| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
04, 2003 08:53 PDT |
All,
For such an environmentally-conscious group, there appears to be
"a whole lot
of boring going on". Old growth stems are mostly static
heartwood.
Typically, incremental boring goes past the dynamic sapwood,
well into the heartwood,
leaving a rather large wound, which can expose the tree to some
rather
aggressive pathogens (not to mention fracture initiation).
Squirrels
mostly girdle
small branches, often not much deeper than the cambium. Yes,
they do
occasional make holes. But only through old closed flush cuts,
to make a home in an
existing cavity. Woodpeckers and sapsuckers rarely go beyond the
bark and outer
sapwood. Though some woodpeckers go well into the heartwood,
it's often to
access an existing cavity, to also make a home. I would
encourage all that can
afford it, to use a resistograph to measure age. This leaves a
very small
wound, and prints out a very professional reading, that will
stand up in court.
Of course, I would not recommend such a sensitive, heavy,
expensive
instrument on long treks. If you must bore, the lower on the
butt you go, the better.
Trunk flares have the best wound response, but it may be
impractical to put a
tape around the entire tree this close to the ground. I like to
carry an
incremental boring hammer. It does not involve tedious hand
drilling, or
delicate cord removal. It takes a much smaller and shorter
sample. By hitting the
top needle with your palm, out pops your sample. A sharp blade
and a hand lens
will do the rest. Most undisturbed forest trees have consistent
growth. By
averaging the annual ring distance, times 1/2 your stem
diameter, you have a
close age of your tree.
For urban
trees, a resistograph can be rented or
leased from the Company. Also, what about measuring a similar
size like-species
declining tree or even a recent blowdown? This all may sound a
bit much. But
what if your dating is hotly contested? That poor tree may be
corded into an
early grave. Surely, such an elite group as y'all are not more
invasive than
this ole aborist (and former Mainiac logger)?
Just an observation and possible tree-friendlier solution,
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC
|
| RE:
Excessive incremental boring |
Joseph
Zorzin |
|
Oct
04, 2003 11:26 PDT |
Foresters
are suppossed to bore trees to get the age, to determine site
index. Personally, I don't do it because it's hard work, tough
to
measure the rings, and I don't really care much what the index
is- other
than I just look at the trees and make an intuitive estimation
of site
quality, in terms of quality. Not very scientific, but if I did
get a
good site index reading it wouldn't make much difference in the
work I
do. I can tell if a tree is doing well and ought to grow longer,
compared to recognizing when a tree is ready to be harvested.
I've
actually been in the woods with immature "service
foresters" who felt
that they couldn't make silvicultural decisions without doing
the
careful site index thing, taking numerous basal area readings
and
looking in a silvicultural guide! duh..... So, I hung up my
boring tool
20 years ago, for good. Of course, researchers should be doing
such
measurements.
JZ |
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
04, 2003 12:46 PDT |
Good
for you, JZ! With urban trees, I first look for upper crown
dieback as
I walk towards the tree (often, construction-related root
injury). But if I
look across the top of a forest canopy, I see only green
(though, many trees
may be overmature). Many forest tree crowns are out of throwball
and field
glass range. As a forester, what signs and symptoms do you look
for that would
indicate stress (and need for harvesting)? Do
you use crown density
instruments if you've given up boring and can not access shoot
growth?
I know these
may
sound like foolish questions. As an arborist, I have access to a
tree's
leaves, which reveal much about their health. To have a tree
respond to known
treatments, it's important to detect abnormalities early, before
decline and
strain (irreversible). I respect and benefit from our area's
foresters. But, I
must confess some 30-plus-year veterans wouldn't know a sick
tree if it fell on
them!
Recently, a
dean of forestry told another professor (english) that her
sick white oak was "fine". She abruptly cancelled her
scheduled treatment.
By the time she becomes convinced that her tree needs
professional help, I
will likely have to decline treatment, knowing that strained
trees will not
respond. Could lack of crown access limit health assessment,
requiring boring?
What say ye?
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC
|
| RE:
Excessive incremental boring |
Joseph
Zorzin |
|
Oct
04, 2003 15:19 PDT |
Randy Cyr Greenville, SC wrote:
As a forester, what signs and symptoms
do you look for that would indicate stress (and need for
harvesting)?
That's a very big question- because choosing trees to harvest
because
they're under stress is only one reason to choose them. But
there are
things to look for- each species tends to reach biological
maturity at
different ages and sizes. If for example, I see an 18" DBH
white birch
or poplar, I know it probably won't live much longer, even if it
looks
healthy, based on a decent sized crown. Crowns can indicated
"die back"
if the top of the crown shows dead branches. My basic rule is
"trees die
from the top down". In other cases, the top of the crown
may not show
dead branches, but it's evident that the crown has been slowly
constricted in its competition with its neighbors as if slowly
suffocating. A tree stem may have massive injuries, yet live for
many
years. I've girdled trees incorrectly, leaving a half inch of
live bark-
with that tree showing little sign of crown dieback even 10
years later.
