Forest history of James Madison's Montpelier ...

Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 131(3), 2004, pp. 204–219

Forest history of James Madison’s Montpelier Plantation1 Daniel L. Druckenbrod2 Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036

Herman H. Shugart Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4123 DRUCKENBROD, D. L. (Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831–6036) and H. H. SHUGART (Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904–4123). Forest history of James Madison’s Montpelier Plantation. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 131: 204–219. 2004.—Combining dendrochronological and documentary reconstructions, this paper investigates the history of the forests at James Madison’s Montpelier plantation in the Virginia piedmont from their earliest written account in 1716 through the designation of a National Natural Landmark (NNL) forest in 1987. This forest, informally known as the ‘Big Woods,’ currently features a live basal area of 43.06 ⫾ 3.44 m2 • ha⫺1 (95% Confidence limits) and is dominated by Liriodendron tulipifera, Carya, and Quercus species. Quercus alba tree rings from both the NNL forest and from a forest on Mount Emerson, also located within Montpelier, are used to generate two separate, canopy-disturbance chronologies dating to the early 1700s. Additionally, ages of Q. alba and other tree species provide estimates of decadal establishment in both forests. Comparing these dendrochronological reconstructions of forest history with an analysis of letters and descriptive information from the Madison family and more recent landowners clarifies both the timing and relative magnitude of disturbance and establishment events set forth by the documentary reconstructions. Furthermore, this comparison also reveals that disturbance and establishment events in these two forests frequently coincide with changes in land use and ownership with notable canopy disturbances occurring in 1749, 1880s, 1920s, and 1987 and an establishment episode in the mid-1800s. These events have most likely increased the dominance of L. tulipifera; however, both forests still retain trees that pre-date Madison-family settlement. Key words: dendrochronology, disturbance reconstruction, forest history, James Madison, Montpelier, Monte Carlo, radial-growth averaging.

In 1716, an early expedition of Virginia colonial elite led by Governor Alexander Spotswood traveled to the then western frontier of the Virginia piedmont, passing remarkably near the future home of the fourth President of the United States. Among this party of interested land entrepreneurs, known as the ‘‘Knights of the Golden Horseshoe,’’ was John Fontaine, who remarked in his diary as they rode by: ‘‘At eight we mounted our horses, and made the first five miles of our way through a very pleasant plain, which lies where Rappahannoc River forks. I saw there the largest timber, the finest and deep1 D. L. Druckenbrod received support from the Miller Agricultural Fund and the Dissertation Year Fellowship from the University of Virginia. 2 We would like to thank the staff of the Montpelier Foundation and the Papers of James Madison at the University of Virginia for their assistance with data collection and interpretation. David Richardson and Christine Sudzina contributed valued field help. Lee Frelich and Edward Cook provided analytical advice with dendrochronological methods. This manuscript was completed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC0500OR22725. E-mail: [email protected] Received for publication November 20, 2002, and in revised form October 10, 2003.

est mould, and the best grass that I ever did see’’ (Scott 1907, p. 98–113). Fontaine’s observation frames this study on the history of the forests at James Madison’s Montpelier plantation not only because it is the first written description attesting to the stature of these forests, but also because the Golden Horseshoe expedition marks the beginning of almost 300 years of documented land-use history. What follows after this expedition reflects a complex history of forest use and conservation. This paper explores this landuse history both to characterize the dynamics of Montpelier’s forests since settlement by the Madison family and to compare two approaches of reconstructing forest disturbance history. The first is ecological and focuses on recent methods aimed toward quantifying the canopy-disturbance history of forests as recorded by tree rings. The second is descriptive and capitalizes on the consistent interest in the Montpelier landscape as recorded by the observations of residents and visitors throughout these past three centuries. The relevancy of this comparison extends not only to the historical interpretation of the Montpelier plantation, but also addresses the efficacy of both methods in reconstructing prior forest disturbances.

204 Unauthorized uses of copyrighted materials are prohibited by law. The PDF file of this article is provided subject to the copyright policy of the journal. Please consult the journal or contact the publisher if you have questions about copyright policy.

2004]

DRUCKENBROD AND SHUGART: FOREST HISTORY OF MONTPELIER

Disturbances (sensu White and Pickett 1985) may impact forest stands either endogenously from the death of a canopy tree and result in an unsynchronized, gap dynamics pattern across a forest stand (e.g., Watt 1947, Runkle 1982, Payette et al. 1990), or exogenously from events such as fire, windthrow, or harvesting and impact an entire stand synchronously (Bormann and Likens 1979), altering its successional stage (e.g., Henry and Swan 1974, Oliver and Stephens 1977). Disturbances are recorded in tree rings in the transition from suppression to release intervals in proximal trees. The results and interpretation of disturbance episodes are presented concurrently in this paper to investigate the extent to which exogenous release events coincide with events recorded in documentary descriptions of the plantation. Methods. STUDY AREA. The Montpelier plantation is situated on the north slope of a ridge of hills in the Virginia Piedmont known as the Southwest Mountains (78⬚ W 38⬚ N). These mountains are underlain by greenstone, primarily metamorphosed basalt, from the Catoctin Formation and continue southwest toward Monticello forming part of the Blue Ridge Anticlinorium (Rader and Evans 1993). The Catoctin Formation gave rise to fertile soils, such as the Davidson series present at Montpelier. Early settlers recognized these greenstone soils as the most productive for growing trees and agricultural crops (Carter et al. 1971, p. 23, 75). The elevation range across the property descends from 250 m along the ridge to 140 m toward the Rapidan River. The two study sites, the 80 ha National Natural Landmark (NNL) forest and a forest on Mount Emerson, are found at the higher elevations (Fig. 1). Climatological normals from 1961 through 1990, as reported by the Northern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center located within 5 km of Montpelier, average 109 cm of annual precipitation with a mean January temperature of 0.2 ⬚C and July temperature of 24.3 ⬚C. A dendroclimatic reconstruction from white oaks in the NNL forest has demonstrated a significant sensitivity to early summer rainfall (Druckenbrod et al. 2003) with monthly precipitation anomalies 2.5 cm less than the mean during the years of 1793, 1806–7, 1854, 1880, 1894, 1911, 1918, and 1944. The original, pre-European climax vegetation of the Virginia piedmont was described by Braun (1950) as a transition between the former Oak-Chestnut Forest Region and the Oak-Pine

205

FIG. 1. 1994 Digital orthophotograph of Montpelier showing the approximate boundary of the original Madison-Chew land patent (thick line), border of the National Natural NNL forest (thin line), and the location of patent line trees on Mount Emerson (dashed line).

