Just wondering what makes wood old growth? What makes it new? I always hear how Old Growth is better, I am logging some of my Property, I do sections every winter and I always hear how the Lumber that come off my Property is Real nice, this goes for the soft and hard woods.
I know some of this Property has never been touched ( At least in the last 60 Years )and I know some of it was farm land pastures many many years ago.
So I was just wondering how many years does it take to make a tree called Old Growth.
Good questions Joe. And a definitive answer will be mostly in the mind or the imagination of the beholder.
Wood is wood, for the most part.
There is no clear definition. Different people and organizations site different specs. I'd argue it really depends on the forest type. Some people say its anything older than 80 years old, some people think it is a lot older.
Old growth is "better" because it usually grows more slowly, with lots of competition to make it straighter, with less knots. But you could have a gnarled POS yard tree thats 400 years old. I don't think age is a very good indicator of anything.
Even environmentalists aren't really talking about age when they mention old growth, they are talking about height and diameter.
If you see unusually large trees for your area, and that species, you might have something special.
Agree, it's a vague term.
What I would suggest is that you need trees that grew in an already established forest. These tend to be forced to grow tall and straight to reach the light. They shed their lower branches early, so all the wood they lay down in the trunks is straight grained and clear.
Some forests never really become "old growth" because they are shorter lived trees, or they burn regularly and regenerate from relatively clear ground again. Others, especially the "temperate rainforests" , like the Pacific Nth West or here in NZ you have VERY long lived trees in a stable forest system.
A Redwood or Kauri pine grown in open conditions, or even a "young" forest is a very different tree to one that germinated in a established forest. But it might take several hundred years for those conditions to develop, then several more centuries for mature "old growth" to mature. But we are talking tress that could live for 1,000 years. This is why there is so little of the "undisturbed" forest left. Even if it's properly managed, the forest dynamics are changed. Younger trees, grown faster in more open conditions, and that shows in the wood produced. So Douglas Fir grown on a plantation here in NZ is a very different wood to what would be sawn from a 500 year old tree in it's natural home.
Ian
Hi Joe.G,
I was a zoology major in college, with one minor in botany, (never finished, went Marine, and never looked back,) so what I'm about to write is from a zoology perspective, influenced by 40 mixed years in the bush. Some of this is book stuff, some observation.
"Old Growth," has come to mean many things, as KBforester and Ian pointed out, there are different definitions/names for what ecologist/biologist would call: undisturbed success or multi-generational forest biomes....and it rambles on from there. In a nut shell, if the tree grew in a forest that has not been disturb by a major geologic, fire, climatic event or biological collapse, (that is were man or other vectors play in the most,) and the trees can reach mature ages (200 to 800 years depending on species, and location) then you have: "old growth wood."
Not all old growth is good wood, some species do better young than old, such as Red and Black oaks, and perhaps a few more of the genus Quercus, as an example. Different regions of the world can have older or younger, "old growth forest." Some may only be two hundred to three hundred years, while others, like in parts of Asian, are measured in millenia. You probable have some really nice "mature trees," but it is doubtful if they would fall in the category of "old growth," That being said, you can find relics, that slipped by the ax or saw.
Regards,
Jay
I guess if the tree you find is still standing, yes it indeed slipped by the axe or the saw.
Bottom line, wood is still wood. ;D
I still have some old trees. My father was born in 1923 and it was never logged that he could remember. Yes,they cut some wood for logs,but with him and his Father cutting they never put a dent in it. I did have alot of white pine. My Father and me started to log it until his death. Some of the white pine was starting to get red rot. It was time for them to be cut. Those were 80 years old easy. We cut some hard wood,just about the same age.Old growth? I have no idea. Trees old,yes there were and are. There was some good size trees on our land.
I always took old growth to mean the area had never been logged. Which here in the UP is almost nowhere. The second growth would come up after the first cut. For example, a lot of the forest I cut in is second and third growth. The big prime "old growth" stuff was cut early to middle 1900s. Then the leftover pine and hardwoods were cut. Now im cutting what was left and the regen.
In a hardwood thinning this is a real grey area.
