Alpine Zones: Natural vs. Burned

Some of the peaks we know and love (Chocoura, Height) were burned and are not "bald" as a result of nature necessarily. Others were burned and now nature is taking back the views (Hale, Starr King).

My question is, which mountains in the North East (ADKs, Whites, Greens etc.) are considered to have an "Alpine Zone" which is actually the result of a fire rather than mother nature. I'm wondering if there are any that either we wouldn't expect (say, Liberty maybe?) or are there ones that scientists/geologists/etc. suspect could be the result of pre-white mountain history burns? How about ledgy/bald summits on mountains like:

Tremont
Jackson
Caribou
Isolation
Davis
Pierce
South Twin
Bondcliff (I thought I read somewhere that this summit burned once before)

I assume the Presidentials (Northern Peaks, Washington, Monroe) are true alpine zones but perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong. As are Marcy, Algonquin, Haystack, Skylight, Katahdin, Mansfield etc. Anyone?

-Dr. Wu

Though not really in the Whites, Mts Cardigan, Monadnock, and Kearsarge (South) all have "alpine" zones as a result of fire. I do beleive the fires were intentionally set in an attempt get rid of wolves, and the like in the 1700s and 1800s.

The bald summits of Rocky Peak Ridge and East Dix in the Adirondacks were both caused by fire. (I believe it was the same fire that burned both mountains)

It is said that Monadnock was burned to kill wolves, but in some research I have done I find little to support this and I think its an urban legend.

I'm not really sure about the mountains you list but I know that fire was used to alter the landscape by both Native Americans and colonials for different reasons. in the Catskills and the Shawangunks fire was used by berry growers to raze the underbrush and create more suitable ground for berries. Many of the ridges in the Hudson Valley area have been sculpted by fire repeatedly and intentionally.

There's a debate about the balds in the Smokey mountains as to whether they were created by nature or created by man. It is known that many of the eastern tribes used fire to create browse for game animals.

I'm wondering if there are maps available for the whites and ADK's that would show locations of past fires. It would be interesting to see....

Pemigewasset (Indian Head)

North (?), (Middle) Sugerloaf (Zealand area) As I remember from my youth

Wasn't Dickey and Welch burnt? -AMC guide talks about the stands of Jack pine on Welch that germinate only after a fire.

According to "Annals of the Grand Monadnock" a fire in the early 1880's (1805 or before) killed the trees with the wind knocking them down. The "wolf driving" fires were from 1810-1820. There were also fire in the later parts of the 1800's. Forest fires were in genral not faught til the 1900's.

Just a note: Bald Rock on Monadnock was bare when the first europeans arrived in the area.

Other mountains are probally bare also from grazing of livestock. The Wapack Guide has a picture of Mt. Watatic and most of the northern slope is pasture.

Add the Moats and the Baldfaces to the list.

funkyfreddy said:

I'm wondering if there are maps available for the whites and ADK's that would show locations of past fires. It would be interesting to see....

Click to expand...

The Adirondack Atlas has maps showing areas that were destroyed by fire, logged, or damaged by storms. The maps aren't highly detailed, but you can get a pretty good idea of what happened in different regions in the park.

Cool thread

Most of the south/east facing ledges were carved by glaciers.

I often wonder about the bald summits, if some were caused by naturally-started wildfires. On hot summer afternoons, I've seen lightning strike some very dry mountains.

I know about Monadnock, Cardigan, The Moats and whatnot. I'm interested in Bondcliff though -- I thought I read somewhere that it had burned.

Are the alpine zones on Garfield, Liberty, Flume and South Twin true alpine zones or the result of burns -- either recent history (1800's, 1900's) or prehistory.

-Dr. Wu

Mt. Everett

I don't know if you would consider the bald top of Mt. Everett in the south Taconics an alpine zone but it is believed to be fire-created rather than glaciated, although it is not certain. It's also believed that the fire cycle is about every 150 years and there is no recorded history of a burn, so conditions may be suitable for another, which would cause the pitch pines to produce fertile seeds.
It's a really interesting mountain. Here's a long discussion among scientists:
http://www.mounteverett.org/studies/12.pdf

lumberzac said:

The bald summits of Rocky Peak Ridge and East Dix in the Adirondacks were both caused by fire. (I believe it was the same fire that burned both mountains)

Click to expand...

