The Hellbender Chronicles

Not only do they clearcut to favor their black cherry crop, but they also seed it! Where are the acorn farms, the beechnut farms, or the hemlock farms? Allegheny Hardwoods? I don't think so. Cherry tree farm is more like it.

Yeah, it's fairly ridiculous that the Forest Service constantly denies they are managing for black cherry when right outside Marienville there is a black cherry orchard explicitly for reseeding sites with specimens that grow 'taller, straighter, and faster.'

Abrams and Ruffner's analysis of witness tree records agreed with
Whitney's pretty closely. They correlated it to specific landforms, and
found hardwoods more dominant on plateau tops and hemlock limited to
valleys and hollows. Note, however, overall only 1% black cherry component
across the entire region (Whitney found 0.8 for just the High Plateau).
Here's the abstract:

M. D. Abrams and C. M. Ruffner,1995. "Physiographic analysis of
witness-tree distribution (1765-1798) and present forest cover through
north central Pennsylvania." Canadian Journal of Forest Research
25(4):659-668.

ABSTRACT: This study analyzed witness-tree data recorded from 1765 to 1798
with respect to landform in four major physiographic provinces represented

through north central Pennsylvania. These data were also compared with
present-day forest composition to evaluate broad changes that occurred 200
years after European settlement. In the Allegheny High Plateau, Tsuga
canadensis (L.) Carr. represented 40-47% of witness trees in mountain
coves and stream valleys, but only 9% on plateau tops, which comprised 45%
Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. Pinus strobus L. represented ltoreq 4% frequency
across all landforms. The original forests of the Allegheny Mountains were
dominated by mixed Quercus, Acer, Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh., and
Pinus and had significant T. canadensis only in stream valleys. The
presettlement forests of the Allegheny Front and the Ridge and Valley
provinces had a similar mix of Quercus, Pinus, Castanea, and Carya, with
increased P. strobus on the more mesic sites and Pinus rigida Mill. on the
xeric ridges. Comparisons of presettlement with present-day forest
composition indicate a dramatic reduction of T. canadensis (32% to 4%)
and F. grandifolia (33% to 12%) in the High Plateau and increases in Acer
(11% to 37%), Quercus rubra L. (0% to 10%), Prunus serotina Ehrh. (1% to
6%), and Betula (5% to 10%). Other units exhibited reductions in P.
strobus, P. rigida, Quercus alba L., and Carya spp. and increases in
Quercus prinus L., Q. rubra, Acer rubrum L., and P. serotina. Castanea
dentata had its greatest abundance on higher elevation sites in each
physiographic unit, and the elimination of this species this century
apparently facilitated the increase in Q. prinus and Q. rubra on ridge
sites. South of the Allegheny Plateau, increases in A. rubrum, P.
serotina, and other mixed-mesophytic species may be in response to
fire exclusion this century. The results of this study indicate the
importance of landform and physiography on presettlement forest
composition as well as the dramatic changes that have occurred as a result
of altered disturbance regimes following European settlement.

I dug up another paper (literally: it was at the bottom of a pile on my
desk) which i think is the basis for Ken Kane's semi-coherent statement
about soils in the SFI newsletter: R. Aguilar and R. W. Arnold,
"Soil-landscape relationships of a climax forest in the Allegheny High
Plateau, Pennsylvania," Soil Science Society of America Journal 49:695-701
(1985). The last sentence of the abstract does state that
"Shade-intolerant species, such as black cherry, commonly occur on shallow
soils on steep slopes where frequent canopy openings associated with
blow-downs have allowed their establishment." However, the paper stresses
that hemlock and beech are dominant throughout the whole area (Tionesta).
Only one soil type in the region favors black cherry after blowdowns in
the manner just described: the "coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Ochreptic
Hapludults" (isn't soil terminology great?) found "on very steep slopes in
the convex creep slope and upper shoulder landscape positions." However,
north and northeast slopes still contain "virtually pure stands of
hemlock." All other soil types in the area support true climaxes with
hemlock and beech dominant (yellow birch, sugar maple, and on one soil
type, white ash are important minor components).

A more important point, of course, is the vast difference between natural
disturbances and logging.

*Jean Fike of PNDI, in Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of
Pennsylvania (DCNR, 1999) says this: "The division of the natural world
into discrete categories is an artificial process. The landscape displays
almost infinitely complicated patterns of variation, occuring at many
scales, and changing constantly over time. For practical reasons, it is
useful to simplify this complexity, to assign it to "pigeonholes" that we
can understand and work with. It should not surprise us that the natural
world resists this reduction."

Plant community types as understood by botanists are descriptive, not
prescriptive. Thus, while Fike includes a type she calls Black
cherry-northern hardwood forest ("characterized by at least 40% relative
cover by black cherry and . . . most characteristic of the Unglaciated
Allegheny Plateau"), that should by no means be construed to refer to some
eternal, ecological verity, as apologists for the timber industry would
have it.

Ruffner and Abrams published a paper in the Natural Areas Journal this past April on disturbance history in the Tionesta Research Natural Area on riparian, slope and upland sites.
They put black cherry at 1% of the upland site, 0.8% of the slope site and 0% of the riparian site.
They also suggest that earlier accounts for disurbance frequency (1,000 - 2,000 years) might be inaccurate. They claim that a more accurate disturbance frequency would be 210-630 years, still much longer than the even-aged regime in place today.

Thank you, Dave. It should take a few days to digest that info.

I did an informal trout count on Church Run this morning and was generally enjoying the dense overstory. (.8% Bl Ch). Between the gloomy sky and and the thick canopy, it was nearly dark at 8AM. I was pleased with the mature forest when I happened upon an ancient stump that must have been 4 1/2 feet in diameter. I was cowed by the sight. I didn't see a tree half that large all morning. (Trout = 0)

Ryan,

Back to original topic. In reply to my inquiry, the DCNR clarified the Allegheny Hardwood question.

"Allegheny Hardwoods has not been established as a forest type in Pennsylvania. This term is used to identify U.S. Forest Service research for the development of a scientific prescription model for the management of the black cherry and other northern hardwood forest types on the Allegheny National Forest. This model was developed and is continually being refined by the U.S. Forest Service, Northeast Forest Lab on the Allegheny National Forest. Allegheny Hardwoods Silviculture (SILVAH) has been established as the name for this research and the model. The focus of current research is on the development of guidelines in the model for the oak forest types."
Mark W. Deibler
Chief, Silviculture Section

On another subject, I have two questions about the American Chestnut. 1) The highest number I've seen on A. Chestnut in the orignal forest composition is 6%. Was this the extent of it?
2) I found a 25' Chestnut tree on a ridge above the Clarion River. I am 80% certain it is American. I still have some work to do on the ident. Is it unusual to find a 25' American Chestnut tree in the Southern ANF?

Rj

Please remember that the labels are your own.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: