| Zoar
Gap, MTSF |
John
Eichholz |
| Feb
24, 2004 22:18 PST |
Bob and all:
In the interest of showing just how nice a spot MTSF is, I would
like to
relate to the list my recent experience. I visited, last Tuesday
and
yesterday, a single cove in the forest just above the bridge at
Zoar
Gap. The area I was working in was no more than 25 acres, and
consisted
of several branches of a small seasonal stream and their
surrounding
banks, upwards to the base of the boulder field that makes up
most of
Clark Mountain. I spent perhaps 5 hours in all, and came up with
enough
readings to write a Rucker index of 120.8.
Five miles away at my family's land on Mt Peak in Charlemont, my
first 5
hours yielded a Rucker index of 97. Four months later, with many
days
searching high and low, I have pushed it to 110. The area needed
to
achieve the 110 on Mt Peak is about 175 acres, including many
coves and
basins similar to the MTSF Zoar cove.
The MTSF Zoar cove is not home to the monster pines the forest
is famous
for. The tallest of the several white pine is 137'. But, the
hardwoods
are spectacular. I easily spotted a 127' red oak, a 131' white
ash, a
122' bigtooth aspen, an old growth type bitternut hickory at
120', and a
117' black cherry. There is only one mature eastern hemlock on
the
site, and it is 115'. I have yet to find hemlocks that exceed
106'
anywhere on Mt Peak. As for the other species, I have in no way
scoured
all the likely candidates in this cove.
The bedrock geology of the sites are different formations, but
both are
schist formations. Zoar gap faces more northerly than Mt Peak,
by 30
degrees or so. The species mix is identical. Mt Peak probably
receives
less rain than Zoar, due to its location in the rain shadow of
Hawks
mountain. Rain data from my yard and Zoar Outdoor on Rte 2 bears
this
out. But, are these site factors the cause of the difference in
tree
height?
Mt Peak has trees in the age class of MTSF. What it also has is
a recent
history of several diameter cuts on different areas and, the
lower part
was pretty much cleared off in 1912 to 1915. With its steep
grades and
grazing earlier this century, there was likely erosion. The
diameter
cuts served to remove the best tall growing trees except on the
margins. What is left is still a beautiful forest, but is it
likely to
achieve the height class of MTSF with normal treatment and time?
I
don't know, but perhaps by characterizing individual sites both
in and
away from MTSF we may begin to unravel the mystery.
Rucker indices for the two sites below. The Zoar cove index is
just
what I saw. I'm sure Bob has more in there.
Cove above Zoar Gap
Species Height CBH
White Pine 137.3 9.0
White Ash 131.3 6.3
Northern Red Oak 127.6 6.8
Bigtooth Aspen 122.5 3.9
Bitternut Hickory 120.1 6.8
Black Cherry 117.2 6.2
Basswood or Elm (?) 116.4 6.5
Eastern Hemlock 115.0 6.3
Sugar Maple 114.7 8.0
Red Maple 106.8 0.0
Average 120.9 6.0
Mt Peak west face
Rucker index #1
Species Height CBH
White Pine 124.8
White Ash 119.5 5.5
Northern Red Oak 115.2 8.6
Sugar Maple 114.5 8.8
Bigtooth Aspen 107.8 5.7
Eastern Hemlock 106.5 5.7
Shagbark Hickory 104.7 3.4
Black Cherry 103.7 5.0
Red Maple 103.7 6.3
Bitternut Hickory 100.2 4.1
Average 110.0 5.9
John Eichholz
Charlemont, Massachusetts |
| Re:
Speculations |
Colby
Rucker |
| Feb
25, 2004 07:31 PST |
John,
Your comparisons of Mt. Peak and Zoar Gap are very interesting. I
put the
two indexes side by side, with the numbers to either side. In
all cases,
the ZG specimens were taller than their MP counterparts, but the
order was
quite similar. I then drew a line between the same species. By
that, one
might say that Mt. Peak was not so good for bitternut, which
prospers in
more mesic conditions. On the other hand, MP seemed more
advantageous for
sugar maple, red maple and hemlock.
I then scanned our list of indexes for different sites, picking
out those
that, at least for the first five species, were similar to MP/ZG.
The
candidates were Monroe, Dunbar, Ice Glen, Anders, Hearts
Content, and Cook.
I'm not sure of the order, but I'll put Cook last, owing to
tuliptree on the
second line. Of course, the Cook acreage is large, and includes
three
clearly identifiable forest groups, by elevation. In the
springtime, from a
distance, these are "color coded," with dark green
(conifers) at the top,
gray (oaks) in the middle, and light green (tuliptree) at the
lower
elevations. The complete Cook profile shows red maple and sugar
maple doing
best at the higher elevations, which are less inclined. Some
elusive
parallels are seen with Mt. Peak, which I'll guess is a bit more
elevated/exposed than ZG.
A complete forest height profile for both MP and ZG, including
all the
smaller species, from your black birch on down, might tell us
more.
Although it can be argued that a single specimen can skew the
numbers, I'm
always surprised how well the profiles hold up, Chase Creek
being an
example.
Compare the MP/ZG structures with the various sites on our index
list, and
see how you'd characterize those that appear similar.
Colby
|
| Speculations
- Bob and John's combined efforts |
Robert
Leverett |
| Feb
25, 2004 09:53 PST |
Colby and John:
A broader sweep of the small area you were in,
John, would produce an
index of around 125. Adding an acreage roughly equivalent to the
175
that you included on Mt. Peak would produce an index of 131.47.
So the
difference in the two areas is even more dramatic and there is
the
possibility of the index going slightly higher over the next
several
years. I think 132 would be the limit for the north side of the
Clark-Todd ridge complex.
Because of the circumneutral soils, hemlock
does not figure into the
mix as an important player. I've never broke 120 on Tsuga on the
north
side. There is certainly a chance of that at the extreme
northern end of
the MTSF.
John, I plan to go to MTSF on Sunday
with John Knuerr and Jarred
Trout. Might you be able to join us?
The indices computed for an area of about 200
acres follows:
Our combined effort (your BNH is included)
Species Height Circumference
WP 161.20 11.20
WA 147.40 9.50
SM 130.60 7.90
NRO 130.60 7.00
AB 130.00 7.80
BTA 127.70 3.50
ABW 125.50 5.90
RM 122.40 6.50
BNH 120.10 6.80
BC 119.20 4.90
Averages 131.47 7.10
Bob
|
|