Old and New Growth wood,What makes it old and what makes it new?

[WDH]

In a forest, there is a process called "succession" that takes place.  Say a forest is totally destroyed by fire.  The first colonizers to the new site will be the light, wind blown seeded trees.  They will take over the site and prosper.  Many of these trees are shade intolerant, that is, they need a lot of sunlight on the crown to flourish.  They tend to grow fast and tall.  Aspen is an example, cherry is another (birds rather than wind spread the cherry fruits).  As time goes on, other species find their way to the site.  They become established under the canopy of the pioneer species.  These species tend to be more shade tolerant and can survice under the shade of the early colonizers.  Most times, the early successional species (early colonizers) are shorter lived, and the more shade tolerant species bide their time.  As the early colonizers start to decline, the more shade tolerant species take over.  Many more years pass, and at some point, these shade tolerant species take over and become the dominant forest.  As this process goes on, certain species will tend to dominate the site.  These are called "climax" species.  In this area, the climax species are oak, beech, hickory, and magnolia (plus a host of understory species like dogwood, mulberry, hophornbeam, etc.).  This natural process can take centuries to develop. 

In the South, pine is an early successional species.  Over time, without disturbance, more shade tolerant hardwoods will get established under the pine canopy, and eventually, they will become the "Climax Forest".  However, when there is disturbance, like with fire, the pine are quick to colonize and re-populate a site.  The Native Americans used fire to maintain early successional type forests because they are usually favorable to more species of wildlife and food plants than the old, climax forest under a heavy shade canopy.  However, fire would not penetrate too far into the bottoms and coves, and thus, this is where the hardwood forests would thrive.

Humans, however, throw a wrench in the gears and have a huge effect on the natural process.  We tend to keep the forest "early successional" by our activities.  The climax forests are few and far between.  These tend to be National Forests where logging is not active, State Parks, or other land that has been set aside for prosperity.  In any case, all forest are in a state of succession.  We just don't allow too many of them to reach the "climax" stage.

[shelbycharger400]

planted 1906,  majority of them are hollow,  and  They wont get to live too many more years.. as the saw  is making way for the plow.  Gotta have more room for tatoes and corn!  hmm... just have to market what boards, timbers, slabs  I salvage as just  old, over ripe cedar tree/ect.   

Off subject, limbing branches in their today, I seen some where my 32 in bar wont make it through in one pass, most have 2 to 3 in dia branches,  some have a few 6 to 8 in dia branches. Their is going to be some big brush piles when they are all down   

[WDH]

When you think about climax forests, you have to think in terms of centuries.  What is time to Mother Nature?

[Migal]

In a forest, there is a process called "succession" that takes place.  Say a forest is totally destroyed by fire.  The first colonizers to the new site will be the light, wind blown seeded trees.  They will take over the site and prosper.  Many of these trees are shade intolerant, that is, they need a lot of sunlight on the crown to flourish.  They tend to grow fast and tall.  Aspen is an example, cherry is another (birds rather than wind spread the cherry fruits).  As time goes on, other species find their way to the site.  They become established under the canopy of the pioneer species.  These species tend to be more shade tolerant and can survice under the shade of the early colonizers.  Most times, the early successional species (early colonizers) are shorter lived, and the more shade tolerant species bide their time.  As the early colonizers start to decline, the more shade tolerant species take over.  Many more years pass, and at some point, these shade tolerant species take over and become the dominant forest.  As this process goes on, certain species will tend to dominate the site.  These are called "climax" species.  In this area, the climax species are oak, beech, hickory, and magnolia (plus a host of understory species like dogwood, mulberry, hophornbeam, etc.).  This natural process can take centuries to develop. 

In the South, pine is an early successional species.  Over time, without disturbance, more shade tolerant hardwoods will get established under the pine canopy, and eventually, they will become the "Climax Forest".  However, when there is disturbance, like with fire, the pine are quick to colonize and re-populate a site.  The Native Americans used fire to maintain early successional type forests because they are usually favorable to more species of wildlife and food plants than the old, climax forest under a heavy shade canopy.  However, fire would not penetrate too far into the bottoms and coves, and thus, this is where the hardwood forests would thrive.