Forest Region. Similarly, Ku¨chler (1964) classified the potential natural vegetation in the piedmont currently as an Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest. FIELD SURVEY AND DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL METHODS. Three one-hectare plots were established within the NNL forest in 1999 to characterize current stand structure. Within each plot, all trees with a height of at least 1.37 m were identified and surveyed for species, diameter, status (live or standing dead), and spatial location. As the National Natural Landmark status of this forest precluded dendrochronological sampling on live trees, recently senesced trees were identified throughout the entire NNL forest to provide a sufficient sample size for generating a disturbance chronology. Live trees cored from the Mount Emerson forest facilitated crossdating of the NNL forest samples. 38 cores from 22 trees in the NNL forest and 22 cores from 14 trees in the forests on Mount Emerson were used for either disturbance detection or age estimation. All tree rings were crossdated (Stokes and Smiley 1968) and verified with COFECHA (Holmes 1983). Decadal establishment dates at a height of 1.37 m were also determined for each tree. In trees where the pith was not reached, ages were estimated by extrapolating the average ring width of the earliest 5 rings back to the pith as determined using a compass, analogous to the methods of Frelich and Graumlich (1994).

206

JOURNAL OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL SOCIETY

[VOL. 131

FIG. 2. (A) Application of radial-growth averaging disturbance criteria to a white oak tree (thin line) from the NNL forest. Thick dashed line displays decadal percentage growth changes and is solid when equal to or greater than a 25% threshold. The year of greatest percentage growth change within each release event is considered the actual year of release and highlighted by a triangle. (B) Tree-ring series generated randomly from a gamma distribution fit to the above white oak tree and illustrating spurious release detection. (C) Monte Carlo significance test applied post hoc to releases determined by the radial-growth averaging method.

No more than 50 additional rings per tree were estimated by this method to constrain error. RADIAL-GROWTH AVERAGING METHODS. Building upon the approach of Lorimer and Frelich (1989), Nowacki and Abrams (1997) developed an iterative method for identifying release events in white oak trees using ring widths. Nowacki and Abrams (1997) reviewed thinning-response studies to empirically determine a release criteria of a 25% average growth increase between preceding and subsequent decadal intervals, corresponding to a removal of at least one third of the neighboring basal area. The percentage growth change was associated with the last year of the preceding decade and the disturbance year was ascribed to the year with the maximum percentage growth change (Fig 2a). While these methods have increased the objectivity in determining release events, a statistical analysis remains absent. Cole (1957) creatively addressed an inherent problem associated with averaging time series. Using a random

number table as a source for hypothetical hourly measurements of a unicorn’s metabolic rate, he demonstrated that averaging these hourly measurements over several days could result in diurnal metabolic trends that appeared biologically reasonable, yet were completely spurious. In order to discern whether this artifact could arise in averaging tree-ring series, a similar analysis was conducted by this study using Matlab 6 (Mathworks 2000). A gamma distribution was used to approximate the distribution of ring widths observed in Fig. 2a as a null model. Applying the radial-growth averaging method to randomly-generated ring widths from this distribution demonstrated that spurious releases might indeed be detected by a radial-growth averaging method (Fig. 2b). While this conclusion does not necessarily invalidate the premise of radialgrowth averaging, it does suggest the need for a statistical test to distinguish between random variations in percentage growth changes and those unlikely to arise due to chance.

2004]


As a first step toward this end, this study presents a post hoc Monte Carlo statistical test to assess the significance of releases as determined by radial-growth averaging. For each tree-ring series, 1000 random tree-ring series were generated from a gamma distribution. In a onetailed significance test, a histogram of the lengths of time above the 25% threshold for all disturbance events detected in these random series was used to identify the longest 5% of these events. Using this significance level and returning to the core in Fig. 2a, the first two release events determined by the radial-growth averaging method are significantly longer than expected due to chance, while the latter two events are not (Fig. 2c). DOCUMENTARY AND ANCILLARY SOURCES OF FOREST HISTORY AT MONTPELIER. Descriptions of the Montpelier landscape are numerous; however, their sources are varied and often obscure. Fortunately for this study, architectural, archeological, and historical studies by Miller (1985), Berckman (1986), Lewis and Parker (1987), Klein (1988), Miller (1990), and Chambers (1991) thoroughly summarize primary accounts of the plantation and its land use history. These descriptions are supplemented by comprehensive Madison biographies including Ketcham (1990), Rutland (1987), Brant’s six-volume set (1941), and also published letters of James Madison and his family (Madison 1981, 1985). Spatial information of forest cover is available from Civil War topographic maps of Orange County (Gilmer 1998) and aerial photography of the property from 1937. Interviews with a former duPont employee, Buck Smith, a former Montpelier neighbor and naturalist, Tedd Scott, and a duPont relative, Jamie McConnell, provide historical insight on the property from the duPont period. Although less quantitative than the dendrochronological reconstructions, these descriptions are categorized and tabulated into a documentary reconstruction of forest canopy disturbance to facilitate comparison between these two methods of investigating forest history. Descriptive accounts which either clearly report a forest disturbance or state activities resulting in a forest disturbance are ranked as minor (1), moderate (2), or major (3). If the time frame of a disturbance account is not specific, then all possible years of that disturbance are assigned the same rank. Results and Discussion. BEFORE THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE (PRE-1716). Native Americans in-

207

habited the Virginia piedmont as early as 10000 BC and artifacts have been found on the plantation dating from the early archaic, 8000 to 6000 BC (Klein 1988, p. 14–15; Lewis and Parker 1987, p. 55). At the time of European contact during the ethnohistoric period (AD 1600 to 1750), Native Americans referred to as Mannohoacs lived in villages along the Rappahannock River (Klein 1988, 19–22; Bushnell 1935, p. 1). However, the advance of European diseases and westward migration of Native Americans resulted in the piedmont being largely depopulated by the time of the Spotswood Expedition (Klein 1988, p. 22; Miller 1990, p. 7; Bushnell 1935, p. 1–2). Greater attention has been given recently to the ecological relationship of Native Americans to forests (Bonnicksen 2000), and several studies (Holland 1979, Turner 1978, Maxwell 1910) suggest the use of fire by Native Americans in Virginia as a tool for hunting and clearing land or as a weapon in times of war. These studies present first hand accounts by early European explorers in North America, but interpretation of the Native American impact on these forests becomes problematic with the cultural bias of early views claiming that the ‘‘Indian is by nature an incendiary, and forest burning was the Virginia Indian’s besetting sin’’ (Maxwell 1910). While Native Americans do appear to have utilized piedmont forests, quantitative estimates on the extent of Native American-induced fire on piedmont forests are not yet possible, especially for the forests specific to Montpelier. As a result, any conclusion concerning the impact of Native American-induced fire on these forests remains speculative. Accordingly, this study focuses on the history of Montpelier’s forests beginning with eighteenth-century European settlement. SETTLEMENT BY THE MADISON FAMILY (1716– 1748). James Taylor also accompanied Colonel Spotswood on the 1716 Golden Horseshoe expedition and, in 1722, patented extensive holdings along the Southwest Mountains in an area that would eventually become part of Orange County (Ketcham 1990, p. 1; Miller 1985, p. 5). In the preceding year, his daughter Frances Taylor had married Ambrose Madison (Ketcham 1990, p.3), becoming the future grandparents of the President. To Ambrose Madison, and to Thomas Chew, the husband of his younger daughter, James Taylor gave 4675 acres (Chambers 1991, p. 22). Ambrose Madison and Thom-

