koch et al 2004.pdf
1188K View Download















Will Blozan

Jan 6 2010, 9:05 pm
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:05:05 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 9:05 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

As my kids would say- CHECK IT!

Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gaines McMartin
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:46 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Don:

Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet
taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of
the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what
is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet
might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe
someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit
beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best
conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done.

--Gaines
------------------------------------------
On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com> wrote:

> Gaines-

> How about 390' redwood in California?

Koch et al 2004.pdf
1188K View Download















Barry Caselli

Jan 6 2010, 9:42 pm
From: Barry Caselli <criterion1...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Jan 6 2010 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Ed,
There's one key possibility that we are forgetting. If White Pines might have been taller way back then, who's to say other species might not have been a lot taller back then also? So if White Pines stick up 30 to 40 feet above the general canopy now, maybe they did then also, but the general canopy was higher too.

--- On Tue, 1/5/10, Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 9:34 PM

#yiv1820563730 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}

Jack, ENTS,

I will admit I am skeptic about white pine trees growing to 250 feet tall. By that I mean I doubt the veracity of these claims and believe that they are most likely exaggerations or measurement errors, but I will not rule out the small possibility that some of the trees actually were that high. What I am wondering is what you and other ENTS think about the processes that lead to these great heights.

If you look at a ridgeline of an old growth forest that contains white pines, you often see a general canopy top, and there are white pines sticking out as a supracanopy tree above the general canopy top. These trees stick out maybe 30- 40 feet above the rest. Would these trees have stuck out 90 feet above the canopy? Would they be growing with many other white pines that they were forced to grow this high to get enough light? Would there be other giant trees present of other species that push the general canopy height upward.

In general white pines are like paint brushes. There is a long trunk and the live branches form a brush at the upper end of the trunk where it extends into the canopy and above the canopy, with few live branches below. How far above the canopy does a tree need to stick to obtain enough light? Like that always have the actors cliché - what is there motivation for growing really tall once they are a reasonable distance above the general canopy? On a structural side of it, the tops that are sticking out are subject to wind damage much more so than the branches within the overall canopy and therefore would break more often. Essentially they are limited by wind damage to how high they can stick up. Would the general canopy height be overall taller, perhaps populated by other white pines in a near monoculture grove, so that they would provide each other with protection from the wind?

I am trying to envision how these tall trees would look in relation to the rest of the forest, why they would form that way, and how they would work in the wind an weather.

Ed Frank

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: JACK SOBON
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ENTS] White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

...Though the account of a 300 foot pine in Charlemont, Massachusetts may be stretched, surely some of the other 250'+ accounts must be true. They had accurate measuring devices then. Though they lacked the techno-gizmo's of today, they were not primitive. There were surveyors, builders, and others skilled in measuring then. When I measure old structures from the 1700's, they are typically within a quarter inch on a sixty foot length. A modern steel measuring tape can vary that much from winter to summer with thermal expansion. Just because we don't have them today, doesn't mean there weren't 250 footers then. Nowhere in New England are there now pines growing in an ideal spot (like that I mentioned above) where they have been undisturbed for 400 years!
Jack Sobon
--
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Gaines McMartin

Jan 7 2010, 11:02 am
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:02:05 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 11:02 am
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Ed:

I did a little on-line research and came across one interesting
article that I could understand to allow me, or reminded me, that I
could come at this logging effect on white pine genetics from a
different angle, one I am embarrassed that I didn't think of before.
It actually ties into something I learned from reading about
provenance trials of Norway spruce years ago, and a conversation I had
with a person in the UK who is very familiar with Norway spruce
populations.

When I wrote my post about the idea that selective logging (maybe
two or three times is what I had in mind) could have affected the
genetic make up of the subsequent forest, I was of course thinking of
a specific place. this could cause some genetic drift, but as you
point out, not very substantial.

What I am reminded of now is that different areas in the same area
rather close to each other can have white pines of substantially
different genetic make-up. I came across an article that talked about
this in Ontario. One conclusion from this article was a bit like what
I reported before about the Clover Run pines in WV--that is that when
selecting seed to plant in a given area, it is not necessarily the
seed from the same area that would be best. There is a very dramatic
example of this in Scandinavia with Norway spruce, caused by having
the area being repopulated after the most recent ice advance by Norway
spruce migrating from two different directions. Of course after the
most recent glaciations in North America, an uneven retreat of the ice
may have resulted in an uneven repopulation by white pine of various
areas.

But in a way the study (which I admit I read only the abstract for)
is surprising, given that white pine pollen is spread by the wind,
which might suggest that populations over a wider area could be more
homogeneous. With Norway spruce, a provenance trial done by Dr. John
Genys many years ago seemed to suggest something similar with Norway
spruce. Seed collected from areas near each other produced clearly
different results. Of course, the seed could have been collected in
different ways (which I won’t go into now), which perhaps could
account for the differences. Also, the provenances of Norway spruce in
Europe are somewhat muddied by having NS planted from seed collected
in one area and then planted in another for hundreds of years.

Anyway, here is what I think MAY be a possibility here. In the
past there were specific areas that had especially tall white
pines—tall because of a “superior” genetic strain, superior even to
those growing in areas not that far away. Then as
civilization/logging came, those populations were not selectively
logged, but these stands of especially tall trees—and their specific
collection/arrangement of genes—were entirely wiped out. All the
pines were cut, and the land in that area did not grow back with white
pine trees for one reason or another. There may have been some
"superior" strains of white pine that simply became "extinct."

Of course what I am talking about here would not be an effect from
specificlly targeting areas with the tallest pines (as with
specifically targeting the best trees to cut in a stand) and then
cutting the pines and converting the areas to other uses. The process
would be rather random, except to the degree that the best stands
would be the most attractive to cut first, whether on the best sites
or not. Of course, the richest sites would naturally have been
converted to farming.

From what you understand, can this make sense?

Of course, although I am trying to support the idea that white
pines taller than what we now see could have once existed, I am still
“skeptical” about 250 foot white pines. I am just trying to explore
all possibilities, all possible explanations.

--Gaines McMartin
---------------------------------------------------------

On 1/6/10, Edward Frank <edfr...@comcast.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Gaines,

> Basically, No you are incorrect. In order to change the genetic footprint
> of the species you would need to cut only those superior trees, kill all of
> their offspring, and not cut any of the poorer quality trees, over the
> course of tens of generations. Essentially all of the big trees in a stand
> were cut, so there was no selection. The genetics of the big trees having
> been there for hundreds of years would be represented in the smaller trees
> that were too small to cut. Even after the initial trees were removed,
> those trees with superior genetics would tend to out-compete those that were
> the offspring of poorer trees and would dominate the second growth forest.
> If you did this a hundred times you would not get a genetic drift, .unless
> you were targeting a specific genetic definable trait while at the same time
> leaving all of the other competing traits intact, People have suggested
> this before, and the idea is simply wrong. You can't change the genetic
> footprint by cutting all of the big pines, and it is unlikely that targeted
> high grading would even have a noticeable effect without dozens of
> generations of repetition. There are specific environmental effects that
> can cause a genetic drift, but not generic logging operations.

