Blast from the past, 1978 registry   Paul Jost   Jan 20, 2006 12:45 PST  I moved into a new home late last fall and have been unpacking some of the last boxes in my basement a little at a time. I came across an unmarked box in a larger box. In it, I found some things that I haven't seen in almost 20 years. I found some maps of Wisconsin old growth sites and a 1978 American Forests issue containing the 1978 National Register of Big Trees. In it, I was surprised to see many heights that weren't as unrealistic as some of those in later issues. I was surprised to see realistic heights for the eastern white pine records, including a 158 feet tall 17 foot 5 inch 78 foot spread 1978 cochampion in the Porkies. All the measurements on that one were realistic and fairly accurate for it's time. I visited then, a few times since, and most recently, a few years ago, now just a wind-topped, barkless snag with most of it's roots exposed as the Little Carp River has washed away the sandy banks from beneath it. The other cochampion was a similarly sized pine in Blanchard, Maine. In a listing expected to contain many inflated heights, I was surprised to see that the height of the eastern hemlock record in the Smokies was only 100 feet tall. It became obvious that many big tree programs must have focused on girth due to the problems with measuring height. There was an article suggesting that big trees are more likely located in the northern parts of their ranges in areas with low potential evapotranspiration with exceptions at the base of a slope or on a floodplain. There was also a surprising article entitled, CONGAREE: Forest of Giants, by L. L. Gaddy. It describes the "discovery" of the trees in Congaree, then called the Beidler Tract while it was still in private ownership. (My wife and I had toured Congaree with the Blozan family around May 4, 2001.) The biggest surprise to me was the accuracy of the reported loblolly pine dimensions in the magazine. A South Carolina state acquisition survey reported more than 10 pines over 12 feet in circumference and heights from 140 to 168 feet, a very close to actual maximum height. Even so, they didn't list any of the loblollies as state or national records, even though other species were reported as such. A look at the national register in the same issue shows pretty large loblollies reported at the time at Warren, Arkansas (15 foot 8 inch girth, 147 foot height, 63 foot spread), and Hertford County, North Carolina (14 foot 5 inch girth, 162 foot height, 73 foot spread).   Will and I had measured a 14 foot 4 inch girth and 162 foot tall loblolly (near Cedar Creek?, GPS: UTM 514618, 3742943 17S) during our visit with some nearly as big on the way there, and I think that there were larger ones near the existing trail system. I wonder what I'll find in the other boxes?? Paul Jost Re: Blast from the past, 1978 registry   Lee Frelich   Jan 21, 2006 10:39 PST  Paul, I measured the white pine on the Little Carp River in the Porkies in 1983 at 154 feet. At that time the tree was on a curve in the river, and from the south one could see the entire tree with no interference from other trees. Then came the big flood during July that year Twelve inches of rain fell over a 4 hour period one night; we tried to move our sleeping bags higher and higher inside the tent as the water rose, and then finally gave up and laid in the water until the storm ended. Good thing we were not camped on the Little Carp River--it rose as much 40 feet in some places. A few days later we visited the national champion pine again, and we expected it to be gone like the grove up river that had several 8-12 foot cbh, 140-150+ foot tall trees that were undermined by the flood and went into the river. However, the champion pine was still there, and several of the pines from the other grove that washed away were stacked up against it. They were flowing down river in the flood and got caught on the giant pine. One of them was stood up at a 45 degree angle, with its crown almost to the base of the champion's crown. The champion pine's root system was severely undermined by the flood. There was an air space about 4 feet deep under the champion pine's root system, which was spread out in a matt that occupied the top 2 feet of the soil. One could jump from root to root starting 50 feet away and make their way to the trunk. Obviously this flood overwhelmed the tree; although it appeared healthy for a few years, it died several years later. At this point the river has redeposited sediments around the tree, and new trees have popped up, and you would never know that the giant snag was once the national champion white pine, went through the big flood, the disappearance of the land, the return of newly deposited land, and return of a young forest. Lee RE: Blast from the past, 1978 registry 158'?   Paul Jost   Jan 22, 2006 18:37 PST  Will, As Lee reported in a follow-up to mine, he had measured the champ to 154'. It was in a twisting river valley bottom, somewhat protected and not subject to strong straight-line winds. It had a good supply of water and genetics and form nearly mirroring the recent national champ that ENTS measured on our last group visit there. I think that the 154'/158' is the outlier. I have measured numerous white pines in the porkies in the upper 140's but don't have any in the 150's. For early next May, I am trying to plan a overnighter into the heart of the Porkies that should allow me to change that opinion. I haven't been to this part of the Porkies since I obtained a laser. I've been out of the scene for a while With the son getting a little older and our being settled into a new home, I/we should be able to start getting out more often. We'll see... Paul Jost Blast from the past, 1978 registry and a question to Will Blozan?   Robert Leverett   Jan 23, 2006 05:17 PST  Paul,    An interesting fact about maximum historical heights from the champion tree lists is that some can be fairly close to the maximum height for the represented species, while concurrently representing mis-measurements of the actual champion trees submitted to the registers. This seems an odd state of affairs, but it is the case.     That champion loblolly pine listed at 168 feet in Congaree was in fact around 141, per BVP. Will Blozan actually duplicated the 168-foot measurement with clinometer and tape measure on a past trip that he and I made to Congaree. Then there was that 202-foot tall white pine that Paul Thompson measured. As an indicator of max height for white pines, 202 feet isn't bad. The Boogerman pine was once 207 feet. However, I doubt that Thompson's Michigan pine was over 140. Good chance it wasn't over 130. There are other examples of where a mis-measured tree height actually approximates the maximum for the species. Here is another example. A hemlock in Joyce Kilmer was erroneously measured to 174 feet. I think it was once listed as the North Carolina state champion hemlock. I could be wrong on that one. Will will straighten me out if that is the case. However, the absolute max for hemlocks stands at around 170 feet - not far off the mismeasured tree.    I can't even guess how many broad-crowned red and white oaks have been listed as 150 feet tall or there abouts, but were in fact, in the low 100s. Colby Rucker reported on that for a Maryland (Delaware?) white oak tree. However, as maximums for either the whites or reds, 150 isn't a bad number.    Will, what are your thoughts on this subject? Bob RE: Blast from the past, 1978 registry 158'?   Lee E. Frelich   Jan 23, 2006 06:17 PST  Paul: The tree we are talking about (the 1980s champion) was 500 feet lower in elevation than succeeding champion we visited in the early 2000s. That probably explains why it could reach 154 feet. Too bad most of the grove just to the north of the Little Carp River Trail Head washed away. There were probably several that just reached 150 feet near the base of those seepage slopes, but those are the trees that went into Lake Superior during the flood, and the shorter 120-130 foot ones higher on the slopes were left behind. Lee   Home