Cascade's rocky dome was also the result of fire, as was Hurricane. Similarly, the LONG open ridge (right Zac ) on Jay Mountain was caused by fire. The same one in fact (1903).

I've actually been doing some reading on the Jay Wilderness and Hurricane Primitive Area. Despite the fact that All the peaks in these areas are well under 4000', many have bald, open summits with great views. Since the lowest TRUE Alpine zone in the Adirondacks is on 4500+' Wright Peak, these peaks would have been denuded of vegitation by other means. In many cases, it was fire, of which, the 1903 fire was the worst.

Peaks like Jay, Saddleback (Jay Range), Slip, Peaked, Knoblock, the Soda Range all have bald domes (or primarily do). Additionally, as an added benifit, many are very "bushwhacker" friendly, as the woods tend to stay hardwood, to mixed hardwood/conifer right to the top.

dr_wu002 said:

I'm interested in Bondcliff though -- I thought I read somewhere that it had burned.
Are the alpine zones on Garfield, Liberty, Flume and South Twin true alpine zones or the result of burns -- either recent history (1800's, 1900's) or prehistory.
-Dr. Wu

Click to expand...

These are really good questions and surprisingly difficult to find answers to. I think the problem is that there's a different approach to "alpine zones" by botanists and geologists. (I'm neither, so this is just a hunch.) Botanists, the ones who write most about alpine and sub-alpine zones in NH, define them by what grows there. Geologists are more interested in etiology, what caused the lack of trees on various summits in the White Mtns.--harsh weather (true alpine) or fires (not true alpine). I'm guessing that so-called alpine or subalpine plants show up in high altitude locations that are tree-bare for both reasons, so a botanist might talk about an "alpine zone" on a summit that was burned bare of trees. But that's a guess.

In this respect, Dr. Wu is asking what I'm calling a "geological" question, what caused bare summits in the Whites. The only book I've seen that even partly addresses this question is an old and out-of-print favorite of mine, Preston and Kannair's White Mountains West (1979). They define "alpine zone" in the WMs as generally beginning about 4500, limited amount of soil, plant survival dependent upon water retention (waxy leaves) and wind protection, and so forth. They go on to say that "lesser summits, generally below 4000 feet, like Welch and Dickey . . . are covered with exposed ledges because of forest fires years ago. Subsequent rains washed off the thin soil layer so that the re-establishment of the of the forest cover on the bare ledges has been a slow process. However, it is not hampered by the weather, as is the case in the alpine zone."

To cut to the chase now, Dr Wu, Preston and Kannair say that in the western Whites there are four alpine zones: Franconia Ridge, Bondcliff, Moosilauke, Guyot. On Bondcliff the alpine zone begins just south of the top of Bondcliff and extends for about a mile north towards, but not including, Mt Bond itself, they write. This is unusually low treeline, they say, 4100 to 4300', as opposed to the typical 4500' in the Whites.

They then list "mountains with open summits" in the western Whites: Bond, Flume, Garfield, Hale, S Kinsman, Liberty, S. Twin, Welch. These would not be true alpine zones in their estimate.

So, that's what Preston and Kannair think.

Waumbek said:

To cut to the chase now, Dr Wu, Preston and Kannair say that in the western Whites there are four alpine zones: Franconia Ridge, Bondcliff, Moosilauke, Guyot. On Bondcliff the alpine zone begins just south of the top of Bondcliff and extends for about a mile north towards, but not including, Mt Bond itself, they write. This is unusually low treeline, they say, 4100 to 4300', as opposed to the typical 4500' in the Whites.

They then list "mountains with open summits" in the western Whites: Bond, Flume, Garfield, Hale, S Kinsman, Liberty, S. Twin, Welch. These would not be true alpine zones in their estimate.

So, that's what Preston and Kannair think.

Click to expand...

Excellent answer! Thank You (actually, thank you everyone for the responses).

From what I read in Steve Smith and Mike Dickerman's book on the 4000'ers, there is an alpine zone on the eastern slopes of Bond. I wonder if this is the result of burns or just overlooked by the book you mention. I'll have to go back and reread the source that mentioned fires on Bondcliff.