> Ed Frank
















Edward Frank

Jan 7 2010, 11:43 am
From: "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:43:05 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 11:43 am
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines, ENTS,

This is why I don't think cutting has affected the genetics of the white pine population. The thing is to get a genetic shift, you need to be selecting for something or against something. Harvesting mature trees is not selecting anything, hence there is no genetic shift. How rapid the genetic change is dependant on the completeness of the selection process. If only a small percentage of the specific gene is either selected for or against, then the change is slow. High grading in which you selecting for the best trees does affect the genetic composition overall, but not by much. In any forest the majority of the trees are too small to be harvested, seedling to saplings - to small trees, thus the majority of the tree genetic variability is not found in the mature trees that are harvested.

The second factor to consider is that the size of the tree is not only dependant on the genetics of the tree, but on growing conditions at the specific location the tree is growing. side by side a tree with poorer genetics may be larger than one of similar age of better genetics because of variables like water. A small spring may feed one tree and not the other. Tree growth has been linked to some of the microbes in the soil, many things make it so that high grading will be taking the best trees, but also some of the poorer trees, and leaving some of the better genetic trees behind. The selection process is not specific enough to make much of a difference in a single generation or even several generations. At most sites we are looking at most the fourth generation since the initial harvesting. In most of those harvests mature trees were taken, and high grading would not have been even slightly biasing the genetics of the population. Looking at the redundancy of the genetic pool in terms of the large number of smaller trees, seedlings and saplings in relation to the large trees harvested in high grading, their removal does not have much of an effect at all..

Now you have brought up the idea of different pockets of genetics in the landscape. As you said white pine pollen is wind distributed which tends to make the populations in an area fairly homogeneous. There are variations between trees, but the variants exist in about the same proportion in the population throughout the region. You get pockets of species with a different genetic makeup, or with different proportions of certain traits based upon some degree of isolation. For example where there are disjunct populations - those physically isolated from the general population you tend to get some genetic shifts. Any uncommon traits that are more prevalent in the isolated population at the time of isolation may propagate through that population through inbreeding until it is represented in a different or higher proportion than in the general population. That is why if you are to try to get a representative sampling of the genetics of a species, then these isolated pockets should be sampled. An uncommon gene that you may not by chance sample in the contiguous population may be present in these isolated pockets at a higher percentage, therefore by sampling these isolated pockets you are more likely to sample the less common genetic characteristics of the population.

A second form of isolation is simply one of distance. The variations found in a species population from one end of its range to the other are a result of genetic drift because of distance. The pollen from one end of the range does not reach the far end of the range so that local differences can develop on a broader scale. There are other types of filters which can effect the populations in different ways.

Another consideration is that the trees appear to have the ability to take different forms depending on the conditions. There are options in how they grow. Look at the form of a tree grown in the open, compared to to what the form of the exact same tree would have been in a closed forested setting.

Aside from the fact that there is no reason to think that given the lack of isolation that one population of pines would have within the general contiguous population had a different genetic strain that would have allowed them to grow taller than other pine trees, I don't see any reason why the same genetic ability would not also be present, even if less frequently within the broader population. I am not even sure that there is enough genetic variation in the white pine species for a 250 foot tall tree to even grow.

It was suggested in another email that perhaps the overall canopy height was taller than it is today. An argument could be made that a tight stand of tall pine trees, grew in a narrow, deep, south facing valley, with lots of water, that had to compete with trees higher on the slope therefore they grew much taller than average, and because they were in a narrow valley surrounded on the sides by higher ground and trees, and that they were in a tight cluster of similar white pines with little space between them, so that they were not subject to severe wind sheer as they grew to these phenomenal heights, that some of them reached 250 feet. OK, maybe in the wildest imagination that would be possible, but I don't think it happened. The general canopy height, judging by how high white pines stick up above the general canopy in current old growth forests would need to be raised from maybe 150-160 to 210 feet. That would mean that the AVERAGE canopy height would need to be taller than ANY known trees in the eastern United States today. The only tree that even shows the potential to reach that proposed canopy height is white pine. You could argue that the area was covered by a white pine dominated forest and the canopy reached the heights of the tallest white pine we have accurately documented. But to me it seems unrealistic to even consider that the average canopy height at times in the past were higher than any living tree today. I just can't accept this argument.

Ed Frank

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957

Reply to author Forward









JACK SOBON

Jan 7 2010, 12:15 pm
From: JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and bark.
The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24" x 24" at the tip
The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30" x 30" at the tip
This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size, soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

Jack Sobon



________________________________
From: Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be? Isn't
that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

(In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
914-478-5712

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net>
> Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
> To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> a couple things I have noticed

> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional area where
> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions and yet
> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
> protection

> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows the trees
> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees higher
> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas the trees
> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
> microclimate and soil....

> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they have
> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a couple
> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I definitely
> don't say it's impossible.

> -Larry

> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
> aboutgrowthpossibilities

>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
>> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatŠ.² etc.

>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>> has produced.

>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
>> still has a diameter of something like 20², someone could read that
>> report and say, ³Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2² in diameter, so
>> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
>> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20² in diameter in a young forest
>> can be 100¹ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
>> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
>> 20² near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

>> As for amount of light required‹the amount of crown exposure above
>> adjacent trees‹for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
>> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
>> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
>> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be ³emergent.²

>> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
>> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
>> ³emergent,² meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
>> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
>> mixed with, cannot really compete.

>> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
>> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
>> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
>> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
>> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer‹extend further down‹
>> than a co-dominant tree.

>> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
>> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
>> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
>> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
>> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
>> short, or rather thin foliaged.

>> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
>> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
>> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
>> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
>> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

>> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
>> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
>> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
>> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
>> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

>> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
>> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
>> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
>> crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
>> trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
>> branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
>> they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
>> co-dominant positions.

>> Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
>> surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
>> in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
>> position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
>> or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
>> emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
>> height as an emergent.

>> --Gaines McMartin

>> --
>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
















Gaines McMartin

Jan 7 2010, 12:40 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:40:07 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Ed:

All the environmental factors causing one pine tree--or group of
pines--to grow taller than others I pretty much understand. As for
the isolated populations: I am not sure that is what is in play in
either Ontario with white pine, or in Europe with Norway spruce. The
disparate results that popped up in Dr. Genys's trials were from
generally forested areas, not isolated areas. And, unless I
misunderstood the article about white pine in Ontario, whose summary I
read, population isolation was not the issue in the variations in
white pine in Ontario. I commented in that post that I was surprized
that pollen drift has not eliminated that kind of variation, but
apparently it has not.

Maybe one more thought about provenance trials--or their
interpretation. As you pointed out, after selective logging in which
the best trees are cut, even if two or three times, and even if some
selectiing out of the best genes has occurred, the resultant
population will normally have a large enough number of trees so that
they will have to compete, and thus the individuals having the best
"growth" genes will dominate again, restoring the previous balance.

In the same vein, provenance trials often have a short duration,
and the results after 3 or 4 years are results before any competition
occurs between individuals in the population being studied. And
sometimes--although from my observations, not usually--the best
individuals after 4 years a may not be the best over a longer period
of time. Trees in a mature white pine stand and a mature Norway spruce
stand will be spaced an average of at least 25 feet apart. I won't
try to do any precise calculations, but these trees will be a very
small fraction of the initial population. So, to get a beautiful
stand of fast growing "superior" domanant trees, something like only
5% (maybe a bit more if we consider the effects of random spacing of
the best trees) of the initial population need have really good growth
potential. When reading the growth of seedlings in a provenance trial,
a strain that produces a small number of superior trees might be
missed, but might be a good strain nevertheless.