So, looking at the crown is critical, and of course, each tree
species
has a different shape crown, so you need to know if an
individual tree's
crown is getting out of the norm for health. Another thing to
notice is
leaf health, early dropping (for that species) is a good
indication of
problems- that is if near by trees of the same species aren't
dropping
by that time.
More on crown dieback: here's an example, I just marked a large
timber
sale, about a third was ash. For unknown reasons, the ash on
this very
fertile "northern hardwood" site is mostly dieing
back, not all, but
most. Many ash as small as 10" dbh are clearly dieing back
and many are
already dead. Just looking at the stems, you'd never suspect a
problem.
But, it's obvious that the tops are greatly shrunk. Some of this
dieback
may simply be due to competition, but many showing dieback had
large
healthy crowns just a few years ago. I marked almost all of the
ash
which look as if they won't survive to the next cutting cycle,
regardless of size. However, amongst this unhealthy population
are some
ash with very vigorous crowns, and many of those I left even if
they
were economically mature, since I felt that by doing so, it
could
contribute to the overall health of that species in that area by
leaving
them for seed sources. The dominate species on the site is sugar
maple,
a very rich site for maple. Perhaps the maple were winning some
kind of
war here.
As I hint above, biological stress is only one item to look for
in
choosing which trees to harvest. Economic maturity is critical,
but
that's a HUGE subject to go into, unless anyone is interested.
Few
foresters understand economic maturity, which does NOT mean that
the
tree will pay its way out of the forest.
Do
you use crown density
instruments if you've given up boring and can not access shoot
growth?
My "crown density instruments are my eyeballs and frontal
lobes. <G>
Well, I've looked at millions of trees in the past 30 years, so
I use my
intuition from that experience. Certainly, most trees that show
stress
will by high candidates for harvesting, not always, but usually.
I
know these may
sound like foolish questions. As an arborist, I have access to a
tree's
leaves, which reveal much about their health. To have a tree
respond to
known treatments, it's important to detect abnormalities early,
before decline
and strain (irreversible).
As an arborist, trees represent a different sort of resource,
since they
have much greater worth as landscape trees compared to that same
tree
deep in the forest. So, your sensitivity to health issues is far
more
important than to foresters who are also looking for economic
maturity
concerns. Injuries that yard trees sustain are different too-
recognizing which human activities weakened the tree is a vital
skill of
the arborist. Regarding reversibility of decline, it seems to me
that
most trees, once they start "go down", seldom recover,
at least in the
forest, I don't know about yard trees as you can fertilize them
and give
all sorts of nursing.
I respect and benefit from our area's
foresters. But, I
must confess some 30-plus-year veterans wouldn't know a sick
tree if it fell on
them! Recently, a dean of forestry told another professor (english)
that her sick white oak was "fine".
Unless that forestry prof specialized in tree health, it's
highly
unlikely he'd know more than a practicing arborist about such
problems-
too bad he even pretended, or maybe he considered the problem
not so
threatening at this time, not considering the progression of the
problem
in a few years.
She
abruptly cancelled her scheduled treatment.
Wow, if I found myself in that situation, I'd send the prof a
letter
requesting that he give a formal statement on his opinions of
that tree.
If he can't come up with one, he owes you and the owner an
apology.
By
the time she becomes convinced that her tree needs professional
help,
I will likely have to decline treatment, knowing that strained
trees will
not respond. Could lack of crown access limit health assessment,
requiring
boring?
In my opinion, boring doesn't do much damage to the health of
trees-
very little in fact. Branches are dying all the time and they
all can
cause infection to enter. The damage, long term, is more to the
quality
of the lumber that the tree may produce- speaking of commercial
forest
trees, not yard trees. Dr. Alex Shigo's research has analysed
the long
term damage to trees from increment boring- showing little
serious
health damage, but some damage to the "grade" of the
future lumber due
to stain and fungus. Trees can isolate areas of infection with
barriors
impervious to infection. For those of you not familiar with Dr.
Shigo,
you really need to read his stuff- Shigo is one of the few
forestry
researches I really like a lot- he's the world's authority on
infections
in trees, I think.
What
say ye?
I say, grab
a brew and bottoms up! <G>
Joe Zorzin
|
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
The
Darbyshires |
|
Oct
04, 2003 20:06 PDT |
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
04, 2003 20:30 PDT |
Robyn,
Great site. Although, Shigo's research shows perpendicular
coring is least
injurious, in deference to this site's recommended upward
coring. Thanks,
RC |
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Dee
& Neil Pederson |
| Oct
05, 2003 18:50 PDT |
Thank you Robyn for the page referring to the impact of coring
on
trees. [Please see a short review of these studies at the bottom
of
my response].
