The Uprooting of Trees: A Forest Process

Abstract

For many years the uprooting of trees has been recognized as a natural phenomenon. As such, it has usually been regarded as one of freakish occurrence noted for its direct and catastrophic results upon the trees immediately affected. Uprooting, it seems, has seldom been considered with enough perspective to reveal its basic relationship to the forest. A form of very detailed descriptive research was instigated in 1948 to document the developmental trends of the forest stands which had occurred on a 1‐acre area. Uprooting was established conclusively as an important factor in the development of the area during the last 500 years. When uprooting is observed and interpreted on a limited area with the perspective afforded by 500 years, its role becomes that of a natural forest process, rather than a single event in the life history of a forest stand. As a process, it must be considered along with reproduction, growth, podsolization, and other generally recognized processes. Similarly, the series of actions and subsequent reactions associated with uprooting can be described quantitatively, qualitatively, and chronologically. More extensive research has indicated that uprooting is a general forest process in eastern North America. Its influences have many ramifications, and like most other natural processes, are highly variable. The soil is one of the components of the forest greatly affected by the process of uprooting.

Landscape Patterns and Legacies Resulting from Large, Infrequent Forest Disturbances

“…Floods and landslides resulting from the intense and extended precipitation that may accompany hurricanes can have additional profound effects on ecosystem processes and trophic structure (Scatena and Larson 1991;Covich and others 1997). The soil legacies created through tree uprooting and landslides triggered by windthrow and intense precipitation are an inherent part of soil dynamics and landscape pattern in many landscapes (Stephens 1956), and exert a strong, though fine-scaled, control over patterns of regeneration and variation in biogeochemical processes (Bowden and others 1993;Carlton and Bazzaz 1998).…”

Influence of Tree Windthrow on the Properties and Classification of Selected Forested Soils From Nova Scotia

“…In Nova Scotia, many of the forest stands are chronologically related to past storms (Dwyer 1979). According to Stephens (1956), the uprooting of trees is a dynamic process in the forests of the region. The resultant hummocky microrelief is known by such names as mound and pit, cradle-knolls, and hillocks.…”

“…The resultant hummocky microrelief is known by such names as mound and pit, cradle-knolls, and hillocks. The distribution and character ofthe microrelief vary according to location (Brown 1979;Lutz 1940;Lyford and Maclean 1966;Stephens 1956). Altitudinal differences between mound and pit range from a few centimetres to 1 metre or more.…”

“…Studies on the effects of tree-throw (arbroturbation) on northeastern North American soils have shown that the disturbance causes soil rejuvenation (Lutz 1940;Stephens 1956;Brown and Martel 1981). The extent of rejuvenation is affected, in part, by soil wetness and the depth to horizons which restrict rooting mechanically (Muel-ler and Cline 1959).…”

Late Quaternary tephras of Coromandel Peninsula, North Island, New Zealand: A mixed peralkaline and calcalkaline tephra sequence

“…Paleoroot channels are frequently found infilled with younger material from the overlying cover deposits. The effect of tree-fall on soil disturbance is well documented in the literature (Stephens 1956;Lyford & MacLean 1966;Armson & Fessenden 1973;Dudas & Harward 1975;Brewer & Merritt 1978). Although only 1 study of this nature has been reported in New Zealand (Laffan 1979), many instances of large-scale tree-fall have been cited (e.g., Cranwell & Moore 1936;Zotov et al 1938;Conway 1959).…”