Dr. Charles Maynard at SUNY Syracuse has done some work with Norway
spruce, and he always emphasizes the importance of developing "land
races," that is a localized genetic strain produced by planting trees
from a good source, letting the trees grow to something like maturity,
and then collecting the seed of the remaining dominant trees to use in
subsequent plantings in the same or similar areas. He has felt that
this may be more productive than doing trials of various European
sources, and then selecting the best based on a simple provenance
trial.

The one limitation of this use of land races is sometimes a
specific stand one might want to use as a source of a land race, may
not have had the very basic potential of another. For example, I
would much prefer to collect seed from the stand near Glady, WV than
the "Rothkugel." Anyway, with the growth of the "native trees only"
movement, interest in Norway spruce in this country has dropped off a
cliff!

Yes, I digress.

Anyway, I think I have pumped myself dry on this topic. I am flat
out of ideas. But I would like to see othes with some insights to
chime in. In the meantime, I will enjoy watching my pine groves grow,
and will be interested in finding good stands in which I--eventually
maybe--or others can measure outstanding trees. White pines are
wonderful even if they didn't grow to 250 feet. But that idea is so
attractive, that I can understand why it is so hard for some of us to
abandon.

--Gaines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------















Gaines McMartin

Jan 7 2010, 12:45 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:45:18 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Jack:

Thanks for this info--I was thinking of looking it up, but had not
gotten to it yet. I read somewhere that the Royal Navy after they had
access to the white pines in America, had an advantage in their
shipbuilding. The masts were lighter and better overall than those
constructed from european trees. I read about these mast trees from
time to time, but couldn't remember much. Thanks!

--Gaines

On 1/7/10, JACK SOBON <jackso...@verizon.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
> I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two
> standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed
> square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and
> bark.
> The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24" x 24"
> at the tip
> The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30" x 30"
> at the tip
> This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six foot
> DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet up! The 100
> footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt swell and about 3'
> diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were cut in New England
> attesting to the presence of some magnificent trees. I doubt there is a pine
> standing today of sufficient size, soundness, and straightness enough to
> make the smaller one.

> Jack Sobon
















Andrew Joslin

Jan 7 2010, 1:59 pm
From: Andrew Joslin <and...@natureclimber.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:59:28 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Jack that is great info! I think that using middle and upper crown
diameter measurements from our current tallest white pines we may be
able to extrapolate a decent ballpark figure for what the heights were
for these "mast" pines.

Carolyn, great thinking to consider working backwards from known mast
heights and diameter.

Tall white pine could be described as having different taper trunk form
and taper "classes". For instance Jake Swamp in MTSF has a relatively
narrow DBH for the height, and has an elongated narrow trunk shapewith
more a spire-like top. Thoreau tree in MSF has a much thicker overall
trunk diameter and maintains the column, at 120 feet it still has good
diameter though not 3.5 feet. It is starting to approach Her Majesty's
class mast pine. However the location of Thoreau in an exposed position
with the upper crown already well above surrounding hardwoods makes me
think this fine tree is maxing out. Jake Swamp is another case and may
represent the potential for reaching colonial ship mast size. It appears
relatively young based on CBH, it's surrounded and protected by other
tall pines, it's in an optimal growing location low on a steep slope
(plentiful groundwater, soil deposition and type) and the grove is
protected from west and northerly winds events by surround ridges and
mountains.

Looking forward to hearing from others (Will et al) who've documented
CBH/DBH at different heights in big white pines as to what the
possibilities are for extrapolating the heights of trees that were used
for masts.

If anyone can come up with some decent algorithms to calculate total
heights from known mast requirements we may have the best guess yet.
-AJ

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JACK SOBON wrote:
> Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
> I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two
> standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed
> square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and
> bark.
> The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24"
> x 24" at the tip
> The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30"
> x 30" at the tip
> This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six
> foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet
> up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt
> swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were
> cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent
> trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size,
> soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

> Jack Sobon

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
> *To:* entstrees@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
> interest about growth possibilities

> BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be?
> Isn't
> that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

> (In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
> --
> Carolyn Summers
> 63 Ferndale Drive
> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
> 914-478-5712

> > From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net <mailto:surfbum5...@verizon.net>>
> > Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
> > Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
> > To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
> interest about
> > growth possibilities

> > a couple things I have noticed

> > 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional
> area where
> > some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
> > occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions
> and yet
> > without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
> > protection

> > 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
> > entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

> > 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows
> the trees
> > at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees
> higher
> > up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas
> the trees
> > tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
> > advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

> > so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
> > microclimate and soil....

> > listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they
> have
> > hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
> > reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a
> couple
> > now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
> > historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
> > maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

> > I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I
> definitely
> > don't say it's impossible.

> > -Larry

> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> <mailto:gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
> > To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
> > Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
> > aboutgrowthpossibilities

> >> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

> >> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

> >> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
> >> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
> >> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
> >> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
> >> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
> >> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
> >> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
> >> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
> >> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
> >> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
> >> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
> >> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatŠ.² etc.

> >> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
> >> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
> >> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
> >> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
> >> has produced.

> >> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
> >> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
> >> still has a diameter of something like 20², someone could read that
> >> report and say, ³Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2² in diameter, so
> >> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
> >> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20² in diameter in a young forest
> >> can be 100¹ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
> >> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
> >> 20² near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

> >> As for amount of light required‹the amount of crown exposure above
> >> adjacent trees‹for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
> >> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
> >> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
> >> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be ³emergent.²

> >> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
> >> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
> >> ³emergent,² meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
> >> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
> >> mixed with, cannot really compete.

> >> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
> >> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
> >> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
> >> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
> >> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer‹extend further down‹
> >> than a co-dominant tree.

> >> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
> >> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
> >> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
> >> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
> >> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
> >> short, or rather thin foliaged.

> >> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
> >> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
> >> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
> >> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
> >> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

> >> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
> >> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
> >> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
> >> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
> >> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

> >> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
> >> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
> >> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong

...

read more »















Edward Frank

Jan 7 2010, 3:05 pm
From: "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:05:37 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

You certainly can select for the best genetic traits when harvesting seeds. An average size tree may be a "tall" strain on a poor site, or a "short" strain on a good site. The biggest trees are almost assuredly a combination of "tall" strains on a good site. I can't address the Ontario materials you refer to as I have not seen them.

Ed

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957

Reply to author Forward









Edward Frank

Jan 7 2010, 3:23 pm
From: "Edward Frank" <edfr...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:23:35 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Jack,

Thanks for the information on the ship masts. It adds more pieces to the puzzle we are considering. There is a nice article on masts here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-masts.htm here are some excerpts from the article:

The masts of a warship were more lofty than those of a merchant ship of the same tonnage. In sailing merchant ships, the masts became more lofty with time. A merchant ship of 1300 tons, in 1830, had a mainmast 179 ft. in height; a vessel of the same size would have a mast of 198 ft. by the end of the 19th century.....

With the development of very large sailing clippers in the middle of the I9th century a return was made to the practice of carrying more than three masts. Ships and barques are built with four or five. Some of the large schooners employed in the American coast trade had six or seven, and some steamers have had as many...

As the 15th century advanced the growth of the ship made it difficult, or even impossible, to find spars large enough to make a mast. The practice of dividing it into lower, and upper or topmast, was introduced. At first the two were fastened firmly, and the topmast could not be lowered. In the 16th century the topmast became movable. No date can be given for the change, which was gradual, and was not simultaneously adopted. ...