208


as Chew co-patented this land in 1723 (Miller 1990, p. 7). The patent process in colonial Virginia stipulated improvements in the form of cleared land on 3 acres out of every 50 within 3 years of the patent or comparable development such as the construction of ‘‘one good dwelling house’’ (Grymes 1977, p. 5–6). Though Ambrose and Frances Madison did not move to this frontier land until almost a decade later, Ambrose Madison did send an overseer and slaves to reside there soon after the patent was approved (Miller 1990, p. 8). By 1726, the patent description included two small settlements, or quarters, on Ambrose Madison’s section of the patent and a quarter and mill on Thomas Chew’s (Miller 1990, p. 8). Not long after moving to the patent lands in early 1732, Ambrose Madison was poisoned by one of his slaves on August 27, 1732. Five years after Ambrose Madison’s death, Thomas Chew split the joint patent, retaining the southern 1825 acres for himself and leaving the remaining 2850 acres in a life estate for Ambrose Madison’s son, Col. James Madison (Miller 1990, p.10). The NNL forest was located close to the central portion of this copatent, on lands reserved for Ambrose Madison, but near to the boundary of Thomas Chew’s holdings (Fig. 1). The southwestern boundary of Ambrose Madison’s lands also crossed through the forests on the northeastern side of Mount Emerson. Ambrose Madison’s will listed 10 adult slave men, 5 adult slave women, and fourteen slave children along with 59 cattle, 34 hogs, and 10 horses (Miller 1990, p.183), but perhaps even more indicative of the extent of development was the 1737 deed granting Col. James Madison ‘‘all and Singular houses, buildings, Barns, Dovehouses, Yards, Orchards, Gardens, Woods, Timber, underwoods, waters, Watercourses, Ways, Easements’’ (Miller 1990, p. 10). While most references to the forests at this early stage of settlement are indirect, various Madison deeds from the property refer to red, white, and Spanish oaks, pines, dogwoods, chestnuts, black gums, and yellow poplars (described as in a grove) (Brant 1941, p.44). The establishment dates of trees sampled in the dendrochronological reconstructions of the NNL and Mount Emerson forests support this composition as they contain white oak trees that date not only to the initial occupancy of the plantation by the Madison family, but also include three trees in the NNL forest which predate the 1723 land patent (Figs. 3 and 4). The land clearance and construction required by the

[VOL. 131

patent process indicates major forest disturbance during the first three years of settlement, 1723– 1726. Similarly, the items recorded in Ambrose Madison’s will infer continued, but possibly more moderate, forest disturbance until his death in 1732. In contrast, the dendrochronological reconstructions from both the NNL forest and the Mount Emerson forests exhibit only isolated, endogenous disturbances during this period. This discrepancy suggests that either the dendrochronological reconstructions were too poorly replicated to capture any disturbance from this period or that any anthropogenic disturbance was spatially removed from these two forests. A GROWING PLANTATION (1749–1789). In 1749, Col. James Madison, father of the future president, married Nelly Conway. Though Ambrose Madison’s will documents extensive improvements and structures on the property by the time of his death, the entrepreneurial drive of his son was central to further increasing the productivity of the plantation (Chambers 1991, p. 45). Following common practice, the Montpelier plantation was managed as a series of ‘quarters’ (Miller 1985, p. 2). As an additional part of his life estate, Col. James Madison had already assumed ownership of a 733 acre farm known as the Black Level quarter, separate from the original patent and located south of the Southwest Mountains (Miller 1985, p. 12). His marriage, however, augmented the plantation’s productivity by giving him control over 6 to 8 more slaves through Nelly Conway’s dowry (Chambers 1991, p. 82). Additionally, Col. James Madison soon received 900 more acres of land from his mother, which constituted part of the Home House quarter (Chambers 1991, p. 58), located with the central co-patent near the extant Madison cemetery and the original Madison home, Mount Pleasant (Lynne Lewis, pers. comm.; Miller 1985). Col. James Madison quickly capitalized on his marital gains of labor and land by having the new slaves assist with the tobacco harvest at the Black Level quarter in 1749 (Chambers 1991, p. 82), and in the following year, by improving the Home House quarter with the construction of two barns, a house (probably for an overseer), and four slave cabins (Col. James Madison 1750; see also Miller 1990, p.15). Col. James Madison may have also cleared land for a new field within the Home House quarter within a few years after his marriage (Chambers 1991, p. 87). In 1752, Col. James Madison also acquired portions of the

2004]


209

FIG. 3. Disturbance chronologies of the NNL forest depicting (A) a documentary reconstruction, (B) a dendrochronological reconstruction displaying releases detected by a radial-growth averaging method, with a significant subset determined from a Monte Carlo test, and a running sample size of white oak trees used to detect releases, and (C) estimated decadal establishment of all sampled trees. Other oak species includes Quercus prinus L., Quercus rubra L., and Quercus velutina Lam. Pines refer to Pinus virginiana Mill. and Pinus strobus L.

Chew patent, forming a Mill quarter just south of the NNL forest, with an operating grist mill constructed in 1753 (Chambers 1991, p. 59–61). By the 1760s, Col. James Madison owned over 5000 acres of land, including practically the entire original Madison—Chew land patent, and had established a successful plantation, complete with a grist mill, construction contracting business, mercantile store, blacksmith’s forge, and a new brick plantation home (Chambers 1991, p. 56, 61, 120; Miller 1990, p. 18–22, 29–30). The increased activity on the plantation from Col. James Madison’s 1749 marriage until the construction of a grist mill in 1753 indicate substantial forest disturbance, but only in the vicinity of the NNL forest due to its proximity to the Home House quarter (Figs. 3 and 4). Similarly, in 1749 the dendrochronological reconstruction of the NNL forest shows significant releases in the tree rings of two white oak trees extant during this period. While 1749 represents the earliest possible year within the documentary

range, it does suggest that the disturbance may have been the result of Col. James Madison’s changes to the plantation. Unlike the NNL forest, the Mount Emerson forests only display an isolated release in 1740 that is not significant according to the Monte Carlo test. The Mount Emerson forests do display open-grown trees with wide spreading branches along the original Madison patent line that date to the mid 1700s; however, those trees do not show releases until the mid 1800s (Fig. 5). JAMES MADISON’S PLANTATION (1790–1801). Although James Madison did not formally inherit Montpelier until after his father’s death in 1801, he was active in its management at least as early as the 1790s due to his father’s declining health (Miller 1990, p. 43; Brant 1970, p. 289; Rutland 1987, p. 92). While several Montpelier account books from the late-eighteenth century remain missing (Miller 1990, p. 21–22), excerpts of a 1790 list of instructions from James

210


[VOL. 131

FIG. 4. Disturbance chronologies of the Mount Emerson forests depicting (A) a documentary reconstruction, (B) a dendrochronological reconstruction displaying releases detected by a radial-growth averaging method, with a significant subset determined from a Monte Carlo test, and a running sample size of white oak trees used to detect releases, and (C) estimated decadal establishment of all sampled trees. Red oak section refers to Erythrobalanus species in the Quercus genus.

Madison to the overseers of the various plantation quarters provides an insightful, if not also enigmatic, portrait of plantation life and of the variety of uses to which specific tree species were employed throughout the plantation:

To plant about 200 apple Trees either before Christmas or very early in the Spring, in the little field on the top of the Mountain: beginning with the Tobacco ground, and going on to the best part of the old field adjoining. . .

