| Smokies
Vs. Blacks/Big Ivy |
James
Smith |
| Mar
19, 2006 04:07 PST |
I've noticed the conversation concerning the impressive growth
rates of
certain tree species in the Great Smokies. How do the old growth
areas
in the Black Mountains/Big Ivy area compare? I know we're
talking about
a slightly different ecosystem (as the Blacks rise from a higher
plateau), but how does this area stack up (against the Smokies)
when one
focuses only on the areas there that have been relatively
undisturbed? |
| RE:
Smokies Vs. Blacks/Big Ivy |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
19, 2006 08:32 PST |
James,
From what I have seen, which is not a whole lot, the Blacks are
less
productive in general than the Smokies. I have explored Mt
Mitchell, the
Craggies, Big Ivy and the Douglas Falls area and saw few species
that match
what grows in the Smokies. Yellow birch and Fraser fir are very
impressive
in the above areas, as is Catawba rhododendron and some other
smaller
species. I suspect the difference in rock and moisture account
for much of
it. Even mature second-growth on what appears to be excellent
sites are
20-30 feet shorter than comparable sites in the Smokies.
Will
|
| RE:
Smokies Vs. Blacks/Big Ivy |
Joshua
Kelly |
| Mar
19, 2006 22:35 PST |
James,
Given my experience tromping around the Blacks, I think they
equal the
smokies in productivity, and perhaps surpass them in areas with
amphibolite.
Rob Messick lists a 144' tall sugar maple at 3900' in walker
cove (I think
measured by Bob Leverett). I have seen several young poplars in
the 3-4 dbh
range that are columnar and quite tall. The forest service did a
salvage
timber sale in Big Ivey last year, and one 3' + dbh, forest
grown white oak
they cut on Corner Rock Road was under 80 years old. In short, I
think that
the dominance of the Smokies in the area of tree size depends on
lack of
disturbance, its relatively large area, and sampling bias. Of
course, the
most productive areas in both ranges were logged and/or
converted to
agriculture early.
I'm hoping someone from ENTS has done the punishing work
necessary to
document the hemlocks in the Waterfall Creek area. There are
some Baxter
Creek sized monsters tucked away between Douglas Falls and
Waterfall Cr.
The South Toe drainage also has some high growth areas, but i
have explored
them less. Maple Bald Creek is a place that comes to mind as
having very
tall remnant poplar and red oak at about 3600-3700 ft.
Of course, If I could go anywhere in the southern blue ridge to
hang out
with big trees, I would go to the Smokies. The acreage and
concentration of
primary and near primary forest there blows away anything else
in the
bioregion. I think on the question of productivity though (grams
of wood
produced/meter/year), rich sites in other ranges equal the
smokies. The
Southern Nantahalas, for instance, have some very rich
substrates and
recieve more rain. Very cool discussion topic. I'd like to know
what others
think.
Josh
|
| RE:
Smokies Vs. Blacks/Big Ivy |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
20, 2006 04:39 PST |
Josh,
Jess and I explored the Douglas Falls and Waterfall Creek
drainages last
fall. We saw very nice hemlocks but did not measure a single one
since they
were so short and "small" relative to the Smokies. We
intend to go back and
entice the USFS to treat the groves-they are AWESOME!
The 144' sugar maple was a tape-drag and has since been
retracted by Bob. It
is more likely in the 120' range as Michael Davie and I
discovered years ago
on another measuring trip.
I would love to see the southern Natahala's and the rich coves
you describe.
BTW, Baxter Creek does not have big hemlocks. In fact, ENTS has
never
confirmed a hemlock 150' tall anywhere on Baxter or Big Creek.
Will
|
| RE:
Smokies Vs. Blacks/Big Ivy |
Joshua
Kelly |
| Mar
22, 2006 12:08 PST |
Will,
In a WNCA meeting with the Appalachian District several weeks
ago, Paul
Bradley informed us that Linda Randolph was not able to make the
meeting
because she was releasing Sasajicymnus (sp.?) beetles at Douglas
Falls. Too
bad they are not also working with Laricobius nigrinus. I am
enthusiastic
about the prospects of bio-control of HWA with the Lari or the
combination
of the two. And, after all, L. nigrinus is from North America
I am surprised by the lack of a 150' tree at Baxter Creek. Some
of the
western tribs have spectacular hemlock forest and I have seen
emergent
hemlock in hardwood forest in one virgin area of Baxter Creek.
What is the
tallest hemlock you have from Big Creek? As I said in a previous
email, I
would be surprised if there weren't hemlocks in the Waterfall
Cr. area that
didn't break 140', but I'm no height expert, and the talk of
heights
obscures the topic of productivity somewhat.
Many of the most intact forests remaining in other mountain
ranges lack the
gentle slopes and protection from winds that the most impressive
places in
the Smokies have. I think that these factors are very improtant
in
determining tree height. The other major factors (other
variables being
equal) are soil depth and chemistry. Again, it is my belief,
based on my
knowledge of the abiotic conditions of various mountain ranges
in the
Soutern Blue Ridge, that there are sites in other ranges that
rival the
Smokies in productivity (grams of biomass or wood/meter
sq./year). There
may be no extant sites that rival the Smokies in tree height,
girth or
volume. However, given time and an emphasis on restoration of
prime sites to
natural forest processes, I believe examples would reveal
themselves.
Josh
|
|