Increase of size also made it impossible to construct each of these subdivisions out of single timbers. A distinction was made between whole or single-spar masts and armed and made masts. The first were used for the lighter spars, for small vessels and the Mediterranean craft called polacras. Armed masts were composed of two single timbers. isIade masts were built of many pieces, bolted and coaked, i.e. dovetailed and fitted together, fastened round by iron hoops, and between them by twelve or thirteen close turns of rope, firmly secured.
Made masts are stronger than those made of a single tree and less liable to be sprung. The general principle of construction is that it is built round a central shaft, called in Engliah the spindle or upper tree, and in French the mkche or wick. The other pieces side tree keel pieces, side fishes, cant pieces and fillings are coaked, i.e. dovetailed and bolted on to and around the spindle, which itself is made of two pieces, coaked and bolted. The whole is bound by iron bands, and between the bands, by rope firmly woulded or turned round, and nailed tight. The art of constructing made masts, like that of building wooden ships, is in process of dying out. ...

Ed

http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/
http://primalforests.ning.com/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=709156957

Reply to author Forward









DON BERTOLETTE

Jan 7 2010, 4:22 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE <forestorat...@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:22:44 +0000
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 4:22 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Bob-

Using existing array of geometric model shapes, what would be the modeled prediction of height for the 'larger one' ("a pine over 4' diameter above the butt swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up")?

-Don

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:15:27 -0800
From: jackso...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and bark.
The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24" x 24" at the tip
The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30" x 30" at the tip
This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size, soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

Jack Sobon

From: Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be? Isn't
that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

(In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
--
Carolyn Summers


dbhg...@comcast.net

Jan 7 2010, 6:39 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:39:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Don,

I'll get to your question based on taper assumptions as soon as I can. Right now I'm buried in this Mass Forest Futures thing.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "DON BERTOLETTE" <forestorat...@msn.com>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:22:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Bob-
Using existing array of geometric model shapes, what would be the modeled prediction of height for the 'larger one' ("a pine over 4' diameter above the butt swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up")?
-Don

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:15:27 -0800
From: jackso...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and bark.
The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24" x 24" at the tip
The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30" x 30" at the tip
This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size, soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

Jack Sobon

From: Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be? Isn't
that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

(In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
914-478-5712

> From: x < surfbum5...@verizon.net >
> Reply-To: < entstrees@googlegroups.com >
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
> To: < entstrees@googlegroups.com >
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> a couple things I have noticed

> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional area where
> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions and yet
> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
> protection

> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows the trees
> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees higher
> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas the trees
> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
> microclimate and soil....

> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they have
> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a couple
> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I definitely
> don't say it's impossible.

> -Larry

> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "spruce" < gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net >
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: "ENTSTrees" < entstrees@googlegroups.com >
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
> aboutgrowthpossibilities

>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
>> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatŠ.² etc.

>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>> has produced.

>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
>> still has a diameter of something like 20², someone could read that
>> report and say, ³Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2² in diameter, so
>> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
>> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20² in diameter in a young forest
>> can be 100¹ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
>> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
>> 20² near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

>> As for amount of light required‹the amount of crown exposure above
>> adjacent trees‹for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
>> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
>> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
>> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be ³emergent.²

>> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
>> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
>> ³emergent,² meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
>> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
>> mixed with, cannot really compete.

>> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
>> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
>> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
>> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
>> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer‹extend further down‹
>> than a co-dominant tree.

>> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
>> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
>> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
>> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
>> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
>> short, or rather thin foliaged.

>> White pines are classed as a moderately intolerant tree, meaning that
>> they require more direct sunlight than a tolerant tree. This means
>> that to grow well in height, a white pine needs to be in either a
>> dominant or a strong co-dominant crown position. To grow well in
>> diameter, it should be in a dominant crown position.

>> Norway spruce is more tolerant than white pine, and therefore can
>> grow better in an intermediate or marginal co-dominant crown position
>> than white pine. White pines that are in an intermediate crown
>> position, or perhaps also in a marginal co-dominant crown position,
>> usually will lose vigor and be overtopped.

>> Well, sorry, I see I am giving too much background here. The basic
>> answer to the question about the amount of crown exposure a white pine
>> needs to grow the tallest is dominant or strong co-dominant. Emergent
>> crowns get so much light that a great deal of the growth energy of the
>> trees goes into creating a very large spreading crown with heavy
>> branches. White pines, and most other forest trees grow tallest when
>> they are in competition with other trees as in the usual dominant or
>> co-dominant positions.

>> Finally, occasionally a white pine tree growing far above the
>> surrounding trees did not in fact grow as an emergent tree, but grew
>> in a forest with other trees in a dominant or co-dominant crown
>> position, and then, either because the surrounding trees were removed,
>> or died for some reason, this tree will stand in a very, very strong
>> emergent position. That does not mean that it grew to its present
>> height as an emergent.

>> --Gaines McMartin

>> --
>> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
>> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
>> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+ unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

> --
> Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
> Send email to entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
> To unsubscribe send email to entstrees+ unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.

...

read more »















Gaines McMartin

Jan 7 2010, 8:16 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:16:49 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Ed:

You say " I can't address the Ontario materials you refer to as I
have not seen them."

Well, I tried to reconstruct my earch to find the article again,
but have not found it yet. But in the process I have found a large
number of articles on white pine genetics. In the summaries I have
found all kinds of tidbits that may bear on the question. Some of
these could seem to support the idea I reported earlier, others I
could understand to contradict it. And some of these studies include
terminology and methodology I simply do not understand. None of the
studies I have come across so far focus directly on genetic factors
that affect height growth. At this point I guess I will have to
conclude that any serious discussion of the genetic diversity of white
pine, especially in the context of our discussion here, is something I
should not attempt.

--Gaines
-------------------------------------------















Barry Caselli

Jan 7 2010, 11:56 pm
From: Barry Caselli <criterion1...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Jan 7 2010 11:56 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Holy Mackerel! I can't believe the way you guys keep this discussion going (and others too)! Besides that, I can't believe how much you guys write in each of your responses. How can you come with so much to say?
(Hey, I'm not knocking it. I just can't believe it.)
By the way, this response doesn't need to be archived on the site. I just had to say this. This discussion is like the Energizer Bunny, if you know what I mean.

--- On Thu, 1/7/10, Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net> wrote:

From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2010, 8:40 AM

Ed:

All the environmental factors causing one pine tree--or group of
pines--to grow taller than others I pretty much understand. As for
the isolated populations: I am not sure that is what is in play in
either Ontario with white pine, or in Europe with Norway spruce. The
disparate results that popped up in Dr. Genys's trials were from
generally forested areas, not isolated areas. And, unless I
misunderstood the article about white pine in Ontario, whose summary I
read, population isolation was not the issue in the variations in
white pine in Ontario. I commented in that post that I was surprized
that pollen drift has not eliminated that kind of variation, but
apparently it has not.

Maybe one more thought about provenance trials--or their
interpretation. As you pointed out, after selective logging in which
the best trees are cut, even if two or three times, and even if some
selectiing out of the best genes has occurred, the resultant
population will normally have a large enough number of trees so that
they will have to compete, and thus the individuals having the best
"growth" genes will dominate again, restoring the previous balance.

