Trees of Jefferson County Research example using project data Victoria Myers
Feb 22, 2016
Trees of Jefferson County
Research example using project dataVictoria Myers
Trees – 1730’s
40; 37%
33; 30%
21; 19%
5; 5%
3; 3%
1; 1%1; 1%1; 1%
1; 1%
1; 1%1; 1%
1; 1%
Red Oak White Oak Hickory WalnutLocust Ash Elm Hackberry (White Wood)Oak Poplar Tree Woodlands
Trees -1750’s
1; 0%
1; 0%
1; 0%
1; 0%
1; 0%
1; 0%
1; 0%2; 1%2; 1%
3; 1%
3; 1%
4; 1%
6; 2%
24; 9%
30; 11%56; 21%
59; 22%
72; 27%
Bush(es) Chestnut Gum Lym Poplar Spanish OakWhite Hickory Dogwood Sycamore Ash Woodlands WalnutSapling(s) Black Oak Locust Hickory White Oak Red Oak
Trees – 1760’s
86; 31%
67; 24%
60; 22%19; 7%
17; 6%
7; 3%
4; 1%
4; 1%
3; 1%
3; 1%3; 1%
2; 1%
1; 0%
1; 0%
White Oak Black Oak Hickory Locust Red Oak Walnut ElmSpanish Oak Gum Sugar White Hickory Ash Lym None
Trees – 1770’s
15; 27%
13; 24%
9; 16%5; 9%
4; 7%
3; 5%
2; 4%
2; 4%
1; 2%
1; 2%
White Oak Hickory Black Oak Locust Spanish OakSapling(s) Ash Red Oak Elm Hawthorne
Trees – 1790’s
11; 32%
7; 21%
5; 15%4; 12% 3; 9%
2; 6%
1; 3%
1; 3%
White Oak Black Oak Red Oak Hickory Locust Walnut Gum Hazel
Trees – 1800’s
3; 18%3; 18%
3; 18%
2; 12%1; 6% 1; 6%
1; 6%
1; 6%
1; 6%
1; 6%
Hickory Poplar White Oak Black Oak Ash Dogwood Elm Red Oak Sugar Sycamore
Trees – 1820’s
3; 21%2; 14%
2; 14%
2; 14%2; 14%
1; 7%
1; 7%
1; 7%
Mulberry Black Oak Hickory Persimmon White Oak Box Elder Poplar Sycamore
Trees – 1830’s
4; 36%
3; 27%
1; 9%1; 9%
1; 9%
1; 9%
Elm Sycamore Locust Mulberry Tree Walnut
Trees -1890’s
2; 100%
White Oak
Trees – Over time
17301750
17701790
18101830
18501870
1890
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Ash Box Elder
Chestnut
Elm Hackberr
y (W
hite W
ood)
HazelLocu
stMulberr
y
Oak PoplarSap
ling(s
)
Sugar
Tree
White Hick
ory
Woodlands
Ash Black OakBox Elder Bush(es)Chestnut DogwoodElm GumHackberry (White Wood) HawthorneHazel HickoryLocust LymMulberry NoneOak PersimmonPoplar Red OakSapling(s) Spanish OakSugar SycamoreTree WalnutWhite Hickory White OakWoodlands
Number of trees over time
1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890
109
0
268 27
7
55
0
34
17
0
14 11
0 0 0 0 0 2
Number of TreesNumber of Trees
Online GIS
GIS Analysis
Problems/Issues
• Data is random in nature and limited to property boundaries but most likely the best data available
• Was the surveyor good at tree identification?• Surveyors tend to choose a tree with good
longevity for corners. • Data skewed to the 1750/60’s due to the
number of grants during that time
Conclusions/Insights
• Area was most likely a mature forest• Non-native species begin to show up near
population centers (cities)