==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boreal Forests and The High Appalachians.
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/7e978d925c86adc2?hl=en
==============================================================================
 
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2008 2:15 pm
From: James Parton
 
 
ENTS,
 
I have been reading on the great Taiga forests that cover a large part of the land areas of the high northern latitudes. This includes most of Canada and a small part of the northernmost states in the US and of course Alaska. Europe and Russia also have a huge part of these circumpolar Taiga Boreal forests. One thing I have wondered is should the high peaks here in the Southern Appalachians be considered isolated areas of Taiga forest? Officially they are not usually considered part of the taiga biome. But these high peaks have much in common with the forests of Canada. Red Spruce and Frasier Fir are dominant as well as other cold climate adapted trees like Birch and Mountain Ash. The forest floor even looks like pictures I have seen in the southern boreal forests of Canada and info I have read often compares the climate of these high peaks to that of southern Canada.

Appalachian Taige

Canadian Taiga

One difference between the Taiga and the high peaks of the southern Appalachians
is the sun angle. The sun is always lower in Canada than here. The boreal biome usually begins gradually at around 4,500 feet here in NC and at 6000 feet and above is pretty much complete.

Back to the comparison. I have read that the Taiga was pushed south during the last ice age and when the ice retreated back northward these boreal " islands " were left on high peaks south of the main part of the Taiga forests further north. So lets hear your opinions. Do you think the high southern apps should be classified as " Taiga "?  Ed, with your knowledge on Geology, I bet you will have an answer.
 
http://www.runet.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG235/biomes/taiga/taiga.html
 
The picture " Appalachian Taiga " is one I took last year. It was taken while ascending Black Balsam Mountain at above 5,500 ft altitude.
  
James Parton
 

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2008 3:32 pm
From: Lee Frelich
 
 
James:
 
Boreal, yes, taiga, no. Most ecologists differentiate between southern
boreal forests (closed canopy, at least on sites with good soil, some cold
temperate species like red pine, white pine, yellow birch may be present in
addition to spruce, fir and boreal pine like jack pine or Siberian pine),
and northern boreal forests or taiga (with permafrost underneath, mostly
open canopy forests with lower tree density and no cold-temperate species
present).
 
The southern Appalachian forests are closely related to southern boreal forest.
 
Lee

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2008 4:06 pm
From: James Parton
 
 
Lee,
 
Doesn't permafrost dominate the tundra, north of the Taiga? I have
always read that trees do not do well in permafrost. Their roots have
trouble absorbing enough water. The tundra and taiga gradually merge
together at the treeline. I have read that the frosen ground hinders
them worse than the cold air does.
 
I know other than the angle of the sun another difference is that the
Northern forests are undoubtedly colder. But one thing seems certain.
If our southern boreal forests are not taiga they are a " child " of
them. Left at the last ice age.
 
James Parton
 
 

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2008 8:53 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
 
 
James,
 
I am sure you have read in the link you provided: http://www.runet.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG235/biomes/taiga/taiga.html
 
a.. Along the Appalachian Mountains in eastern North America the boreal forest of eastern Canada, dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea), extends southward with little change in species composition until Virginia. The southern limit of balsam fir occurs in Shenandoah National Park; southward to the Great Smokies, on isolated mountain tops, is found Fraser fir (A. fraseri)
 
I will agree with Lee that it is fair to call them boreal, but I don't think they should be called taiga. In many generic definitions the term boreal and taiga are used interchangeably. In reality there is quite a bit of difference between the northern edge of these forests and the southern edge. So a better classification breaks them into a northern boreal forest and a southern boreal forest. The northern boreal forest abutts the tundra. At the boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra is a transition zone of mixed spruce forest patches and tundra. The northern most edge is what is called a lichen woodland, with trees that are farther-spaced and lichen ground cover fills in between the trees. Farther south in southern Canada and northern most United States the forests have a closed canopy and in addition to spruce species are hemlock, pine, and fir, and a number of broadleaf tree species including birch, aspen, and willow. The tree species composition in the uppermost portions of the Appalachians more closely resemble the southern boreal portion of the taiga. I would think it would be appropriate to call it taiga if the entire spectrum and sequence of species were present in the southern Appalachians, but the northern most characteristics and flora are absent. I am not even sure I like the term taiga because while it represents a broad forest stretching across continents, there is such a difference between the northern and southern edge of the forest.
 