In the same vein, provenance trials often have a short duration,
and the results after 3 or 4 years are results before any competition
occurs between individuals in the population being studied. And
sometimes--although from my observations, not usually--the best
individuals after 4 years a may not be the best over a longer period
of time. Trees in a mature white pine stand and a mature Norway spruce
stand will be spaced an average of at least 25 feet apart. I won't
try to do any precise calculations, but these trees will be a very
small fraction of the initial population. So, to get a beautiful
stand of fast growing "superior" domanant trees, something like only
5% (maybe a bit more if we consider the effects of random spacing of
the best trees) of the initial population need have really good growth
potential. When reading the growth of seedlings in a provenance trial,
a strain that produces a small number of superior trees might be
missed, but might be a good strain nevertheless.

Dr. Charles Maynard at SUNY Syracuse has done some work with Norway
spruce, and he always emphasizes the importance of developing "land
races," that is a localized genetic strain produced by planting trees
from a good source, letting the trees grow to something like maturity,
and then collecting the seed of the remaining dominant trees to use in
subsequent plantings in the same or similar areas. He has felt that
this may be more productive than doing trials of various European
sources, and then selecting the best based on a simple provenance
trial.

The one limitation of this use of land races is sometimes a
specific stand one might want to use as a source of a land race, may
not have had the very basic potential of another. For example, I
would much prefer to collect seed from the stand near Glady, WV than
the "Rothkugel." Anyway, with the growth of the "native trees only"
movement, interest in Norway spruce in this country has dropped off a
cliff!

Yes, I digress.

Anyway, I think I have pumped myself dry on this topic. I am flat
out of ideas. But I would like to see othes with some insights to
chime in. In the meantime, I will enjoy watching my pine groves grow,
and will be interested in finding good stands in which I--eventually
maybe--or others can measure outstanding trees. White pines are
wonderful even if they didn't grow to 250 feet. But that idea is so
attractive, that I can understand why it is so hard for some of us to
abandon.

--Gaines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------















Will Blozan

Jan 8 2010, 10:52 am
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:52:11 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 10:52 am
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Andrew,

Great thoughts. One thing to keep in mind is the pines chosen for mast sage
would likely be super tall and young so as to be relatively free of knots. I
would think the presence of multiple knots in the top section of a mast
would substantially weaken it.

I'll look at my notes on the white pines I have climbed. Just an
observation; in general, they are far smaller in upper girth as compared to
hemlock. Thus, you would need a taller pine to get the same dimension at say
100' than a hemlock.

Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On

Behalf Of Andrew Joslin
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:59 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Jack that is great info! I think that using middle and upper crown
diameter measurements from our current tallest white pines we may be
able to extrapolate a decent ballpark figure for what the heights were
for these "mast" pines.

Carolyn, great thinking to consider working backwards from known mast
heights and diameter.

Tall white pine could be described as having different taper trunk form
and taper "classes". For instance Jake Swamp in MTSF has a relatively
narrow DBH for the height, and has an elongated narrow trunk shapewith
more a spire-like top. Thoreau tree in MSF has a much thicker overall
trunk diameter and maintains the column, at 120 feet it still has good
diameter though not 3.5 feet. It is starting to approach Her Majesty's
class mast pine. However the location of Thoreau in an exposed position
with the upper crown already well above surrounding hardwoods makes me
think this fine tree is maxing out. Jake Swamp is another case and may
represent the potential for reaching colonial ship mast size. It appears
relatively young based on CBH, it's surrounded and protected by other
tall pines, it's in an optimal growing location low on a steep slope
(plentiful groundwater, soil deposition and type) and the grove is
protected from west and northerly winds events by surround ridges and
mountains.

Looking forward to hearing from others (Will et al) who've documented
CBH/DBH at different heights in big white pines as to what the
possibilities are for extrapolating the heights of trees that were used
for masts.

If anyone can come up with some decent algorithms to calculate total
heights from known mast requirements we may have the best guess yet.
-AJ

JACK SOBON wrote:
> Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
> I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two
> standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed
> square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and
> bark.
> The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24"
> x 24" at the tip
> The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30"
> x 30" at the tip
> This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six
> foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet
> up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt
> swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were
> cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent
> trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size,
> soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

> Jack Sobon

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
> *To:* entstrees@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
> interest about growth possibilities

> BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be?
> Isn't
> that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

> (In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
> --
> Carolyn Summers
> 63 Ferndale Drive
> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
> 914-478-5712

> > From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net <mailto:surfbum5...@verizon.net>>
> > Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
> > Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
> > To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
> interest about
> > growth possibilities

> > a couple things I have noticed

> > 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional
> area where
> > some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
> > occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions
> and yet
> > without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
> > protection

> > 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
> > entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

> > 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows
> the trees
> > at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees
> higher
> > up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas
> the trees
> > tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
> > advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

> > so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
> > microclimate and soil....

> > listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they
> have
> > hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
> > reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a
> couple
> > now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
> > historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
> > maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

> > I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I
> definitely
> > don't say it's impossible.

> > -Larry

> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> <mailto:gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
> > To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
> > Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
> > aboutgrowthpossibilities

> >> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

> >> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

> >> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
> >> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
> >> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
> >> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
> >> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
> >> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
> >> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
> >> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
> >> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
> >> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
> >> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
> >> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatÐ.² etc.

> >> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
> >> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
> >> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
> >> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
> >> has produced.

> >> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
> >> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
> >> still has a diameter of something like 20², someone could read that
> >> report and say, ³Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2² in diameter, so
> >> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
> >> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20² in diameter in a young forest
> >> can be 100¹ tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
> >> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
> >> 20² near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

> >> As for amount of light required‹the amount of crown exposure above
> >> adjacent trees‹for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
> >> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
> >> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
> >> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be ³emergent.²

> >> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
> >> surrounding trees, but this does not require that the crown be
> >> ³emergent,² meaning far above the surrounding trees as many white
> >> pines in NE, especially on ridges where the hardwoods they are often
> >> mixed with, cannot really compete.

> >> The next crown class, the co-dominant, is a bit lower in relation
> >> to the surrounding trees. Here the crowns of a group of trees are more
> >> or less equal in height, but they do have good space between them, and
> >> they receive plenty of direct sunlight. An issue here is also grown
> >> length. A dominant crown will be somewhat longer‹extend further down‹
> >> than a co-dominant tree.

> >> The next crown class is the intermediate. Here the tree is closely
> >> pressed on all sides by other trees. In some cases the crown can be
> >> at nearly the same height or more usually somewhat lower than those of
> >> its competitors. The crown is narrow, and depending on the species
> >> and the kinds of trees it is competing with, it can be either rather
> >> short, or

...

read more »















Lee Frelich

Jan 8 2010, 11:02 am
From: Lee Frelich <freli...@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:02:49 -0600
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 11:02 am
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Will:

If the 125 foot mast came from a 180 or 200 foot tree, then there
probably wouldn't be a lot of knots at the 125 foot level, since the
branches would be at higher levels. When they first started exploring
for mast trees, there were probably a lot of older trees present, which
might have less taper and larger upper diameters. Also, trees in the
north have lower height:dbh ratios than in the south. Maybe thats why
they took their mast trees from more northerly latitudes. White pine
seems to change its trunk shape more with latitude than hemlock.

Lee

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Will Blozan wrote:
> Andrew,

> Great thoughts. One thing to keep in mind is the pines chosen for mast sage
> would likely be super tall and young so as to be relatively free of knots. I
> would think the presence of multiple knots in the top section of a mast
> would substantially weaken it.

> I'll look at my notes on the white pines I have climbed. Just an
> observation; in general, they are far smaller in upper girth as compared to
> hemlock. Thus, you would need a taller pine to get the same dimension at say
> 100' than a hemlock.