Mordecai Collins

Lewis Collins

To have the stable made of the best white oak logs in the Tobo. [Tobacco] pens as soon as possible, the intervals of the logs to be stopped with slabs or straw or both. . . To run a fence to enclose the whole meadow; and at the upper end towards Mr. C. C. to run it at the top or on the hill side as may be most convenient in halling the rails. . . To treat the Negroes with all the humanity and kindness consistent with their necessary subordination and work. . .

To have the Chestnut logs for the principal Stable cut and halled that they may be ready to be put up whenever he is at leisure. Js. Coleman will shew the place and the manner in which they are to be got. . . To get timber from three or more wagons and three Carts. If he should have time and my father be willing he may work up the seasoned timber belonging to my father, to be replaced with the stock here directed to be laid in: or may season the timber he gets by putting it in the lofts of the Negro Cabbins. . . To get, if there be leisure from more urgent things, 4 or five thousand shingles to be ready for the granary or other uses. (Madison 1981, p. 302–304)

Sawney To clear as much ground as possible along the road and adjoining the field towards Capt: Merry’s. . .

2004]


211

struction of a fence for a pasture in a 1794 letter (Madison 1985, p. 314–315), suggesting that forest grazing by livestock may have been limited during the Madison family ownership of Montpelier. Overall, there is little direct evidence in the documentary record of forest disturbance to the NNL and Mount Emerson forests during this period. This result agrees with the dendrochronological reconstructions of both forests as they show only unsynchronized releases and intermittent establishment. A PICTURESQUE PLACE TO RETIRE (1802– 1841). With Madison’s increasing prominence in national politics, Montpelier began to receive more visitors during the 1800s and these admirers of Madison often wrote descriptions of the plantation. Mrs. Thornton provides one of the earlier impressions of the landscape in an 1802 diary entry:

FIG. 5. View of patent-line trees on Mount Emerson. Scale provided by person while measuring a 1.20 m diameter yellow poplar (Image courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation).

By this time, an additional quarter, named Sawney’s, overseen by the slave referred to in the above quote, also existed on the plantation (Miller 1985, p. 20). First purchased by Col. James Madison in 1766 from James Edmundson, this quarter expanded the Madison’s holdings on Mount Emerson and was later willed to James Madison in 1784 (Miller 1985, p.19). The 1801 inventory of Col. James Madison’s estate listed 108 slaves, 67 sheep, 70 cattle, 31 calves, 20 oxen, 26 horses, 2 colts, 222 hogs, 31 pigs, and many ironwork tools (Miller 1990, p. 23), further attesting to the scale of the plantation that James Madison inherited. While livestock often grazed freely in southern colonial farms, with fencing reserved only for their exclusion from fields (Cowdrey 1996, p. 54), the Madison family employed a progressive plow-corn-livestock-manure system of agriculture on their plantation, fencing in their livestock so the manure could be used as fertilizer (Chambers 1991, p. 64; Carr and Menard 1989). Indeed, James Madison relates the con-

it is in a wild and romantic Country, very generally covered with flourishing Wood, such as Walnut, Chesnut, Mulberry pine d⬚ [ditto]—thinly settled owing to the tracts of land held by individuals being very extensive—one gentleman hold 5000 acres. . . On some parts of the large tract held by Mr. Madison, there are views more elevated and picturesque, than the site of the House, but that is very fine, wanting only a water view to complete it. Mr. M. has not had entire possession long enough, to have embellished the grounds, they are susceptible of great improvements and when those he contemplates are executed, it will be a beautiful place, and resembling the elegant seats in England (according to the ideas I have formed from Sandby’s and other views) more than any seat I have seen. (Thornton 1967, p. 92–93) Mrs. Thornton was the wife of William Thornton, the designer of the U.S. Capitol building, and her marriage suggests an appreciation of English landscape design. Her diary entry refers to the landscape prints of Paul Sandby, an English artist famous for his watercolor landscapes (Robertson 1985). Landscape painting departed from earlier Renaissance artistic traditions by its presentation of wild or romantic scenes intended to invoke the viewer’s emotions (Kelly and Rasmussen 2000, p. 9). Capability Brown, an early landscape architect, shared this romantic vision of the landscape through his direct application of idealized pastoral settings for

212


over 200 English estates, commonly including groupings of trees intermixed with open, undulating slopes and curved bodies of water (Watkin 1982, p. 67; Brown 1989, p. 43). Brown’s prodigious career imparted a permanent impression of how the grounds of an English estate should appear (Watkin 1982, p. 67, 73–76). Three years later, another visitor, Sir Augustus John Foster, supports Mrs. Thornton’s view of the Montpelier landscape. Upon visiting Montpelier, this British official (Ketcham 1990, p. 427; Miller 1990, p. 76) remarked: There are some very fine woods about Mont Pelier, but no Pleasure Grounds, though Mr. Madison talks of some Day laying out Space for an English Park, which he might render very beautiful from the easy graceful descent of his Hills into the Plains below. (Tinkcom 1951) Possibly through the influence of Mr. Thornton, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Latrobe, another famous American architect and childhood friend of Dolley Madison (Harris 1994a), James and Dolley Madison did eventually convert a portion of the plantation grounds near the house into an English park, likely incorporating the styles of Capability Brown and William Shenstone (Berckman 1986, p. 5). Shenstone, another early landscape architect, also designed pastoral landscapes similar to Brown’s but emphasized the inclusion of unexpected vistas (Watkin 1982, p. 27). While the exact timing of this conversion remains unknown, substantial additions were built onto the mansion during Madison’s first term as President, 1808–1812, (Miller 1990, p. 3) and the architecture of a Temple near the mansion appears comparable to one designed by Mr. Thornton for a residence in Georgetown (Harris 1994b). An 1816 visit by the Baron de Montlezun not only provides a romantic view of the surrounding countryside but also indicates that the Madisons had begun altering the grounds near the house by that year (see also Berckman 1986, p. 13): At ten o’clock, having rented a gig (open cabriolet), I wended my way towards Montpelier, home of Mr. Madison, President of the United States. The rain had just ceased; the Blue Mountains loomed up clear of clouds, heralding the return of fine weather. The sun came out and the landscape brightened up. I traversed a forest illuminated by its rays, which I looked upon

