I am doing T.S.I. in South-Central NY. I am discriminating against black oak in favor of red oak in a 70 year mixed age, mixed species oak northern hardwoods stand. Can anyone make clear to me how to distinguish between red and black oaks. I usually can´t get up to the leaves to see the orange hairs. There may be some new leaves on the ground but I can´t rely on that. there are older leaves from last year and sometimes acorns but mostly I have to look at the bark, and perhaps the tree structure.
While we are at it let me know how to spot the differences between red and scaralet oak. I usually can see the shape of the scarlet oaks in the crown but sometimes can´t and then would like to tell what it is from the bark.
A real easy way to tell black oak is to drill a small hole in the bark with your pocketknife. When you pull out the inner bark, black oak will be yellow. It is the only oak like that.
Red oak will have a smoother bark. As the trees age, black oak bark will be more broken, and red oak will be smoother.
Scarlet oaks often have a more pronounced flare at the butt. The bark is also rougher than red oak.
After you get to tell the difference on a few trees, it will be a lot easier.
Leaves aren't the best way to determine tree species. They taught us leaf ID when I was in college. Then fall came, and you couldn't depend on the leaves on the ground, since they could have blown in.
So, I learned to tell trees from their form and bark. My first job out of college was to grade and scale logs. Tree form was out, so I was left with bark ID.
Now I saw debarked logs, so now I have to do ID by what the wood looks like.
I sure hope I don't have to ID trees by it's sawdust!
Ron, After years in the saw booth that is how I usually i.d trees. They have to be neked! No bark, no problem.
To add to the other tips on identifying red Vs. black oak: Black oak will have rough bark on the lower 2/3 of the tree and smoother bark above that. Red oak will have rough bark on the lower 1/3 only. Red oak will also have narrow flat or slightly indented striations in the bark. They look like ski trails wandering down the trunk.
In my area, scarlet oak never sheds limbs when they die. It will have dead limbs from top to bottom. It doesn't shed these dead limbs, like most trees do. Here they also have a flared, "narly" butt, right at ground level and extending up for 2-3 feet. These two attributes make it a very low value tree here. (Some researchers think this is actually the chestnut blight fungus working on this species).
Just to throw this at ya, I had the "perfeshinal" out ot look at my trees to be logged out. He showed me the black, red, and white differences and how to tell them from each other. Then he kept going back to some and was kinda perplexed and finally said they had to be a red/black cross. They had characterstics of both and could not be completely one or the other. He said he had not seen much like that before. JB
Yes, some reds and blacks on the same site can be very difficult to tell apart and may be so similar that the may be considered a "cross". Then again, where they are on different sites apart, they stand out to be quite different with the very different characteristics as perviously mentioned and are easy to tell apart.
I'm sure that some good quality black oaks have been sold or sawn as red oaks.
"This conversation is really confusing me. I was taught that there were two types of Oaks in the New World, White and Red. Black oaks were a common name for some of the trees in the Red oak family.
Now, because of this thread, I've gone back to my reading and find that there are 4 subgeneras to the genera, quercas
Quercus also called leucobalanuys-white oaks, Erythrobalanus-black oaks (also called red oaks), Protobalans-golden oaks and Cyclobalanus- ring cupped oaks.
Golden Oaks are found in western North America and ring cupped oaks are tropical.
That leave the bulk of the country with two commercial oaks, Black and White. :-/ I was always told Red and White. Laurel Oaks, Water Oaks, turkey oaks etc are Red Oaks to me along with the Southern Red Oak. I have never had to consider a Black oak as a genus or subgenera.
Things have all of sudden gotten real complicated for me. I'm in a situation where a color I have always known as one name is really known as another name. Red is black? ::)
What am I gonna do?......What am I gonna do? (worry, worry)
I wouldn't know a Black Oak if you were to hit me on the head with it. :P
I'm trying to read this ARTICLE (http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/arboretum/arbnews/natnotes2001/Text_Only_Version_of_The_Oaks_As_Simple_As_Black_and_White_November_7_2001.htm)
Tom,
It can get confusing in a large stand of "mixed oak" when one has to determine the volumes of red, black, and white oak for sale. Especially when a " black oak is a red oak" and "white is different".
