Henry Gannett

Abstract

Although Henry Gannett is best known as “the father of American map-making,” he made noteworthy contributions to timberline research in the late 1800s. Gannett’s studies attempted to identify a standard isotherm for alpine timberline in the USA, explained the mass elevation effect on timberline altitude in the Rocky Mountains, and recognized the importance of geology and geomorphology as controlling factors. Despite these contributions, Gannett’s timberline work remains in obscurity. As technology enhances our ability to find and cite older literature, the contributions of Gannett, and other unknown scholars, may provide us with insight and useful data that have lain dormant for decades or centuries.

Keywords

Henry Gannett timberline alpine treeline American West isotherm mass elevation effect geomorphology

I. Introduction

Although Henry Gannett (1846–1914; Figure 1) is often considered “the father of American map-making” (North, 1915: 8), his contributions to geography extend well beyond cartography. He participated in Hayden’s 1871 survey of the American West, served as the first chief geographer of the US Geological Survey (USGS), acted as chief geographer for the US Census, assisted with censuses in the Philippines and Cuba, was a founding member of the National Geographic Society, and helped organize the Association of American Geographers (Darton, 1917; North, 1915). Gannet produced numerous USGS bulletins and annual reports that, according to a search in the Publish or Perish software program (Harzing, 2007), have been cited more than 550 times. However, “besides these generous contributions were professional papers, principally on forest conditions” (Darton, 1917: 70). Of particular interest are two articles, both titled “The Timber Line,” which were published in the Botanical Gazette in 1882 and the Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York in 1899. In both articles Gannett drew upon his extensive survey and travel experience throughout the USA and attempted to explain the factors controlling American timberlines. Surprisingly, according to various databases and web searches, these publications have only been cited a total of seven times (Table 1). At the time of Gannett’s articles, the distinction between timberline (the uppermost extent of continuous, closed-canopy forest) and treeline (the uppermost extent of individual, erect trees) had not been made (Arno and Hammerly, 1984; Hustich, 1979; Wardle, 1965), and it is logical to assume that Gannett was referring to the rather broad ecotone between forest and alpine tundra (see Wardle, 1974). Throughout this article I will use the term timberline to remain consistent with Gannett’s designation; however, because Gannett’s observations represent the ecotone, the discussion herein also pertains to treeline, and the two terms can be considered synonymous for the purpose of this discussion (see Elliott (2017) for recent definition and discussion of these terms). The remainder of this article highlights the unsung timberline observations of Henry Gannett in the late 19th century.

Figure 1.

Henry Gannett in 1899. Public domain photo. USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection (https://library.usgs.gov/photo/#/item/51dda219e4b0f72b4471df19).

Table 1.

Citations of Henry Gannett’s “timber line” articles, according to searches in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic (conducted January 2018).

Gannett (1882) The Timber Line. Botanical Gazette 7(10): 114–117.

Shaw JD and Long JN (2007) Forest ecology and biogeography of the Uinta Mountains, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 39(4): 614–628.

Kusbach A (2010) Terrestrial ecosystem classification in the Rocky Mountains, Northern Utah. PhD Thesis, Utah State University, USA.

Kusbach A, Van Miegroet H, Boettinger JL, et al. (2014) Vegetation geo-climatic zonation in the Rocky Mountains, Northern Utah, USA. Journal of Mountain Science 11(3): 656–673.

Gannett (1899) The Timber Line. Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 31(2): 118–122.

Daubenmire R (1954) Alpine timberlines in the Americas and their interpretation. Butler University Botanical Studies 11(14): 119–136.

Liptzin D, Sanford RL and Seastedt TR (2013) Spatial patterns of total and available N and P at alpine treeline. Plant and Soil 365(1–2): 127–140.

Hoffman G and Tomlinson G (1966) A bibliography of vegetational studies of Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist 11(2): 228–237.

