|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 17, 2024 11:16:02 GMT -5
Pines usually equate to poor soil, and hardwoods equate to rich soil. The settlers found the hammocks as they were and settled in them because those were the good places to farm in. As far as wildlife, the richer soil of hammocks gives browsing wildlife more nutritious things to eat than nutrient-poor flatwoods. There’s no way there’s more hammock in Florida now than there was 100 years ago. And the hammocks of 100 years ago were at least present 200 years ago because we have good written and picture documentation of them. The richest hammocks were generally in the interior. In north central, they ran from Ocala northward to Gainesville, west until the sandhills of Levy, then started again from west of Williston to the coast. 500 years ago is anyone’s guess. Florida changed a lot when the natives went extinct in the 1500s and left the interior of the state mostly devoid of humans for a century. There was also millions of acres of bamboo forest in Florida. That’s what “canebrakes” were. I don’t ever see anyone trying to restore that kind if habitat. Consider that the pine flatwoods and hammocks of 200 years ago probably looked like they looked back then not just because of fire or the lack thereof, but also because of millions of cattle keeping the woods open. Based on what I’ve seen with my cattle and palmettos, cows probably kept thousands of acres of palmettos eatened back in a given area. And then their constant crapping was enriching the soil and raising the pH. Soil determines the vegetation that will grow in it, but decades of plants decaying in said soil will also change the soil. Florida, except for the Everglades, has probably never consisted of any particular habitat in an area for more than a few centuries. Intervention by man, animal, and elements, probably shifted things constantly. What is being restored as flatwoods today may have been hammock for the last 2 centuries, then may have been canebrake before, and was last flatwoods 800 years ago.
I would guess that the push towards long-leaf pine restoration is arbitrary in terms of picking which era the manager is choosing to restore. Which doesn’t make it wrong. All management choices are just that, a choice. To favor one species or habitat over another. To put your finger on the scale in the way you think it should go. Nature is your garden to mold like you want. Lightening based fire was in the state LONG before mankind and it was the driving force behind the pine dominated "grasslands". Hammocks only naturally occurred, for the most part, in fire shadows, like the lee side of large wetlands, rivers, lakes, etc. Flatwoods probably never really developed on hammock soils because of many things, mostly fire, lack of seed source, aggressive nature of non pyrogenic species, etc. Canebrakes are a small very particular mostly wetland community that were never really widespread and also probably fire maintained or else they would be overrun with hardwoods.
Plants require certain soil characteristics, depth to water, fire frequency or lack there of, etc. Sandhills could never become a natural diverse mesic hardwood hammock because during bad droughts the plants would die because of the soil characteristics, depth to water, etc.
There were possibly up to 10 million acres of canebrake in the SE, as opposed to about 90 million acres of long leaf pine. So canebrakes took up a total area equivalent to 11% of the size of the pine forests. That’s no small number. Bartram described the canebrakes in his travels and said that “the largest [canebrake] on earth” was found in Florida near the Suwannee river. I could see an argument that the vast hammocks of the 1800s and 1900s may have in part been canebrakes that came back as hardwoods after being overgrazed and not burned. But former pinelands, the hammocks probably weren’t.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 17, 2024 12:30:43 GMT -5
Lightening based fire was in the state LONG before mankind and it was the driving force behind the pine dominated "grasslands". Hammocks only naturally occurred, for the most part, in fire shadows, like the lee side of large wetlands, rivers, lakes, etc. Flatwoods probably never really developed on hammock soils because of many things, mostly fire, lack of seed source, aggressive nature of non pyrogenic species, etc. Canebrakes are a small very particular mostly wetland community that were never really widespread and also probably fire maintained or else they would be overrun with hardwoods.
Plants require certain soil characteristics, depth to water, fire frequency or lack there of, etc. Sandhills could never become a natural diverse mesic hardwood hammock because during bad droughts the plants would die because of the soil characteristics, depth to water, etc.
There were possibly up to 10 million acres of canebrake in the SE, as opposed to about 90 million acres of long leaf pine. So canebrakes took up a total area equivalent to 11% of the size of the pine forests. That’s no small number. Bartram described the canebrakes in his travels and said that “the largest [canebrake] on earth” was found in Florida near the Suwannee river. I could see an argument that the vast hammocks of the 1800s and 1900s may have in part been canebrakes that came back as hardwoods after being overgrazed and not burned. But former pinelands, the hammocks probably weren’t. Interesting, I did not think canebrakes occupied that much acreage. Like pine dominated grasslands, sandhills and flatwoods, cane disappears without fire. I would wager that the majority of what you call hammock today (trash hammock of laurel and water oaks) was in fact, historically millions of acres of fire based pine, especially the sandhills. Switchcane ( Arundinaria gigantea) is a faciltative wetland species so it was almost always associated with river bottoms and various other wetlands, whereas the fire based pine communities are pretty much all uplands, except for wet flatwoods and pond pine woods.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 17, 2024 12:51:26 GMT -5
There were possibly up to 10 million acres of canebrake in the SE, as opposed to about 90 million acres of long leaf pine. So canebrakes took up a total area equivalent to 11% of the size of the pine forests. That’s no small number. Bartram described the canebrakes in his travels and said that “the largest [canebrake] on earth” was found in Florida near the Suwannee river. I could see an argument that the vast hammocks of the 1800s and 1900s may have in part been canebrakes that came back as hardwoods after being overgrazed and not burned. But former pinelands, the hammocks probably weren’t. Interesting, I did not think canebrakes occupied that much acreage. Like pine dominated grasslands, sandhills and flatwoods, cane disappears without fire. I would wager that the majority of what you call hammock today (trash hammock of laurel and water oaks) was in fact, historically millions of acres of fire based pine, especially the sandhills. Switchcane ( Arundinaria gigantea) is a faciltative wetland species so it was almost always associated with river bottoms and various other wetlands, whereas the fire based pine communities are pretty much all uplands, except for wet flatwoods and pond pine woods. Hammocks as I know them are usually low and wet. Or more accurately, bordering low and wet areas. Defined by live oaks, white oaks, and swamp cabbage. They look like central American forest or jungle. Looks like the same habitat I see pictures of in South Florida when looking at panther pictures. When I was a child and a young man, the Gulf Hammock region had thousands of acres of continuous hammock and there were still some large hammock lands found in southern and western Alachua county and parts of western and north/northeastern Marion counties. Since the mid 2000s, I usually only see hammocks hugging waterways where they’re legally protected from logging, and I’m not sure that such small areas should be properly called hammocks at all. A hammock is usually an entire forest or at least several hundred acres of hardwoods. I’m not talking about the small stands of oaks you find scattered in pines. There’s some real hammock in the Ocala National Forest on the east side of the river that are at least several hundred acres of continuous hardwoods. I would say what I’m referencing is hydric hammock. Although around the Ocala area the hammocks looked the same as Gulf Hammock but weren’t defined by proximity to water (except sinks maybe, because all the hammocks I can think of today that are still around with any size to them all have sinks in them, but not to the extent that logging would be prohibited. They simply haven't been logged yet and they all have sloping or cavernous water elements).
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 17, 2024 13:12:20 GMT -5
Interesting, I did not think canebrakes occupied that much acreage. Like pine dominated grasslands, sandhills and flatwoods, cane disappears without fire. I would wager that the majority of what you call hammock today (trash hammock of laurel and water oaks) was in fact, historically millions of acres of fire based pine, especially the sandhills. Switchcane ( Arundinaria gigantea) is a faciltative wetland species so it was almost always associated with river bottoms and various other wetlands, whereas the fire based pine communities are pretty much all uplands, except for wet flatwoods and pond pine woods. Hammocks as I know them are usually low and wet. Or more accurately, bordering low and wet areas. Defined by live oaks, white oaks, and swamp cabbage. They look like central American forest or jungle. Looks like the same habitat I see pictures of in South Florida when looking at panther pictures. When I was a child and a young man, the Gulf Hammock region had thousands of acres of continuous hammock and there were still some large hammock lands found in southern and western Alachua county and parts of western and north/northeastern Marion counties. Since the mid 2000s, I usually only see hammocks hugging waterways where they’re legally protected from logging, and I’m not sure that such small areas should be properly called hammocks at all. A hammock is usually an entire forest or at least several hundred acres of hardwoods. I’m not talking about the small stands of oaks you find scattered in pines. There’s some real hammock in the Ocala National Forest on the east side of the river that are at least several hundred acres of continuous hardwoods. I would say what I’m referencing is hydric hammock. Although around the Ocala area the hammocks looked the same as Gulf Hammock but weren’t defined by proximity to water (except sinks maybe, because all the hammocks I can think of today that are still around with any size to them all have sinks in them, but not to the extent that logging would be prohibited. They simply haven't been logged yet and they all have sloping or cavernous water elements). Yes, you are definitely talking about hydric hammocks or maybe even bottomland forest, all wetlands. Check out the FNAI community guide. You are talking wetlands and I am talking uplands. And an FYI, almost every square inch of Florida had been logged by the 1930s, and by now, most areas have been logged 2 or 3 times. I think the estimate for Florida natural communities that have not been altered by man is around 4% of the total lands mass.
