This is one of the golden cultivars of Cupressus macrocarpa, not x Cuprocyparis leylandii, which is less spiky-looking and more scruffy. I would guess a young specimen of 'Lutea', though it could be a big 'Goldcrest' (or 'Donard Gold'?).
Hi Aidan - I'd agree with Cupressus macrocarpa 'Lutea'. It doesn't look like pics of 'Goldcrest', that has more uniform, less 'spiky'-looking branch tips. 'Goldcrest' also isn't very hardy; I doubt it would get by without cold damage in the Netherlands, whereas 'Lutea' is hardier than average for Monterey Cypress clones.
Thanks for your comments. Funny thing .. my first guess was Cupressus macrocarpa 'Lutea'. I was not sure, so I asked someone else for his opinion . He tolded me that Cupressus macrocarpa is not "Winter proof" in The Netherlands, so it probably is "Cupressus x leylandii". I will ask him again.
Hi Nardo - Thanks! It's only a young tree, no more than 20-25 years old (it grows very fast!), so will not have experienced any severe winters, having lived only in the period of modern global warming. While Cupressus macrocarpa was not 'winter proof' in The Netherlands in the past, it probably is now.
Hi Conifers, We are not convinced ... yet. 2012 for example was a pretty cold winter in the Netherlands. I have been looking for photo's of both species and they can look almost alike. Leylandii can also be very spiky I found out. For example see:
This is definitely Cupressus macrocarpa! Big trees can be found all the way up in Scotland, granted they do have the benefits microclimates up there, but there is no reason to suggest that a young tree like this cannot survive in the Netherlands, especially with climate change.
I would agree that Cupressus x leylandii 'Gold Rider' is similarly spiky, but it still looks too wispy looking in my opinion for this tree to be one.
Check the cones when you next visit to be certain.
It is certainly Cupressus macrocarpa from the photo. 'Goldcrest' (seen a lot in England as a young tree) will probably get as broad and irregular as that as it gets older; 'Lutea' isn't usually as bright yellow as that but it's hard to tell the foliage colour for certain in a photo. But many other similar sports have been named and sold over the years and in Holland I expect some other clones will have been widely planted.
Today I visited the tree again and found some cones. All fullgrown cones were more than 2cm in lenght upto almost 3cm, so it must be a Cupressus macrocarpa. I changed it on MT.
Looking at Maarten's photo I realise that this isn't Betula papyrifera (as it's always been catalogued) at all. B. ermanii x pubescens (an accidental hybrid from B. ermanii seed germinated here, as often happens) becomes the obvious identification and is a birch known to get this bigger.
From its shape, with horizontal limbs and the bole visible all the way up, I would guess this is Cupressus lusitanica (of which several have been recorded at Rostrevor) rather than C. sempervirens. It is certainly different from the bigger rather weeping tree here which is recorded on monumentaltrees as C. lusitanica (not previously measured), but this tree was reported by Aubrey Fennell (I think Aubrey and 'festscambo' were working together on this survey?) as the arguaby distinct C. benthamii. This latter tree seems not to have been measured before, but might be the same as a Mexican cypress described as an 'old tree' in Elwes and Henry and probably from Portuguese seed sent by Lord Ferrard in 1809 (though a 'much larger tree' had blown down at Rostrevor in 1903). I haven't checked the original text of Elwes and Henry to see if they were distinguishing C. lusitanica and C. benthamii; I suspect not.
Could be, but also C. sempervirens is very variable in shape with intergradation between the fastigiate cultivars and the natural wild type. I'd want to see some cones to be sure.
As an aside, C. benthamii is distinct from C. lusitanica in genetics; in all probability, "C. lusitanica" may turn out to comprise multiple species, as it has never been examined on a range-wide basis (think like the old "C. arizonica" now split into 5 or 6 species).
Beautiful trees. The bark looks very white in this photo, which is a slight indication for the closely-related E. viminalis (but that is seldom so straight when grown in Britain). The only sure way of separating the two seems to be that juvenile leaves of E. dalrympleana are roundish while those of E. viminalis are narrow and lanceolate, but a tree of this size may no longer be bearing any juvenile foliage.
The long straight trunk with such long hanging ribbons is also a feature of E. nitens, but I'm assuming you found flower-buds/fruit under this one (in 3s not 6s and 7s)?
Yes, very white bark, especially in the afternoon sun. The hanging ribbons of bark are probably the best of any Eucalyptus I've seen so far. I have a few more photos which I will send you in my full list of trees around the Shamley Green area. I couldn't find any juvenile leaves. The flower buds were I believe in 3s (though it wouldn't be a bad idea to go back at some point and double check), so I think its most likely a particularly shaggy barked E. dalrympleana.
I don't know which Bunya-bunya Pine David based his painting on for the Tree Guide, but it can't have been in Britain. There were a couple of old records of mature trees in Cornwall, the larger of them 11m tall at Glendurgan in 1965, but the identification is in some doubt and the cold winters of the 1970s and 1980s put paid to them anyway.
Currently, there are a few young tree showing good promise, including a replacement at Glendurgan which I should be revisiting this spring. One in a group of nine at Mount Stewart in Co. Down was 10.4m tall by 2018 (not my record). There is even a small crowded sapling surviving in the Chelsea Physic Garden in London.
The grid reference for the group of Araucaria bidwillii at Mount Stewart is J5547870049. You can visualise that by pasting it into the grid reference field at https://irish.gridreferencefinder.com/.
Parana Pine Araucaria angustifolia grows rather slowly with us, but there are a few which I'd say were semi-mature. There are some pictures of these at https://www.treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/araucaria/araucaria-angustifolia/.
I'm the (volunteer) Registrar for the Tree Register, www.treeregister.org, which aspires to be a comprehensive database at least for rare trees like these. The online interactive database has a paywall, meaning that details like these won't show on a ordinary Google search. (This is partly because many of the trees are in private gardens where owners don't want indiscriminate publicity, and membership subscriptions also cover the costs of maintaining the Register.) For anyone with a deep interest in trees, becoming a member is well worthwhile.
Interesting aside, that Trees & Shrubs Online give A. angustifolia the English name Brazilian Monkey-puzzle; a much better choice than calling it a pine, which of course it isn't.
And now I think about Kew Gardens also has a para pine I remember seeing a few months ago, It was about 7-8 feet tall, I can't give an exact hight since of didn't bring my Nikon forestry pro.
I measured the height of the Whitebeam I showed you. Recent thinning has given a better window for height measurement. Luckily this tree was left untouched.
Anyway 23.3m to the highest visible twig with laser on the tripod, so your vertical measurement was close.
Must be one of the tallest in UK? I hope to compare this with the one in Chesham Bois Wood soon.
I found a slightly higher twig on the nearby Wych Elm too @ 27.7m on the eastern stem.
So within 3km in this valley, one of the tallest Whitebeams, one of the tallest remaining Wych Elms in southern England and 2 Douglas Firs one we measured @46.3m and another recent tree nearby of 47.4m (Probably tallest tree in Home counties).
Thanks Owen that's great news. Do add it to your newsletter if you so wish.
The planted 1948 Douglas Fir some 3km from the Whitebeam are in fact on top of the Chiltern plateau on acid soil at about 140m od. Quite a few are over 43m, with at least a dozen 45m, in a plantation, still adding height. I will upload soon.
Another stand in the South Oxfordshire Chilterns has trees to near 48m. Quite a few to 46-47m. Hope to return to do a more thorough investigation.
Now with more accurate laser measurement one could almost draw contour lines on the country indicating max conifer tree height potential from TROBI records? Certainly moving north and east into the Midlands most conifers of 40m would be almost absent. Whereas to the south and west and northwest increasing tree height where shelter allows to over 60m.
Although I would be surprised its the world's tallest but who knows?
I will revisit to find its age sometime. The wood was planted at the same time as the Whitebeam so we can have a potential planting date too. Recent thinning work has been undertaken and it could have been quite easily felled!!
But as of no commercial value it stands. I seem to recall surrounding trees date to around mid to late 1930's on a ring count nearby.
Owen:-
Do you have any coordinates for the Whitebeam in Chesham Bois Wood, Bucks? I would like to find and remeasure with laser to compare. Thanks
The whitebeam at Chesham Bois was around SP96040020, near fence and footpath at top corner of the Woodland Trust reserve and forking at 1.5m. This was back in 2001 (David Alderman's record), so no guarantee that it's still there.
Here for general interest is a list of the tallest conifer recorded for each county in England (and excluding Essex and the Isle of Wight where only short conifers have been recorded). Demonstrating Stephen's point but also showing that soil is important (good soils on the Bedfordshire greensand, no good soils at all in Lancashire?).
Apologies for the poorly formatted list. Someone might be able to edit it to straighten the columns, I can't.
County Ht/m Year Genus name Species name Property name
Thank you very much Owen for that, very interesting. I can almost draw max tree height on contours on a map of England now in my head.
But perhaps not yet as some are still growing, some faster than others. I never thought Douglas would approach 50m in South Oxfordshire on the Chiltern Plateau however!
One thing might prevent us from ever knowing what the max height can be attained, maybe the fact that how many of these tall trees are standing in isolation, exposed to wind and max transpirational stress etc as opposed standing in a large block for example in a plantation?
@ Owen - fascinating list, thanks! But it deserves better visibility than a side-step in a discussion about a Sorbus aria photo. Can you repost as a separate thread, please?
Remember to tag it as a multistem tree, though - those stem centres will continue to close to ground level: it will have two pith centres well below measuring height.
Very difficult to say it has 3 pith centres. There is a strong union at 1.8m. More noticeable from the other side. This is where I suspect it forked when young sadly. From below this point I suspect its a single stem.
This tree has certainly grown faster than any in A. Mitchell's records. Examples include 3.43m in 104 years, a rate of growth half of this tree! Agree girth growth would be faster in this tree due to reaction wood below fork etc.
A classic example of how trees grow faster than most people realise and contradicts some claims that large trees are generally very old. Its the growing environment that counts!
Thanks! I'd still say multistem; if it was single stem below the level of the join, the join would be much more U-shaped to a narrower base below the fork, than the V-shape it is. And importantly, the forking is affecting the girth at measuring height, which is what the forking tag is about, "the girth can be larger than what would be expected of the tree of this age": if it didn't have that fork, its girth would be smaller (and more in line with other similar-aged Horse-chestnuts).
An analysis of the main stem indicates that a single stem is evident up to the 1.5m level. I don't think this tree is multistemmed. If the main stems divided at ground level then yes it would be.
Yes the growth in girth has been inflated due to buttress growth and reaction wood, but perhaps by only a metre in girth or so. If dividing higher up with a greater length of clear stem, then it still would be a potential champ for growth rate. There is something special about this valley for this species:-
1) High groundwater level beneath its root system. Its at the surface at present. No drought stress!
2) Deeply rootable well drained and aerated soil profile.
3) Slightly alkaline/neutral ph of high fertility probably high Nitrogen.
Hi Stephen - sorry, but that just doesn't make sense! The top of the fork where the stems become separated is at about 1.8 m (at the person's head height); for it to be single stem at the pith at 1.5 m height would require the pith centres to follow the green lines in this edit of your photo below, which just isn't how trees grow. The pith centres of the trunks will approximately follow the red lines below, with the divide at or very close to ground level.
One thing to remember is that the 'is the tree multi-stemmed?' box on this site is a tool that was originally designed to disqualify trees from appearing on the lists of the largest (unless the user deliberately includes such trees) - i.e. the implication is that the multi-stemmed nature of the tree makes the girth measurement meaningless. An example would be if I measured a hazel bush around all the little stems near the bottom and got a very big figure.
So it does a disservice to the site when trees whose girths are only slightly exaggerated by a fork or by heavy branches are also put into that category. You could argue that a tree that forks at 3m has a larger girth as a result than one which runs for 10m before it forks - certainly the tree with the 10m bole will be the impressive one if the girth is the same, but it's not helpful to 'disqualify' the one with the shorter stem from any comparison.
I'd agree 100% with Owen to "So it does a disservice to the site when trees whose girths are only slightly exaggerated by a fork or by heavy branches are also put into that category". But with this tree, it is a lot more than 'slightly' exaggerated; it's more like 50% greater than 5% greater. Heavily exaggerated, not slightly exaggerated. And that's my point!
Looking at the tree in question the volume and diameter growth of the 3 vertical stems without reaction wood 4m above the fork, would easily equate to a very large girth for a tree of this age. In this case I estimate a girth of 4.6-5.0m @ 1.5m, even if it forked at some 10m.
Still a potential growth record for this species. Therefore I disagree that the girth has been inflated by 50%. Other trees in this valley with single trunks have also grown very fast for the species, with single trunks.
The measurement was made at the narrowest point at 1.2m. The physiology of the tree indicates (perhaps where due to some accident the tree lost its leader) that it forked at that height, when very young. There is no evidence that the tree forks at ground level. If it did I would classify it as multi stemmed like a coppiced Hazel. There is no occluded bark which would indicate multi stems growing from ground level. It is a sound strong union. I agree the pith centres are evident above 1.2m for the near vertical limbs. With the fusing strong union above 1.2m increasing the height of the vertical trunk length.
certainly not procera. Could be pinsapo or numidica indeed, but to tell the species it is necessary to see a vegetative orthotropic branchlet from a low branch. numidica usually flatter leaf and pinsapo more rhombic. leaf tip of pinsapo sharper.
Agree with Sorbus, but also not A. pinsapo, due to the emarginate (notched) leaf apex. Not the best of shoots for determining, as it is so thick with pollen cone buds, you can't see if the shoot is pubescent ot not. Various hybrids are possible too (e.g. I could see this as potentially a pinsapo x nordmanniana hybrid).
A remarkable wild juniper found in 2023 in one of the remotest parts of the Scottish Highlands by Jane Sayers, Wild Pine Project Officer for Trees for Life, a charity working to restore and extend such fragments of Scotland's natural woodland, and one of about 15,000 old trees added to the Ancient Tree Inventory during the year.
Some kind of glitch has occurred with the Ulmus glabra on this site. The great majority of typical specimens (but not quite all) are now showing as cv. 'Exoniensis' - a rare and distinctive cultivar for which it could be that no genuine examples have been added yet to MT.
Does Tim or anyone else have any idea how this can have happened (and how to undo it)?
Jeroen Philippona, op 2023-12-11 21:58:15, gewijzigd op 2023-12-11 21:59:35, zei:
Hi Owen,
Indeed very strange that many Ulmus glabra specimens were showing as cv. 'Exoniensis'. I had seen it before. Perhaps Tim is able to see wy this has happened. Could be an automatic 'bug' in the system? I have now undone severeal specimen trees and turned them to the 'wild' type. This can be done by clicking at the page of the tree at: 'Edit data of this tree' and then below 'Tree species' changing the label of the subspecies to 'no particular subspecies, etc.
Still several Ulmus glabra have to be changed to 'no particular subspecies...'.
Hi, to be honest I don't know yet what caused this. It seems to be possible to add the regular wild type of Ulmus glabra. I have now changed all 126 'Exoniensis' specimens in one go into the wild type.
If you look for 'Exoniensis' the site still says that there are 140 examples, but the name does seem to have gone from the pages of the trees themselves.
Among the other cultivars of Ulmus glabra on this site, 'Camperdown' (no trees) is a variant spelling of 'Camperdownii' and could be removed. 'var. pendula' (4 trees?) should be a synonym for 'Horizontalis' but all these four look like 'Camperdownii' to me. 'var. serpentina' is a confused name sometimes used as a synonym for 'Camperdownii', and the one (?) here looks like 'Camperdownii'.
I don't think I have rights to change all that myself.
Hi Owen, if you still see 140 examples, that is likely because you are still looking at an older version you have locally. If you refresh the page (F5) your browser should fetch the latest version.
This shows (on: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/species/):
glabra 181
(type species) 160
'Camperdown' 0
'Camperdownii' 6
f. cornuta 2
'Exoniensis' 0
'Horizontalis' 4
'Lutescens' 4
var. pendula 4
var. serpentina 1
I checked, and you already have the rights to remove varieties and so on.
E.g. on https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/ulmusglabra/3_camperdown/ you should see a link "Delete this variety, subspecies, form, cultivar, or cultivar group entirely" to remove this variety.
In the Netherlands there are quite a few Exeter elms, Ulmus glabra 'Exoniensis'. Some of these are on this site. Most of them are in the north of the Netherlands: they are all grafts, mostly planted in gardens in villages and towns.
In the Netherlands there are very few old trees of the 'wild type'of Ulmus glabra, nearly all older U. glabra are of cultivars. I have now changed some of these back to cv. 'Exoniensis' in the system, but there are some more.
Thankyou for recording (and climbing) this remarkable tree. The New Forest remains full of surprises! I think you are right - this is the tallest Eucalyptus to have been found in England so far (there are some older and taller ones in the Scottish Highlands and in Ireland).
Yes quite remarkable. To think I walk around Boulderwood regularly and missed these tress!
Not sure they grow much bigger in OZ perhaps to 50m?
I suspect later this century most broadleaves of this height will be Eucalypts in the UK. Most native broadleaves will be retarded by summer drought, with potential max height shrinking compared to the 19th/20th centuries
Eucalyptus nitens would soon challenge these trees if planted in this locality
There is, I think, one larger yew in Ampfield Wood, nearly 5m girth. On the Ancient Tree Inventory it's reported by Bernie Newitt from SU3902623829, but I think it matches a yew measured by Hugo Egleston in 2017 at SU3966024101, which is quite a long way away. (You can visualise these Ordnance Survey grid references by pasting each reference into the status line at https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/?v=2419755&ml=map&z=15&u=1&up=v&nwLat=51.034790138725754&nwLng=-1.4878569286419152&seLat=51.00571575986169&seLng=-1.3779936473919152.)
Because of this uncertainty, Bernie's record on the ATI (the natural home for records of old trees in Britain, like this one) remains 'unverified' and won't be viewable for all users.
Hugo Egleston, who knows Ampfield Wood well, sometimes visits monumentaltrees.com, so he may see this message. It could be that a misprint has crept into his grid reference (as curated within The Tree Register) at some stage. It would be nice to get this mystery resolved!
Error message when I click on 'rotate image 90 degrees right' for this tree, fao. Tim:
Warning: imagecreatefromjpeg(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 18 Warning: imagerotate() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 19 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 20 Warning: imagejpeg() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 22 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 24 Warning: getimagesize(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 27 Warning: Division by zero in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 28 Warning: getimagesize(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 116 Warning: Division by zero in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 117 Warning: imagecreatetruecolor() expects parameter 1 to be integer, float given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 120 Warning: imagecreatefromjpeg(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 121 Warning: imagecopyresampled() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 122 Warning: exif_read_data(): Unable to open file in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 125 Warning: imagejpeg() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 133 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 134 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 135 Warning: getimagesize(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 116 Warning: Division by zero in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 117 Warning: imagecreatetruecolor() expects parameter 2 to be integer, float given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 120 Warning: imagecreatefromjpeg(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 121 Warning: imagecopyresampled() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 122 Warning: exif_read_data(): Unable to open file in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 125 Warning: imagejpeg() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 133 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 134 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 135 Warning: getimagesize(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 116 Warning: Division by zero in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 117 Warning: imagecreatetruecolor() expects parameter 2 to be integer, float given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 120 Warning: imagecreatefromjpeg(../db/29/full/29526.jpg): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 121 Warning: imagecopyresampled() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 122 Warning: exif_read_data(): Unable to open file in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 125 Warning: imagejpeg() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 133 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, null given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 134 Warning: imagedestroy() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/upload/upload.php on line 135 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php:18) in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/imagerotate.php on line 34
J'ai retrouvé l'article : le 5 mars 2022, Elijah W. et Jeff Riddle ont mesuré un Q. rubra prčs de la jonction Armes Gap/Fodderstack Mt./Lookout Tower Trail (Frozen Head State Park), le premier, muni d'un Trupulse 200X, a mesuré 50,29 m (165 ft.) ; le second, muni d'un Nikon Prostaff 440, a trouvé 50,08 m (164,3 ft.)
Quelqu'un peut-il dire si les appareils de mesure sont équivalents au Nikon Forestry Pro ?
Jeroen Philippona, op 2023-11-12 23:03:23, gewijzigd op 2023-11-12 23:20:18, zei:
Yes, these lasers are probably more accurate than the Nikon Forestry Pro, so these measurements are reliable. Jess Riddle is one of the most experienced tree height measurers from the USA. They realise that it is a Quercus height regord for the USA and outside Mexico for Northern America.
Yes, these lasers are probably more accurate than the Nikon Forestry Pro, so these measurements are reliable. Jess Riddle is one of the most experienced tree height measurers from the USA.
This record doesn't seem to have attracted any comments. The recorder places this tree, with apparent confidence, a few miles away from the 'Doerner Fir'. But in a brief online search I can find nothing to corroborate this lidar measurement.
Lack of photos means it is rather hidden in the database - I'd not noticed it existing here at all! Very impressive if true, but definitely needs verification.
I can't remember this tree from my visit in 2014, but I'd be inclined to call this Abies alba, which is much commoner as an old tree in Scotland. Abies nordmanniana usually grows with a very straight trunk to the top in these rather suitable conditions, and the very scaly bark in the other photo is also a pointer towards A. alba. The needles of A. alba are more likely to spread across the top of the shoot (and look very like A. nordmanniana foliage) when the foliage gets plenty of sunlight, as in this situation.
Mayby is was to fast to think is was Abies nordmanniana. But now I look better, I think you are right. I shall change the name to Abies alba. Unfortunately I have no better pictures of the tree and the foliage.
Another one for Conifers to have a look at (and anyone else with an interest in Abies). Grown from seed from an old A. forrestii at Hergest Croft, but 38 years after planting out the bark (other photo) is still mostly smooth, with the salmon-pink tinge of A. homolepis. Shoot is glabrous (sorry for poor image quality) and the leaves are less dense and less blue-green than normal for A. forrestii.
I wondered about another case of forrestii x homolepis, but Rowan Griffiths at Hergest Croft has pointed out that there was no catalogued example in the collection in the 1970s/80s. There were several A. firma.
As this isn't a very monumental tree in itself I would be happy for the record to be removed once everyone has had their say.
Thanks! Unfortunately, the pic is a bit blurred, but I don't get the feeling for one of those forrestii x homolepis hybrids; it doesn't show any trace of the classic homolepis grooved shoots, which is one of the factors (along with cone structure) that led me to conclude homolepis parentage in those otherwise rather forrestii-like trees. One that it does remind me a bit of in the fawn-honey-coloured shoot, is Abies fabri subsp. minensis; unfortunately a tree I'm not very familiar with, so I'm not confident this is that, but it's a possibility.
Any chance of any cone photos? That would help a lot.
Good idea. The parent tree was likely just grown as 'Abies delavayi var...' without being studied closely enough. Abies fabri does indeed seem to retain a distinctly smoother more orange bark, from others I've photographed (and from Alan Mitchell's comments). But I might be inclined to plump for subsp. fabri: the shoot of subsp. minensis usually seems to lack any of the reddish-orange colouration of this one, and to be finely pubescent, which this wasn't.)
I didn't see any cones on this one, but Rowan the taxonomist/curator at Hergest will probably notice when it produces some.
Not a monumental tree yet in terms of stature, but added because this is one of the rarest species of tree in the world (there is only example left, in Sichuan, China, but fortunately this is self-fertile), and because this is the first time I've found one of the few known seedlings growing well.
(POWO nomenclature treats this taxon as Cupressus fallax, although other treatments exist. I could no longer find an option to add a new species to this site's species list.)
The collection Wang 28 is Cupressus chengiana, not C. fallax, so I've added it as that. For details of this, and Wang's other seed numbers, see Bulletin of the Cupressus Conservation Project 9: 15-22 (2020).
No - Quercus x ludoviciana is a good species (hybrid). It is just that some trees distributed in the 20th century under this name were actually Q. nigra - these trees are now known as Q. nigra cv. 'Beethoven'.
OK. Did I than make a mistake to change the species of this tree.? https://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/gbr/engeland/cityoflondon/965_royalbotanicgardens/41371/
It was registered as Q x ludoviciana and I must have misinterpreted your earlier contribution in which you made your point concerning Q. nigra Beethoven.
Not easy to see the details of the leaves, but it isn't Q. nigra. But I'd also say not Q. x ludoviciana either; it looks very like a rather ordinary Q. rubra to me.
Thanks! Are you sure of that? RBGE's default accession dates for unknown planting dates is 1965-1969, depending on when the tree was registered, and I'd have thought Logan would be 1969 (the year RBGE acquired it). TSO gives this tree's planting date as 1959, as an exact year without any qualification.
All the mature trees at Logan have a 1959 accession date, except for a few with known (earlier) planting dates. I guess the thinking was that they were established trees (i.e. ten years old or more) at the time that RBGE took over the site in 1969.
John Grimshaw in new trees made the same false assumption with the accession date that you did!
@smal65 - please note the planting dates on the labels at RBGE and its satellite gardens, before adding grossly over-estimated planting dates to the tree's data here! The only exceptions are for labels at RBGE saying '1969' or earlier, as this is when their data catalogue was completed, so trees with unknown planting dates get the date they were added to the system. You can also check against RBGE's online collections data here (enter the tree's name). Thanks!
I don't know why this tree has the confusing 1978 accession date - as you might be able to see from the picture it is very much older than this and was already 210cm girth when Alan Mitchell first measured it in 1985. It could have been 're-accessioned' in 1978 after previously having been mis-named, but I have no evidence for this. It might be roughly contemporary with an 1898 introduction at Kew.
Just a shame it is ruined by being ploughed and cultivated right up to the base of the trunk - a death sentence for an otherwise nice tree, all its essential feeder roots destroyed 😡😡😡
@conifers. Isn't your comment a bit over the top. "feeder roots destroyed" . "Death sentence" because of a bunch of cows? And if you're right, the tree seems nevertheless quite healthy.
@Wim - if it was just cows, then agreed. But this isn't a permanent pasture any more, it has been ploughed and reseeded (obvious from the uniformity of the grass - it's a crop, not a meadow), probably fairly recently (the last year or two). The ploughing will strip off all the surface feeder roots down to around 30-40 cm depth, which means the bulk of the tree's root system. I'd expect the tree to suffer significant crown dieback (get stag-headed) within the next few years as a result.
This is a tree with a good and particularly consistent set of historical measurements: 685cm in 1906, 817cm in 1945, 873cm in 1965, 952cm in 1992, 988cm in 2009 - showing it is not yet slowing down into 'middle age' despite the stresses of deep ploughing. As it can't reasonably have grown slower than this when young (nearly all trees start off faster), this puts its age as less than 300 years - perhaps 270 or 280. One of the very biggest oaks in this age-group, and confounding the oft-repeated misconception that a very large native tree has to be very old.
I've now added this measurement set. Original sources are:
1905: Henry Elwes and Augustine Henry, The Trees of Britain and Ireland
1945: a manuscript catalogue of big oaks prepared by R C B Gardner
1965: a measurement made by his son Hatton Gardner
1992: a measurement made by N D G James
All this should remind us that in 50 years time people will be saying "what a good thing somebody thought to measure that tree way back in 2023" and also saying "what a good thing that record was kept on this website, rather than just being forgotten about".
I made a graph of the growth rate using the measurements from 1906 to 2023 (except 2015). Before 1906 I made an estimation using a growth rate of approximately 4 cm per year, from this follows a planting year of about 1740.
I looked at the surrounding field in Google Earth's historic imagery. It has probably been arable for a long time, but when there are crops there is halo left around the tree slightly smaller than the tree's crown. Not really big enough, but because this is a tree of exceptional vigour it seems to be coping, for now, with the ploughing damage - there is no obvious fall-off in the growth rate or crown thinning.
So apparantly what Conifers said: "feeder roots destroyed" . "Death sentence" are overcome? didn't came out. I'm glad that the tree overcomes cultural threats.
We went to visit this today - spoke to a man from Whitley Auto Repairs on the farm, and he told us that the tree has fallen down / gone. He pointed to the area where it used to stand.
A large part of the crown had fallen by 2020 (https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=22&from=3523&v=2357660&ml=map&z=13&u=1&up=v&nwLat=52.353790279513774&nwLng=-2.5581657366350874&seLat=52.24072466455779&seLng=-2.1187126116350874#/), but a few low branches remained alive below the break. Google aerial imagery from spring 2023 shows the shadow of these low branches still, so I don't think the tree is dead. Losing bits of the crown and regrowing smaller, lower, more stable branches is part of the natural ageing process of an old oak.
It's right next to a public footpath, though it looks as if the mapped route of this frequently gets ploughed up. I think this is a case of the landowner discouraging legitimate access - which might be because they're afraid of vandalism (there are signs of fire-damage in older photos) but might also be because they want to get every penny's-worth of profit from their land by cultivating it intensively right up to the tree itself - rather than having the tree as the centre of its own little nature reserve as one might reasonably expect for one of the world's very largest and oldest oaks, were it to become a little better-known.
Wow - have you had the chance to look at it close up?
Thank you for this information - its much appreciated. I came across an old Wildlife magazine on ancient trees a few weeks back and found it fascinating - its making me look at trees in a whole new light, and I love how there are so many monumental trees in Worcs.
For about of 10 years ago, the official of the municipality responsible for the public green told me he had bought this one as a q. virginiana and wnted to try it out. I didn't have much attention for it. But now I passed it and remembered this claim. Thought it is interesting enough because nearly the only registered one on the European continent. I've seen a lot of Quercus virginiana, so I didn't have any doubt, but now being more critical, I can imagine it is not correct.
I've been doing some searching and in the treeapp of the municipality it now suddenly has the name Q. driehuysiana. A species that doesn't exist. The (variety of) leaves seems to indicate a Quercus nigra. But I think I'll just leave it as a curiosity as Q. sp.
Thanks! I wonder if 'driehuysiana' could include a typo that is stopping any search from working?
Agree the leaves look very like Quercus nigra; if you want to list it as that, that would be fine with me at least. Q. nigra and Q. virginiana are in different sections of the genus, so can't hybridise with each other (so that possibility can be excluded).
Some local officials did some research and they located the breeder/supplier. It's a Quercus x ludoviciana. (Q phellos x falcata) Apparently a natural hyrid in the USA. Thanks for your help. I've changed the species.
Not, in fact, Quercus x ludoviciana but a clone of Q. nigra which was distributed from Hilliers Nurseries in the UK in error under than name through the middle 20th century. It's now called Q. nigra 'Beethoven' (see https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/hybrid-highlight-quercus-%C3%97ludoviciana-sarg ). So Wim was right with his initial identification. And some good record-keeping to allow a mature tree to be identified to clonal level!
Thanks. When I first saw this tree in 1997, that was my assumption. There was a bigger tree (now dead) that was fairly typical for macrocarpa, but the twisted (hollow) bole and low, dense branching of this one are very odd. You and Aljos will have to fight it out!
I don't have much faith in Aljos's abilities at Cupressus identification, having seen an obvious Cupressus lusitanica herbarium specimen annotated by him as "Cupressus torulosa" - and I'm told by the director of the Cupressus Conservation Project that that is very far from an isolated case ;-)
Ah, i didn't see previous comments before, just watched at main page to this individual, yes C. macrocarpa does make sense, however, other C. spp. are likely to look quite similar at least from the distance.
Hi Tim - definitely safe to call this Cupressus macrocarpa. All other Cupressus species can be reliably ruled out by a combination of cone size, cone clustering habit (see the Panoramio pic linked above), and shoot structure. It is also considerably larger than any other Cupressus species regularly reaches in Britain, and is of course growing in a location where a rare species would not be expected.
Hi Erwin - Cupressus sempervirens can be ruled out, as that never has its cones in tight clusters of 10-20 or more on thicker branches, the way this tree shows and is typical of C. macrocarpa (and other New World Cupressus species).
C. sempervirens (and other Old World Cupressus species, plus C. nootkatensis) cones are scattered or in more open clusters on thinner branchlets, but not 10-20 or more tightly around a branch.
Thanks! Monterey Cypress is a very fast grower, so it needn't be among the oldest; it was introduced to Britain in 1838, but this one could easily be from the 1850s-1860s when it became a lot more widely planted.
As an aside, the current Google street view for the site dates from 2009 and shows the second Monterey Cypress still standing in the foreground, with a more 'traditional' appearance.
Half-globe Giant Sequoia - surprisingly perhaps, yes I have seen one like that, and also likewise for Metasequoia. Whether of genetic cause or cultural due to poor growing conditions, I don't know.
I've just changed the species to C. macrocarpa, and updated the tree's description.
I would have loved this to really have been the oldest exotic tree in Britain (as it would probably have to have been if it was the slow-growing Cupressus sempervirens) and imagined some crusader returning with it in the early Middle Ages, but the truth is seldom as romantic...
All right, Owen, let's travel to ancient trees of C. sempervirens' natural growth type, gather lots of seeds to grow offspring and plant this at suitable places.
With MUCH LUCK we might find some of those grown to giant cypresses some 100s of years or even older - in a future life? ;~)
vraiment Quercus frainetto ??? les feuilles sont petites et ressemblent ŕ un chęne "classique".
Q. frainetto est extręmement rare hors collection botanique en France, bien qu'elle soit plantée plus fréquemment ces derničres années mais n'ont pas encore atteint ces dimensions.
Oui! The secondary lobules on the lobes are typical of this species, and not shown by other European oaks (some of the North American red oak group have them, but they are very different, with sharp, bristle-tipped lobules). Quercus frainetto grows very fast, this tree is probably under 100 years old (I think Han van Meegeren's estimate of 212 years is far too high!).
I think this is more likely to be Quercus pubescens, which is native to the area and also has leaves with secondary lobules. Points of difference are the reddish rather than pale grey buds visible in this photo, the smoother acorn cup-scales, and the longer (hairier?) leafstalk. The bark also differs subtly.
Conifers, op 2023-07-30 22:29:13, gewijzigd op 2023-07-30 22:29:49, zei:
@ Owen - agree on likelihood in this region, but wouldn't Q. pubescens show obviously thick velvety-pubescent shoots and petioles? This looks ą glabrous to me. Pity there's no leaves showing their undersides.
I can see hairs on the petiole at 8 o'clock to the acorn in this photo, but I can't see a young twig on any of the photos - or a leaf underside which is the hairiest bit. Also, I'm not sure how variable the wild population is in its hairiness.
I finally noticed Han's original note in Dutch on the tree's home-page... Saying that it has been identified as Q. semilanuginosa, syn. Q. x kerneri (pubescens x robur). Which should satisfy us all!
Thankyou for adding your height from climbing this tree, Dave.
I've added the girth measured by Aubrey Fennell in 2010 for what I assume is the same tree - the larger of two big old Sitkas along this track (I've not been to Downhill myself). At that time it was only about 38m tall to the highest live growth after dying back, but it seems to have regrown very well since then - in an exposed place.
In 2000, Co. Derry had one marginally taller tree, a 46.5m Sitka at the private Drenagh estate.
Found some photos that show somewhat similar bark, though not quite as flaky as it looks here. Best to return to get some leaf photos :-) (or even better, in autumn to see if you can find any seed pods).
Probably quite a few! Problem is, bark pattern is very variable compared to most other identification criteria, and multiple species can share similar bark. Check out Ostrya virginiana, Carya ovata, Betula nigra for starters.
I checked the location of this tree, and unfortunately it is outside the native range of Kentucky Coffeetree (only Canadian locations near to Lake St Clair, in far SW of Ontario). As this species does not disperse eaily (its natural long-distance dispersers are all extinct*), it can't be a natural colonist, and the location doesn't look like it could be a cultivated tree - so I fear it is almost certainly not this.
Thanks! Yes, definitely worth getting a decent camera capable of good zoom magnification; there are lots of good compact bridge cameras now that do this well.
A bird could carry a coffeetree seed, but it doesn't have the digestive system capable of breaking the seed coat's shell. The genus is adapted to megafauna dispersal.
The bark reminds me of Celtis occidentalis, Hackberry, which I think is native in the Niagara region (but other rarer Celtis forms with similar bark might be too?) The ridges in the bark in older Hackberries are like lignified breaking waves, rather than the edges of separate lifting plates as you get in Carya and Betula nigra.
This is the best image of the leaves that I can get, without a telephoto. From my knowledge, grey birch does not grow this tall or large. Looking forward to your thoughts !
This is probably the western Himalayan subsp. jacquemontii - but I say this simply because it's the commonly-planted form, usually as smaller and younger trees than this one. The eastern Himalayan subsp. utilis can also have as white a bark.
Identification from the foliage in summer is fairly easy, Aidan: subsp. jacquemontii usually has 7 - 9 pairs on main veins down the leaf, while subsp. utilis usually has about 10 - 13 pairs.
This is actually subsp. utilis - it has the 10-13 leaf veins. I did however find a big jacquemontii here behind the Cupressus macrocarpa 'Lutea', 18m tall and 1.88m girth at 1.5m. I will send you more details about some of my other new finds at Frampton via email soon.
Link to the original paper: https://britishandirishbotany.org/index.php/bib/article/view/144 (click on the 'PDF' button). As a caveat, all these highest-altitude 'trees' are saplings or young bushy seedlings which could be finished off by a poor growing season (or a particularly hungry sheep). Also, the Scots Pine in the BBC article at 1160 m was reported as long ago as 2003 and has very probably failed since. In her paper, Sarah Watts suggests that the highest-altitude upright-growing mature 'tree' might be an aspen found by Gus Routledge in 2022 at 706 m on Stac na h-Ioliare (Cairn Gorm).
The very highest record seems to be a seedling juniper at 1200 m on Ben Macdui, historically reported by Jim Macintosh and cited in the above article.
Sitka Spruce seems the likeliest candidate to make real trees at these altitudes. Alastair Firth found a measurable one at 990 m last year: https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=228000&from=3523&v=2318426&ml=map&z=13&nwLat=56.782399942300714&nwLng=-5.096657409041576&seLat=56.68098254616487&seLng=-4.657204284041576#/.
Noble Fir would probably do better than Sitka Spruce at making an erect single-stem tree at very high altitude in Scotland, providing there was a seed source of course.
Very interesting. I wonder what seed source the Sitka was? I suspect Queen Charlotte Islands. If Alaska sources were used they would be even more tolerant. Yes Conifers, Noble perhaps even better suited but as usual we can't make any assumptions as its too little planted to tell or for it to seed naturally? BUT we have to get rid of the wretched sheep/deer problem!!
Never underestimate nature! I always suspected tree species would be capable of growing to over a 1000m in Scotland. I suspect these trees or in this case shrub sized ones are subjected 100mph winds almost annually at 1100m!
In Wales there are forestry plantations at the economic tree line at 700-800m somewhat higher than in Scotland due to lower windspeeds, so in theory trees would grow even higher here if the mountains were taller, so perhaps hypothetically the tree line would be 1200m or so. If we had mountains in south east England of 1800m I suspect the tree line would be 1500m and so fourth as this area as the lowest windspeeds in the UK.
That was my initial thought, but the needles didn't seem to be arranged flat enough on the shoot, which is why I changed my mind to A. nordmanniana (which I'm now not so sure about either). Bark and habit both suit A. grandis, though.
Likely one of the interior population of Grand Fir (subsp. idahoensis); this has less strongly pectinate needles, arranged more upswept, can be reminiscent of A. concolor, or to a lesser extent, A. nordmanniana. Also slower-growing than the typical coastal subspecies.
Very good point. It may well be, which is why I thought A. nordmanniana. It looks as if its growing fast, though - I don't know if there are any previous records to confirm this?
I've just added another photo of the foliage, showing more typical needle arrangement (on this branch at least, on the branch I first looked at the needles were less pectinate). I imagine Conifers is right with it being subsp. idahoensis.
Thanks! Yep, the two photos together show typical variation between shaded (flatter, more pectinate) and full sun (less pectinate) foliage of Interior Grand Fir - particularly with the full sun foliage, note the similarity to White Fir (Abies concolor).
Trials with the interieur A. grandis populations are reported in GB. possibly hybrids with concolor, also called var. or subsp. idahoensis (conifers.org). In the Dutch Oostereng Arboretum a possible hybrid seedling is growing right between the two species. Arboretum Oostereng is candidate national Abies collection.
Actually 'Plumosa' - you can tell 'Squarrosa' at a distance from the glaucous foliage and straight stem. In 1997 I recorded this one as 'Plumosa Aurea' but they always seem to go more green with age....
Does anyone have an idea of what species of Eucalyptus this is? I'm thinking E. parvifolia. Flowers in groups of around 9 and I believe they were white last spring. I'll check again soon. I can also get some photos of the juvenile leaves.
I wish I could help, but I don't know enough about Eucalyptus yet. However, after looking at online photos and comparing them to yours, I think it could have a high chance of being E. parvifolia. Maybe some other members would be able to help you out with this?
Or it could be E. coccifera - E. parvifolia (syn. E. parvula) tends to have more (semi-adult) leaves in opposite pairs. But you'd need a close-up photo of flower-buds (plus ideally of fruit and juvenile foliage) to say with any confidence.
I've added another photo of this tree with my best effort to try and get some detail of the juvenile leaves without trespassing. I will try and get a photo of flowers/fruits if needed.
Bark and habit are very suggestive of E. coccifera, as is the strong contrast between juvenile and adult foliage. The flower buds should be distictively club-shaped - no hint of a point or nipple at the tip - which is something you can sometimes pick out against the sky from a fair distance.
I will change it to E. coccifera as it seems to be the most likely option. When I next visit I will try and find some flower buds and I will also see if the leaves smell of peppermint.
Prunus pendula (P. itosakura) 'Pendula Rubra'. But the close up flowers are from something else, probably P. sargentii. In the photo of the tree in leaf, there's one non-weeping shoot which may have grown up from below the graft and so it could be that this one is grafted onto P. sargentii - not something I've ever seen in the UK.