Our lab tried out a resistograph. We didn't feel it would work
for
studying trees with slow growth. We've seen trees from all over
the
world that have 20-60 rings/inch and some trees with much slower
growth. A sample of huon pine from Down Under had 1700 rings
over a ~
1 foot distance. A chestnut oak grew 100 years over the distance
of
one inch. A resistograph works fine for rapidly growing trees
with
evenly spaced rings, but I'm not sure it could accurately pick
up the
number of rings in such tight growth, growth that is often
present in
old-growth trees.
A resistograph also works well on trees with rings that have a
significant change in density moving across the ring boundary.
Would
it work on species with diffuse-porous rings?
| |
By
averaging the annual ring distance, times 1/2 your stem
diameter,
you have a close age of your tree. |
Maybe, sometimes. Charlie Cogbill wrote up a nice piece about
tree
size and age on the list some time ago. It has relevance to the
idea
above. Is Charlie's letter on the ENTS web site?
A recent study from out west of trees that had
a wedge removed by a
chain saw indicated a significant change in the rate of
mortality of
sectioned trees [8% vs 1%]. However, mortality of sectioned
trees was
fairly low:
http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1536-1
098&volume=057&issue=02&page=0131
Animals can impact trees, but what about ice storms, nor'easters
[w/
their heavy snow], hurricanes, windstorms, etc? These create
large
wounds on trees and can knock out large sections of the canopy.
Despite these significant injuries, many trees are able to live
2-3
centuries or more. Please see the tulip-poplar picture at the
bottom
of this page: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~adk/dis/sites/fg/
This
tree is an old tulip living in an old-growth forest. Several
tulips
had crowns like this.
Plus, you can't leave out evidence from the maple syrup world.
These
trees, granted under lower than natural basal area, are tapped
each
year [creating holes bigger in diameter than the typical
increment
corer] and have sap [energy/carbon] extracted. Some sugar bushes
have
been tapped successfully for decades.
Finally, it could be argued that increment coring is tree
friendly.
Acres of forest have been verified as old-growth [and
subsequently
preserved] with the coring of only 20-30 trees. This is a pretty
good
ratio. Doing a biopsy of a few trees to conserve a forest seems
to be
a good tradeoff.
Neil
Growing environmental awareness in our society has increased
concerns
that increment boring negatively impacts living trees. Although
coring does produce wounds that can potentially lead to internal
decay, there is no evidence of increased mortality and little
long-term effects following boring (Meyer and Hayward, 1936;
Lorenz,
1944; Hepting et al., 1949; Toole and Gammage, 1959; Hart and
Wargo,
1965; Cleaveland, 1998; Eckstein and Dujesiefken, 1999). This is
especially true when vigorous dominant and co-dominant
individuals
are cored (Meyer and Hayward, 1936; Lorenz, 1944; Hepting et
al.,
1949). In fact, low rates of mortality were seen in ponderosa
pines
that had sections removed using a chain saw (Heyerdahl and
McKay,
2001).
Trees have the ability to combat wounds that could potentially
reduce their longevity (Shigo, 1984; Loehle, 1988).
Discoloration is
the most consistent effect of coring, yet it appears that the
discoloration is primarily the result of biochemical processes
rather
than fungal influences (Lorenz, 1944; Toole and Gammage, 1959).
Cleaveland pointed out that "the USFS forest inventory has
been
taking frequent cores as part of its inventory program,
especially
out West, and have not noted any great effects. If there were,
the
idea of Continuous Forest Inventory would have been abandoned by
now"
(Cleaveland, 1998). The concern over coring in the first half of
the
20th century may have partly been economic in nature.
Discoloration
and decay greatly reduces lumber prices.
Bore holes from more than half of all trees cored in core damage
studies healed within 2-3 years (Meyer and Hayward, 1936;
Lorenz,
1944; Hepting et al., 1949; Toole and Gammage, 1959). Plugging
core
holes did little to reduce discoloration or decay (Meyer and
Hayward,
1936; Lorenz, 1944; Hepting et al., 1949). Decay rates were
often
less than 50% with most of the decay being saprot rather than
heartrot (Lorenz, 1944; Hepting et al., 1949). Saprot decay
should
stop as soon as the wound was healed (Lorenz, 1944). The one
study
that reported heartrot decay found its rate of incidence to be
less
than 15% in a northern hardwood forest (Lorenz, 1944).
Trees that did not heal well in coring damage studies were
typically
short-lived species like sweetgum and sugarberry (Toole and
Gammage,
1959) or suppressed individuals (Meyer and Hayward, 1936;
Lorenz,
1944; Hepting et al., 1949). Two yellow-poplar deaths were
reported
following coring. However, these two trees were individuals in a
suppressed canopy position (Hepting et al., 1949). Indeed,
"All
canker-forming diseases reported for yellow-poplar appear to be
confined to, or most severe on, trees that are low in vigor
because
of drought, poor site, or competition." (Beck, 1990).
