South
to North |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
Nov
01, 2003 05:17 PST |
ENTS:
After the fast pace of last week and
weekend, I'm ready to slow down for a little while and revisit
some of our ENTS tree lists. One area we haven't concentrated
much on is North to South comparisons. Can we predict any
ceilings across the range of widely distributed species and
reflect realistic South to North height differentials? Presnely,
not too well, but here are some examples for standing trees that
extend their range well into the north and south. Numbers are
rounded to the nearest foot.
Species South North Difference
Black locust 153 126 27
E. hemlock 168 145 23
R. spruce 152 129 23
White oak 147 124 23
Bitternut H. 154 134 20
White pine 186 167 19
Tuliptree 177 158 19
White ash 163 147 16
Sugar maple 151 138 13
Yellow birch 110 101 9
N. red oak 144 135 9
Red maple 145 136 9
E. sycamore 159 153 6
Black cherry 146 140 6
American beech 136 130 6
E. cottonwood 135 133 2
Black birch 117 116 1
Hop hornbeam 73 78 -5
Bigtooth aspen 82 128 -46
Enough for now.
Bob
|
RE:
More musings about ENTS and back to business |
Robert
Leverett |
Nov
01, 2004 10:16 PST |
Dale:
Yes, I do think that is a possibility, but 140
appears the absolute
upper limit in New England unless the trees in the Deerfield
River Gorge
do something really spectacular in the next 50 years - if Tsuga
survives. It is interesting to think about how such a northern
tier
species reaches its zenith near the southern limit of its range.
The 160
to 169-foot height trees in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and
Tennessee were not expected by Will Blozan and me when we set
out to
document the great hemlocks of the Smokies. The decrease in
maximum
height going north is irrefutable. In fact the decrease look to
me like
it follows a more predictable pattern than that of white pine.
From a
max of 170 at between 33 and 34 degrees latitude the maximum
height
drops to about 125 by 43 degrees latitude north in the
Northeast. I
expect that by 44 degrees that number is down to 120, if not a
little
less. I wonder what Lee Frelich has to say about that. Lee?
Bob
|
|