Beautiful photos anyway! Spring in Germany is a few days ahead of where it is with me on the south coast of England.
sorry, yes it is a Prunus sargentii. I have corrected it now. Out of joy over the opening of the Berlin Wall, a cherry tree planting was started on November 09, 1989. The TV Asahi Group had spontaneously called for this action in Japan at that time. More than 20,000 Japanese citizens enthusiastically participated in this action with donations totaling about 140 million yen (about 2 million DM). More than 9,000 cherry trees were planted here and on the former border with West Berlin.
A new large Giant Sequoia uploaded, which may have been undiscovered until now?
Possibly Great Penn Wood was originally owned by Highclere Castle estate and maybe date to the original plantings there? Now on Forestry Commission land.
By an odd co-incidence, Hugo Egleston also measured this tree in 2022 (with almost identical figures) and the other big conifers in the wood. I think it is the same tree which was recorded in 'Pen Wood' by Maynard Greville in 1955 when 25m x 610cm girth. (Stephen: I don't know if you know Hugo, who's near Alton. He's a master cabinetmaker who sources his own timber - but not the trees he measures!)
Thank you Owen very interesting. It had occurred to me that the tree is possibly on or within the county boundary of Berkshire? I would have to look at the OS map.
No I have not had the pleasure of meeting Hugo. He sounds very Interesting!
Also very close, within metres, is a mixed stand of Hemlock with scattered very fine Coast Redwoods, some of which are now 40m tall, planted in 1956 by the FC.
Thankyou for taking the trouble to add this tree (and to the Ancient Tree Inventory). It becomes the largest monkey puzzle recorded in Scotland, and only just pipped by one in Ireland and a couple in southern England - in a part of the country where so few other trees have been measured, though I did manage to get to Ardtornish gardens along the road a few years ago.
Comme je l'ai indiqué ŕ propos des chęnes fastigiés de Saugnac et Saint-Sever (Landes), bien des éléments laissent penser que le Quercus robur fastigiata pourrait ętre une variété, présente antérieurement ŕ 1795 dans divers secteurs de l'Aquitaine et des Pyrénées. Hélas, cette présence s'est trouvée ''polluée'' par la propagation par bouturage, dans presque toute l'Europe, des clones du ''Schöne Eiche'' allemand. De ce fait, il est devenu trčs difficile de faire le tri et de savoir si Q. robur fastigiata est un cultivar ou une variété, voire, pour les individus antérieurs ŕ 1795, une sous-espčce.
Quercus robur with erect branches and twigs are best treated as a Cultivar Group, the Fastigiata Group (eg. https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/324363/quercus-robur-fastigiata-group/details.) The alternative designation would be forma (f.) fastigiata but nowadays scientists prefer to avoid latinate, botanical names for freak forms like this: they represent a mutation or sport which is only widespread because people choose to plant them for ornament - they are not a natural variety or subspecies of the species. But as you say, many slightly differing versions have been found and propagated over the centuries, so it is not helpful to treat all these trees as a single cultivar ('Fastigiata').
I don't think that the choice 'Cultivar Group' is currently available on this site. Something for Tim to consider adding?
OK, j'adhčre ŕ ce qui est dit. Cependant ma question n'était pas exactement lŕ. Je voulais savoir si l'éventuelle découverte d'un ''cluster'' (ou plusieurs) de Q. robur fastigiata ANCIEN(S), précisément dans les zones déjŕ mentionnées vers 1770 par Borda (Chalosse), en 1783 et 1788 par Lamarck et Palassou (vallée de Barčges et Basse-Navarre) et en 1813 par Lapeyrouse (Navarrenx), c'est-ŕ-dire dans une région géographiquement bien délimitée, ne pouvait pas conduire ŕ la reconnaissance de Q. robur fastigiata comme sous-espčce. Certes cet arbre semble avoir disparu des bois de Pragnčres (Hautes-Pyrénées) et de Navarrenx (Béarn), ŕ cause d'abattages massifs historiquement référencés ; mais il semble avoir persisté en Chalosse (Saint-Sever-ouest) et peut-ętre autour de Saint-Etienne-de-Baďgorry (Pyrénées de Basse-Navarre). D'autre part, la présence d'arbres trčs anciens et de trčs forte corpulence, comme celui de l'abbaye de l'Escaladieu (Hautes-Pyrénées) plaide en faveur d'une origine dans cette męme région dčs la fin du XVIIe sičcle.
A cela s'ajoutent deux constatations :
1) ce chęne reproduit ses propriétés (notamment sa forme fastigiée) par germination. On ne peut donc pas parler de ''cultivar'' ŕ son sujet ;
2) ce chęne paraît avoir eu (et avoir encore) une aire de répartition ANCIENNE délimitée géographiquement, ŕ savoir les Landes, l'est du Pays Basque, le Béarn et les Hautes-Pyrénées. Si c'est avéré, on peut dčs lors parler de sous-espčce.
Aidan: I think the RHS was bending the rules a bit by giving their fastigiate oak at Wisley its own clonal name, as it was almost certainly planted here as a purchase from another nursery (probably called 'Fastigiata') rather than arising as its own, unique form as a seedling. But if it's not grafted this means that the original nursery could have sold it as a seedling of a fastigiate oak (the mutation often breeds true, as DBZT comments), and so it might have its unique genes. It means the RHS will now be able to make money by selling grafts of this particular and famous tree at the Wisley garden centre!
DBZT: a subspecies will generally have been isolated for long enough (by geographical features or breeding habits) to have acquired lots of distinctive genetic features - but not enough for these features to actually prevent interbreeding with individuals from other subspecies (if it was this different, it would have become a new species). The mutation that created the population of fastigiate oaks which you describe could have been in just one gene - but the same fastigiate habit could be passed to (a proportion of) its seedlings if the gene was a dominant one (or if both parents carried the same mutation). The designation 'forma fastigiata' ('f. fastigiata') would probably be most appropriate to describe a wild population like that.
Tu as écrit : ''The mutation that created the population of fastigiate oaks which you describe could have been in just one gene - but the same fastigiate habit could be passed to (a proportion of) its seedlings if the gene was a dominant one (or if both parents carried the same mutation).''
OK, mais n'est-ce pas ainsi qu'apparaissent de nouvelles variétés, sous-espčces ou espčces : ŕ partir de mutations génétiques ?
Conifers, op 2023-02-26 21:22:39, gewijzigd op 2023-02-26 21:24:04, zei:
Something I've posted before, a very usefully defined set of morphology-based guidelines for selection of the ranks forma, variety, and subspecies, published by K. I. Christensen (1987; Nordic J. Botany 7: 383-408; see p.384):
The species concept used in the present work is morphological, and mostly in line with Rothmaler (1944) and Du Rietz (1930). The taxonomic ranks used are defined as follows:
Forma of a variety, subspecies or species occurs sporadically within the distribution area of the taxon of higher rank to which it is referred and differs from that taxon in a single character.
Varietas of a subspecies or species is to some extent allopatric and forms local, distinct populations as well as mixed, integrating populations within the distribution area of the subspecies or species. They differ from each other in usually more than a single, distinct character.
Subspecies of a species are both regionally and locally allopatric. They differ from each other in several, distinct characters, but intergrade in overlapping areas.
Species of a genus differ from each other in numerous, distinct characters and have a characteristic distribution area of their own. Where closely related species meet occasional hybridization and introgression may occur.
Given that these fastigiate oaks differ in only a single very minor character (branching angle), they fit better as a forma, than as either a variety or a subspecies.
Thanks! I had a bit of a double take - what is a grafted tree like this doing in the middle of such an out of the way piece of woodland? And it's so big!
I want to come back soon to confirm my height measurement, because I had quite a tight window to the top, and there looks to be a better position of the adjacent field. Still, quite a bit taller than the previous tallest known.
Yes, this was the tree that was 41m with a good spire tip in spring of 2019. I can hardly remember seeing older ones with a kink or fork halfway up suggesting old damage, so it must be unusual for Sequoia to snap off like this.
I'm tempted to equate this tree with one measured as 23m x 261cm girth in 1984 by Alan Mitchell, as the most promising of a young group hereabouts, in which case it was probably planted around 1955-60.
It must have been a powerful gust of wind to shear it off like that. Storm Eunice I imagine? Unless it was lightning, though I didn't see a scar down the trunk, so wind is the most likely suspect.
I love seeing how fast trees like this grow. Its incredible how they can get so big in such a short amount time (even with major setbacks like this!).
Feel free to override my height measurement for the tall Caucasian Fir, as I'm almost certain my laser threw up an error with it.
Ha you beat me to the upload. I visited this tree back on the 15/10/22. I have admired this tree for years. Its outstanding in form and I can understand why A. Mitchell would have admired it just like myself!
I made it 35.5m with the Trupulse 200 mounted on a tripod and like you Aidan 5.4m girth. The most remarkable feature is the very little taper of the trunk and has accumulated a large volume in its young age. I did a rough ring count on nearby felled trees and estimate around 65-70 years, as Owen suggested.
The top I measured, which lies to the side of the road was about 7-8m long and I suspect it was Storm Eunice, as it was so recent. I was very saddened it had lost its top.
There are others here almost as big.
Did you measure the big forked Corsican Pine next to the carpark nearby? I got about 36m with a huge trunk.
Don't think Eunice did much damage; Arwen was far, far worse, and is much more likely to be the culprit. Huge swathes of woodlands completely wrecked by it.
Stephen - The top had been cleared away by the time of my visit unfortunately. Indeed an exceedingly impressive bole for a tree of this age. It reminded me of the taller trees at Rhinefield.
I measured the Corsican Pine as 34.4m tall from a position a bit closer than ideal, so I probably didn't quite manage to hit the topmost shoots and your measurement is likely more accurate. A tricky tree to measure with its broad crown. I made it 4.53m girth after wading through a dense mix of bracken and brambles. An immensely impressive tree.
I was surprised at how fine the Caucasian Firs are here. Conditions must be exceptional for them to get this big in this relatively dry part of England. There are still many fine trees that need to be updated here.
Conifers - Arwen didn't reach far south enough to have much of an effect down in Surrey. It was mainly the more northern areas of the country. I remember the devastated plantations on the moors when I was up in Northumbs at Easter. Catastrophic. Eunice was much more southerly and I think left the majority of northern England and Scotland alone as I remember.
The top was on the side of the road with its tip pointing east. It may have been moved of course but it looks to me a westerly wind gust implying Storm Eunice. Winds reached 70mph south of the Thames. Technically meteorologically it was a 'sting jet' an enhanced belt of strong winds that day. Worst storm since Jan 1990 which I remember very well personally!
This tree I earmarked for propagation due to its fine form, possible superior genetics. Quite a few Coast Redwoods have inbred genetics, due to a number of complex reasons, when seed is imported from California. Trees such as this maybe superior, or quite possible the 'growing environment' has allowed to grow to this size, so quickly.
Just below the road near the carpark there is another tree slightly smaller, I hope to return soon.
The pine is a lovely tree. lost some large limbs. 87/90 storms? Very impressive trunk. I was wondering if many fine trees here were flattened in Oct 87? Especially as its exposed to the south.
The Caucasian Firs have grown well I suspect due to the altitude at 230m, the higher rainfall locally of 900-1000mm and of course that lovely deeply weathered soft sandstone the Lower Greensand formation which trees grow so well on. The trees here seem to be sheltered in the lee of the hill despite being high up on the side of Leith Hill.
I will upload a local Redwood to me which I have measured over many years, which has grown very rapidly.
It may well be a combination of genetics and growing conditions which have allowed these trees to grow so quickly.
Similar conditions on the same ridge further west have allowed the growth of a huge looking Sitka Spruce in a private garden below Hurtwood. I have not had a chance to visit yet but it looks almost certainly to be a new Surrey county champion. It can be seen on Google Streetveiw: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1673538,-0.4646657,3a,25.6y,94.57h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svGL03UK32dHPAHCkmRLp1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I spotted another big one on the edge of Bentley Copse nearby.
My guess would be 'Gelrica' (compare http://home.kpn.nl/~moesk113/populier%20klonen/canadensis%20k%20map/Gelrica.html ). I think there's just a haze of expanding reddish (male) flower-buds in the upper crown, ruling out a group of female forestry clones like 'Florence Biondi'. The trunks are not quite straight and clean enough for the common 'Robusta' (or for 'Eugenei') and too sprouty for 'Serotina' which is seldom seen this young (and should be tight in bud still). 'Gelrica' seems to have been planted very occasionally in England around the 1950s.
Thanks! The trees in your link look very similar, so I think you're right with 'Gelrica'. I assume the slightly smaller one I have also registered here is the same. It's a shame they grow on private land and I couldn't measure girth, because they look like they have stouter trunks than the current champion on the Tree Register. I noticed a slightly taller looking group further east towards Bradford Peverell on Google Streetview, but these had all been drastically topped since, and none were quite as shapely as this pair.
As you have measured the height, and photographed the trees from far enough away for the foreshortening not to be a problem, it should be possible to calculate the girth with reasonable accuracy. I get about 425cm for the one on the left - smaller than your estimate but sufficiently larger than the biggest 'Gelrica' I've measured for me to feel confident that this is indeed a girth champion.
@Owen - yes it is! I really should've spotted that; my excuse is I didn't think to look at the full size pic before, and that 'fort parfum' sounded so right for T. plicata 😫
Asimina, op 2023-01-13 20:52:22, gewijzigd op 2023-01-14 04:06:53, zei:
The information I had was that M. Suchard of chocolate fame, planted a giant Thuya and Sequoias in what is now a picnic area in 1874. When I compress the fronds the aroma was citrus. I am not sure of shoe polish, shame I was unable to preserve the perfume so I could re-check. Other trees that show on google maps in that area are now a pile of logs. There is one tall tree I couldn't reach high enough for any identification but it doesnt resemble a Thuja. Thank you for your judgement on this I will remove and reinput the tree as you have specified.
I have looked long and hard for a way of changing a genus and species of an entered tree. I can only conclude you have different rights to what I can do.
Hi Asimina - I've done so now (I have overall permissions), though you should be able to do it yourself for trees you have added. On the tree's page wierookceder (Calocedrus decurrens) '59062', you select 'Edit data of this tree', and there, use the drop-down menu beside 'Tree species?' to chose the species you want. Hope this helps!
An interesting record, but obviously needing corroboration. Google aerial imagery shows a Cedar of Lebanon at this spot (likely to be multistemmed?) with a Giant Sequoia to its north, and perhaps no room for a pine as well; Streetview only shows the tops of the Cedar and Sequoia.
I'm seeing the top of a Pinus nigra on Google Streeview (though you have to look at the 2009 footage, as the hedgerow in front in too overgrown to see anything by 2011). It looks like subsp. pallasiana as recorded - many vertical stems, though I have no idea how accurate the girth measurement is, or how multi-stemmed the tree is. I would assume a tree of this size, if the girth measurement is correct, to be at least low forking, if not a giant bush of many stems branching off at or near ground level. A visit to confirm would certainly be needed at some point.
Ditto to a Pinus nigra there, I see it in the street view too. No way to identify subspecies or variety though; this idea that 'subsp. pallasiana' ... 'has many vertical stems' is a myth; it is purely down to growing conditions in the tree's youth, nothing to do with origin or genetics. Typical subsp. nigra can easily have multiple stems; var./subsp. pallasiana usually has a single stem, as in these trees from its native range in Crimea:
Could be; but the density of the sprouts on the trunk suggests more likely Tilia × europaea. This is much more commonly cultivated than T. platyphyllos (neither is native in Ireland).
A friend of me (the hortuaris of Trompenburg tuinen, Rotterdam) asked me if I have a picture of the weeping beech at Knap hill nurseries. I'll see him next tuesday and ask him why he needs it. Do you have any??
Can't quite make out which maple this is, but it isn't Acer tataricum, which is only a shrub, and has unlobed or only shallowly-lobed leaves (example pic).
When I visited the tree I was convinced to meet an Acer cappadocicum. I think that everything I saw met this expectation (leaves, stem, way in which the tree bent over as it often does), so I didn't make any photograph of the leaves. So I'm quite sure it is an acer cappadocicum. However there is a plate next to the tree which definitely claims Acer tataricum. Saro Sciuto has registred it in this way in 2014. Unfortunately he has uploaded just one picture of the stem. Perhaps Saro has more or can remember more.? For my part I would change it in Acer cappadocicum.
Hi Wim - yes, that looks a good ID, I would agree with this change. The sign is just on a metal stick, it would be very easy for a mischievous person to pull it out from a nearby Acer tataricum and push it back in next to a different tree (I have seen this happen in gardens before!).
Before I change it wait for a reaction of Saro Sciuto. I've contacted him privately for another matter and asked him to see if he can clearify the issue.
Hi everybody!Unfortunately,i don't remember nothing of this,and after one thousand of trees that i have seen in 3 Years,i have very difficulty to remeber.
I took a census by a plate close the tree.I was at the beginning of my arboreal activities.Sorry.
I do think that someone of you should change the species to Acer cappadocicum. In case the tree turned out to belong to another related species (or hybrid) with similar leaf shape, we might have it corrected again, but it should not stay as A. tataricum.
Not A. cappadocicum on the basis of the leaf-shape in the November 2014 photo. I'd guess A. x zoeschense but don't know if this was ever distributed in Italy.
I want to add one comment to the discussion about this tree. I'm quite sure that no plate could have been changed by funny guys who want to fool us. There is surely no other Acer in the park. The park is quite small and the management has control. I tried to make contact to the Botanical garden, but didn't succeed until now. I wil try again one of these days, when I'm back home. For now I enjoy Cinque Terra and surroundings. .
Hello Wim! Maybe the naming sign was not exchanged, in fact the tree may never belong to Acer tataricum, too many differences, way too large, as told before. Certain specific ID is waiting so far, the maple tree is visible at Google Street View, but images giving no additional details.
Hello Saro! For sure the ID of A. buergerianum in BG of Lucca by Andrea Moro will be right, looking more close i could clearly see that at least partially, if not all photos at linked website were made from another, much smaller tree. Saying both maples could be conspecific, but are not neccessarily the same species, and the sizes of this one might be too large for A. buergerianum, may not be sure about so far. However we will have cleared right ID sooner or later!
Acer buergerianum is not impossible, but perhaps unlikely; the leaves of this tree look a bit too large for it, and also the Flora of China gives it a maximum of just 20 metres. I'd like to see some foliage photos before changing its name again.
Erwin Gruber, op 2017-06-06 14:21:53, gewijzigd op 2017-06-06 17:47:20, zei:
Agreed, detailed images are needed before further name change, possibly the owners or curators of the botanical garden will help out so far asked for images for identification.
Doesn't look A. cappadocicum to me (leaf shape). I think trees like this should be named Acer sp. until better close-up photos are added. Now the record lists potentially give false information.
Mt people,this acer is an Acer tataricum,taken from the officially descriptive cards of the "Orto botanico",kindly show by female doctor curator Alessandra Sani.
Hi Saro - sorry, but this is absolutely NOT Acer tataricum. The leaf shape is completely wrong, and the trunk size is massively larger than that species ever reaches.
The foliage and cones look OK for Pinus pinaster; certainly not Pinus strobus, though it would be nice to see close-ups - any fallen cones or needles, please, Aidan?
Certes, le port et l'aspect du feuillage ŕ distance font plus penser ŕ P. pinaster qu'ŕ P. strobus. Pour le reste (cônes, aiguilles groupées par 2), effectivement, je demande ŕ voir. Je sais qu'il existe un hybride naturel entre P. pinaster et P. mugo dans le Valais (Suisse), mais il ne correspond pas ŕ la zone géographique ici présente. J'ignore s'il existe d'autres hybrides du P. pinaster, et si oui, s'ils ont une écorce semblable ŕ celui qui nous occupe.
Il serait intéressant notamment de savoir s'il existe des hybrides naturels de P. pinaster et P. sylvestris (présent en Angleterre), ou des hybrides artificiels avec P. contorta, dont l'écorce et le port ressemblent ŕ ceux de ce pin anglais.
Hi DBZT - there are no verified hybrids of Pinus pinaster; the only ones that could plausibly occur are with the closely related species P. halepensis and P. brutia, but neither hybrid is actually known yet. It is too distantly related to P. mugo, P. sylvestris, or P. contorta to hybridise with them.
The only other option for this tree is that it is a different species altogether; from the current photos I can't rule out one or two of the Mexican pines (e.g. Pinus montezumae), though these are highly unlikely as they are so rarely cultivated in Britain.
Just noticed, it has already been discussed at the photo
Also, looking closely at that photo, there are old needles in 2s visible on the ground, so that definitely excludes any Mexican species after all; realistically, it can't be anything other that a Pinus pinaster with unusual bark.
The foliage is right for P. pinaster from what I remember. I didn't take any close up pictures unfortunately. It's recorded on the Tree Register as P. pinaster as well, so I think it is almost certainly a curious P. pinaster with odd bark.
A few comments about the bark of Pinus pinaster. In the UK at least, young trees have a bark with small, shallow, dull-coloured scales (like this Bolderwood tree) - it's only in old age that they develop the characteristic, larger, flat (almost shiny) colourful purplish plates, divided by deep blackish fissures. By this stage, you'd expect the tree to be adding girth very slowly. The Bolderwood tree is not young - planted 1861 - but has been adding girth surprisingly fast again over the last 20 years.
In humid conditions, the bark of many trees tends to rot away before it's old enough to erode into flat, shiny plates. The New Forest isn't a wet place compared with some parts of the UK, but this tree is growing in deep woodland shelter and the humidity must be higher than it is across most of its natural range.
This is also a tree with a wide range and is divided into subspecies by some authorities (subsp. escarena from the Mediterranean basin, subsp. renoui from the Atlas). I'm not sure that much is known about the origins of the seed of the older trees planted in the UK, but it could have been from a long way away from your wild populations in SW France.
Conifers, I just struggle like hell to upload photos on this site at the moment, what the reason is? The photo here is actually of the 51.2 metre Douglas Fir, would you be able to copy it and then upload it to the 51.2 metre tree?
Probably better to drop an email to site owner Tim ( info [at] monumentaltrees [dot] com ), he can move the photo directly; if I did it, it would come up as my photo not yours!
Done, while I was uploading Rob's other new images.
Depending on your user's rights, it's possible to upload a photo under another user's name by clicking the arrow at the right side of the 'Photographer' box. This gives you the full list of site users and you can scroll to the right name and select it. Only problem is, the list is now many 1000s long and takes a while to upload (and scroll through).
AlfredHuizinga, op 2022-10-03 20:10:38, gewijzigd op 2022-10-03 20:33:22, zei:
You can easily transfer a photo to another tree by clicking on the pencil by "specimen", right of the photo. You can than fill in the number of the new tree. Photographer, number of views and ratings will be transferred also.
Thanks Owen, I appreciate all the photos that you were adding and just thought Conifers may be able to do this swap without asking you yet again. I could have done it myself, have to try and remember how to swap the photos, send an email to myself with it on.
Mindwarrior, is this Cedrus too far away for you to visit and photograph? Would like to see some photos of this tree, have to check the Register or it may be on the Ancient Tree Inventory site possibly?
Link to the tree's photo on the Ancient Tree Inventory: https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=81361&from=3523&v=2150549&ml=map&z=19&u=1&up=v&nwLat=52.19079692514447&nwLng=-2.461380630476573&seLat=52.18940090507212&seLng=-2.4557158050371197#/
The trees are carefully shown to scale based on height of people in each photo. Tallest just pipping over 40 metres. The Black pine (or Crimean pine?) is in the middle and the tallest tree is the Redwood in Arley Arboretum. Made in 2018 so they'll be even taller now and there may well be some taller trees in the Midlands.
Some fine trees around Birmingham, no laser recorder in that vicinity. For many of your photos it looks like the same gentleman, how tall is he? Photo measuring can be fairly accurate but you need the exact height of the person and a distance photo has you have provided. I am 6'2'' and someone photographed me at the base of one of the Hebden Wood Seqys, 45 metres I worked out from the photo, later when I measured with a laser the tree was 45 metres so spot on in this instance.
Hi Red Rob! Good to hear from you again, I'm the chap who planted the redwoods in Birmingham in Kings Norton. I can share some photos with you soon. Yes, mostly the same people in the photos and I know them well so know how tall they are relative to each other. The chap is 5 foot 10, but still it's not perfect given that the photos were taken at different distances from the trees. I actually bought a laser measurer from Amazon (not forestry pro or anything) to at least measure my distance from the tree and then triangulate the height like that - but I measured one tree in this way and literally the next day it fell down. It is so outlandish and absurd that this happened and admittedly unlikely owing to the laser measuring (it was a windy day)- but I still sent that thing straight back to Amazon and have never used one again. I trust the Nikon rangefinder etc is fine, this was a little different - more of an industrial DIY laser tool but stated as safe. Let you know soon about the Redwoods- that's one thing I like about redwoods - resilience! Keep well
40 m height was just what I recorded for the tallest Sequoiadendron at Arley Arboretum in 2009. There is (or was in 2019) a Black Italian Poplar in the private valley ('Naboth's Vineyard') just south of the Arboretum which I made 41.7m tall, but it's a difficult tree to photograph.
Just across the valley from Arley in the Wyre Forest there are Douglas Firs to 53m tall, a couple of which RedRob has added to this site. These are the tallest trees known in the west Midlands (area, not county) at present.
Looking again at MindWarrior's lovely composite image, I think the very tall poplar at Arley is the one photographed? Within the urban area of Birmingham, it's possible to height trees quite accurately using the altitude data for each spot in Google Earth.
Many thanks Owen and bless you and Red Rob for your devotion to one thing and doing it so thoroughly and so well, something I really respect (and need to learn). Actually have another version of the picture with the 40 metre line marked with the tallest just pipping that. Yes, the douglas firs are amazing and I have some pictures of those as well, can add those soon. The tree 6th from the left is giant lime just outside the entrance which I spotted and actually measured using a stick and a very very long tape measure (but no lasers etc). That tree is also here on this site
Some great looking trees here, it would be nice to add some more big ones to the records for this area. Could you register any of the trees around Birmingham that are not at Arley, Owen or Conifers then may be able to Google Earth them?
Peacemaker, op 2022-09-27 16:37:52, gewijzigd op 2022-10-02 00:26:44, zei:
Hi, Yes, sure be happy to. Trees 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 from the left (from the giant sequoia to the taller giant sequoia in Arley) are already on this site. Be good to add some more though and will also send some pictures over to you soon at your awesome Redwood website. You won't believe how big the Kings Norton redwoods are now. And by the way, we managed to save the stand of redwoods in Highbury park! (sorry not Cannon Hill as I first said, rushing as usual) :)
A great number of young, thin, standing Fraxinus about 200 feet from this tree with Ash die back, the disease has well a truly arrived at Duncombe. Some superb tall Ash trees here, how much longer they will last? This tree still looked healthy with no apparent signs yet, are older, bigger trees more resistant?
Korpi47, op 2022-09-20 20:06:01, gewijzigd op 2022-09-20 20:07:08, zei:
I think Ash Dieback is somewhat misunderstood by many. When Ash Dieback arrives to an area, every tree gets infected and not a single ash tree escapes it just because it´s a fungus that's spread by wind.
But, there is a great variation in resistance to the disease. Where I live in Sweden, I have seen Ash dieback come and go, and based on what I´ve seen, there are not so many trees in the end that seem to succumb to the disease luckily. There are around 10-30% of the Ash trees that have no symptoms because of great genetic resistance (even up to 50-60% in some stands). I´ve also seen that many of the Ash trees that get symptoms have the ability to recover partly after a few years and survive for many many years more.
Although the number varies a lot by different stands, there are very few stands I've seen where the mortality rate for large trees is over 25% after 20 years.
So yes, as you ask, the resistance on large trees is better than on small ones and probably 85% of the trees that dies are trees younger than 30 years. Also, if the Ash dieback disease has been in an area for a couple of years for example in Duncombe, most of the Ash trees that remain healthy now will remain healthy. So it´s very likely that your Ash tree is resistant to Ash Dieback :)
The reason I brought this up is that I´ve read many British articles about Ash Dieback that is somewhat misleading and when I read them it sounds like all Ash trees will be completely wiped out and it feels like many people believe that is what´s to come.
But the thing is, over the next 50-100 years, it´s most likely that the less resistant part of the Ash population will die out and the more resistant part will breed and create a more disease-resistant population of Ash. This will happen both by human help and by natural selection and this is already happening all over here in Sweden. As the most susceptible trees die out, more and more resistant younger Ash trees start to grow up to replace them.
So in the end, Ash trees will win the fight against Ash Dieback and most likely still be a common sight in the future UK and in all of Europe.
I hope this helped and gave some hope to you Rob and to others too :)
Hello SK, thank very much for taking the time with your detailed reply, appreciated and also excellent news(?), the sinuous Fraxinus were around 25 metres, I will haven't uploaded the countless photos that I need to upload but will add one here. The big trees at Duncombe may just survive, I will add an updated photo of this tree, it does look healthy, will be interesting if eyes and minds better than mine can spot any signs of die-back. Had a terrific day at Duncombe yesterday, sad that the 41 metre Beech has come down but it must have taken alot of lower trees with it as windows and vegetation gaps had opened up to the trees further up the escarpment.
Yeah, I always get the same horrible feeling every time I see an really large tree that I´ve known die. For example, I remember this really huge Aspen "Populus Tremula" I had just a few kilometers from my home. Its circumference was probably over 3 meters and 20-25 meters tall and was one of the largest of its kind in Sweden. At the beginning of February 2016, there was this big winter storm, and I remember waking up that morning and my dad told me that the Aspen had fallen that night and I was so sad when I heard of it. Now the stump is the only thing that remains and thousands of suckers around it.
It will be really interesting to see the pictures of the Ash trees and see what their health status is. :)
It would be great if users from different European countries were able to add their own experiences of Ash Dieback to this thread, as I don't think we've had such a discussion (recently).
Ash Dieback does seem able to spread faster in a humid climate, so in Sweden (low humidity) it might be less virulent than in western parts of Britain. My experience in England is also that older planted trees (central European stock?) succumb faster than most self-sown trees of 'native' stock, though this could also be explained by the tendency of the disease to spread faster in unnaturally dense single-species plantations. There is also some randomness in how the disease has spread: most of Greater London remains disease-free, whilst SW Wales was very badly hit even five years ago.
The weeping ash 'Pendula' sickens and dies particularly quickly here, and as this is a clone all its representatives across Europe should be equally vulnerable - any local observations from differing climates?
Where I live on the SE coast of England, the disease has been around for a decade now but I'm lucky that every ash tree I can see from my windows has a high degree of disease-resistance and remains very healthy. (Lucky to be able to see lots of trees from my windows anyway!)
I've noticed around here that older native specimens are holding up better than young planted trees likely from Netherlands stock.
Having never been a fan of 'Pendula' (hideous thing!), I won't lose any sleep over that being lost :-)
Korpi47, op 2022-09-21 20:15:17, gewijzigd op 2022-09-21 20:19:26, zei:
Yeah, agree it would be interesting to hear other users' experiences on Ash dieback, especially from Poland and Lithuania where the disease has been present the longest.
Mainly because the Common Ash is my favorite tree species and because of my side interest in tree diseases, I´ve been lately looking a lot on street view for how Ash dieback has affected Britain and I´ve also noticed the large difference in resistance in different places. In some places, almost every Ash tree looks sick and it looks far worse than here in Sweden. But, there are also these places as you said Owen that still seem to be almost unaffected by the disease which is making me really happy to see.
If I´m not remembering it wrong, I think I read an article a couple of years ago that was saying that UK´s Ash trees have a lot better resistance to Ash dieback than the rest of Europe and it seems so far that the article is partly right.
One thing I find really interesting is that Street view has been a thing for so many years so I can compare how the Ash trees looked before Ash Dieback even got to the UK and how it looks now.
Another thing I´ve noticed, at least here in Sweden is that the Ash trees that grow on dry soils are more likely to die to Ash dieback compared to trees that grow on humid soils, but I think it could be a combination of drought-related stress combined with Ash dieback after several dry summers here.
When it comes to the Weeping Ash "Fraxinus Excelsior Pendula", they are relatively rare here in Sweden but seem to have a fairly low resistance here too, there are just one or two examples I´ve seen that weren't in a bad condition, but their survival can probably be explained by them growing in really favorable soils which I´ve noticed is really important for Ash trees resistance to dieback.
Another very interesting thing I found on street view a couple of months ago that isn't about Ash Dieback but about Dutch Elm Disease. In the valley where the villages named Hawes, Aysgarth, and Leyburn in the central UK are located, it seems like Dutch elm disease is almost nonexistent. I´ve found hundreds of mature Wych elms in that area and it seems like the disease is present, but isn't attacking the Elms. I don´t know if it has to do with the climate because it doesn't feel like the climate there is too harsh for the Elm beetles to survive. When it comes to resistance, it feels very unlikely that so many Elms could have resistance to DED. So I´m wondering if anyone knows about the area and why the Elms could have survived for so long?
About Elm Disease - I've noticed that too, there haven't been any outbreaks for something like 20 years now, and young trees are growing well. My suspicion is that the disease died out for lack of beetle vectors to spread it; some day sooner or later, the beetles will recolonise, and then there will be a big outbreak again. But there are other possibilities too; one possibility is that the fungus might have itself been killed or weakened by a virus infecting it (this is known to have happened in some areas with Chestnut Blight).
Many of the Elms in the area are probably well over 100 years so it seems like there has never even been a larger outbreak there from the beginning and I hope it will remain. I was recently watching the area again and over the past 10 years, I could only find a handful of Elms that seem to have died due to DED, but not more than one tree at the time. Your idea about a virus or something else weakening the fungus or killing the beetle is interesting, I haven't thought about it myself until now, but it seems logical. It would be interesting if some experts could go there and see if they can identify the exact reasons why the Elms have survived this far. Maybe it could be a helping hand for DED control? :-)
Hello SK, Conifers, Owen et al, I will add some photos when I can but just having trouble even attaching photos in any way to Outlook emails, Gmail appears to have worked?
SK, Leyburn, Aysgarth, that is my neck of the woods, I live about 30 miles south. Have you seen any decent heighted elms, the 28 metre county champion for height for North Yorkshire has been felled so looking for one of decent height. 17 metres at the moment for tallest in Yorkshire. If they are ancient old elms I will leave them for the Ancient Tree Hunt, they may actually be on their site, I haven't looked. I have to admit that stature, size-height is the aspect I am most interested in and does it for me rather than recording twisted, ancient old trees.
These Yorkshire Dales towns/villages like Leyburn are fairly high up (hence cool), in a rather wet and windy part of the country, so the beetles' opportunities to fly around looking for new trees is slightly restricted. Also, each valley is separated from the next by high, treeless moorland, so that the trees in one valley may be lucky and avoid infection sometimes. Another factor is that the poor upland conditions were not suitable for Ulmus minor (and 'Atinia' in particular, the English Elm). The greater vulnerability of many of these clonal trees to Elm Disease meant that in lowland areas, where they grew abundantly, beetle populations could quickly explode, and when the beetles ran out of Ulmus minor to eat they turned to U. glabra (a last resort for them, though the tree itself is seldom very resistant to Ophiostoma nova-ulmi). With recent warmer summers, Elm Disease has made serious advances in the Scottish Highlands (where the same limitations to beetle flight apply) and I'm afraid that most of these Yorkshire elms may not survive much longer. RedRob has observed some recent losses, I think.
The biggest and tallest Elm in that area (I think it´s an Elm at least) I´ve found is growing in a field roughly 8 km north of Bainbridge, approx 500 meters east of a small village named Gunnerside. I would guess that its height is at least over 20 meters. 54.37745013240417, -2.0678828716308617 are the coordinates if you type them in on google maps.
I know a few other large Elms, but not in that area.
Hope that the beetles will stay on the lowland and that the Elms will survive for a couple of years more..
Even though U. Glabra is the only native Elm on the Swedish mainland, that hasn't stopped DED here in Sweden unfortunately. There are very few Elms I´ve seen that survived in infected areas.
Thanks SK, I will try and locate the tree that you mention, it may be on the Ancient Tree site. Owen is right it is quite bleak up some of those dales, Swaledale, Wensleydale. There is a tall, thin elm down the river Nidd near where I live, 16 metres at least but it disappears up into the dense canopy and is impossible to measure with a laser, could have gone around it all day and night and still wouldn't have been able to measure it?
Aidan, op 2022-09-23 17:11:26, gewijzigd op 2022-09-23 17:14:06, zei:
Around me in Surrey Ash Dieback is rather variable. There are whole stands of young ash really badly effected, while other trees (often on their own and probably older) which have almost no dieback at all and are very healthy. There a young tree right outside my bedroom window which has almost completely died back and the only live growth is at the base of the main branches, while some older trees in the woodland about 100m back are much healthier with dieback only on some of the shoot tips.
I also visit West Dorset regularly, and this is one of the most badly effected areas I have seen. Almost all trees have some degree of dieback, though field grown trees are on average healthier than woodland grown trees. Some woodland trees which were perfectly healthy say 5 years ago are now almost completely dead.
I can't really comment on DED, simply because there are so little Elms around me - only the U. laevis in Shalford, all of which are completely healthy still.
The Yorkshire Dales are spectacular. Very bleak as you say. I visited back in 2012 when I was far less interested in trees and far more interested in waterfalls, but I must go back at some point.
Interesting to hear your perspective, Aidan. I don´t think I´ve actually seen an area as bad as you described it, but still great to hear that the larger and more isolated trees seem to keep their health! :)
Thought it was too good to be all true, caanot get the image of the die back trees to upload although have had success with an image of this 36.4 metre tree. 45 metre Fraxinus were recorded here in the 1950s but this is likely the tallest here now, there are a couple of trees up the escarpment above this one but there is a cat in hell chance of measuring them with a laser, I am not confident that they will be much taller than this tree if they are.
The 36.4-meter Ash is beautiful, It reminds me of why the Common Ash is my favorite tree. Unfortunately, it´s hard to see if the tree has any symptoms in the new picture, but nothing obvious at least! Hope you can upload the other pictures soon :)
Hello SK, the photo turned out disappointing, it hasn't quite auto-focussed properly, it was abit gloomy as I was early, 7.15am. It didn't appear to have any signs of die back, foliage to shoot ends and no apparent defoliation. To it's left is another fine, tall Ash further up the escarpment (love that word, always reminds me of Tarzan and Johnny Weismuller), may be of similar height or taller but unmeasureable, the base is not visible.
Korpi47, op 2022-09-25 17:57:01, gewijzigd op 2022-09-25 18:16:49, zei:
Hi! The Ash tree's health should be good so no need to worry. :)
Sad you can´t measure the Ash behind, it looks really tall! The small tree in front of the Ash, is that an dead Elm?
Also, about the Elm in Gunnerside I tipped you about, I saw yesterday that it is on the Woodland trust Ancient tree site.
Hello SK. it was a young Ash, there were many of them dead or dying under the trees disappearing off to the right of the photo.
That is a fine Elm at Gunnerside, in 2003 it looks every fine, is it visible on Google Maps, could you register it and plot it on the map? The champion at 28 metres has recently been cut so this does look like the county champion for height even just looking at it, it looks more than 17 metres.
Thanks SK, presuming the wooden stakes are 3 feet and photo measurement gives 20.90 metres which looks about right and the height which you estimated. I see no reason why you cannot register, it is standing in July 2022 although that said if the date is July it looks decidedly sparse in foliage in it's crown? Could be the drought or could be DED?
I would love to measure that big Ash further up the escarpment at Duncombe, impossible though as there is no window to the base just a mass of clutter twigs and branches in winter and totally obscured in summer. Measuring from below you wouldn't be able to see up on the top of the crown only the underneath of the side of the crown.
Thank you SK for registering the Elm, will try and visit up there at some, may not be until the spring of next year unfortunately. If I am up that way for any other reason I will try and stop by.
Have just managed to upload an image of the top of this 36.4 metre Ash, it was early and abit gloomy so this is the best that I could do. Looks healthy, apart from some very top foliage lost but possibly from wind across the top and earlier leaf loss because of the drought.
Oh, thanks Owen for uploading the die back photo to this tree as well. I am just attempting to upload a photo of the Cryptomeria plantation but it has failed twice.
Hi Rob! If the tree has looked like that in the entire summer, it´s unfortunately damaged by Ash dieback, but hopefully, it´s just as you said that it is just a result of the extremely dry and warm summer. :) To be 100% sure you should revisit the tree next year when the leaves start to burst.
RedRob, op 2022-09-27 12:13:44, gewijzigd op 2022-09-27 13:37:40, zei:
I have taken some closer up photos of foliage and form in the sunshine, haven't got to uploading them yet onto the computer. One of those trees which doesn't look quite normal for species, I found a very small leaved Quercus cerris in my local graveyard which I thought was another type of oak until Owen confirmed.
These trees really do look magnificent in situ, this photo reminded me of the photos of Sequoias that I have seen in Tall Trees Grove In Redwood National Park with the tallest grove immediately next to a sandbar in the river. Anyone near enough I really would recommend visiting them, go to the far bank of the river where this photo was taken to get the best appreciation, the photo doesn't do them justice.
Could I ask a question, there may be reasons why not? Why aren't these Balsam Poplars planted for timber or pulp, at least for use, wood too brittle for lumber? I know that the purists will jump and down but why don't we plant trees that can grow this fast in the climate crisis that we have now to absorb and mop up carbon at a pretty fast rate? Aliens or not, these are beautiful trees for the landscape, they enhance it. Though certainly not supporting the number of species and life as Quercus robur for example there still must be a wide variety of creatures that do live in and on them.
I'd presume these are Populus trichocarpa, or a hybrid of that with another poplar; P. balsamifera is a poor performer in the UK climate.
@Rob - yes, it is a bit odd that there isn't more use of poplars as a timber crop!
RedRob, op 2022-09-23 15:04:55, gewijzigd op 2022-09-25 15:38:32, zei:
d
RedRob, op 2022-09-23 15:11:24, gewijzigd op 2022-09-23 15:32:30, zei:
Above is the email that I received back from Bolton Abbey, June 2021, I will leave it on for a day or so then delete. The wood msut be quite brittle, still could be planted and the trees felled at a much lower height for pulp or similar even if it couldn't be used as timber. The 'alien' trees enhance this valley, I am vehemently opposed to this type of thinking where 'alien'-non native has to be removed. Trees were introduced, this woodland is absolutely full of Sycamore, more than any other tree, they are non native also so if this is the criteria, they need to be removed as well.
RedRob, op 2022-09-23 15:47:25, gewijzigd op 2022-09-23 15:50:39, zei:
I think it obvious from the letter that even the Bolton Abbey estate doesn't know for sure what these are so whatever is decided is the likeliest ident, Owen, Conifers et al in agreement, please change the ident.
Interestingly, reading the Bolton Abbey letter, these Poplars have grown up from brash laid on the bank from trees previously felled in Strid Wood, there must have been Poplars of this type previously growing there that were felled, I wonder how tall they had reached? Another interesting point, in the 30 years that these trees have been growing and the height that they have reached, there is no evidence from the look of them that any have lost their tops, they all have straight, unbranched trunks with nice 'spires' on the leading shoots.
Hi Rob - the note from Bolton Abbey Estate "We always thought they may be balsam poplar" could of course mean either Ontario Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera) or Western Balsam Poplar (Populus trichocarpa) - or of course the hybrid between them. But the growth rate and shape strongly favours Western 👍
According to Plants of the World Online (my preferred authority for nomenclature for the Tree Register) we should now be calling Poplus trichocarpa Populus tristis, but I'm going to drag my heels on this one... A shame the familiar name wasn't conserved, as it's a tree familiar to many who aren't professional botanists.
Under whatever name, Western Balsam Poplar is the tallest deciduous tree in the world (I think), so it's a red herring to say that the wood's brittle: there's no reason for youngsters in a sheltered valley not to go on growing taller.
Such poplars used to be planted for matchsticks, but then the market collapsed when smokers switched to lighters, or died. They are just about our fastest growing trees, so are getting planted a bit more for biomass (on a very short rotation).
I did what I could on behalf of the Tree Register to make the Bolton Abbey estate/National Park/Forestry Commission aware of these trees' importance. Let's hope that the fact they haven't been cut down yet is significant.
I agree Owen, I wasn't expecting to be still there. Thanks again for what David and in particular your good self did on their behalf, very much appreciated.
I am going to email Bolton Abbey again I think, the number of people who passed me last Sunday and asked me what I was doing and were interested when I told them about these trees, the Abbey estate are missing a minor tourist attraction here, there should be a wooden board near them giving visitor information about them never mind cutting them down.
Owen: "Western Balsam Poplar is the tallest deciduous tree in the world (I think)"
The tallest deciduous tree could be Koompassia excelsa in Malaysia, 86 m.
The tallest winter-deciduous tree is probably Larix occidentalis at 64.9 m
http://ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=8736
The tallest winter-deciduous angiosperm may be Liriodendron tulipifera, 58,5 m
http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2423
I think the tallest measured Populus trichocarpa is 57-58 m.
Though, apart from Koompassia those all are American, where much more measurig has been done than in other continents. What do we know about max. heights of east Asian trees - almost nothing! So there may well be taller deciduous species in the Himalayas or in Taiwan or elsewhere - who knows...
Conifers, op 2022-09-24 21:05:31, gewijzigd op 2022-09-24 21:25:48, zei:
@Owen - "According to Plants of the World Online (my preferred authority for nomenclature for the Tree Register) we should now be calling Poplus trichocarpa Populus tristis, but I'm going to drag my heels on this one"
And quite right, too, judging by the original description of Populus tristis (near end of page; scroll to next page for continuation)! "Arbuscula mediocris, distorta, nigricante et fere lugubri aspectu" ("A medium-sized shrub, distorted, blackened, and generally gloomy in appearance"!!) does not describe Populus trichocarpa at all; and the description gives no location clues that could fit it to P. trichocarpa either. I can't see a shred of evidence to apply this name to P. trichocarpa (it does apply better to P. balsamifera, though); this should I reckon be taken up with POWO.
Yes, poplars were grown for matches, but also plenty of other wood products; cheese and other food boxes are made from poplar, and more importantly, all sorts of other general wood uses where a lightweight but tough wood is wanted and decorative appearance isn't important, like pallets, etc. Poplar wood is also difficult to burn (matches had to be impregnated with wax to burn at all!), so good for building work where low flammability is important. Britain should be growing far more; that is a failure of policy (an all-too British trait these days!), not anything to do with low quality.
@Red Rob - OK if I change this tree to Populus trichocarpa?
Kouta: In 1913 Elwes and Henry wrote of P. trichocarpa: "attaining its greatest size on Puget Sound, where it is sometimes 200 ft in height" (59m). They don't give further details. Hugh Johnson in the International Book of Trees (1973) says that the record at that time was 225 feet (68.5m) but again doesn't give a source.
My name is Paul Howard-Kyan and I have recorded and had verified over 250 ancient/veteran/notable trees in the last few years, by the Woodland Trust .My first tree was a Tree of National Special Interest ( TNSI ).This tree was an ancient ash ,number 191504, near Whittington in Gloucestershire.
As it is now over a year since I recorded this silver birch but I've had no feedback from the Woodland Trust regarding it, I feel it is time to tell you about it lest it get forgotten about. Perhaps in that neck of the woods their verifiers are few and far between and very busy.Whatever,according to your records this silver birch is the 3rd biggest in girth in England and I think someone should take note of it.
On 11/8/21 I measured it at 3.14m in circumference at the height of 1.5 m above ground. I have lost access to the 12 photos I sent to the Woodland Trust and until I learn how to copy and paste them from there, I cannot send them to you.
This might be an excellent incentive for you to send one of your verifiers to check it out. I have recorded a few other trees in this area which have been ignored for over a year . This is making me itch slightly so if you are interested I can send you the details plus map grid refs. Best wishes, Paul Howard-Kyan.
Hello Paul, welcome to the forum, nice to make your acquaintance. Gloucestershire, South Wales and all over that region is an area where tree measurers with lasers are sparse, I am North Yorkshire for example so along way for me. You wouldn't fancy joining us would you, great fun wandering around looking for trees to measure. Lasers are really coming down in price, some great trees to re-visit in your area, likely 60 metre now Douglas Firs in the Forest of Dean plus other very tall trees, some nice conifers which I spotted next to Tintern Abbey which may be Douglas Firs and almost certainly height champions for Monmouthshire. You don't live anywhere near Kemble do you, visited Longleat in 2016 and drove by a Horse Chestnut at the side of the road in full flower, didn't stop but drove on then wished I had stopped later, could be a height champion for the county, not sure?
Paul, Owen is the Registrar of TROBI, the Tree Register so he may be able to help with your Woodland Trust photos possibly, Owen? I have tremendous problems uploading photos to this site, what the reason is, Aidan reported similar issues at one time, so I will unlikely be able to help?
I've found that you can download any image on the ATI by selecting 'add/organise images' under the 'manage' button (if you're logged on as a Verifier). You then get the standard option of 'Save Image As...' to download it your device (rather than downloading the whole webpage which is the only equivalent option when seeing the images in the 'view photos' section). The 'add/organise images' is also useful when you want to look at fine detail in an image, as they appear at full resolution (at least for a year or so), rather than at the small default size in the 'view photos' albums.
I'm not sure from your comments which tree on the ATI your birch is; I could find a 3.14m Betula pubescens in the Forest of Dean but this was recorded back in 2018 by Brian Jones, the most prolific recorder in your area (I'm not sure if he's still well and active?) I do look at all the ATI records each year to transfer the largest trees to the Tree Register, to help keep the lists of county champions up-to-date, but very occasionally I think I miss trees when they get verified in the same time period as the annual list is extracted for me. But as this is something I do as a volunteer in my spare time, I don't get time to comment on many of the trees. Whether anyone else is likely to see a record on the ATI I don't know: with 240,000 trees and limited facilities for searching for them or commenting on them on that site, it could be that nobody does. Always verify your own trees if you can, since otherwise they tend to get bulk-verified by Woodland Trust office administrators, with consequent misrepresentations and delays.
One of the benefits of monumentaltrees.com is that there is this active forum page. I tend to feel that only the very top tier of ancient or champion trees should be showcased here - giving them a better chance of being noted and admired by casual site visitors - but other contributors have their own policies about what to upload.
Thanks Owen for commenting here, your expertise is far superior to mine. The Ancient Tree Inventory site is difficult to navigate, I have found for myself anyway.
Just googled and this has come up, looks like another not very easy page to navigate. I agree with you entirely about the forum on this site, MT, I also do exactly has you suggest, only add champion trees for county, country, Britain and Ireland.
Thank you RedRob for your welcome. It is kind of you to make contact. I'm sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I'm not sure how this forum works so I'll just answer all the messages that come in ,in the order they come in.It might take a while.
I very much enjoy getting out and about finding interesting trees etc.However I'm old school, I get around with paper maps and an old-fashioned tape-measure ( and absolutely no phone to disturb me ) . So I do girths but not heights. No lasers in my backpack I must admit. There are simple techniques to work out approximate heights anyway.
I'm lucky I move around so I get to see new areas , things stay fresh, it's all part of the adventure.Yes, I know both the Kemble and Longleat areas quite well.
Thank you for telling me about Owen.He made contact. I'm beginning to see how this 'forum 'thing works. I usually talk face to face or email to personal email.I thought I had to go back to each individual email to answer it. Now I see this is not the case. Please excuse my 'forum'ignorance, I'm on a learning curve here. Never done a 'forum'until today.
Thank you for your most helpful messages. To save everyone's time here I'll cut to the chase.Sending emails plus attached photos is all I do , or intend to do, my life isn't geared up for anything more complex.So I've no intention of trying to retrieve lost photos that I know I can see on my'unverified'Woodland Trust list of recorded trees pending.
Simply put I'm not very computer savvy, I only learnt there was a new meaning for the ancient word 'forum' today.The Romans would be quaking in disbelief in their sandals, if only they knew.
My suggestion is that if you or indeed anyone else is interested in viewing my 12 photos of possibly the 3rd largest (in girth ) silver birch in England ( according to Monumental trees ) then the answer might be quite straight forward.
First of all the tree in question is Tree Id number : 220949 on the Woodland Trust's ATI. To reiterate the girth as I measured it at 1.5 m above ground level is 3.14 m. The Grid reference is SU 2568621404.It is right beside a public footpath in Landford Wood, Wilts.
As a tree recorder for the Woodland Trust I can visit these photos of 'unverified ' trees at any time, along with thousands of other amateur tree recorders.They are on the ATI until an accredited verifier checks them out.
Therefore whatever advice you have given me can be given to another Woodland Trust tree recorder with links to Monumental trees, as long as he/she is computer savvy. Then he/she can do what you have suggested to retrieve the photos should they prove to be of any interest.My main concern here is that the tree seems to being forgotten and so after more than a year of waiting I decided to raise your attention to it.Possibly something might happen now. Let's wait and see.
A link to Paul's birch. Certainly looks like an impressive specimen, but I wonder if its B. pubescens rather than B. pendula. It is in need of verifying, so I'll leave this to the verifier to decide.
I've just verified the tree (as 'veteran', and agreeing with Aidan that it's Downy Birch). It's because it hadn't been verified that I'd not spotted it before (and that it wasn't viewable for non-verifiers, such as Conifers). In this case when the mapped position and the comments agree and there are photos from which to judge the size and condition, I'm happy to verify trees 'unseen'. But as it's a slow process on that site, I don't do much of it.
It looks like quite a tall birch, with lots of life still in it.
First of all my apologies for getting it wrong by thinking this tree was a silver birch. I have much to learn.Thank you all for your combined efforts following this up and for correcting my mistake.Finally my thanks Owen for verifying this as a veteran Downy birch so quickly after I first raised the subject.
Slightly more complex than that! Quercus prinus is the older name (Linnaeus, 1753), but it is a confused name; it is widely misapplied to the same plant as Quercus montana, but Linnaeus's original specimens were actually the same as Quercus michauxii, so Linnaeus's original name has now been formally rejected (nomen rejiciendum by the ICBN.
The comments say that 56.2m was recorded from two directions in 2018 but this is rounded down to 56m because of the possibility of error in estimating the base of the tree (hidden behind the roadside wall). The 2022 comment was presumably added by the user 'Treeface' who has provided the latest photo, in which the tree certainly seems to be making good height growth.
Forestechoes, op 2022-07-16 13:47:41, gewijzigd op 2022-07-16 13:57:11, zei:
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/141357/ i added a photo here
In the village of Stanstead Abbotts, There is a hill called Cats Hill, by the hill a Cedar Grows of unknown height.
With an aprox girth of 22feet (over 650cm) I wish to know why this tree which may be (around 300 years old) is not in the top 10 of Hertfordshire Monumental trees.
From your photo, probably more like 150-200 years old; cedars put girth on quite quickly. As to why it's not been listed before, perhaps no-one other than local people knew about it?
It turns out this tree was measured by the hon. Maynard Greville back in 1952 ('roadside, Cats Hill'); he made it 35m tall (which certainly looks like an over-estimation) and 525 cm girth. No Tree Register volunteer had been back to relocate or measure it since.
If 'Forest Echoes' is able to measure the girth (at 1.5m from the ground level) this would help with estimating the age - not many trees get to be remeasured after a span of 70 years! Assuming 6.5m girth is about right, this would certainly put the planting date before 1800, but not necessarily much before if it grew really well when young. Looking into the local history might indicate if/when a mid/late 18th century squire could have planted it here.
Many thanks for reporting this tree which turns out to have a fine historical pedigree.
A week (6th of July) someone added a Pauwlonia Tomentosa with apparently wrong measurement. I asked the person if it is a measurement in feet, but he/she didn't react at all. In my opinion the circumference cannot be 7,62 meters since the tree is not even 100 years old. So it must be a measurement in feet.
7.62m looks just about right to me, in the Streetview image Wim has added. Bigger than any in northern Europe, but the extra summer heat will help.
What surprises me is that Paulownia tomentosa can live to 96 years old, though again I don't see a reason to query the exact 1926 planting date. Like meeting a fifty-year-old dog!
Paulownia can be long-lived; once mature, it grows much more slowly, and lays down hard, very durable wood outside the inner core of soft, fast-grown youth wood. In eastern Asia, the wood from old, slow-growing trees is extremely valuable.
This one's Acer cappadocicum, by the way. The bark has a slightly different way of wrinkling/crackling in age - and there are usually suckers around the base.
Owen, how common in the UK is Salix x rubens? I wasn't aware that there was a cross between Crack and White willow with this name but I have come across several willows which didn't look quite/fully right as one or the other really, Crack or White, are some of these trees likely to be crosses between the two?
Does Salix x rubens have the colour of Crack or White willow when viewed from distance? I have alot of Salix alba around me, very big ones and they are clearly alba with the flashing white foliage, others I have seen have just a slight whiteish tinge from angles but the lighter green colour of Crack overall. I will pull up one (not literally but on here)
Some users would probably prefer to use this name whenever a willow doesn't have the clear features of alba or of x fragilis. Others might only want to use it if the features in combination seem finely balanced. (Presumably by 'planted trees' the BSBI handbook is referring to the trees usually called alba var. caerulea (Bat Willows), which do have intermediate features.) Nearly all the wild trees with which I'm most familiar are clearly one or the other, but in other parts of the country I suspect the picture will be more complex.
Hi Owen - "Presumably by 'planted trees' the BSBI handbook is referring to the trees usually called alba var. caerulea (Bat Willows), which do have intermediate features" - no; Cricket Bat Willow has its own seperate entry (as a variety Salix alba var. caerulea, though cultivar would've been more accurate).
I'm glad you've been able to see and update some of these splendid trees at Albury (and at Polecat Copse).
With this oak, I'd come to the conclusion that it must be a hybrid rather than pure Q. libani - most likely with Q. cerris for which the name Q. x libanerris is available. (You can see this better from the shape of the leaves when they come out.) I'd also thought of castaneifolia x cerris, but there do seem to be features of Q. libani in the shape of the tree, in your photo: straight trunk, crown much narrower than tall.
Aidan, op 2022-03-23 17:24:59, gewijzigd op 2022-03-23 17:52:23, zei:
Hi Owen,
Yes, finally got round to visiting Albury Park gardens. It did not disappoint!
I have to say I was surprised to see that this tree was labelled Quercus libani. I did not know they could grow this big, so I think that it is likely to be a hybrid, as you say. I had a quick look at the buds - not too much in the way of whiskers, even on the end bud, on the twig I looked at. There were a few leaves still on the tree from last summer, so at first I thought it was a deciduous clone of Q. x hispanica 'Lucombeana', though the crown would be too narrow and upright for this as well. The leaves did look like Q. libani leaves, though I don't think they had any bristles, so could be a hybrid with Q. cerris. Should've taken a picture! Hopefully I can visit on the next open day, which is in early October, and I can have another look at this tree and take more photos, (though I thought I took more than just this one).
Do you have any more information on this tree? It is a special part of my Dad's history and I'm trying to build a 'tree profile' for him as a birthday gift. Thank you!
I don't know very much about the history of this park. There are a few other old Sweet Chestnuts nearby which it's reasonable to assume are part of the same planting, even though they're much smaller. I think the burr means that this one has grown faster in girth than you'd expect.
This tree hadn't been measured since I 'discovered' it in 1995. In the twenty years since then it's added 58cm girth, which would translate to an age of about 350 years, though this is too short a period to make firm assumptions and all such trees grow a bit faster when they're young. So I'd guess that the landowner did some landscaping here around 1700.
The person who added this tree to the Ancient Tree Inventory says that it's locally called 'the climbing tree', for obvious reasons.
Hello Aidan, another tree which you might like to visit, 30,3 metres the B&I champion for height, this Betula may be challenging.
I thought that I had added a 29 metre Betula pendula on here from Knaresborough in 2012 but I cannot find it? I have been meaning to stop and re-measure for several years but haven't, you get to know trees when you see them repeatedly and I knew that the top looked different, flatter. I finally stopped today and it has lost it's top, it is now 26.8 metres into the bracken at the base so may be just over 27 metres. Disappointing has I hoped it would surpass 30 metres but it is an emergent in a wood that is very exposed to the westerly winds and there are trees laid down every winter.
I have had my eye on Alice Holt for a while now. I would love to visit soon, and when I do I will try and find this birch, as it sounds tall. Nearby on the map there is a tall Nothofagus that also sound of interest. I found some tall Nothofagus myself in Chantry Woods which are also on my list to visit.
Shame about your birch, hopefully you find some more tall ones soon.
At Alice Holt, the height discrepency is what you're likely to get between a sine measurement (possibly missing the highest shoot) and a tangent measurement when the measurer naively overestimates how close to the apparent tip the true top of the tree is.
2021, they are widening the road and the roadside bushes have been removed but again above the red roof of the building, same Birch with a visibly flatter crown, the top has definitely been lost.
Just to the right of the lamp-post, there is another tall Birch which is visible now because trees have been felled, 26.6 metres on the brown earth in front of the tree but the 'muck is piled up' as we like to say up here so this one is likely c27 metres.
There are some superb Salix alba in this same wood just up the road, 30 metres plus. The two further over in the wood to the left look very tall, definitely 30 metres plus but it is very difficult to even see the base cleanly from the road.
A few years ago Tim asked if it would be desirable to add a registration of the subspecies and/or cultivars. Only Leo reacted and he thought that this registration was not usefull or desirable. If you have a future-perspective on this database / site one can again thinkover this question. If I judge the developments, I think that Tim has to rethink this point. In the temporarily development and judgement of the future there is ony one road. If this database is to be an outstanding database in which you find very much information about trees over the world, than ad subspecies, cultivars aso as an item to search.
Yes, it would be helpful if there was a way of search for subspecific taxa on this site, such as the alder cultivar 'Laciniata' which Wim highlights with such a fine specimen, rather than losing these cultivars within the species they belong to. But I'm afraid that would involve a lot of redesigning of the website.
There is - if you go first to 'Species' in the task bar above, and select 'All tree species' in the drop-down there. Then select the species of your choice, go to that, and subspecies, varieties and cultivars are listed at the bottom of the species page.
Yes, but if you then click on the variety or subspecie or cultivar, there's only the amount of these trees and in how much countries you'll find it. Below that line you only see pictograms and clicking on them it's restrained to photo's. I would like a list of these varieties like is given on the main species. I've started a discussion private with Tim about this in Dutch. He now knows about my wish and it's great that others also would like to see this change.
I think that would clutter the list up too much, particularly if cultivars are included. Think of species like Lawson's Cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana which have several hundred named cultivars. Realistically, we shouldn't bother with cultivars at all, professional botanists don't. There is a much better case for including subspecies though.
Agree with your view. But the main criterium is how burdensome it is for Tim. But you musn't forget that all the information is already apparent in the database. It's a matter of exclosing. And off course I don't want to see all possible cultivars and I am primarily dedicated to subspecies. Secondly, we are here not just professional botanists or? The charm is that professionals mix with dedicated laymen. And that pays. Give and take in my view.
But indeed Tim has a hell of a job. But I think that this wish is not a very burdensome item for him since the facts are already in the system.
My last comment is that in the system as it is, one cannot find a list of the biggest, tallest and oldest Fagus sylvatica purpurea (424 pieces) , or purpurea group (227 pieces) and not of Fagus sylvatica pendula (180 pieces). Or populus nigra Italica (117 pieces). And my special intrest; Quercus petrea Mespilifolia (26 pieces) . Important trees tough Conifers has in the past systematically degraded Fagus Sylvatica Purpurea (or purpurea group). But that's aside. But very relevant if you have an open mind to what nature offers. Manmade or naturemade. We can differ in appreciation, but I would like that there is respect for others who have a different position in the play.
Pinus contorta var. contorta A 31.0 251 2021 Parcevall Hall North Yorkshire England
Just browsing the Register and this one is abit of a surprise! Quite close to the B& I champion height. I have driven past Parcevall Hall many times and decided it wasn't really worth visiting, have some nice photos of the trees taken from the hills above. It is tucked away right in a deep valley bottom albeit quite high up in the dales. I am glad that Alan and John visited looking at the records as their identification skills are infinitely superior to my own.
The Brechfa tree in Owen's photo looks more like Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia (thin, open crown), but in a 'forest garden', I'd assume they have planting records that can be checked?
There were several plots of Pinus contorta at Brechfa, some labelled as var. latifolia and some as var. contorta (I think). They all seemed to me to have quite short leaves. I don't think the group in this photo was labelled, but I remember them with shorter dense leaves than the photo suggests. The bark was dark and square-cracked. So - not sure!
Noooo! What a shame. I visited Bodnant on my first visit to Wales a few years back and remember what a massive tree this was. Are there any images of it blown down? I imagine the carnage is rather impressive. Do you think a replacement tree will be planted where this one once stood?
It just goes to show how many of our big and heritage trees are under threat as a result of increasingly severe weather due to climate change.
A very sad loss of the Coast Redwood. I had admired this tree several times and hoped to visit again soon.
But an analysis and post mortem of why this tree failed can surely be seen in the above film/images.
I suspect the following:-
1) Wind gusts in the region of 70mph+ from a unusual northerly direction.
2) Local topography enhancing wind and gust speed, i.e winds funneling down the valley.
3) Tree was exposed to northerly high winds.
4) Perhaps most importantly it appears in the film that the location of the tree was growing on seriously impeded ground, preventing the tree's roots penetrating to a substantial depth, to anchor it sufficiently i.e 2m. Root plate looks barely 60cm deep! The impeded roots could also have been due to the high water table next to the river. Also tree looks like it had a serious disadvantage due to the tree being on the edge of the river and thus tree roots were only sufficiently anchored on one side. I have never seen root decay in this species in the UK.
Tree was a beauty planted 1887, but had not grown especially fast.
There has been damage reported at Cragside and I hope the tall trees there are ok, Rob??? Plus the tallest trees in Northern Europe at Gwydir too. The last were exposed to northerly winds.
The above met office document shows the max gust speed in knots. Looking at the map for the country it would appear that north Wales experienced gusts of 50-60 knots, but it may have been greater in the vicinity of Bodnant.
Conifers:- They could propagate the tree by cuttings and ensure its survival. I would estimate the tree trunk alone would have 40-50m3 so quite a task in its removal.
Victor Meldrew! Tragic, what an awful shame. I can imagine how the gardeners/staff must have felt when they walked down and saw the carnage. It must have been some fall, impressive to have witnessed if you had been down there.
I agree with the assessments, there was quite a drop on one side of the tree down to the stream with some undermining by the stream itself. Plus the tree has-had a pretty wide crown to catch the wind and that gale in Arwen hit from an unusual direction north to north east.
It would be a fitting tribute to the tree to clean up all the foliage and small branches and leave the trunk where it is, cutting a section out for the path as they do with fallen trees in the forests in California. But, I imagine the health and safety, woke and god knows what other brigade will be out, kids climbing on it etc, so I imagine the Trust will remove the trunk.
Is this the most massive, biggest tree to ever fall in this country?
What is now the tallest Sequoia in Wales, there was a claim of a 47 metre tree in the Charles Ackers Grove that I have seen, can this be substantiated at all?
Came across this during the search relating to Gwydyr Forest, very interesting read.
Stephen, what is the damage at Cragside, any specifics reports? Cragside would have abit of protection from the north and east by the hills and forest above to the north and east.
Thanks for the link to that FC booklet - which indicates that the early Douglas Firs at Gwydyr (at least the stand N of Miner's Bridge with trees to c.62m by 2015 - were from Oregon seed, and the Grand Firs, added from 1927 on, were British Columbian seed.
Replying to the earlier of your comments - every tree falls down eventually, unless someone cuts it down, and some have been much bigger than Bodnant's Coast Redwood. A hybrid elm at Magdalen College in Oxford that blew down around 1912 was about 140' feet high and 28' girth (from memory. I'm relying on Conifers to proof-read this and convert to metric!). A Wych Elm at Field in Staffordshire in the 17th century, c. 120' x 50', comes into the 'felled' category. It's easy for us nowadays to forget how massive elms can grow.
The tallest Sequoias at the Ackers Memorial Grove were about 43m in 2009. They were then adding height very slowly, but if the youngsters that bulked out the plantation have continued growing fast and sheltering one another, conditions should be better for adding height by now.
I've not heard of anything from Cragside, I'd hope it is likely OK given its shelter from the north. Kyloe is a much bigger worry, my fear is devastation there, close to where the wind was at its very strongest. But even there, it might have had some protection from the Kyloe Hills ridge (part of the Whin Sill system) on the N side of the wood.
The FC booklet file is really interesting, the old photographs of the forest path above Miner's Bridge with the car, I took my photograph from the same spot almost. 90 feet in 45 years is pretty good going. Page 32, are the plots of Serbian Spruce and Sequoia from 1927 above the Miner's Bridge still there, have I we missed them somewhere?
At the bottom of this page is a photograph of the remains of the same tree with the same side branch to the left of the trunk, the branch about double the height of the man rather than many times the height of the people in the drawing.
An interesting article Rob about Gwydyr. I have all the FC seed import data for that period and I will check to see if that is true. The vast majority of Douglas came from coastal/Cascades Washington and British Columbia, from the Lower Fraser River valley near Vancouver. But perhaps there was an exception?
Some of the Cedars of Lebanon felled or blown would have wood volumes bigger than Bodnant's Redwood.
I follow climate science updates regularly. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no long term evidence to suggest the UK climate is becoming more gale prone. In fact as climate change progresses, research has indicated that the jet stream track is likely to move north, due to 'Artic Amplification' i.e Artic warming. The reducing temperature gradient between the Tropics and Polar regions will ensure weaker Atlantic storms, perhaps?
With regards to storm damage to trees, its the speed of acceleration from a relatively low mean wind speed of say 30mph to a gust of 70-100mph in a matter of seconds which causes windblow, causing a massive strain on the tree itself, breaking or ripping it from the ground. Research into this revealed that 'most' trees fail at 90mph. However as seen in Oct 1987 in south east England Giant Sequoia no doubt survived gusts up to 100mph, while everything else was flattened all around.
I have always worried that the Leighton Grove was vulnerable to wind damage as its not at all sheltered to the west. its quite remarkable that the trees here have grown so tall.
As is often the case, trees such as these were never planted in the most sheltered parts of Wales on the most productive sites, but there is now renewed interest in the species, so in the future better sites will be planted.
Hello Stephen, I have read the same thing about the movement north of the jet stream in sources, logical when you think about it but conveniently left out when all the climate scaremongering is going on. Eventually Britain will probably lie underneath the persistant high pressure which lies over southern France and often extends up to central France whilst the low pressures move over us just north of the channel.
Have you visited the tall Douglas in Oxfordshire, hope they are ok?
"No news about Cragside, assume ok" - I'm starting to be less sure about this - adjacent Rothbury, as with much of rural Northumberland, is still without power, 9 days after the storm. Much of that is due to the incompetence and rank profiteering of the local electricity company (putting shareholder dividends ahead of service, resulting in massive under-investment in the infrastructure), but it does also tell a lot about the severity of the impact, too. No news could well still mean, no-one has been able to inspect yet.
In the video on this page at the top, the falling Sequoia has wrecked another tree near the base of which looks like a Metasequoia? I cannot remember what tree it was in that location?
I was wondering what the broken trunk by the Sequoia in those photos was, but Rob's right, there was a big Metasequoia there. They never seem to blow down themselves (being used to anchoring themselves in soft wet ground) but do seem to have a knack of ending up underneath others.
The Cowthorpe Oak was 14.45m girth at 1m in 2011 (C. Hurst). Judging from earlier measurements this was probably about right, though old measurements can sometimes be misleading. So, a bit bigger than any oaks alive in Britain right now - as was the Newland Oak near Coleford (13.63m in 1954). Both have collapsed in storms since then.
Would it possible to adapt and accept this tree measuring technique for those who don't want to shell out a fortune on an integrated laser? Instead of a tape could you buy a cheap distance only golf laser or similar to measure the 'height' along the ground? It would be ok for trees in open positions, possibly not so easy in forests. I just wondered for members like Aidan.
Presumably the 'cheap' laser could also be used for measuring with the sine method, in combination with a clinometer expensive enough to be accurate. But there's a question as to how good the 'cheap' laser would be at getting a meaningfully precise measurement to the tree's top (or its bottom). Has anyone experimented with lasers 'cheaper' than a Nikon? I'm sure Stephen's 'expensive' laser is more consistently accurate than the Nikon, even though experience shows that the Nikon can sometimes - indeed often - be accurate to within a metre.
It is also in the list of methods, when you are adding a new measurement, as "Measurement with a stick of known size".
Using a cheap distance only laser and an external clinometer is a perfectly acceptable sine measuring method. Such instruments, Nikon Prostaff 440 and Suunto clinometer, were used as the ENTS invented the sine method.
Today there are Chinese lasers with inbuilt clinometer that are practically as good as Nikon and many times cheaper. Huepar HLR1000 is sold for EUR 139,99 in eBay
Rob - This looks like a good way to measure the height of a tree. I could try it out soon.
The Chinese laser that Kouta pointed out also seems like a good option for me.
RedRob, op 2021-10-16 13:16:18, gewijzigd op 2021-10-16 13:17:15, zei:
Hello Aidan, I have never used a clinometer alone so have no experience but I believe that there are mathematical calculations that have to be made which have to be accurate and can be problematic. This method may cut that degree of inaccuracy out even if it is abit inaccurate in other ways. I imagine unless you have a perfectly flat location, a tape measure along the ground going perhaps over low bushes and other obstacles would cause some degree of inaccuracy.
Above I wrote "Brett Mifsud from Australia told me it is practically as good as his Nikon Forestry."
I asked Brett again and I must say I quoted him uncorrectly. The Chinese laser he tested was SNDWAY, not Huepar. He writes Sndway was ok but a Sndway laser his friend bought started to go 'weird' after a few months.
It was Rainer Lippert who told me that Huepar was practically as good as Nikon. Unfortunately, Rainer has become inactive here. Perhaps you could try to get his attention by starting a discussion with title "Rainer Lippert".
Jeroen Philippona, op 2021-11-06 12:31:03, gewijzigd op 2021-11-06 12:33:30, zei:
Hi all,
a friend of mine recently has bought the Huapar HLR 1000 laser after Kouta send the information. We have tried the results: the measurements are very comparable to those of my Nikon Forestry 550 (from october 2009, still doing well!). It seems to give only the real distance and the angle after the first measurement to a top; only after measuring the base of the tree as well it gives the total height. We did not find a possibility to get the height of the top 'above eye position' wich makes searching for the tallest top of a tree with broad crown much easier. But still it is easier to work with than with a simple 'distance only' laser together with a clinometer. Mechanical Suunto clinometers are very precise and reliable for measuring angles, the laser for the distance to the top, but you need to use mathematics. Measuring the distance to the base is not very helpful as it works with the less reliable tangent method.
To Owen: measuring with the Nikon can be more precise than within a metre, as Leo Goudzwaard and I tested with a tower of 38 m height we measured after the testing exactly by tape: results were within 10 - 15 cm. Also Kouta and I measured the 62.26 m tall Norway spruce in Slovenia within 6 cm of the measurement by climbing with tape and pole by Michael Spraggon.
But you have to take the medium of several measurements and not the heighest result.
Jeroen
RedRob, op 2021-11-06 14:30:57, gewijzigd op 2021-11-06 14:36:27, zei:
Oubel Golf Rangefinder with apparent height mode Ł79.99
There are a number of Golf Range lasers now available with height mode and at reasonable prices. It will be interesting to compare how accurate they are? For Ł79.99 I would be tempted to buy just to compare to the Nikon.
Aidan, what budget were you thinking of for your laser? I am really curious now about these more reasonably priced lasers, it would be interesting to see how accurate they are? Mine is 10 years old nearly now, if it does pack up I would probably purchase one of these and try it against some of the local cleanly measured trees that I have measured with the Nikon. If they have narrower laser beams they might turn out more accurate than the Nikons and others possibly.
Thanks for the info, Jeroen! The lack of the "1-point-method" is a real shortcoming.
About my first laser measurement of the Sgerm Spruce: The real measurement error was more than 6 cm. It was almost 10 years ago but I remember it very well because I have already written this here: I shot to an approximate mid-slope point at the tree base before we defined the real mid-slope point more precisely. After defining the mid-slope point, I noticed that my measuring point was too high. Thus, the real measurement error was perhaps about 30 cm. Anyway, I agree that it is possible to achieve a higher accuracy than 1 m. Sometimes we have used a basic rule of +/- 1%, meaning about half a metre for typical tall European trees. I also consider this as accurate enough. The definition of the mid-slope point alone may cause a difference of around 20 cm.
There is the possibility of picking up a Impulse 200 laser second hand. There are hundreds in the UK, about 20 years old now, but still serviceable. Perhaps a search could yield a bargain? Cost the same as a new Nikon? But far more accurate. It predates my modern Trupulse 200x.
I think the Huepar laser looks like the most likely option for me, as it seems to be reliable but not overly expensive either. If Rainer Lippert has used it then I would be interested in what he has to say, if we can get his attention.
According to the ENTS people, the older Impulses, although more accurate than Nikon, have a serious disadvantage: their beam is wide and it is difficult to shoot through clutter. I haven't use them myself, I have only read opinions of Bob Leverett etc. Karlheinz' tests gave similar results.
ich habe jetzt durch Zufall diese Diskussion gesehen und meinen Namen gelesen. Also, ich hatte mehrere Laser zum Testen gehabt, unter anderem das Huepar. Gut gefallen hat mir das externe Display, was ja auch das Forestry Pro hat. Ich hatte damals um die 100 Euro für das Huepar bezahlt gehabt. Dafür habe ich es als sehr gut empfunden. Und ja, es hat natürlich auch 1-Punkt-Messung. Im richtigen Modus kann man jeglichen Punkt anvisieren und sich die tatsächliche, oder horizontale Entfernung anzeigen lassen, jeweils mit der Höhe. Hat man also die höchste Spitze des Baumes gefunden, kann man die Stammbasis messen. Also kein Unterschied zum Nikon. Ich hatte im gleichen Zeitraum auch das Nachfolgemodell vom Forestry Pro gehabt, das Forestry Pro II. Das hat mich völlig enttäuscht. Die Messwerte waren nicht Reproduzierbar. Der Schwankungsbereich war mindestens +/- 2 m, bei der Höhe. Völlig Indiskutabel, meiner Meinung nach. Bei schlechten Sichtbedingungen und größeren Distanzen habe ich beim Huepar mehrere Versuche gebraucht, bis die Messung geklappt hat. Da war/ist mein aktuelles Nikon Pro Stabilized besser, kostet aber auch fast fünfmal so viel. Ich habe parallel mehrere Bäume gemessen und konnte zwischen dem Nikon und Huepar kaum Unterschiede feststellen, bei der Höhe, was mich sehr überrascht hat. Zwei Objekte die ich gemessen habe, habe ich zuvor mit dem Bandmaß exakt gemessen gehabt. Ich konnte auch recht gut durch Äste eines anderen Baumes hindurch, durch eine kleine Lücke durch, zur Spitze eines dahinterbefindlichen Baumes messen. Von der Leistung her kommt es im Gesamtpaket nicht ganz an das Nikon heran, der Unterschied ist aber deutlich geringer als der Preisunterschied vermuten lässt. Das Messergebnis des Huepar ist auf jeden Fall viel besser, als jede andere Methode zur Höhenbestimmung. Ich hatte auch einen Entfernungsmesser von Suaoki getestet, welches auch erstaunlich gut war. Allerdings ohne außenliegendes Display, aber nochmals billiger. Auf mein anraden hin haben zwei Personen bei Baumkunde.de sich diesen Laser besorgt, weil sie wenig Geld ausgeben wollten, und sind sehr zufrieden damit.
Vor einigen Jahren noch hatte das Nikon fast ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal in Sachen Laser zur Baumhöhenmessung gehabt. Aber die Billiglaser aus China haben in den letzten Jahren stark aufgeholt und sind für den schmalen Geldbeutel erstaunlich gut.
Danke sehr for this incredibly helpful information. I think I will get the Huepar, as it seems to have lots of good reviews and is cheap in comparison to other lasers. Also good to see you are active on Monumental Trees.
mir geht es gut, danke. Der Grund, warum ich hier kaum mehr aktiv bin, ist letztendlich meine eigene Webseite, die viel Zeit benötigt, Dort habe ich inzwischen über 1.100 Eichen erfasst und knapp 400 andere Bäume. Und vor allen Dingen die technischen Probleme die ich seit Jahren mit MT habe. Bilder hochladen gelingt mir fast nicht. Kommt immer Fehlermeldung. Auch das aufrufen einzelner Seiten gelingt oftmals nicht, die Benutzung der einzelnen Tabellen auch nicht. Die Seiten werden einfach nicht geladen. Ich kann in MT eigentlich fast gar nichts machen. Keine Ahnung warum. Mein Internet ist mit 100 MB nicht das langsamste, und mein Computer ist jetzt auch erst zwei Monate alt.
@Aidan: Gern geschehen. Für das Geld wie gesagt kein schlechter Laser.
Hello Rainer, I echo Aidan's comments, thank you for giving us the feedback about the Huepar and other lasers, very much appreciated.
''I'm fine thank you. The reason why I am hardly active here is ultimately my own website, which takes a lot of time. There I have now recorded over 1,100 oaks and almost 400 other trees. And above all the technical problems that I have had with MT for years. I hardly succeed in uploading pictures. Always comes an error message. It is also often not possible to call up individual pages, and neither does the use of the individual tables. The pages just won't load. Actually, I can hardly do anything in MT. No idea why. My internet isn't the slowest at 100MB, and my computer is only two months old now.
@Aidan: You're welcome. As I said, not a bad laser for the money.
Many greetings'', (quoted Rainer)
I have just Google translated your comments Rainer, you are not the only one, I can only get certain photos to upload, the smaller sized ones. Perhaps the site is just full, has others have said previously we need to really just add essential photos of the trees and only add genuinely monumental trees, champions for county/district/region/country, not small saplings and small trees. I could add thousands of trees but only add county champions for mostly height or girth.
I now saw this discussion by chance and read my name. Well, I had several lasers to test, including the Huepar. I really liked the external display, which the Forestry Pro also has. At that time I had paid around 100 euros for the Huepar. I found it very good for that. And yes, of course it also has 1-point measurement. In the correct mode you can aim at any point and display the actual or horizontal distance, in each case with the height. So once you have found the highest point of the tree, you can measure the base of the trunk. So no difference to the Nikon. During the same period, I also had the successor to the Forestry Pro, the Forestry Pro II. That disappointed me completely. The measured values were not reproducible. The range of fluctuation was at least +/- 2 m for the height. Completely out of the question, in my opinion. In poor visibility conditions and greater distances, it took me several attempts at the Huepar until the measurement worked. My current Nikon Pro Stabilized was / is better, but it also costs almost five times as much. I measured several trees in parallel and could hardly find any differences between the Nikon and Huepar in terms of height, which surprised me very much. I measured two objects that I measured exactly with a tape measure beforehand. I could also measure quite well through branches of another tree, through a small gap, to the top of a tree behind it. In terms of performance, the overall package does not quite come close to the Nikon, but the difference is much smaller than the price difference suggests. In any case, the measurement result of the Huepar is much better than any other method for determining height. I had also tested a range finder from Suaoki, which was also amazingly good. However, without an external display, but even cheaper. At my request, two people at Baumkunde.de got this laser because they didn't want to spend much money and are very satisfied with it.
A few years ago, the Nikon had almost a unique selling point in terms of laser for tree height measurement. But the cheap lasers from China have caught up a lot in recent years and are surprisingly good for those on a tight budget.
I have just had a look on the Tree Register at this tree and Alan Hunton has visited and taken some more photos of it, half of it has gone!! Gutted, beautiful tree, looks about half of it left, hard to judge? I travelled past Duncombe in September and couldn't spot it on Waterloo albeit I was driving and couldn't look too well. At the moment my trees seem to be jinxed, my champion Magnolia grandiflora was felled at some point recently, 41 metre Larch at Fountains lost it's top. Owen, did Alan measure it, how much is left, height? Could we use a photo of Alan's of what is left?
