Deep Creek

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

Post Reply
User avatar
bbeduhn
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:23 pm

Deep Creek

Post by bbeduhn » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:51 am

Deep Creek is home to a couple of world records, including tuliptree and sourwood. We did a family hike to see a few waterfalls. Knowing the Smokies, there would likely be some tall trees. Deep Creek didn't disappoint.

The measurements are all point and click, quick measurements from the trail. Some trees may have been under measured. The pines are mostly growing in solitude, among the rhododendron. These pines appear to be in the 80-110 year range. One grove, which has less rhododendron growth, has even aged trees. It is northeast facing. I measured just the one tree but several others appeared to be fairly close in height. It appeared to be in the 65-80 year range. After returning home, I located more groves by satellite. There is plenty of potential at Deep Creek. The live hemlocks look verdant and luscious.

E white pine P. strobus (edit: I've removed the 175.6' tree. It is a bit shorter and will be in the following reply)
165.2' 50.35m 160.6' 48.95m 157.6' 48.03m 156.7' 47.76m 147.2' 44.86m

shortleaf pine P. echinata
115.7' 35.26m

Virginia pine P. virginiana
102.2' 31.15m

sycamore P. occidentalis
139.0' 42.36m

tuliptree L. tulipifera
145.0' 44.19m

E hemlock Ts. canadensis
109.0' 33.22m

User avatar
bbeduhn
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: Deep Creek

Post by bbeduhn » Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:34 am

I got back to Deep Creek and measured a good deal more. The new white pine groves didn't yield too much aside from one 150'. They did yield some nice, fairly large and verdant, hemlocks, as well as some nice shortleafs. The hemlocks are the finest trio I've seen in the Smokies since the adelgid plague. The primary white pine grove that I got back to had some excellent heights but not the 170's I had hoped for. I had one pine to 175', but I have removed it. Everything on the top measurement matched up but the bottom measurement did not. It had been cold and perhaps the clinometer stuck. I got multiple measurements and there are no 170's in that grove but one came close.

Curiously, the chestnut oak outperformed white oak and several red oaks in the same spot. The reds were not even close in height.

E white pine P. strobus
163.5' 49.83m 162.3' 49.47m 157.3' 47.94m 155.6' 47.42m 150.5' 45.87m 148.7' 45.32m 148.5' 45.26m

shortleaf pine P. echinata
128.8' 39.25m 120.7' 36.79m 117.6' 35.84m 110.8' 33.77m 110.0' 33.52m

pitch pine P. rigida
112.5' 34.29m 111.0' 33.83m 109.8' 33.46m

E hemlock Ts. canadensis
133.6' 40.72m 128.0' 39.01m 125.5' 38.25m

tuliptree T. liriodendron
148.5' 45.26m

sycamore P. occidentalis (remeasure)
141.5' 43.13m

chestnut oak Q. montana
133.5' 40.69m

white oak Q. alba
121.9' 37.15m

black locust R. pseudoacacia
119.7' 36.48m

Biltmore ash F. biltmoreana
116.2' 35.41m

Virginia pine P. virginiana
93.1' 28.37m

Post Reply

Return to “Great Smoky Mountains National Park”