1

WILLIAM B. LEAK, Research Forester, and MARIKO 

YAMASAKI, Research Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, New 

Hampshire 03824

United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

Research Note

NRS-144

Historical (1899) Age and 

Structural Characteristics of an 

Old-Growth Northern Hardwood 

Stand in New York State

William B. Leak

Mariko Yamasaki

Abstract

Based on records taken during a harvest operation in 

1899 on more than 400 trees in a northern hardwood 

stand in upper New York State, age and structural 

characteristics, including growth patterns, were 

developed and summarized. Age and size characteristics 

indicate that this was an exemplary old-growth stand 

similar in character to current old-growth examples 

in the northeastern United States. Th e purpose of this 

paper is to add to the available information on oldgrowth stand characteristics in the Northeast.

INTRODUCTION

Old-growth forests in the eastern United States have 

received special concern and attention over the last 

several decades, partly because of their relative scarcity 

and partly because of their special and enlightening 

characteristics. By “old growth,” we mean stands that 

have never been harvested but that may have experienced 

moderate natural disturbances from wind, native insects/

diseases, or fi re. Th ese stands are of particular ecological 

interest because they serve as benchmarks for maximum 

sizes, ages, deadwood, and soil development.

Th e characteristics and concerns over eastern old-growth 

forests were well summarized at the Sixth Eastern Old 

Growth Conference, held in 2004 in New Hampshire 

(Bennett 2005). Th is conference addressed the elusive 

defi nitions of old growth (Cogbill 2005), strategies for 

locating this scarce resource (Ingraham 2005, Kane 2005, 

Leverett 2005, Stoddard 2005), structural and areal 

characteristics (Chandler 2005, Hagan and Whitman 

2005, Snyder 2005, Teeling-Adams 2005, Van de Poll 

Citation: Leak, William B.; Yamasaki, Mariko. 2012. 

Historical (1899) age and structural characteristics of 

an old-growth northern hardwood stand in New York 

State. Res. Note NRS-144. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 11 p.
2

2005), disturbance history (White et al. 2005), nutrient 

relationships (Goodale 2005), wildlife habitat (Hagan 

2005, Yamasaki 2005), implications for sustainable 

forest management (Frost 2005, Keeton 2005a), 

watershed impacts (Keeton 2005b) and threats including 

development (Niebling 2005, Smith 2005), and biotics 

(Frelich 2005). Additional research has documented 

long-term changes (Martin and Bailey 1999), age 

structures (Leak 1975, 1985), and additional threats such 

as invasive species (Knapp and Canham 2000).

Recently, a series of tabulations (Form U.S. 558a) were 

found in Northern Research Station fi les, Durham, New 

Hampshire, that provided data taken from felled trees on 

a cutover old-growth stand described as St. Regis Tract, 

Township 14, New York State(quite possibly, the area 

known as Macombs Great Tract #1 of 1792) (Personal 

communication from J. Jenkins, Adirondack Wildlife 

Conservation Society). Form 558a (revised 1928) was 

commonly used to record tree measurements for volume 

table construction. However, the data on these forms 

had been copied from earlier forms dated 1899 (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry), which 

included age and 10-year diameter growth at stump 

height (about 2.5 feet), age and diameter growth at 

the top of the fi rst log (about 15 feet), as well as the 

upper logs, total height, and some additional tree/site 

characteristics. According to Spurr (1952), the growth 

records were probably taken along a radius equal to 

one-half tree diameter to provide consistency and avoid 

bias. (See Appendix for an example of the 1899 USDA 

Division of Forestry form). Th e forms used in this 

analysis were bound in the same folder and presumably 

came from the same stand.

Th e stand was harvested in 1899, apparently by the 

diameter-limit method, common in that period, removing 

all merchantable trees of about 14 to 15 inches d.b.h. 

and larger as well as a few smaller ones. So the record 

includes entire stand characteristics above about 14 to 15 

inches d.b.h. Th ere were no notes indicating that this was 

considered an old-growth stand. However, the size and 

age characteristics described below speak for themselves. 

Data from dominant trees in another similar stand, 

located in the same region, were previously used for a 

detailed analysis of long-term growth trends (Leak 2011). 

Th e present paper concentrates on old-growth stand 

characteristics.

METHODS

Th e entire sample consisted of 241 sugar maple (Acer

saccharum), 95 beech (Fagus grandifolia), 77 yellow birch 

(Betula alleghaniensis), 12 basswood (Tilia americana), 

and 7 soft (red) maple (Acer rubrum); trees with excess 

rot that hampered age/growth determinations were not 

used (primarily yellow birch with 31 rejected samples). 

