Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by Will Blozan » Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:03 am

Larry,

Where did you get the age on that cherrybark oak? I seriously doubt it is 200 years old- more like 130 I would guess.

Will

User avatar
Larry Tucei
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by Larry Tucei » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:58 pm

Will I took a guess. Were not the biggest Pines around 240. I just thought that this tree would have been older similar to the big Pines. Larry

User avatar
James Parton
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:47 pm

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by James Parton » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:39 am

Oh, yeah. I remember that oak!
James E Parton
Ovate Course Graduate - Druid Student
Bardic Mentor
New Order of Druids

http://www.druidcircle.org/nod/index.ph ... Itemid=145

User avatar
Tyler
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by Tyler » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:23 am

Will, Larry,

I would think that most of the big Congaree cherrybarks are around 100-125 years old. If suppressed in the shade for a few decades some may be close to 150 years old, but I doubt it.
I know of one oak species that has been aged to 200+ years and it is in the white oak family. Swamp chestnut oak 205 years.

Tyler

User avatar
Larry Tucei
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by Larry Tucei » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:14 am

Tyler, Wow that's impressive growth rates. Can you imagine how big 300 year old or older trees would have been at Congaree before White Man!!!! Larry

samson'sseed
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:02 am

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by samson'sseed » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:39 am

Conversely, there is an area behind my parents house in Evans, Georgia with a bunch of spindly loblolly pines, sweetgums, and water oaks.

Most of the trees are a few inches in diameter, crowded together and growing a poor soil.

My parents moved into that house in 1979.

In over 30 years it appears that almost none of those trees have increased in size.

User avatar
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by Will Blozan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:27 pm

Larry Tucei wrote:Tyler, Wow that's impressive growth rates. Can you imagine how big 300 year old or older trees would have been at Congaree before White Man!!!! Larry
Larry,

A 300 year canopy occupancy for a cherrybark, shumard, or any other oak in Congaree is highly unlikely. Hurricanes, rot , and flood damage likely thwart efforts to remain standing much over 150 years. It is probable that what Congaree currently exhibits is the "norm" for the ecosystem. Not all old-growth forest have trees of ancient age, and I suspect in CONG only bald cypress and perhaps some Nyssa species surpass 300 years.

I am not sure we "white men" had much to do with how things currently look at CONG as far as big trees go. CONG is in all likleyhood a fast turn-over forest type with big trees ephemeral and relatively short lived. This dynamic should not be juxtaposed against an idealised view of pre-European influence.

Will

greenent22
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:23 am

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by greenent22 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:42 pm

eliahd24 wrote:
So, once again the amazing growing ability of an open grown oak tree in a region with 50" rain/year is shown. And large size does NOT equal old age!



~Eli
quite true. OTOH, I think people also go the opposite way just as often. They are so used to measuring so many lawn grown giants (and trees in rich coves and such) that they then toss off deep forest grown trees in poorer soils and colder climates that are 125-250 years old, as likely being just 60-90 years old.

User avatar
eliahd24
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:17 pm

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by eliahd24 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:24 pm

That's definitely true. Open grown and forest grown trees are truly separate categories. Apples and oranges- no comparison. And then when you mix in length of growing season, soil type, climate and rainfall, you get a whole slew of other variables as well.

User avatar
Bart Bouricius
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:41 am

Re: Once again, LARGE SIZE doesn't equal OLD AGE

Post by Bart Bouricius » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:36 am

Larry,

Of course we all know that trees in non forest open environments put their growth primarily into crown spread and trunk girth, but this tree is reasonably tall as well as fat. Your contention about CO2 probably has merit, and as CO2 rises globally it does seem to impact all trees generally to some extent. I still need to contact someone about estimating the age of the truly massive Giant Ceibas in Peru that I just posted about, because I have no clue how old they actually are.

Post Reply

Return to “Georgia”