Humans, however, throw a wrench in the gears and have a huge effect on the natural process.  We tend to keep the forest "early successional" by our activities.  The climax forests are few and far between.  These tend to be National Forests where logging is not active, State Parks, or other land that has been set aside for prosperity.  In any case, all forest are in a state of succession.  We just don't allow too many of them to reach the "climax" stage.

Now That is a fine explanation.

[thecfarm]

shelby,that reminds me of some of the scrub white pines we had. We had alot of nice tall trees,but had some that grew up about 8-10 feet and 2-4 tops would grow out of one stump. Took a while to limb them. Some of the limbs were 4-6 inches through. We would take some of the biggest for pulp.

[BaldBob]

While Okrafarmer's definition is as close to complete as you are likely to find, unfortunately "Old Growth" is one of those terms that means whatever the agency that applied it to the stand says it means. For instance the USFS has designated many thousands of acres of Lodgepole pine and Jack pine as old growth - species that are relatively short lived and only rarely exceed 80-130 years of age.  While on some sites they are the true vegetative climax species, on most sites where they occur in vast even age stands, they are a fire climax ( result of natural disaster ) not a true vegetative climax. They may be essentially the only species on the site for thousands of years because of the periodic return of fire that maintains that species on the site, rather than the more shade tolerant species that would replace them as climax given enough time between fires. Another example is large areas of "Old Growth" Ponderosa Pine in the Inter-mountain West. On many sites, even though the trees may be extremely large and most of them many hundreds of years old, in the absence of periodic underburns,  the climax species would be Douglas- fir or true Firs. Certainly most people would consider the huge Giant Sequoia  of the Seirras to be "Old Growth", but in the absence of fire or cleaning from below they are being gradually (albeit at a very slow rate) being squeezed out by the firs that are the vegetative climax species for those sites.

[Jay C. White Cloud]

BaldBob, I don't agree...

Not with you, but with what USFS often states a forest is.  I think there is a certain to great degree of governmental manipulation that is politics driven and not forestry science.  That is why we have these, often confusing discussion about climax or apex forests and how they differ from one another.

WDH,

Beautiful description and well stated.  What do you think of Ocrafarmer's short definition?

:new_year: everyone!!!!

[Okrafarmer]

Well, my definition was based on what I have gathered throughout my life, rather than on strict science. I have learned some of the science involved, but I certainly don't have the background on it that some of the more educated minds here are privileged with. It is definitely true that the term means different things to different people, and is relative based on the site, the area, the species, the circumstances, and the perspective.

I would amend my observation to say that yes, old growth would typically have planted by natural causes from a seed, not propagated by other means, and that is what I would normally think of. I'm not going to say categorically that it has to be that way, but normally it would be.

It is also important to remember, with the subject of species climax, and site-specific species, that two things are true. 1. The site selection of various species follows general rules. Such as: a particular species will typically but not always be found at a certain time period in the climax cycle and on a certain type of site, and 2. There are exceptions to rule # 1.

Profdan is a lucky man. He owns two 15-acre parcels of land, and both of them are within half an hour of my house, but in opposite directions. I haven't officially catalogued them, but between the two sites I think it is fair to say there are at least 50-60 distinct species of trees, and maybe more. One site is a nearly untouched section of mountain land with some really big specimens of various species. The other is a bottomlands and small hillside with a lot of pioneer species, but a few climaxers as well. Up on the mountain site, there are a lot of climax trees, including huge red and white oak, black locust, beech, and hickory. On his farm site, there are a lot of pioneer species, such as Virginia Pine, sweetgum, box elder, cherry, and so on. But what I've found is that they are found among white oaks, hickories, walnuts, red cedars, hop hornbeam, and so on. Some of these species can actually grow in as a pioneer species. And then, some of the classic pioneer species such as tulip poplar and sweetgum, can actually grow up and keep their place with the oaks and hickories that come along.

[BaldBob]

" I think there is a certain to great degree of governmental manipulation that is politics driven and not forestry science."

I largely agree, but then I believe that the term "Old Growth" is itself usually politics and agenda driven.