Fink M, Rondeau R and Decker K (2014) Treeline monitoring in the San Juan Mountains. Report, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, USA, December.

II. Temperature and a standard isotherm for alpine timberline

In his 1882 article, Gannett speculated that “the upper limit of timber must have approximately the same mean annual temperature everywhere” (p.115). Using temperature data from weather stations at the base of mountains, and his survey and travel experience, Gannett calculated an average lapse rate for mountains of the contiguous USA and suggested that “mean annual temperature of timber line is 2 or 3 degrees [Fahrenheit] below the freezing point” (1899: 122). Gannett himself acknowledged the shortcomings of station data to represent an entire mountain, but he is likely the first person to propose a standard isotherm to explain the distribution of timberlines in the USA.

Alpine timberline and treeline scholars have noted the apparent correlation between the location of trees and the 10ºC mean air temperature isotherm of the warmest month. It has been suggested by Körner (2012) that Brockmann-Jerosch (1919) and Köppen (1919, 1936) were the first to discuss the correlation between treeline and the 10ºC isotherm. Interestingly, Körner (1998) stated these claims have been made since the 19th century, yet cited only the following 20th-century publications: Brockmann-Jerosch (1919), Daubenmire (1954), Holtmeier (1974), and Grace (1977). If Brockmann-Jerosch (who stated that the 10ºC isotherm fluctuated around the limit of alpine trees in the Swiss Alps) was the first to use the 10ºC isotherm, his findings came at least 20 years behind Gannett’s efforts to identify a standard isotherm. Although Grace (1977) is mentioned by Körner (1998), Grace merely refers to Daubenmire’s explanation of treeline and temperature, where Daubenmire states,

The earliest quantitative work on this problem in the 19th century suggested that the climatic limits of cold timberlines coincide roughly with isotherms representing 10ºC for the mean temperature of the warmest month. In 1903 de Quervain (see Schroter, 1926) showed that daily maximal temperatures in summer provide monthly means that are even more closely associated with the position of cold timberlines, and Brockmann-Jerosch in an extensive monograph (1918) verified this contention with data drawn from wide geographic area (1954: 128).

Similar to Körner, Daubenmire made reference to quantitative research from the 19th century, but no 19th-century citations accompany his assertion. The De Quervain (1903) reference, cited via Schröter (1926), comes only four years later than Gannett’s claim. Although the 10ºC isotherm is cited as a product of the 19th century, no apparent citations exist to corroborate this fact. In effect, it appears as though Henry Gannett, although inaccurate in his calculation of a standard timberline temperature, is the only documented scholar from the 19th century who attempted to correlate timberline location with a standard isotherm in North America. All the more surprising, therefore, is that his publications on the topic have so few citations. A complete history and review of the 10ºC isotherm and timberline debate is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is interesting to note that Gannett was at the forefront of the discussion and received little recognition.

III. Mass elevation effect and alpine timberline

Timberline and snowline at the center of large mountain masses occur at higher altitudes than on the surrounding front range mountains. According to some scholars (Han et al., 2012; Körner, 2012), De Quervain (1904) introduced this concept and provided the first detailed account of “massenerhebungseffect,” or mass elevation effect (MEE). Five years prior to De Quervain’s publication, however, Gannett observed that the timberline in Colorado was higher than anywhere else in the contiguous USA. He explained this fact by stating that “all these summits are in the central part of the State and rise from its highest plateau and valleys, in the midst of a perfect sea of high mountains” (Gannett, 1899: 119). Although he did not coin a term for his observation, Gannett correctly identified a major controlling factor of higher timberlines in the center of the Rocky Mountain massif. Moreover, he noted the interplay between MEE and latitude. In the state of New Mexico, directly south of Colorado, Gannett said, “the altitude of timber line is no greater than in Colorado, since the effect of the more southerly latitude is offset by the diminished altitude of the plateau” (Gannett, 1899: 119). More than 100 years later Gannett’s observations were validated using quantitative measures across the latitudinal range of the Rocky Mountains (Wang et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2014). Although the individual who first identified and introduced the concept of MEE may be difficult or impossible to identify (see Czajka et al. (2015) for reference to several European authors from the 1800s), Gannett was once again uncited, yet at the forefront of timberline research in North America.