I do several of these type timber sales each year. Once one sees enough of them; the differences between the trees and their shape, form, texture, color, leaves, etc gets easier. I was marking black oak in a mixed stand today.
I'm sure a sawyer who cuts a lot of them knows the difference best.
But Ron,
My confusion really comes from being told that the two types of oaks were white and red. Black never really entered into the conversation.
I've been told that Black oak is just what northerners call some species of red oaks. Articles I've read say that Black and red oaks are the same.......black oaks are red oaks, .......red oaks are black oaks, ..........black and red oaks are different.
I'm panicking! My foundation is cracking. Not only can I not find "The" answer but get different stories from each author.
Now, the easy way to tell is cut into the bark and the inside will be yellow if it's a black oak. Well Laurel oak has red inside and so does water oak. Are they Red oaks or Black oaks?
Yeah, I know that quick ID tricks don't always hold true but I'm on the verge of nervous breakdown here :D
This conversation just might be revolutionizing Forestry in the Southeast. :P :) I might have to go on a lecture tour. Do you think I should except checks or stick with cash? :D :D
I am not an "expert" but it is my understanding that for commercial purposes there are two oaks- red and white. Of the many different subspecies they all fall into one family or the other- red or white. When buying or selling some of the subspecies will not have the same value but will still be considered either red or white.
I know this does not answer all of the questions but I was getting pretty worried about Tom and thought maybe I could help avoid serious health problems for him by giving my opinion.
Dewey
I don't know doodly squat about identity of standing oaks without their leaves. I study drying. In PA, my customers have showed me oak that they said was Black. It was literally very red. and it was harded to dry than what they called Red.
Recently, I dried White and Chesnut oak. I thought chesnut was a White oak but it was much easier to dry.
There's more variations of oak than you can shake a stick at. After you have the subspecies correct, don't forget the climate, soil conditions and probably it's zooligical sign.
Tom you know better then to ask that question. You set the standard my man.
You will be paid in peas. ;D
Ah yes, Peas. That will be interesting. It will keep me from having to go to the grocery store for peas for the sawmill. I'll just drive my truck to the lectures and put'em right in there. ;D
That is, if I can figure out this Oak thing :P :-/
Go to your quiet place... deep calming breaths...... It cant be that important, and it wont matter in the end because when they end up staining it with formby's Walnut it will all look the same anyway. HA! I didn't think bringing up a topic from 11 months ago could be that interesting. Then again, I kinda like to know all the details and am a little anal-idical myself at times. I have the white figured out easy enough and keep whackin em down. JB
More than you needed (or wanted) to know about oaks
As was previously stated all oaks fall into two categories, red or white. Beyond that level red oaks fall into either "true red oaks" or "willow oaks". White oaks fall into "chestnut oaks" and "true white oaks". Keep in mind this is speaking botanically, most of the time they are just red or white when you're talking about wood.
Red Oaks
True - Northern Red oak, southern red oak, scarlet oak, black oak, blackjack oak, pin oak, ect.
Willow- willow oak, shingle oak, water oak
White Oaks
True - white oak, bur oak, swamp white oak, ect.
Chestnut - chestnut oak, chinkapin oak
No here's where it gets complicated. The definition of species means a little something different to some plants than you would usually think. Many plants, including oaks within each group, red and white, can hybridize with one another and produce fertile offspring. Then they might backcross with a "pure" specimen. So after a few generations you might get something that's 90% red oak 10% black oak or whatever. Certain regions are more likely to produce certain types of hybrids. In the bluegrass region of KY, shumard and red oaks hybridized a lot, in NW Ohio bur oak and swamp white oak will hybridize. This can lead to a forester occasionally scratching their head, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't know their ID skills, just that they're having a problem putting it in one category or another.
If you think oaks are complicated, try to ID Rubus spp. (blackberries/raspberries) or Crategeaus (hawthorns), where you not only have backcrossing issues but also polyploidy confusions. Genera like that will make you think term "species" is rather insignificant.
For purposes of a sale here in Southern Indiana only Red and White oak are specified. When I start falling and milling my own trees I will differentiate between the two because the finished wood has different characteristics that I think matter to the local woodworkers. Fortunately for me I have a number of qualtiy real red oaks. The lumber from this tree is one of my favorites.
Here, northern red oak is much higher in stumpage value over white oak and black oak so one needs to know the difference when appraising timber.
I agree Ron. I always specify the difference when marking or inventory, I didn't mean to imply that the differences are meaningless.
Northern red oak is our best oak for the most part too. It is easy to tell by the mottled bark. Locally it is know as spotted oak or water oak. While doing TSI and selecting one species over another, a guy needs to remember the species that does the best one one side of the hill may not do well at all on the other or at the foot of the hill or the top of the hill etc. It is really an eye opener when you do your own logging and sawing. Seems like we have a few places where black oaks do really well but you don't see any northern red oaks there. This is usually on ridgetops.
Noble
John,
I tend to think of myself as analytical too, but my friends say I can't get past the 4th letter :-/
Your email to me the other night about white / red oak got me to thinking..... I blew a fuse. I am with Tom... stop the World, I need to get off :)
klh
I always specify the different oaks, and so do other consultants. There is a marked difference in the quality of lumber coming from black oak vs red oak. The same goes with chestnut oak vs white oak.
In some areas, veneer will be bought from black oak, and others not. They will not buy chestnut oak as veneer.
Pin oak is a red oak, but I'd never pay too much for it. The lumber is knotty, prone to shake, and it stinks.
The original 60 acre portion of my land that I bought first is predominantly an oak forest. From what I have gathered there was a fire that moved uphill from the northwest some 100 or so years ago, burning most of my acerage, but seemingly stopping near my southern property edge. when looking at aerial photos this scenerio makes sense, as there is a definate difference to the south of my property line. that is there are pines along my southern boarder but very few on my lot. my land has not had any cutting done since the fire except for my own work and seems to be an even aged stand with many different diameters. most of the trees I have cut show around 100 rings regardless of diameter. in fact i have counted over 50 rings on standing dead trees that were only 6-8 inch in diameter. the property directly to the north was heavily harvested some 8 years ago with large quantities of oak taken out.
to get to the point.
now that I live near this woodlot I have been out there to harvest many times I see real northern red oaks with very straight boles and clear wood growing mostly on north facing slopes. as I travel up hill and get near the crest the forest changes toward more gnarly and twisted shorter black and pin oak with just a few true northen reds. passing over the crests I notice more cross species then more true reds untill i get to the bottem then again true reds on the uphill north facing slopes. I have only noticed this due to the many trips I have taken along the main woods road over the past year.
however the quality of the wood doesn't seem to be strictly related to the black/red idea, although I will say that most of the pin oaks are of poorer quality. the following may sound stupid but it is true. regardless of wether a single tree is black, red, or cross if it is good quality it is good quality almost all the way through, and if it is bad it is bad all the way through. I think the quality, at least here in my forest has to do with competition. much of my forest is very dense, with little or no undergrowth, and it is usually in those sections that the quality trees are found. the only other generality I have found is that the ridge top trees tend to be poor and many blow downs are found there.
sorry for foaming at the mouth at length here, but I am amazed at how my understanding has changed since I have become much more familiar with the woods. I will add one more thing before I quit. there isn't really a lot of elevation change, something around 100 feet max. I own the highest point in my town at 515' and am all up on the hill, with the lowest point being the merrimack river at I think 350'
This thread and especially woodsies last post reminded me of the passage from Horace Kepharts book camping and woodcraft. I have posted it before but though I would again. Its a great passage.
SAMENESS OF THE FOREST. --
All dense woods look much alike. Trees of most species grow very tall in a forest that has never been cut over, their trunks being commonly straight and slender, with no branches within, say, forty feet of the ground.