Alan will have been verifying for the Ancient Tree Inventory (which of course only records girths).
Fortunately you've already found two more Deodars in North Yorkshire also 35m tall. If both of these have broken off too, you really are jinxed!
It's easy to underestimated the rate of attrition among current champion trees. To become a champion, a tree is likely to be one of the oldest of its kind and therefore near the end of its natural life, and/or at the limits of timber strength and stability.
Hello Owen, have tried to line up the remaining branches with those on my photo and there looks to be about 15/16 metres of the tree left in height. What a shame, it was a luxuriant tree. It is on top of the hill though above the river valley and clearly visible from Waterloo (the name the A170 road is known by in this section locally)
Directly over the camera shadow facing north you can see the double near 40 metre Sequoiadendron and the big dark conifer to it's left which is further back in the wood, the Deodar which I couldn't see on my last drive down here. It is 9 years since I actually visited the tall trees at Duncombe Park, Limes etc, will have to visit next spring. The top of the tallest Lime was dying back abit, was 44 metres to the tip of the foliageless top shoot. It may have died back further, the tip may have come back to life perhaps?
Hello Owen, are these two County Champions for height for County Durham if correct? Cannot get anything to come up on the Register? The Poplar looks like 'nigra 'italica', the other is a Service tree, not sure which, cannot upload photos here, they won't resize, but will send you them to confirm.
Yes, these will be worth installing as champions. I'd like to see a leaf of the service tree as Sorbus decipiens is equally widely planted in the area and has rather narrower leaves.
The first photo on the Polecat Copse site page is of the Deodar. I must have omitted to attach it to the right tree. I couldn't find a position where the whole tree would fit in.
For Aidan or anyone else visiting: the woodland is mostly unfenced but must include land belonging to the various big houses nearby rather than the NT which owns the core of land above Lion Lane. The tall Deodar and several more of the best trees are on the west side of the ridge, above or below a drive which leads to an Islamic retreat centre (outside the wood) and had a security gate halfway up it when I last visited (but nothing to stop pedestrians walking through the woodland on either side of this). When I last visited, a fence had been built above the tall Giant Sequoias, which must mark the legal boundary of the land belonging to a house called Honeyhanger which is accessed from the road in the valley to the west; the big Hemlocks were all (?) within that plot of land.
Thanks for the info Owen, I did notice a fence between the Giant sequoias and the lane. If there are any other fences that have "private property" or "keep out" signs I will respect them and not go any further. I will try and get a clearer photo of your Norway spruce as well!
Sorry Owen, blind as a bat, I didn't scroll the page down from the trees listed as the top, it was right at the top. It is an impressive tree, very nice shape, looking forward to hearing more about it when it is re-measured.
Glad you saw this tree Aidan. Funny how we have both looked up the trunk of this tree, only 2 months apart.
I only got 44.3m with the Trupulse on a tripod from a range of 45m away, not sure if its lost height? But definitely the longest clear Larch bole free of branches I have seen. 32m to the first branch!
Stephen, I know I've pestered you about this already, but if you get the change please visit Hascombe Hill near Godalming. Another >40m Larch as well as many other fine trees. It's definitely worth the visit.
I have had a look on Google Maps at Hascombe Hill and can see Douglas firs in the distance, how tall are they?
Aidan, I hope that you don't mind my asking but do you have what I would deem a champion surname, you can just say yes or no? I won't disclose the surname but what a great name.
Yes, that is my surname. Lots of people comment on it!
Many tall Douglas firs at Hascombe Hill, some perhaps being in excess of 45m, others having large girths. It is a superb location for tall conifers, but also ancient Beeches as well.
I think the larch at Puckpits was one of those difficult trees where my laser offered two groups of heights, one about 1.5m higher than the other. Stephen's research is showing that Nikon owners should plump for the lower heights, sometimes or often. Or buy a better laser.... But the loss of some topmost shoots isn't impossible.
That group of tall larches at Hascombe Hill is even older, and I don't think they'll add any more height. Rob, this is quite a high hill (195m), and the good growth of conifers near the summit shows how, in south-east England, the extra humidity that comes with altitude is a more significant factor than the exposure to higher winds. You can see the conifers on this hill from all over southern Surrey, but the tallest are tucked away on the slopes and only visible at close range. I had 45m for one Douglas Fir here in 2015 which had been growing very fast when I first saw it 15 years before, but had then recently died back a bit.
Yes, the tallest conifers on Hascombe Hill are on the lower slopes or at the bottom. I still have more notably tall Douglas firs and another Sitka spruce and Coast redwood to add, as well as many other trees.
You are probably right about the larches. I imagine they will start adding girth rather than height now. Where was the 45m Douglas fir? Is it one of the ones recorded? The largest of the three opposite the track below the larches douglasspar (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '44361' looks pretty tall, perhaps more than 45m. Did you measure this one?
Hello Stephen, surprising the tree hasn't split, the point where the boles join must be a weak spot surely? I suppose Sequoias like this are common in California but they have more forest shelter and won't be subject to perhaps such strong winds like we are here.
The Douglas at Puddletown do look quite impressive, that looks like a big vehicle parked, not sure what it is but the Land Rover Discovery 3 is 74 inches in height. The Douglas look mid 40 metres in height, plus these Google photos have distortion which caused for-shortening. Hope that you can measure these if you get your laser, certainly county champions for height.
Glad you visited the tree Aidan, it is a monster. Not the most perfect example of the species, but interesting nevertheless.
It is a weak point as you suggested Rob, but often forking can still form a strong structure, it all depends on how strongly attached the two stems are and how much 'included bark' there is. In this case unless there is decay it looks quite strong, after all it came through the 87 and 90 storms unscathed whereas single trees with single stems had blown over here.
Interesting the trees at Boulderwood, Rhinefield, and here, which suffered windblow, were too large and very few sawmills could handle trees which would have been 30-50 tons each.
Hi Stephen. It certainly is a monster. These two Douglas firs are the most impressive I have seen, as you can get a clear view of the whole tree with both specimens, unlike with most at places like Rhinefield and Bolderwood. I only scratched the surface of Puckpits as it was already getting dark when we found the trees and we had to get to a dinner reservation. I will definitely come back. Also looked like there was some rather tall beeches within the conifers. Did you measure any of them?
'"and we had to get to a dinner reservation" . . . 'dinner reservation'? What sort of a creature is that, when there's trees to see?? 😆"
As a side note, I forgot about the word "dinner reservation" completely till you mentioned it now. All the restaurants here on the East Coast of America are pretty much empty, no reservations required for about all now.
Owen, the shoot off the top of this tree/bush on the right had readings of 7.4-7.6 metres, is this now the tallest recorded specimen in the UK? I was talking to the owner only last week and told her that it was the tallest in North Yorkshire because I thought the B&I champion height was 8 metres? I have just received the Register Newsletter and it says that John Weightman has found a champion for Cotinus, 7.2 metres so I checked the Register? The owner of this tree is thinking of cutting it down! I will have to go back to do some pleading as it is such a fine specimen.
Smoke-bushes are trees (or shrubs) which always seem to grow to 'about 8m' tall, so I've not awarded any champions for height on the Tree Register. Given warm summers, however, they can grow quite thicc, and John's tree is a new (joint) record for this.
Cotinus obovatus, being American, grows a bit bigger (to 9m). Among the "dummeri" hybrids, 'Grace' seems vigorous - I've seen it to about 8.5m.
I have just compared the photos and this looks like the same tree which Owen measured in 2015 as 33.5 metres so your estimate may be not too far off. The big Deodar at Betws Y Coed had lost a tadge from the top at one point, the top looked visibly flatter when I measured it and it looked like the leader had probably been broken off by the wind.
Hello Aidan, that is interesting, the tree must have lost a considerable part of it's top from the looks of this? Owen may clarify? Just reminds me, there are some beautiful, straight, specimens with long leading shoots near Grassington up here in the Wharfe valley which I must visit again soon.
Yes, Aidan has found the right tree. I can't remember whether I decided the tree had lost some of its top or whether the my 2006 measurement just wasn't very accurate. 33.5m in 2015 was with the laser, anyway.
Just read a fascinating article about one of my 'choice' tree species, a true giant of the temperate world.
It appears that a tree has been measured in Iran in the Hyrcanian Forest near the Caspian Sea at 60.4m x 4.9m DBH! With a circumference of 22m at the base! If accurate, it surely could potentially be the largest temperate broadleaved tree in the Northern Hemisphere except Eucalypts.
Only one recorded at any of the Yorkshires, 2018 at Askham Bryan not far from me, no height recorded by Alan (Hunton) and John (Killingbeck). Owen, do they live near enough to re-visit? I have driven through this village many times but not noticed this tree? It was a few years ago though since I was last there. Champion for UK, 36.6 metres 2017 at Kew, correct Owen?
Hi Rob yes it is massive, just wondering if the height has been correctly measured?
If only I could have some acorns from it!
The Kew tree is amazing and never seems to slow down its growth rate. I know people who have worked on this tree. I wonder if it becomes the biggest tree in Greater London to 40m perhaps?
Jeroen Philippona, op 2021-10-27 15:28:09, gewijzigd op 2021-10-27 15:28:46, zei:
Hi Stephen and Rob,
In 2017 we had the ECTF meeting at Kew. After lectures we had a tour in the garden with Owen Johnson. I measured the cbh and height myself with a Nikon Forestry 550 laser. The top most leader was 36.6 m tall, but that stook out a bit above the main crown, wich was around 35.6 meter. The height is impressive but the girth and total wood and crown volume are even more impressive. The height seems to gain a bit still, but I doubt if the tree ever will become 40 m tall.
The biggest Quercus cerris at Knighthayes court is just about as tall and big.
The heights measured or estimated in the Iran forests for Quercus castaneifolia are very interesting. A dr. Sperber, well known forest researcher from Germany around 2005 also visited these forests and reported trees of 50 m height and 10 m cbh, just like Jozef Soucek in the report in International Oaks Society. The tree with dbh of 4.9 m (cbh 15.4 m) and height of 60.4 m looks impressive at the photo, but it is not sure if the height was measured reliable.
I did ask Roderick (the author of the TSO article) if he could put me in touch with the measurer or provide more details about this tree, so it could be added to this site, but this reminds me that I've not heard back (yet).
Ernesto Rubio Velasco, op 2021-10-27 17:32:19, gewijzigd op 2021-10-27 17:48:59, zei:
Many thanks and very interesting. It is truly gigantic. A tree such as this size would need to grow in a high rainfall environment. I wonder if there are even larger trees hidden away in its native range?
Jeroen:- I saw the Kew tree last year but had no laser with me. Judging by the rakish upper crown its still adding height, about 15-20cm per year I would estimate. I am sure the tree has tapped into the groundwater several metres down, from the nearby Thames. One of the UK leading tree care companies looks after it, sprays it for OPM and decompaction of the root zone, by an 'Air Spade + fertiliser. Time will tell but I think its got plenty of life yet to grow larger.
Measuring the height in the photo the tree have about sixty meters, for the dbh the surface is not regular, we have the habitual problem.
Let's hope that the measured of the tree will upload it, or someone who knows its location, if not, it will be difficult to locate. Hyrcanians mountains are 800 km long ... really big.
From the photo at treesandshrubsonline.org we can see that the tree is clearly much lower than 60 m. Neither looks it so tall when compared with other objects in the photo, nor is its growth habit that of a 60m tree, nor is the surroundings of the tree such one that would encourage the tree to grow to such heights. Let's remember that 50% errors are not rare when measuring broadleaf trees with traditional measurements. But it is a magnificent tree nevertheless.
My grandfather also told me that, during his childhood in the 1930s, he heard many stories of very wild animals coming down to the villages from the mountains, and often dragging a kid or elderly off.
It still is a very wild region today, as it appears there are very few logging companies, trails, roads, or anything really crossing into the wilderness.
Thanks for the link. Indeed, he did tell us kids (back years ago), about wild tigers. Though, he did mention that wild monkeys would also come and drag entire families off to the forests sometimes, hah.
They were interesting stories to us kids, for sure.
But there are several other possibilities, and presumably some Douglas have been lost from this plantation over the years. As a forester Alan would have chosen an unforking tree to measure if he could!
I wonder how much side-shelter there was when these trees were planted? The Douglas Firs, being the fastest-growing in the mix, will have been the ones to suffer at their tops if there wasn't much shelter, and would fork and branch as a result. Trees in a younger plantation, like the one at Holliday's Hill, have it easy in comparison. Or springs in the 1860s could even have been frosty enough to cut back the firs' young leaders?
We can discount the possibility that this pine has had any work done on it as it's in such an unfrequented part of the Forest. It must have been crowded enough when young to lose its branches early but not so crowded that its growth was slowed (pines are light-demanding trees), and the trees around it will have been lost to natural depletion - they'd gone when I first saw this tree in 2006, but there are taller Douglas Firs within 50m on each side still to provide adequate wind protection. It has the longest, straightest, cleanest bole of any tree I've found in Britain.
Stephen Verge, op 2021-10-26 21:04:23, gewijzigd op 2021-10-26 21:40:42, zei:
I updated the height measurement this summer. Growing about 10-15cm in height per year. It is a beauty, but I have a shorter tree but with an equally fine stem. Some of the best Corsican Pine in the UK here.
Regarding its long fine bole, there appears to have been heavy losses here after the 87 and 90 storms, judging by the old stumps and root plates around and gaps in the canopy and a little replanting. Perhaps in the process of falling, trees stripped off the dead and dying branches of this tree, as trees fell around, either by man or the weather? Was this stand much larger? Has it been thinned in the past? Perhaps during wartime? Wondered if this site is a SSSI?
That pine has a very straight bole! Very skinny also! Impressive tree for sure!
The tallest tree I have measured probably had no branches for also ~30 meters, but here is a photo of one that branches at 23 or so, which is located in the U.S state of Pennsylvania:
I am confident I have seen other trees that have not branched until about 30 or more meters, but I have not measured the height to the first branch. These trees, both also from Pennsylvania, come to mind though:
A 46.56 Meter Tulip-Tree:
And a tall, but unmeasured, Eastern White Pine that I found not long ago. It might be old growth:
Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts and info on this interesting pine!
I see your tree at Mount Stuart, Argyll is a tad taller, for now. Interesting that this species dislikes high rainfall and high humidity and prone to needle cast and dieback in the northwest.
As a species I think it potentially could reach 50m. My Ponderosa Pine may beat it first though near Welshpool!
Amazing Corsican pines. There are a group of similar trees just south of the main path heading towards Blackwater Arboretum which also look rather tall. Perhaps 40-45m?
Stephen Verge, op 2021-10-22 21:40:55, gewijzigd op 2021-10-22 21:45:34, zei:
How's about that then! An even bigger one!
This could be the champ Norway Spruce in the UK Owen and co?
I visited on 4/8/21 and took a reading with the Trupulse on the tripod in a difficult to view window to the tree top. I recorded 49m! But could not quite believe it for this species. To settle my curiosity I returned on 22/9/21 and managed to find another window in this tall forest for another reading of 48.5m. Either could be correct!
What a magnificent tree. I have a Picea abies plantation next to my house and this completely dwarfs all of them. Must me more then double the height of most.
Yes, this becomes comfortably the tallest - and interestingly refutes the assumption that such trees are always at their best in cool, high-rainfall areas of Britain and Ireland. (There's an old record of a 52m tree at Reelig Glen but I'm inclined to discount this figure as it's so much in excess of anything growing there now - unless Stephen visits and finds this tree hidden away somewhere....) I'm assuming you haven't found a 55m Abies alba yet, anywhere in Hampshire or Wiltshire? I had imagined that Abies alba and Picea abies had very similar habitats and requirements in their native forests, which makes it slightly surprising that their performance in England differs in this striking fashion.
When you said you record 49m on your first visit, do you think this was a one-off error or would the 50cm be within your margin of error for an awkward-to-measure tree? If the latter, we might say 48.7m or 48.8m?
It's been a great summer for tree recording around Britain, after all the restrictions of lockdown last year. Hugo Egleston discovered a brand new UK champion Metasequoia on Thursday, in a field at Shepton Beauchamp in Somerset and 556cm girth. I'm hoping this can be added to monumentaltrees.com, once publicity issues are checked with the owner. All told there are nearly 700 new and updated UK champions for 2021, so far!
That Metasequoia you mention is quite large! Almost as large as the largest in America! I am located not far from a 5.79 meter CBH Dawn Redwood that is the champion of the U.S.A. Maybe the English one is larger in volume?
Hello Stephen, agree with Aidan, what a magnificent tree. What a series of successful tree measuring sorties you have had recently, already justifies the Trupulse.
There isn't really too much visible from the nearby path on Google Maps which suggests such tall trees, are the Norways and others in a slight depression? Is that a Tsuga in the Google Maps Street View image above, panning to the right towards the tall Larch and Norways?
I wish that you had ventured into Centreparcs at Longleat to measure the Seqy, the wife could have put a blindfold on you (nothing kinky) to get you to the trees, the area around them isn't too bad for development. You would have had another B&I champion for height (unless the tops have gone which you never know) With your 57 metre Seqy at Bucklers, I am even more curious to know what height they are?
The last time that I visited Cragside I got 45.40 metres for this tree in a clean reading, the National Trust had removed some smaller trees and clutter from the area. It won't be challenging the 48.5 to 49 metre tree but it may have added some height by now, perhaps 46 metres now? Cragside is quite open to the south west so you just don't know.
As Alan Mitchell said "The Norway Spruce is too dull and inherently mediocre in every aspect to detain us long."
(Trees of Britain)
But I wonder what he would have made of this fine specimen?
I agree with you that it can show that spruce can grow as large as this outside optimal areas, but then Abies alba grows well here too. Which indicates to me that the relatively cool maritime summers and high humidity from the nearby channel ensures good growth conditions despite <950mm of rain. The lack of high summer temperatures here I think is crucial. One can just look at the great amount of moss on tree canopies here in the New Forest as a clear indicator of high humidity compared to areas of southern England say 60 miles inland where moss growth well up into the tree canopy is missing.
I am surprised that there are not larger specimens in cold more continental climatic mountainous regions of Scotland, where climatic matching would compare with cold continental regions of Europe?
I am sure growth is much faster here in the UK. But lifespan much shorter (200-220 years)-most trees eventually die due to being snapped off at the base due to Heterobasidion annosum and Armillaria decay in the lower trunk. (It can be seen at Puck Pitts) I doubt many actually die of old age as such. I would hope that this tree reaches its 200th birthday though in 2160! But climate change will probably put a stop to that.
Regarding the slight 0.5m difference in recording height. I measured from 2 different windows in the canopy from different directions. As the laser is on a tripod and 'fixed' and aimed at a precise datum point i.e the top of the leader the difference in height readings I would not put down to the trees top (I would if broadleaved). Instead I suspect as I can recall, its the finding of the 'correct soil level' to the base.
There was a very thick layer of needles piled up at the butt and when walking around the base, where large basal root spurs occurred, which gave way under my feet by some 30cm. (Doubt more than a handful of people have visited it in 160 years) I scraped back this to find the correct soil level to measure to, the last 2m by tape. The rest of the difference I would attribute to the accuracy of the instrument +-10-20cm.
I discounted this tree being a champ some 8 years ago even though it was huge, as I thought it was one you had seen? As I knew you had measured the tree by the path not far away. Which I will enter tonight.
Stephen Verge, op 2021-10-24 20:54:22, gewijzigd op 2021-10-24 20:55:26, zei:
Thanks Rob & Aidan
There is no Hemlock here dating back to 1860 sadly. Wish you could see my Spruce though.
I suspect the G. Sequoia at Longleat centreparks are increasing in height by some 10-20cm per year, so hopefully approaching 59m now. But I suspect the tree at Buckler's Wood will overtake it.
There was a report from years ago of a 48 metre spruce at Fountains Abbey in North Yorkshire, it was labelled 'Black spruce', Owen will have the details. Probably over measured and your tree is the tallest ever recorded in the UK. The 52 metre reported tree is interesting though, I took it as being further down on the way to Loch Ness but if it is Reelig Glen that would make sense.
The Fountains Abbey spruce was 40m in 1837, 42.5m in 1905, 46m in 1931 and 48m in 1952 (Maynard Greville) but with the top 5 metres dead by then. So 48m maximum was probably about right. Fountains is still a good place for Norway Spruce. I had an idea in my head that the cooler summers and cold winters of the 19th century were better for the species, at least in SE England, than today's warmer wetter climate - there was a 46.7m tree at Cowdray Park in West Sussex in 1911 and a 45.4m at Rookesbury Park inland from Portsmouth in 1913, neither of them ideally well-sheltered spots - but Stephen's New Forest measurements really refute that idea. (Even though Puckpits is an 'old' plantation - c. 1860 - and these trees will have done a lot of their growing in the 19th century.)
Hello Owen, I didn't realise that, 48 metres with the top 5 metres dead, the tree was 53 metres at some point, is that correct? That must have been some tree, the ones that remain, the 38.8 metre tree up near the Pinus strobus and the one on the lawn are just under or around 40 metres.
That is a large Dawn redwood at Shepton Beauchamp. I wonder wether the one at Woking Park would have surpassed 5m girth by now? Looks like the 2006 measurement needs updating. I have been wanting to visit for a while now, so hopefully I can get there soon.
I last visited Woking Park in 2016 when I made the Metasequoia 460cm girth (cf 405cm in 2000. I suspect I had the tape a few cm lower in 2006, but I get the impression that it's reached middle age and is slowing down. (You wait....)
I don't know if you've ever visited the private garden of Snowdenham House which I think is very near you (and shouldn't be confused with Snowdenham Hall on the other side of the lane, also with big and unusual conifers in 2000). There are two Metasequoias at Snowdenham House last measured by the Surrey Tree Survey in 2008 which are outstanding for their combination of girth and height.
And hello Russ,
the biggest Metasequoia at Longwood Gardens has the same very flared, fluted bole as the one Hugo's found in Somerset, but yours is certainly taller and so presumably more massive. I'm hoping the owner at Shepton Beauchamp will be happy for his tree to be added to this site, with photos.
Yes, I am actually rather desperate to visit the many houses/gardens along Snowdenham Lane (turning into Thornecombe Street)! Thornecombe Park seems to have many grand conifers, along with another large house the other side of the road. This may be Snowdenham Hall. They are all private properties so I will need permission to visit them, but I really want to and they are right on my doorstep.
'As Alan Mitchell said "The Norway Spruce is too dull and inherently mediocre in every aspect to detain us long".'
One of Alan's less insightful moments! Usually his comments are far better than that. While it is true that a poor Norway Spruce can be a very dull tree, a good one is very good indeed 👍
Aidan - yes, it's about time some of these fine Surrey estates were revisited. I spent the summer of 2000 measuring in Surrey and this was just as security gates and the culture of mistrusting strange visitors was taking hold, so getting access nowadays will probably be more of a hurdle. The 'Surrey Tree Survey' (Dick Alder with Brian Spooner and Mariko Parslow from Kew) updated my records from 2006 onwards for a book about Surrey trees they were going to write (but never have). Tree Register letterheads might help you to apply for visiting such gardens and we'd be happy to provide you with some. But perhaps wait until you're equipped with some way of recording heights, to save visits having to be duplicated?
Snowdenham Hall was a religious retreat in those days but it's since been subdivided into flats I believe. Snowdenham House may have open days for the National Gardens Scheme still?
Owen:- I would agree the climate early on in the 19th and 20th centuries was more suitable for the species, but I think that there has not been any significant impact on most conifer growth, in southern England with regards to climate change until the rapid warming which has occurred since the 1970's? Some species such as S. sempervirens have improved growth whereas Picea sitchensis has suffered. Interestingly I have a Norway Spruce in south Oxfordshire nearly 40m and still growing well, planted in 1893 (will upload). But its in a sheltered valley and microclimate.
I am convinced this species could reach 50m-52m+ in the UK, especially central highland Scotland like Abies alba, but why is there none? Perhaps most of the old plantings from the last 300 years have died and the species which could be planted in the right location in the last 150 years has fallen out of fashion? Only in very frosty areas is it planted much now, otherwise its Sitka. The cold winters and short growing season would ensure greater longevity as pathogenic fungi are often slowed in more extreme environments, allowing to grow to greater dimensions. Perhaps past larger trees were never measured in highland Scotland?
It is a shame people are a bit more suspicious now, and not as friendly to us tree measurers. From my experience when I explain what I am doing they seem to understand are interested in why I measure trees. Hopefully the owners of these estates are nice people and will let me look around.
Snowdenham Hall is now either a very nice block of flats like you said, or an old peoples home. I believe you are right about Snowdenham House having open days. I will have to look out for when they are, along with open days at Albury Park, who I know are rather strict with visitors wondering from the footpaths.
I think it would be a good idea to wait for when I have a good laser measurer and I know how to use it confidently.
Replying to Stephen's comment about Picea abies in Scotland, I think there are enough to records to imply that the species doesn't reach great sizes in the wetter western Highlands, even though it's a commonly planted tree here.
Alan Mitchell's 52m record from Reelig Glen in 1986 is an outlier - as indeed are the 47m and 46.5m trees I found here in 2013. (This is a spot with a surprisingly low rainfall, though with good humidity and shelter.) Next tallest are 44m trees at Ballindalloch Castle in Moray in 1982 (a place I've not visited, but also quite dry), at Culdees in Perthshire in 1986 - I couldn't find this tree in 2017, and in the Glamis Castle pinetum in 2017 (again with less than 900mm of rain a year?) I had a 43.5m tree at Bonskeid in Perthshire in the same year, and 43m trees include(d) a couple at Inveraray - blown down by 1971 - at Blair Atholl (blown down around 1893), at Ardkinglas (leaning, and lost between 2007 and 2015), and another at Glamis.
It could be that the wet climate of the west encourages butt-rotting fungi, so that trees fall over before they have time to reach their full potential. Spruces must be about the most apically dominant of all trees - they continue adding height with a single leader and a spire-shape until they die (or die back from drought stress, something you very seldom see in Picea abies even in the driest parts of England).
Looks an impressive tree Aidan, was the other lost bole part of a bigger tree or was there an original big tree which was lost and the multi stems grew up from the stump? The Prunus laurocerasus, how tall would you estimate? I have just had a look on the Tree Register and none seem to be recorded for height for Surrey, this will be a champion for height whatever at the moment if you measure it.
Hi Rob, This was originally one big twin-trunked tree. The slightly bigger stem fell away a few years ago. It's also fairly tall, maybe 30m.
The laurels I'd say would be around 5m tall. I know of a superb laurel in a private garden next to the River Wey not too far away from here. It is much taller than these (Perhaps 10m?) and has a superb single bole maybe approaching 2m girth. I will try and remember to add it to Monumental Trees next time I pass it.
Aidan, op 2021-10-26 17:30:20, gewijzigd op 2021-10-26 17:31:23, zei:
Owen, which clone of P. x canadensis do you think this is? I can get a photo of the crown in due course if you need one.
Hi Conifers, I think this tree is one of the later trees to come into leaf, though I can't remember. I will have to check next spring. I was thinking it could be Serotina, too.
I think more likely to be 'Regenerata' (Group) rather than 'Serotina', which in my experience grows a straighter, less branchy trunk with even more regular furrows. In England ou see lots of 'Regenerata' forking from the base - either these forms have a tendency to do this, or they were traditionally used in hedgerow situations where the plants got cut the base every now and again.
'Serotina' is male and 'Regenerata' is a female group - this can be checked in April.
Thanks for everyone's opinion. I will not put it as a specific clone yet and will wait till spring to see when it comes into leaf to make my decision then.
Hello Owen, I haven't visited this location for many years, before my tree measuring days and in my Robin Hood days, I suspect that some of Nottinghamshire's tallest trees may be growing along the entrance drive. The Lawsons (?) in this photo near the gate look quite impressive, any ideas what type? There looks to be a very big Copper Beech growing immediately to the left of the Abbey. I will try and visit at some point next year.
I don't think those Lawson Cypresses were planted as any particular cultivar, as seed can easily produce specimens this weeping and these individuals appear to vary slightly. The Copper Beech was measured as 455cm girth by John Revill in 2007, but no-one's ever recorded any heights at Newstead.
Presumably the Hants. county champion for which I had 47m x 369cm girth in 2015. It was on the W side of the main ride just W of the crest of the hill, near my biggest Norway Spruce, but in 2006 there was another good survivor further S on the same side.
Do you look at the aerial photo to decide where to place the icon? I managed to find all your Windsor trees without trouble by referencing the aerial imagery but in this case I think the 'main ride' is the visible grassy feature some way SW from the given location?
I had another look and replaced the location for the Spruce and Silver Fir next and west of the path at the southwestern end of the stand. In this small area and lack of topographical features I found it very difficult to place precisely unlike at Windsor.
The tall Corsican Pine, is located next to the path near the tall Larch but here its in the centre of the wood, presume its the same tree I measured?
My GPS recorder is set to OS grid references (much more manageable than the international eastings/northings which this site uses) and coverting from one to the other, so as to ensure that the icon is placed about right on this site, is tricky! To visualise the OS reference I find this site is helpful: https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/?v=1944811&ml=map&z=20&nwLat=50.886951646986255&nwLng=-1.6398156612269665&seLat=50.88622827788377&seLng=-1.63698324850724 - that's centred on the tall larch, for which I think I've got the icon just about right on MT. The aerial photo overlay on that site is usually the same as the one on MT, but on the ATI the cross-hairs only match the grid reference when you zoom in to the maximum (on my screen at least). Another advantage of the ATI interface is that threre's an OS map overlay which accurately marks the paths, streams etc, from which you can locate a tree if you've not got a GPS facility or it's not working well.
The other icons for Puckpits all seem a bit off on MT. My OS references in 2015 were:
The tall Pinus nigra laricio: SU25580973
The tallest Abies alba: SU25590960
The 46m Picea abies by the main ride: SU25620954.
So long as this information is accurately curated somewhere (i.e. on the Tree Register; we'll have a mapping facility here soon) I don't think it matters too much about the icon being adrift on MT, but relocating any tree in this stand isn't easy!
Hello Owen, did you measure the 43 metre Pseudotsuga and other tall conifers, Abies procera etc, at Melbury Park in 2009? How much height are they likely to have added, taller than the Bryanston Planes? Just interesting because of your previous comment about Dorset being the, of one of, only county which doesn't have a conifer has it's tallest tree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqEiCHnEGms
At about 50 seconds and 1 minute 25 seconds, there look to be some decent sized Aesculus growing next to the Platanus, have these been recorded? Judging by the distance view at around 50 seconds one of them could be c30 metres. To the left of the Platanus is a taller, darker tree. The video does justice to the 49 metre Platanus, especially from the distance view they really are magnificent trees. Would be better if they weren't being used as a climbing frame by the students.
Yes, I visited Melbury Park in 2009, but security was very tight there and I don't know if/when someone will be able to get in again. The Noble and Douglas Firs were old trees, no longer adding height, but the park is well situated for tall trees and there could be something a bit taller by now.
Bryanston is one of those places where everyone goes to look at/measure the planes are is blinkered to the existance of other trees, so no measurements for the Horse Chestnut. I've never actually been there myself. Again, it's a good spot for (broadleaved) trees to grow tall.
I visit Dorset often, and from my experience tall conifers are particularly hard to come by compared with other places in England. I do know of the odd tall tree, for example this 46m Abies alba at the Minterne Gardens - gewone zilverspar (Abies alba) '40148' Another interesting site for tall trees in Dorset is Thorncombe Woods near Dorchester - Thorncombe Wood There are some tall Pinus radiata, Pseudotsuga and a stand of Sequoia sempervirens. Perhaps a few county height champions? There also a group of relatively tall conifers (either Pseudotsuga or Picea sitchensis - I can't get close enough to find out) on the west side of Frampton. I don't think the climate is quite right for most conifers, especially Pseudotsuga, to get very tall.
The Pseudotsuga you describe at Melbury Park have my interest. I was already interested in visiting because I wanted to find Billy Wilkins, a huge ancient oak also in the park. I believe a lot of the park is private so I would have to get permission before visiting.
I am just looking on Google Maps, spotted a nice line of Pseudotsuga in Puddletown Forest near Thornecombe Wood, look quite impressive although the photo is distorting abit. Judging by the walkers the trees look c40 metres. It looks a largish block of tall trees so there could be something taller? This is not far from the New Forest so there should be some potential for tallish trees. It looks as if you could get some distance away with a clear view so the ruler and distance laser technique probably would be fairly accurate for these. There look to be some other tall conifers further down the road.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/786571 tall Corsican pines in the same area.
Its more the geology of Dorset which makes conifer growth less favorable than say the New Forest closeby. Most of Dorset is on Jurassic Limestone/Kimmeridge clay except some Eocene sands around Wareham etc. The climate is quite good being moderate and maritime, for conifer growth. I do remember Puddletown Forest had some big Sitka some 40 years ago.
Those tree you've found actually look pretty good. I haven't really been to that side of Puddletown Forest yet but looks like I should check the area out now! I think east Dorset is slightly more favourable for conifer growth, as all of your links are from locations east of Dorchester, which is more or less central on the east-west axis of the county. Also, yes, that is me in the photo of the Silver fir. ;-)
Stephen, I think you are right about the geology. I was thinking that the geology of the area could be another factor. The clay and chalk probably isn't the optimal soil for conifer growth, even though the humidity and other climatic features are ideal.
Hello Aidan, great to have someone so youthful interested and contributing and adding trees rather than all us old codgers, older codgers anyway. Interest in trees develops early in some instances, at primary school, mid 70s, every class member was given a sprouted acorn which we had to grow on and that is where my interest in trees grew from, further developing because I have loved dinosaurs since a similar age and Sequoias are associated.
Look forward to reading about your visits and hopefully recording of some of the trees, I hummed and ahhhed for a while before buying a Nikon Forestry but it has been worth every penny for the enjoyment it has brought. I cannot believe it is nearly 10 years since I bought it, next summer. It is quite satisfying recording trees in particular where none of any decency have been recorded before, Nottinghamshire for instance where I have just done abit of measuring two weeks ago, despite it's association with forests hardly anything of decent size had been previously recorded. Now have Pseudotsuga to 32 metres, Corsican pine to 32 metres, Larix to 30 metres and others. Dorset strikes as another county under-recorded with trees still hiding.
Hello Stephen, can you remember the specific location of the Sitka in Puddletown? 40 metres recorded at Melbury Park in 2009, they could possibly rival this in size?
Aidan, op 2021-10-20 10:03:58, gewijzigd op 2021-10-20 10:04:19, zei:
Hi Rob, thanks for the kind words. I would definitely like to purchase a rangefinder soon. They certainly seems worth it.
I guess the other thing that Dorset lacks, is decent deep valley shelter - most of it is relatively flat (not flat like Cambridgeshire, but flat enough to make tall very trees exposed at the top).
@Aidan "Also, yes, that is me in the photo of the Silver fir. ;-)" - curious minds want to know, who then took the photo! :-)
Conifers, there are actually a few decent valleys in Dorset, but most are just pasture/arable land at the moment and even then I would imagine trees would need to be planted fairly large blocks to gain large heights.
I believe it was my dad who took the photo
Conifers, op 2021-10-20 22:45:51, gewijzigd op 2021-10-20 22:46:56, zei:
Thanks! Never been to Dorset, so I don't know local details like that :-)
As others here have said, I am also glad for more youthful voices here on MT! I thought that I, in my late high-school years, was the only one, but I am glad that is not true! :)
Hello Bee, I didn't realise that you were so youthful, your knowledge and enthusiasm/passion belies your age. Great work has said previously for highlighting all the trees in your area/neck of the woods.
Thought we would have a Norway Spruce feast! Puck Pitts has come up trumps yet again with this beauty, but the best is yet to come! A remarkable location.
Yes, growing splendidly and a joint English height champion. (My 46m tree at Polecat Copse is a slightly dodgy record as it didn't look obviously taller than the c.44m trees near it, but I'm fairly confident the 47m one at Reelig Glen in Scotland is really taller.) I don't think I ventured into this part of Puckpits, away from the main ride. There was a Norway Spruce by this ride with a big girth (330cm in 2015) which seemed to be 45m tall and had a good leader.
I spent about 2 hours measuring this tree with the Trupulse 200 mounted on a tripod, from 2 different vantage points, it was impossible to measure from any other window in the tree canopy.
I was expecting a height close to 58-60m but I was surprised that I only got an average 56.2m, with the most 56.3m on one reading. I took 6 different measurements, mainly from one window, where the recent photographs were taken. Range from the tree was 51.6m. Difficult to place the laser due to dense vegetation, brambles, bracken etc.
It appears to be growing steadily at 20-30cm per year, with a single leading shoot. It should reach 60m in time and become yet another species to reach 60m along with Noble/Lows Fir in the near future in the British Isles.
Nevertheless it is a magnificent tree and within the top 5 tallest in Europe and likely the Northern Hemisphere outside its native range?
I have uploaded some nice photographs to reiterate its magnificence.
The nearby wonderful Copper Beeches to over 40m were rather subdued which otherwise would have been remarkable anywhere else.
A fine redwood! I wonder which species will top 60m in the British Isles first - Sequoia sempervirens or Sequoiadendron giganteum? Both are very close!
Hello Stephen, thanks for measuring this tree, it is a great tree with a very fine bole. Your photos are great and blow up nicely so you can see in closer detail. The crown top looks quite, relatively sparse, do you think anything has been lost from the tip of the tree? It looks slightly flat topped and the stem seems quite wide under that top clump of foliage? Is that clump of foliage the absolute tip or is something hiding behind it?
I'm entirely happy with Stephen's height for this tree. It's one of those with a complicated, 'fuzzy' top where the Nikon rangefinder (or mine at least) struggles and produces a wide spray of distances. To get 57m I went with some of the higher distances, but judging from the baseline of 54m measured reliably by climbing in 2010 and its apparent growth-rate in Stephen's telephoto shot of the top, this was a misjudgement on my part: from forest-floor level I thought it might be growing a lot faster. (I think I did have 54-55m using the tangent method but this was from the 'upwind' side. My laser nearly always seems to record higher values for Sequoias than the tangent method suggests.)
It's still by far the tallest Sequoia in the UK - so much so that errors of +/- 2m become insignificant!
In 2016 I had 56m (sine method) for the Douglas Fir next to this tree, and 55.5m for one of many in the plantation extending up the hill to the SW. Stephen may yet enlighten us on this!
I saw no evidence of leader loss or breakage through my binoculars. Some Coast Redwoods have very little taper and resemble a power station Chimney all the way up which I love, like this one. These trees will have the greatest volume of wood in the trunk, as opposed to rapidly tapering trees. This is entirely a genetic trait and the natural variation in the species.
Yes Owen I reckon you were spot on with the Douglas next to the tallest Redwood. Another Redwood was 47m to the right of the photo. The Douglas looked the same age as the tallest Redwood and surrounding Douglas Fir forest appeared younger.
I had so many trees to measure but I would agree the younger Douglas nearby were 50-55m.
I have never used a Nikon I'm afraid so I can't comment, but with the Trupulse you can zoom in slightly and sight the cross hair inline with the leader tip. I have found that a Tripod is essential to stop handshake to give consistent readings.
I would put my money on Giant Sequoia being first, it might have beaten Coast Redwood already with some of the specimens since last measured?
Giant Sequoia is much more resistant to wind exposure. As both of these species (so far) are rarely planted in large stands and consist of small groups or isolated specimens, a lack of mutual shelter is lacking for UK specimens, especially important for Coast Redwood. Therefore the few isolated specimens often lack the ability to grow exceptionally tall, except this one. Partly due to the surrounding 50m+ Douglas Fir.
It would have been superb if the 57m Giant Sequoia I measured and updated on here was planted with hundreds of others, but alas these trees were very expensive then and difficult to obtain.
Hi Stephen, I would probably say Giant sequoia as well, as there are more tall specimens around, in contrast to only this specimen for Coast redwood. Did you measure the Giant sequoias at the Longleat Centre Parcs? They could be on the brink of 60m by now?
Just reading about Joshua's Sycamore reminded me of this that I came across, the rot in the UK's tallest Butia doesn't look great. Some great palms in London, the Washingtonia filifera is a beaut. I wonder if it has been recorded on the Register?
Just had a look on the Register, it doesn't look as if it has. A height measurement using the car in front of the white mini and assuming 60 inches for the car height gives 9.1 metres to the growing tip, c11.6 metres to the physical top of the palm at the frond end.
Some fascinating links here, thanks Rob. That Washingtonia in London is in a front garden in Wimbledon and was brought back by the owner from Tunisia in 1992, https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/10996087.giant-palm-tree-is-turning-heads/.
The old Butia at Trewidden was in just about the same state of decrepitude when I first saw it in 2004. As palms don't have a cambium layer the outer part of the trunk isn't vital for them. But the rot does suggest that Cornwall is too humid for this species.
The Orton Hall Estate in Orton Longueville, Peterborough, Cambs., UK, contains whats left of a kilometer-long avenue and one shorter avenue of Sequoiadendron giganteas. A photograph shows myself and my daughter counting the trees in about 2018. There are a few short of 300 remaining.
https://dcobinfl.wordpress.com/life-with-auntie-b-orton-hall-peterborough-london-uk/a-brief-history-of-orton-hall/ includes 2. A Brief History of Orton Hall. The following excerpt is relevant.
Charles (Tenth Marquess [of Huntly, 1792-1863]) and Marie [Maria Antoinetta Pegus] were keen horticulturists. She spent much of her time making notes on local varieties of plant life and compiling a Herbarium of pressed flowers, which is now in the possession of the present Marquess. They were both jointly responsible for the introduction of many rare trees to the Orton Estate including, of course, the dramatic avenue of Sequoia Gigantea or Wellington Pines [the modern taxonomy is Sequoiadendron giganteum], which were planted as seedlings between 1859 and 1860.