IV. Edaphic and geomorphic controls of alpine treeline

Temperature has long been considered the primary control of timberlines around the world (Grace et al., 2002; Körner, 1998; Körner and Paulsen, 2004). Gannett himself believed “the height of timber line is essentially a question of temperature” (1899: 120). However, he was quick to recognize and mention the importance of edaphic and geomorphic factors. Gannett claims that “on rocky mountains, timber does not climb as high as on those thickly covered with soil” and asserts that all mountains in the State of Utah, outside the Uinta Range, should be forested to their summits, were it not for lack of soil and aridity (1899: 118). Generally speaking, Gannett illustrated that edaphic characteristics and exposed bedrock contribute to the location of timberline. Much research has highlighted the relationship between soil characteristics and timberline (Cairns, 1999; Dawes et al., 2017; Holtmeier and Broll, 1992; Mooney et al., 1962; Parker and Sanford, 1999; Seastedt and Adams, 2001). With exception to a limited number of studies suggesting a relationship between timberline and solifluction (Troll, 1973 and references therein), however, few studies have examined the influence of exposed bedrock and geomorphology. Gannett observed that the “steepness of slopes” (1899: 121) affected the timberline, where it can be depressed by snow avalanches (Butler, 2001; Patten and Knight, 1994), debris flows (Butler and Walsh, 1994), and unconsolidated material (Jackson and Faller, 1973). Most of Gannett’s timberline observations occurred at the coarse, mountain or range scale. Although he recognized the importance of geology and geomorphology, it is unlikely he observed many of the fine-scale geomorphic processes that affect the timberline (for examples, see Malanson et al., 2002; Resler, 2006; Resler et al., 2005; Whitesides and Butler, 2016). Butler et al. (2007) suggested that some timberlines may be attributed to climatic factors, but large- and small-scale geomorphic processes and geological history are often the primary control of timberline in the American West, although additional research is desperately needed (Whitesides and Butler, 2010). Gannett, therefore, was ahead of his time to observe the geological and geomorphological effects on timberline location, although he obviously believed temperature was the primary control. Körner (2012) mentioned the need to separate the general drivers of global timberline from the regional peculiarities that dictate formation. Gannett’s observations of temperature, MEE, and geomorphic controls do just that for the USA.

V. Conclusions

Although Henry Gannett is best known for his cartographic contributions, he made noteworthy advances in timberline research in the USA. His timberline observations are unique for the 19th century because, in addition to temperature, they included the overlooked concepts of mass elevation effect and geomorphology as controls of alpine timberline (see Elliott (2017) for a recent history of treeline research). Despite these contributions, Gannett’s timberline work remains in obscurity. A recent Google Inc. report noted that for 261 subject categories, 36% of citations in 2013 were to older articles (>10 years since publication), which is a 28% increase over 1990 citations (Verstak et al., 2014). The increase in citations of older articles was attributed to an increase in technology, which makes finding, reading, and citing relevant older articles as easy as citing recently published work (Verstak et al., 2014). This appears to be true for the seven citations of Gannet’s timberline work: two are from the mid-20th century and the other five are mostly less than 10 years old (Table 1). If this trend continues, more timberline scholars will discover and cite Gannett’s work. Another reason for Gannett’s obscurity may be that he was working in North America and writing in English at a time when European scholars writing in German were at the forefront of timberline research. Perhaps the most unfortunate cause of his obscurity, however, was his personality and humility. Gannett was a prolific writer, but “all his writings lacked what we may call the personal flavor. He never made reference to his own contributions to geographical and statistical science” (North, 1915: 20). Moreover,

it was always difficult, even for his intimates, to induce him to speak of his own work and achievements; he held a wholly inadequate idea of their permanent importance. He preferred to talk in appreciative terms of what his fellow scientists were doing; he was modest, unassertive, even to a fault (North, 1915: 24).