This is because they cannot live without sunlight for their leaves, and they can only reach sunlight by growing tall like their neighbors that crowd around them. As the young tree shoots upward, its lower limbs atrophy and drop off.
To some extent the characteristic markings of the trunk that distinguish the different species when they grow in the open, and to a greater extent their characteristic habits of branching, are neutralized when they grow in dense forest.
Consequently a man who can readily tell one species from another, in open country, by their bark and branching habits, may be puzzled to distinguish them in aboriginal forest.
Moreover, the lichens and mosses that cover the boles of trees, in the deep shade of a primitive wood, give them a sameness of aspect, so that there is some excuse for the novice who says that "all trees look alike" to him.
The knowledge of trees that can be gained, first from books and secondly from studies of trees themselves in city parks or in country wood lots, must be supplemented by considerable experience in the real wilderness before one can say with confidence, by merely glancing at the bark, "that is a soft maple, and the other is a sugar-tree." And yet, I do not know any study that, in the long run, would be more serviceable to the amateur woodsman than to get a good manual of American trees and then go about identifying the species in his neighborhood.
Having gained some facility in this, then let him turn to studying peculiarities of individual growth. Such self-training, which can be carried out almost anywhere, will make him observant of a thousand and one little marks and characteristics that are sign-boards and street-numbers in the wilds.
WHAT TO NOTICE.--
After a novice has had some preliminary training of the kind I have indicated, so that all things in the woods no longer look alike to him, he will meet another difficulty. His memory will be swamped!
It is utterly impossible for any man, whether he be red, white, black, or yellow, to store up his mind all the woodland marks and signs that one can see in a mile's tramp, to say nothing of the infinite diversity that he encounters in a long journey.
Now, here is just where a skilled woodcraftsman has an enormous advantage over any and all amateurs. He knows what is common, and pays no attention to it; he knows what is uncommon, it catches his eye at once, and it interests him, so that he need make no effort to remember the thing.
This disregard for the common eliminates at once three fourths, yes, nine-tenths, of the trees, plants, rocks, etc., from his consideration; it relieves his memory of just that much burden. He will pass a hundred birch trees without a second glance, until his eye is riveted by a curly birch. Why riveted? Because curly birch is valuable. In the bottom lands he will scarcely see a sour gun, or a hundred of them; but let him come across one such tree on top of the ridge, and he will wonder how it chanced to stray so far from home.
And so on, through all categories of woodland features. A woodsman notices such things as infallibly, and with as little conscious effort, as a woman notices the crumbs and lint on her neighbor's carpet.
The oaks have lead to a good discussion as I thought that I was the only one that had to do a "double take" sometimes when identifying a specific oak tree in the woods. They can really vary in character in accordance to the ecosystem they are growing on especially when there are the two groups of oak, "white and red" and" black" oak is in the red oak group.
One could also get into discussion of identifying southern red oak from northern red oak, but I'd leave that to someone else, like the poor forester working in their transition range.
The USDA-Forest Service has and still is doing studies on oak, especially on regenrerating northern red oak in Michigan, the higher valued lumber species here. They still have an Administrative Study which originated in 1983 going on here on the Manistee National Forest in concert with the North Central Forest Experiment Station.
Woods
What you are experiencing is a change in site. Red oak generally tend to grow on better sites. Those sites are often at the base of a ridge or can be in NW or NE facing coves. The soil is deeper and better drained.
Better quality timber is found in north and east facing slopes, since the south and west slopes tend to be drier.
I doubt you have pin oak at the top of the ridge. Pin oak grows in very wet areas. I've seen them near creeks or rivers and bottomland areas.
I'm thinking you have scarlet oak. They don't prune very well, either.
Oaks have loose morals :-X :
Den, that chestnut oak has no tyloses...or very few, that leaves the cells open like a red. I'm guessing thats why the drying was not normal, tight cooperage buyers don't want it, temperance wine casks :D Moisture left through the staws instead of having to diffuse through the walls.
Our local park has a gnarly butted scarlet in a stand I've posted chestnut blight pics from. They say the flared gnarly butt is from the blight too.