Tulip
Tree Heights |
Will
Blozan |
Nov
10, 2004 15:52 PST |
Yo, Dale and Tom,
I am totally confident that the tallest hardwoods are in
second-growth or
younger stands of natural origin. ...I
measured a grove in the Smokies last
weekend that will have a Rucker well over 130'. Two species of
trees reach
160' (all hardwood) and the canopy dominants will easily average
over 150'.
I took some core samples to age the stand. Guess what? 66 years
at BH. I
know of 170' trees ~the same age (tuliptree). I think that
50-60% of the top
10 height records for the Smokies are in second-growth
hardwoods.
My question is where are the 180' tuliptrees? If a 70 year old
tree can
reach 170', why can't 180' be reached by 120 years? Or 300
years? Or 600
years?
I have no Earthly idea!
Will
|
Lower
Big Creek update |
Will
Blozan |
Nov
13, 2004 12:14 PST |
Hello
ENTS, NPS staff, et al,
Last weekend Tom Remaley of the GRSM and I revisited some tall
trees to
remeasure them and monitor annual growth. ...
What really blows me away is the sustained growth rates of these
trees, and
the fact that most of Big Creek, which today has forests to 170'
tall, was
essentially denuded of trees at the establishment of the GRSM-NP
in the
mid-1930's. I wonder what the early park managers thought as
they gazed upon
the denuded and entirely cleared slopes of lower Big Creek. Did
they have
any idea of the potential for such phenomenal growth? It must
have been
depressing at the time! Well, now the forests can lay claim to
many eastern
height records and perhaps the tallest temperate deciduous
forests in the
east, if not globally. Average canopy heights will rival or
exceeded even
the finest old-growth stands, and these forests will serve as an
excellent
study in growth rates (height and volume) and the formation of
canopy
architecture both on an individual tree and a forest and
landscape level.
Study of these forests will also help us figure out and
challenge the ideas
of a maximum canopy height for many species. For example,
tuliptree is
well-known to exceed 170'; with over 20 trees in lower Big Creek
alone
exceeding this height (probably over 100 can be found on just
the first 5 or
6 drainages off lower Big Creek). But of all the 170'+
tuliptrees thus far
identified (~50 park-wide?), only 3 exceed 175', and none exceed
178'. Some
of these trees are less than 70 years old. Since no other
tuliptrees in
old-growth forests can top the second-growth forest heights,
have the young
trees just peaked, or is there a biological or genetic limit?
The height
ceiling for tuliptree is sharp and consistent across the entire
park
regardless of forest disturbance history. Does this indicate an
intact
genetic base, or the opposite? What makes a 70 year old vigorous
tree stop
growing up when all its neighbors are just as tall? Maybe they
have not
stopped, but there is no height difference in tuliptree forests
130 years
old and 70 years old on similar sites. I think I need to get up
in the trees
and examine the tops in addition to selecting trees to monitor
annually.
Also, with enough aerial core samples at various heights, I
could
reconstruct height and diameter (volume) gain over many years,
and determine
how long a tree (or forest) has been 150' tall (or whatever
height chosen)
or greater. Such knowledge would influence management in many
ways, both
economically and biologically. Grant money anyone???
...
Big Branch
Tuliptree 9'0"
X 163.1' ~70 years old
Tuliptree 5'10"
X 151' Cored: 65 years at BH
Unnamed creek
Tuliptree 5'10"
X 153' Cored: 66 years
at BH, in crown
contact with tallest sycamore, may be taller.
Will
|
Re:
Lower Big Creek update |
Edward
Frank |
Nov
14, 2004 18:39 PST |
Will,
Congratulations on another excellent trip report. You and Jess
are setting
the standards for trip reporting. I like your idea of multiple
cores at
various heights to document the history of growth for a
tree/stand of
trees. One thing that struck me is that there are a number of
tree height
champions that have died in the past few years - The Yonaguska
hemlock,
among them. If there are any similar big trees downed in the
area of
interest, they could be more easily cored to see if the process
would give
you the information you anticipate. There would not be any
concerns about
the numbers of cores you took or any adverse effects on the
tree. The same
could be done for a variety of species - perhaps even tried on
some long
dead chestnut snags. I can't make grant money suddenly appear,
but a
demonstration of the technique on a downed tree could not hurt.