Hi thecfarm,
Those could very well be the "relic," I referenced. It is important that you pointed out that the old pines were starting to get red rot. From a forest production perspective, old growth forest are not always that productive or, in many cases, the wood isn't that good. I would also note, that a forest can come down by other means than logging.
Our modern logger, forester and sawyer, are doing a lot of good for our forest through there activities. Writing purely as a scientist, I find old growth forest fascinating and glad we have/are trying to preserve the few special ones we have left. That said, I think to many of the "greenies," I tend to hang around don't even begin to understand the real relationship man could/should have with his environment.
I remember the research that came out of the archaeology field a few years back, stating they found evidence of my ancestors burning huge tracks of land all through modern day New England. Why would they do this? Well where do you think the Eastern Bison, and Elk lived. Now, here is a culture of people, living in direct contact with their environment, managing it for their perceived needs. Did they burn all of it? No, but they did live in it and as part of it. If we, as foresters/loggers/sawyers tried to clear cut twenty or thirty thousand acres of, what is becoming over-grown New England forest of today, people wood have an absolute fit. It is funny how man can change his understanding of the world he is part of, in just a few hundred years.
If I was lucky enough to have a large forest with some of these old relics, (I did have some white pine over 200 years, I cut them down immediately, except for a few I'm saving,) they would be slated for removal and replanting, unless I found some reason not to, because that is what is best for the forest I'm part of.
Regards,
Jay
Jay,I tell the "green" people if we don't cut it,Mother Nature will. That's how it is in my Little World,all 150 acres. ;) It's nice to walk in the areas that have not been cut yet. But I can tell it is time to do something.
QuoteI tell the "green" people if we don't cut it,Mother Nature will.
That is great, I like that one. :D They just don't seem to get that? They so often think they are doing the world good or are being a "real" part of the environment by their many misguided actions. It's frustrating "straddling the fence," on so many of these issues for me. I must admit, most loggers I know would not want to be alive if they didn't have a forest to be working in. I just don't understand why some folks think we are doing something bad.
I cut sections of my land every winter Like i stated, i do this because I am trying to keep it healthy ( Of course the money doesn't hurt either ) I tend to have the same guy back every year, but I have had other do some cutting along with what I cut, they all seem to like the wood on my property, the soft wood goes to my buddies lumber yard/mill and he say's that is it is top notch wood, the hard goes off to another yard. I was just wondering, The loggers i have had in he don't think it has ever been cut before so I just wasn't sure if that was the reason for the quality wood,
Joe
Any idea how a logger can take a tree and decide from that tree (or the lot of those cut) and determine that there had never been a previous cut before?
I don't think that this can be determined for any degree of certainty.
to determine if an area has been cut before you can look for several things. machine tracks, stumps from previous harvests, tree bottoms damaged from skidding. looking at the growth rings you can see rings get smaller as the tree was crowded. if they suddenly increase in size you might be seeing the increase in growth when a harvest opened up more growing room.
We call-em first growth, we ran in to a big White Pine once in awhile. These were trees that were missed by the early loggers. By the spider web of railroads that covered the Chippewa National Forest in the early 1900's. 40 yrs ago i cut a lot of first growth poplar, average about 36" on the stump.
The biggest White Pine i cut cut was on a hill by Lost Lake. I remember measuring the butt at 72"s, but i might have been cheating a little bit. I cut the butt cut 12' long, my dads C5-D would barley pull it. It was to big to winch off the ground or the skidder was to low, i had to drag it.
Heres the only reason we have a Chippewa National Forest here in MN.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/novdec04/chippewanf.html
Beenthere pretty easy on my land,no stumps. ;) I keep saying I'm going to look at the tax map and count up the acres My Grandparents owned,I guess at 1000 acres.
How long do you think stumps will stick around? ;)
A 3 foot hemlock stump or a 3 foot white pine,many-many years. You don't get trees 3 feet across by going in and cutting them every 5-10 years. :( Some of the ones we was cutting was heading toward 4 feet.
My understanding is that there are very very few acres of timber in the Eastern US that are "virgin", never cut before. Very very few.