[VOL. 131

again with pleasure, as I had been deprived of them for several days. This forest is especially pleasing, in that it is composed of thousands of various kinds of trees whose variegated foliage and contrasting shades of color produce a charming effect upon the eye. Among them I recognized the oak, the beech, the linden, the weeping willow, the pine, the poplar, the birch, the aspen [presumably bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata Michx.)], etc. Some are entwined by a wild vine which clings creeper-like to them, overtopping the highest and decorating their crests with a rich tapestry, and then falls gracefully down in looping tendrils and garlands. . . About noon I arrived at President Madison’s. His home is not at all pretentious, nor in consonance with what the high position of the owner would lead one to expect. It can hardly be seen in the midst of the trees which surround it, but the interior is agreeably planned and decently furnished. The land around it is laid out in an English garden; the lawns stretch up to the house itself. . . Right now, the grazing lands around the house are of small extent, but they are going to be considerably enlarged. A part of the forest is to be cut down, its border thus pushed back more than a mile. This vast space about the house will form then only a single carpet of green. (Moffatt and Carrie`re 1945) A visit by an Englishman, John Finch, around 1832 corroborates these alterations to the grounds in stating that ‘‘clumps of trees are left in various parts, and it has a great resemblance to an English nobleman’s mansion’’ (Miller 1990, p. 84; Moffatt and Carrie`re 1945). However, these changes to the Montpelier landscape appear mostly confined to the grounds near the house and on the plain sloping to its north (Berckman 1986, p. 15), not south toward the ridge supporting the NNL forest and forests of Mount Emerson. Later accounts and artwork from visitors support this interpretation (Fig. 6). John H. B. Latrobe, Benjamin Latrobe’s son, described his arrival to the property in 1832, likely arriving through the forests near the base of Mount Emerson (Berckman 1986, p. 3, 14): You leave the Piedmont road about a mile from Montpelier and, turning to the left, pass through a dense forest for a consid-

2004]


213

proprietor to call it Montpelier. (Miller 1990, p. 89) James Madison’s affinity for forests during his retirement years is also clear from his 1818 address while President of the Agricultural Society of Albemarle County. In this address Madison admonishes farmers for ‘‘the injudicious and excessive destruction of timber and fire wood’’ (Madison 1818). Madison continues:

FIG. 6. South-facing view of the Montpelier mansion and temple during the 1830’s (‘‘Montpelier, VA. The Seat of the late James Madison.’’ J.F.E. Prudhomme after John G. Chapman, engraving from the title page of James B. Longacre and James Herring. The National Portrait Gallery of Distinguished Americans, III, Philadelphia, 1836. Courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation.).

erable distance and until you descry at the end of a straight alley in the wood a high red gate, hung upon white posts. Entering this, you find yourself in a clearing, surrounded on all sides by the forest, and perhaps a quarter of a mile in diameter. Close against the opposite woods, you see the mansion of Mr. Madison (Semmes 1917, p. 239; Miller 1990, p. 81–82). The National Portrait Gallery proffered its own description of the landscape as written by Margaret Smith in 1836, supporting the proximity of forests on the ridge behind the house: Embosomed among the hills which lay at the foot of the south mountain, is the paternal estate of Mr. Madison. Naturally fertile, but much improved by his judicious care, a comparatively small part is kept under cultivation, the greater part being covered with its native forests. A large and commodious mansion, designed more for comfort and hospitality than for ornament and display, rises at the foot of a high wooded hill, which while it affords shelter from the north-west winds, adds much to the picturesque beauty of the scene. The grounds around the house owe their ornaments more to nature than art, as, with the exception of a fine garden behind, and ever varying and undulating surface of the ground is covered with forest trees. The extreme salubrity of the situation induced the

Here again we are presented with a proof of the continuance of a practice for which the reasons have ceased. When our ancestors arrived, they found the trees of the forest the great obstacle to their settlement, and cultivation. The great effort was of course to destroy the trees. It would seem that they contracted and transmitted an antipathy to them; for the trees were not even spared around the dwellings, where their shade would have been a comfort, and their beauty an ornament (Madison 1818). The incorporation of an English garden on the plantation landscape may have resulted in moderate disturbance to the NNL forest between 1806 and 1816; however, the spatial extent of this garden is unclear from the documentary record. The dendrochronological reconstruction shows only 2 releases during these years and neither is significant, suggesting that the English garden did not extend into the NNL forest. MONTPELIER AFTER THE MADISONS (1842– 1899). With the death of James Madison in 1836 and the mounting debts of Dolley Madison’s son, John Payne Todd, economic hardship collapsed onto the plantation by the early 1840s (Berckman 1986, p. 26). By 1842, Dolley Madison had sold a portion of the plantation to Henry Moncure and in 1844 sold the remaining land and many slaves to him as well (Miller 1990, p. 102–103, 115). Henry Moncure owned Montpelier for only four years before selling it to an Englishman, Benjamin Thornton in 1848 (Miller 1990, p. 115). The following year, reporters from the Southern Planter featured the new owners of Montpelier in the following article: The farm and mansion (family resting place of course excepted) have twice changed hands since Mr. Madison’s death. Recently, it has come into the possession of several gentlemen from Great Britain, one of whom was at the time on the premises. If we mistake not the views of the gentlemen,

214


[VOL. 131

they will soon have in successful operation the system of husbandry pursued in that part of the island where husbandry is the best. We mean the north of England and southern borders of Scotland, on the banks of the Tweed. (Anonymous 1849) While the success of this enterprise at Montpelier remains uncertain, an 1856 letter from Dolley Madison’s niece indicates that Montpelier’s park-like setting had been expanded further into its surrounding forests: I got a long letter from Mr. Cutts. He wrote he had been to Montpellier, (Uncle Madison’s old home) and visited his grave and that the appearance of the house had been changed, the trees cut down and the forest cut out to look like an English park, that the lawn had undergone some change, and although some might think the place improved, he did not, he liked it best the old style. (Allen 1856) Mr. Cutts’ description of the forest again suggests at least moderate disturbance to the NNL forest between 1844 and 1856. Although the dendrochronological reconstruction from the NNL forest shows an aggregation of four release episodes from 1843 to 1847, none of these releases are significant leaving little evidence from the dendrochronological reconstruction that the English Park extended into the NNL forest. Additionally, the property was sold three times more between 1854 and 1857 when it was purchased by Thomas Carson and managed by his brother Frank during the Civil War (Miller 1990, p. 115–117). The Carson brothers, who had only recently emigrated from Ireland, skillfully used their nationality to declare Montpelier as neutral ground during the Civil War (Miller 1990, p. 125–126). Although quarters for over 4000 Confederate soldiers in Wilcox’s Brigade were located just north of Montpelier for the winter of 1863–1864 (Matthew Reeves, pers. comm.), impact to the property seems to have been confined to its use only as a headquarters for Robert E. Lee (Miller 1990, p. 121–123). An 1864 Confederate topographic map of the region is also insightful for forest history as it displays forest cover in the locations of both the NNL forest and the Mount Emerson forests (Fig. 7), indicating that any disturbances to either forest during the years immediately preceding 1864 were minor. Additionally, Major Marion Hill

FIG. 7. 1864 topographical rendering of the Montpelier landscape depicting forest cover in the current location of the NNL forest and on Mount Emerson. (General J. F. Gilmer Map of Orange County, Virginia, reprinted with permission from the Virginia Historical Society).