Ed

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 12:57 am
From: James Parton
 
 
Ed,
 
There is a program available on DVD known as " Planet Earth " which
has much information on the Taiga. It mentions the differences between
the northern and southern parts of the Taiga. I have not seen all of
it, yet and have just purchased the 5 disc DVD set from a friend. He
replaced his standard DVDs with the Blue Ray versions and has a 40"
Sony LCD flat panel TV. Let me tell you, the photography is excellent!
 
It sounds like the Appalachian Boreal Forest is more " Taigalike " to
Virginia. But should it be called " Taiga " proper? What is the
differences between Balsam Fir and Fraiser Fir? Do you think the past
Ice Age events in some ways connects the Taiga and Southern Boreal
Forests?
 
James Parton.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boreal Forests and The High Appalachians.
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/7e978d925c86adc2?hl=en
==============================================================================
 
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 12:57 am
From: James Parton
 
 
Ed,
 
There is a program available on DVD known as " Planet Earth " which
has much information on the Taiga. It mentions the differences between
the northern and southern parts of the Taiga. I have not seen all of
it, yet and have just purchased the 5 disc DVD set from a friend. He
replaced his standard DVDs with the Blue Ray versions and has a 40"
Sony LCD flat panel TV. Let me tell you, the photography is excellent!
 
It sounds like the Appalachian Boreal Forest is more " Taigalike " to
Virginia. But should it be called " Taiga " proper? What is the
differences between Balsam Fir and Fraiser Fir? Do you think the past
Ice Age events in some ways connects the Taiga and Southern Boreal
Forests?
 
James Parton.
 

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 6:16 am
From: Lee Frelich
 
 
James:
 
Yes, the tundra is on permafrost, but so is much of the northern part of
the boreal forest. Part of the northern boreal also has a very short
season free of ground frost (only a few days to several weeks). Trees do
grow on permafrost, but as you point out not very well, and this
explains why the northern boreal (or taiga) has lower tree density and
low productivity. Trees dominate a lot of areas where growth conditions
are not optimal.
 
Lee
 

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:08 pm
From: James Parton
 
 
Lee, ENTS
 
I had read that permafrost dominated the tundra but did not know until
very recently that it also existed in the northern taiga as well, I
always believed that iced over roots for most of the year resulted in
tree death. The trees in the taiga are more resilient than I thought.
Lee, you pointed out that the northern taiga has low tree density and
productivity and I am pretty sure that due to that it also has a very
limited number of animal life. The southern parts of the tiaga has
much more diverse animal and plant life.
 
I wonder if ENTS has anyone that has ever visited the Taiga
firsthand? It would be nice to have an ent in a northern country such
as Canada who could do detailed reports on the northern boreal forest.
That would be awesome!
 
While the Southern Appalachians weather does not get as harsh as much
of the Taiga, it still can get pretty harsh. The trees bear testimony
to this. While visiting Roan Mountain on the Tennessee-North Carolina
border I noticed how the Spruce-Fir forest was twisted and stunted on
the steep high mountainside. The harsh cold winds and often sub-zero
temperatures really affect the trees. Many had limbs only on the
leeward side of their trunks. That is, downwind.
 
James Parton.
 

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:03 pm
From: Lee Frelich
 
 
James:
 
I have been to northern Canadian taiga. Its not much different from the
big bog in northern MN.
 
Lee
 

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:23 pm
From: James Parton
 
 
Lee,
 
I guess that is another difference. I have never seen a bog in the
high apps. It is often humid enough but bogs are usually not found on
mountaintops. The high mountain valley of Graveyard Fields is the
closest to a bog I have seen, with a river and often soggy ground from
frequent rains but still not a bog.
 
JP
 

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:42 pm
From: James Parton
 
 
ENTS,
 
Some people use " Taiga " and " Boreal " as meaning the same. Whether
they are or are not, both are closely related. This is from the link
below.
 
 
There are latitudinal zones within the boreal forest. Running north to
south, one finds the tundra/taiga ecotone, an open coniferous forest
(the section most properly called taiga) the characteristic closed-
canopy needleleaf evergreen boreal forest; and a mixed needleleaf
evergreen-broadleaf deciduous forest, the ecotone with the Temperate
Broadleaf Deciduous Forest. In the US, this southern ecotone is
dominated by white pine (Pinus strobus), sugar maple (Acer saccharum),
and American beech (Fagus americanus).
 
Extensions of the boreal forest occur down the spines of mountains at
high elevations. In eastern North America, this occurs at high
elevation down to New Jersey, then West Virginia and again in the
southern Appalachians. The trees are red spruce and balsam fir in the
north, and Fraser fir in the south. Fir tends to grow at the highest
elevations. Yellow birch becomes prominent also, with a smattering of
eastern hemlock. In the southern Appalachians, these forests start at
about 4,500 feet and in the north, where it is cooler, can be found at
sea level (Maine and Canada). The boreal forest in the southern
Appalachians is disjunct and, due to its relatively small areal
coverage, is regarded as a highly endangered ecosystem.
 
Parts of Maine and much of Canada are usually considered part of the
Taiga proper. These forests are at sea level there. 4, 500 feet here.
I am not suggesting northern taiga but maybe southern? Comments?
 
http://www.borealforest.org/index.php?category=world_boreal_forest&page=overview
 
 
James Parton
 

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 3:06 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
 
 
ENTS,
 
To my mind, it seems that while the terms Taiga and Boreal are often used interchangeably, they do not have the same underlying connotations. To me the term Taiga is not a purely ecologic term but has also has a geographic meaning referring to the massive higher latitude forest circling the globe through Canada, Russian, and Scandinavia. Because it has this geographic element, I do not think it is proper to apply it to pockets of higher elevation forests in the Appalachian mountains. The term boreal is an ecologic one, without any geographic linkage, and I think it would be a better term to use to describe the forests and settings James Parton is talking about, particularly if you want to break it down to the southern boreal forest.
 
Ed
 
 

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 3:19 pm
From: James Parton
 
 
Ed,
 
That is well put. Taiga is a geographical place as much as an
ecological biome. For our area " Southern Boreal Forest " does fit. I
realize they are differences in our Southern Boreal Forests and the
Taiga itself. But with their close " boreal " nature I am curious on
what they have in common and their relation to one another. To an
inexperienced minds eye they appear very similar. Enough for me to
wonder if they may be the same or connected in some way. That is a
great thing about this forum. I can discuss it with others who have
greater knowledge than I.
 
Here is another interesting link.
 
http://www.runet.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG235/lifezone/merriam.html
 
James Parton.
 

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boreal Forests and The High Appalachians.
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/7e978d925c86adc2?hl=en
==============================================================================
 
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 7:49 pm
From: JamesRobertSmith
 
 
One thing about some extremely high elevation areas in the Southern
Appalachians is that there are a few examples of faux alpine or tundra-
like environments. The areas around Dolly Sods in West Virginia, Sam
Knob in North Carolina, Grayson Highlands in Virginia. These are
places where the spruce-fir forests were cut and slashed. Where there
were subsequent fires that burned all the way down to the mineral
soils. Where flooding followed which further scoured off soil cover.
What was left was a very, very slowly recovering forest system that
resembles taiga in many ways. Open, grassy, wind-stunted, etc.
 
These places will fill in over the long haul, but for the next century
or so (maybe longer) they'll at least have the physical appearance of
taiga.
 
I've visited and hiked extensively in all three of these places. And
one certainly does get a feeling of being above treeline, even though
they're several thousands of feet short of a real treeline and, thus,
actual tundra and taiga.
 

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 12:54 am
From: James Parton
 
 
JRS,
 
It is amazing on how nature recovers. Those places are among the most
beautiful in the Appalachians. I am particuarly familiar with the
Sam's Knob/Black Balsam area. I have always wanted to visit it with
snow on the ground but the parkway is often closed at that time of
year and even if not the traveling would be very treacherous.
 
JP