Lots and lots of trees were cut years ago and lots and lots of smaller trees were just mowed down in the process. Probably the small ones that were just knocked down by the big ones are the size that we are cutting now. Everyone thought at that time there was an unless supply of trees. As my Father use to say,Now we have the equipment to haul out the big trees,they are just about all gone now. he was talking about trees around in this area. I would not even know where to even look for a virgin forest in Maine.If there is such a thing.
Previous old growth discussions.
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,50493.msg729451.html#msg729451
QuoteHow long do you think stumps will stick around?
A botany/dendrology acquaintance did his PhD on old stump decay and forest aging... something along those lines, cant't remember exactly. What I do recall is his loose rule of thumb when about stump age. What ever the age of the tree, that's how long you will have the stump, loosely. Fire, geologic events, etc. can all effect that. He said he had seen Cypress stumps over 1700 years and there has been older.
That would be highly species dependent.
I wonder how he knew that cypress stump was 1700 years old. Carbon dating?
Maybe count the rings? smiley_bucktooth
Hi WDH,
Yes, very species dependent. He would not use stumps near swamps, bog and the like, he said it could through his collected data askew, because a stump or fallen log could be ten thousand years old or older in those conditions. Water, especially "tannin" water, can be a great preservative for wood.
Hey Okrafarmer,
He took coring samples and some samples also received carbon dating as one of his controls for the study.
Regards,
Jay
I lived about 25 miles from the Lost Forty, i'm about 50 miles from it now. This coming summer i'm going to get over there and get some good pictures.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_016469.pdf
http://vimeo.com/8783430
Quote from: JOE.G on December 30, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
So I was just wondering how many years does it take to make a tree called Old Growth.
"Old Growth" is generally a relative term and can be whatever the person or entity wants it to be, given the context of the situation.
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.
Regards,
Jay
I always thought old growth means trees that have not been cut since the discovery of America. That is the way I look at it...
Hi Holmes,
That wouldn't work either, for you can have other events that take down a forest, (i.e. geologic events, climate, disease, fire, etc.) First Nations people in many regions removed thousands of acres of forest, with fire to promote grazing animals like Bison and Elk. Those forests have not had "old growth," for thousands of years.
Regards,
jay
Near where I went to school there is a 508 acre preserve of old growth the Estivant Pines.
They are most impressive and to think a lot of the UP once looked like this.
The oldest trees are about 600 years old and the site has not been logged.
Now where I live out west there are many areas with bigger trees but for MI it is pretty impressive.
http://www.thingstodointheup.com/estivantpines/
Hi DRB,
I can't really tell from the photos if that would be an "old growth" forest, but it sure looks like it. Thank's for posting that. I would say for White Pine species the individual trees are "old growth," let see what some of our FF Foresters might say.
Regards,
Jay
I always looked at old growth as meaning a tree or stand of trees that were close to reaching their full age potential. Different trees have different age potentials so putting a hard number on "old" won't work across the board. My neighbor had an 80 acre parcel that was dominated by enormous sugar maples with a few other species mixed in. One of the mature maples fell down in a wind storm so the owner cut it up for firewood. I counted the rings on the stump...250+ years old. Based on its height and distance to the first branches it likely started its growth in the shade of other trees so the area likely had not been cut or burned prior to it starting out and it reached an uncommon old age, even for a sugar maple. In my opinion, that tree was old growth. It and the other multiple trees like it in that parcel were impressive to stand under.
We are kind'a brush'n up against the same things now. "Old Growth Forest," vs. old or mature trees. You can have a forest that has many tree's that are very old even for it's species, that doesn't make them "old growth," or the forest they grow in. If folks in general could see a broad range of real "old growth," forests, it would probably make more since to them. Unfortunately we do not have that many. I have seen a number of forest around the world that meet that standards for "old growth," forest, and they are magnificent. There are some "hollows," in the Carolina's that have some, but they are remote and very small, some may not even be considered a forest any more.
250 years is very old for some Maples, but in what would be considered an "old growth," forest that had Maples in it, they are just a little past middle age.
Hartwick Pines is only about 40 miles north of Pig-roast Central ;D, right off the highway.