I am
looking forward to seeing some photo's from your trip.
Ed
|
Re:
Tulip tree height |
Lee
E. Frelich |
Nov
16, 2004 06:19 PST |
Will:
The theory that likely explains the tulip tree heights is as
follows:
1. By age 70 (probably by age 40 or 50) the tree crowns have run
into each
other, so that each tree cannot expand its crown and produce
more leaf area.
2. Therefore they cannot produce an increasing amount of wood.
3. The wood that is produced is spread over a taller and taller
trunk that
is also bigger in circumference each year, forcing the rings to
get narrower.
4. The narrower rings mean two things:
a. the
tree will become unstable if it grows taller, since it
can't increase the dbh of its trunk very fast.
b. Since
only the outer rings conduct water at a high rate, water
cannot be pumped up the tree fast enough through these narrow
rings to
support continued height growth, and in the absence of the
mechanisms that
redwoods have for getting water to very high branches, height
growth stops.
If this theory is true then we can predict that the trees will
put on
another spurt of height growth when the stand undergoes self
thinning and
transition to an uneven-aged stand, in which case successful
trees will be
able to expand their crowns into gaps caused by the death of a
neighboring
trees, and more crown area means more wood, and wider rings that
can
support more height, mechanically and physiologically. The same
theory also
allows us to predict that trees are shorter in northern climates
and at
higher elevations.
FYI a theory is a set of ideas that tries to explain why
observed
conditions are as they are. There is not a dichotomy between
theory and
fact as is commonly supposed. A theory is accepted if it has
support (i.e.
if its predictions are observed in the real world) and not
accepted if it
doesn't have that type of support. A fact is simply an
observation, such as
the tree is 170 feet tall. Grant proposals that devise a
reasonable
theory, show what its predictions are, and then show that it is
feasible to
test those predictions unequivocally in the field, are the ones
that get
funded by agencies such as National Science Foundation. We could
probably
get this type of grant funded.
Lee
|
RE:
Tulip tree height |
Will
Blozan |
Nov
16, 2004 18:33 PST |
Lee,
Thanks for the ideas to think about. Here some questions and
observations:
1) Tuliptrees on Baxter Creek which are likely 120-140 years old
(I have not
cored any yet) have the same height as the 70 year old forests,
but there
are no visual clues that I can identify (yet) that suggest that
the trees
have been either a) growing more slowly, or b) at 170' for 50-70
years. The
upper crowns do not look to me as old as the theory would
suggest. Aerial
core samples from examples of trees spanning all age ranges
would help solve
the puzzle- structurally, spatially and temporally.
2) There are numerous examples of older, huge tuliptrees growing
in
uneven-aged forests that have no greater height than the 70 year
old trees.
Undoubtedly they were released from crown competition which
allowed them to
bulk up and put on girth. But still, they are not taller than
the young
ones.
3) Perhaps some of the older trees have developed a different
(i.e. craggy)
architecture after once having been a "straight and
narrow" tree. Drastic
differences in age from one portion of the tree to another
adjacent portion
would support this thought. For example, a 400 year old
"base structure"
could be supporting a canopy only 50 years "old". New
sprouts from storm
damages constantly recreate crown- especially in tuliptree. I
have seen
sourwood and blackgum trunks differ in age by over 50 years
within only a
few inches. This is because the "base structure",
often very slow growing
and old in these two species, will send up a new terminal shoot
when
conditions favor a new spurt of height growth. They essentially
"hang out"-
presumably storing energy for the day they get the light gap or
other
stimulus to grow upwards. They then can regenerate an entirely
new canopy of
young growth characteristics supported by an ancient "base
structure". The
lower old limbs are then subordinated and shed. (Trees are sooo
COOL!)
4) As a tuliptree gains in girth it will also lose in
flexibility. This puts
the weakest portion of the tree- the young top canopy, in the
full brunt of
wind and weather, and all that on an unyielding "base"
of huge, static wood.