I would submit that apex forest ( one that has never been disturbed - either naturally or by man (assuming that man is an  unnatural agent)  AND is at full vegetative climax - if such an entity actually exists - is not the same as "Old Growth Forest".
I think you would agree that the undisturbed stands of Giant Sequoia are "Old Growth", yet they are most assuredly not at a full vegetative climax state.  Thus, by the definition proposed (which includes having reached climax), they could not qualify as apex forest or even "old Growth, if the reaching of of full climax is required. On many sites full vegetative climax condition is a relatively short lived phenomenon in the overall history for a site.
In terms of forest science, I think the agencies come closer to a useful definition for "old Growth" (for stands not individual trees) when  (for those biomes where it is applicable) they don't require the reaching of full vegetative climax conditions to apply the designation, but rather use criteria based on stand complexity (e.g. mixture of shade intolerant and shade tolerant species, amount of large woody debris in various stages of decay present, diversity of age structure, diversity and range of tree size, amount of snags present, vertical and horizontal diversity, etc.). These are factors that are useful for determining how effective the stand is in providing for the needs of "Old Growth" dependent species and functions.

[terry f]

   Something to be said for old, big trees. In my own little world, if a tree can't still be growing after 200 years (lodgepole), it shouldn't even be concidered in the oldgrowth discussion, but like said earlier, its whatever the agency says it is. My definition would be any tree that escaped the ax of the first logger in your area, here that was about 150 plus years ago. I might not be able to define it, but I know one when I see one.

[BaldBob]

I couldn't get the edit function to work on my last post - my login may have timed out before I tried to post the edit. Here's what I wanted to add:
In my view there are actually three categories of forest relevant to this discussion:
1 Primary forest- one that has been totally left to the vagaries of nature ( regardless of its current age and structure) and has never been subject to manipulation by man.
2. Apex forest - one that has reached full vegetative climax without manipulations by man during the course of its development.
3. Old growth forest - one that is well along the path towards climax or has reached climax under the conditions inherent in that site and has structural characteristics found in older mature stands, regardless of how it got there.
Not all apex forest is primary forest. Although under my definition,  all apex forest would qualify as old growth, not all old growth would qualify as apex forest. And finally only a small percentage of old growth or apex forest would qualify as primary forest.

#'s !&2 have their greatest  value for use in forest science  when referring to stands as benchmarks and reference points. #3's greatest value is in regard  referring to a stand's current form and function.

[Jay C. White Cloud]

I go to bed a happy man, it is a New Year for all of us, and I have followed to a conclusion, (or at least for now, a good point for a hiatus,) this discussion:

1.  I have, at least for myself, and (after maybe a little tweaking,) a great short definition of an "Old Growth," forest in what Okrafarmer gave us.  I hope to see it recorded someplace other than this post thread.

2.  After rereading and assessing BaldBob's and WDH's two scholarly entries, I feel satisfied in having an even better understanding of the complex subjects of Primary, Apex and Old Growth forests.  I see more clearly the overlap in these forest systems, as they apply to different climate zones and the forest they contain, from Northern Arboreal to Sub Tropical Rain forest. 

Thank you for the discussion, it would be a gift to have more in person someday.   smiley happysmiley

Regards,

Jay

[SwampDonkey]

I can drive within 30 miles of here to undisturbed hardwood, never removed by axe, fire or bugs in a long time. Never means can't find evidence when it happened, because something happened if you go back far enough. The dominant trees have a spiral grain, they lean at least 10 degrees and most, not all,  are hollow like culverts or black in the middle. This is a hard maple forest and also has hemlock, white pine (very scarce) , red spruce, yellow birch and beech mixed in and make them worth mentioning volume wise. There are other lesser species of course. These are all long lived species. This is on public land. Up until the last 30 years there was a whole lot more, but is very fragmented now. This being said the companies turned from strictly managing softwoods to including hardwoods. And that means those left behind hardwood sites are being harvested off or high graded (then have to go back and cut the rest anyway because it dies back when you take the dominants out). Years ago the hardwood was clear cut with Koerings during the early years of processor development, and brought out whole tree to be chipped, logs and all. When I was a kid, there was vast areas with no logging roads. You went in my foot, water or bush plane onto a lake. You can drive about anywhere now. On private, all that would be left are old remnants in either small pockets hard to get at or some fellas like to just leave the old trees to stand, in most cases knarly white pine or a bunch of hollow 'rock' sugar maple or big old hemlock trees with limbs the size of your leg. Most of the time, and I would hazard a guess, about 99% of the time they were left because they had no way to handle them or they were junk trees. A wood pecker (esp. sap suckers), a porcupine or a squirrel probably love them for homes and don't really care too much how old they are or how long they stood. ;D