Sampling from the website...
QuoteHartwick Pines State Park is the largest state park in Michigan's northern lower peninsula. Fittingly, it also contains the largest stand of virgin white pines remaining in the lower peninsula. Visitors can relax in the Michigan Forest Visitor Center and learn more about Michigan's forests in an exhibit hall that focuses on the history of logging, forestry, and the numerous ways we utilize trees in our daily lives. It also is the main interpretive center for the 3.9 million acre state forest system managed by the DNR—the largest state forest system in the United States. Visitors are also invited to experience the Logging Museum buildings, where you are taken back in time to life in a 1880s logging camp and explore the history of the white pine logging era, when most of Michigan's northern lower peninsula was covered with the huge, majestic trees that still can be seen here. In addition to the virgin pines, the park has a good mixture of other forest types that typically grow on the sandy soils found in this part of Michigan. These habitats include northern hardwood forests (beech and maple), jack pine and oak forests, and lowland conifer forests (cedar, spruce and tamarack). Several small lakes, the East Branch of the Au Sable River and its associated streams and wetlands further add to the diversity that makes this park very attractive to wildlife.
http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/viewingguide/nlp/59hartwick/index.htm
In my disqualified opinion, "Old growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, unthinned, unmanaged, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle. The tree has to also reach maturity and the size expectancy range of its species to qualify.
Consequently, old growth trees tend to have narrower growth rings, and more heartwood than new growth or managed trees. They also tend to have been overshadowed as juveniles, causing them to reach for the sky at a young age, leaving a typically tall and straight trunk and no lower limbs upon maturity. If unaffected by disease, their growth rings will be rather consistent in thickness after leaving the center juvenile wood. There will be the differences of good years versus bad years, but little changes over time.
That's my idea of Old Growth. Probably a different idea from anybody else's.
Quote from: Okrafarmer on December 31, 2012, 07:09:23 PM
In my disqualified opinion, "Old growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, unthinned, unmanaged, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle. The tree has to also reach maturity and the size expectancy range of its species to qualify.
Consequently, old growth trees tend to have narrower growth rings, and more heartwood than new growth or managed trees. They also tend to have been overshadowed as juveniles, causing them to reach for the sky at a young age, leaving a typically tall and straight trunk and no lower limbs upon maturity. If unaffected by disease, their growth rings will be rather consistent in thickness after leaving the center juvenile wood. There will be the differences of good years versus bad years, but little changes over time.
That's my idea of Old Growth. Probably a different idea from anybody else's.
You and I appear to be thinking along the same lines Okra.
Jay- I would agree that "old trees" and "old growth forests" can be two very different things. It seems logical to me that a old growth tree as defined by Okra hits on a lot of the needs that have to be met to have both. Would you consider a young tree in an old growth forest to be old growth? I would consider Cathedral Pines here in Wisconsin to be both old growth forest and old growth trees. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=496 How do you see it?
I agree with okra,also. There's an old growth hemlock grove/stand here in western ma.thats said to be over 400 yrs it's on the side of a steep mtn, ledge all around which kept roads from being built to harvest it.
If you have an old growth grove,your lucky.Here in new england virtually all the forest were logged in the 1800s,and the new growth was knocked over in 1938 from the hurricane.I hve cut some large w/pine but I think they were 3rd growth as most where 60-75 yrs and only 110' tall.Good growing soil ;D .
:new_year:
QuoteOld growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, un-thinned, un-managed, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle. The tree has to also reach maturity and the size expectancy range of its species to qualify.
Well, I wouldn't call my self an expert by definition. I am well read and follow those that are considered experts, so considering what I have learned, I'd say we have a winner in
Okrafarmer's definition. It is almost too good to call it a lay definition, good going.
Considering among experts there is some deviation, I would say Okarfarmer's take on it is 95% and that's about what you get in the science as well, for understanding these complex biomes.
Great assessment.
Regards,
jay
P.S. Okarfamer: I just reread what you wrote, and if you came up with that off the "top of your head," I'm truly impressed-great definition. Jeff should put this somewhere as a flag reference for folks/students that ask this question. It could be the "Forestry Forum definition of the "Old Growth." :) I wish I could be that concise when I define things...I use too many big words, too often...
