3
$\begingroup$

I hiked up a ~5000 ft mountain in upstate New York. As I ascended, the trees became less tall. That makes sense to me, because of the harsher environmental conditions. I also observed that the trees became much closer together, as the altitude increased. I am struggling to explain this. Why do these two effects happen?

First image below: Tiny trees, very close together, ~5000ft

Second image below: Mid height trees, somewhat close together, ~4000 ft

Third image below: Tall trees, spaced far apart, ~2000ft

Tiny trees, very close together, ~5000ft

Mid height trees, somewhat close together, ~4000 ft

Tall trees, spaced far apart, ~2000ft

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is it not that the trees grow wider as they get taller? $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Oct 10 at 3:31
  • $\begingroup$ Are you saying taller trees are also wider, and therefore have to grow further apart, to avoid interfering with each other? Can you give other examples of environmental conditions (not altitude) which stunt trees and cause them to grow closer together? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 11 at 10:29
  • $\begingroup$ look up the term "tree line" $\endgroup$
    – John
    Commented Oct 18 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ Question is, how do conditions just below the treeline influence the spacing between trees? Logically one might imagine that trees get further apart just below the tree line, due to tough growing conditions, but the opposite is true empirically... $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 19 at 21:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To me, it is unclear towhat extent the 5000ft picture is showing individual trees growing closer together or several small trunks or branches coming from one or a smaller number of trees. In Picea at high altitudes it is common to find them crawling close to the ground and/or with several apical tips (due to harsh environmental conditions). This does not invalidate the question, and the answer from @bob1 is a good starting point. My feeling is just that you might be misinterpreting the first picture a bit. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6 at 14:52

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I'm not from North America, but I think there are a few factors at play here that might answer your question.

  1. There are several species of tree present in your photos. The 2000' photo shows both hardwoods identified by @Eonema (thanks for all of the ID's) as Acer rubrum (Red Maple), A. saccharum (Sugar Maple), and Picea rubens (Red Spruce). The middle (4000') shows mostly a conifer species, which is Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea) with some hardwood Sorbus americana (American Mountain Ash). The top (5000') is the conifer Picea mariana (Black Spruce). Each of these different species have different habits of growth. Conifers tend to grow a single strong trunk with a cone-shape of relatively small limbs. Hardwoods have a different structure with a trunk that spreads and divides into several strong branches to produce a wider top or middle than bottom (arrow head shaped) or a very wide flat top. These different growth forms mean that you get wider spread of the trunks at lower altitudes, where the hardwoods exist. Conifers tend to be tougher, so often grow to higher altitudes than hardwoods. There are also species of plants that are specialist alpine growers and have forms that are naturally short or procumbent.

  2. Competition. In all environments organisms, including trees compete for resources. In lowland sites, resources tend to be more abundant than they are at higher altitude. This means more free water, more nutrients etc, so plants tend to grow taller. Taller also means wider in the context of trees. In all spaces, competition for light is a big factor. If you observe carefully, saplings of hardwood species under the canopy tend to be thin and not very wide until they reach the canopy, where they spread out - this is from competition for light. At higher altitudes, the plants grow slower and as height and width are somewhat correlated in trees, they tend to be able to grow more densely.

  3. The climate is also gentler at lower altitude - less very strong sunlight, higher temperatures (in general), rain rather than snow/ice, less wind. This means that plants tend to grow faster and get bigger as they have longer growing seasons and are more protected from the elements than at high altitude.

  4. Wind. In exposed places, particularly near ridge tops, there is less to impede the wind, so you get stronger winds. This leads to something called krummholz or wind shaping. It results in low mat like forms of the trees and often includes "tree flagging" (see last two images on Wikipedia page for krummholz above) where you get a stem with branches pointing away from the prevailing wind direction. It is a very strong factor in plant height in exposed places, resulting in shorter stem lengths, and wider and stronger trunks. This effect is thought to be a major driver in shape and height of plants at altitude (see this article for more information).

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 2,000 ft photo is Acer rubrum, A. saccharum, and Picea rubens; 4,000 ft is Abies balsamea and Sorbus americana; and 5,000 ft is Picea mariana :) $\endgroup$
    – Eonema
    Commented Oct 15 at 0:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Eonema Thanks. I'm not good at North American trees. Didn't spot the Ash in the 4000 ft photo. $\endgroup$
    – bob1
    Commented Oct 15 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ So at ~5000 ft Picea mariana is growing only ~12 inches tall with only a few inches between individuals. In lowlands, the same species usually grows much taller and more spaced out. High wind, cold, weaker sun, more snow/ice: these factors likely cause the ~5000 ft individuals to remain short. Shortness correlates with lower width. And low width causes a higher density, due to less competition between individuals for light and water. Is that a reasonable summary? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16 at 0:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @have_beard_will_ski I think a procumbent/scrambling form of the plant there - basically leaning over with the trunk more or less parallel to the ground and branches radiating from that, or a lack of an obvious trunk, more lots of branches from one spot. The branches etc might touch the ground and root themselves in spots, which would make it hard to tell, but I don't know how much conifers do this. Basically one plant forming the mat rather than lots of plants, so actually low stem density... $\endgroup$
    – bob1
    Commented Oct 16 at 1:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... mostly because of the low chance of a seed finding a good microenvironment (warmth, free water, not too windy etc.) suitable for growth of young tender shoots at altitude. Once the mat has formed. it might be suitable for growth from other individuals though, so you might get localized patches of high stem abundance all within one krummholz mat. $\endgroup$
    – bob1
    Commented Oct 16 at 1:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .