Primeval Forest Article

[kantuckid]

The Jan/Feb Smithsonian magazine has an article, r.e. a man named Robert Leverett, who is what I'll call an amateur forestry enthusiast. He hikes the Mohawk Trail State Forest in MA as mentioned in the article.
 The discussion revolves around the fact that there are a few primeval remnants of forests left in the USA. Their criteria is that the trees in the tract are 150 years old and have been left intact from human removal, alteration, etc..
As a forest owner, I found it interesting overall, especially the large tree measurement info..  I was bothered that the opportunity to read a forestry article in a major publication has zilch about modern forestry benefits & practices while leaning heavily toward the preservation of what are far and few between remnants that do exist. I also found it unrealistic to have suggested that an experienced logger or forester wouldn't know how tall an old tree might be?
Another illogical contention is the heavy emphasis on how important these very few primeval tracts are toward saving the climate when a far more logical conversation is easy enough about the main bulk of our countries forests that don't qualify.  
 The article is what I'd call more about a forest as a "Zen" experience potentially or primer for exciting The Sierra Club membership or Nature Conservancy to coffer up more dough for these few places with old enough trees.
 
To link the article type "Smithsonian forestry article" into google search and it easily comes up first in line. 

I look forward to both experienced and professional replies after you've had a chance to read the article. For myself it's what I'll call provocative. Enjoy!  

[Kodiakmac]

Well, I gave it my best - but I gave up about halfway through.  It follows the theme of most articles that appear in publications such as National Geographic and Canadian Geographic: if only we all had that special zeitgeist and sensitivity that blesses The Anointed Few.

As you pointed out, some of the claims are just plain silly, but would be lapped up without question by a lot of the intended audience.

[kantuckid]

I read NG from ~8th grade in 1950's until a few yrs back and wokeness killed my subscription.
Smithsonians trying hard to do the same thing for me.
 
That said, the article I mention has some interesting thoughts on tree measurement and remnants of old tree plots plus ages for some old trees in MA that are thoughtful info. Maybe I need to read up on ZEN activities? :D

My main reason for the thread was that a major magazine is suggesting some serious climate & ecological gain from keeping these old plots, that escaped logging or development, when in fact they are extremely few and far between and at the same time a forestry article choosing to minimize the value of modern forestry practices. Offers a glimpse of how some people think about our forests and whats worth emphasis and the funds to protect.  

[PoginyHill]

Isn't the climate value of forests to sequester carbon? I don't have a paper to back my opinion up, but it seems to me an old forest doesn't use as much carbon as a more vigorously growing forest that is well managed. What is the volume increase per acre per year of an old growth forest versus one that is rapidly growing from good management?

[kantuckid]

In the article (which you should read to gain full understanding of their way of looking at this), it states that these old trees that escaped long ago harvesting, they are a more valuable means to sequester carbon than as happens within a planted stand. My first thought was that given the rarity of these old trees it's sort of like using antique car values, etc., towards modern cars, in any sort of way? In my state there are extremely few of these rare trees plots. On my own land I do have a goodly number of trees in the 150yr plus range the article mentions, but my boundary doesn't qualify based on the articles criteria of those 150+ aged trees not being all the trees that were once found on this plot. Primarily Chestnut Oak & Hickories, plus a few Red oaks & White Oaks here bouts. 
I just don't get their point in what I'll call over valuing a few rare plots mattering except as scientific or Sunday "take a hike" spots. 
FWIW, I think I rode really close to the guys MA tree spot some years back at a VT motorcycle rally where NY, VT, MA & PA come together. 

[Texas Ranger]

Robert Leverett is big in the big tree game.  I belonged to a group, forgot the name, that he was involved with looking for big trees in eastern US.  Did not know he was big in the carbon sequestering game.  Found the group:  ENTS, Easter Native Tree Society. A brief look at the opening paragraph to their blog.

The Eastern Native Tree Society was originally established to accurately measure and record the tallest trees, historical trees, and ancient forests of Eastern North America. Eastern North America has been graced with forests of fantastic beauty and diversity. These forests have been heavily impacted by development, disease and human utilization. This unfortunate history has diverted our attention from the remarkably huge and ancient forests which have survived this catastrophe. Even today we are finding the largest and oldest trees ever recorded for some native species. The tallest white pine ever accurately recorded was recently documented in the Cataloochee district of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The oldest trees ever recorded in eastern North America have been recently discovered along the Black River, in eastern North Carolina.  ENTS will store data on accurately measured trees for historical documentation purposes, scientific research, provide an archive for information on specific trees and stands of trees,  and to resolve big tree disputes. 

