SpencerVT
Member
What peaks in the CATs, that are not the 35, have predominantly boreal forest at their summits? (very few).
I did Olderbark a while back and was surprised to find an entire summit of conifers. E. Jewett was the same way, and Stoppel had lots of conifers on the whack from West Stoppel.
I'm sure a geologist would know more about why there are relatively few coniferous forests in the Catskills in comparison to the Whites, ADKs, etc....It's not like the latitude is that much different. With the CATs, you have to rise in elevation much higher to get conifers than in other alpine forests of the northeast, and even then you still might not get them. Why is that? My best guess is the red/clayish rock has something to do with it - that this type of rock and soil is less conducive for conifers to grow, although that's just my best guess. Even some of the 35 have little to no conifers at their summits - Rusk, Windham High Peak, Graham Mountain, etc...yet Olderbark which is lower, was entirely different.
Just curious.
I did Olderbark a while back and was surprised to find an entire summit of conifers. E. Jewett was the same way, and Stoppel had lots of conifers on the whack from West Stoppel.
I'm sure a geologist would know more about why there are relatively few coniferous forests in the Catskills in comparison to the Whites, ADKs, etc....It's not like the latitude is that much different. With the CATs, you have to rise in elevation much higher to get conifers than in other alpine forests of the northeast, and even then you still might not get them. Why is that? My best guess is the red/clayish rock has something to do with it - that this type of rock and soil is less conducive for conifers to grow, although that's just my best guess. Even some of the 35 have little to no conifers at their summits - Rusk, Windham High Peak, Graham Mountain, etc...yet Olderbark which is lower, was entirely different.
Just curious.