A hundred years ago Orton Hall had a remarkable pinetum - there were trees from the first introduction of Abies amabilis, A. bracteata, Pinus sabiniana and others. But it must have been just about the worst place in Britain to try to grow many kinds of conifer and by the mid 20th century there seems to have been very little left. Only the Giant Sequoias soldier on, even in conditions which are far from ideal for them.
There are still a few other trees left that are worth mentioning. A mature Bald Cypress by the pond; 2 fine old Sweet Chestnuts; a mature Fern-leaved Beech; 2 mature Holm Oaks; a Magnolia grandiflora; Coast Redwoods in the adjacent churchyard; and a proposed Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cv. Wisselii.
Britain's finest Pin Oak, a previously unrecorded tree in a high security private area of Windsor Home Park where photography is not permitted (and applications to visit are seldom accepted). However you can admire it in some detail in Google's 3-D coverage of this area. (29m tall by laser, refined to 29.5m using the Google imagery.)
I was able to find one gap in the canopy with a clear view of a strong shoot near the top of this tree, for which I got a height of 29.5m. A remarkably impressive Holm Oak first recorded by Stephen Verge in 2017.
roburpetraea, op 2021-08-22 12:12:42, gewijzigd op 2021-08-22 12:14:52, zei:
Quote of @Conifers:
""The desolate landscapes you see in the Scottish Highlands are the fruit of fire, places once covered by extensive Caledonian pine forests" - this is mainly due to overgrazing: too many sheep, too many deer, no large predators to control them."
Quotes of @TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson:
"I rather doubt that the Scottish Highlands have ever been prone to wildfires. Today, controlled burning of heather is conducted in the drier, eastern half of the country to optimise the habitat for grouse (so that people can shoot them), which has the side-effect of killing any trees in the area. Each fire burns a small strip of the heather before it fizzles out. Much of the western half is too wet (a deep layer of peat) for trees to grow in the first place."
"I've spend too many days in the Scottish rain to be at all convinced by the old theory that fire played a part in the diminishment of the Caledonian forests. Unless the weather was very different, the poor settlers would have spend hours trying to get one fire going only to watch it fizzle out before it even claimed its first pine tree."
Today I was watching Time Team while having lunch, excellent program by the way, and they were talking about how the Mesolithic people cleared the forests of Bodmin Moor by fire, and if you can clear forests with fire in the humid moorlands of Cornwall you can do it anywhere else in the British Isles. Minute 28:40:
Still not convinced! I'm not sure what the archaeological evidence is that fire was used - I would have assumed that a fleeting burn would not have left any readable deposits in the ground 4000 years later? And even if a test-pit did provide evidence of an intense burn, there's no way you could dig widely enough to prove that this was a general conflagration rather than a local (camp-fire?) event.
Certainly, a small Neolithic community wouldn't have been able to 'clear' land for farming using stone axes - that was an old hypothesis from historians who didn't have a good understanding of the ecology of such forests and had certainly never spend very long swinging an axe. But 'clear' is the operative word - burn a wood and you just end up with lots of dead standing trees instead of living ones, and charred wood may be even harder to 'clear' than green wood.
What they surely did was introduce as many grazing animals into the woodland as the land would support, and wait a few generations. The existing trees would eventually have died from old age and without a new generation to take their place there would be a steady transition into grassland. They didn't even have to plan this strategy in advance - they brought the livestock with them, let them graze, and this was the inevitable end result. It's still happening today.
Not convinved already, humm... :) I see that they underestimate the power of fire, surely because you have lost the memory of these fires when their use disappears, but those of us who continue to suffer them are well aware of their effects hehehe.
The proof is in broad daylight, you do not have to look for symptoms of burning in the subsoil (it is very certain that the burned earth was easily eroded, that is why it is not found), but in the herbaceous composition of the moors. What is the dominant and characteristic plant in these places? Heather, and what is heather? A pyrophilic species! You only find it in those quantities in a place that suffers from frequent burns, as it uses fire to eliminate the competition. Whenever you see a lot of heather it means that that particular area has suffered from continuous fires.
Overgrazing could have contributed, but it is impossible that it was the cause, imagine the amount of cattle it would take not to maintain a pasture, but to destroy a forest, in a place like the British Isles where there is abundant grass all year round. We are talking about prehistory, there was very little population. Regarding the burned wood, it would be there while the animals grazed on the new pasture, waiting for the next fire of the year where it would disappear. That is the least, we are talking about thousands of years of continuous fires, the forest was not eliminated in a day.
This discussion shows how very different expectations can be formed, depending on what ecosystem you're used to: in Spain, as you say, intense wildfires are a constant threat, whereas even in the warmest, driest parts of Britain, they're not - even when the same species dominate. Nowadays there are plenty of opportunities for fires to start in Britain - discarded cigarette ends, barbeques, vandals, bits of glass focussing the sun - but even when they get 'out of control' in flammable heathland, they are seldom hot enough to kill even small trees and often fizzle out before the fire brigade can extinguish them. (c.6000 years ago, the climate was certainly warmer than it is now, but I can't believe that it was Spanish in nature.)
The New Forest (in the warmest and one of the driest parts of England) is closer than most of the country to a 'natural' ecosystem with areas of woodland and miles of open heathland, usually heather-dominated. The woods are fenced against the 'wild' ponies which graze the open areas just intensively enough to prevent trees establishing. The woods - except when non-native conifers have been planted - are dominated by oak, beech and birch are completely non-flammable. Small fires could occur in the heathland areas, though in practise they very seldom do. So, though the fires could contribute towards keeping the heathlands open (though this contribution is actually tiny) they could never help to turn woodland into heathland. Only grazing does that.
roburpetraea, op 2021-08-23 07:49:08, gewijzigd op 2021-08-23 08:17:18, zei:
There is no case where animals graze within a closed forest. A forest is full of moss, stones, logs and woody plants, not grass, to be able to graze in places like those you need to open it and clear it, a sheep, a horse or a cow cannot graze in that conditions, not even goats. Neolithic ranchers had to clear the forests first, and the only possible means was fire.
Spain has a lot of climates, and i'm talking about the wet climate in the north, in places were the climate is not only very humid but also very cool, and were ecosystems were practically the same as the original cornish forests of the moors, matter of fact we still have some of those oak-hazel forests high in the mountains, and I know a few. I'm talking about temperate rainforests, where seasonal drough is 0 and the precipitations are exaggeratedly high, ranging from 1500 to 3000 millimeters per year, possibly 4000 in humid years.
Example of well preserved oak-hazel wood in the head of the Valley of Ancares, every species growing here would have been in those cornish forests: Quercus robur, Q. petraea, Q. rosacea, Betula pubescens, Coryllus avellana, Salix carpea (species that we can see in the video)... The only exception is Acer pseudoplatanus, which would later be introduced in the British Isles.
Mixed oak-beech forest, a maritime temperate rainforest in the valley of Cabuérniga, western Escudo mountain range. If you look at areas of the ground are covered with forest heather, which indicates that not long ago this area was burned! This photo is taken in summer, does it seem like a dry place to you? The ground where there is no heather is completely covered with moss!
Clear in the same forest caused by fire! Image again in summer, 0 drought.
Now we go to the great temperate rainforest of Muniellos, the best preserved oak forest in western Europe, this old oak is hollow due to the effect of fire, it is a great scar from a great fire that ravaged this remote forest perhaps more than 100 years ago. And this oak is part of an oak-hazel ecosystem, as you can see hazel is the dominant species aroun the oak. My thesis is that any forest burns, whatever, regardless of its climate. Wood is a potential fuel, if you bring a flame close enough it will eventually ignite, and in a forest fire where temperatures exceed 1000 degrees it does not matter how humid the forest is, a hot and dry week is enough to that it is possible to start a large fire.
Very interesting discussion going on here! While I cannot provide all that much info to the climates you have overseas from me, the forests around the East Coast of the USA are generally humid and wet, and rarely do they get too dry for major fires to start.
However, there are always exceptions. Sometimes, if the weather gets dry for about 2-3 weeks in summer with little rain, small wildfires break out, but because there is such a large quantity of groundwater stored underground along the east coast, most trees/plants are still able to resist being used as fuel, and survive via their root systems, fungi, etc, and their barks/branches stay quite wet, though dead brush/trees still get very dry.
Normally, when it gets to this point, those small fires burn most of the dried leaf litter, dead branches, and other debris found on the forest floor. However, because there are many small streams here along the east coast that originate from springs, the fires reach them at some point and often stop right there, because the fires are just not normally strong enough to jump over even a small creek/brook.
That is the story nowadays with the forests along the East Coast. On the other hand, though, "massive" (relatively speaking) wildfires occured in the mountains and valleys after logging companies basically clear-cut all the forests (mostly virgin/old growth) of Hemlocks, White Pines, and hardwoods, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as the case with Pennsylvania. After the loggers left and took all the valuable trees with them, they often left all the dead branches/crowns of trees, and other debris, on the ground of the mountains. Then, after just even 1 week of dryness, they caught ablaze, and because there were no large trees or green living things to slow the fire, it burned square miles of what was once wilderness. Then, after it rained, some mudslides occurred, and the burnt debris went into the creeks and rivers to pollute them.
Today, the forests have mainly regrown, and are remarkably healthy after just 120 years. Pennsylvania is lucky in this regard, because there were just enough old-growth and old second-growth forest left back 120 years ago that allowed as a good seed-source for the newer and younger forests. Many other states did not have this excellent resource, so it has taken them longer to achieve their mature characteristics.
Also, just before I forget, Manu, in that last photo of the oak tree you had, do you know if wide-spread logging happened about 100 years ago or before/after ~1920? Fascinating oak, by the way!
@Bee large cuts didn't happened until the 1940's, do you mean that it may be a scar made by the loggers? In that case I don't think so, it's a usual sighting in Spain to see old trees with these holes, and they are all caused by fire, in fact you can see burnt wood inside. I think that you cannot even imagine how much fire has been used in these lands as a means of cleaning to create pastures, it has been something continuous for thousands of years, and even so, thanks to the steepness of the terrain, places have been preserved (As you can see, not without scars, but after all they have survived the fire, the oak is a very resistant tree to fire). An extreme example is this giantic sessile oak, the most impressive on this page in my opinion:
This tree is more than 30 meter in high and more than 9, yes, 9 meters in perimeter. It is in the central Cantabrian Range, hanging in a very steep slope of once was a incredible sessile oak woodland.
And the most incredible thing is that he is a survivor of a wildfire, you can see a similar scar to that of the other oak, and the wood charred inside. That happens because the fire pass fast and it has no time to burn up the oak, but rather burn only part of the foot. Again the surrounding is very rich in heath with supports the thesis of the fire. Here you have the tree: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/es/esp/principadodeasturias/caso/16042_parquenaturalderedesreservadelabiosfera/
I would expect oaks as big and old as the ones Roburpetraea has photographed to be completely hollow, often with openings at the base. This makes them quite easy to set on fire and many hollow oaks and yews in Britain show signs that they've been burnt by vandals over recent decades. (Most of these trees grow in churchyards or parks where wildfires couldn't occur.) But the fire tends to be too small to kill the tree. So signs of burning within a hollow tree can only be good evidence of wildfires if the trees stand in areas too remote for human mischief to be a likely cause. And even so the hollowness isn't evidence in itself that the fire was intense enough to consume much of the tree.
Sheep can't live in a wood, and ponies need a rich herb layer to survive, but our cattle were bred from the wild Aurochs which was a woodland animal (though its browsing created grassy glades within the woods, of questionable size and extent, in which it also fed). Modern cattle are generally too highly bred to survive on a diet of leaves, twigs and bark (plus ground-level herbs) but older breeds (my experience is with British Whites and Sussex Reds) can happily do so.
Here in south-east England, heather species (Calluna vulgaris, and to a lesser extent Erica cinerea and E. tetralix) are able to establish and become dominant in (very open) woodland which never burns (or hasn't in living memory, anyway). These are light-demanding species and you don't really see them in dense high forest of the sort that Roburpetraea has photographed, but I assume that the higher light-levels in summer in Spain would be enough to explain that.
Both Roburpetraea and BeeE have surprised me by showing that broadleaved deciduous woodlands can burn - given intense enough sun and heat to dry them out enough, and some degree of (mis-)management - whereas I had assumed from their ecology in Britain that they never would. Certainly the trees that make up such forest show no obvious fire adaptation. (Downy Birch Betula pubescens, a woodland tree, has a thin bark at the base, offering the cambium no protection against heat, whereas Silver Birch Betula pendula, a heathland specialist, develops a distinctive thick black corky bark in its bottom metre, which seems to be a protective feature against low-intensity heathland fires. It's the only such adaptation that I can think of among the tree species native to Britain.)
Hello friends, this oak tree makes you cry, not only because of its size, but also because of the beauty of the environment and the difficulty of finding it. God knows why and since when it has the hollow trunk at its base, but what I am clear about is that the charred wood is quite recent, 50 years at the most. I don't think it was a fire, but simply the bonfire of some shepherd or someone who wanted to take refuge inside.
There's a theory - I've forgotten the details - that in the UK at least, hollow trees were deliberately set on fire to 'seal' the interior surface and to prevent the decay continuing: so, not to kill them but in an effort to prolong their lives; perhaps in Victorian times? I think it would work, as charred timber can be very long-lasting.
Yea, in Spain also was done, specially with chestnut trees. It was a way of first sanitizing the tree and second of strengthen the wood, at least that's what my father told me, we had chestnuts so we knew more or less how to take care of them. As Alberto explains that tree more than a wildfire looks like it was charred on purpose to stop the decaying of the foot, maybe shepperds or cattle ranchers, when all that heath maybe was pasture, and it looks quite recent, 50 years seems feasable, in Spain the traditional exploitation methods have been carried out until very little due to poor and late industrialization. It could have been burned several times anyway, the low intensity fires set by the shepherds to rejuvenate the grass in late summer do very little damage to these trees, and some may have crept through the hollow trunk.
If grass-fires were deliberately lit in these habitats, that would provide a good explanations for why these hollow trees are charred inside. Dead wood inside the hollows would ignite quite readily, but wouldn't burn long enough or hot enough to really injure the tree.
There is one grassland habitat in the UK ('culm' grasslands in Devon) which were traditionally burnt each year to maintain them. But I can't think of any really old hollow trees in any of them. (If the tradition had been maintained for many centuries, this would have been enough to prevent individual trees from growing up within the grassland.)
Yesterday I was walking along the Cantabrian ridges between the Campoo-Los Valles region and the Pas-Miera region, where the potential forests are temperate rainforests, and I came across two failed attempts at forest fire:
The horribly cold and humid summer that the coastal north of Spain has endured has contributed to the absence of major fires this year, and has undoubtedly prevented these attempts from being successful.
This is the typical landscape of these heights, small relics of Betula pubescens stunted by the snow and the winter wind, sheltered in the rocky outcrops that protects them from fire.
In this database there is a Aesculus hippocastanum 'Laciniata'. Sources also talk about Aesculus laciniata. I wonder what is preferred by others. I have registered some of the Laciniata's and will register one more. Since Laciniata differs substantially from the normal horse chestnut my preference is Aesculus laciniata as a separate species. What do you think?
My opinion, for what its worth, is that unless an organism has been assigned Linnaean nomenclature via a description in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it is not (yet) confirmed as a species and should not be referred to as such.
I am, of course, no expert in Aesculus hippocastanum 'Laciniata or any other tree species/varieties (I know a little about taxonomy though), but it would appear to be an anthropogenically enhanced variety rather than a species and should continue to be referred to as Aesculus hippocastanum 'Laciniata
Thanks for thinking along. For the moment I'll keep it that way. But I am curious if other members have the same idea. I am especially interested wat Leo Goudzwaard says. In his books he has listed it as Aesculus laciniata. Perhaps just a sliop of the pen, but it could easily be a consciously given name.
The cut-leaved chestnut 'Laciniata' is not a species (it's just a freak variant of Aesculus hippocastanum) - but, unusually the name laciniata has been legitimately published in a botanical journal as a 'forma' of the species (rather than a subspecies or a variety). Presumably, several different cultivars have existed with the same group of mutations and a similar appearance. So the full name for this tree is:
Aesculus hippocastanum f. laciniata (Jacques) Schelle.
Like most garden forms it's a mutation or 'sport' - the equivalent of an albino person, for example. Generally, these mutations aren't helpful to the organism and they die out if people don't cultivate them. Very occasionally, such a mutation is advantageous, which is how species evolve and why some trees (maples, oaks) have dissected leaves naturally.
Thanks a lot for this insight. I recognize it. I used to be a left-wing guy, hippie, by now a boomer. When I was in my 25th until 45th year I also was a moralist and tried to set the norm with my generationalists. We did succeed in that aim. By now I am in a different sphere. Nature has distinctive lines if you want to. But man has a decisive influence on the development of nature. And next to that, man can make nature a cultural phenomenon. I consider these "forma" or "mutations"or "freak"variants legitimate. Nevertheless no problem with the experimentation from which these trees develop. And I respect your view, but don't support it. Nature and culture is not an item that's a priviliged subject of people ho have studied it.
Unfortunately, no. I got this info from the ENTS forum online the other day. I believe that the National Park Service wants to keep the location secret, but I do wish there was a photo or two...
Or the third species - apparently the 'Centurion' Eucalyptus regnans was remeasured at 30.5m in 2018 (https://www.facebook.com/thetreeprojects/posts/937968919729672); and the 'Doerner Fir' Pseudotsuga menziesii was 100.3m in 1991 then lost a couple of feet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doerner_Fir) - but could have regrown them since? It's a bizarre co-incidence that the round figure of 100m should mark such a divide - especially as these trees grow in countries which prefer the imperial system.
It is of course misleading to term any of these individuals the 'second-tallest tree'. I wonder if anyone has estimated how many Sequoia sempervirens in the wild groves exceed 100m? Presumably it's in the thousands.
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-07-04 16:32:49, gewijzigd op 2021-07-04 16:33:41, zei:
@Owen,
Yeah, I should have been more specific. I should have said that this new find is the second tallest tree over 100 meters other than a Coast Redwood, and proven to be at least 100 meters as of current records. I have heard that the Fir tree was once taller than 100, but as you said, it lost height as its top died.
I think that there is over 2000 Coast Redwoods that have been documented above 100 meters in height, which is quite amazing!
Wow! That's a big spruce, even by Sitka standards! Also amazing that there's over 2000 documented Coast redwoods that are over 100m in height.
Whilst I'm on the subject of Sitka spruce, @Owen - I've spotted a rather fine large specimen in a private garden along Barhatch Lane north of Cranleigh. Looks like its an impressive tree for Surrey. You can see it on Streetview here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1674894,-0.4645922,3a,34.4y,107.3h,98.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshTYWFDQjvWTregKAP3utQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Is there any information of this tree on the Tree Register? (I'm not a member yet. I should probably think about joining!)
The Sitka at Findhorn is a magnificent specimen so if this tree looks anything like that one it will be, that said it is more likely to be in deep forest so will have a longer bole and smaller crown so may not be quite such a superb specimen. Just had a look on the Register Aidan and your Sitka isn't recorded, 39.5 metre tree at Haslemere from 2015 and a 41 metre Sitka in Windsor Great Park from 2017 which I think will be Stephen's (Verge) tree and will be on this site. Stephen is very quiet these days, tree measuring has been difficult during lockdown, certainly I found it so, it is likely the same for Stephen as well. Cannot get the photos to upload to this site at the moment so have lost motivation abit to add new trees, I have more to add from a trip to Wales in May.
Red Rob beat me to in replying to Aidan's question. The two largest Sitkas I've seen in Surrey are in the former grounds of Thursley Hall, Farnham Lane, above Haslemere (one behind the entrance lodge, one in woodland to the south), where the extra humidity and shelter tips a balance in favour of this very picky species. They're about 40m tall x 4m - 4.5m girth. The Betchworth Lane tree is new.
Yes, someone should buy you Tree Register membership, Aidan. And a laser!
Aidan, op 2021-07-05 17:56:27, gewijzigd op 2021-07-05 18:03:22, zei:
Hi Rob, thanks for checking. Yes, Stephen has registered the Sitka at Windsor Park. I'd like to pay that area a visit at some point over the summer (I visited the Valley Gardens a few years ago but back then I wasn't interested in tree measuring.). The one at Haslemere could be at Polecat Copse, which I'd also like to revisit? There's one near Hascombe which I've registered on this site that could be between 40-45m. I'm almost certain it's a new county champion for height, and it looks very easy to measure. I'd really like to get an accurate height measurement on it but I don't have a laser rangefinder unfortunately. Maybe over the summer I can get one!
Do you know someone with a old rangefinder? That is how I was able to get mine. A member of the ENTS gave me his because it was a old model and did not get any use. I would give you one, if I had any extra (I got 1). Ebay might have some for good prices?
Hi Bee, no, unfortunately I don't know anyone with an old laser rangefinder. Ebay is probably a good place to check though. Thanks for the tip.
RedRob, op 2021-07-07 09:15:55, gewijzigd op 2021-07-07 09:16:51, zei:
Hello Aidan, if I had upgraded I would have given you my Nikon Forestry Pro, it would have been worth it on the proviso that you would go on a few trips. I would love to see the redwoods measured again at Longleat, it was May 2016 when Owen and myself were there so maybe 5 growth years by now, be fascinating to see where the 57 metre Sequoia is by now, 59 metres perhaps? My old girl (laser) is still working perfectly, treat her like a lady so should be (clean, treat her so gently so as not to damage the inner workings)
There is a Nikon for sale here but it is in the US, would you be able to ship it over? The only trouble with second hand is you don't know how people have treated the laser, around this price it wouldn't be too bad taking a risk.
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-07-07 11:33:29, gewijzigd op 2021-07-07 13:01:59, zei:
@Redrob and Aiden,
It's a coincidence that that Nikon for sale on EBAY is shipping from my state of Pennsylvania, in the U.S! Its in a village called Rockville, according to EBAY. That is about at least 150 miles (over 240 kilometers) to the west of where I live. It is a very good price though, for 100 U.S dollars.
RedRob, It appears that this EBAY listing only ships to people in the U.S unfortunately.
Maybe this would work though???: Aiden, if you are able to find out the international shipping cost via USPS (or UPS) from roughly Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to your city/town in the United Kingdom, let me know of the price (try to find a package that would ship under 20 U.S dollars, if possible).
Then, maybe you can try to purchase it through EBAY, and ship it to my local Post Office. Then, I can send to you via USPS international shipping (or UPS; whatever is better for the shipping price).
Let me know if this might work? There is no rush, so dont worry if this is not possible.
BeeE
RedRob, op 2021-07-07 12:44:40, gewijzigd op 2021-07-07 12:48:16, zei:
Hello, Bee, that is an exceptionally nice and helpful thing to offer, over here we would call you' a jolly nice chap' or a 'jolly decent chap'. I will leave it to Aidan to decide but I will say from me thank you very much for your offer like this, for being willing to put yourself out like this.
No problem. Just trying to help out. Let me know, Aiden, if it works out for you. Notify me of the shipping in US Dollars from Philadelphia PA to your area, because I have not shipped a package internationally for a very long time, and have no idea of the pricing nowadays.
It seems that this specific NIKON laser-rangefinder on EBAY is going to be sold in just 4 hours to a highest bidder. I know this might be a bit "outdated", but here is the type of rangefinder I was given, and it is a nice model:
However, here is one for the same price, and ships to the United Kingdom with FREE SHIPPING: https://www.ebay.com/itm/124789439018?hash=item1d0e07ba2a:g:3fAAAOSwtElg2RDV
However, the seller does not remark if it still works, though according to the official EBAY listing, it states, "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully operational and functions as intended".
The one that ships free to the UK looks like a good option, and not a bad price either. As you say it's probably a bit touch and go as to wether works well or not, but I'm sure it should be ok.
I'll try and find out how much it costs to ship something to the UK from PA for you soon.
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-07-08 15:10:16, gewijzigd op 2021-07-08 15:14:07, zei:
Hi Aiden,
I hope it works out for you. The bushnell laser-rangefinder is a nice model, though simple. It can measure distances in Yards or Meters, and is very accurate. However, make sure you buy a few CR2 3V batteries for it (I recommend 3 or 4 at a time, as they can run out of power fast if used a lot).
No need to worry about shipping price from Philadelphia to the UK if you do buy the one that has free shipping :-)
BeeE
EDIT: just realized. You can make an offer for the Rangefinder. Maybe the owner would accept only 100 U.S dollars instead of 125 U.S dollars.
I think the Bushnell with free shipping looks good. I'm not it a huge rush to get a rangefinder but it's good to know that there is one at a good price here. I'll be sure to keep an eye on this one.
I wonder if it would be worth emailing Cameranu and asking them if they have any used Nikon Forestry Pros or 550s for sale? It says 'Used' in the top right hand corner? Jeroen recommended Cameranu to me and I couldn't fault them, laser was here in about 3 days. If they sell 'Used lasers, they will likely have a warranty. I hummed and arred about buying a laser in unbelievably 2011 now, would it be worth the money? I have to say that it as been worth every single penny, as paid for itself a hundred times with the enjoyment that it has brought. I would recommend getting a laser Aidan, there are some trees that I could certainly point you to.
But remember that if you buy just a range-finder, you will also need a hypsometer (an instrument for measuring the angles accurately) - and a calculator if you want to do the resultant sums in the field. (This sounds cumbersome, but is actually more versatile than the all-in-one Nikon device, because you can combine sine and tangent methods to the top and the base depending on which parts of the tree you can see and how precise you need to be, however you choose.)
Also, I'd presume that a cheap range-finder could be less accurate than a high-quality machine. If it's only accurate to about the nearest metre, this could easily introduce errors of +/- 5% when heighting a small tree (sine method).
So, perhaps good advice to all of us is to wait and save until we can equip ourselves with something that will last a lifetime.
I do agree with you. However, you can get a fairly accurate result by backing up (or going forward), with the laser-rangefinder, until you get close to a "Full" meter. I dont think I'll ever get a newer rangefinder, mainly because I am very happy and content with the accuracy and compatibility of mine.
@Aiden,
I forgot to mention: the Bushnell Rangefinders all have a hypsometer (clinometer) already built into them, so you can get both the distance and angle measure for measuring trees.
Have not vanished, often visit the site. Hope to do some measuring this summer. Just there has not been much activity from the UK lately which is understandable with the pandemic.
Oh and that Sitka is amazing in California. How tall did Sitka grow before logging? Although always in the shadow of Douglas Fir I expect.
Aidan:- The Sitka growing at Windsor Great Park is very unusual as its so far from its ideal habitat, with only 600mm of rainfall. But close to a stream in deep humid shelter from the other tall trees there. I hope to do some remeasuring there soon.
"How tall did Sitka grow before logging? Although always in the shadow of Douglas Fir I expect"
Probably not the latter - Sitka Spruce is more tolerant of exposure than Douglas-fir; it is more likely that the Douglas-firs grew up in the shelter (and shadow) of the Sitka Spruces.
Thanks everyone for the advice on laser rangefinders, I really appreciate it and find it very helpful. Looks like I'm in the market for a new measuring tape as well as my current one is coming to the end of its days! 😂
@Stephen - If you visit the Sitka at Windsor try and get some photos as there's none at the moment. I will try and visit the Valley Gardens myself over the summer. While your down in the Surrey area I highly recommend giving Hascombe Hill a visit, as a lot of the exceptional trees there need measuring accurately. It might be a bit far for you but it's worth the trip.
I have been sitting, so to speak, on these trees for two years since I found them on Google Maps in 2019, Covid putting an end to visiting them last year. I was really quite excited as I judged them by the height of the telegraph poles in front which are either 8 or 10 metres. I wasn't sure of the height of the telegraph poles but if 10 metres then these Douglas Firs were big, very big, 60 metres plus, could they even be challenging Betws Y Coed!? Need to say, magnificent trees and the tallest in Southern Wales but a tad disappointing I cannot help admitting. I got a clear view of the 54.8 metre Douglas Fir but the 56 metre Douglas and 55 metre Grand Fir I couldn't get a clear view of the base (54 metre Grand Fir clean measurement in front of this taller tree). The 56 metre Douglas Fir I have been conservative with, the base is in a ditch at the road side and totally obscurred by shubbery, it is somewhere between 56 and 57 metres likely closer to 57 metres. Superb valley with mountain shelter and very damp, wet climate, can vouge for that. I will send Owen some photos and he may be able to post some photos.
WOW! Yeah, if you found a 56 meter tree, there is bound to be a 60 meter tree hiding in that area!
Just a question though: Can you measure it now that the stay-at-home orders have been lifted and vaccination rolled out?? I dont follow up with the news, so I dont really know whats happening overseas.
Great stuff! My comment about the 52m tree above Merthyr Tydfil being the tallest in the south end of Wales was premature - I should have realised you were teasing us, Rob. While we try to sort of uploading a photo, here's a link to Streetview for the Grand Firs: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9195896,-3.0675603,3a,75y,206.21h,126.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC_02pLo2OfCABJEo6Jx2uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.
A mildly interesting fact about Mynydd Du Forest is that it was planted up to 765m on the Black Mountain, making it the highest-altitude woodland I've noted in the UK. (We had a discussion the other year about a plantation to 727m above Glen Lochsie in the eastern Highlands of Scotland, where the tree-line has since retreated to 700m.) At Mynydd Du, aerial images show the highest slopes also now treeless, but there are some patches (birch regeneration??) up to 740m.
I have just had a look on Street View and the Google camera van must have been up just before me in April 2021, I could have done to have been up there earlier as by mid May the green shrubs and vegetation was obscurring the view. The Grand Fir which I estimated the base at and got 55 metres, the base looks further down the gully than I estimated, looks like a metre or more on the Street View.
Hello Bee, I am fairly confident that I measured the tallest tree but that said I wouldn't bet much on it being so. The Douglas's are quite densely planted and on a steep slope with ground vegetation with basse not visible so it is difficult to measure. It is much easier on a flat as you can measure the front visible tree and fairly confidently use that base for the trees behind. They are not challenging for Britain's tallest trees but there may be some on the stand that exceed the one that I measured.
roburpetraea, op 2021-05-27 19:08:35, gewijzigd op 2021-05-28 18:11:15, zei:
Some time ago a discussion arose in a Spanish forum on botany about the situation of these pines, which despite being in apparently optimal conditions for their growth do not prosper throughout the area, and in the abundant repopulations made with this pine trees they show a very poor bearing, if not they are a failure directly. I'd like to know what @Conifers thinks about it, and anyone who wants to leave their thoughts is free to do so.
The area is located in the north of Spain, between the provinces of Burgos and Santander, highlands between 830 and 1100 meters above sea level, with an oceanic climate with mountain influence due to its high altitude above sea level. Rainfall ranges between 800 and 1000mm per year, with the driest time of year being summer. Even so, in this season of the year low clouds and fogs are frequent, so the effect of the summer drought is mitigated and the vegetation is 100% Eurosiberian, without Mediterranean influences. Winters are long and harsh, with frequent and often heavy snowfall. The soil is sandy, very acid and poor, sandstone bedrock often outcrops. So in synthesis we have acid, poor and sandy soils; pceanic climate, slightly dry in summer; and cold winters. Nothing seems to indicate any adverse conditions for the growth of Pinus sylvestris.
As it turns out, Pinus sylvestris seems to hate this place. Here we have the example of this situation, where P. sylvestris has been used to repopulate (in vain) a hill between Quintanilla de Santa Gadea and San Vicente de Villamezán, at the foot of a stream today a tail of the Ebro Reservoir, once pastures and today covered with dense Eurosiberian heath. As it is a repopulation, the heath has been protected from burning and the renewing action of the human being, thriving in it large quantities of hawthorn, wild rose, Quercus robur and Fagus sylvatica, being this 2 the last species of the succession, are already beginning to emerge among these.
View from the hill towards the Ebro Reservoir. There are hardly any surviving pine trees of stunted size, and among the tangle of thorns you can see a marcescent tree, most likely Q. robur or F. sylvatica. That blue stream is the tail of the Ebro Reservoir, formerly the Nava River (nava means moor in spanish), where the old meadows that today are located at the mouth of the river in the reservoir have become extensive oligotrophic bogs. After this you can see Arija on the left bank, in the background on a hill in a promontory over the reservoir, La Riva, that is already the other shore, and between the clouds the Escudo mountain range. The orange cliff is the cut of a road.
In places where silvicultural care has been carried out, this is the best result obtained, the pines do not exceed 20 meters in height, which is much lower than what P. sylvestris can achieve in much more difficult conditions. It is a repopulation made I estimate that in the 80s, near a town called Higón not far from the previous hill, at a higher altitude, while the hill was located at about 850 meters of altitude, this pine forest does to 920. Here the pressure of herbivores is intense, and under the pines hardly anything but heather grows, some holly.
At 1,050 meters above sea level, the pines, despite receiving careful attention, are even lower, so the situation does not improve when ascending (which translates into lower temperatures, especially in winter). The herbivore pressure in this area also restricts the growth of species under the pine forest, (this also seems to have been planted in the 80s but before, near Mount Hijedo) even so, some rowan or even a Q. robur like this one in the image, which shows a much healthier aspect than that of the pines, appears.
This is it, the conditions do not seem harsher than a pine can suffer in the British Isles or elsewhere in the Cantabrian Mountains, and yet it seems that it refuses to prosper without apparent explanation. What is your opinion? Any reasoning is welcome.
Odd! Couple of points that might be worth investigating:
1 For the planted trees, what was the seed origin?
2 Are there any insect pests or fungal diseases that might be harming them? Thaumetopoea pityocampa? Pissodes spp.?
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-05-27 20:48:40, gewijzigd op 2021-05-27 20:53:15, zei:
@roburpetraea,
That is a bit strange, as Conifers said. However, I do believe I know what you are trying to describe, as it happens here on the east coast of the U.S, and I have seen a similar species of pine doing the same things.
Primarily in the state of New Jersey, bordering the Atlantic, there is a huge "Pine Barren", where Pinus rigida forms pure stands. It grows well there, but grows to heights no more than 30 or so meters in exceptional sites.
The elevation is mainly lowland, no more than 70 meters above the sea, and the soils are very poor, acidic, and sandy. Photo below of the barren:
However, occasionally, there are places on the barrens where, although the climate is very favorable for their exclusive growth, they have an extremely hard time growing. While I can't say I can pinpoint the exact cause, I believe that, in these places where they have trouble growing, usually there is a insect problem, or the soils are contaminated/a bit different than what is thought.
I hope this helps,
Best Regards,
BeeE
{EDIT} Or, perhaps, that the forest you described has not experienced natural wildfires for a long period of time? In New Jersey, in order to keep the ecosystem favorable for Pitch Pine, it naturally burns very often.
I do not think it has anything to do with diseases, the pines did not show signs of any, it is more a general behavior of all the pines in the region, surely related to environmental conditions. The origin of the pines is surely Spanish but not local, since the pine is not indigenous to that area, and the geographically close populations are relict, (survivors of the traditional agrarian exploitation system that has favored the hardwoods more than the conifers) that has not been cultivated and therefore no seed has been obtained from them.
Anyway, a user of this Spanish forum very knowledgeable in botany stated that the Scots pine generally does not develop well (in Spain) on sandstones when rainfall exceeds 600mm and daylight hours are scarce. According to this user, the best pine forests are located on quartzites, schists, conglomerates, dolomites or hard limestone.
And this is already the contribution of a layman like me, I think this behavior has to do with the water saturation of the sandstones. Reading a nineteenth century book on the exploitation of oaks by the Spanish Navy in Santander, whose shipyards are not far from these pine reforestations, it said that the wood of the oaks that grew in sandstones was not of as good quality as those that grew on clays, since in the humid times the sandstones are saturated with water and the wood grows with very little density. Then in dry seasons these soils dry out quickly since they barely retain moisture, causing the wood to grow too dense and too little, creating a big difference between the growth stages and therefore compromising the solidity of the wood. This effect is particularly important in Spain since, unlike in England where rainfall is widely distributed, here the autumns and springs, also the winters, are clearly the wettest times by far, in contrast to the summers which are generally dry due to the anticyclonic blockade of the Azores.
So I thought that a similar reasoning can be applied to pine and its lack of size, since during wet seasons the sandy soils become saturated with water, seriously harming the development of the pines that do not support that high amount of water in the soil.
@Bee the thing is that those pine woods you're showing are natural, I'm talking about repopulations in an area where pine is not authoctonous. Impressive forests nontheless. I don't think pines in northern Spain follows the same dynamic, in fact wildfires is what has caused the pine to lose much of its habitat. Scots pine does not like forest fires in Western Europe. In more northern regions, possibly it does give it an advantage over other conifers such as spruces, but on the Atlantic facade this is not the case, normally after repeated fires the pine is replaced by species much more resilient to fire such as oaks or birches, and at altitudes where hardwood trees no longer grow, pyrophilic scrub appears. The desolate landscapes you see in the Scottish Highlands are the fruit of fire, places once covered by extensive Caledonian pine forests.
"The desolate landscapes you see in the Scottish Highlands are the fruit of fire, places once covered by extensive Caledonian pine forests" - this is mainly due to overgrazing: too many sheep, too many deer, no large predators to control them.
I rather doubt that the Scottish Highlands have ever been prone to wildfires. Today, controlled burning of heather is conducted in the drier, eastern half of the country to optimise the habitat for grouse (so that people can shoot them), which has the side-effect of killing any trees in the area. Each fire burns a small strip of the heather before it fizzles out. Much of the western half is too wet (a deep layer of peat) for trees to grow in the first place.
roburpetraea, op 2021-06-01 21:35:06, gewijzigd op 2021-06-01 21:36:18, zei:
@Tree everything burns if you put your mind to it, no matter how wet it is, the right time with the right methods and you have a good fire. Realize that it is impossible to destroy an immense forest by logging and overgrazing alone, and especially in a region as remote and unpopulated as the Scottish Highlands, the Caledonian Forests were burned to ashes to obtain grass for extensive livestock. Imagine the poor Caledonians 1000 years ago cutting down all the forests pine by pine, implausible. You need a fast and massive method, and at that time the only thing capable of carrying out that task was fire. Now perhaps the pastures are maintained not thanks to fire but to overgrazing, but also keep in mind that the speed of regeneration depends on the amount of seed available, and for those lands it does not seem that there is much. In any case, only 50 years ago that traditional exploitation methods, such as fire, were stopped, they will surely recover little by little.
I've spend too many days in the Scottish rain to be at all convinced by the old theory that fire played a part in the diminishment of the Caledonian forests. Unless the weather was very different, the poor settlers would have spend hours trying to get one fire going only to watch it fizzle out before it even claimed its first pine tree.
The theory that there ever were 'vast forests' in the Highlands also seems highly questionable. The natural tree-line is currently only halfway up most of the mountainsides, and no species survived the ice ages in Scotland which are able to exploit the combination of wet peat and extreme wind exposure of the west of the country.
However there are plenty of examples of old pines failing to regenerate, and then regenerating very well as soon as the area is fenced against grazing. The wolf was driven to extinction in the Highlands in the 18th century, and this probably marked the start of the period of dramatic contraction of the original woodland areas.
roburpetraea, op 2021-06-03 13:51:52, gewijzigd op 2021-06-03 14:11:07, zei:
I mean that the Caledonian forest were vast compared to what you have now, that is virtually nothing, relicts. But even there, is impossible to conceive.
At the beginning of this video (2:00-7:00, the extraction of a single Scots pine is shown in the traditional way in a mountainous area, I doubt that the way the Caledonians did it was different. All that work for a single pine tree, imagine doing the same with millions with the intensity necessary to end them, just to get grass, impossible:
Nor do I think that in Scotland it rains every day, I suppose there will be dry weeks where a fire can be started. If it were so extremely humid, there would be no scots pines, since they do not support soil saturated with water and prefer well-differentiated climates, with hot and cold seasons.
Another side of the coin is that the Scottish climate may have become too humid for the pine, which is why it is so difficult to regenerate. When the Scots pine is in an optimal place it regenerates easily without being invasive, in the case of finding a place without renovation events, especially fires, since the pine is very sensitive to these due to its combustible nature and low resistance to fire. In Spain, thanks to the reforestation, the Scots pine is returning to its ancient habitats thanks to a forest policy whose intention was originally to protect the soils and with a productive purpose, but which has had very positive unforeseen ecological consequences.
Magnificent pioneer forests of B. pubescens, temperate rainforest like the Scots, where P. sylvestris has been naturalized from reforestation. Scots pines were indigenous to these mountains between the provinces of Lugo and León in northwestern Spain 1000 years ago, where they disappeared due to fire. It is clear that after 10 centuries the conditions are still optimal for Scots pine, as it naturalizes easily. It is exciting to witness this historical moment of seeing how a forest that disappeared for a millennium regains its territory in the same ecosystem as when it disappeared, the birch-pine association. There is still much to do, because even the birch forests of the Spanish northwest, the most extensive in Western Europe, are so because the species that has to continue the succession, the pine, has disappeared, so the forests remain stagnant in their pioneer phase.
There are wolves here, for some too many. And bears, more and more. The other day a bear attacked an old lady, and there is already some madman who screams in the sky as with wolves that are dangerous, that we must put a stop to them, etc. And it is that bears in Spain are so used to living with man that since their hunting was banned, they walk through the streets of the towns and enter the orchards to eat the fruit, perhaps they are getting too confident.
"At the beginning of this video (2:00-7:00, the extraction of a single Scots pine is shown in the traditional way in a mountainous area, I doubt that the way the Caledonians did it was different. All that work for a single pine tree, imagine doing the same with millions with the intensity necessary to kill them, just to get grass"
I have never been to Europe, but here is some history of New England forests in the U.S, that sort of relates to the extent settlers cleared the virgin forests.
The New England states of the U.S hold some of the most remarkable forests in the nation today. However, before the white man came, there were dense stands of magnificent large Pinus strobus (White Pine), and Pinus resinosa (Red Pine) trees. Up until the early 1700s, these forests were relatively undisturbed. However, starting at that time period, settlers began to flock to New England in hopes of finding better agricultural land, and to raise sheep, which needs pasturelands. Deforestation skyrocketed in the 1800s.
