Nope, I found this one paper. (From 1980-1984 there were like half a
dozen.)
> least Fritz and Ammons'es have continued working on it. When you are
> trying to test whether there is a match between trees in different layers,
> finding trees that match in the same layer is not a very good criterion for
> establishing your hypothesis. And no, their 60 ring match is orders of
> magnitude less certain than Arct's analysis, in which not only do the ring
> sizes match one for one, but the earlywood rings match and the multiple
> latewood rings match as well. And Fritz' work says nothing to the
> possibility that the trees were all growing somewhere else and brought in
> by the same kind of forces that were effecting the same kind of process in
> spirit lake. Those papers looked pretty weak to me.
They weren't establishing whether any trees were brought in, but whether
the ones which are clearly in situ have the supporting dendrochronological
evidence to suggest they grew at the same time.
It isn't at all clear why a 60-ring signature is orders of magnitude
less certain than a few-ring signature a la Arct. It would seem to
me that the 60-ring signature is stronger evidence, as it is not as
susceptible to noise.
Fritz' work is based on the conclusions of the earlier analysis which
demonstrate that some of the trees are buried in situ. The question then
becomes whether or not the site records a "fossil forest" or just a
bunch of trees fossilized at various times. For a variety of reasons,
with which you are no doubt familiar, it would be much neater if it was
a 'fossil forest.' The Ammons'/Fritz dendrochronology suggests it may
have been (at least in that particular layer).
> >And from the first page:
> >"All workers agree that most of the layers of petrified trees on Specimen
> >Ridge, an area representing deposition in lower-energy lowland facies, are
> >most likely preserved in place"
>
> Since most of the work on the forests was done by myself and my students
> for a period of 15 years, and by Coffin and others who do not agree, I
> don't know what his reference is based upon. He was a student of my
> student Lanny Fisk, who also certainly doesn't agree, unless he too has
> changed his position. Here is one worker that does not agree.
I don't know what he is basing his statements on. Perhaps the dearth of
post-1984 publications on the subject.
> >They found a 60-year signature pattern that they found in the 15-25m level,
> >but they only tested it on like three trees (which were clearly buried
> >in situ).
>
> I can tell you that there is no such thing as "Clearly buried in situ" in
> the yellowstone forests. What kind of criteria would you apply? The trees
> look superficially like they grew there, but all of the other features of a
> "forest" are sadly lacking. Roots? All over the place, just as is the case
> for the trees transported by the lahars at Mt. St. Helens.
You seem to be ignoring the complexity of the site. There are some trees
which are transports, and others which are in situ buried. If you want
to know what criteria to apply, perhaps you should read Yuretich's 1984
paper. Or you could just read a bit further...
[...]
> >stumps were unquestionably in place as shown by fine roots embedded in
> >fine grained sediments below conglomerates which flowed around the trunk
> >bases. Furthermore, well-differentiated soil profiles were developed at
> >these horizons.
>
> There are lots of roots and rootlets. There are large roots that end
> abruptly in a fracture, but otherwise appear to be eminating from upright
> trees. There are roots attached to upight trees that are fractured and
> broken in the layer below the tree. That well differentiated "soil
> profile" in thin section reveals perfect preservation of the organic level
> materials, with graded beds of ash underneath the profiles of broadleaves.
> Try doing that in a soil. I have examined over 100 thin sections of the
> organic horizons, and never have I seen anything like a soil or a soil
> profile.
I have no idea about soil profiles. The papers I've read didn't seem
to feel a need to explain the concept, though (so I'm still in the dark),
and the reviewers didn't balk, so it would seem the notion isn't completely
irregular.
> >The consensus by people involved seems to be that while most of the
> >levels represent in situ-buried trees which grew contemporaneously
> >and form "fossilized forests," there is also transported material present
> >as well, which I'm not sure anyone has figured out where it came from.
>
> I thought the work on the forests was pretty well finished and moved on to
> other areas 10 years ago. If you have read my paper on the paleoecology,
> you will see what proponents of in situ growth are up against. I would
> agree that there is no good easy explanation for all the features of the
> deposits. Suffice to say that viewing them as successive forests as Dorf
> did was hopelessly simplistic. There is geochemical data available now that
> will shut the door on the in situ interpretations of the Yellowstone trees.
> I guess I will start urging its publication.
I agree that the "successive fossil forests" idea is too simplistic. I
think the balance of opinion is that the "all the trees rafted in" idea
is also too simplistic, and is supported by sedimentological and
dendrochronological evidence. That seems to be what you are arguing, though,
on the basis that some stumps are clearly transported to the site. At
one time, people may have argued that that didn't happen. According to
the excerpt I quoted, though, that is no longer the case. I think the
most interesting question outstanding at present is whether there
was actually a forest ecology that was fossilized or not. The Ammons&co
paper says there was, but I'm not sure their analysis is enough to base
an investigation upon.
-Greg