i wouldnt be fixated on the elevation numbers specifically ... i would ask.. how does the culture change in coming down elevation-wise ...

is water availability different..

do soils change...

how do temps change .... especially at night ....

what about wind ... which also plays into humidity ... again.. at night ...

in other words ... what causes them .. in nature.. naturally ... to delineate the the elevation levels ...

but all that said ... you of course.. have to try ... as i suspect.. its the only way to find out ....

i dont know if i would start with clearing a half acre ... unless you would try something else.. should this experiment fail ... and i would start with young small trees ....

ken

Yes, you're right Ken. There's lots of variables, many of which I'm unsure of.

I'm not certain what the limiting factors for Red Spruce are. They like it cool and humid, and my location provides both of those things pretty well.

Water availability is good in the area I have in mind. It's the same spot where the largest Red Spruce I've found is. It's a moist hollow covered in Lycopodium, another cool, humid condition lover.

And yes, half an acre is too large, I would probably go for an eighth of an acre or so. Maybe less.

If red spruce is already growing on your land, that means it is adapted there, especially if there is one as tall as you say. Red spruce grows at best at a moderate rate. Range maps indicate it is a boreal species, so I'd guess it's making it's last stand in the southern highlands, as opposed to being widespread in the north. As far as how big an area to plant, well I've always said why plant one or two when one or two hundred (thousand!) would be so much better. You sound like you know you will have to keep competition at bay, these trees don't compete well with deciduous trees, not to mention four legged predators. That will be a commitment of lots of years.

Good points, other Ken. I'm willing to invest the time. This is something I'm pretty passionate about.

My grandfather showed me an area today where he found a red spruce growing 20 years ago- the elevation is around 1600'. He transplanted it at his house, roughly a mile away and 100' lower, and it still looks good to this day.

I would love to find a seed source close by. Surely there has to be at least one coning tree around. I would also love to know the range of the red spruce pre-Europeans.

Yes, it's no coincidence that two of the small trees I've found have buck rubs on them. I wonder if letting them grow in partial shade then releasing them after a few years would be good?

Without doing any research, I believe red spruce has had pretty much the same range since the end of the last ice age. Logging has removed most old growth, but I don't think it has reduced its range. The range of course is limited to high elevations in the SE, and that area itself is rather small, even in WV, which probably has the largest population outside northern areas.

It has been my experience with deer that if they are attracted to a certain plant they will find it. As red spruce is a relatively slow grower I'd be inclined to give them wide open space with no competition and full sun. Plant them more densely than you normally would, expecting losses from wildlife. As the trees reach a size that makes them unattractive to predators, thin for optimum growth if necessary.

I worded that poorly. I didn't mean that their range had changed, but rather their frequency. I just wonder if they were a little more prevalent towards the lower end of their elevation range.

Compared to now

I don't know if there has been any research done per the range of red spruce, say one thousand years ago. I would guess if the climate then favored conifers rather than broadleafs red spruce may have been more widespread.

There is a site that talks about the forest of southern North America at the peak of the last ice age. I didn't bookmark it so I don't have a link. If memory serves, it stated that a forest of mainly spruce and fir existed from the edge of the glacier in the north to the Gulf of Mexico, FL, and the south Atlantic. The shores of the gulf and ocean were at least 200 miles further out than at present. I would assume red spruce would have been a component of this forest. But I'm not a paleobotanist, or any kind of "ist" LOL.

I've traveled the Cumberland Plateau fairly extensively, and have never noticed what I thought was red spruce, either planted or wild, but I've seen a few planted Frasers, and elevations there are 2-3K feet on average. Precip is probably 10-20 inches lower, and soils are different. If I get a chance, I'll ask our county forester, who has traveled the state extensively, if he's seen red spruce anywhere outside high elevations of east TN.

Not sure about the specific tree, but I would think that clearing a large area would invite invasives and faster growing trees to come in and dominate the area. I would read up on red spruce forests (maybe there are other species they like to grow with before it becomes a total red spruce forest) and then plant some of thsose trees too. If it is appropriate, maybe you could slowly thin out trees around the existing red spruce, and then plant seedlings in other areas that receive similar light. ? just some guesses

You could also go find the local forestry commission or forest people in your area to see if they have aby suggestions.