While I cant say for sure that the environment of the Caledonian forest and that of the NE states are (or were) somewhat similar, settlers in the NE often did not burn the land to clear the forests (it was hard to set fire to dense stands of virgin forests). Some believe that bottomland forests were already burned by the native Americans, but this is hard for me to believe, especially for the fact that the bottomlands are (and were) usually humid and wet.
Anyway, many settlers cut trees with a saw, and then left the remaining short trunk to rot, or cover it with pine resin, and burn it to the ground. Although this might have taken a lot of work, remember that hundreds of thousands of people flocked to New England, and wanted to start families. Just think of the millions of humoungous virgin pines and hardwoods they had to cut.
Above: Old painting showing that nearly all the land was cultivated as pasture in the 1700s.
A fascinating video on the New England old-growth areas, and its history.
Getting back to my point. As a result of the exploitation of the forests in the past, New England lost many of its white pines, to the point that, even today, white and red pines are not nearly as common as they were even just 150 or so years ago. I believe this is mainly a result of the fact that they were never able to regain their full territory after being logged so often, and the forest understory being modified to the point that pine regeneration was not all that common until recently (100 years ago).
Anyway, I hope I explained this well. I am not a great explainer :-)
Yes Bee, But have you seen an aerial image of New England? It is full of trees and wooded areas, look at one of the mountains of Scotland, there is nothing but exotic coniferous crops. We are not talking about clarifying to cultivate, because there always end up being trees on the boundaries between lands, or small forests where the soil is bad that end up serving as seedbeds to preserve biodiversity, we are talking about systematic eradication of the forest mass until the practice extinction of species that were originally abundant such as Scots pine.
Nor do I think that because it rains a lot it means that fires cannot be produced. Patagonia is possibly the same or more humid, certainly colder than Scotland, and yet when European settlers arrived in the 19th and 20th centuries they used fire to thin the forests so that livestock could graze. If they did that in Patagonia, of course the Scots could light fires in the Higlands.
Nice picture by the way, I'll take a look at the video as soon as I have a while, it seems very interesting.
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-06-03 23:20:03, gewijzigd op 2021-06-03 23:20:21, zei:
@roburpetraea,
You do make some good points. You are right in the sense that, at one time or another, there is usually a seed source preserved someplace (like on steep hills), so that a new forest can regenerate.
I hope you enjoy the video! Here is another about old-growth virgin forests (I don't remember if I shared it before or not):
The above video discusses the forest history of Pennsylvania, and old-growth virgin stands left.
@Bee the first video is super nice, very interesting and well done. Around minute 27 a man talks about old-growth areas where the trees are not necessarily big, about that widespread but sometimes misleading notion that in a virgin forest there must be big trees.
And that the dynamics of the ecosystem that establishes the longevity of the trees can be conditioned by many factors, one of them is, for example, the quality of the soil:
This is an oak grove of Quercus faginea in the province of Burgos,
Spain, which is located on a limestone soil and with very little substrate. Therefore, the oaks never reached and will never reach a very large size, since at modest heights the tips begin to dry out.
I enjoy your great website, "Monumental trees". You state on this website that the photographic method is inaccurate (unless the photo is taken from a long distance) because of "lens distortion". I have written a paper,
Fulkerson, D (2021). A photographic method for measurement
of tree height: More accurate and simpler than other meth-
ods?. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry 13(1) 35-43.
https://doi.org/10.5897/JHF2020.0661
This paper shows a way of eliminating the foreshortening in a photo image. Comments?
I was hoping Conifers would be the one to reply to this as his sap is more caustic than mine....
As a serious footnote, it IS possible to eliminate the effect of perspective (terming it 'lens distortion' over-complicates the issue) which is caused by the inevitable fact that some parts of the tree you're photographing (in particular the top) will be further away from the lens than others (in particular the scale reference at the bottom): there's a contraption called a 'rising front' which professional architectural photographers use. But it's expensive and unweildy and can only be used with a big box camera. Thomas Pakenham used it for his plates in 'Meetings With Remarkable Trees', which is why the trees in it look their full height. Hence you actually could use the figures in his photos to calculate the trees' heights - bearing in mind, as with all tangent measurements, that the highest bit of the tree in the photograph is usually a branch arching towards you, not the true top. (The effect of the arching branches would sometimes cancel out the effect of perspective when trying to guestimate a tree's height from an 'ordinary' photo - with a large random chance of errors in either direction of course.)
We have an interest in how paleo-Patm has varied over geological time and what proxies can be used to estimate this.
Flight is vey useful as the physics of flight are universal and power, thermal stress, safe takeoff airspeeds etc. can be estimated, as well as the respiration of large insects that have kept a similar body plan - such as odonata.
Among possible proxies are tree heights, in particular of species that are similar and possibly have kept similar growth patterns.
From an admitidally simplified engineering point-of-view, but aligned to cohesion-tension theory (C-T), an atmosphere of higher pressure (mass/density) would allow for a greater tree height with less risk of embolism, or for say 2 bar (0.2 MPa) the standard loss of 0.01 Mpa/m in height would give a 'basic' tre height of 20 m instead of the 10 m at 1 bar.
Araucaria heights (estimated from petrified forests) vary from ~30m in the early Triassic to ~60 m in the Late Triassic to (?) in the Early Jurassic and > 100 m in the Late Jurassic (Cerro Cuadrado, Patagonia). Present max araucaria heights are ~40 to 50 m (from this very useful site!). These numbers suggest changes in Patm that match other proxies.
I live in Curitiba, Brazil and the Araucaria is the state and city symbol and canopy heights tend to be ~20 - 25 m, although larger specimens can be found.
The question thus is: if the tallest tree (araucaria) is say 40 m, what would be the tree height distribution such that that 95% of full grown specimens would be between x and y m? (the same applies of course to girth).
I was hoping that contributors with a sounder scientific understanding of this fascinating topic would have replied by now; but here are my thoughts, for what they are worth.
As far as I understand it, the amount of nitrogen (and noble gases) in the atmosphere must have remained about the same since the Palaeozoic, and the maximum oxygen percentages (late Carboniferous/early Permian) were limited by the point at which spontaneous combustion becomes a likely problem - around 35%. This means that the late Carboniferous air pressure would have been (at most) 15% higher, at a given altitude, than it is today.
This is very roughly equivalent to descending in altitude, today, from 1000m to sea-level, so an alternative way of expressing this issue would be: what are the differences in tree growth between an environment at sea-level and one which is identical in terms of exposure, rainfall, temperature, etc., but is at an altitude of 1000m?
As far as I am aware, there is very little difference in tree growth at all. Sequoia sempervirens, the only tree to grow significantly more than 100m tall today, does this near to sea-level, where the higher air pressure should allow slightly longer water columns to be sustained, but Sequoiadendron giganteum, another of the world's tallest tree species, grows wild at around 1500m in the Sierra Nevada mountains - a considerable altitude for any big tree. This suggests to me that positive and negative factors on tree growth are likely to balance each other out between high-pressure and low-pressure environments. One advantage of growing in a low atmospheric pressure is that, for a given wind speed, the stress-loading on the tree's structure will be proportionately less.
It should also be borne in mind that any tree is likely to experience differences in air-pressure of about 10% (though seldom as much as 15%) as the weather changes from day to day.
Today, trees only grow 100m tall where conditions are nearly ideal. Availability of water throughout a growing season seems to be the most important factor - through a combination of reliable rainfall, high humidity, shelter from dehydrating winds, and a water-retentive but not water-logged soil which is easy for roots to penetrate. A Sequoia sempervirens planted in conditions which allow it to survive but not to thrive has a genetic response mechanism which will cause it to stop adding height when it is perhaps 25m tall - there are thousands of such trees on heavier soils in drier parts of the UK - and it is a constant source of amazement that other specimens with comparable genetics, growing in conditions which strike the human observer as somewhat similar - will continue to add height until they are four times this size.
Across the 'near-perfect' tree-growing conditions of the American north-west, conifers from two families and several different genera form natural competitors within forests which are (nearly) 100m high. These species do not contain any Araucaria (to take the presented example), but, had an Araucaria species survived in these forests, it would have had to have evolved the same mechanisms which have allowed these other and distantly related conifers all to reach these huge heights.
In summary, it seems that the environmental conditions that will allow one prehistoric Araucaria to reach 25m and another to reach 100m will depend greatly on the soil and the local micro-climate, and very little (if at all) on the world-wide air pressure at the time.
The Late Carb probably had a Patm of > 1.6 bar for the large 'griffenflies' to function (Cannell JEB 2018). Recent work on odonata respiration gives a higher value and also, for example, for the late Jurassic.
The giant birds of the Miocene (7 m spans, 70 kg and 2.2 m tall storks) also required a density equiv to > 1.3 bar to take off (Cannell Animal Biology 2020) and similar vaues are obtained from 3 other proxies. So the Flat Nitrogen Hypothesis (same mass over 450 Ma) is probably invalid - certainly the N2 specialists such as Lammer, Johnson & Goldblatt no longer accept that this is true.
If so, how would trees react? We know that fossils from the Devonian indicate conical short trees (low Patm) and that in he Late Carb lycophyids were over 45 m, with very little internal structural support (from the flat nature of many fossils (Lycophtes from the lower Westphalian (Middle Pennsylvanian) of the Maritime Provinces, Canada 2014 Carmen Álvarez-Vázquez* and Robert H. Wagner) and other tall vines have unusually large cells incapable of high water transport. So how would a 45 m club moss function in terms of water transport and buckling? And in a 2 bar Patm as indicated by the flying bugs and milipedes (but not ground hexapods - blatteropta/ roaches which had to overcome gravity with 6 legs).
Some (very few) modern tree species can reach 100 m, but they are extremely rare and at least double normal heights, they also have different forms of taking in moisture from mists. Not the case for the Patagonian Late J araucaria with many specimens > 50 m and a( quoted) 100 m example.
I suspect that water transport is obvious facilitated at 2 bar (C-T) theory, and also structural support, though the latter has yet to be worked through.
best & Cheers
Alan
Curitiba (which means "the place of the rivers of araucaria pine cones" in Tupi)
It has been speculated that the reason we don't have trees more than 120m tall is that (in the current atmospheric pressure) it's impossible for them to transport ground-water higher than that. Much taller trees were reported in the 19th century (before they were chopped down) but none of these reports are really reliable. This would be a nice explanation for why Sequoia sempervirens (near sea-level) reaches 115m+ and the related Sequoiadendron giganteum, in the thinner air of the Sierra Nevada, doesn't exceed 95m. But to extrapolate that trees in a 2-bar atmosphere would be able to grow 240m tall is surely an over-simplification - I suspect that before they grew much taller other limiting factors would take over, such as timber strength and how thick their trunks would have to grow (particularly given the greater force of the wind if the atmosphere was much denser). But, in a 2-bar atmosphere, a tree could presumably grow 100m tall (or more) without having to refine its water-transport mechanisms to the utmost.
For club-mosses to reach 45m without a vascular system at all I would guess that they depended on near-constant rainfall or high humidity. I don't know if such conditions (which would encourage more highly evolved trees to grow very tall) would be a likely consequence of a denser atmosphere?
I think it would be more accurate to say that the parts of today's world where trees can grow 100m tall are very limited, rather than saying that the number of species that can do this is very limited. Most of the areas with the right soils and climate are at temperate latitudes, and tree species growing here have (in the northern hemisphere) been badly impacted by the ice ages. There are suitable conditions among the mountains of western Europe, but such species which had evolved to exploit them (and to grow 100m tall, perhaps) where all killed off by the ice. Now we have to plant species from the western United States or south-eastern Australia to see how tall trees can potentially grow with us, and we haven't been doing this for long enough for these species to have reached their maximum sizes yet.
One topic that might be worth exploring (I don't have an answer) is why various tree species in the tropical forests of south-east Asia can reach about 90m, while those in the superficially similar Amazon and Congo are (much?) smaller. Perhaps it's the case that sometimes an evolutionary arms-race among trees competing for sunlight plays out to the local physical limits, and sometimes it doesn't.
I hope I can contribute to this discussion meaningfully, although I dont yet know much in the subject on air pressure.
@Owen - "Perhaps it's the case that sometimes an evolutionary arms-race among trees competing for sunlight plays out to the local physical limits"
In the southern mountains of the U.S, along the east coast, such as in the Great Smoky Mountains, what you described above happens very often. While I believe only 1 tree, accurately documented, has reached 60+ meters on the east coast, in the Smoky Mountains there is often an amazing height growth rate after logging the original, old-growth forest.
In these second growth areas of the mountains, Liriodendron tulipifera often can reach 180'+ (54 meters) only after 150 or so years of growing. While I cant say from my own experience (I have never been down south), usually this very fast growth rate is a result of light competition and favorable growing conditions for the tulips, as they are all mainly about the same age, and form a uniform canopy. They still are growing fast and tall, according to some members of the Eastern Native Tree Society. Who knows, some might pass 200' (61 meters) at some point.
However, in the Old-Growth areas of the Smokies, the 58 meter tulip (191 foot) is the tallest we know of, and is likely at least 400 years old. While it is still taller than the younger tulips, this all goes to show that trees growing in the same environmental regions could have different growth results, likely depending on light competition and state composition. Old-growth might not always contain the tallest trees then?
"Old-growth might not always contain the tallest trees then?" - yes, since often the surviving old growth is on sites that are more difficult for tree growth; the old loggers often went for the largest trees first. What survives is what they didn't think worth cutting. This applies more particularly in areas with a longer history of exploitation, like the eastern USA compared with western USA. Even sadder to think what there might have been in Europe 3,000 years ago . . .
"One topic that might be worth exploring (I don't have an answer) is why various tree species in the tropical forests of south-east Asia can reach about 90m, while those in the superficially similar Amazon and Congo are (much?) smaller. Perhaps it's the case that sometimes an evolutionary arms-race among trees competing for sunlight plays out to the local physical limits, and sometimes it doesn't."
I'd guess other limiting factors are important - lightning frequency in particular mitigates against very tall trees (California has notably low lightning rates). The Amazon and Congo forests are on ą flat lowlands too, so have indifferent drainage and little shelter from either wind or lightning. Conversely, in the SE Asian forests, the very tall trees are in deeper valleys in hilly country where surrounding peaks may 'capture' more of the lightning.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the parts of today's world where trees can grow 100m tall are very limited, rather than saying that the number of species that can do this is very limited.
I think the species issue is important, too. There are number of tree height anomalies in the world. You mentioned Europe vs. western North America. You mentioned Southeast Asia vs. Latin America. A remarkable case is New Zealand. There are more than 200 native tree species in New Zealand but none of them reach 60m. Still the climate seems to be exceptionally favourable for tree growth, with western American conifers and eucalypts reaching similar or higher growth rates as in their native ranges.
One topic that might be worth exploring (I don't have an answer) is why various tree species in the tropical forests of south-east Asia can reach about 90m, while those in the superficially similar Amazon and Congo are (much?) smaller.
The difference is not so big anymore: The tallest know tropical Asian tree is 97.58 m, tallest of South America 88.5 m and the tallest tropical African tree 81.5 m. The physiology of dipterocarp trees is certainly an important reason for the height differences but perhaps one reason is that the more accessible Southeast Asian forests have been explored more thoroughly. Language may be one thing: English is spoken very widely in Malaysia as it is a former British colony. Thus, wide range of scientific work has been written in English since long times. Remember that also in SE Asia, very tall forests are limited to very small areas with fertile volcanic soils, particularly in eastern Sabah. In large areas, the tallest trees are 60-70 m tall - true, still taller than average African and American tropical forests. Not very long ago, Bob an Pelt wrote in a post on the ENTS forum that there is no tree over 60m in Amazon Rainforest. Now the tallest tree is almost 30m taller than that!
The issue of wind limiting the heights of trees is important because if the atmosphere was denser than it is today, the stress and damage caused by wind of a given speed would be proportionately greater. So the effect of a denser atmosphere might actually be to REDUCE potential tree height, and the presence of a 100m fossil tree would be strong evidence AGAINST the atmosphere at the time being much denser than today's.
However it seems reasonable that, if the air was twice as thick, a storm of a given intensity would only be able to move the air-mass half as fast. This would entirely negate the issue of the increased wind-stress, but I've no idea if this hypothesis is right? A meteorologist might be able to say. When civil engineers calculate wind stress on tall proposed buildings, do they take into account the altitude of the site - i.e. is a building in the thin, high air of Mexico City expected to encounter less wind-stress than one at sea-level?
To grow 'very tall' (more than 75m high, say, in today's climate), a tree needs:
1) shelter from strong winds - thanks to steep local topography
2) plenty of rain or at least high humidity, year-round
3) a reasonably long growing season - no prolonged intense cold
4) a long return period for forest fires (or no fires at all)
5) a moisture-retentive but free-draining soil, with an open texture that roots can penetrate easily (i.e. not clay)
Points 2) and 5) would be less critical in a denser atmosphere, since transporting water from the roots to the top would be easier. Point 4) would become more critical if the PROPORTION (not the total amount) of oxygen in the air increased. Point 1) would be especially critical if a denser atmosphere meant more wind-stress.
Can the presence of all or any of these factors be assessed from the environment in which the 100m fossil Araucaria (and any similar giant tree fossils) are found? If trees were growing 100m tall in less-than-ideal conditions, or all across wider areas of the planet, this would indeed suggest that a different atmospheric composition was having a benign effect on tree growth. Perhaps the mere fact of a fossil being found implies that the species (or the phenomenon of a 100m tree) is very likely to have been common and widespread?
At present, all five factors come together only in tiny areas of the earth's surface: the Pacific north-west, the southern Andes, parts of north-west Europe, south-east and south-west Australia, parts of the Himalaya, the highlands of tropical south-east Asia.
None of the very tall trees in these areas are Araucaria species, but I think it is misleading to assume that Araucaria is a 'medium-sized' genus which lacks a tendency or the physiology to grow 100m tall in today's atmosphere. The surviving species have small, relic ranges which don't quite overlap with the conditions for optimal tree-growth; where the conditions are just right, many different tree genera have evolved to grow very tall, in parallel, and there seems no reason to assume that an Araucaria species which found itself, for example, in California would not have been able to compete with Abies, Picea, Pseudotsuga, Calocedrus, Chamaecyparis, Pinus, Tsuga and other such genera. (It's true that Araucaria araucana in the southern Andes confines itself to slightly more challenging places and doesn't compete directly with Fitzoya cupressoides as a giant tree in the most optimal conditions. But the Andes are unusual in that Fitzroya is currently the only really 'giant' tree - has there been a history of destructive ice-ages or similar climate disasters? The Andes also have a variety of Myrtaceae species, all of them small or medium sized trees, whereas in Australia, many Myrtaceae species - all Eucalyptus - totally dominate as the tallest trees in the best sites.)
The only shared features among all of today's very tall trees seem to be a very straight trunk (usually with a flared base) and evergreen foliage - both of which Araucaria tends to have.
Conifers, op 2021-06-01 21:16:52, gewijzigd op 2021-06-01 21:20:56, zei:
If I remember right, the tallest Araucaria in the modern period is A. hunsteinii at a reported (but not accurately measured?) 90 m; in Papua New Guinea.
I'd also add New Zealand to the list of places capable of producing giant trees. Like NW Europe (though less extremely so), it has in its recent geological history experienced glaciation that may have killed off some native species capable of reaching great heights. Also perhaps the areas where Taiwania occurs - Taiwan, Yunnan, Sichuan, etc.
Of the effects of atmospheric pressure, Mars (extremely low pressure) has very strong winds, while Venus (very high pressure) doesn't have much wind? Not sure of that though.
1) shelter from strong winds - thanks to steep local topography
The absense of strong winds may also be an intrinsic feature of the local climate. As you see from this video, the 88.5-metre tree in Amazon region grows in a relatively flat country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N3bNxRfvt4
4) a long return period for forest fires (or no fires at all)
Or a regime of low intensity fires with short intervals combined with a good fire resistancy, like in Sequoiadendron.
None of the very tall trees in these areas are Araucaria species
There is Aracauria hunsteinii in New Guinea that has reportedly reached 88.9 m, measured in 1941 with a steel tape by a climber. The tallest trees were gone long since.
About Fitzroya: While it is without a doubt a "giant tree", with huge girths, it is unclear if it is really a very tall tree. All the really reliable reports, I have seen, have been reported the tallest trees being less than 60 m. Though there may be unexplored locations with greater height potentials.
The Andes also have a variety of Myrtaceae species, all of them small or medium sized trees, whereas in Australia, many Myrtaceae species - all Eucalyptus - totally dominate as the tallest trees in the best sites.
Interaction of dry and moist climates is important in the evolution of the giant eucalypts. Eucalypts evolved in a drying continent as Australia travelled north to the dry subtropical latitudes. Likely some features, which helped eucalypts to survive in dry climates, made possible some lineages to grow to giant sizes in moist climates. In South America there has not been such an interaction of dry and moist climates.
The only shared features among all of today's very tall trees seem to be a very straight trunk (usually with a flared base) and evergreen foliage
Mighty Koompassia excelsa of Southeast Asia is deciduous!
Replying to Alan's last post (these seem to start new threads for some reason, rather than adding to this one) - I'm not sure that a plant without a vascular system would benefit at all from high air pressure being able to push water further up vascular tubes? (Neither would a tree less than 100m tall, as they are able to do this anyway in today's low air pressure.) For the club-mosses etc. to grow so tall it seems more reasonable to assume a constant ready supply of water to the top from fog, cloud or perpetual rain. Presumably the presence of coal seams suggests a climate too wet to allow aerobic decay?
I'm a new user and I'm very excited about this site. I'm trying to add a new tree. The google maps window apparently isn't loading correctly. The drop down for the year includes only the choice of don't know, around the year, or the exact year. There isn's a drop-down for the actual year. Also the dropdowns for multiple trunks and exact location aren't functional. Therefore, the Save button also isn't functional. I am using a MacBook Pro 2017 in the USA. I have tried both Safari and Firefox. Does it require Chrome? I have avoided downloading Chrome.
Thanks for your attention.
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-04-27 14:16:53, gewijzigd op 2021-04-27 14:18:29, zei:
Hi cookstevend,
Welcome to Monumental Trees! Sorry to hear you have been having problems with loading a tree in to MT.
Have you tried clicking the button in the top right corner of the website called "Add new tree"? If so, after you click it, it would take you to a form you have to fill out to add a tree.
Firstly, you have to select the tree species, then select the country, province, municipality, village, and then you have to add a location, like "Street XXX", and then put another location, like "At the intersection of XXX".
Afterwards, you should be able to see a google map dropdown, which then you click the exact tree-location.
After doing that, you have to answer, "When did the tree germinate / was the tree planted?", in which I usually put "I don't Know" for the moment.
Afterwards, you will be allowed to continue to "Does the tree have multiple trunks?", and you fill that out accordingly.
Then, you have to answer, "Are you sure the tree exists as described above?", and fill out whether you are sure or are not.
Finally, you can then save the tree by clicking the "Save" button under the last question.
BTW, if you don't like to download chrome, try Startpage, which is a nice private search engine.
Thanks so much. It was a great suggestion to select the I don't know option. I should have tried that myself. However, even after I did that, the dropdowns for multiple trunks and certainty about identification were faded, indicating they don't work. Same for the Save button. I don't know if it is a quirk of my own system interface. I see other USA users on the site. Maybe I'll try my iPhone. There is a fantastic elm about 105 years old in West Potomac Park in Washington DC that I am determined to draw attention to. It looks like either xhollandica var. Vegeta, or an extremely upright Ulmus glabra. It towers over its Ulmus americana neighbors. I'm amazed it has escaped Dutch elm disease, to which most of its cohort from the same planting have succumbed.
The elm your trying to add seems like a nice addition to the website.
I also use a MacBook Pro and have the same problem when uploading trees. What I usually do is upload the tree on my iPhone and then do everything else on the laptop. I hope this helps.
meine Anfrage ist bezüglich des Baumes Nr. 50150 in Berlin-Konradshöhe an der Havel. Gestern von mir eingestellt.
Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, ob es wirklich die Varietät Säulenpappel (populus nigra italica) ist.
Oder ist es die Berliner Lorbeer-Pappel (populus berolinensis)?
Ich bin mir auch nicht sicher, ob es gut ist, diese Italica-Varietät unter den Echten Schwarzpappeln einzuordnen. Die echte Schwarzpappel ist schließlich selten und gefährdet, wohingegen die Säulenpappel meines Wissens das nicht ist. Wenn dann in den Listen von Schwarzpappeln nicht unter den Varietäten unterschieden wird, verfälscht es den Eindruck. Wer eine echte Schwarzpappel sucht, will keine Säulenpappel finden.
Deshalb würde ich es besser finden, wenn dafür eine eigene Rubrik "Säulen-Pappeln" aufgemacht würde.
Seltsamerweise habe ich beim Eingeben der Baum-Daten diese Varietät angeklickt und dann erschien es auch richtig und jetzt ist es plötzlich verschwunden.
My request is about tree no. 50150 in Berlin-Konradshöhe on the Havel form yesterday.
I'm not entirely sure if it really is the poplar variety (populus nigra italica).
Or is it the Berlin laurel poplar (populus berolinensis)?
I am also not sure whether it is a good idea to classify this "populus nigra italica" variety among the real black poplars. After all, the real black poplar is rare and endangered, whereas, to my knowledge, the "populus nigra italica" is not. If there is no distinction between the varieties in the lists of black poplars, it will distort the impression. Anyone looking for a real black poplar does not want to find a "populus nigra italica". And no one who looking for a "populus nigra italica" is trying this be seaching by the real black poplar.
That's why I would think it would be better if a separate "populus nigra italica" was opened for it. How can this arrange?
Strangely enough, when I entered the tree data, I clicked on this variety and then it appeared correctly and now it has suddenly disappeared.
Ich würde mich riesig freuen, wenn mir jemand sagen könnte, wie das mit dem Link geht.
Auf jeden Fall schon mal vielen Dank.
LG
Markus
BeeEnvironment, op 2021-02-16 14:24:31, gewijzigd op 2021-02-16 14:27:12, zei:
Markus, try reading https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/about/ , and on the bottom of the page, it explains how to set a link for a tree on Monumental Trees.
I will explain it here. You type 2 brackets: [ ] and in between those 2 brackets you put, for a tree, t, as follows: [t ] and then you put the number of the tree (for instance, your poplar 50150), as shown: [t50150 ]. Remove the extra space after the last digit, I just did that for presentation purposes, so you can see
Also, to change your height that you estimated to a new accurate height, you click on the little pen by the measurement, and then you are allowed to change it.
Jetzt weiß ich auch warum ich das alles nicht weiß, weil diese Anleitungen alle nur in der Englischen Version erscheinen. Im Deutschen ist das alles nicht enthalten.
Ich habe es zwar noch nicht ausprobiert, aber trotzdem Danke für Deine Bemühungen.
Now I also know why I don't know all this, because these instructions only appear in the English version. None of this is included in the German version.
I haven't tried it yet, but thanks for your efforts anyway.
Please have a little patience with me. I have one more question: The instructions also state that it is possible to do the same with a picture. But for this I have to write an "i" and the picture number in brackets. But I don't know I can find the picture number.
You can find the picture number in the link of the photo. For instance, go to a photo, and look at the link. At the end of the link, there is a number, lets say 117142. You then put [i117142 ], without the space after the number, of course, and then you get
You go to the top of the photo's webpage, and find the link. I highlighted that in Red. Then, you go to the end of the link, (where I circled in black), and that is how you find the number.
Die Pappel ist eine Sorte von Populus nigra. Italica oder Plantierensis.
Es ist nicht unbedingt nötig t und nummer in []-Klammern zu schreiben. Du kannst immer auch den ganzen Link schreiben. Aber schöner sieht es so aus, wie Bee beschrieben hat.
Dann kann ich wohl den Baum mal in der Kategorie italica lassen, weil zwei verschiedene kann ich ja nicht angeben.
Später wenn mal Blätter dran sind, kann ja vielleicht eine weitere Unterscheidung gelingen. Oder?
Ich bin so froh überhaupt die Links jetzt hinzubekommen und jetzt erzählst du von einer anderen Möglichkeit, die ich wieder nicht versehe. Wie schon oft geschrieben, bin ich einfach eine Niete in EDV. "Normale" Erklärungen verstehe ich meist nicht.
Aber trotzdem Danke für den Versuch.
Ich will ja nicht noch mehr nerven.
Was hälts Du eigentlich von meiner Meinung zu den Säulenpappeln?
Ich finde das diese separat erfasst gehören und nicht nur allgemein untere populus nigra zu finden sein sollten.
Wenn jemand eine der beiden sucht, hat er es sonst sehr schwer. Außerdem sind die beiden für mich völlig unterschiedlichen Arten und unterschiedliche Geschichte und Bedrohung, Seltenheit usw.
Würde mich freuen, wenn Du dazu auch Deine Meinung sagen würdest.
Kann ich selbst eine solche neue Art hinzufügen? Das will ich natürlich nur machen, wenn die Experten auf dieser Seite meinen Meinung teilen.
You could wait till the spring to see the leaves to determine what variety this tree is of black poplar. I personally believe this is likely Populus nigra Italica, but it is good to check and compare leaves in the spring.
You can add a new variety/species of a tree when you register a tree by clicking the "Add New Tree" button in the top right corner of the website. There it will show an option to add a new species or subspecies.
Die Cultivare (Sorten) 'Italica' und 'Plantierensis' gehören beide zur Art Populus nigra (Schwarz-Pappel), deswegen müssen sie auch in dieser Website unter Populus nigra stehen. Du hast recht, dass es schwer ist, 'Italica'-Bäume zu finden, weil die Sorte nicht in der Artenliste steht. Idealerweise wären auch die Cultivare in der Liste direkt unter P. nigra.
Keine neue Arten in die Liste hinzufügen, wenn du nicht wirklich eine neue Art hast!
'Plantierensis' ist eine Kreutzung zwischen der 'Italica' und der "normaler" Schwarzpappel. 'Italica' ist dünner als 'Plantierensis'. Es gibt unterschiedliche Meinungen, ob alle Säulenpappeln in Nord-Mitteleuropa 'Plantierensis' sind oder ob es auch 'Italica' gibt. Meiner Meinung nach kann dein Baum gern in 'Italica' bleiben. Die zwei Sorten kann man nicht mit Blattmerkmalen unterscheiden. Die Blätter sind identisch. Der Unterschied ist im Kronenform. Sonst wenn du unsichere Baumbestimmungen hast, machst du am besten Blattfotos. Im Winter findest du meinstens trockene Blätter unter dem Baum.
Mit Links meinte ich, dass du immer den kompletten Link schreiben kannst, wie du schon einmal gemacht hast. Also:
A French botanist Arnaud Dowkiw did some genetic research on this group of clones a few years ago. His type specimen of 'Plantierensis' was a small scruffy tree in the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (which I think has since died), which had a genome easily distinguishable in his tests from that of Italian trees assumed to be the original clone 'Italica'. 'Italica Foemina' was also distinguishable, though similar to 'Plantierensis'.
I sent him samples of various male 'Lombardy poplars' from England, some of them with entirely hairless foliage like 'Italica' and some with finely pubescent young growths and with extra vigour, especially in cooler areas, which I had wondered might represent the 'Plantierensis' group. However, Arnaud's tests were unable to differentiate between any of these trees and the original 'Italica'.
So, with the loss of the Edinburgh tree, 'Plantierensis' is likely to have gone extinct in the UK. I don't know what the situation is in Germany. All the fully fastigiate male trees in the UK, broad and narrow, vigorous or otherwise, glabrous or pubescent, seem best placed under 'Italica' (or Italica Group).
I don't know why I ever posted this one as an American elm, but now I had a look at the inventory of the park it seems to be an Siberian elm. (Ulmus pumila) Before I change it, I'll await any comments.
The link in the heading of this thread seems to be broken (perhaps this happens when a tree's idendity is changed after a discussion is linked to it?) but of the two elms I can see listed for this park:
20780 seems likely to be Ulmus pumila (as currently listed) from what I can see of its habit.
20835 is either Ulmus americana (as currently listed) or U. laevis. The fluted sprouty bole makes me think U. laevis is more likely, though a better distinction seems to be that the leaf-base of U. laevis is more markedly asymmetrical, and the stalk is longer (at least on the 'short' side of the leaf). Unfortunately I can't see this feature in the close-up of the leaves and fruit.
Thanks very much for your reaction. I'm sure that 20780 and 208781 are indeed Ulmus pumila. As for 20835, I'll try to make better pictures in the coming months. But it is not likely that it is Ulmus minor. The founder of the parc is Simon Doorenbos, one of the most respected dendrologists in the Netherlands. He made an effort to make a park with special trees common in some climate-area's. He cannot have placed an Ulmus minor in an area that is destined for American trees. So I'll leave it to Ulmus americana and I will have contact with the municipality of The Hague. They've made it an arboretum and are quite accurate in the conservation of trees and registration. They have a special app you can see here. Interesting!
It could of course have been that Simon sourced what he thought was Ulmus americana but was wrongly labelled - this can happen in the best curated collections. (I remember being involved in the re-identification of a tree at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew which was labelled Ulmus serotina but which turned out, in this case, to be americana.) Or, if raised from seed of genuine U. americana, the sapling could possibly have accidentally been fathered by an U. laevis that happened to stand not far away, though I can't recall references to the existence of such a hybrid. So perhaps still a subject worth investigating. Do you know Ronnie Nijboer or Hans Kaljee (who know much more about elms than I do)?
Yes I know them. I also know Leo Goudzwaard and he is an elm specialist as well. I think he's taking notice of this discussion If not I'll contact him.
Definitely not Quercus lobata as a large old tree in a rural location in northern England. This tree has probably not yet been added to the Ancient Tree Inventory for further information, though the local parish tree wardens have been busy recording in this area.
ich verstehe jetzt nicht so richtig deine Frage. Was meinst du mit auf Standort kommen? Wenn du auf eine Markierung Tippst, erscheint die Seite des Baumes. Dort ist ja dann alles ersichtlich, auch der Standort. Tippst du auf "Bearbeiten Sie die Koordinaten des Baumes" kannst du gleich den Standort anpassen.
Unlikely to be Quercus pubescens in this location - its a rare planted tree in large gardens and collections in England - though further details would be welcome.
Link to the homepage of this amazing rowan, discovered this year by David Griffith for the Ancient Tree Inventory: https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=207472&from=3523&v=1810971&ml=map&z=19&u=1&up=v&nwLat=52.00494508818588&nwLng=-3.179285189072021&seLat=52.00382229187704&seLng=-3.1758519615329583#/
(The upload photos function here isn't working for me tonight.)
KoutaR, op 2017-07-02 20:27:56, gewijzigd op 2017-07-02 20:31:52, zei:
Hello all!
It has been known for a long time, that Sorbus s.l. should be split in five genera: Sorbus s.str., Aria, Torminalis, Cormus and Chamaemespilus. New name combinations have now been published for the European taxa:
https://journal.fi/msff/article/view/64741
A problem are the species that have originated from crosses between these new genera, e.g. Swedish whitebeam. They cannot be included in any of their parental genera. Thus, in addition to the five above mentioned genera, the paper also publishes five genera for the species of hybrid origin:
Borkhausenia (Sorbus x Aria x Torminalis)
Hedlundia (Sorbus x Aria)
Karpatiosorbus (Aria x Torminalis)
Majovskya (Aria x Chamaemespilus)
Normeyera (Aria x Chamaemespilus x Sorbus)
New names for the taxa now in MT are:
Sorbus aria -> Aria edulis
Sorbus domestica -> Cormus domestica
Sorbus intermedia -> Borkhausenia intermedia
Sorbus latifolia -> Karpatiosorbus latifolia
Sorbus torminalis -> Torminalis glaberrima
Sorbus x thuringiaca -> Hedlundia x thuringiaca
Sorbus aucuparia remains the same as it is in Sorbus s.str.
Note that after the nomenclatural rules Sorbus aria cannot be Aria aria and Sorbus torminalis cannot be Torminalis torminalis, so these species need another specific names. Here is a reason for a potential dispute: Names Aria nivea and Torminalis clusii have already been used. It is argued, that Aria edulis is the right name because the species has been named as Pyrus edulis in 1809, so before Aria nivea. In the case of Torminalis, T. clusii has been published illegally (earlier synynum mentioned in the description). Here on MT, I would stay in the old names, until we see what will be the concensus of the botanic world.
Kouta
Conifers, op 2017-07-02 20:33:33, gewijzigd op 2017-07-02 20:38:29, zei:
Eeeeww!! Yukk!
I'm definitely for retaining a broad Sorbus for now!
Edit: I guess at the very least, we need to wait until new names are available for all the non-European taxa.
What would have to be lumped into Sorbus if its monophyly were to be maintained?
Dear Kouta, please let me be short at first comment: "What kind of superfluous BS and mess!!"
To explain, BS = bullshit. Whoever wants to earn kind of attention should be content to install new names for subgenera, or sections as wished. It is simply superfluous and contraproductive to enforce renamings like that, thus i prompt for not dissecting Sorbus just to cause unwished confusion.
However, not your ideas, thanks for telling to us, Kouta!
If we want to have monophyletic taxa and keep all the species of old Sorbus in one genus, we have to move them all to Pyrus. I don't remember by heart which other genera should also be moved to Pyrus, many genera in any case.
Kouta
Conifers, op 2017-07-02 21:41:40, gewijzigd op 2017-07-02 21:42:32, zei:
@ Kouta - thanks!
@ Erwin - the name you're looking for is Stercus taurinum ;-)
KoutaR, op 2017-07-02 23:47:04, gewijzigd op 2017-07-03 08:21:52, zei:
Erwin & Conifers,
It's not such a mess you would think at the first glance. Today, taxonomists try to keep taxa monophyletic (each taxon should represent an entire clade). Sorbus s.l. has repeatly been showed to be polyphyletic (pieces of several clades, even distant clades). If one wants to have monophyletic taxa, he has two possibilities: 1) to split Sorbus, or 2) lump (almost?) entire Malinae=Pyrinae to Pyrus. Choice 2 would definitely be a MUCH larger mess.
Even the nomenclature is not a big mess if we don't consider the hybrid origin genera: In the case of Aria and Cormus you only have to change the generic name Sorbus -> Aria/Cormus, apart from Sorbus aria that needs a new specific name, as do Sorbus torminalis and Sorbus chamaemespilus (C. alpina).
But I agree that the genera for the species of hybrid origin is a mess and headache and a big problem! I don't know if it is sensible to have these genera comparable to the "normal" genera as they are not monophyletic! E.g. Hedlundia now has H. mougeotii (origin: Sorbus aucuparia x Aria graeca) and could also have a species that originates from Sorbus commixta x Aria alnifolia (I don't know if such really exists) -> Hedlundia is polyphyletic!
The authors in one stage planned to give generic names from which the hybrid origin can be seen: Ariosorbus instead of Hedlundia, Tormaria instead of Karpatiosorbus, Tormariosorbus instead of Borkhausenia etc. I think that might have been more sensible. I think the authors argue, the names like Ariosorbus are based on the rules for primary hybrids, and these are established species. Maybe the main reason for these problems is that the traditional system of scientific names is not flexible enough.
Anyway as I said, we should retain a broad Sorbus until we see (these or other) new names have established.
I got a confirmation: The names like Ariosorbus are not possible because after the nomenclatural rules, if a genus of hybrid origin has become independent from its parental genera through apomixis or polyploidy, such names are forbidden.
Apart of the most unlucky taxonomic conflict between stability of established names and aim of monophyly, here is another term without essential need, yet funny!
"Kuhfladia alpina" = "Stercus taurinum p.p.!", since semi-solid excrementations of cattle got diverse appearances ;^D To explain further: "Kuh" = mature female Bos taurus, "Fladen" = solid disc, for usual kind of bread, Kuh + Fladen giving genus "Kuhfladia", epitheton "alpina" telling region where often to be found.
Simple test for age of K. alpine: when stepping into, and shoes getting sticky, it's a fresh made one, otherwise not.
All right, now we may turn back on essential taxonomy ;^D
It should be remembered that splitting genera (and lumping/spitting species) depends more on fashion than on hard scientific facts. I suspect that most users of this site will be like me: not botanists, either by training or profession, but people who work with trees as a hobby as a career. As such, I only want to re-learn new names for trees as a last resort and so as not to appear hopelessly out of the loop.
As amateurs we can't hope to have any influence on the science of nomenclature. But as patrons of a high-profile website, we DO have some influence on which trends in nomenclature go in and out of fashion.
I suspect that, like myself, most users of this site would prefer to conserve current names for trees wherever possible.
Splitting genera depends more on fashion if there are no issues with monophyly. An example is large Rhamnus vs. Rhamnus + Frangula.
But with Sorbus s.l. it is so, that Sorbus s.str. (e.g. S. aucuparia) and Sorbus domestica are more closely related to Pyrus than to the Aria group and S. torminalis. So it is not up to fashion but Sorbus MUST be split or moved to Pyrus (with many other genera). It is a different case if you don't want to retain monophyly but then you are quite alone in the botanic world.
I am quite sure Sorbus would have been split a long time ago if there were not the problem of the species originated from intergeneric hybridization. This may actually be so big problem that polyphyly is accepted in this case and broad Sorbus retained. I don't find the solution with the hybrid genera (Hedlundia etc.) particularly satisfying. We will see what is the response of the botanic world. We all agree that we on MT should retain broad Sorbus for the moment.
Kouta
Conifers, op 2017-07-03 21:22:59, gewijzigd op 2017-07-04 19:37:25, zei:
Hi Kouta - I guess for me, the main factors of the mess are (1) that they chose such cumbersome names for the hybrid genera, and (2) the sheer number of new combinations. It means for example, that at some point, some poor volunteer will have to go through the tedium of renaming 200-odd pages at all of Wikispecies, Wikidata, and Wikipedia, and then editing each of those pages to add the new combinations and move the old names into the synonyms list. Best part of a month's work, and very boringly repetitive, but can't be done by a robot editor. I would be doubtful whether it will ever get done.