[SwampDonkey]

There is a place for old growth, I like to look at old trees, more than I care to cut. Most I've had experience with are not all that valuable as forest products go, but value for wildlife and sight seeing. Love to see a big old 40" rock maple with a hard 10 degree lean in fall colors. ;D Interestingly, I have not looked at their publications in probably 30 years. I lost trust in them a long time ago. :D

Nice big spiral groove in this old maple to go along with it. Something to be cherished. ;D

[kantuckid]

Robert Leverett comes across as a very interesting person and I did see the point of his big tree measurements discussion. I wonder how his tree measurement info. might have any effect on all the various lists of 'biggest state trees"?
 Where I got off the article's points were when it was suggested that these old forest remnants held much carbon potential and also the wokeness aspect which added zero to the overall article.  
Another publication referenced in the article is Woodland Steward, which I'm not familiar with. 
Some of the general comments made toward sizes of remaining large trees didn't jive with huge tree sizes I've read in past comments about the original pre-white settlement of the USA. 
The article prompted my memory bank back to my earliest hikes in Smokey Mtn NP and walking next to fallen chestnut trees with diameters exceeding my own height. I also thought about some trees pictured in the Foxfire series of books and my USDA NF history book pics. 

[SwampDonkey]

I've seen tree height measurements go the other way, here in the east. How do I know? Tree measurements with a tape measure on downed trees I am very well acquainted with, which once stood taller beside one estimated to be as tall with a clinometer and tape. And I mean off by several feet, 15 feet in fact. 75 feet and not 90 feet. Diameter has only been correlated, with high confidence, with height, when trees are dominant and not over topped. Since none of us have been around 150 to 500 years, we can only have confidence in stands of modern management. Those correlations are made on 50 year old managed trees we are well familiar with, in even aged stands. :D  What you find in stem analysis is the growth rate of the stem cross-sectional area increases along the stem upwards in suppressed trees, but decreases in dominant trees. This is associated with long-term changes in live crown length/height. Crown changes in diameter are generally greater than the rates below the crown. Taper is faster in suppressed trees than tall dominant ones. Thus fat suppressed trees measured at DBH do not fit the model for estimated height classes, based on their measured diameter only.

[ppine]

There are forests in every state older the 150 year old criterion.  But have systematically harvested most of them. 

One of my pet peeves now are all of the "scientists" and journalists writing about forestry issues.  Part of the problem is that a lot of forestry programs in universities and shrunk to levels that are not recognizable.  My own Univ of Washington used to have a College of Forest Resources with 4 departments.  Now they do not even have an undergraduate program in forestery, just a few courses.

Listen to foresters and use caution when listening to anyone else. 

[peakbagger]

13000 years ago the spot I am sitting in was under a couple thousand feet of ice. The ground is still rebounding from weight of it. The glacier moved and scraped just about everything down to rock. Every plant tree and animal had to recolonize the area. This has happened multiple times and the current interglacial period is getting bit long in tooth.  

[moodnacreek]

Mass. is a tree hugger state where they ignore science.

[Don P]

That issue had been in the pile in the "library" I finally read the article the other day. I enjoyed it. Funny that he grabbed Jack Sobon when he needed to see how tall a tree was and started another round of tree measuring  :D

[ppine]

Most of the old growth on public land has been protected in National Parks, wilderness areas, state parks and other land ownerships.  Lots of private old growth is protected but some gets harvested every year. 

Old growth forests are important as places to study because they are so different than younger age class forests.  They have closed canopies, little understory, large accumulations of wood debris, ands high mortality.  They typically have mortality that exceeds growth.  In short they are not very healthy.  

Some people seem to attribute all kinds of special values to old forests.  They can be emotional for many people.  I like to visit old forests, but in terms of forest management they are a dismal failure.  

[twar]

Old growth forests are important as places to study because they are so different than younger age class forests.

Old growth forest is an important reference point. It shows which species (of everything, from fungus to mammals) come and go as the forest is allowed to run its course. To get a better idea of the mechanics of the forest ecosystem--which in important in forest management--we need to let some areas, some reference points, "run their course".

but in terms of forest management they are a dismal failure

Yes, they are, but so are a lot of other things if measured solely with an economic yardstick.