To me, this change in architecture as the tree ages will result
in more
frequent and sever storm damages as the tree cannot absorb wind
loading
forces in a flexible trunk. I think (my theory anyway) that this
leads to a
"stag headed" canopy architecture and may in fact
limit height growth as
well.
I would be glad to talk with you further about designing a
project to study
these ideas.
Will
|
RE:
Tulip tree height |
wad-@comcast.net |
Nov
16, 2004 19:02 PST |
Is
there any chance the younger tall trees are regrowth from old
stumps left behind from the clearcutting? I have noticed
extremely fast regeneration on cut trees. For instance, I had a
twenty foot white ash on the property where I work that was
attacked by borers and then snapped in half in a wind. I then
cut the tree to the ground in spring, and now there is over five
feet of new growth on that stump in one season. This, as
compared to a seedling ash I have that put on less than a foot
in the same time period. Could this be happening on a larger
scale with the tulip poplars? Say a 2-300 yr old tree was felled
in the 30's, is it possible that the rapid growth is the root
system trying to balance out the canopy?
Scott Wade
|
RE:
Tulip tree height |
Will
Blozan |
Nov
16, 2004 19:18 PST |
Scott,
Some of these 70 year old forests are growing in converted
landscapes, i.e.
not just cut and left to grow. They were converted to pasture or
other open
uses and have since "grown in". Stone spring houses
can still be found with
140'+ trees growing on top of them. Old fences and other
structures
suggesting a field are commonly found. I feel much of the super
forests are
not from sprout origin, and the well-formed root crowns and
perfectly
straight, well-spaced single stems further support this. The
older Baxter
Creek grove was probably cleared once and left to grow from what
was there
and seeded in. However, stump sprouts are not evident.
Regardless, 177' is the maximum after many years of searching
(unless Jess
and Mike found something in Big Creek on Sunday that is a new
record). This
maximum holds true over all age and disturbance classes (in the
Smokies at
least). Jess, correct me if I am wrong, but is only one
tuliptree known
outside of the Smokies that reaches or exceeds 170'? I know you
list one in
SC (GA), and Mike may have one I don't recall in Kilmer.
Will
|
Re:
RE: Tulip tree height (Jess and Mike read this) |
Jess
Riddle |
Nov
17, 2004 11:28 PST |
As far as I know, the 170.2' tree at Tamassee Knob is the only
tuliptree
outside of the Smokies over 170'. What's more, I think only four
sites
outside of the park, Wadakoe Mountain, central Brevard Belt,
Lilly Cornett
Woods (sp?), and Joyce Kilmer, have tuliptrees confirmed over
160'. The
cove with the 170' tree at Tamassee does have two others over
165', and an
adjacent has a tree that will almost certainly exceed 170' and
may reach
175'. I'll confirm that in the next couple of months. No
spectacular
finds from upper Chestnut Branch or Kilby Branch last weekend in
the Big
Creek watershed. I'll try to get a post out in the next few
days.
Jess Riddle |
RE:
Tulip tree height |
Lee
E. Frelich |
Nov
18, 2004 06:26 PST |
Will:
These are good alternatives hypotheses for explaining maximum
height. However, I still believe that there is an absolute
hydraulic limit
for each species. If there wasn't, then some trees that by
chance did not
experience storm breakage would easily soar past 177 feet. The
storm
breakage hypothesis (your #4) probably limits many individuals
to shorter
heights than hydraulics alone would allow, so it is still a
limiting
mechanism for many trees.
Regarding your hypothesis #2, I only meant to imply that more
crown area
when neighboring trees died allowed the trees to go from 170 to
177 feet,
since several other mechanisms including the hydraulic limit and
the
mechanisms you point out are coming into play for trees that
tall.
It seems likely that several mechanisms influence the maximum
height of
trees with similar genetics that are growing on similar sites.
Perhaps
several of these mechanisms each influence height by a few feet,
and
perhaps they can reinforce or counteract each other depending on
the
situation for each tree.
Lee
|
|