This is what I have been referring to as the community that takes over pine areas when fire is removed, JUNK HAMMOCK, an altered community type. Huge areas are made up of this altered community.
Successional hardwood forest – Closed-canopied forest dominated by fast growing hardwoods such as laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica), water oak (Quercus nigra), and/ or sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), often with remnant pines. These forests are either invaded natural habitat (i.e., mesic flatwoods, sandhill, upland pine, upland mixed woodland) due to lengthy fire-suppression or old fields that have succeeded to forest. The subcanopy and shrub layers of these forests are often dense and dominated by smaller individuals of the canopy species. Successional hardwood forests can contain remnant species of the former natural community such as turkey oak (Quercus laevis), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex glabra), and infrequently wiregrass (Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana). Additionally, species such as beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum) are common. Restoration of these forests includes mechanical tree removal and reintroduction of fire. Where characteristic herbaceous species (e.g., wiregrass) have been lost, reintroduction via seed or plants may be necessary to restore natural species composition and community function.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 17, 2024 13:25:27 GMT -5
Hammocks as I know them are usually low and wet. Or more accurately, bordering low and wet areas. Defined by live oaks, white oaks, and swamp cabbage. They look like central American forest or jungle. Looks like the same habitat I see pictures of in South Florida when looking at panther pictures. When I was a child and a young man, the Gulf Hammock region had thousands of acres of continuous hammock and there were still some large hammock lands found in southern and western Alachua county and parts of western and north/northeastern Marion counties. Since the mid 2000s, I usually only see hammocks hugging waterways where they’re legally protected from logging, and I’m not sure that such small areas should be properly called hammocks at all. A hammock is usually an entire forest or at least several hundred acres of hardwoods. I’m not talking about the small stands of oaks you find scattered in pines. There’s some real hammock in the Ocala National Forest on the east side of the river that are at least several hundred acres of continuous hardwoods. I would say what I’m referencing is hydric hammock. Although around the Ocala area the hammocks looked the same as Gulf Hammock but weren’t defined by proximity to water (except sinks maybe, because all the hammocks I can think of today that are still around with any size to them all have sinks in them, but not to the extent that logging would be prohibited. They simply haven't been logged yet and they all have sloping or cavernous water elements). Yes, you are definitely talking about hydric hammocks or maybe even bottomland forest, all wetlands. Check out the FNAI community guide. You are talking wetlands and I am talking uplands. And an FYI, almost every square inch of Florida had been logged by the 1930s, and by now, most areas have been logged 2 or 3 times. I think the estimate for Florida natural communities that have not been altered by man is around 4% of the total lands mass.
I wouldn’t say I’ve ever stood in a hammock that was more than a century old. The oldest hammock I saw was probably Devil’s Hammock inside of the Gulf Hammock region. It was similar in tree size and openess to the Savanah River bottoms I hunted in later years in South Carolina. That bottomland was about a century old since the last major logging. It had been a rice plantation until the early 1900s and then was allowed to grow back in hardwoods. There were many places where visibility was 300 yards. Devil’s Hammock had a lot of places that were similar in terms of openess and tree size. Mostly gone now since the late 1990s. Hammocks are to my mind definitive of Florida woods. I’ve seen pretty, somewhat mature, pine stretches in other places that could look just like Florida pines. But I’ve never seen a Florida-looking hammock in another state. The low country of South Carolina came close but was still different in some ways. South Carolina even had sandhill scrub and gopher tortoises, which surprised me.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 17, 2024 13:39:50 GMT -5
Yes, you are definitely talking about hydric hammocks or maybe even bottomland forest, all wetlands. Check out the FNAI community guide. You are talking wetlands and I am talking uplands. And an FYI, almost every square inch of Florida had been logged by the 1930s, and by now, most areas have been logged 2 or 3 times. I think the estimate for Florida natural communities that have not been altered by man is around 4% of the total lands mass.