Fitzpatrick, a soldier stationed as a guard at the plantation records: This [Montpelier] has once been a grand and noble place and many traits of its grandeur can be seen yet, but since the war it has been taken but little care of and the beauty of the place, such as the fancy garden, yards &c is almost entirely neglected. (Miller 1990, p. 122) During the Carson brothers’ tenure at Montpelier, no improvements were documented in the tax records for the property and the land value depreciated after the Civil War, reflecting both general economic hardships in the South but also perhaps an inattention to the management of the plantation (Miller 1990, p. 121–123). This view was reflected in an 1878 visit by President Rutherford B. Hayes who observed that the ‘‘place is not well kept up and is for sale cheap’’ (Miller 1990, p. 123–124). Eventually, increasing debts forced the Carson family to sell the plantation at auction in 1881 after Thomas and, subsequently, Frank Carson’s death (Berckman 1986, p. 28–29). A newspaper account described the grounds at the time of the sale as ‘‘well watered and timbered’’ (Miller 1990 p.126). The new owners, Louis Detrick and William Bradley, renovated the house in the Colonial Revival style and, according to a newspaper article a few years later, returned the plantation to ‘‘a high state of cultivation’’

2004]


(Miller 1990, p. 4, 125–127). Excepting minor disturbance during the winter encampment of 1863–1864, the documentary reconstructions do not record any disturbance to the forests during the remainder of the nineteenth century. On the contrary, the documentary record provides inferences that the forest cover may have increased during the Carson brothers’ tenure. The interpretation is verified by an establishment episode from the 1850s to the 1870s across both forests. The establishment of pines and red cedar in the NNL forest also suggest an increase in forest cover in this forest as these species are generally considered early-successional. It is also probable that the canopy-dominant yellow poplars currently observed in the NNL forest established during this time. Unfortunately, accurate ages were not possible for tulip poplars within the NNL forest as decayed heartwood was always encountered in coring recently senesced trees. However, the NNL forest also shows a second aggregation of releases during this period from 1873 to 1880, with the majority of these releases significant. No direct explanation for this disturbance is evident in the documentary record. Instead, this disturbance possibly resulted from forest thinning during re-establishment. THE DUPONT ERA (1900–1983). In 1900, an agent for William duPont purchased Montpelier mansion along with 750 acres of cultivated land and 500 acres of timber (Miller 1990, p. 131). By 1902, large wings had been added to the Madison house and construction had begun on an electric plant (powered by a steam generator), greenhouse, new farm buildings, extensive fencing, and eventually, a sawmill (Ted Scott and Jamie McConnell, pers. comm.s; Miller 1990, p. 4, 132). A substantial portion of the construction materials apparently arrived via rail at the Montpelier station (Miller 1990, p. 132–133). William duPont also soon built a sheep barn and the herd was left to roam free within the NNL forest area through the 1930s when they were sold at auction (Buck Smith, pers. comm.). Additional ecological change also occurred during the first half of the twentieth century with the arrival of the chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica (Murr.) Barr) (Schlarbaum et al. 1997). Advance infections of the blight in the Southwest Mountains were reported as early as 1914 (Gravatt 1914). By 1920, more than 80% of the chestnuts in central Virginia were infected by the blight (Keever 1953). Chestnuts com-

215

prised approximately 10% of the forest cover at Montpelier prior to the blight (Ted Scott, pers. comm.) and decomposing chestnut boles still remain in both forests. Employees of William duPont engaged in salvage logging of dead and dying chestnuts, in addition to harvesting oak species, in 1930 and 1931 using crosscut saws and horses (Buck Smith, pers. comm.). However, a 1937 aerial photograph of the NNL forest shows forest cover remained within the same area as its current boundaries. Similarly, this aerial photograph also shows no forest cover surrounding the original patent line trees on Mount Emerson. The construction of various structures by William duPont, including a sawmill, and the use of the woods for grazing indicate at least minor disturbance in both forests from 1900 through the 1930s. However, the impact of the chestnut blight between 1914 and 1931 suggests more moderate forest disturbance during those intervening years. While the NNL forest shows five releases from 1921 to 1928, only one is significant. In contrast, the Mount Emerson forests show a distinct aggregation peaking from 1922 to 1924, with four out of five releases significant. The timing of these releases suggests a response to the chestnut blight and a higher density of chestnut trees in the Mount Emerson forest prior to the blight. TRANSITION TO THE NATIONAL TRUST (1984PRESENT). Montpelier remained within the duPont family until it was willed to the National Trust for Historic Preservation by Marion Scott duPont in 1984 (Miller 1988). In 1987, the Trust received the National Natural Landmark Designation for the forest south of the mansion (Tice 1988). In the application for this status, Radford (undated) noted that the forest was ‘‘excellent, slightly disturbed old growth stand’’ and that it ‘‘is the best example of a mature forest dominated primarily by Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip poplar) / Lindera benzoin (benzoin) in the piedmont of eastern North America’’. In the Mount Emerson forests, the Trust also reserved the area around the patent-line trees from harvesting. However, other portions of the Mount Emerson forests were moderately disturbed by selectively harvests in 1987 and in 1989. These harvests are also distinctly recorded in the dendrochronological reconstruction from Mount Emerson as a group of seven releases from 1988 to 1989 with three significant. The 1999 forest survey in the NNL forest

216


[VOL. 131

Table 1. Tree species composition averaged across three one-hectare plots in the National Natural Landmark Forest at Montpelier. Nomenclature follows Harlow (1996). Live trees Species

Acer rubrum L. Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal Carpinus caroliniana Walt. Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh. Carya glabra (Mill.) Sweet var. glabra Carya glabra var. odorata (Marsh.) Little Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch Carya tormentosa (Poir.) Nutt. Cercis canadensis L. Cornus florida L. Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. Fraxinus americana L. Ilex opaca Ait. Juglans nigra L. Juniperus virginiana L. Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume Liriodendron tulipifera L. Nyssa sylvatica Marsh. Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch Paulownia tomentosa (Thunb.) Sieb. & Zucc. ex Steud. Quercus alba L. Quercus falcata Michx. Quercus prinus L. Quercus rubra L. Quercus velutina Lam. Robinia pseudoacacia L. Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees Tilia americana L. unknown species Total (averaged per hectare)

conducted by this study recorded an average density of 1749 live trees across three one-hectare plots with an average basal area of 43.1 ⫾ 3.4 m2/ha (95% Confidence limits). Species composition within the NNL forest was similar across plots with a consistent presence of oak and hickory species (Table 1), as expected from the classifications by Braun (1950) and Ku¨chler (1964); however, both the basal area and density of yellow poplar indicate its current dominance throughout the NNL forest. While often considered an early successional species due to its shade intolerance and its regeneration requirement of mineral soil, this species may have been a dominant species in pre-settlement forests within the southern Appalachians because of the large openings created by treefalls of mature yellow poplars (Shugart 1998, p. 249–250; Buckner and McCracken 1978). However, its relatively high basal area compared to its low density suggests that this replacement is not currently occurring for yellow poplars within the NNL forest. While probably not a contradiction

Basal area Density (stems·ha⫺1) (m2·ha⫺1)

39 2 4 2 204 53 ⬍1 140 114 625 ⬍1 224 ⬍1 ⬍1 1 10 145 84 ⬍1 ⬍1 6 ⬍1 53 29 6 1 2 2 1 1749

0.08 ⬍0.01 0.02 ⬍0.01 0.96 0.76 0.04 0.96 0.27 0.92 ⬍0.01 0.18 ⬍0.01 0.04 ⬍0.01 ⬍0.01 25.63 1.26 ⬍0.01 ⬍0.01 1.14 0.05 3.35 4.90 2.29 0.14 ⬍0.01 ⬍0.01 0.05 43.06