I agree on 1). They are really cumbersome names, but as I wrote above, the names indicating the hybrid origin are forbidden. I think the taxonomists should develop a new syntax for these genera-hybrid-polyploid-apomictic Rosaceae as they are quite unique in the entire plant kingdom.
About 2) I don't think so. For example, every single Corymbia sp. has now a correct species page on Wikipedia. (Corymbia with 127 spp. was previously a part of Eucalyptus.) I guess there are more people interested in Sorbus than in Corymbia.
A friend of mine said, a Swedish tree book from 2015 says the correct name for Sorbus aria is now Aria nivea and for Sorbus torminalisTorminaria torminalis. In the paper by Sennikov & Kurtto they are Aria edulis and Torminalis glaberrima, and another book says Torminalis clusii. Yes, a kind of mess... We will see which names establish...
Christenhusz et al. have now made an alternative mess. Because Sorbus s.l. is not monophyletic they combine Sorbus, Malus, Pyrus, Cotoneaster, Aronia, Pyracantha and some others under expanded Pyrus.
My best congratulations to the authors of these genial suggestion to merge all those Maloideae under supergenus Pyrus!! So they found the way to cause the biggest amount of confusion basing upon probably erroneous calculations of genetic diversity by comparison of relatively tiny parts of genomes.
Are these people truly realizing what they are doing? I don't think so!
Sorbus intermedia has become a new name. In 2017 published generic name Borkhausenia is unfortunately an illegitimate near-homonym of Borckhausenia Roth 1800. Therefore Sennikov has published a new generic name Scandosorbus. Thus, Sorbus intermedia will be Scandosorbus intermedia.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/311492
The new names don't seem to be in wide use though. E.g. many taxonomical databases, which usually are well-updated, don't know the new names, not even as synonyms.
Hello Owen. I visited Busbridge Lakes a few years ago. There are some very nice trees there. It's a shame about this one. Is it still alive? On Google Streetview I was browsing the nearby area and I noticed two other tall Horse chestnuts on the edge of a field opposite the road of the entrance. I will put a link in this comment. I'm not sure how tall they are but they look a good 30-35m, possibly more, but that is unlikely. I'm not sure if you noticed these while visiting?
The link is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1671114,-0.6014646,3a,75y,123.47h,96.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siXIjRzi4YNOBzFBNx6puiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The one that used to be so tall had snapped off some time between my visits in 2000 and 2015 but the lower crown was still alive. This was a shame because it was/would have been the tallest known in the world, along with another one near Arundel which also shed its top during a similar period. It's part of a dense group supposed to have been planted in 1664 (which I doubt). All are well-sheltered but this particular one had overtopped the rest.
On the subject of trees in Surrey, I have a contact via a friend for the chair of the residents' association at Burwood Park, a private estate near Walton-on-Thames with a few notable trees including a huge Swamp Cypress. She was keen to have someone revisit and look at their trees with her but I'm taking a year off tree-measuring myself (with unreliable/unsafe public transport via London my main excuse). I could give her your details if this is an opportunity you'd be interested in. There's nothing rare on site, just good big trees. But don't worry if it's awkward for you.
Hello Owen. It's a shame about that tree in Arundel as well. Hopefully some of the other trees in the group at Busbridge Lake will reach the height of the previous tallest? As for Burwood Park, I may be interested in that.
I don't want to pass you Claire's details at Burwood Park via this publicly-accessible platform and can't work out how to use this site to send a private message (though I understand this can be done). My email: owenjohnsontrees@gmail.com.
Actually the growth-rate of this tree since 1972 suggests it was planted after 1800 and possibly as late as the other ornamentals here (i.e. after 1853 for the Giant Sequoia). (Girth was 7.05m in 2014 (at 1.5m rather than 1.3m but that shouldn't make a difference in this case; 6.57m when I last saw it myself in 2000), so I feel the figure now should be around 7.25m rather than 8.9m....)
At one of the photos the girth measurement can be seen done beneath the hight of the knees of the measurer, so that is probably around 30 cm (1 feet) above ground level and not at 1.30m height. So I understand the 8.9 m girth is probably around 30 cm height.
Aidan, op 2019-10-08 15:55:16, gewijzigd op 2019-10-08 15:57:35, zei:
The tree is growing on a slight slope, and I started measuring the girth of the tree at 1.30 metres from the bottom of the slope, but the slope does rise about 1 metre where the tree is growing on it. And as I have said in the description of the larger giant sequoia, I had managed to misplace my 50 metre long measuring tape, so I had to use a very small 1.50 metre one, and I'm not great at maths, so my measurements may be slightly off. I hope to go and visit Leith Hill Place again soon and do some accurate girth measurements on the trees then.
Jeroen Philippona, op 2019-10-09 20:42:03, gewijzigd op 2019-10-09 20:42:52, zei:
Hello Aidan,
The normal girth measurement-procedure used in the UK with trees on a slope is at 1.50 m (5 feet) above the high point around the trunk. At Monumentaltrees.com we proposed to measure at 1.30 m above the mid-slope point around the trunk (but because of the tradition in the UK and Belgium there you still can use the girth at 1.50 above the mid-slope point). We never advise to measure at 1.30 or 1.50 m above the low point around the trunk.
See at this website: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/measuringgirth/
OK. Finally got round to remeasuring it. 7.29m @ waist which is 1.30m at high slope point (Owen your estimate from before was almost bang on!). As the gates to the field we padlocked shut I probably shouldn't have gone in but I just really wanted to clear up my inaccurate measurement.
hi look i don,t really know anything in the 1970s in widnes myself and my mates found an enormous pear tree it was just off the crescent of a small hill,,visible from an (A)road from warrington to widnes (PS MAYBE ITS DEAD NOW ) i don,t know ,,anyway its on the left travelling towards widnes from warrington ,,the tree is rooted some 45 feet down the embankment in a farmers field at that time i reckon it was 70 feet in height viewing from the road making it around 115feet ,i believe it had gotten this big due to the embankment protecting its trunk
there was a garden centre called pilkingtons garden centre ie drive from the widnes side ?pass the garden centre and turn left i believe the junction you will met is the a57 warrington road travel towards widnes rainhill and if its still there on the left handside maybe its a world record TREE i don,t live in this area any more but at the time i knew it was unusual
I think I found the tree on Google StreetView: https://goo.gl/maps/Nf2a3Mh1ZmVctoJ28, though I'm not sure from this image that it isn't a crab apple. Given the situation it's much more likely to have germinated from a core thrown from a passing car than to be a truly wild pear or wild crab, which would have been a very interesting record for the area.
This area also has 3D coverage on Google Earth, showing the top of the tree is 11m above the carriageway and 15m above the field level. In Streetview it looks to be about halfway down the embankment, i.e. probably 13m tall.
Unfortunately it looks like a dangerous spot to stop and to try to find out more, nowadays!
Recentelijk is mijn oude Cornus Mas ernstig beschadigd. De boom/struik staat op de erfgrens op de rooilijn en het hoekpunt van een aangrenzend weiland.
De boom is tenminste 70 jaar oud en waarschijnlijk geplaatst bij de bouw van de woning (gemeentelijk monument) in 1937/1938.
Daarmee zou het een voor de soort bijzonder oude Cornus Mas (rode lijst soort volgens de Flora en Faunawet) zijn. De plantdatum is verrassend omdat op veel verspreidingssites gesproken wordt dat oude Cornus Massen alleen in Zuid Limburg voorkomen als inheemse soort.
De meerstammige boom/struik is 9 a 10 meter hoog, de kroondoorsnede bedraagt tevens 9 a 10 meter. Op 130cm hoogte is de doorsnede van de meervoudige stam in totaal 120cm. Op maaiveld is de doorsnede 75cm doorsnede. De omtrek van de middelste binnenstam is 55 cm op ca 130cm hoogte. Kortom een forse boom, die op pure zandgrond staat en zeer traag is gegroeid. De boom is op 12 aug 2020 door schadetaxateur van BTL Apeldoorn beoordeeld en wordt momenteel getaxeerd. De boom kan ook ouder zijn. Kadastrale meetgegevens uit 1938 hebben dat echter nog niet kunnen bevestigen, of zijn destijds niet vastgelegd.
Mijn vraag zijn er gegevens over de waardebepaling en ouderdom cq groeicurven van dergelijke oude Cornussen bekend.
Omdat de standaard waardebepaling (bij schade) van meerstemmige bomen gaat uit van de dikste binnenstam op 130 cm hoogte vanaf maaiveld. Maar die meetmethode heeft in de regel betrekking op een Cornus (struik) op stam die ver boven de grond zich vertakt. Deze zeer oude Cornus vertakt al vanaf het maaiveld. Indien de massieve onderstamdikte (doorsnede 75cm) als referentie wordt genomen zou er een geheel andere waarde uit voortkomen.
Is er iemand die meer weet hoe de standaard rekenmethode voor waardebepaling bij specifiek Cornussen moet worden geďnterpreteerd?
I looked at examples of Cornus mas with known planting dates in the UK on the Tree Register and found there were very few.
One at Eltham Palace (on a sandy soil in a warm but dry site in south-east London) was planted in 1936 and in 2003 I measured it as 9m tall, a very spreading bushy tree with trunks to 66cm girth. This makes it really quite similar to your tree, and probably endorses your idea that your tree was planted at the same time as your house.
As a general rule, a tree in an open situation and in good conditions grows 2 or 3cm in girth per year. A small-growing tree like Cornus mas might be a bit slower than this - or will decelerate to the very slow growth rate of old age sooner than a big tree would. Measuring around multiple stems at the base exaggerates the girth so isn't much use for this calculation. If there are several trunks, they compete and slow the growth of each, perhaps to 50% of what the rate would be for a single trunk.
Cornus mas isn't native in England, but has been grown in gardens since the 1600s at least. I have no evidence to suggest how long it could live here, but it's probably not very long lived. 'Old' at 100 - 150 years, perhaps.
Thank you very much for your answer and time to find all data. It will help me to inform in a case of justice to the person who demolished my property.
Thanks again.
When there is more data about this particular type of tree, the speed of growth etc please. On the internet there is very little to find.
RoelRaadsen, op 2020-08-23 15:05:01, gewijzigd op 2020-08-23 15:58:30, zei:
On https://mc06.maniscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs I found a interesting report (in Draft) of the Canadian Journal of Forest Research about the Non-lineair height-diameter models for three woody, onderstop spies in a temperate oak forest in Hungary. Manuscript ID 2015-0511.R2
One of the trees investigated was Cornus Mas during the period of 1982 - 2012.
It gives some values of the speed rate of growth in nature, and not on good soil in a greenery, which can be a basis for estimating speed of growth in real circumstances and estimating the value of the tree.
The figures in the manuscript tell me the busk does not have it's full bushy character after an numerous of years but sill grows at a limited speed of growth.
Aidan, op 2020-08-03 10:12:06, gewijzigd op 2020-08-03 15:54:40, zei:
Owen, are these trees at Peper Harow strictly private? I am planning on maybe visiting them soon. Even if they are I would still visit because I think there's a good yew in the churchyard.
Most of the best trees at Peper Harow are in various residents' gardens. The owners have been friendly each time I've visited. There are footpaths leading to the churchyard and across the wider parkland.
Have recently visited Painshawfield Park in Stocksfield to measure the Foxtail Pine for the Northumbria veteran Tree project.
Was concerned at the degree of dieback evident and noticed it had been measured in 2019 and was wondering what condition it was in at that time ? The pictures on the website where taken in 2011, when it looked in far better condition.
It's been a few years since I went to see it, and it had already deteriorated noticeably (particularly the lower crown) then compared to when I first found it.
Yes! I finally found it! The champion larch. What a beauty. While I was measuring it I unfortunately disturbed a bees nest in the bracken at the base of the tree. I got stung twice but I'm not allergic, which is good. Did you notice a nest when you visited, Owen, or have they moved in since?
Ouch! An occupational hazard, though more so for tree-surgeons and forestry workers.
Bees and wasps choose a new place to nest each summer. (If the nest was in the ground under the bracken it was probably wasps but no-one wants to linger long enough to check!)
I got stung once when measuring a birch in Wisley gardens and had quite a bad reaction, going straight to A&E and feeling faint and groggy for three days, but since then I've been stung many times (doing nature conservation work not tree surveys) with impunity - allergies are strange things.
Yes, there is the possibility that it could have been a wasp. The stings are still a bit red and itchy but most of the time I hardly notice them and they will probably bee gone tomorrow. This was the last tree I intended to measure on this visit so they did not stop me from a good days tree hunting.
eine schöne Ruine ist in Klamm die nicht begehhbar ist leider
der Baum ist jetzt nichts besonders aber ein Naturdenkmal
also habe ich ihn vermessen
es ist eine Sommerlilnde
Die Linde beim Kochhof wurde 1976 im geschätzten Alter von 60 Jahren unter Schutz gestellt. Ihre Höhe betrug zu diesem Zeitpunkt 16 m. Aktuell hat der Baum ein Alter von rund 100 Jahren.
I have just registered for this site with a view to recording a Lebanon Cedar which is not listed here, but which would appear to be the second largest in the UK at 9.12m girth. Unfortunately I cannot complete the record as some fields are greyed out. There seems nowhere the girth/height can be recorded and no place to display comments. Please advise.
Replying to Graeme Bowd's comment: if you can tell me where the tree is, I can probably add it for you as I'm assuming it's a known example. If you've found a previously unmeasured example of that size - not impossible - it would be really exciting!
Thanks for your reply. It seems hard to believe that this Lebanon Cedar tree is not widely known, however I could not find any record of it on this site.
It is situated in St Stephen's Church field, St Albans, Hertfordshire, at grid reference TL142 060. I measured its girth a few days ago as 9.12m at a height 1.5m above ground level. It is magnificent!
I have some photos but the site will not allow me to upload these, or to register the tree. When I try to do so I cannot complete the record as some fields are greyed out.
Hello Graeme, I did a bit of research on the Woodland Trust's ATI website and I think I have found the tree you describe. See here: https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=134249
I've found a couple of historic measurements of this cedar, of which David Alderman's in 2008 around the narrowest point of the trunk is the most meaningful.
A beautiful cedar which I've not actally seen myself.
da ich das Handy mit dem Programm Locus nicth dabei hatte, weiss ich die Koordinaten nicht aber er ist gut zu sehen wenn man sich durch ein bisschen Gestrüpp noch durchkämpft, man kommt etwas schwerer hin weil Gebüsche und Dornen und sonst was noch dort liegen aber es geht.
For me it is a tree of great dimensions for its species or old. It can also be monumental if it is exceptional, rare or out of the ordinary for some reason. If it is also autochthonous and has not been planted, but it has germinated naturally and it has not been pruned, it has much more value.
Jeroen Philippona, op 2020-05-03 10:18:48, gewijzigd op 2020-05-03 10:19:37, zei:
For me trees of great dimensions and of great age for its species are monumental. Indeed autochtonous, wild trees have extra value, especially when they live in a natural surrounding like a primeaval forest. But for those kind of trees I have to go to eastern Poland or farther away.
In fact trees in natural forests are not so much individual monumental trees but more part of a natural ecosystem wich has the greatest value as a whole. Alas very scarce these days in large parts of Europe.
I am working as coördinator of the 'Landelijk Register van Monumentale Bomen' = 'National Register of Monumental Trees' of the Netherlands. We have around 30.000 trees in this register, but very few are 'wild trees' in a near natural surrounding. The most natural forests in the Netherlands have been exploited for many centuries. There are some young rather natural forests in a few reserves and along the rivers, but most of them are to young to have 'monumental'trees.
So in our country 'monumental' trees nearly all are trees planted by man during the last 500 years, most of them during the last 300 years. To my opinion the most 'monumental' of these have an old cultural history, like a marcation function in the landscape or a religious function. Another group are the trees on old estates wich were planted as ornamental trees and wich are as well of autochthonous as of exotic origin. As we have very few natural treespecies in the Netherlands the non-native species have an important role in these landscapes and often reach monumental dimensions.
In the UK I consider the many very old and big oaks in deer parks, royal hunting grounds and estates as important monumental trees.
And I started thinking about the consequences of it. I cannot tell for Tim and the capacity he can run, but I can tell about the effect on me. Because so many irrelevant posts are placed I have started losing interest. And I am not happy with that. Lime trees of 2 to 3 metres is just an example. It will soon show on beeches and oaks. I didn't even check if that's the case already.
I do not see wich photo you mean, because the link https://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/nld-hollandselinde/11
gives a list of thin Tilia x europea. The first two of these I put on the list because they were exceptional tall for the Netherlands and since 2006 this website also is used as a reliable database of maximum girths and heights of trees of species, countries, regions, etc.
Perhaps you were aiming at the photo of this tree: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/nld/gelderland/barneveld/24043_voormaligepastorietuinaandekerkstraat/45044/ , wich is quite interesting because of its history and growth habit, so I can understand Alfred adding it at this website.
As you probably know small living beings can be very interesting and these days of enormous (monumental) influence on world history or at least human history.
Also some rather small trees seem to be older than the largest trees on earth.
The speed of tree growth depends on climate as well as the availability of nutrients and wather, in this case also on pruning history by man and the erosion of the soil.
Wim, in my opinion this question is a very relative and subjective matter, it would be very difficult to agree on minimum criteria. I do not particularly dislike smaller or younger trees, they will be able to grow and it will be interesting to monitor them in the future, as long as the web can host them. We must also bear in mind that there are fewer and fewer unique trees to register, so it is logical that over time they will be smaller. In addition we will always have the lists of records to search for true natural monuments.
One important role which this site fulfils is that it allows people to upload photos, stories and information about trees which are special to them - there may be all kinds of reasons why they like a particular tree, while they may get pleasure from adding, however minutely, to the total online information about trees, which are biggest and perhaps the most important objects in many people's everyday lives.
Another role of course is to provide the casual visitor with easy-to-access information about the very oldest, biggest or most beautiful trees. As more and more trees get added, the harder it becomes to spot these really exceptional ones, which I think is Wim's concern. But, for now, the various filters - different coloured icons on the maps, lists of the biggest and oldest trees, and in particular the rating system which (generally) puts the best photos on top, still seem to be working OK.
One occasion when I think that users could sometimes refrain from adding trees to this site is when another website exists which provides a better home for that tree. In the UK we have the Ancient Tree Inventory (ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk), for veteran trees, the Tree Register (treeregister.org - newly revamped website in case you haven't noticed!) for local champion trees and for rare trees of any size, and the Ancient Yew website (ancient-yew.org) for notable yew trees. It might be possible for Tim to add hyperlinks which in the appropriate instances would gently nudge contributors towards adding their records directly to those sites instead. (I mention this partly for selfish reasons as it's currently myself who trawls through the additions to Monumental Trees and forwards the records to those other sites as appropriate.) Most countries, of course, don't yet have websites equivalent to these. Perhaps some users could even be inspired to set up some equivalent sites!
Wenn man auf der Straße zur Bosruckhütte fährt geht rechts ein Wanderweg 20 Minuten ungeäfhr leicht bergauf dann etwas steiler dann leicht zur Ochsenwaldkapelle rauf, und das ist eine schöne Gegend, und da steht eine mächtige Winter Linde.
eine große Tanne gleich neben der Kapelle rüber, auf der Karte hier sieht man das nicht so gut weil da sind noch mehr Bäume dort als auf der MT Karte hier eingezeichnet.
Die Sesselbäume sind jetzt nicht dick, so 1-4 Meter im Umfang wenn man großzügig misst ja ich habe sie nicht abgemessenn, sie sind einfach ein Naturschauspiel, sie sind jetzt nicht dick aber sie sind aussergewöhnlich und darum habe ich sie hier gepostet ich denke das ist eh eine gute Idee.
Die Bäume es sind 5 wenn ich mich nicht täusche sind Föhren Arten, ich weiß jetzt leider nicht welche Föhren Art das ist.
Recently (in the thread 'Abies alba at Lismore Castle') Aubrey Fennell mentioned an Abies alba at Glenshelane in County Waterford, 49m x 149cm girth, which 'must hold some sort of record for being the skinniest tree' of such a height. This set me thinking (being of similar proportions myself, though not so tall - I mean personally, not as the representative here of The Tree Register, which just gets fatter and fatter...): how often can a tree be found more than a hundred times as tall as its trunk is thick, and what are the physical limits?
A brief interrogation of the Register brings up:
Pseudotsuga menziesii on the Inveraray estate, Argyll, 46m x 135cm girth in 1953. Presumably in a plantation, and not recorded more recently.
Abies grandis at Monzie, Perthshire, 44m x 126cm in 1953. Part of plantation which all blew down in that year, unsurprisingly perhaps.
Eucalyptus johnstonii at Castlewellan, County Down, 25m x 47cm in 1983 when aged 23. (No longer there?)
Thujopsis dolabrata at Powerscourt, County Wicklow, 22.5m x 60cm in 1980, but perhaps disqualified by having more than one trunk.
Alnus orientalis at Tatton Park, Cheshire, 20m x 44cm last year. A very young tree in a sheltered glade.
Pinus koraiensis in Gores Wood, Borde Hill, W Sussex, 18m x 41cm in 1989. Probably blown down the following year.
And there are a few other records of young trees, less than 18m tall, which are more likely to be this shape. At 49m Aubrey's fir seems the tallest such example in Britain/Ireland. (But what about Ceroxylon quindiuense in Colombia (http://www.indietraveller.co/cocora-valley-the-worlds-tallest-palm-trees/)? Or other tropical rainforest species?)
An algorhythm could probably be devised to highlight any such trees already on this site.
Not quite in this class, but I remember finding a rowan in a larch plantation, about 10-12 m tall, with a 'trunk' only 2 cm thick, growing like a liana. Needless to say it fell over when the larches were thinned and its support removed.
getting such information from the site is indeed easy.
Here is a quick extract of the 500 trees with the highest "height to girth" ratio and a girth more than 5 m.
Kind regards,
Tim
Country
Location
Tree id
Species
Girth (m)
Height (m)
Height Girth Ratio
United Kingdom
Kinnaird estate, Logierait
15793
Abies grandis
5.06
61.8
12.21343872251366
United States
Yosemite National park
24772
Pinus ponderosa
5.9
71
12.03389811056916
Germany
Kirnitzschtal
3811
Picea abies
5.03
59.3
11.78926377009435
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
15733
Pseudotsuga menziesii
5.3
61.5
11.603773167312436
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17728
Pseudotsuga menziesii
5.22
59.8
11.455939011611534
United States
historic Peter Britt Gardens
1619
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.4864
62.484
11.38888883577565
United Kingdom
Blair Castle
21075
Abies grandis
5.62
63
11.209964641081609
United Kingdom
Blair Castle
15567
Abies grandis
5.38
60
11.15241611964819
United Kingdom
Buckler's Wood, Longleat
25306
Sequoia sempervirens
5.22
57
10.919540668776017
Australia
Barrington Tops National Park
17589
Eucalyptus saligna
6
65
10.833333333333334
United Kingdom
Cragside House
11697
Pseudotsuga menziesii
5.39
58
10.760668170074991
United Kingdom
Doune of Rothiemurchus
15554
Picea sitchensis
5.4
58
10.740740551052436
Australia
Barrington Tops National Park
17779
Eucalyptus saligna
6.1
65
10.655737871509894
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8543
Abies alba
5.04
53.6
10.634920412660934
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8542
Picea abies
5.4
56
10.370370187223042
United Kingdom
Centre Parcs
25137
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.6
58
10.357143033523952
Italy
Malga Laghetto
14024
Abies alba
5.08
52.15
10.265748486042
United Kingdom
Blair Castle
8459
Abies grandis
5.77
59
10.225303326695352
United Kingdom
Centre Parcs
6875
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.6
57
10.17857160191147
United Kingdom
Buckler's Wood, Longleat
25308
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.5
55.5
10.090909090909092
France
border of the forest of Niederbonn
8216
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.2
52
10.000000366797828
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
21070
Abies procera
5.1
51
10.000000186994967
United Kingdom
Doune of Rothiemurchus
15553
Picea sitchensis
6
60
10
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Perucica Forest Reserve
8804
Abies alba
5.26
52
9.885931128762344
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Perucica Forest Reserve
8568
Abies alba
5.26
52
9.885931128762344
United Kingdom
Blair Castle
21080
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.53
54.6
9.873417070993806
Croatia
the valley of Stirovaca
26012
Abies alba
5.1
50
9.803921751955851
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Perucica Forest Reserve
8567
Picea abies
5.9
57.8
9.796609881827631
Chile
Parque National Huerquehue
25070
Araucaria araucana
5.61
54.3
9.679144018672977
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17700
Pseudotsuga menziesii
5.37
51.8
9.64618255884144
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
14513
Abies alba
5.24
50.2
9.580153235813457
United Kingdom
Big Trees Walk, Uig
14960
Abies procera
5.54
53
9.56678706948447
United Kingdom
roadside below Bank Crags
21514
Abies alba
5.25
50
9.523809523809524
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8714
Abies alba
5.14
48.4
9.41634295390979
New Zealand
Whakarewarewa forest
24049
Sequoia sempervirens
7.45
69.81
9.3704697108549
United Kingdom
Benmore botanic garden
1715
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.02
56.4
9.368771047271434
Slovakia
Hrdzava dolina
6248
Abies alba
5.2
48
9.23076956935184
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Perucica Forest Reserve
8667
Picea abies
5.34
49
9.176029700346252
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Perucica Forest Reserve
8665
Picea abies
5.34
49
9.176029700346252
Italy
Villa Besana
25875
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.41
49.62
9.17190394295864
United States
Stern Grove park
20794
Eucalyptus globulus
7.3152
66.4464
9.083333996041741
France
border of the forest of Niederbonn
8217
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.85
53.1
9.07692296406221
United States
Brummit Creek
9119
Pseudotsuga menziesii
11.12
99.76
8.971223306016682
Germany
Tannwaldweg
20822
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.29
47
8.88468815480604
United States
Founders Grove, Humboldt redwoods state park
16355
Sequoia sempervirens
12.19
105.76
8.67596437873749
Italy
Parco Burcina
25883
Sequoia sempervirens
5.42
46.94
8.660516229882663
France
border of the forest of Niederbonn
8218
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.15
44.5
8.640776539019676
United States
Muir Woods National Monument
16335
Sequoia sempervirens
8.69
74.6
8.584580215921093
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
21093
Abies procera
5.5
47
8.545454545454545
Croatia
the valley of Stirovaca
26013
Picea abies
5.3
45
8.490565732179832
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17730
Thuja plicata
5.35
45.4
8.48598174489069
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8541
Picea abies
6.71
56.2
8.375558933448172
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8540
Picea abies
6.71
56.2
8.375558933448172
United Kingdom
Benmore botanic garden
18654
Thuja plicata
5.59
46.5
8.318425533221644
United Kingdom
Shearwater Lake dam
25146
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.1
50.6
8.295081846754384
United Kingdom
Stratford Park
15261
Populus × canadensis
5.1
42
8.235294271642914
Slovakia
park
6734
Platanus × hispanica
5.31
43.5
8.192090483758037
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17695
Picea sitchensis
6.75
55
8.148148148148149
United States
Mountain House Road
22686
Pinus lambertiana
7.62
61.99
8.135170946123782
Belgium
National Botanic Garden
53
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.26
42.6
8.098858673087348
United Kingdom
Inchmarlo
15489
Abies alba
6.07
49
8.072487415859257
United Kingdom
Bryanston School
8378
Platanus × hispanica
6.19
49.67
8.02423226329484
United Kingdom
Kyloe Wood
4729
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6
48
8
Ireland
Avondale Forest Park
17749
Abies alba
6.07
48.3
7.957166041371082
Croatia
Kosinjski Bakovac
26025
Abies alba
6.3
50
7.9365076962271885
United Kingdom
Blair Castle
14955
Abies magnifica
5.18
41
7.915058177357102
Ireland
River Barrow at Borris Lock
15731
Populus × canadensis
5.43
42.7
7.86372046276916
Slovakia
park
6732
Platanus × hispanica
5.56
43.7
7.859712448322987
Belgium
castle of Enghien
1875
Platanus × hispanica
5.08
39.8
7.834645636770979
United Kingdom
Stonefield Castle
14939
Abies borisii-regis
5.5
43
7.818181818181818
United States
hill next to the visitors center in Big Basin Stat...
20927
Sequoia sempervirens
9.7536
76.2
7.81249959056029
Croatia
Gerovo
9434
Abies alba
5.25
41
7.809523809523809
Chile
Parque National Conguillio
25067
Araucaria araucana
6.57
51.19
7.7914759953140775
Slovakia
Slavkov
6151
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.18
40.3
7.7799228904580735
Poland
National Park of Białowieża
3891
Quercus robur
5.4
42
7.777777640417282
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
181
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.2
40.2
7.730769661051298
United Kingdom
Balavil estate
14943
Abies concolor
5.24
40.5
7.729007971188842
United States
Montgomery Redwoods Preserve
16437
Sequoia sempervirens
13.4112
103.632
7.727273257367631
Portugal
Palace Hotel of Bussaco
6443
Eucalyptus regnans
8.35
64.5
7.7245505453075225
Poland
National Park of Białowieża
3905
Fraxinus excelsior
5.25
40.5
7.714285714285714
Slovakia
park
6733
Platanus × hispanica
5.2
40.1
7.711538450957755
United Kingdom
Bryanston School
13646
Platanus × hispanica
6.08
46.8
7.697368392158412
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17701
Thuja plicata
5.27
40.4
7.6660344728836645
France
border of the forest of Niederbonn
8219
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.75
44
7.6521739130434785
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
19757
Thuja plicata
5.1
38.9
7.6274514222136
United States
Upper Bull Creek, Humboldt Redwoods State Park
16357
Sequoia sempervirens
14.65
111.71
7.62525610875611
United States
Redwood National Park
9104
Sequoia sempervirens
15.18
115.72
7.623188332957224
Romania
Parcul Dendrologic Simeria
13513
Populus nigra
5.04
38.2
7.579365288108987
United Kingdom
drive up to the church from the main gate
9683
Tilia × europaea
5.2
39.4
7.576923648281231
Spain
Mas Tortadčs
12869
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.35
48
7.559055231635855
Chile
Parque National Huerquehue
25163
Nothofagus dombeyi
7.46
56.3
7.5469167492183
Germany
in a park
14916
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.7
43
7.543859901557384
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8539
Acer pseudoplatanus
5.42
40.8
7.527675030026664
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
15672
Cupressus macrocarpa
5.6
42
7.500000127724241
Belgium
castle of Warfusée
619
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.34
40
7.490636490078573
United Kingdom
estate Bowood
15262
Populus × canadensis
5.48
41
7.481751798776808
Spain
río Landro
3150
Eucalyptus globulus
8.7
65
7.471264531612714
United Kingdom
Murthly Castle estate
14949
Abies grandis
7.64
57
7.460733114674782
Slovenia
Rajhenav
26305
Abies alba
6
44.7
7.450000127156575
Ireland
Derreen Gardens
15697
Eucalyptus johnstonii
5.12
38
7.421875165891837
country
location
tree_id
species
girth
height
height_girth_ratio
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
15503
Abies procera
6.1
45
7.3770492956606954
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17704
Calocedrus decurrens
5.26
38.6
7.3384024324133215
United Kingdom
Bryanston School
13647
Platanus × hispanica
6.12
44.86
7.330065596276307
Germany
August-Bebel-Strasse
4716
Tilia platyphyllos
5.27
38.6
7.324477915336702
France
l'ensemble scolaire Jean XXIII
11770
Platanus × hispanica
5.06
37
7.312253047116695
New Zealand
Hackfallas Arboretum
24048
Eucalyptus regnans
7.85
57.1
7.273885244307369
Belgium
castle of Warfusée
618
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.54
40
7.220216656214695
Montenegro
Crna poda
8713
Pinus nigra
5.61
40.4
7.201426125558785
United Kingdom
Monk Coniston
15300
Pseudotsuga menziesii
7.5
54
7.2
United Kingdom
Balmacaan
15497
Abies grandis
7.23
52
7.19225447618515
United Kingdom
Nymans Estate
13778
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.1
51
7.183098688032912
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17712
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.76
48.4
7.159763296914074
United Kingdom
Shepards Gutter
6440
Quercus robur
5.6
40
7.142857264499277
Netherlands
estate De Horte
153
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.05
36
7.128712602040787
United States
Willamette University
1550
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.604
46.9392
7.107692414332495
United Kingdom
Mount Stewart Gardens
13277
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.11
36.2
7.0841486921924774
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
20039
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.36
45
7.07547154957903
United Kingdom
Achnacarry estate
15101
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
5.8
41
7.068965284776185
Montenegro
Biogradska rijeka
8691
Ulmus glabra
5.41
38
7.024029772972622
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
21271
Thuja plicata
5.34
37.5
7.022471709448662
Poland
National Park of Białowieża
4478
Quercus robur
6.01
42.2
7.021630475177334
United Kingdom
Benmore botanic garden
1718
Sequoia sempervirens
6.42
45
7.009345711094916
United Kingdom
Royal Botanic Gardens
26027
Sequoia sempervirens
5.17
36.2
7.001934280219393
United Kingdom
Drumbuie House
15274
Populus nigra
5.5
38.5
7
United Kingdom
Ackers Memorial Grove, Leighton Hall
15797
Sequoia sempervirens
5.86
41
6.996586871306292
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
21066
Abies nordmanniana
5.02
35
6.972111580275393
Austria
Riesenfichtenweg
23250
Picea abies
5.17
36
6.96324941368399
Slovakia
park
6730
Platanus × hispanica
5.26
36.6
6.958174312076308
Singapore
Botanic Gardens
4749
Ceiba pentandra
6.2
43
6.935484084328808
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
3302
Quercus robur
5.38
37.2
6.914498135992182
United Kingdom
Boughton Park
18838
Aesculus hippocastanum
5.21
36
6.9097888169697645
Croatia
Pra?nik Special Reserve
8546
Quercus robur
5.5
38
6.909090909090909
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17721
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.25
50
6.896551724137931
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
20038
Pseudotsuga menziesii
5.16
35.5
6.879845164686253
United Kingdom
a private garden near Teignmouth
15242
Pinus nigra
5.25
36
6.857142857142857
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
718
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.01
41.2
6.855241130432492
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17725
Cupressus macrocarpa
6.07
41.6
6.853376820042997
Netherlands
castle Geldrop
240
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.5
37.6
6.836363358931108
Italy
Burcina
4312
Sequoia sempervirens
6.6
45
6.818181916701894
Netherlands
Lenshoek garden
210
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.14
35
6.809338698277198
Turkey
Ballik Village
20425
Cedrus libani
7.22
49
6.786703798325086
Germany
in a park
14324
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.6
38
6.785714401274313
Poland
forest
23128
Abies alba
5.17
35
6.769825818859435
Netherlands
castle Vaeshartelt
437
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.38
36.4
6.765799396207177
Netherlands
Apollolaan
1884
Populus nigra
5.15
34.8
6.757281280123492
Italy
Parco Burcina
25882
Sequoia sempervirens
6.37
43.02
6.7535323752973495
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
721
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.28
42.4
6.75159237409848
United States
Humboldt Redwoods State Park
16240
Sequoia sempervirens
16.39
110.64
6.7504578102380055
Portugal
Palace Hotel of Bussaco
23692
Fraxinus excelsior
6.17
41.6
6.742301127994221
Chile
Parque National Conguillio
25066
Nothofagus dombeyi
6.93
46.5
6.7099568761674515
Netherlands
estate Twickel
3782
Quercus robur
5.22
35
6.704981112406326
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
368
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.08
34
6.692913486344247
Slovakia
park
6727
Platanus × hispanica
5.48
36.6
6.678831815097169
Poland
park
4799
Populus alba
5.92
39.5
6.672297211308129
United States
Rams Horn Row
16207
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.4
42.67
6.6671871145488755
Poland
National Park of Białowieża
4233
Quercus robur
6.06
40.4
6.6666669814106685
Germany
in a park
14559
Cedrus atlantica
5.1
34
6.666666791329979
United Kingdom
Inchmarlo
15488
Abies alba
6.34
42
6.624605518795807
Netherlands
park of Rozendaal
12088
Platanus × hispanica
5.2
34.4
6.615385151473748
United Kingdom
Shepards Gutter
6444
Quercus robur
5.3
35
6.60377334725098
Austria
botanical garden of the University of Vienna
11521
Populus nigra
5.3
35
6.60377334725098
Ireland
Mount Usher
15717
Nothofagus dombeyi
5.31
35
6.5913371708398
Spain
Can Casades
12845
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.15
40.5
6.585365751539932
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
20040
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.92
45.5
6.575144436178655
United Kingdom
Broadlands
15373
Taxodium distichum
5.78
38
6.574394225023736
Slovakia
park
6956
Platanus × hispanica
5.73
37.5
6.544502596016321
United States
Redwood National and State Park
24782
Sequoia sempervirens
13.6
88.9
6.536764634728021
Slovakia
park
6716
Platanus × hispanica
5.38
35.1
6.524163146373582
Italy
Villa Toscanelli
25913
Platanus × hispanica
5.23
34.04
6.508604357817508
Australia
Lochinvar Park
26541
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6
39
6.5
Belgium
castle of Warfusée
616
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.16
40
6.493506654355598
Slovakia
park
6749
Platanus × hispanica
5.62
36.4
6.476868730800304
Slovakia
park
6747
Platanus × hispanica
5.12
33.1
6.464843596477291
Italy
private residence
25907
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.79
50.35
6.463414469920512
Italy
private residence
25908
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.79
50.34
6.462130988331017
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
182
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.1
39.4
6.459016744567007
Slovakia
park
8983
Fraxinus excelsior
5.66
36.5
6.448763424735549
Spain
Mas Joan
12866
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.9
38
6.440677861994762
Belgium
National Botanic Garden
8239
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.53
35.6
6.437612499720839
Slovakia
park
6071
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.52
35.5
6.431159442511708
Slovakia
Jasovsky klastor
6074
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.42
47.7
6.428571465293581
Poland
Władysław Reymont
22343
Populus × canadensis
5.8
37.25
6.422413581900314
Slovakia
Jasenova skala
6214
Fagus sylvatica
5.45
35
6.422018573376667
Belgium
castle of Warfusée
615
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.23
40
6.42054572673159
United Kingdom
Arley Arboretum
15241
Pinus nigra
5.14
33
6.4202336298042155
Slovakia
park
6070
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.25
33.7
6.419047764369419
Belgium
castle of Dave
696
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.92
38
6.418918836195162
Netherlands
Torckpark
1951
Platanus × hispanica
5.11
32.8
6.418786375745618
United Kingdom
estate Bowood
15263
Populus × canadensis
6.08
39
6.414473764701564
Slovakia
park
6722
Platanus × hispanica
5.02
32.2
6.414342805833333
United Kingdom
Froxfield Manor
4718
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.8
37
6.379310135041923
United Kingdom
The Grove
21450
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.2
33
6.34615407892939
Slovakia
park
6954
Fraxinus excelsior
5.05
32
6.336633424036256
Finland
Varikkoniemi
19662
Populus × petrowskiana
5.57
35.2
6.31956906249794
Poland
palace park
14157
Quercus robur
5.54
35
6.317689574187858
Poland
palace park
14158
Quercus robur
5.55
35
6.306306089579742
Italy
Villa Carlotta
25877
Calocedrus decurrens
5.53
34.86
6.303797339559177
Germany
in a park
14557
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7
44
6.285714285714286
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
282
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.59
35
6.261180508876507
Germany
in a park
14885
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.6
35
6.250000106436867
country
location
tree_id
species
girth
height
height_girth_ratio
Netherlands
Vondelpark
1885
Populus × canadensis
6.17
38.5
6.239870263198651
Finland
Varikkoniemi
19661
Populus × petrowskiana
5.68
35.4
6.232394823193729
United States
forest
24712
Sequoia sempervirens
12.4968
77.724
6.219511906619775
United States
Bancroft School on Kings Hwy.