I wouldn’t say I’ve ever stood in a hammock that was more than a century old. The oldest hammock I saw was probably Devil’s Hammock inside of the Gulf Hammock region. It was similar in tree size and openess to the Savanah River bottoms I hunted in later years in South Carolina. That bottomland was about a century old since the last major logging. It had been a rice plantation until the early 1900s and then was allowed to grow back in hardwoods. There were many places where visibility was 300 yards. Devil’s Hammock had a lot of places that were similar in terms of openess and tree size. Mostly gone now since the late 1990s. Hammocks are to my mind definitive of Florida woods. I’ve seen pretty, somewhat mature, pine stretches in other places that could look just like Florida pines. But I’ve never seen a Florida-looking hammock in another state. The low country of South Carolina came close but was still different in some ways. South Carolina even had sandhill scrub and gopher tortoises, which surprised me. I hunt Devils hammock every year and its pretty cool along the river and Otter Creek. I would call that Bottomland or Floodplain Forest but its definitely hydric. ALachua Conservation Trust just bought some land on the Santa Fe River downstream from Rum Island. It will be open to the public soon and the Floodplain Forest has some amazing huge trees. I think you would like the area.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 17, 2024 13:47:54 GMT -5
I wouldn’t say I’ve ever stood in a hammock that was more than a century old. The oldest hammock I saw was probably Devil’s Hammock inside of the Gulf Hammock region. It was similar in tree size and openess to the Savanah River bottoms I hunted in later years in South Carolina. That bottomland was about a century old since the last major logging. It had been a rice plantation until the early 1900s and then was allowed to grow back in hardwoods. There were many places where visibility was 300 yards. Devil’s Hammock had a lot of places that were similar in terms of openess and tree size. Mostly gone now since the late 1990s. Hammocks are to my mind definitive of Florida woods. I’ve seen pretty, somewhat mature, pine stretches in other places that could look just like Florida pines. But I’ve never seen a Florida-looking hammock in another state. The low country of South Carolina came close but was still different in some ways. South Carolina even had sandhill scrub and gopher tortoises, which surprised me. I hunt Devils hammock every year and its pretty cool along the river and Otter Creek. I would call that Bottomland or Floodplain Forest but its definitely hydric. ALachua Conservation Trust just bought some land on the Santa Fe River downstream from Rum Island. It will be open to the public soon and the Floodplain Forest has some amazing huge trees. I think you would like the area.
It may be that what I was raised to called “hammock” is more properly called a forest of some sort. Yet it must have been the Cracker vernacular to so label those areas as “hammock,” thus how Gulf Hammock got its name as a region and a specific location. The whole stretch of woods from Cedar Key to Bronson was considered “the Gulf Hammock,” while today Gulf Hammock is a specific township and a WMA. I one read in one of Rawling’s works where the Gulf Hammock had “great” added to it be “the Great Gulf Hammock.”
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Apr 17, 2024 15:40:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the hammocks I've been in on Cypress Creek Wellfields in Pasco County were ever logged. They have the biggest live oaks I've ever seen in my life.
As a teenager there were some oak hammocks in Dixie County that I believe to be untouched for the most part. Wasn't long before most of them were clear cut except for the live oaks(those got poisoned). There was a small area they couldn't get too that remained the last time I was on that property.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 17, 2024 16:03:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the hammocks I've been in on Cypress Creek Wellfields in Pasco County were ever logged. They have the biggest live oaks I've ever seen in my life. As a teenager there were some oak hammocks in Dixie County that I believe to be untouched for the most part. Wasn't long before most of them were clear cut except for the live oaks(those got poisoned). There was a small area they couldn't get too that remained the last time I was on that property. I have done some wetland monitoring in Cypress Creek, some big ole trees. They grow fast under good conditions. There is one in my front yard that was under 20 ft in 1948 when my house was built, now it 2 trunks about 40 or 50 inches DBH, diameter at breast height.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 17, 2024 16:08:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the hammocks I've been in on Cypress Creek Wellfields in Pasco County were ever logged. They have the biggest live oaks I've ever seen in my life. As a teenager there were some oak hammocks in Dixie County that I believe to be untouched for the most part. Wasn't long before most of them were clear cut except for the live oaks(those got poisoned). There was a small area they couldn't get too that remained the last time I was on that property. Sometimes exceptionally big oaks get left for sentimental reasons. My dad, who was not particularly religious, believed in seriousness that he was going to Hell for his part in logging a particular hammock within Gulf Hammock in the 1990s. Which if you knew the sort of riotous person that he was, it was fascinating that he believed the most sinful thing he ever done was destroy that hammock. There was definitely a feeling across my family, a family of mostly loggers, that the hammocks were holy and not to be touched except in the greatest of need.
|
|
|
Post by 4ward on Apr 17, 2024 16:30:49 GMT -5
All kinds of good stuff to ponder “up in here”… Thanks everyone! I love this stuff
|
|
|
Post by cracker4112 on Apr 17, 2024 17:43:24 GMT -5
Indeed a very interesting thread.
|
|
|
Post by serotinouscones on Apr 18, 2024 7:54:52 GMT -5
I'm not a very active poster, but these kinds of topics are of interest to me both personally and professionally.