Th e species mix with high proportions of sugar maple 

and the presence of basswood indicates an excellent site. 

Data from the forms were simply tabulated, graphed, 

and described as follows. Th ere are no records of the 

acreage of the stand that was sampled; probably it was 

large. However, a sample of 463 sawtimber trees likely 

would represent at least 10 acres. Due to the harvesting 

protocol (few trees harvested below about 14 inches 

d.b.h), the sizes and ages are truncated to some degree at 

the lower end, which limits a strict, numerical analysis of 

distribution characteristics.

AGE AND SIZE

Tree age at stump level (2.5 feet) ranged up to about 

300 years for sugar maple and beech, up to more than 

350 years (368 years maximum) for yellow birch, and 

a little less than 200 years for basswood and soft (red) 

maple (Fig. 1, A-E). Th ese ages generally exceed the ages 

found in well-known New England old-growth areas 

such as Th e Bowl Research Natural Area (Leak 1985) 

where maximum recorded ages for sugar maple, beech, 

and yellow birch were 175 (n=47), 258 (n=46), and 267 

(n=24), respectively (Leak 1985). However, keep in mind 

that the numbers of samples in Th e Bowl were less than 

in the New York stand, which would limit estimates of 

maximum ages. Maximum ages of sugar maple and beech 

in the East Tionesta old-growth forest in Pennsylvania 

(Hough and Forbes 1943) were 420 and 366 years, 

respectively, while yellow birch also attained a maximum 

age of 366 years.

Th e relationship of age over d.b.h. was poorly correlated 

for sugar maple and beech (r2

 = 0.27 and 0.09, 
3

Figure 1.—Age at stump height over d.b.h. for A. sugar maple, B. beech, C. yellow birch, D. basswood, and 

E. soft (red) maple.

respectively), but considerably better correlated for yellow 

birch (r2

 = 0.51). Th is refl ects the intermediate shade 

tolerance of yellow birch, a species that does not survive 

and grow well under a closed canopy.

Sizes ranged up to 34 inches d.b.h. for yellow birch, a 

little less than 25 inches for beech, and between 25 and 

30 inches for the other species.

A

C

B

D

E
4

TOTAL HEIGHT

Total heights were not unusual: up to about 100 feet 

for all species, with a few taller individuals of sugar 

and soft maple. Th ere was a slight and variable positive 

relationship between height and tree d.b.h. (Fig. 2, A-E).

SIZE/AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION

Th e size-class distribution (number of trees over 2-inch 

d.b.h. classes) for sugar maple, beech, and yellow birch 

shows some evidence (above 15 inches d.b.h.) of the 

typical declining, somewhat J-shaped, trend typical of 

most older northern hardwood stands (Fig. 3, A-C). 

Below 15 inches d.b.h., the distribution would be skewed 

due to the limited harvesting of smaller trees.

Th e age-class distributions (Fig. 4, A-C) centered on 

trees of about 200 years of age or a little less; again, the 

lower portions of these graphs would be aff ected by the 

harvesting regime. Th e shapes of these graphs are fairly 

similar for all three species, showing a broad range in tree 

age. Sugar maple and beech regenerate consistently under 

a closed canopy, perhaps with small-scale disturbances. 

Due to its intermediate shade tolerance, yellow birch 

regenerates and survives only under moderate to 

heavy canopy disturbances. Th e wide range in age of 

this species indicates that such levels of disturbance 

were quite common in the study area. Detailed age 

distributions from Th e Bowl Research Natural Area 

(Leak 1975) in New Hampshire show that sugar maple 

and beech in old-growth forests typically have welldeveloped, inverse-J-shaped distributions down to the 

youngest age class, while yellow birch tends to have a 

skewed normal distribution. Th is refl ects the tendency 

for yellow birch to regenerate and survive poorly under a 

closed canopy and to depend on natural disturbances to 

become established (Peterson 2000).

DIAMETER GROWTH

Diameter growth records showed that 10-year d.i.b. growth 

at both the stump height (Fig. 5, A-C) and top of fi rst 

log (Fig. 6, A-C) were extremely variable. Th ere are some 

indications, with yellow birch especially, of a decline with 

increased d.b.h., but not a very distinct relationship. Average 

values (Table 1) show rates of about 0.9 to 1.5 inches over 

a 10-year period. Values at stump height are variable and 

infl ated somewhat by the root swell. Growth rates at d.b.h, 

the typical measurement point for diameter growth, would 

be somewhere between the stump and fi rst log values. 