> Will F. Blozan
> President, Eastern Native Tree Society
> President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

> "No sympathy for apathy"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Joslin
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> Jack that is great info! I think that using middle and upper crown
> diameter measurements from our current tallest white pines we may be
> able to extrapolate a decent ballpark figure for what the heights were
> for these "mast" pines.

> Carolyn, great thinking to consider working backwards from known mast
> heights and diameter.

> Tall white pine could be described as having different taper trunk form
> and taper "classes". For instance Jake Swamp in MTSF has a relatively
> narrow DBH for the height, and has an elongated narrow trunk shapewith
> more a spire-like top. Thoreau tree in MSF has a much thicker overall
> trunk diameter and maintains the column, at 120 feet it still has good
> diameter though not 3.5 feet. It is starting to approach Her Majesty's
> class mast pine. However the location of Thoreau in an exposed position
> with the upper crown already well above surrounding hardwoods makes me
> think this fine tree is maxing out. Jake Swamp is another case and may
> represent the potential for reaching colonial ship mast size. It appears
> relatively young based on CBH, it's surrounded and protected by other
> tall pines, it's in an optimal growing location low on a steep slope
> (plentiful groundwater, soil deposition and type) and the grove is
> protected from west and northerly winds events by surround ridges and
> mountains.

> Looking forward to hearing from others (Will et al) who've documented
> CBH/DBH at different heights in big white pines as to what the
> possibilities are for extrapolating the heights of trees that were used
> for masts.

> If anyone can come up with some decent algorithms to calculate total
> heights from known mast requirements we may have the best guess yet.
> -AJ

> JACK SOBON wrote:

>> Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
>> I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two
>> standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed
>> square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and
>> bark.
>> The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24"
>> x 24" at the tip
>> The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30"
>> x 30" at the tip
>> This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six
>> foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet
>> up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt
>> swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were
>> cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent
>> trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size,
>> soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

>> Jack Sobon

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
>> *To:* entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
>> interest about growth possibilities

>> BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be?
>> Isn't
>> that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

>> (In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
>> --
>> Carolyn Summers
>> 63 Ferndale Drive
>> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
>> 914-478-5712

>>> From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net <mailto:surfbum5...@verizon.net>>
>>> Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>

>>> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
>>> To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of

>> interest about

>>> growth possibilities

>>> a couple things I have noticed

>>> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional

>> area where

>>> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
>>> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions

>> and yet

>>> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
>>> protection

>>> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
>>> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

>>> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows

>> the trees

>>> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees

>> higher

>>> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas

>> the trees

>>> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
>>> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

>>> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
>>> microclimate and soil....

>>> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they

>> have

>>> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
>>> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a

>> couple

>>> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
>>> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
>>> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

>>> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I

>> definitely

>>> don't say it's impossible.

>>> -Larry

>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net

>> <mailto:gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>>

>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
>>> To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>

>>> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
>>> aboutgrowthpossibilities

>>>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

>>>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

>>>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>>>> heights of standing trees that is unquestioned. The main question is
>>>> did they? Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>>>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>>>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>>>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>>>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>>>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>>>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>>>> that if some one with a scientific mind did careful measurements,
>>>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>>>> style I have seen them, i.e. early lumberman reported that . etc.

>>>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>>>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, at a height of 120 feet
>>>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches, or some such thing. They
>>>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>>>> has produced.

>>>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>>>> gigantic white pine is 200 feet tall, and at a height of 160 feet
>>>> still has a diameter of something like 20 , someone could read that
>>>> report and say, Oh at 160 feet the tree was still 2 in diameter, so
>>>> then it must have been 250 feet tall. Yes, many younger white pines
>>>> have a rather gradual taper. A tree 20 in diameter in a young forest
>>>> can be 100 tall. But with very old trees, the taper at the top can
>>>> be very, very rapid. A very old white pine could have a diameter of
>>>> 20 near the top, and be only 40 feet taller, or perhaps much less.

>>>> As for amount of light required the amount of crown exposure above
>>>> adjacent trees for white pines to make maximum growth: This is an
>>>> important factor. Tree crowns are usually classified by foresters into
>>>> basically 4 crown classes: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and
>>>> suppressed. Added to this I believe should be emergent.

>>>> A dominant crown has a good portion of its crown exposed above the
>>>> surrounding trees, but this does

...

read more »















Larry

Jan 8 2010, 11:48 am
From: Larry <tuce...@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:48:19 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 11:48 am
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

ENTS, Not to change to other pines, but down south, loblolly, slash,
spruce, shortleaf can reach 120' heights in 85 years. I think the some
of the tallest pines in the US may have been some loblolly, in the
deep south. We may never know, they all were cut down by the greedy
timber companies long ago! They could have very well reached 200'!
Larry















edward nizalowski

Jan 8 2010, 12:30 pm
From: "edward nizalowski" <enizalow...@nvcs.stier.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:30:15 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 12:30 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Question for all:
Has anyone done any research as to the advantage that superior masts gave to opposing navies? As a historical note, England was getting its masts from Poland and Scandinavia until it began logging in the New World. I don't know if it would have been that much of a factor in the Revolutionary War, but it seems more likely for the War of 1812. One of the first efforts to conserve trees during the Colonial Period was done by the British. Any white pine over two feet in diameter was given the king's mark to be saved. Enforcement was very difficult, of course. The live oaks of the south were also put into reserve because of the wood's superior ability to withstand cannon balls. Where do you think the name "Ironsides" came from?

Ed Nizalowski
Newark Valley, NY

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lee Frelich
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 10:03 AM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Will:

If the 125 foot mast came from a 180 or 200 foot tree, then there
probably wouldn't be a lot of knots at the 125 foot level, since the
branches would be at higher levels. When they first started exploring
for mast trees, there were probably a lot of older trees present, which
might have less taper and larger upper diameters. Also, trees in the
north have lower height:dbh ratios than in the south. Maybe thats why
they took their mast trees from more northerly latitudes. White pine
seems to change its trunk shape more with latitude than hemlock.

Lee

Will Blozan wrote:
> Andrew,

> Great thoughts. One thing to keep in mind is the pines chosen for mast sage
> would likely be super tall and young so as to be relatively free of knots. I
> would think the presence of multiple knots in the top section of a mast
> would substantially weaken it.

> I'll look at my notes on the white pines I have climbed. Just an
> observation; in general, they are far smaller in upper girth as compared to
> hemlock. Thus, you would need a taller pine to get the same dimension at say
> 100' than a hemlock.

> Will F. Blozan
> President, Eastern Native Tree Society
> President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

> "No sympathy for apathy"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Joslin
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> Jack that is great info! I think that using middle and upper crown
> diameter measurements from our current tallest white pines we may be
> able to extrapolate a decent ballpark figure for what the heights were
> for these "mast" pines.

> Carolyn, great thinking to consider working backwards from known mast
> heights and diameter.

> Tall white pine could be described as having different taper trunk form
> and taper "classes". For instance Jake Swamp in MTSF has a relatively
> narrow DBH for the height, and has an elongated narrow trunk shapewith
> more a spire-like top. Thoreau tree in MSF has a much thicker overall
> trunk diameter and maintains the column, at 120 feet it still has good
> diameter though not 3.5 feet. It is starting to approach Her Majesty's
> class mast pine. However the location of Thoreau in an exposed position
> with the upper crown already well above surrounding hardwoods makes me
> think this fine tree is maxing out. Jake Swamp is another case and may
> represent the potential for reaching colonial ship mast size. It appears
> relatively young based on CBH, it's surrounded and protected by other
> tall pines, it's in an optimal growing location low on a steep slope
> (plentiful groundwater, soil deposition and type) and the grove is
> protected from west and northerly winds events by surround ridges and
> mountains.

