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)