Furthermore, of
the study in which the yellow-poplar deaths were reported,
individual
trees were cored six times each, which akin to nearly girdling a
tree. This coring frequency is 3-6 times higher than most
tree-ring
analysis studies.
It is generally true that the older a tree lives, the stronger
its
defense to disease and injury (Loehle, 1988). Therefore,
biological
theory would suggest that long-lived trees have a defense
mechanism
that would allow them to sustain centuries of insects, ice
damage,
wind storms, and repeated boring by birds such as yellow-belly
sapsuckers . Therefore, evidence suggest that boring of 20 trees
will
not significantly change mortality rates of in a forest. The
small
wounds created should heal rapidly (Hepting et al., 1949) and
will
likely be insignificant injuries.
Literature Cited:
Beck, D.E. 1990. Liriodendron tulipifera L: Yellow-Poplar. In:
Burns,
R. M., Honkala, B.H. (tech. eds.) Silvics of North America. USDA
Handbook 654.) Washington, D. C. USA.
Cleaveland, M. 1998. Coring Controversy. Letter to the Editor.
Wild
Earth 8:13-14.
Eckstein, D. and D. Dujesiefken. 1999. Long-term effects in
trees due
to increment borings. Dendrochronologia 16-17: 205-211.
Hart and Wargo, 1965. Increment borer wounds - penetration
points for
Ceratocystis fagacerarum. J. For. 63: 38-39.
Hepting, G.H., E.R. Roth and B. Sleeth. 1949. Discoloration and
decay
from increment borings. J. For. 47: 366-370.
Heyerdahl, E.K. and S.J. McKay. 2001. Condition of live
fire-scarred
ponderosa pine trees six years after removing partial cross
sections.
Tree-Ring Res. 57: 131-139.
Little, E. Jr. 1971. Atlas of United States Trees: Volume 1
Conifers
and Important Hardwoods. USDA For. Ser. Misc. Pub. #1146.
Loehle, C. 1988. Tree life history strategies: the role of
defenses.
Can. J. For. Res. 18: 209-222.
Lorenz, R.C. 1944. Discoloration and decay resulting from
increment
borings in hardwoods. J. For. 42: 37-43.
Shigo, A.L. 1984. Compartmentalization: a conceptual framework
for
understanding how trees grow and defend themselves. Ann. Rev.
Phytopathol. 22: 189-214.
Toole, E.R. and J.L. Gammage. 1959. Damage from increment
borings in
bottomland hardwoods. J. For. 57: 909-911.
|
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
05, 2003 20:05 PDT |
Thanks
for the great website URL. 1,500 to 1,600 years for a live oak
does
sound a bit much. I am presently working on a Live Oak website
(among other
things), which will feature Antebellum Oaks of the South. What I
have found
during my plantation tours is that it's not uncommon to find a
larger 300 year
old live oak standing near a smaller 600 year old. Why is this?
I don't have
all the answers. Many dates are set by history, cross-reference
and short
cores. Old live oaks can be extremely difficult to date. The
scientists that I
have talked to have said that the Angel Oak consistently dates
between 1,500 &
1,600 years. The only way for each of us to be 100% sure is to
core all the
way through the stem (for ourselves). If one will not accept
another's
estimate, there will soon not be enough xylem left to support
the 170 feet crown. I
can but hope that if a society arises to challenge these
"exaggerated" claims,
that it not be before reliable "less invasive
technology" comes available.
After all, no matter how beneficial we make coring sound, it's
not quite like
using a laser/clinometer to measure height within a foot. With
all the
exaggerated height claims this Group exposes, I can well
understand why we would and
should scrutinize every claim of great age.
RC |
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Lee
E. Frelich |
| Oct
06, 2003 06:03 PDT |
Neil:
I agree with your post <above>. It is necessary to core
some trees to study
stand history in old growth stands, and little damage is done.
After 20 years, the hundreds of sugar maple, hemlock and yellow
birch trees
I cored in old growth plots in the Porcupine Mountains show no
evidence of
higher mortality than other trees.
On the other hand, I object to some coring that is done for
curiosity,
especially when a core is taken, quickly counted in the field
and thrown
out. Such information is no better than an age estimated from
looking at
the tree, although it may in some cases be better than you can
get from a
resistograph, from extrapolation of the outer rings, or from
age-diameter
correlations. Most trees should be left uncored for esthetic and
spiritual
reasons.
I also agree with Joe that foresters don't need to core trees if
they can
learn to see the forest. A lot of people have 20/20 vision from
a medical
standpoint, but still can't see anything, especially in the
forest.
Lee
|
| Excessive
incremental boring and attitudes |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
06, 2003 08:09 PDT |
Lee:
Your last statement: "A lot of people
have 20/20 vision from a
medical standpoint, but still can't see anything, especially in
the
forest." rings so very true. Forest myopia is especially
applicable to
those who "see the forest with an attitude". Rather
than letting science
guide them, they preempt or bypass the lessons of science with
their
personal agendas and exercise of personality traits. They can be
either
left-centered or right-centered in their politics.