> Looking forward to hearing from others (Will et al) who've documented
> CBH/DBH at different heights in big white pines as to what the
> possibilities are for extrapolating the heights of trees that were used
> for masts.

> If anyone can come up with some decent algorithms to calculate total
> heights from known mast requirements we may have the best guess yet.
> -AJ

> JACK SOBON wrote:

>> Dear Carolyn, ENTS,
>> I can't recall where I got this from but there were apparently two
>> standard mast sizes in New England in colonial times. They were hewed
>> square in the woods for ease of handling and to remove the sapwood and
>> bark.
>> The 100 footer was hewed to 36" x 36" at the butt and tapered to a 24"
>> x 24" at the tip
>> The 125 footer was hewed to 48" x 48" at the butt and tapered to a 30"
>> x 30" at the tip
>> This larger one required a absolutely straight pine of about six
>> foot DBH that was still three and a half feet in diameter 125 feet
>> up! The 100 footer required a pine over 4' diameter above the butt
>> swell and about 3' diameter 100 feet up. Hundreds of such trees were
>> cut in New England attesting to the presence of some magnificent
>> trees. I doubt there is a pine standing today of sufficient size,
>> soundness, and straightness enough to make the smaller one.

>> Jack Sobon

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Carolyn Summers <csumm...@springmail.com>
>> *To:* entstrees@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Wed, January 6, 2010 5:25:14 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of
>> interest about growth possibilities

>> BTW, does anyone know how tall Her Majesty's ship masts needed to be?
>> Isn't
>> that what most of the biggest and best were used for?

>> (In the immortal words of The Monkees, "I'm a believer.")
>> --
>> Carolyn Summers
>> 63 Ferndale Drive
>> Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
>> 914-478-5712

>>> From: x <surfbum5...@verizon.net <mailto:surfbum5...@verizon.net>>
>>> Reply-To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>

>>> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:36:10 -0500
>>> To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of

>> interest about

>>> growth possibilities

>>> a couple things I have noticed

>>> 1. in area where winds crop up you can still find the occasional

>> area where

>>> some ridge protects against winds from the typical storm direction and
>>> occasionally areas where there is protection from most directions

>> and yet

>>> without making a nasty funnel such little regions may offer some extra
>>> protection

>>> 2. over truly long time periods, by random chance, a few areas may 100%
>>> entirely escape any major winds/storms for 300 years

>>> 3. I've often notice that near modest ridges and in modest hollows

>> the trees

>>> at the bottom often have their tops nearly at the level of the trees

>> higher

>>> up, certainly in NJ in second growth forests in such little areas

>> the trees

>>> tend to suddenly grow much taller (so they can match their terrain
>>> advantaged brethren in the hunt for light)

>>> so maybe if you had #1,2,3 all coming together with an exceptional
>>> microclimate and soil....

>>> listen, whether they ever hit 250' I don't know. But we do know they

>> have

>>> hit at least 207' in the current age. I would have to think they surely
>>> reached at least 230' in recent times and perhaps there have been a

>> couple

>>> now and then over the ages to 250'??? hard to say. or maybe even in
>>> historical times a couple measurements were correct?????
>>> maybe not, but just, just maybe?????

>>> I guess I'm in the 230' for sure crowd and 250' doubtfully but I

>> definitely

>>> don't say it's impossible.

>>> -Larry

>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "spruce" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net

>> <mailto:gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>>

>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:23 AM
>>> To: "ENTSTrees" <entstrees@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com>>

>>> Subject: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
>>> aboutgrowthpossibilities

>>>> Jack, Ed, ENTS:

>>>> A few more thoughts/responses about white pine growth/measurement:

>>>> As for the capability of people 200 years ago to measure the
>>>> heights of standing trees‹that is unquestioned. The main question is
>>>> ³did they?² Often the reports of these very tall trees came from
>>>> loggers, who, although I have worked as a logger at various times in
>>>> my life, and believe at its best it can be a noble profession, I have
>>>> not seen them much interested in taking precise measurements of any
>>>> trees before they cut them down, nor in measuring trees after,
>>>> especially when the top of the tree shatters and it would have to be
>>>> carefully reconstructed to get an accurate measurement. I would think
>>>> that if some one with a ³scientific² mind did careful measurements,
>>>> these would have some down to us in a quite different way than in the
>>>> style I have seen them, i.e. ³early lumberman reported thatÐ.² etc.

>>>> One thing I have seen in reports from early lumbermen of the trees
>>>> they cut down, is a focus on data such as, ³at a height of 120 feet
>>>> the tree had a top diameter of 20 inches,² or some such thing. They
>>>> report this way because they are interested in how many logs the tree
>>>> has produced.

>>>> So here is what MAY have led to some of these reports. If a
>>>> gigantic

...

read more »















Gaines McMartin

Jan 8 2010, 1:08 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:08:17 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Larry:

Loblolly pines--wondeful trees. Actually they can grow faster than
you think. On the best sires they can grow to 120 feet in 50 years
(average is 90 feet). At 70 years they can be 132 feet tall. But
growth declines rapidly and they are not especially long lived--not
nearly as long lived as white pine. The tallest loblolly pine that I
have heard about is 162 feet tall. I seriously doubt any loblolly
pine could reach or has ever reached 200 feet.

--Gaines

On 1/8/10, Larry <tuce...@msn.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> ENTS, Not to change to other pines, but down south, loblolly, slash,
> spruce, shortleaf can reach 120' heights in 85 years. I think the some
> of the tallest pines in the US may have been some loblolly, in the
> deep south. We may never know, they all were cut down by the greedy
> timber companies long ago! They could have very well reached 200'!
> Larry
















Beth Koebel

Jan 8 2010, 1:21 pm
From: Beth Koebel <beth_koe...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:21:16 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 1:21 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Ed,

From what I understand the sides where made of Q. alba (white oak) That doesn't mean that Q. virginiana (live oak) wasn't used. From a website on the materials on the USS Consitution.(http://www.maritime.org/conf/conf-otton-mat.htm)
LIVE OAK TIMBER:
Live oak is not commercially harvested nor is it available through conventional sources. As a consequence, the Navy acquires the needed live oak through donations and works closely with private and public sectors to enable this process.
Live oak grows in the southern states, e.g., Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Texas. Principal sourcing contacts are the forestry service, cities, park service, commercial logging companies, and private individuals that may share the interest in acting as a resource for this much needed timber.
Places live oak timber was used in the Rehabilitation and Restoration of Constitution:

Futtock and Top Timber

sided 11 1/2", molded 9" at the port sill.Pin Rails, Sheet Bitts, Fife Rail

Main Mast

Rails

1 ea. 5" X 13" X 17'
2 ea. 5" X 12-1/2" x 8'Sheet bitts

2 ea. 11" x 11" x 8'Stanchions

6 ea. 9-1/2" X 9-1/2" x 7'Coamings, Hatches, upper deck and gun deck.
Specifications:
Live oak materials to be a minimum of 20 inches diameter at the butt and greater than 15 feet long.

Now this is what they used during her restoration. I heard during my visit to her that they replaced the material for excatly what she had before.