Th ese rates have been shown to be reasonably similar to 

current rates of growth (Leak 2011, Long et al. 2009).

CONCLUSIONS 

Based on ages and diameters of about 300 to 350 

years and up to 34 inches d.b.h, this New York stand 

apparently qualifi es as an excellent example of a northern 

hardwood old-growth stand. Th e high proportion of 

sugar maple and the presence of basswood indicate that 

the site was excellent. Maximum ages of 366 years have 

been reported for beech and yellow birch, while ages 

of up to 420 years have been reported for sugar maple 

in Pennsylvania (Hough and Forbes 1943). However, 

well-documented old-growth stands in New England 

(e.g., Th e Bowl) exhibit some lower ages for these species, 

somewhere within the 200- to 300-year range (Leak 

1985). It is uncertain why maximum tree ages by species 

vary from place to place.

Average diameter growth at stump height over a 10-

year period ranged from 1.52 inches (sugar maple) to 

1.12 inches (yellow birch), while rates at the top of the 

fi rst log ranged from 1.13 to 0.88 inches. Th ese rates 

are comparable to present-day growth rates, especially 

considering the excellence of the New York site.

Species Stump Height Top First Log N

(in.) (in.)

Sugar Maple 1.52 (0.04) 1.13 (0.03) 241

Beech 1.25 (0.05) 0.97 (0.04) 95

Yellow Birch 1.12 (0.06) 0.88 (0.04) 77

Table 1.—Mean and standard error (in parentheses) of 10-year (1889-1899) 

inside bark diameter growth at stump height and top of fi rst log by species
5

Figure 2.—Total height over d.b.h. for A. sugar maple, B. beech, C. yellow birch, D. basswood, and E. soft (red) maple.

A

C

B

D

E
6

Figure 3.—Number of trees by 2-inch d.b.h. classes for 

A. sugar maple, B. beech, and C. yellow birch.

Figure 4.—Number of trees by 20-year age class for 

A. sugar maple, B. beech, and C. yellow birch.

A

C

B

A

C

B
7

Figure 5.—Ten-year inside bark diameter growth at stump 

height by d.b.h. for A. sugar maple, B. beech, and C. yellow 

birch.

Figure 6.—Ten-year inside bark diameter growth at top of 

fi rst log by d.b.h. for A. sugar maple, B. beech, and C. yellow 

birch.

A

C

B

A

C

B
8

LITERATURE CITED

Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. 2005. Moving toward 

sustainable forestry: lessons from old-growth 

forests. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire 

Cooperative Extension Natural Resource Network 

Report. 82 p.

Chandler, D.S. 2005. Insect biodiversity in managed 

and old-growth forests. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. 

coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons 

from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University 

of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural 

Resource Network Report: 26-27.

Cogbill, C.V. 2005. Empirical dynamics: a process 

defi nition of eastern old-growth. In: Bennett, K.P., 

tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: 

lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension 

Natural Resource Network Report: 52-53.

Frelich, L.E. 2005. Earthworms as ecosystem engineers 

in North American forests. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. 

coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons 

from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University 

of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural 

Resource Network Report: 22-23.

Frost, E. 2005. Adaptive forest management and 

ecological forestry. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. 

Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons from 

old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural Resource 

Network Report: 28-30.

Goodale, C. 2005. Nitrogen retention in eastern 

old-growth forests: early warnings of nitrogen 

saturation. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. Moving 

toward sustainable forestry: lessons from old-growth 

forests. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire 

Cooperative Extension Natural Resource Network 

Report: 36-38.

Hagan, J.M. 2005. Birds in managed and old-growth 

forests of northern Maine. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. 

coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons 

from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University 

of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural 

Resource Network Report: 34-35.

Hagan, J.M.; Whitman, A.A. 2005. Biodiversity 

signifi cance of old-growth, late-successional, and 

economically mature forest. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. 

coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons 

from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University 

of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural 

Resource Network Report: 60-61.

Hough, A.F.; Forbes, R.D. 1943. Th e ecology and silvics 

of forests in the high plateaus of Pennsylvania. 

Ecological Monographs. 13(3): 300-320.