Several years ago some of us were in a long
running debate over the
state of forests past. A former president of the SAF made the
shocking
statement that the forests of today are in better condition than
they
have been at any time in the last several thousand years.
Needeless to
say the old gent's statement created quite a stir and was widely
contested. The debate eventually got acrimonious and
unproductive, but
while it lasted, it gave much food for thought, since this gent
was one
of those to which the media turns to get a take on current
forest
conditions and policy issues.
The odd thing is that this past president of
SAF is a PhD forester
who had a long and apparently distinguished career with the U.S.
Forest
Service. But his audacious statement is an example of what I
came to
call "seeing the forest with an attitude". He
certainly had the
education and exposure to forest research to come to very
different a
conclusion about human impacts, but his intense desire to
believe that
human manipulations of the forest has, on balance, had
overriding
positive effects created an attitude through which all his
forest
evaluations were passed.
On the opposite side, some people see the
forest as populated by
mystical, i.e. mythical, creatures such as benign forest spirits
with
suspiciously human personalities. This is also seeing the forest
through
an attitude, albeit a very different one. Although I respect the
sensitivities and concern for the forests of the latter group,
alas I
perceive no such forest spirits. Sometimes I wish there were
elves and
hobbits and Ents, but so far I haven't glimpsed any - at least
not that
I recognized.
While most of us on this list would agree that
there is no substitute
for forest science, I'm sometimes caught off balance at what is
passed
off as good science. Lee, I'll bet you've got some real dillies
of
examples of what you've seen passed off as good forest science
by both
the left and right.
What group of academics/professionals gives
you the most problems in
terms of their seeing the forest through an attitude - or maybe
I
shouldn't ask the question. It's my impish side coming out.
Bob
|
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Colby
Rucker |
| Oct
06, 2003 08:30 PDT |
Lee and Neil,
I agree with your conservative views on coring. If someone wants
to core
trees in their own woods, or are employed by the owner of the
woods to core
trees, so be it. That said, I'll assume that many people coring
or
measuring trees are operating on property not theirs.
From my personal experience, it takes considerable time and
effort to obtain
permission to examine trees on land not yours. State parks and
forests are
subject to laws limiting the removal or disturbance of any rock,
plant,
animal, etc., so tramping mindlessly through the vegetation
isn't
acceptable. At Belt Woods I was able to submit a proposal for a
scientific
study and have it approved by several agencies in less than the
usual year,
but had to measure trees within a small window of time that
would have
minimal impact on birds, herbaceous material and other studies.
Getting a permit to study the Corcoran tract also required a
written
proposal. Carter's Grove was even more difficult. Measuring the
Liberty
Tree always involved permission from college security. I've been
fortunate
to know the owners of several local woodlands for over fifty
years, but
friendships are built on mutual respect, and frequent phone
calls to ask
permission and advise them who's in their woods are a necessity.
Even standing in the street and pointing a rangefinder at a tree
in front of
someone's house isn't very polite, and with magnifying power, a
rangefinder
could legally be construed as invasion of privacy.
And so on, just to measure tree heights. If was was interested
in coring a
tree, things would be much more complicated, because coring is a
disturbance, material is being removed, and the person granting
permission
may know little about coring. At the very least, written
permission would
be essential, and should acknowledge that coring can cause
problems. If the
permitting authority isn't aware of possible damage, then their
permission
doesn't mean anything.
Well, I really don't know how many people take the trouble to
obtain proper
permission to measure someone else's trees, but I hope the
thrill of the
chase isn't leading anyone to be a thoughtless trespasser. As
for coring
trees, obtaining permission is much more complicated, either
involving a
waiver of standing regulations on public land, or taking
long-term
responsibility for damages on private land. In any case, unless
one is
acting as the employee of a university or other scientific
entity, coring
seems almost foolhardy.
But there are lots of people measuring and coring. Have they
found a way to
streamline a path through the legal and ethical restrictions, or
are a bunch
of fellers just trespassing, and vandalizing someone else's
trees?
Colby
|
| RE:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
06, 2003 09:39 PDT |
Paul:
Uh oh, you've asked a potentially embarrassing question. My
biggest
snafus have been from making linear extrapolations form the slow
outer
ring growth. I don't do that anymore and a lot of hemlocks that
I once
thought could be 350 to 450 years old have more commonly turned
out to
be 250 to 350 years old.
Bob
|
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
06, 2003 09:45 PDT |
Paul,
You should know that "I" do not claim that the Angel
Oak is 1,400 to 1,600
years old, I merely state that scientists have said this. I have
not cored this
tree, nor would I be allowed to (this declining giant is closely
guarded). I
just got off the phone with a highly-respected, former USDAFS
top scientist
(he wished not to be named in our Discussion). He said this was
based upon a
number of Charleston area foresters who cored some of the
largest branches (the
trunk's center is hollow). He said the lasted dating would still
be over
1,000 years of age. I don't have great problems with that
number. A Boone's
Plantation oak, dated almost 700 years of age, is a much smaller
tree. A number
of Live Oaks in the Charleston area were documented of huge size
as much as
300 years ago.
