Winter 2013
The Language of Bark
The search for a better all-season field guide inspires a closer look at the unexpected beauty of bark.

Organizing photos of various bark types
Story and photos By Michael Wojtech
I spot the neon-orange flag, unmistakable among the more earthly hues of October leaves, and crash through the underbrush to reach it. I quickly begin cataloguing the surrounding trees. On a low-hanging branch, I find familiar looking needles and record eastern hemlock on my data sheet. I peer up through binoculars to recognize the leaves of a broad beauty — an old red maple. The next tree, a tall one, looks like a hickory. Pignut? Bitternut? Mockernut? Its leaves, buds and twigs are too high to see. I write down bitternut, based on the moist, lowland terrain I find myself in, but wish I could be more certain.
The flag marks one of 30 plots scattered throughout this western Massachusetts forest in which I have been inventorying trees over the last several weeks. Although it is still morning, a deepening dusk descends along with a steady drizzle; a downpour seems imminent. It is the wind, though, that spurs me on. With each gust, more of the season’s last leaves rain down upon me — leaves that provide critical clues to species identification. Today is my last chance. The coming storm will leave behind a canopy of bare branches. By late afternoon, I reach the last plot and document the last tree. I leave the forest drenched, but relieved.

Inner bark is a primary food source for beavers, who have stripped it from the base of this American beech.
What I learn as I begin field work is how little I know. Bark’s diversity, especially within the same species, is far greater than I imagined. It will take me three years to complete my thesis and another four and a half years for my field guide to be published.
A NEW LANGUAGE
A friend traces the deep furrows of bark with his finger. “That’s an eastern white pine,” I tell him.
When he asks, “How can you tell?” I am speechless. Over a year into my project, I recognize most tree species by their bark, but still struggle to describe them for others.
Hundreds of bark photographs are spread across my office floor. Although I have been sorting through them for months, it has been difficult to explain why some photos are similar and what makes others look so different.

Cross section of paper birch trunk showing the orange-brown inner bark, or phloem, surrounded by the white, protective cork layer of the periderm
I gather together photos of trees with smooth, unbroken bark, which become my first bark type. These are mostly young trees, with bark that will change in appearance as they grow older. Now, to develop my next bark type category, I need to sketch out the multi-layered structure of bark.
The inner bark layer, the phloem, transports sugars produced by photosynthesis throughout the tree. This living layer is the food of beavers, porcupines and other mammals, including humans — the phloem of eastern white pine and other species can be dried and ground into flour.

The green cork skin found in the interior layer of bark can produce supplementary energy through photosynthesis.
Beneath the cork in the periderm are the cork cambium, an area where cell division occurs, and the thin, green cork skin, found by gently scraping away the outer bark on a young twig. The cork skin is capable, to a lesser degree, of the same energy-producing photosynthesis as leaves. Supplemental energy from bark photosynthesis helps trees stay healthy and can boost recovery from defoliation due to insect infestation, disease, storms or severe drought.
Distinctive pores, called lenticels, facilitate the controlled gas exchange — necessary for bark photosynthesis — of carbon dioxide and oxygen through the protective outer bark. Lenticels are readily visible on many species, especially on smooth bark, where you can also feel how they protrude from the surface. They become criteria for another pile of photos and are the distinguishing characteristic of my second bark type. The variety of shapes, sizes and colors of lenticels — from the dark, horizontal lines of yellow birch to the diamond-shaped structures of young bigtooth aspen — will later help me identify the species within this bark type.

TEASING APART THE BROWNS AND GRAYS
A few species, such as American beech, maintain smooth, unbroken bark for their entire lifespan, as their initial periderm continues to grow around the increasing circumference of the trunk and branches, but many of the uncategorized photos still spread across my floor show bark that has broken apart and grown thicker in a multitude of ways. These trees have all reached a point where their wood is growing faster than — and pushing outward against — the bark that surrounds it. The bark of each species responds differently to this pressure, resulting in specific bark characteristics that provide clues for species identification.
On some species, such as paper birch, this pressure causes thin layers of the outer cork to separate and peel away from the trunk and branches in horizontal, curly strips — creating my third distinctive bark type and a new stack of photos.
More often, pressure exerted by the wood splits the entire periderm, including its protective cork layer. The first visible sign of this process is often vertical cracks in otherwise smooth bark, a feature I noticed long ago on northern red oak. I designate this as my fourth bark type.

Deep furrows separate thick, corky ridges on mature eastern white pine.
My remaining, uncategorized photos all seem, at first, to display the same rough, thick, multilayered rhytidome — the iconic representation of bark that I held in my mind’s eye before starting this project. Slowly, though, as I closely observe my photos and get my hands on living specimens, differences begin to emerge.
On some bark, gaps appear between the outer rhytidome layers, where one could easily catch an edge and pry pieces away from the trunk. Bark with this characteristic can further be divided into three new bark types: scales of bark like on a black cherry; thick, irregular plates like on a black birch; and vertical strips like on a red maple. Other trees have rhytidomes with more tightly adhered layers, creating an additional three bark types: intersecting ridges like on a white ash; ridges broken horizontally like on white oak; and uninterrupted ridges like on northern red oak.
For the first time in months, I now have a clear walking path through my office thanks to 10 neat piles of photos representing each of my 10 bark types, which become the foundation for an identification key. I enjoy months in the woods searching for my next set of descriptive clues to differentiate the species within each bark type. At a particular stage in the growth of white pine, for example, I discover fine, horizontal cracks that are evenly spaced, like writing paper. I spend weeks looking at nothing but sugar maple trees before noticing that the surface of their bark is crackled, like old china.
BARK ECOLOGY
After almost three years, I complete the bark key and hand in my thesis. But my field guide is still missing an important piece: I have yet to address the environmental influences behind bark’s grand diversity. Drought, fire, temperature extremes, limited growing seasons and interactions with other organisms all have influenced the evolution of different bark characteristics. I begin to research this missing piece by investigating the functions of paper birch’s bark features, which I have been wondering about for some time.
The habitat and range of the thin-barked paper birch includes high altitudes and the far northern regions of North America — places where temperate fluctuations are most extreme. Trees can be damaged by sunscald and frost cracks, where abrupt transitions from sun-soaked warmth to cold, or the reverse, can crack or kill sections of bark and open pathways for insects, fungi and other harmful invaders. Yet, this species only maintains a thin outer bark as it matures, even though thick, multi-layered rhytidomes generally provide the best thermal and structural protection.