It could be added to the Forestry Forum Dictionary, to amend the brief description that is in there now, but I'd want some of the Foresters to give it the blessing first.
Hi Jeff,
That sounds great to me. ;D I would gladly act as Okarfamer's vetting defender, if he will have me. That definitions is as close to text book as I have seen. Someones going to really have to show me their sited literature, to dismiss Okarfamer's understanding of the word. It's short, it's concise, and he uses common and easy to understand language. I hope the FF Foresters concur.
Thank's
Jay
:D I thought the old growth was the part that separate's from the young growth when not dried slowly 8)
Quoteentire forest climax cycle
so that means, it planted itself by seed, grew up to full size?
So this one im playing in again, a 1906 planted Eastern Red cedar stand dosnt qualify as old growth, but the 5 foot dia cottonwood would? All the boxelder, and Red oak mixed in their is all smallish at 6 to 20 in dia, Whereas their was a few Red oaks at 30 -36 in dia , solid at the other end of the field with smaller ones around them, in random order. O and just for the people that wanna know, growth rings on the cedar were hard to see, and about a 1/16th to an 1/8th.
I'm not sure I maybe understanding everything you just said and/or asked shelbycharger400, but no, a 1906 stand of Eastern Red Cedar would not by any definition be close to an "old growth, " forest. (Maybe, for that species, 800 to a thousand years, then that forest they are in would have climaxed and started a new "old growth" cycle.)
The Cottonwood is most likely not old growth either, out of context of it's location, just big. We have some really mature forest, and well maintained old forest and remnant forest, but very few "apex" forests, (just a different word for "old growth.") Most big trees are just that, big, not ancient which in time some could become like the cedars you describe. If they are left alone to grow to full age, about 800 to 1000 years, then start a new generation, you would be seeing a transition old forest, into apex.
I read quite a bit about how Old Growth wood is better then new growth wood, DO you guys notice that?
Yes, Joe G. but take into account the details of the source and the species they are referring to. In Arborvitaes, true Cedars and Cypresses, that could very well be the case, but in many of the hard woods, I would say roughly only about 30 % would benefit from being allowed to mature to anything past there mid life span, and your loss rate would be tremendous not to mention the soil types.
Temples in Japan buy entire forest to protect them for use in there temples repairs and reconstruction and most of the wood in those forest are never touched because, even though they may be "old growth," trees, they are not in the correct soil or the proper location in the forest to form, "good wood," and they will be passed by for a younger tree. Hope that helps a little bit.
Regards,
jay
So, a stand of dwarfed out 250-300 year old Juniper Cedar, untouched, never thinned and so on would be old growth? What dictates the "climax" tree species? Majority? If a tree drops seed and it grows, is that not starting a new generation? I'm not arguing just asking ;D
QuoteSo, a stand of dwarfed out 250-300 year old Juniper Cedar, untouched, never thinned and so on would be old growth? What dictates the "climax" tree species? Majority? If a tree drops seed and it grows, is that not starting a new generation? I'm not arguing just asking
Hi CCC4,
Even if you had been arguing, ;) that would be o.k. too. We need debate, if it is civil, it's good for the blood. You asked a good question and it's why this is such a confusing subject.
A forest can have dominate (climax) species of tree(s) depending on the type and location of the forest. "Climax," doesn't just describes the specie(s) it describes the state of the cycle the forest has achieved, as Okrafarmer stated it.
QuoteOld growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, un-thinned, un-managed, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle.
Yes to your second question, when they start a new generation in succession with all the other characteristics of an "old growth," forest, it is now reaching a climax cycle.
Regards,
Jay
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.
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 fire_smiley
When you think about climax forests, you have to think in terms of centuries. What is time to Mother Nature?
Quote from: WDH on December 31, 2012, 11:15:18 PM
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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! :-X
:new_year:
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.
This thread went way deeper then I expected. It is a good read.
Quote from: Jay C. White Cloud on December 31, 2012, 04:01:13 PM
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
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