> On 12/1/95 Glenn Mroz wrote (excerpted from longer message) > I would caution, > however, that large trees that are large through intensive management > of growth rates are not the same as large trees that are large due to > centuries of slow growth. I am mostly familiar with old-growth > baldcypress that has a very tight ring structure. Some large diameter > second growth baldcypress have very wide rings in comparison. It is > well known that trees that grow faster do not live as long, so a > potential problem with "managed" old-growth is that it will probably > not be old-growth for very long. The dynamics will just not be the > same. I'm not so sure how well known it is that trees that grow faster do not live as long. This is certainly true across species: aspen doesn't live as long as oak or Douglas-fir. But within species (which is what is being discussed here), I'm not so sure that this is true. Coast redwood grows at an amazingly high rate when young, then slows down. Intensive management might increase growth rate while young, but if these trees are left alone, and assuming they are of long-lived species, I'm not so sure that they wouldn't live just as long. There are some assumptions here: that the wood properties have not been so changed that the trees would break up under mechanical load; that there no site limitations to longevity; and that anyone is going to allow intensively managed trees to sit there. But the main point is still valid: I don't think we know anything about differences in longevity between fast- growing and slow-growing individuals of the same species. Regarding baldcypress, I have seen some very old baldcypress in W. Kentucky which had extraordinarily wide rings when young, and only hit the brakes when older. Cheers, Tom Kimmerer University of Kentucky Kuala Lumpur
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0