Ingraham. P. 2005. Finding rich mesic forest: a remote 

sensing and geographic information systems 

approach. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. Moving 

toward sustainable forestry: lessons from old-growth 

forests. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire 

Cooperative Extension Natural Resource Network 

Report: 66-67.

Kane, C. 2005. Aerial canopy signatures of old growth 

forest. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. Moving 

toward sustainable forestry: lessons from old-growth 

forests. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire 

Cooperative Extension Natural Resource Network 

Report: 65.

Keeton, W.S. 2005a. Managing for old-growth 

structure in northern hardwood forests. In: Bennett, 

K.P., tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: 

lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension 

Natural Resource Network Report: 6-11.

Keeton, W.S. 2005b. Eff ects of old-growth riparian 

forests on Adirondack stream systems. In: Bennett, 

K.P., tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: 

lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension 

Natural Resource Network Report: 39-43.
9

Knapp, L.B.; Canham, C.D. 2000. Invasion of oldgrowth forest in New York by Ailanthus altissima: 

sapling growth and recruitment in canopy gaps.

Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 127(4): 307-

315.

Leak, W.B. 1975. Age distribution in virgin red spruce 

and northern hardwoods. Ecology 56(6): 1451-1454.

Leak, W.B. 1985. Relationships of tree age to diameter 

in old-growth northern hardwoods and spruce-fi r. 

Res. Note NE-329. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 4 p.

Leak, W.B. 2011. Historical (1749-1899) vs. presentday sugar maple and beech diameter growth in the 

Northeast. Res. Paper NRS-16. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 4 p.

Leveritt, R.T. 2005. Strategies for locating new stands 

of old-growth forest. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. 

Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons from 

old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural Resource 

Network Report: 19-21.

Long, R.P.; Horsley, S.B.; Hallett, R.A.; Bailey, S.W. 

2009. Sugar maple growth in relation to nutrition 

and stress in northeastern United States. Ecological 

Applications 19: 1454-1466.

Martin, C.W.; Bailey, A.S. 1999. Twenty years of 

change in a northern hardwood forest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 123: 253-260.

Niebling, C.R. 2005. Can old growth be protected 

within working forests? Can working forest 

easements protect old-growth? In: Bennett, K.P., 

tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: 

lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension 

Natural Resource Network Report: 44-46.

Peterson, C.J. 2000. Damage and recovery of tree 

species after two diff erent tornadoes in the same 

old-growth forest: a comparison of infrequent wind 

disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management. 135: 

237-252.

Smith, N.P. 2005. Using conservation easements to 

protect old growth forests. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. 

coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons 

from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University 

of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural 

Resource Network Report: 47-48.

Snyder, E. 2005. Does size matter? In: Bennett, K.P., 

tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: 

lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: 

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension 

Natural Resource Network Report: 32-33.

Spurr, S.H. 1952. Forest Inventory. New York: Ronald 

Press. 476 p.

Stoddard, S. 2005. Using remote sensing to identify 

and map old growth. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. 

Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons from 

old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural Resource 

Network Report: 64.

Teeling-Adams, L.M. 2005. A comparison of fl oristic 

diversity in old-growth versus 100 year-old 

hardwood forests of the White Mountains. In: 

Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable 

forestry: lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, 

NH: University of New Hampshire Cooperative 

Extension Natural Resource Network Report: 68-70.

Van de Poll, R. 2005. Th e importance of coarse woody 

material in fostering fungal development. In: 

Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable 

forestry: lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, 

NH: University of New Hampshire Cooperative 

Extension Natural Resource Network Report: 57-59.
10

White, A.L.; Fraver, S.; Rowland, E.L.; Chokkalingam, 

U. 2005. Th e disturbance history of northern 

Maine old-growth forests. In: Bennett, K.P., tech. 

coord. Moving toward sustainable forestry: lessons 

from old-growth forests. Durham, NH: University 

of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural 

Resource Network Report: 24-26.

Yamasaki, M. 2005. Bats and small mammals in 

old-growth habitats in the White Mountains. In: 

Bennett, K.P., tech. coord. Moving toward sustainable 

forestry: lessons from old-growth forests. Durham, 

NH: University of New Hampshire Cooperative 

Extension Natural Resource Network Report: 62-63.
11

Example of an original USDA Division of Forestry tally sheet dated 1899.

APPENDIX
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED FOR PUBLICATION 12 OCTOBER 2011

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015

June 2012 Fax: (740)368-0152

Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us

Printed on Recycled Paper