One ENTS member said a 5 to 6 ft dbh live oak was but 200 years.
I don't
doubt this. Most trees, given the ideal environment, will reach
their genetic
zenith. But that age is not necessarily the norm. The live oaks
of famed Oak
Alley Plantation (again, I have great photos of all these
trees), some about 5
to 6 feet dbh, are historically documented almost 400 years.
I concede that, when it comes to great height and age,
"conifers rule". And
that prudent coring has a useful place in arboriculture and
forestry. But,
until some of these claims are successfully challenged, please
allow this ole
eastern country boy the right to dream a little...to
wonder...what if they
"could" be that old? What events have they witnessed
beneath their lofty
boughs...if they could talk, what tales would they tell? How did
this aging giant
survive Hugo (and a hundred other storms) unscathed...survive
man's propensity to
destroy...to core out of curiosity...
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC |
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
06, 2003 10:03 PDT |
RE:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring 10/6/2003 12:39:39
PM <A HREF="mailto:dbhg-@comcast.net">
dbhg-@comcast.net<;/A>
...making linear extrapolations form the slow outer ring
growth...
You gents raise a good point! Beside slower outer growth and
searching for
growth stabilization, areas that have seen many changes will be
most difficult
to date (without coring all the way to the pith). Of course, an
arborist is
primarily concerned with most recent growth.
RC |
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Colby
Rucker |
| Oct
06, 2003 10:09 PDT |
Paul,
Aw, shucks, don't be too hard on those good old southern boys.
As I
understand it, the Angel Oak is privately owned by
"Speedy" Felkel.
Speedy's a real estate man, and bought the tree in 1964 for
$9000. He was
pretty upset when the Mayor of Charleston wanted to acquire the
2.1 acres
with the tree by eminent domain in 1988 and open it up to the
public as a
"quiet and gentle park." The mayor said that Speedy
put a "hideously ugly"
fence around the tree in 1976, turned it into a tourist
attraction, and
charged $1.00 a head admission.
With all the notoriety, lots of people have heard of the tree,
and the
take's not too bad. Of course, I suppose there's always the
threat of
competition from alligator farms with 20-foot maneaters, places
with
two-headed chickens, and wax museums. So, a feller's got to make
his tree
look good. Apparently no one got hanged from the tree, but I
think Speedy's
got it haunted by the spirits of murdered slaves, which provides
some ethnic
balance to his enterprise.
The tree's six miles from Charleston, off the highway to Kiawah.
I don't
know how many tourists go to Kiawah, so it probably takes a
little effort to
steer people to Speedy's tree. Anyway, his little business seems
to be
doing just fine, selling postcards and so forth. A really old
tree brings
in more customers than a younger one, so he probably thought
he'd say it was
500 years old, but lots of people say live oaks are 500, so 1000
seemed
better, especially with the possibilty of some snake farm
opening up nearby.
Being a real estate man, Speedy knows how to make things look
good. The
trouble with 1000 years is that people will think it's just a
guess. That
being the case, he could have said 1300 years, but that might
run off the
superstitious, especially with all those ghosts running loose.
So, perhaps
he noticed that a one-inch branch was fifteen years old, did a
little
cipherin' and decided that the trunk must be 1511 years old.
Speedy's
promised the enterprise to his children, so they probably liked
the idea,
and said they always knew he had scientific talent.
Anyway, the tree's now 1526 years old, "the oldest living
thing east of the
Rockies." That's good for business, and most everybody's
happy. Unless, of
course, there's a nearby alligator farm. They'd have to
remeasure "Ole
Rip." He's sure to be thirty feet.
Colby
|
| RE:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
06, 2003 11:54 PDT |
Randy:
You have made your case well. Your fellow ENTS
grant to you and each
other the privilege of dreaming about a life form so old and
venerable.
Regardless of how old the Angel Oak actually is, it has earned
its place
in our minds as a thousand-year old citizen.
Bob
|
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring/'gator 'restling |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
06, 2003 14:01 PDT |
Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring 10/6/2003 1:10:42 PM E
<A HREF="mailto:col-@toad.net">
col-@toad.net<;/A>
...Aw, shucks, don't be too hard on those good old southern
boys...
Subscribing to another ListServ, banter and sometimes rancor is
not foreign
to this New England native, though normally along
left-coast/right-coast rifes.
I have found, in personal encounters, these
"gentlemen" not so intimidating.
My first Greenville customer once asked me, "Ye one of them
Yanks, ain't
ye?" A friend waiting at least a hundred feet away in his
car burst out
laughing. I went on to find this not representative of the area.
Greenville, ideally
situated between Charlotte and Atlanta, and ranked nationally at
or near the
top for growth, has the world's highest concentration of
engineers (over
10,000). Many, like me, are northern transplants.
I'm not aware of any 'gator 'restling in our area (or, for that
matter,
within the state). Floridians once frolicked in such sport, but
have since been
banned (activism?).
I understand that Mr. Felkel lost his property to a tax lien
many years ago
and the City of Charleston has since purchased the property
(1991?) and turned
it into a park. Though it's closer to a half hour drive from
downtown
Charleston, admission is free and many have left truly enriched.
With a hollow
trunk, we are left with dating it's very large branches.
Whatever the age of this
venerable giant, some bald cypress are likely thousands of years
older. Some
well-traveled scientists have said it was the most remarkable
tree they've
ever seen. I do have photos of some of these PhD's (none related
to "Speedy"),
who believe the oak may actually be that old, standing at it's
base (off
ListServ).
But I see no
point subjecting these distinguished foresters, educated
north of the Mason-Dixon, to public ridicule. If you have
information
challenging their assertions, please educate us all.
ENTS is much about measuring the East's tallest native trees. In
southern
Appalachia, we seem to have our share of them. Of course, to
verify these stats
would mean crossing the Mason-Dixon. If you dare risk a
maneating 'gator
encounter, come on down to our beautiful state and show us where
we've missed it
(please don't go back to Fort Sumter). If you're like many, you
may actually
fall in love with our State and it's great people and decide to
move here.
RC
|
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
abi-@u.washington.edu |
| Oct
06, 2003 15:07 PDT |
ENTS,
A few comments on the thread that has developed.
In the Pacific Northwest, the ecology branch of the Pacific
Northwest Research Station has developed a series of several
hundred plots to determine site productivity from plant
indicator species. Coring trees is one of the many things they
do in each plot. When speaking with one of the workers, she
indicated that on a return trip 10 years later that every Abies
they had cored was dead. Coring will not likely do this to a
healthy Douglas-fir or pine that has resinous heartwood, but
killed many trees for no good reason. Coring has a place, but
good ecological knowledge is often superior.
The Tree of 100 horses, a Castanea, is certainly over 1000 years
old, but is a heavily sprouting species. Even when described in
the 1700s, the original trunk was dead. Today there are living
sprouts but no individual piece of wood is very old.
As for the southern oaks, The lack of tyloses in the live oaks
makes it virtually impossible for trees to reach great ages. It
is simply another case, like in so many other parts of the
world, where size gets equated (maybe over several generations)
with age.
Cheers,
- BVP |
| Longevity/Excessive
incremental boring and tylosses |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
| Oct
06, 2003 15:57 PDT |
Bob:
For those who may not know (which includes
me), could I ask you to explain the role of tyloses in oaks?
Thanks in advance. What might be the maximum longevity of the
live oak as a consequence of the "lack of tyloses".
Would you hazard a guess? What are some oaks that have it?
This is really fascinating stuff.
|
| Re:
Excessive incremental boring |
Dee
& Neil Pederson |
| Oct
06, 2003 18:35 PDT |
Colby,
In today's climate of property rights and to some extent,
urbanites
moving out to the country, it is important to be respective of
permission to core/sample. My brief stint on FIA duty made me
aware
of this. We were once met by a property owner on his road. He
was
friendly, downright cordial and gave us permission to update the
plot
on his land. However, he also had a shotgun hanging upside down,
below his steering column and pointing out towards us. Very
scary -
one pull of the trigger and we would have been in deep doo-doo.
You
never know who or what you will meet out there.
The permitting process length can be variable, depending on who
you
are dealing with and the designation of the land. TNC and state
and
USFS foresters seem to be the best [easiest]. Even a NPS site
was not
too bad. Typically all they ask in exchange is that you share
what
you find with them and have less concern about coring damage. I
find
they are hungry for the kind of data we collect. That is a good
reason to gain permission. You can share findings with the
resource
managers. Isn't that the ultimate goal of much of our research?
NY State may be the hardest in gaining permission for sampling.
NYS
[Albany DEC] is very bureaucratic. I have learned that
officially,
even if you want to only take GPS points or have a class on NYS
land,
you are supposed to apply for a TRP [Temporary Revocable
Permit].
But, the TRP permit is simple. The land designation is what
hangs you
up. Calling up the wildlife management area technician can
sometimes
get you through this process in less than 6 weeks, especially if
you
have worked w/ them before. Adirondack Wild Forest lands can
take 8
weeks to 6 months [one time it took 9 months]. The state
constitution
and the requirement to pass through local and Albany hands
really
slows it down. ADK Wilderness areas? Forget it unless it applies
directly to "wilderness management applications." My
dealings w/ NYS
managers indicates that most are really curious about what is
going
on in their forest. They are so understaffed that they rarely
get out
to experience their forest deeply.