The white trunk, peeling bark and prominent lenticels make paper birch easy to identify.
Damage to a tree — such as wounds in a tree’s outer bark from fire, sunscald, tunneling bark beetles, gnawing rodents or broken branches — are an inevitable part of its lifecycle. Each species has developed a specific set of chemical and structural mechanisms in their bark that help heal wounds and protect the tree, and some of these defenses offer clues for species identification. For instance, betulin, the compound that whitens paper birch bark, also deters against desiccation and bacteria, fungi, insects and gnawing animals, and the curious, concentric cracks often found on red maple bark result from repeated cycles of fungal infections and attempts by the bark to wall off, or compartmentalize, the intruders.
I also discover olfactory clues to bark identification that result from a bark’s defensive mechanisms. A protective chemical in black cherry bark that deters browsing animals yields a bitter, almond scent when the outer bark is scraped away from a twig. But this smell of the chemical doesn’t deter humans, as it is used to make cough medicines, expectorants and throat lozenges. Safrole in the bark of sassafras deters insects and other pests, but I find its sweet, licorice-like odor quite pleasing.

Efforts by red maple bark to combat a fungal infection result in concentric cracks called target canker, which can be used to identify this species.
I’ve discovered that the environmental influences on bark are even more varied and numerous than the many different bark characteristics that can be used for species identification. Even after finishing a chapter on bark ecology and seeing my field guide published, I know I have only touched the surface of this seemingly infinite web of interactions.
Now, when I walk through a forest, I look at each tree and imagine what is going on beneath the visible surface of its bark — as if, in a way, I have x-ray vision. I have learned to use visual and tactile clues to see and understand what used to leave me feeling lost in a sea of complexity. Instead of a blur of brown and gray trunks, I now see individual trees with species names and a host of ecological relationships.
Beyond the practical reasons for learning to identify bark, I realize that I have been learning and teaching the art of perception. Bark may not seem exotic. It may not, at least initially, leave you in awe like the panoramic view from a hilltop or a glimpse of a crimson morning sky. But learning to see formerly mundane or hidden layers of beauty and function opens up a world of detail and nuance that allow what is local to become spectacular, bringing us closer to home.
Michael Wojtech, a freelance writer, educator, photographer and illustrator, adapted this piece from his book, Bark: A Field Guide to Trees of the Northeast. Learn more at www.knowyourtrees.com.




I just put together a blog about identifying some of our native Missouri trees in winter. (I had cabin fever so got out to test my knowledge- it still needs expanding)
http://livingakers.blogspot.com/2013/02/winter-tree-id-trivia.html
I would like to reference this in the blog if you don’t mind. Thanks for helping increase my ever-expanding knowledge!
Nice blog, Wendy! Thank you for referencing American Forests magazine.
When I was researching remotely sensed “signatures” of old-growth trees in Massachusetts, a goodly amount of bark language learning was necessary for ‘ground-truthing’, especially for winter-time field species identification.
It wasn’t long before I realized that there was a significant difference between the second-growth (or more) bark characteristics that I’d learned on in classes, from the old-growth species I was seeking in the woods.
Sufficiently so that it became one of the better old-growth characteristics to rely on. Had I stayed in the Northeast, I believe I’d have put together old-growth vs. young-growth comparisons, perhaps similar to Michael Wojtech’s fine study above! Well done, Michael!
Don Bertolette
UMASS @ Amherst, MS Forestry 2003
I really enjoyed reading about all of your hard work here. I can’t wait until your field guide is published. I’d love it, if it was someday published as an “Audubon” type guide. They have a tree guide, but not one for bark, which would be a great addition.
I hope that all of your hard work brings you much success towards your degree and further in your field of endeavor.
Nice article. I learned long ago that field guides were nearly useless for identifying trees during the winter, especially, large trees where you cannot easily see buds or much of anything but the trunk of the tree. As others mentioned, guides that show any bark pictures at all, don’t show a broad range of age classes, trees growing under different conditions, etc. I’ve taken a large number of photos of trees, especially trunks and bark, to help myself and others with identification. Many of these photos can be found in the forestryimages.org database, but more can be found on my website linked in this post.
I really enjoyed this article. I am just a casual observer. I love walking with my dog in the local woods & I try to identify trees. As mentioned by another here – field guides are useless in winter because they stress mostly leaves. I think the bark is the most fascinating part – Beech bark looks like elephant skin – magical. Thanks for this!
As a forester, I learned a long time ago that it is generally easier to identify trees in the forest in the winter than in the summer, if for no other reason than you can see farther in the winter and see the bark and general form of the trees. I usually tell others that you don’t have to see the leaves and buds to identify a tree just like you can identify good friends even if you catch just a passing glimpse of them. Of course, it takes a bit of time spent in the woods and working with trees to get really good at it, I suppose. I just look at all of the trees in the woods as good friends whose characterstics I have gotten to know quite well.