Standing dead trees Basal area Density (stems·ha⫺1) (m2·ha⫺1)

⬍1 0 0 0 1 0 ⬍1 3 3 241 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 ⬍1 0 0 ⬍1 0 5 4 1 4 0 0 11 281

⬍0.01 0 0 0 ⬍0.01 0 ⬍0.01 0.06 ⬍0.01 0.41 0 ⬍0.01 0 0 ⬍0.01 0 0.18 ⬍0.01 0 0 ⬍0.01 0 0.12 0.65 0.40 0.35 0 0 0.34 2.54

of its role in pre-settlement forests, instead the absence of yellow poplar regeneration more likely indicates the presence of a previous exogenous disturbance that temporarily provided the greater light availability and mineral soil required for its establishment throughout the forest. The basal area and density of oak trees in the NNL forest also suggests a lack of oak regeneration. Reduced oak regeneration has been observed in forests across eastern North America and has been attributed to various agents including fire suppression, increased herbivory, and climate change (Lorimer et al. 1994). In contrast to other eastern forests, the NNL forest does not display substantial percentages of red maple regeneration in its smaller size classes. Red maple, a fire-susceptible species, has become increasingly dominant in the understory of eastern North American forests as a result of fire suppression and its relative high shade tolerance (Abrams 1992). The high percentages of mortality observed in understory dogwoods in the NNL forest (Table 1) appear to have resulted

2004]


from the introduction of dogwood anthracnose (Distula destructiva Redlin), a fungal disease currently causing dogwood mortality throughout the this region (Carr and Banas 2000). Conclusions. The comparison of dendrochronological and documentary records presented in this study reveal an alternating history of forest use and conservation on the Montpelier plantation since its first settlement by James Madison’s grandfather in 1723. While the documentary disturbance reconstruction often advances causal explanations for forest disturbances, the dendrochronological reconstruction provides a more accurate assessment of both the timing and magnitude of a forest disturbance (e.g., the impact of the chestnut blight in the early 1920s). Additionally, the dendrochronological reconstruction also identifies events not recorded in the documentary records (e.g., the disturbance episode following re-establishment in the NNL forest during the mid-1880s) and discounts disturbances suggested by the documentary record (e.g., the creation and subsequent expansion of the English park at Montpelier). Overall, the NNL forest and the forests on Mount Emerson display similarities to other regional studies of mature forests both in terms of the current composition of canopy oaks, hickories, and yellow poplars (Abrams and Copenheaver 1999, Orwig and Abrams 1993, Farrell and Ware 1991) and the influence of anthropogenic disturbances on their prior forest dynamics (Abrams and Black 2000, Hannah 1999, Ruffner and Abrams 1998, McCarthy and Bailey 1996, Orwig and Abrams 1993). Unlike other studies, the consistent historical interest in the Montpelier plantation presents a replete and site-specific documentary history of these two forests over the last three centuries. This documentary history not only serves as an objective comparison to dendrochronological methods of disturbance history, but also enables an interpretation of the changing human interaction with these forests since European settlement. Literature Cited ABRAMS, M. D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. Bioscience 42: 346–353. ABRAMS, M. D. AND B. A. BLACK. 2000. Dendroecological analysis of a mature loblolly pine-mixed hardwood forest at the George Washington Birthplace National Monument, eastern Virginia. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 127: 139–148. ABRAMS, M. D. AND C. A. COPENHEAVER. 1999. Temporal variation in species recruitment and dendro-

217

ecology of an old-growth white oak forest in the Virginia Piedmont, USA. For. Ecol. and Manag. 124: 275–284. ALLEN, M. E. P. 1856. Letter to John Allen. Allen Family Papers (#9780) The Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville, VA. ANONYMOUS. 1849. Montpelier. The Southern Planter 9: 259. BERCKMAN, J. R. 1986. Development of the mansion grounds of ‘‘Montpelier,’’ home of James Madison M.S. Thesis. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. 86 p. BONNICKSEN, T. M. 2000. America’s Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 594 p. BORMANN, F. H. AND G. E. LIKENS. 1979. Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem: Disturbance, Development and the Steady State Based on the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 253 p. BRANT, I. 1970. The Fourth President: a Life of James Madison. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN. 681 p. BRANT, I. 1941. James Madison: the Virginia Revolutionist. Vol. 1. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN. 471 p. BRAUN, E. L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner, New York, NY. 596 p. BROWN, J. 1989. The Art and Architecture of English Gardens: Designs for the Garden from the Collection of the Royal Institute of British Architects 1609 to the Present Day. Rizzoli, New York, NY. 320 p. BUCKNER, E. AND W. MCCRACKEN. 1978. Yellow-poplar: a component of climax forests? J. For. 76: 421– 423. BUSHNELL, D. I. 1935. The Manahoac tribes in Virginia, 1608 Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 94(8): 1–56. CARR, L. G. AND R. R. MENARD. 1989. Land, Labor, and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland: Some Limits to Growth in the Chesapeake System of Husbandry. The Journal of Economic History 42: 407–418. CARR, D. E. AND L. E. BANAS. 2000. Dogwood Anthracnose (Discula destructiva): effects of and consequences for host (Cornus florida) demography. Am. Midl. Nat. 143: 169–177. CARTER, J. B., J. W. WILLS AND W. E. CUMMINS. 1971. Soil Survey: Orange County, Virginia U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C., 169 p. CHAMBERS, D. B. 1991. The making of Montpelier: Col. James Madison and the development of a piedmont plantation, 1741 to 1774. Masters Thesis, University of Virginia: Charlottesville, VA. 265 p. COLE, L. C. 1957. Biological clock in the unicorn Science 125: 874–876. COWDREY, A. E. 1996. This Land, this South: an Environmental History. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 240 p. DRUCKENBROD, D. L., M. E. MANN, D. W. STAHLE, M. K. CLEAVELAND, M. D. THERRELL AND H. H. SHUGART. 2003. Late-eighteenth-century precipitation reconstructions from James Madison’s Montpelier plantation. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 84: 57–71. FARRELL, J. D. AND S. WARE. 1991. Edaphic factors and forest vegetation in the piedmont of Virginia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 118: 161–169.