Perhaps his traits of humility and possible self-deprecation caused him to fade into obscurity. It is interesting to consider how advancements in timberline studies may have evolved differently over the past 120 years had Gannett’s work been known. What other gems exist in obscurity that need to be rediscovered to shape our knowledge of timberline dynamics? I think this should be a call to arms to dig deeper into the existing literature to find the relevant articles that are “sleeping beauties” (Van Raan, 2004), help them gain the delayed recognition (Goldstein, 2017) they deserve, and allow them to direct our scientific endeavors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arno

Hammerly

(1984) Timberline: Mountain and Arctic Forest Frontiers. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers.

Brockmann-Jerosch

(1919) Baumgrenze und Klimacharakter. Pflanzengeographische Kommission der Schweiz. Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Beiträge zur geobotanischen Landesaufnahme 6. Zürich: Rascher.

Butler

(2001) Geomorphic process-disturbance corridors: A variation on a principle of landscape ecology. Progress in Physical Geography 25(2): 237–238.

Butler

Walsh

(1994) Site characteristics of debris flows and their relationship to alpine treeline. Physical Geography 15(2): 181–199.

Butler

Malanson

Walsh

. (2007) Influences of geomorphology and geology on alpine treeline in the American West – More important than climatic influences? Physical Geography 28(5): 434–450.

Cairns

(1999) Multi-scale analysis of soil nutrients at alpine treeline in Glacier National Park, Montana. Physical Geography 20(3): 256–271.

Czajka

Łajczak

Kaczka

(2015) Geographical characteristics of the timberline in the Carpathains. Geographia Polonica 88(2): 35–54.

Darton

(1917) Memoir of Henry Gannett. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 7: 68–70.

Daubenmire

(1954) Alpine timberlines in the Americas and their interpretation. Butler University Botanical Studies 11(14): 119–136.

10.

Dawes

Schleppi

Hagedorn

(2017) The fate of nitrogen inputs in a warmer alpine treeline ecosystem: A 15ºN labelling study. Journal of Ecology 105(6): 1723–1737.

11.

de Quervain

(1903) Die Hebung der atmosphärischen Isothermen in den Schweizer Alpen und ihre Beziehung zu den Höhengrenzen. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

12.

de Quervain

(1904) Die Hebung der atmosphärischen Isothermen in den Schweizer Alpen und ihre Beziehung zu den Höhengrenzen. In: Gerlaned

(ed) Beiträge zur Geophysik. Zeitschrift für physikalische Erdkunde. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 481–533.

13.

Elliott

(2017) Treeline ecotones. In: Richardson

(ed) The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, The Earth, Environment, and Technology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 7188–7198.

14.

Gannett

(1882) The timber line. Botanical Gazette 7(10): 114–117.

15.

Gannett

(1899) The timber line. Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 31(2): 118–122.

16.

Goldstein

(2017) Delayed recognition of geomorphology papers in the Geological Society of America Bulletin. Progress in Physical Geography 41(3): 363–368.

17.

Grace

(1977) Plant Response to Wind. London: Academic Press.

18.

Grace

Berninger

Nagy

(2002) Impacts of climate change on tree line. Annals of Botany 90(4): 537–544.

19.

Han

Yao

Dai

. (2012) Mass elevation effect and its forcing on timberline altitude. Journal of Geographical Sciences 22(4): 609–616.

20.

Harzing

(2007) Publish or perish. Available at: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm Last accessed on 7 May 2018

21.

Holtmeier

(1974) Geoökologische Beobachtungen und Studien an der subarktischen und alpinen Waldgrenze in vergleichender Sicht. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

22.