I've seen balsam fir forest, that was just blown down by a wind (1995) called "old growth". It was all on the ground and the green bunch never wanted it cleaned up. These were mostly natives and college kids. They stuck around a few days until the flies got to them, as the trucks rolled by with blow down wood. A fella out on the highway ran a filling station and had some cabins for over nighters. He hauled a bunch of them around out there in that forest and showed them some old growth. Big old 30" white cedars, white pine, and 40" knarly old hard maple that would remind ya of a crooked mage's staff in those fantasy movies. ;D I'd have to say in my experience that the green bunch don't seem to have to work up here. Maybe the cheques should stop coming in the mail. ;) Actually we are probably blessed in that we don't get too many with enough ambition to make a stink.

:new_year:

[Okrafarmer]

I suppose another tactical use of the term "old growth" could be to refer to a large, undisturbed, naturally-seeded member of any tree species, even a pioneer species such as balsam fir, aspen, gray birch, sweetgum, tuliptree, yellow pines, water oak, cherry, lodgepole pine, etc.

I just had a birthday, and I think I'm done laying down juvenile wood now, but unfortunately I will never qualify as old growth, because my early growth rings are too wide! 
:new_year:

[CCC4]

Here is a vid with some of the oldest timber in our region. Due to it's dwarfed state and lack of marketability, this species of tree was left in the remote mountain tops. After finding a gold coin dated 1776 (13 stars and a pile of cannon balls) and a geo marker made of brass with the same date...I consider this little "nook" to be undisturbed. My buddy and I cut the trail. Very steep, most of the vid is the descent off the mountain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XyAnv1_2k&list=UU_NjqCPS3PCA_PGz4NCZuLA

All the timber is suppressed due to the soil. Mainly at around the 4 minute mark we get into solid dwarf Juniper Cedar.  I would guess 300+ years old. Thanks for viewing. Remember, timber I am talking about is around the 4 minute mark.  :new_year:

p.s., sorry about the guys in front of me and his lack of riding gear, he is actually an AA Pro from North Carolina that came down for a visit.

[JOE.G]

This thread went way deeper then I expected. It is a good read.

[Black_Bear]

In the day to day use of the term among different folks that go into the wood's that has become the case.  However, from a scientific and professional foresters standpoint, no.  "Old Growth, " only falls into some very clear parameters, depending on the forest biome it is applied to.

Jay C., I understand what you are saying and would have to agree, the term is relative to its biome, but as you mentioned earlier, is often subjected to some political influence. A 150 year-old northern hardwood stand could be considered old growth if the stand exhibits the characteristics that were devised by some person or group - basically this person or group sets a threshold and everything that meets or exceeds that threshold could be considered old growth. The Audobon Society, XYZ Consulting Foresters and the USFS will probably have different meanings of the term, mainly due to the differing goals and agendas. Conversely, a 150 year-old redwood stand probably wouldn't be considered old growth, given the species and its ability to live 100s of years. There is plenty of literature out there and over the years there has been great debate over the the meaning of the term.

My first post, which read that the term old growth was relative to the conditions, had third-party certification in mind. During last years audit we had to develop a guideline (threshold) for the tree species present in our area. We agreed upon a threshold age for each species and the presence of a certain amount of square feet exceeding a certain dbh. There were other criteria, but these were the two that could be readily measured. We also had to determine the difference between late successional and old growth. To put it simply: Industrial land does not have much late successional or old growth forest. Historically the land has been managed for fiber and not many areas were left undisturbed.

Jay C, back in the 90s we cut some beautiful wood just west of you in Randolph, Chelsea and Tunbridge. One piece I remember in particular was on Brocklebank Hill. I can remember coming over this rise on my skidder and just being in awe of the never-ending sea of hardwood trees we could see down through this one valley.

Ed       

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Hi Ed,

That area up by Tumbridge is still stunning.  You are lucky to have seen it.  One of the timber framing shops and saw mills I consult with is in E. Randolph just over the hill.  I go through Tumbridge all the time.  I have really enjoyed this post thread, and have learned much from it.  I can't say I learned more about "old growth," but I definitely have a better understanding of how complicated it's assessment must be for folks like you in the field. Hope we get to meet someday, till then.

Best Regards,

Jay