218


FRELICH, L. E. AND L. J. GRAUMLICH. 1994. Age-class distribution and spatial patterns in an old-growth hemlock-hardwood forest. Can. J. For. Res 24: 1939–1947. GILMER, J. F. 1998. Map of Orange. 1864 Jeremy Francis Gilmer Collection, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, VA. GRAVATT, F. 1914. The chestnut blight in Virginia. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration. Virginia Pamphlet vol. 36: 1–13. GRYMES, J. R. 1977. The Octonia Grant in Orange and Greene counties. Seminole Press, Ruckersville, VA. 77 p. HANNAH, P. R. 1999. Species composition and dynamics in two hardwood stands in Vermont: a disturbance history. For. Ecol. Manag. 120: 105–116. HARLOW, W. M., E. S. HARRAR, J. W. HARDIN AND F. M. WHITE. 1996. Textbook of Dendrology. Eighth Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 534 p. HARRIS, C. M. 1994a. Latrobe, Benjamin Henry, p. 230 In: R. A. Rutland (ed.), James Madison and the American Nation, 1751–1836: an Encyclopedia. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. 509 p. HARRIS, C. M. 1994b. Thornton, William, p. 403–404 In: R. A. Rutland (ed.), James Madison and the American Nation, 1751–1836: An Encyclopedia. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. 509 p. HENRY, J. D. AND J. M. A. SWAN. 1974. Reconstructing forest history from live and dead plant material— an approach to the study of forest succession in southwest New Hampshire. Ecology 55: 772–783. HOLLAND, C. G. 1979. The ramifications of the fire hunt. Quarterly of the Archeology Society of Virginia 33: 134–140. HOLMES, R. L. 1983. Computer assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree-Ring Bull. 44: 69–75. KELLY, J. C. AND W. M. S. RASMUSSEN. 2000. The Virginia Landscape: A Cultural History. Howell Press, Charlottesville, VA. 214 p. KEEVER, C. 1953. Present composition of some stands of the former oak–chestnut forest in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Ecology 34: 44–54. KETCHAM, R. L. 1990. James Madison: A Biography. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 753 p. KLEIN, M. 1988. The Montpelier periphery: an archaeological survey. Archaeological Survey Monograph No. 4. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 136 p. KU¨CHLER, A. W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, New York, NY. 154 p. LEWIS, L. G. AND S. K. PARKER. From aborigines to aristocrats: archaeological survey in Orange County, Virginia, 1987. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Montpelier Station, VA, 166 p. LORIMER, C. G. AND L. E. FRELICH. 1989. A methodology for estimating canopy disturbance frequency and intensity in dense temperate forests. Can. J. For. Res. 19: 651–663. LORIMER, C. G., J. W. CHAPMAN AND W. D. LAMBERT. 1994. Tall understory vegetation as a factor in the poor development of oak seedlings beneath mature stands. J. Ecol. 82: 227–237. MADISON, J. 1985. Papers of James Madison. Vol. 15

[VOL. 131

Mason, T.A, Rutland, R.A. and Sisson, J.K. (eds), University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 561 p. MADISON, J. 1981. Papers of James Madison. Vol. 13 Hobson, C.F.and Rutland, R.A. (eds), University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 423 p. MADISON, J. 1818. An Address Delivered Before the Agricultural Society of Albemarle on Tuesday May 12, 1818. Shepard and Pollard, Richmond, VA. 31 p. MADISON, COL. JAMES. 1750. Account Book of Col. James Madison’s Store, 1744–1755. Archeology Department, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Montpelier. MATHWORKS. 2000. Matlab 6. Release 12 The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA. MAXWELL, H. 1910. The use and abuse of forests by the Virginia Indians. William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine 19: 73–104. MCCARTHY, B. C. AND D. R. BAILEY. 1996. Composition, structure, and disturbance history of Crabtree Woods: an old-growth forest of western Maryland. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 123: 350–365. MILLER, A. L. 1990. Historic structure report: Montpelier, Orange County, Virginia. phase II: documentary evidence regarding the Montpelier house 1723–1983. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Montpelier Station, 196 p. MILLER, A. L. 1988. Antebellum Orange: The Pre-Civil War Homes, Public Buildings, and Historic Sites of Orange County, Virginia, Moss, Orange, VA. 197 p. MILLER, A. L. 1985. The Madison family’s land in the region of ‘‘Montpelier,’’ central Orange County, Virginia: 1723–1801 M.S. Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 27 p. MOFFATT, L. G. AND J. M. CARRIE`RE. 1945. A Frenchman visits Norfolk, Fredericksburg, and Orange County, 1816. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 53: 101–123, 197–214. NOWACKI, G. J. AND M. D. ABRAMS. 1997. Radialgrowth averaging criteria for reconstructing disturbance histories from presettlement-origin oaks. Ecol. Monogr. 67: 225–249. OLIVER, C. D. AND E. P. STEPHENS. 1977. Reconstruction of a mixed-species forest in central New England. Ecology 58: 562–572. ORWIG, D. A. AND M. D. ABRAMS. 1993. Land-use history (1720–1992), composition, and dynamics of oak-pine forests within the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of northern Virginia. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1216–1225. PAYETTE, S., L. FILION AND A. DELWAIDE. 1990. Disturbance regime of a cold temperate forest as deduced from tree-ring patterns: the Tantare Ecological Reserve, Quebec. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 1228– 1241. RADER, E. K. AND N. H. EVANS. (eds). 1993. Geologic Map of Virginia: Expanded Explanation Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Commonwealth of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 80 p. RADFORD, A. E. undated. Application for National Ecological Natural Landmark at the Montpelier Estate. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Montpelier. ROBERTSON, B. 1985. Introduction, p. 9–12 In: The Art of Paul Sandby. Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, CT. 111 p.

2004]


RUFFNER, C. M. AND M. D. ABRAMS. 1998. Relating land-use history and climate to the dendroecology of a 326-year-old Quercus prinus talus slope forest. Can. J. For. Res. 28: 347–358. RUNKLE, J. R. 1982. Patterns of disturbance in some old growth mesic forests of eastern North America. Ecology 63: 1533–1546. RUTLAND, R. A. 1987. James Madison: The Founding Father. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, MO. 287 p. SCHLARBAUM, S. E., F. HEBARD, P. C. SPAINE AND J. C. KAMALAY. 1997. Three American tragedies: chestnut blight, butternut canker, and Dutch elm disease, p. 45–54 In: K. O. Britton [ed.], Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests. Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council. SCOTT, W. W. 1907. A History of Orange County Virginia: From its Formation in 1734 (O.S.) to the End of Reconstruction in 1870; Compiled Mainly from Original Records. Everett Waddey, Richmond, VA. 292 p. SEMMES, J. E. 1917. John H.B. Latrobe and his Times, 1803–1891. Norman, Remington, Baltimore, MD. 601 p. SHUGART, H. H. 1998. Terrestrial Ecosystems in Changing Environments. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 537 p.

219

STOKES, M. A. AND T. L. SMILEY. 1968. An introduction to tree-ring dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 73 p. THORNTON, A. M. B. 1967. Journal and diaries of Mrs. William Thornton, 1793–1863. Library of Congress, Photo Duplication Service, Washington, D.C. TICE, D. 1988. James Madison’s forests and the Constitution. Virginia Forests 44: 16–17, 50. TINKCOM, M. B. 1851. Caviar along the Potomac: Sir Augustus John Foster’s ‘‘Notes on the United States,’’ 1804–1812. William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 8: 68–107. TURNER, E. R. 1978. An intertribal deer exploitation buffer zone for the Virginia coastal plain-piedmont regions. Quart. Bull. Archeological Soc. Virginia 32: 42–48. WATKIN, D. 1982. The English Vision: The Picturesque in Architecture, Landscape and Garden Design. Harper and Row, New York, NY. 227 p. WATT, A. S. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. J. of Ecol. 35: 1–22. WHITE, P. S. AND S. T. A. PICKETT. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction, p. 1–32 In: S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White (eds.), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New York, NY.