Holtmeier

Broll

(1992) The influence of tree islands and microtopography on pedoecological conditions in the forest-alpine tundra ecotone on Niwot Ridge, Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 24(3): 216–228.

23.

Hustich

(1979) Ecological concepts and biographical zonation in the north: The need for a generally accepted terminology. Holarctic Ecology 2(4): 208–217.

24.

Jackson

Faller

(1973) Structural analysis and dynamics of the plant communities of Wizard Island, Crater Lake National Park. Ecological Monographs 43(4): 441–461.

25.

Köppen

(1919) Baumgrenze und Lufttemperatur. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 65: 201–203.

26.

Köppen

(1936) Das geographische System der Klimate. In: Köppen

Geiger

(eds) Handbuch der Klimatologie. Berlin: Verlag von Gebrüder Borntraeger, Band I, Teil C, C5–C44.

27.

Körner

(1998) A re-assessment of high elevation treeline position and their explanation. Oecologia 115(4): 445–459.

28.

Körner

(2012) Alpine Treelines: Functional Ecology of the Global High Elevation Tree Limits. Basel: Springer.

29.

Körner

Paulsen

(2004) A world-wide study of high altitude treeline temperatures. Journal of Biogeography 31(5): 713–732.

30.

Malanson

Butler

Cairns

. (2002) Variability in an edaphic indicator in alpine tundra. Catena 49(3): 203–215.

31.

Mooney

St. Andre

Wright

(1962) Alpine and subalpine vegetation patterns in the White Mountains of California. The American Midland Naturalist 68(2): 257–273.

32.

North

SDN

(1915) Henry Gannett, President of the National Geographic Society, 1910-1914. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.

33.

Parker

Sanford

(1999) The effects of mobile tree islands on soil phosphorus concentrations and distribution in an alpine tundra ecosystem on Niwot Ridge, Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 31(1): 16–20.

34.

Patten

Knight

(1994) Snow avalanches and vegetation pattern in Cascade Canyon, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research 26(1): 35–41.

35.

Resler

(2006) Geomorphic controls of spatial pattern and process at alpine treeline. The Professional Geographer 58(2): 124–138.

36.

Resler

Butler

Malanson

(2005) Topographic shelter and conifer establishment and mortality in an alpine environment, Glacier National Park, Montana. Physical Geography 26(2): 112–125.

37.

Schröter

(1926) Das Pflanzenleben der Alpen. Zurich: Raustein.

38.

Seastedt

Adams

(2001) Effects of mobile tree islands on alpine tundra soils. Ecology 82(1): 8–17.

39.

Troll

(1973) High mountain belts between the polar caps and the equator: Their definition and lower limit. Arctic and Alpine Research 5(3): A19–A27.

40.

van Raan

AFJ

(2004) Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics 59(3): 467–472.

41.

Verstak

Acharya

Suzuki

. (2014) On the shoulders of giants: The growing impact of older articles. Report, Google Inc., November.

42.

Wang

Zhang

. (2017) A quantitative study of the mass elevation effect of the Rocky Mountains and its significance for treeline distribution. Physical Geography 38(3): 231–247.

43.

Wardle

(1965) A comparison of alpine timber lines in New Zealand and North America. New Zealand Journal of Botany 3(2): 113–135.

44.

Wardle

(1974) Alpine timberlines. In: Ives

Barry

(eds) Arctic and Alpine Environments. London: Methuen, 370–402.

45.

Whitesides

Butler

(2010) Adequacies and deficiencies of alpine and subalpine treeline studies in the national parks of the western USA. Progress in Physical Geography 35(1): 19–42.

46.

Whitesides

Butler

(2016) Bioturbation by gophers and marmots and its effects on conifer germination. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41(15): 2269–2281.

47.

Zhao

Zhang

Pang

. (2014) A study of the contribution of mass elevation effect of the altitudinal distribution of timberline in the Northern Hemisphere. Journal of Geographical Sciences 24(2): 226–236.