RE: canebreaks... what Cyclist said is correct. Large canebreaks rarely occur, or occurred, naturally. The vast canebreaks described by Bartram and others were almost certainly a product of indigenous agriculture and depopulation. Indigenous peoples of the southeast used cane for many food and fiber purposes -- indeed, it was one of their most culturally important plants. They cleared wetlands/floodplains for agriculture (corn and other crops), and periodically let areas go fallow -- which allowed canebreaks to establish. Additionally, they likely burned these canebreaks to promote the development of tender new shoots and encourage flowering (they used the seeds to make flour, much like we now use wheat).
As indigenous populations declined during European colonization, vast areas that were formerly farmed by indigenous peoples were abandoned. And these would have developed - albeit temporarily - into the expansive canebreaks that early settlers and explorers described.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 18, 2024 8:19:28 GMT -5
I'm not a very active poster, but these kinds of topics are of interest to me both personally and professionally. RE: canebreaks... what Cyclist said is correct. Large canebreaks rarely occur, or occurred, naturally. The vast canebreaks described by Bartram and others were almost certainly a product of indigenous agriculture and depopulation. Indigenous peoples of the southeast used cane for many food and fiber purposes -- indeed, it was one of their most culturally important plants. They cleared wetlands/floodplains for agriculture (corn and other crops), and periodically let areas go fallow -- which allowed canebreaks to establish. Additionally, they likely burned these canebreaks to promote the development of tender new shoots and encourage flowering (they used the seeds to make flour, much like we now use wheat). As indigenous populations declined during European colonization, vast areas that were formerly farmed by indigenous peoples were abandoned. And these would have developed - albeit temporarily - into the expansive canebreaks that early settlers and explorers described. Well, my issue with that is that there are many species that were adapted to the canebrakes. Its thought the Carolina parakeet went extinct in large part due to the extinction of the canebrakes. The canebrake subspecies of timber rattler was so named due to its preference for canebrakes. The Florida panther preferred canebrakes. The canebrakes likely existed first, the Indians came in and farmed them because the soil was rich, and the canebrakes bounced back when the Indians died off. This discussion got me reading up on canebrakes. There have been efforts to restore them, but they have so far failed because the bamboo of the canebreaks cannot be easily cultivated. For them to flourish, the root systems have to already be well established. The Indians’ farming of them was probably superficial and didn’t do much to break up their root systems, until the European styles of agriculture and animal husbandry that left the root systems devastated.
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 18, 2024 8:34:00 GMT -5
I'm not a very active poster, but these kinds of topics are of interest to me both personally and professionally. RE: canebreaks... what Cyclist said is correct. Large canebreaks rarely occur, or occurred, naturally. The vast canebreaks described by Bartram and others were almost certainly a product of indigenous agriculture and depopulation. Indigenous peoples of the southeast used cane for many food and fiber purposes -- indeed, it was one of their most culturally important plants. They cleared wetlands/floodplains for agriculture (corn and other crops), and periodically let areas go fallow -- which allowed canebreaks to establish. Additionally, they likely burned these canebreaks to promote the development of tender new shoots and encourage flowering (they used the seeds to make flour, much like we now use wheat). As indigenous populations declined during European colonization, vast areas that were formerly farmed by indigenous peoples were abandoned. And these would have developed - albeit temporarily - into the expansive canebreaks that early settlers and explorers described. Well, my issue with that is that there are many species that were adapted to the canebrakes. Its thought the Carolina parakeet went extinct in large part due to the extinction of the canebrakes. The canebrake subspecies of timber rattler was so named due to its preference for canebrakes. The Florida panther preferred canebrakes. The canebrakes likely existed first, the Indians came in and farmed them because the soil was rich, and the canebrakes bounced back when the Indians died off. This discussion got me reading up on canebrakes. There have been efforts to restore them, but they have so far failed because the bamboo of the canebreaks cannot be easily cultivated. For them to flourish, the root systems have to already be well established. The Indians’ farming of them was probably superficial and didn’t do much to break up their root systems, until the European styles of agriculture and animal husbandry that left the root systems devastated. There is a small canebrake behind the house I grew up in. I currently have about 6 of the Arundinaria in pots growing well. They are starting to send out suckers. If anyone wants some to try, give me a holler, they will spread in the right spot, so be warned.
|
|