Now, question about "mountains with open summits" -- these should be separated into open summits that burned: Hale, Welch-Dickey and open summits that are "natural": Bond? Flume? Liberty? I wonder if any of these summits (Garfield) burned at one point many moons ago and basically the harsh weather has prevented additional growth from coming back.

-Dr. Wu

Many of the summits on the northern end of Baxter State Park near South Branch CG are still bald due to fires, I believe in the early 1900's. It takes a long time to recover, but in the meantime makes some small mountains yield some incredible views.

The summit of Noonmark in the Adirondacks is still bald as a result of Colvin burning the top in the late 1800’s while doing his survey work.

Another way of looking at this, is whether the vegetation is recovering (from the disturbance caused by an "unnatural" fire) or whether it's in a state of equilibrium (though, to echo jjmcgo's comment, note that for certain areas like the NJ Pine Barrens, "equilibrium" includes cycles of fire). Certain plants in the alpine zone are very specialized and chances are, if you see them, it means the above-treeline status is probably natural. An example would be cushion-forming plants like diapensia or alpine azalea; if you encounter large patches of them, that would indicate not only that it's probably been open and exposed for hundreds of years, but that the microclimate in that vicinity is not conducive to less alpine-adapted plants like spruce, fir, blueberry, mountain cranberry, labrador tea, etc. -- otherwise those plants would be out-competing the cushion-forming plants. Some of the heaths are kind of in a gray area: black crowberry is one that is a good example of an alpine plant that takes a long time to grow into large mats, but it may be a temporary species on the way back to a vegetated summit.

A good botanist could probably also tell minimum age of bare bedrock from the lichens (which I assume would be removed directly by fire if it is hot enough to remove soil, or would not be there if the soil disappears as a result of post-fire erosion).

The Baldfaces are another set of peaks where there was a fire in 1903. The vegetation is coming back, slowly, though I wonder whether the ledges on South Baldface were always above treeline.

The climactic treeline is somewhere in the 4000'-4500' range (I remember reading 4500' somewhere) but a very steep area, or one which is exposed to lots of wind, or one which is boggy (poorly drained and poor nutrients), would be more likely to be bald at a lower elevation.

dr_wu002 said:

Excellent answer! Thank You (actually, thank you everyone for the responses).

From what I read in Steve Smith and Mike Dickerman's book on the 4000'ers, there is an alpine zone on the eastern slopes of Bond. I wonder if this is the result of burns or just overlooked by the book you mention. I'll have to go back and reread the source that mentioned fires on Bondcliff.

Now, question about "mountains with open summits" -- these should be separated into open summits that burned: Hale, Welch-Dickey and open summits that are "natural": Bond? Flume? Liberty? I wonder if any of these summits (Garfield) burned at one point many moons ago and basically the harsh weather has prevented additional growth from coming back.

-Dr. Wu

Click to expand...

Re Preston and Kannair on the eastern slopes of Bond, I went back to the book to look at their maps, which indicate alpine zones with shaded grey areas. The book is faded but their map doesn't show an alpine zone on the eastern side of Bond. This doesn't mean that there isn't one there, just that they didn't fail to mention it in their prose description. Their map shows the Bondcliff alpine zone more to the eastern side of the trail than the western, however.

As for the bare summits of Liberty, Flume and Garfield, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd burned and failed to revegetate. There was such extensive logging, with high slash piles set alight by sparks from the logging trains that went deep into the Pemi, that the whole area had numerous huge fires. Franconia Notch State Park resulted from an effort to spare that area from intense logging and, more importantly, the inevitable accompanying fires. (Hence all those fire towers too.)

The place to find an answer about fires on those summits might be in the history of the "Save the Notch" campaign ca. 1920 and of Henry's logging operations in the Pemi prior to that.

Here's record of a 1908 4800 acre fire on Mt. Liberty but it doesn't say whether it burned off the top. Gotta go earn a living now. I'll read for it tonight.

burns

There is a good amount of information on fires in the Whites in "Logging Railroads of the White Mountains" book published by the AMC. I'm sure Steve Smith has copies in Lincoln.