I've been rejected by one NYS Park [didn't want me to kill
"his"
trees] while another park was easier than any other official NYS
process. A third NYS Park was typical of NYS, though since I was
proposing to study a rarer species in which they had no
information,
that was the only way I would have gotten permission to core. If
I
was interested in a northern hardwood species, no deal.
Historic sites [mansions] are the most difficult to predict. I
think
the lack of a natural resources background makes them hesitant
to
grant permission to core. So far I am batting .500 in this
category.
Not bad for MLB, at least.
There has been and probably still is an attitude of "it is
easier to
beg for forgiveness." From what I've learned though, if you
have a
decent project, go through proper channels and share early
results
soon after sampling, the path to gaining permission to sample in
the
future often becomes much smoother.
Neil
|
| Tyloses |
Melissa
Harty |
| Oct
08, 2003 10:52 PDT |
I'll give this try.
How tyloses form: A tylosis forms when a living parenchyma cell
adjacent
to the nonconducting element pushes part of its wall and
cytoplasm through
a pit into the lumen (space bounded by the cell wall) of the
xylem vessel
why: tyloses form in xylem vessels when they become
nonfunctional as a
consequence of cavitation (when water can no longer be pulled
upward in
xylem b/c of the breaking of hydrogen bond) by age or injury (or
during
the transition from sapwood to heartwood). I read somewhere once
that
this helps to serve as a defense by inhibiting the spread of
pathogens
throughout the tree via the xylem.
growth, drought, etc..: My understanding of this is that it
would not
play a role in growth or drought conditions because the tyloses
are only
formed in nonfunctional xylem vessels and would therefore not
affect the
trees ability to distribute water and slow growth rates. It may
help
inhibit pathogen spread as mentioned above and the tyloses do
increase
rot resistance.
This is my understanding of the matter.
Melissa |
| RE:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring and tylosses |
Lee
E. Frelich |
| Oct
08, 2003 11:39 PDT |
Bob and Paul:
Tyloses are parenchyma cells that balloon out through pits in
the cell wall
into adjacent water conducting cells (tracheids in conifers or
vessel
elements in angiosperm species). They can form when the cell
wall pits are
greater than 10 microns in diameter.
Tyloses are common in a number of ring porous and semi-ring
porous trees
including oaks, locusts (Robinia), grapes, mulberry, Sassafras,
Catalpa,
Populus, and Black walnut. They block sections of the conducting
elements,
and they can be low in number, making the conducting elements
shorter, or
in response to a wound or disease, they can be so abundant so as
to shut
off water flow and prevent disease from spreading throughout the
tree. This
is probably one of the reasons that white oak species are less
susceptible
to oak wilt than red oaks. On the other hand, tyloses can work
against a
tree in response to disease, such as with Dutch elm disease,
when the
tyloses produced in response to the fungus are abundant enough
to stop
water flow and kill the top of the tree.
Tyloses are also important for the changeover from sapwood to
heartwood,
which has a lot of tyloses in species that produce them.
Lee
|
| RE:
Year End Report on the 150 Club for MTSF |
John
Knuerr |
| Nov
17, 2003 17:34 PST |
On a less happier note - the Ice Glenn White Pine might just be
succumbing
to one to many bore holes from coring. The bottom of the tree's
circumference is covered with at least (to my eye) 10
different holes with a section now appearing to be rotting. It
doesn't look
good.
I think researchers are inadvertently "appreciating"
this tree to death.
|
| Re:
Year End Report on the 150 Club for MTSF |
Colby
Rucker |
| Nov
17, 2003 18:59 PST |
John,
I often hear about people coring trees, but seldom any mention
of whether
they had to apply for a permit to deface something that's not
theirs.
Although most state and county parks have general restrictions
about not
removing rocks or plants, or disturbing wildlife, I wonder how
many park
administrators care if their trees get riddled with holes.
Before simply measuring trees at Belt Woods, my written
application for a
permit had to be approved by The state, U.S.Fish & Wildlife,
and the Western
Shore Conservancy. That can take a year. Ice Glen and other
forest
preserves should have no less stringent protection.
I doubt that anyone's been hauled into court, and the laws may
prove
inadequate. Perhaps the laws need to be made more specific. If
the town of
Stockbridge doesn't care enough about their trees to stop people
coring,
perhaps they should. Has anyone discussed the problem with the
town
fathers?
There may be instances where a formal coring study provides
useful and
beneficial knowledge, and responsibility for any damages is
assured.
Obviously, the excess of holes at Ice Glen doesn't represent
formal studies.
Personally, I have little interest in the age of trees beyond
recognizing,
by their structure, what era in overall forest succession they
represent. I
don't think idle curiosity is an adequate excuse for anyone to
deface
someone else's property. Many laws are outdated, and the
penalties are
inadequate to deter those who "answer to a higher
cause.". Some park fines
are still $25. Destruction of property gets argumentative. Until
laws are
adequate, and someone gets hit with a fine of perhaps $500 per
tree, the
coring silliness won't stop.
Colby
|
|