Beth
Trees are the answer.--bumper sticker from Illinois Forest Association















dbhg...@comcast.net

Jan 8 2010, 1:27 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:27:06 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

If you research the height of loblollies in the ENTS material, you'll find that we've found a few taller ones.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaines McMartin" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2010 12:08:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Larry:

Loblolly pines--wondeful trees. Actually they can grow faster than
you think. On the best sires they can grow to 120 feet in 50 years
(average is 90 feet). At 70 years they can be 132 feet tall. But
growth declines rapidly and they are not especially long lived--not
nearly as long lived as white pine. The tallest loblolly pine that I
have heard about is 162 feet tall. I seriously doubt any loblolly
pine could reach or has ever reached 200 feet.

--Gaines

On 1/8/10, Larry <tuce...@msn.com> wrote:
> ENTS, Not to change to other pines, but down south, loblolly, slash,
> spruce, shortleaf can reach 120' heights in 85 years. I think the some
> of the tallest pines in the US may have been some loblolly, in the
> deep south. We may never know, they all were cut down by the greedy
> timber companies long ago! They could have very well reached 200'!
> Larry
















Gaines McMartin

Jan 8 2010, 2:18 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:18:53 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Bob:

I see--a little over 167. Impressive!

--Gaines
-----------------------------------------------
On 1/8/10, dbhg...@comcast.net <dbhg...@comcast.net> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Gaines,

> If you research the height of loblollies in the ENTS material, you'll find
> that we've found a few taller ones.

> Bob

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gaines McMartin" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2010 12:08:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> Larry:

> Loblolly pines--wondeful trees. Actually they can grow faster than
> you think. On the best sires they can grow to 120 feet in 50 years
> (average is 90 feet). At 70 years they can be 132 feet tall. But
> growth declines rapidly and they are not especially long lived--not
> nearly as long lived as white pine. The tallest loblolly pine that I
> have heard about is 162 feet tall. I seriously doubt any loblolly
> pine could reach or has ever reached 200 feet.

> --Gaines

> On 1/8/10, Larry <tuce...@msn.com> wrote:
>> ENTS, Not to change to other pines, but down south, loblolly, slash,
>> spruce, shortleaf can reach 120' heights in 85 years. I think the some
>> of the tallest pines in the US may have been some loblolly, in the
>> deep south. We may never know, they all were cut down by the greedy
>> timber companies long ago! They could have very well reached 200'!
>> Larry
















Will Blozan

Jan 8 2010, 2:41 pm
From: "Will Blozan" <tree_hun...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:41:15 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 2:41 pm
Subject: RE: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Gaines,

We have measured one 173.1' but it blew down... Here is the current champ.

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/events/congaree2009/briefing/congare...
ing.htm

Will F. Blozan
President, Eastern Native Tree Society
President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.

"No sympathy for apathy"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com] On

Behalf Of Gaines McMartin
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:19 PM
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
growth possibilities

Bob:

I see--a little over 167. Impressive!

--Gaines
-----------------------------------------------
On 1/8/10, dbhg...@comcast.net <dbhg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Gaines,

> If you research the height of loblollies in the ENTS material, you'll find
> that we've found a few taller ones.

> Bob

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gaines McMartin" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2010 12:08:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest
about
> growth possibilities

> Larry:

> Loblolly pines--wondeful trees. Actually they can grow faster than
> you think. On the best sires they can grow to 120 feet in 50 years
> (average is 90 feet). At 70 years they can be 132 feet tall. But
> growth declines rapidly and they are not especially long lived--not
> nearly as long lived as white pine. The tallest loblolly pine that I
> have heard about is 162 feet tall. I seriously doubt any loblolly
> pine could reach or has ever reached 200 feet.

> --Gaines

> On 1/8/10, Larry <tuce...@msn.com> wrote:
>> ENTS, Not to change to other pines, but down south, loblolly, slash,
>> spruce, shortleaf can reach 120' heights in 85 years. I think the some
>> of the tallest pines in the US may have been some loblolly, in the
>> deep south. We may never know, they all were cut down by the greedy
>> timber companies long ago! They could have very well reached 200'!
>> Larry
















dbhg...@comcast.net

Jan 8 2010, 3:19 pm
From: dbhg...@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities


Gaines,

Will Blozan climbed the 167-footer I think and got some phenomenal footage of the climb. I remember him describing one incredible limb of the loblolly as something around 80 feet in length. Maybe I'm dreaming, but I seem to recall that.No white pine I know of will hold onto a limb of that length.

Bob

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaines McMartin" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
To: entstrees@googlegroups.com

Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2010 1:18:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Bob:

I see--a little over 167. Impressive!

--Gaines
-----------------------------------------------
On 1/8/10, dbhg...@comcast.net <dbhg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Gaines,

> If you research the height of loblollies in the ENTS material, you'll find
> that we've found a few taller ones.

> Bob

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gaines McMartin" <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
> To: entstrees@googlegroups.com
> Cc: gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2010 12:08:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about
> growth possibilities

> Larry:

> Loblolly pines--wondeful trees. Actually they can grow faster than
> you think. On the best sires they can grow to 120 feet in 50 years
> (average is 90 feet). At 70 years they can be 132 feet tall. But
> growth declines rapidly and they are not especially long lived--not
> nearly as long lived as white pine. The tallest loblolly pine that I
> have heard about is 162 feet tall. I seriously doubt any loblolly
> pine could reach or has ever reached 200 feet.

> --Gaines

> On 1/8/10, Larry <tuce...@msn.com> wrote:
>> ENTS, Not to change to other pines, but down south, loblolly, slash,
>> spruce, shortleaf can reach 120' heights in 85 years. I think the some
>> of the tallest pines in the US may have been some loblolly, in the
>> deep south. We may never know, they all were cut down by the greedy
>> timber companies long ago! They could have very well reached 200'!
>> Larry
















Gaines McMartin

Jan 8 2010, 3:58 pm
From: Gaines McMartin <gnmcmar...@pennswoods.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:58:06 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Will and Bob:

Thanks--beautiful. Must be wonderful to climb these trees. I am
70 now and probably past the time I could do that even if I had
training and an assistant, but I am in absolutely wonderful shape, if
I do say so myself. Haven't gained a pound, or an inch.

I used to climb the spruce and pine trees on my timberland--to cut
out forks that would split in storms if left to grow. Of course I
just climbed up the limbs, sometimes using a ladder to get up to where
the limbs started. No equipment, except for straps to safely anchor
me after I got to where I had to do the cutting. I would often climb
up to about 50, or once in a while as much as 60 feet--and up to just
about the tippy top. It was wonderful to look out over and into the
tops of all the surrounding trees. Sometimes I would climb up on
windy days and sway back and forth. What exhilaration! One time a
big vulture swooped over me--within four feet or so. What a
perspective.

But what I did was nothing. I have read "The wild Trees" and enjoy
the pictures of the champ lobolly you sent me to. What joy it must be
to be in the tops of trees like those.

--Gaines
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------















Andrew Joslin

Jan 8 2010, 4:37 pm
From: Andrew Joslin <and...@natureclimber.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:37:52 -0500
Local: Fri, Jan 8 2010 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest about growth possibilities

Here's Will Blozan and Robert Van Pelt making measurements in the upper
crown of the national champ loblolly in Congaree National Park, SC:
*http://tinyurl.com/ykuzbmw

I have 168.7 for the tape drop but I could be wrong.
-AJ