16354
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.88
36.57
6.2193875821550675
Germany
in a park
14566
Calocedrus decurrens
6.12
38
6.209150442905372
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17715
Cedrus atlantica
5.08
31.5
6.200787494701288
Netherlands
estate Dordwijk
780
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.26
32.6
6.197718071402282
Slovakia
Kupelny ostrov
6475
Populus nigra
5.72
35.3
6.171328764310638
Italy
Villa Manin
26463
Cedrus libani
5.05
31.1
6.158415684523793
Poland
Palace of Sobański
4795
Populus × canadensis
5.36
33
6.156716264550316
Poland
small road and near Grabia river
22378
Ulmus laevis
5.72
35.2
6.153846512948922
United Kingdom
River Dee
22066
Populus nigra
5.77
35.5
6.1525130186048305
United Kingdom
Monk Coniston
15110
Cryptomeria japonica
6.1
37.5
6.1475410797172465
Chile
Parque National Huerquehue
25071
Araucaria araucana
7.32
45
6.14754083944053
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
4396
Fagus sylvatica
5.06
31
6.126482282719393
Belgium
monastery of Bethlehem
57
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.49
33.6
6.120218556453179
United Kingdom
Polecat Copse
20592
Sequoiadendron giganteum
8.5
52
6.117647058823529
Germany
in a park
14915
Cedrus atlantica
5.56
34
6.115107976602389
United States
Washington State Capitol Campus
9679
Sequoia sempervirens
6.1
37.18
6.095082112532476
United Kingdom
Doune Park
15444
Tsuga heterophylla
7.06
43
6.09065160743766
United Kingdom
Glenferness estate
14962
Abies procera
6.41
39
6.084243514568157
Italy
Camporosso
26346
Fagus sylvatica
5.26
32
6.083649925392212
Poland
Stawy Jana Park
22342
Populus × canadensis
5.82
35.4
6.082474309579552
Italy
Villa Carlotta
25876
Calocedrus decurrens
5.31
32.25
6.073446393130959
United Kingdom
Dupplin Castle estate
15486
Abies alba
6.6
40
6.060606148179461
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17707
Thuja plicata
6.28
38
6.05095521185654
Italy
Parco Cavour
25905
Platanus orientalis
6.29
38.03
6.046104771055242
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
21094
Sequoiadendron giganteum
8.52
51.5
6.044600614202046
Belgium
castle of Warfusée
614
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.62
40
6.04229617696162
Poland
palace park
14372
Quercus robur
5.3
32
6.037735631772325
United Kingdom
On Canada Road in Canada Hamlet
8377
Quercus robur
5.3
32
6.037735631772325
United States
Stout Grove in Jedediah Smith State Park
13837
Sequoia sempervirens
16.4
99
6.0365855062667455
Belgium
castle of Doyon
610
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.64
40
6.024096506672238
Belgium
castle of Wilder
1838
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.48
33
6.021897789259382
Italy
Giardini Tommasini
26436
Platanus × hispanica
5.31
31.95
6.016949361060651
United Kingdom
Rousham Park
18501
Cedrus libani
6.15
37
6.016260069308086
Netherlands
estate Voorstonden
18394
Platanus × hispanica
5.59
33.6
6.010733015555639
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
271
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.86
41.2
6.005830898115819
Poland
Park of the Klepacz bishop
22761
Populus × petrowskiana
5.15
30.9
5.999999814820525
Netherlands
town hall
466
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.47
32.8
5.996343783390044
Germany
in a park
14259
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.95
47.5
5.974842910642874
Slovakia
park
6725
Platanus × hispanica
5.71
34.1
5.971978677111767
Germany
in a park
14882
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.7
40
5.970149423688901
Poland
petrol station BP
4792
Populus alba
6.6
39.4
5.969697287150546
United Kingdom
the Knowles near Acres Down
6498
Fagus sylvatica
5.7
34
5.964912480301187
United Kingdom
Thorncombe Park
15239
Pinus nigra
5.03
30
5.964214462953878
Slovakia
park
6726
Platanus × hispanica
5.33
31.7
5.947467395252383
Slovakia
amphitheater
6238
Taxodium distichum
5.02
29.8
5.936254850654507
Germany
in a park
14917
Cedrus atlantica
5.56
33
5.935251859643496
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
19754
Pinus radiata
6.1
36.2
5.934426447359092
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
1004
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.91
41
5.93342994288995
Slovakia
school
6770
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.85
34.7
5.931624158739011
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
191
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.8
34.4
5.931034550797214
Netherlands
castle Vaeshartelt
436
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.94
35.2
5.925925997282028
Bulgaria
hut marciganica
21998
Pinus nigra
5.4
32
5.92592582127031
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
25886
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.21
36.8
5.925925766667378
Belgium
castle of Warfusée
617
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.92
35
5.912162085969228
Netherlands
Apollolaan
1883
Populus nigra
5.89
34.8
5.90831918945777
United Kingdom
Cragside House
15899
Tsuga heterophylla
7.11
42
5.907172884853352
France
l'ensemble scolaire Jean XXIII
11769
Platanus × hispanica
6.28
37
5.891719548386631
Germany
forest near the city
7128
Pinus sylvestris
5.1
30
5.88235305117351
Italy
Via Franconia
26422
Castanea sativa
5.1
30
5.88235305117351
Australia
Lake Barrine
4954
Agathis microstachya
8.5
50
5.882352941176471
United Kingdom
Huntington Park
15502
Abies procera
6.13
36
5.872756823477377
Germany
spa park of the city
8267
Quercus robur
6.17
36.2
5.867098916582711
Slovakia
Sliac - kupele
22201
Fraxinus excelsior
5.17
30.3
5.860734775613533
Slovakia
park
6735
Platanus × hispanica
5.12
30
5.85937513096724
United Kingdom
top end of the Valley of the Seven Bridges
10760
Castanea sativa
6.18
36.2
5.857605464152763
Slovakia
park
6957
Platanus × hispanica
6.3
36.9
5.857142922018659
Italy
Malga Lussari
26338
Picea abies
5.55
32.5
5.855855654609761
Belgium
Cultural Center - Library
88
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.98
35
5.852842790696636
United Kingdom
west edge of the cricket field
21435
Aesculus hippocastanum
5.4
31.6
5.8518518191469715
Australia
Barrington Tops National Park
17778
Casuarina cunninghamiana
6
35
5.833333333333333
United Kingdom
Valley of the Seven Bridges
9329
Castanea sativa
6.18
36
5.825242880253918
Netherlands
cemetery Moscowa
1022
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.7
33.2
5.824561732260778
Belgium
church
4377
Platanus orientalis
5.46
31.8
5.8241756437519925
United Kingdom
Swinside
14941
Abies cephalonica
6.02
35
5.8139535067927515
Netherlands
castle Oud Bijsterveld
16689
Fagus sylvatica
5.13
29.8
5.8089665832898785
Poland
fully neglected manor house
19160
Populus alba
6.8
39.5
5.8088233664786575
Portugal
Palace Hotel of Bussaco
23688
Araucaria bidwillii
5.2
30.2
5.8076926674363305
Germany
in a park
14258
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.75
45
5.806451612903226
United Kingdom
of Monzie Castle
15164
Larix decidua
6.03
35
5.804311572505301
United Kingdom
Doune Park
14993
Calocedrus decurrens
6.9
40
5.797101369151497
Netherlands
estate Twickel
18304
Quercus robur
5.11
29.6
5.792563524085922
Italy
Albergo Tarcentino
26462
Platanus orientalis
5.23
30.2
5.774378709904765
Italy
Fiera di Udine
24860
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.2
30
5.769230980844901
United Kingdom
Belladrum
15894
Thuja plicata
6.78
39
5.752212211377264
United Kingdom
Balavil estate
14935
Abies alba
6.45
37
5.736434278160932
Slovakia
Nova Bana
6090
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.55
31.8
5.729729395351603
United Kingdom
Compton Chamberlayne estate
15438
Tilia tomentosa
5.42
31
5.719557115061333
Belgium
castle Bleu
1054
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.8
44.6
5.717948382501152
Thailand
the Chao Phraya River
24144
Dipterocarpus alatus
6.21
35.4
5.700483302483531
Poland
Nature Reserve 'Jar Brynicy'
22817
Quercus robur
6.32
36
5.69620237692754
United States
Redwood National and State Parks
17389
Sequoia sempervirens
17.6784
100.584
5.689655138930232
Netherlands
town hall
259
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.18
35.1
5.679611561341591
Slovakia
park
6760
Platanus × hispanica
5.24
29.7
5.667939324470956
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
1003
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.92
39
5.6358380881531325
United Kingdom
estate Bowood
25803
Cedrus libani
6.75
38
5.62962962962963
Netherlands
castle Twickel
3540
Quercus robur
5.26
29.6
5.627376253510555
United Kingdom
Killerton
15170
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.68
37.5
5.6137725993514875
country
location
tree_id
species
girth
height
height_girth_ratio
United Kingdom
Longnor Hall
15272
Populus nigra
6.78
38
5.604719590572719
Belgium
castle of Doyon
609
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.14
40
5.602241001117629
Belgium
National Botanic Garden
8242
Castanea sativa
5.66
31.7
5.600706999565286
Slovakia
Dolny Lieskov
6218
Tilia cordata
5.37
30
5.586592297827701
Slovakia
Sad Janka Krala
7132
Populus alba
5.07
28.3
5.5818537039194975
Italy
Villa Reale
25906
Zelkova crenata
7.36
41.07
5.580162900786969
South Africa
Diepwalle Forest Station
7165
Afrocarpus falcatus
7
39
5.571428571428571
Germany
in a park
14302
Cedrus atlantica
5.39
30
5.5658628465905124
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
22571
Fagus sylvatica
5.39
30
5.5658628465905124
United Kingdom
Llanfachreth
25179
Pinus nigra
6.11
34
5.564647996242117
Poland
road to Bełchatów city, private property
24188
Quercus robur
5.4
30
5.555555457440915
Canada
San Juan River
4972
Pseudotsuga menziesii
13.3
73.8
5.548872330330407
Slovakia
park
7180
Juglans nigra
6.2
34.4
5.548387513572555
Poland
Rzochów district
15018
Populus alba
5.41
30
5.5452866628731226
United Kingdom
Carclew House, Perranarworthal
17941
Quercus × hispanica
6.05
33.5
5.537189908076833
Slovakia
Kamenica nad Cirochou
6528
Platanus × hispanica
5.13
28.4
5.536062180307648
Belgium
castle of Ninane
633
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.33
35
5.5292259750152395
Poland
the old Park, close to the manor house
18871
Fraxinus excelsior
5.01
27.7
5.5289420154620865
Poland
palace park
14370
Quercus robur
5.97
33
5.527638385216865
Netherlands
castle Nemelaer
4689
Platanus × hispanica
5.94
32.8
5.521885340251807
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
19741
Abies procera
5.71
31.5
5.516637441253412
Netherlands
Boekesteyn
18744
Fagus sylvatica
5.04
27.8
5.515872906244921
Poland
National Park of Białowieża
3893
Quercus robur
7.41
40.8
5.50607288491506
Poland
Lubasz forestry
18968
Fagus sylvatica
5.45
30
5.504587348608571
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
1672
Pseudotsuga menziesii
5.45
30
5.504587348608571
Netherlands
castle Hattem
256
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.36
35
5.503144538561468
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
15358
Sequoia sempervirens
8.27
45.5
5.501813480226077
France
Bayeux cathedral
3439
Platanus × hispanica
6
33
5.5
Netherlands
Huis Verwolde
3041
Taxodium distichum
5.1
28
5.490196181095277
Italy
Parco Cavour
25904
Platanus orientalis
7.66
42.05
5.489556145522237
Poland
small road
22214
Quercus robur
5.47
30
5.484460905061369
Belgium
castle of Enghien
1121
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.48
30
5.4744525356903475
Poland
National Park of Białowieża
3906
Tilia cordata
5.85
32
5.470085559259489
Slovakia
park
6757
Platanus × hispanica
5.43
29.7
5.469613573086713
United Kingdom
river Wye at Bartonsham
15267
Populus × canadensis
5.12
28
5.468750122236091
Italy
city theater
24653
Zelkova carpinifolia
7.75
42.35
5.464515932144657
Poland
neglected manor park
22433
Ulmus laevis
5.31
29
5.461393655838691
Belgium
castle of Florzé
266
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.41
35
5.460218538715012
Slovakia
Sad Janka Krala
12587
Populus nigra
6.09
33.2
5.4515599230045035
Poland
forest, near main road
22851
Quercus petraea
5.87
32
5.451448147166734
Luxembourg
left of the main road on the northern edge of
11531
Quercus petraea
5.49
29.8
5.428051089151702
Italy
Giardini Tommasini
26435
Platanus × hispanica
5.2
28.2
5.423077268713337
Germany
in a park
14303
Cedrus atlantica
5.72
31
5.419580618369452
Netherlands
Huis Verwolde
3134
Tilia platyphyllos
5.26
28.5
5.418250714802439
Romania
Parcul Dendrologic Simeria
13514
Quercus robur
5.1
27.6
5.411764881877616
United Kingdom
Beauport Park
16813
Quercus castaneifolia
5.36
29
5.4104476264230055
Netherlands
estate Dordwijk
8609
Platanus × hispanica
5.92
32
5.4054053357432945
United Kingdom
policies of Fairburn
15226
Picea sitchensis
8.7
47
5.4022989690122705
New Zealand
Cascade Kauri Regional Park
24047
Agathis australis
9.7
52.4
5.40206211920005
United Kingdom
Boconnoc estate
15108
Cryptomeria japonica
5.75
31
5.391304347826087
Netherlands
estate De Wamberg
214
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.42
29.2
5.387453939466667
Poland
manor house
18950
Populus × canadensis
5.68
30.6
5.387324173638242
Poland
River
22134
Populus nigra
6.07
32.7
5.387149890967691
Italy
Malga Lussari
26347
Larix decidua
5.05
27.2
5.386138561507931
Italy
Borgo di Sopra
24857
Quercus robur
6.5
35
5.384615384615385
United States
Basking Ridge Presbyterian Church
25487
Quercus alba
5.49
29.56
5.384335282025305
Slovakia
Sad Janka Krala
12554
Platanus × hispanica
6.3
33.9
5.380952460245028
Poland
Park
22977
Aesculus hippocastanum
5.39
29
5.380334085037496
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17710
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
5.32
28.6
5.3759397478625015
Germany
Nells Park
24631
Populus nigra
5.21
28
5.374280190976484
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
19758
Sequoiadendron giganteum
8.2
44
5.365853783348218
Belgium
Parc Léopold
4033
Platanus orientalis
6.21
33.3
5.362318684783305
Italy
Agriturism La Mela
6036
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.16
33
5.357142989843369
United Kingdom
Kilravock Castle
15225
Picea sitchensis
8.31
44.5
5.354993712750327
United Kingdom
Castle Leod
15893
Sequoiadendron giganteum
9.9
53
5.353535559819369
United Kingdom
Conyngham Hall
6376
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.28
33.6
5.350318049614601
Slovakia
church
22246
Tilia platyphyllos
5.72
30.6
5.349650612564877
Slovakia
park
6947
Platanus × hispanica
7.46
39.9
5.348525646360435
Ireland
Ballynestragh estate
15698
Eucalyptus johnstonii
6.92
37
5.346820750299126
United States
Willamette Mission State Park
23315
Populus trichocarpa
8.84
47.26
5.346153564001686
Netherlands
estate Eikenhorst
241
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.55
35
5.3435112947795576
Poland
manor house, currrently primary school
18953
Tilia cordata
5.25
28
5.333333333333333
Poland
supermarket
16290
Quercus robur
5.27
28
5.313092998356586
Slovakia
Kupelny ostrov
6488
Platanus × hispanica
5.16
27.4
5.310077602477484
Slovakia
river Turiec
24383
Populus × canescens
6.97
37
5.308465009147817
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
18029
Fagus sylvatica
5.2
27.6
5.307692575736874
Slovakia
school
6155
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.44
28.8
5.294117451126603
Slovakia
park
6729
Platanus × hispanica
5.22
27.6
5.287356607433197
Poland
palace park
22564
Quercus robur
5.5
29
5.2727272727272725
United Kingdom
Haldon Grange
15255
Pinus wallichiana
5.69
30
5.272407679843658
Italy
Parco Marenzi
4847
Fagus sylvatica
6.64
35
5.271084443338208
Germany
in a park
14570
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.64
35
5.271084443338208
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
179
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.8
35.8
5.264705622484947
United Kingdom
On the Right Coming into Romsey Maidstone
8213
Quercus robur
5.7
30
5.263158070853988
United Kingdom
Altyre estate
15895
Thuja plicata
6.65
35
5.263157819258069
United Kingdom
Heywood Walk in Eggesford Forest
15297
Pseudotsuga menziesii
7.8
41
5.256410127874274
United Kingdom
Amat Lodge estate
14961
Abies procera
6.67
35
5.247376251822633
Netherlands
Boekesteyn
18745
Fagus sylvatica
5.07
26.6
5.2465482210729855
Poland
manor house
22105
Quercus robur
6.01
31.5
5.2412643594625274
Italy
Ducal garden
25943
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.28
32.91
5.24044566049727
Belgium
monastery of Bethlehem
1663
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.65
29.6
5.2389380321850725
Slovakia
park
6728
Platanus × hispanica
6.82
35.7
5.2346040856833005
Netherlands
estate Hilverbeek
1923
Tilia × europaea
5.74
30
5.226481044642261
United Kingdom
Ardanaiseig Hotel
15301
Pseudotsuga menziesii
7.08
37
5.2259887568801275
Slovakia
park
6762
Platanus × hispanica
5.13
26.8
5.224171274698166
Chile
Parque National Huerquehue
25165
Prumnopitys andinus
5.36
28
5.223880466891178
Slovakia
park
8898
Quercus pedunculiflora
6.27
32.7
5.21531114233072
Slovakia
park
6958
Platanus × hispanica
6.41
33.4
5.210608786420392
Chile
Parque National Conguillio
25064
Populus nigra
6.07
31.6
5.205930722868614
Poland
new owners, next to the old manor close to Kobylan...
18836
Tilia platyphyllos
6.35
33
5.19685047174965
country
location
tree_id
species
girth
height
height_girth_ratio
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
3654
Quercus robur
5.85
30.4
5.196581216088013
Canada
San Juan River
4099
Picea sitchensis
11.65
60.48
5.191416439708544
Poland
forest
23158
Quercus robur
7.32
38
5.191256708860892
United Kingdom
Taymouth Castle estate
21068
Sequoia sempervirens
8.2
42.5
5.182926949824983
Poland
nursing home, former manor park
22514
Populus × canescens
5.48
28.4
5.182481664175598
Poland
Białowieża Forest, outside the National ...
4232
Quercus robur
7.17
37.1
5.174337249560738
Netherlands
Huis Verwolde
1659
Quercus robur
5.03
26
5.168985867893361
Poland
freedom
19109
Tilia tomentosa
5.03
26
5.168985867893361
United Kingdom
Beauport Park
19446
Sequoiadendron giganteum
8.9
46
5.168539547375435
Poland
garden, behind a fire department
22474
Fraxinus excelsior
5.33
27.5
5.1594747455228305
Netherlands
apartement complex Beukenhorst
174
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.82
30
5.154639023221232
Slovakia
Kupelny ostrov
6476
Populus nigra
6.33
32.6
5.150078809959072
United States
Trees of Mystery tourist attraction
16333
Sequoia sempervirens
17.7
91.13
5.148587193523032
United Kingdom
a private garden in the centre of Marlborough
15264
Populus × canadensis
6.8
35
5.147058679158304
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
22219
Castanea sativa
6.42
33
5.140186854802939
United States
West Virginia State Route 62
19654
Quercus velutina
5.84
30
5.136986167150362
United Kingdom
Forge Valley, East Ayton
15599
Aesculus hippocastanum
6.62
34
5.135951750417377
United States
main trail of Henry Cowell Redwoods
20771
Sequoia sempervirens
15.8496
81.3816
5.134615400815066
France
Bouxwiller
11635
Quercus robur
6.35
32.6
5.1338581045234575
Poland
Planty, near Jagiellonian University
22915
Platanus × hispanica
6.04
31
5.1324503635409675
Netherlands
Castle Oosterhof
4668
Tilia × europaea
5.11
26.2
5.127201580897101
Poland
woods, near buildings
22807
Fagus sylvatica
6.05
31
5.123966780608413
Netherlands
Boekesteyn
18746
Fagus sylvatica
5.31
27.2
5.122410745018107
United Kingdom
Gosford Forest Park
19749
Quercus × hispanica
5.18
26.5
5.1158302853649555
Poland
Dendrological Garden
22845
Ulmus laevis
6.07
31
5.10708387533953
United Kingdom
Taplow House Hotel
15812
Liriodendron tulipifera
7.06
36
5.099150182971064
United States
Old Oak Campground
19655
Quercus macrocarpa
6.76
34.44
5.094674180566657
United Kingdom
the Knowles near Acres Down
6472
Fagus sylvatica
5.3
27
5.094339439307899
Poland
field road
18847
Quercus robur
5.4
27.5
5.092592502654172
United Kingdom
the river Brett
15266
Populus × canadensis
7.66
39
5.091383913431271
United Kingdom
Muirward Wood, Scone
15252
Pinus sylvestris
6.09
31
5.0903118593234895
Czech Republic
Chabane
24363
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.59
33.5
5.083459669852141
Poland
road
22771
Populus alba
6.56
33.3
5.076219440171365
Poland
nursing home, former manor park
22513
Fraxinus excelsior
6.19
31.4
5.072697791319577
Belgium
castle of Verdenne
274
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.9
35
5.07246369800756
Poland
palace park
15525
Quercus robur
5.92
30
5.0675675022593385
Netherlands
castle Oud Bijsterveld
12580
Fagus sylvatica
5.96
30.2
5.067114189537649
Croatia
forest
8557
Quercus robur
7.82
39.6
5.06393831263919
Netherlands
castle Nemelaer
4688
Fagus sylvatica
5.97
30.2
5.0586267712364466
United States
South Garden Way
1570
Sequoiadendron giganteum
8.3787
42.3672
5.056535936107112
United States
Giant Sequoia Heritage Tree Site
1547
Sequoiadendron giganteum
9.0424
45.72
5.056179708919677
Netherlands
Voorsterklei, corner Hoenstraat
3768
Populus nigra
5.15
26
5.048543595831721
Germany
Alter Postweg
4286
Populus nigra
5.15
26
5.048543595831721
Belgium
Royal Museum for Central Africa
50
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.66
33.6
5.0450449315216
Netherlands
royal estate Het Loo
1005
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.95
35
5.035971361228102
Belgium
monastery of Bethlehem
56
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.66
28.5
5.035335824793511
Poland
church of St. Nicholas and St. Joseph
16776
Quercus robur
5.97
30
5.025125804742605
Poland
manor house and in vicinity of this place
19019
Quercus robur
5.78
29
5.017300855939167
United States
Redwood National and State Parks
17141
Sequoia sempervirens
18.288
91.7448
5.016666459814736
Slovakia
Grinava
24273
Populus nigra
7.36
36.9
5.013587072893046
Slovakia
Sad Janka Krala
6549
Platanus × hispanica
7.4
37.1
5.0135132427020555
Ireland
Caher House
15669
Cryptomeria japonica
5.99
30
5.0083474367812615
Germany
in a park
14926
Metasequoia glyptostroboides
6
30
5
Bulgaria
monastery St.Georgy
23384
Platanus orientalis
6
30
5
Austria
botanical garden of the University of Vienna
11520
Platanus orientalis
6
30
5
Chile
Parque National Conguillio
25063
Araucaria araucana
6.21
31
4.99194843954465
United Kingdom
Mount Stewart Gardens
13275
Cedrus atlantica
6.17
30.8
4.991896086905851
Poland
Rzochów district
15017
Populus alba
5.61
28
4.991087225243843
Slovakia
manor
6153
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.41
26.9
4.972273637197601
Netherlands
estate Rhederoord
13772
Quercus robur
5.23
26
4.971319293533386
Slovakia
park
14271
Salix alba
5.4
26.8
4.962962734028803
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
17714
Cedrus atlantica
6.06
30.04
4.957095907454562
United Kingdom
Royal Holloway College
15307
Quercus canariensis
5.65
28
4.955752128740292
Poland
old park, near house
19111
Juglans nigra
5.45
27
4.954128613747715
United Kingdom
185 Fairview Road
18935
Ulmus glabra
5.05
25
4.950494862528324
Italy
forest
24779
Larix decidua
7.12
35.2
4.943820411336349
Netherlands
Boekesteyn
3297
Quercus robur
5.48
27
4.927007282121313
Poland
Adam Mickiewicz street
23007
Ulmus glabra
5.28
26
4.924242228570618
Poland
manor house, currrently primary school
18951
Ulmus laevis
5.89
29
4.923599432490907
Ireland
Powerscourt House & Gardens
13458
Sequoiadendron giganteum
7.15
35.2
4.923076964117238
Netherlands
castle Neubourg
3642
Fagus sylvatica
6.1
30
4.918032863773798
Italy
Via Pedrade
24863
Quercus robur
5.7
28
4.91228086613039
Belgium
estate of Mariemont
272
Sequoiadendron giganteum
5.7
28
4.91228086613039
Poland
bridge over the Ner river
22071
Populus × canadensis
6.82
33.4
4.897360804280235
Netherlands
park Hartenstein
184
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.54
32
4.8929663893963085
Netherlands
vicarage garden
431
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.18
30.2
4.88673165077711
Ukraine
Alexandriya Park
6433
Quercus robur
6.14
30
4.885993591588033
Slovakia
park
6527
Platanus × hispanica
6.12
29.9
4.885620944059676
United Kingdom
Sidbury Manor
15125
Eucalyptus gunnii
5.33
26
4.878048850312494
Slovakia
park
6251
Platanus × hispanica
8.41
41
4.875148721033134
United Kingdom
Mount Stewart Gardens
13232
Pinus radiata
5.71
27.8
4.868651322475698
Poland
main road and Park
22385
Ulmus laevis
5.92
28.8
4.864864673294059
Latvia
Zalmuiza
24709
Tilia cordata
5.14
25
4.863813355912285
Italy
Ducal garden
25485
Cedrus libani
5.94
28.88
4.861952673832229
Poland
Warsaw University of Life Sciences park
13686
Juglans nigra
5.15
25
4.8543688421458855
Belgium
Park of Woluwe
116
Sequoiadendron giganteum
6.8
33
4.852941040349258
Netherlands
Hof te Dieren
4997
Populus × canadensis
6.72
32.6
4.85119040058651
Germany
in a park
14567
Thuja plicata
7.84
38
4.846938681175491
Poland
meadow, behind the village
23112
Quercus robur
7.43
36
4.845222184621469
United Kingdom
Marble Hill House
15811
Juglans nigra
5.78
28
4.844290481596437
Belgium
castle of Enghien
1646
Quercus robur
7.04
34
4.82954548071485
United States
the Lincoln Valley road
22960
Pinus monticola
6.17
29.74
4.820097148034674
Slovakia
Lubovnianske kupele
10359
Pinus strobus
6.35
30.6
4.818897770241832
Bulgaria
south of the village
23388
Fagus sylvatica
5.4
26
4.814814729782127
Slovakia
park
6724
Platanus × hispanica
5.8
27.9
4.810344603625837
United Kingdom
Castle Kennedy
9309
Cupressus macrocarpa
6.03
29
4.809286731504392
United States
the Lincoln Valley road
22961
Abies magnifica
6.47
31.11
4.80834646355221
United Kingdom
Bourne Rivulet river
3484
Aesculus hippocastanum
7.03
33.8
4.8079656085788365
Netherlands
Velserbeek
1895
Fagus sylvatica
5.2
25
4.807692484037417
United Kingdom
Ferry Farm
15449
Ulmus laevis
5.62
27
4.8042705604635465
Jeroen Philippona, op 2016-10-03 19:48:15, gewijzigd op 2016-10-03 19:49:46, zei:
Hi Tim,
A nice table but as Owen surched for the skinniest trees I don't understand wy you choose a minimum girth of 5 metre, as the skinniest trees have a lesser girth. I hope you can also generate such a table without minimum girth.
Owen's examples have a height - girth ratio of over 30 and sometimes over 50!
The original list was without that 5 m threshold and contained mostly small trees (1 m girth or less, order of magnitude), but with bigger ratios, yes.
I thought people would be more interested in bigger trees. Apparently that is not the case :) I'll put that list online when I'm at my laptop and not on my phone.
I really appreciate the list with the bigger (5 m+ girth) trees. I think a list of trees 10 cm girth and 5 m height is not what people are most interested in, but with 1 m girth and 50 m height for sure many will be, because that needs a lot more strength and gives an idea how fast some trees are able to compete for height.
What has surprised me is how many different species, with differing timber qualities and from very different habitats, can come under the 'very skinny' category.
I still suspect that the palm Ceroxylon quindiuense will hold the record for girth:diameter ratio (at least for a tree that is also very tall), though I'm reluctant to post trees on this site which I've not seen myself. I was hoping that RedRob would leap into action and provide a precise calculation of the size of the tree by the horse at http://www.indietraveller.co/cocora-valley-the-worlds-tallest-palm-trees/, based on the height of the average Colombian horse, but doing the best I can the girth is very close to 1m and the height to 45m. Wikipedia cites a top height for the species of over 60m, and if like most palms the trunk thickness is more or less constant, this would give a height:diameter ratio of very nearly 100. It's interesting that the structure of a palm trunk, built from the bottom up, can potentially be stronger than the structure of a Dicotyledon or conifer trunk, with a laminar structure built from the inside out.
Giant Sequoia certainly shouldn't come into this category. The skinniest tall one I've seen was in the deep shelter of Diana's Grove at Blair Atholl in Perthshire and was about 53m x 4m in 2007 and growing fast, but it snapped in half a few years later.
Would have thought skinniest tree would be Douglas Fir at 50m+. Trees at Reelig Glen In Scotland would surely be a prime candidate? Sadly very underthinned in the past.
As the great Al Carder quotes in his book "It is one of the few species whose wood possesses special cell wall thickening tissue arranged spirally imparting great strength".
Trees in the past on the Pacific Coast have been found to be 100m tall and 1.4m thick, also a tree has been quoted after felling 221' tall and 2' thick at the stump.
Eucalyptus regnans would surely also be a contender but not in Europe, Yet!?
Hi Tim - thanks for that pic, that's not even a diameter / girth confusion, as that looks to be more than 38 cm diameter, more like 50 cm diameter at least, maybe 60 cm.
For information, the tallest Ceroxylon quindiuense is 59,2 m in La Carbonera (Tochecito, Colombia) ; I found a photo of this tree recently. Can you confirm ?
For information too, I hold a table of mine of the >50 m world, european and french records by species...
I'd agree that on balance it looks more like Cedrus atlantica.
But it's also a very big and presumably quite old tree. Cedrus atlantica wasn't introduced to England until the late 1830s - but perhaps earlier to France?
1841 to Britain according to Mitchell - though what it was called then, I don't know; it wasn't named until 1848 (as Pinus atlantica, by Endlicher). I'm not aware that it arrived in France any earlier.
Les premiers cčdres de l'Atlas ont été plantés en France entre 1750 et 1800. Par ailleurs, il faut savoir 2 choses :
1) la forma glauca est trčs rare dans la nature et en culture chez le cčdre du Liban ;
2) par méconnaissance et par orgueil, beaucoup de villes en France ont baptisé ''cčdre du Liban'' les cčdres de l'Atlas qui ornent leurs parcs ; ''cčdre du Liban'' fait plus riche, plus prestigieux, et cela fait référence ŕ la culture biblique... A Pau, c'est le cas au Parc Lawrance : un cčdre de l'Atlas a été baptisé ''cčdre du Liban'', et on a abattu le 10 mars dernier un grand cčdre du Liban que tout le monde prenait pour un cčdre de l'Atlas (LOL !)
PS : en théorie, l'introduction du cedrus atlantica en France date de 1839. Mais il est évident que certains de ces arbres inscrits dans notre site sont bien plus vieux. Je pense qu'ils ont été plantés en tant que ''cedrus libani'' avant que la sous-espčce ''atlantica'' soit définie, en 1841.
(Je pense par exemple ŕ JL Marie Poiret, botaniste français au Maroc entre 1785 et 1795, et plus encore ŕ Broussonnet, qui en 1795 ramena ŕ Paris une remarquable collection de plantes et de graines, comme probables introducteurs)
OK, that's evident. In fact, I trust too much upon my ''Encyclopédie Delachaux des Arbres d'Europe'', of Owen Johnson and David More, which qualify as ''rare'' the forma glauca. In reality, I should probably understand ''rare in Europe''...
However, I think that the cedar of Publier is an Atlas one, especially since there are other blue atlanticas in this same park. The best would be to get pics and precise measures of the leaves...
Wim Brinkerink, op 2020-03-15 19:50:15, gewijzigd op 2020-03-15 19:51:39, zei:
I just have one detailed pic. Unfortunately there are no specific gps coördinates on it. And also the the range of the pics is'nt decisive. So to my regret I cannot definitely reconstruct to which tree it belongs....
I'm not convinced there is any morphological feature by which Atlas Cedar can be distinguished from Lebanon Cedar - the claims made in various books are based on incomplete sampling of a small number of cultivated trees, not whole wild populations. That's why I personally prefer Cedrus libani subsp. atlantica for the former. You'd need to do a DNA test to be sure of its origin.
As to the size of this tree, a girth of 6.7 m can be reached by a tree dating from the 1840s; some Atlas Cedars in Britain are that size (or even larger), and none is older than 1841.
For information, I read today an information from our friend ''Castor Masqué'' (in a web page about the monumental trees of the forest of Meudon), where it seems that the first introductions of Cedrus Libani in France, due to Jussieu, can be dated from 1760-65.
In fact, the date of the first french introduction of Cedrus libani is 1734 : https://www.pariszigzag.fr/secret/histoire-insolite-paris/la-fascinante-histoire-de-larbre-de-300-ans-du-jardin-des-plantes
This tree is still alive today, in the Jardin des Plantes (Paris). The seed was brought from Kew by Jussieu. Excepted this tree, the oldest Cedrus libani in France seem to be around 30 years younger.
I have 2 Ulmus Pumila (Siberian Elm) trees in my back yard. The small one is a large tree size and taller than the record posted, but I haven't measured it yet.
About 2m+ dbh and over 25m tall. Actually, a pretty good looking tree.
My giant is well, monumental! It is over 40m tall! 45 actually! I'll post some photos this weekend, but
is there any documentation of other Ulmus getting this tall?? Even anecdotal?
I see it's not been listed for height, possibly because I don't own a Nikon Foresty, but I did use my Leica laser rangefinder.
It really is that tall.
John in BOI
Jeroen Philippona, op 2020-01-17 17:57:14, gewijzigd op 2020-01-19 11:12:00, zei:
Hi John,
Nice you measured such tall Ulmus pumila! If they were really measured by laser with the Sine method (also called 2 point method) you can change your measurement method. The webmaster Tim wrote for this method 'for example Nikon Forestry laser rangefinder' because most European treeheight measurers use this comparably cheap laser but the Leica laser rangefinder is probably comparable if used with the Sine method. Then you can put the same measurement method in the system here.
About the tallest Ulmus: in Europe at this site Ulmus glabra is reported up to 44 m, other species only to 36 m.
In the USA you should ask Robert Leverett of the NTS about the recent record heights. In a ENTS list of 2010 Slippery elm was reported laser measured up to 43 m, American elm to 42 m.
In Costa Rica and Panama there have been reported much taller Elm species, far over 50 m tall, perhaps even 60 m or more.
I strongly doubt the measurement is a 2-point/sine measurement. You don't get any reflection from tree top with Leica's visible weak laser beam. I remember well as we tried to measure with Karlheinz' Disto. It was next to impossible to get a distance measurement from tree top. Thus, only the angle has very probably been measured to the top and the measurement is consequently a tangent measurement.
It seems also very unlikely that an Ulmus pumila tree would be so much taller than all the other U. pumila trees.
The tallest Ulmus mexicana, Bart Bouricius measured in Costa Rica, was at least 58.5 m. "At least" because he measured using a straight up shot, so it is possible that he has missed a still higher twig.
http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=8000
Regards
Kouta
JohnW, op 2020-01-22 16:22:13, gewijzigd op 2020-01-22 16:38:06, zei:
Jeroen & KoutaR;
Thanks for the info! I'll certainly look up Robert Leverett and NTS regarding this tree.
I'm also working on getting a better measurement w/my Disto.
Yes, it's too weak to hit the top, but measuring the distance to the trunk
while sighting the top at 45 degrees with a clinometer, and adding the instrument height, (tangent method?)
Fortunately, Boise has 3D coverage on Google Earth. Assuming the correct tree is marked on this map (it's the tallest tree in the near neighbourhood), this elm is 104 feet (31.7m) tall. In my experience the data is quite precise, as good as you can get with the sine method with a laser from the ground. This does show the limitations of the tangent method!
84 m for Ulmus mexicana is very likely way too much. In the same series as 150 m for Eucalyptus regnans. However, there is a very reliable report of 58.5-metre Ulmus mexicana:
http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=8000
And that was a MINIMUM height, the real height being probably slightly more. Or course, about 60 m, too, is for an Ulmus very much as the tallest Ulmus in Europe in our database is 44 m and the tallest in eastern North America is 43.4 m (a few years old data http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=7554#p36604).
The correct spelling of this tree genus is "Corynocarpus". The karaka is a New Zealand native, and there are numerous larger specimens to be found there.
Corrected (though I don't seem to be able to delete the original 'Carynocarpus laevigata', just to mark it as a synonym to the emended name).
A tree planted in 1856 at Tresco Abbey (UK) was killed to the base by 7 degrees of frost in 1987 but has regrown. The curator estimated its original height as 25m, but I'm a bit sceptical since after 30 years the regeneration was still only 4m tall. There are a few other young trees on Tresco up to 7m tall, and I also spotted a young one at the Polreath Tea Rooms on the adjacent island of St Martin's on my last visit to the Scillies in 2016. Tom Hudson has tried it one the mainland (Tregrehan, a very mild garden) but it wasn't happy.
Jeroen Philippona, op 2020-01-17 13:06:02, gewijzigd op 2020-01-21 19:55:55, zei:
Hi Mr. Moris,
Interesting you found by far the tallest Douglas fir in Europe, even taller than the tallest Eucalyptus in Portugal! Could you give information about your measurement method? I am interested in the type of laser you have used.
Yes indeed, as the current tallest Pinus strobus in the USA is only 57.55 m (perhaps recently a bit heigher) a tree of over 61 m should be verified by independent measurers, what I propose also for the 75 m Douglas fir.
Jeroen, you already know my opinion but I want to say this here on MT.
No independent verification is needed. The tallest P. strobus in the world in Ukraine and a 8 m taller Pseudotsuga than anywhere in Europe are of course pure fake. Europe's tallest Douglas-firs are in western Europe in oceanic climate. By far the tallest one in continental Ukraine... impossible!
If a layman reports a 150-metre redwood in California, do M. Taylor & Co. go to make a verification? No, because they immediately see it cannot be true. I went to check the reported 62-metre fir in Romania because I supposed it could be a record tree even if slightly lower (in reality, it was 10 m lower). But I and nobody else uses his time to verify the world's tallest P. strobus in Ukraine.
All the measurements by moris3 should be changed to "Measurement method unknown". Don't let him destroy the credibility of MT! A Ukrainian Douglas-fir leading "The tallest trees in Europe" list and the world's tallest P. strobus do destroy it!
I certainly would like to see more pictures; one or more of the tree where you can see the complete tree and one of the measurer using the Nikon laser.
We are thinking your measurements cannot be correct because the tallest Pinus strobus in its native area (eastern North America) has been only 57.5 m. This tree is called "Boogerman Pine".
http://ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2696
Could you please post a photo of one of the same men as in other photos holding Nikon Forestry Pro/550 laser as a proof that you really have such?
Unfortunately I can't take a picture because it wasn't my laser, I took it from a friend for two weeks to measure these trees. I already sent him a laser 2 days ago.
One at least of the photos of the supposed 61m Pinus strobus seems to show a strongly leaning tree. If the tangent option on the Nikon (instead of the sine option) was used by the foresters who measured this tree (and foresters are used to using this method for ordinary, straight plantation trees), there could easily have been an error of 15m. There is no reason for one Pinus strobus in this area to be 12m taller than the other (straighter looking) trees; 48m - 49m for these trees seems credible from the other photos - although, if the tangent method was used for these measurements too, they are likely to be a bit exaggerated.
From the photos, the Douglas Fir looks difficult to measure because of the other trees surrounding it. I know from experience how easy it can be to measure the bottom of one tree and the top of another and, using the tangent measurement, this can greatly exaggerate the real height.
The difference between tangent and sine methods is critical, but many users for whom English is their first language seem to struggle with the concepts here and their explanations on this site.
With a group of experienced measurers at this website we think the Douglas Fir of 75.2 m height and the Pinus strobus of 61.3 m in Ukraine are very suspect of being the result of a mismeasurement.
We think it is very strange and unlikely that in this very continental area with low winter temperatures, a record height for Douglas of over 7 meters taller than anywere else in Europe has been found. We simply think this cannot be true, as in its native area, the NorthWestern Pacific Coast, by far the tallest trees grow rather near the coast with mild winters and wet conditions.
The tallest Pinus strobus is also very much taller than at any other location in Europe and even 4 m taller than the tallest of its species in its native area in the USA. This seems to be also very improbable.
So we decided to change the measurement method to the Tangent method, while we think this can only be explained by having made mistakes because of using the 3 point method, until the measurers from Ukraine somehow prove that they really used a laser and the sine method.
We like to have the record list on MT, which also is used by the European Champion Tree Forum (ECTF), as a reliable list of records for trees, at least in Europe but if possible also world wide.
With a group of experienced measurers at this website we think the Douglas Fir of 75.2 m height and the Pinus strobus of 61.3 m in Ukraine are very suspect of being the result of a mismeasurement.
We think it is very strange and unlikely that in this very continental area with low winter temperatures, a record height for Douglas of over 7 meters taller than anywere else in Europe has been found. We simply think this cannot be true, as in its native area, the NorthWestern Pacific Coast, by far the tallest trees grow rather near the coast with mild winters and wet conditions.
The tallest Pinus strobus is also very much taller than at any other location in Europe and even 4 m taller than the tallest of its species in its native area in the USA. This seems to be also very improbable.
So we decided to change the measurement method to the Tangent method, while we think this can only be explained by having made mistakes because of using the 3 point method, until the measurers from Ukraine somehow prove that they really used a laser and the sine method.
We like to have the record list on MT, which also is used by the European Champion Tree Forum (ECTF), as a reliable list of records for trees, at least in Europe but if possible also world wide.
Thanks Tim, Jeroen, Kouta - I agree with your decision; particularly for the Douglas-fir where the points made about its need for a mild oceanic climate are particularly strong. I'd agree these trees are tall, but not exceptional - if I were to hazard a guess, my predictions for remeasurement would be around 40 m, perhaps 45 m, for the tallest of these Eastern White Pines, and perhaps 50 m for the tallest of the Douglas-firs.
The white pine was measured not by a laser, but by a direct fall of the tape, it is written on the information plate near the tree,and white pine (strobus) grows very well and fast. I have a white pine tree in my garden and it grows to 1 meter a year.
The information board at the bottom of 'Stratospheric Giant' which Moris has photographed doesn't actually say anything about the tree being climbed. I don't speak Russian, but my guess it that it simply gives its dimensions and age and says that it's a Weymouth Pine and the tallest pine in Europe. If the information board which Moris mentions is a different one, I'm sure he would be able to take a photo of it for us.
Climbing to the top of a very tall tree is a special event and I would expect plenty of evidence to remain online, in the form of photos, YouTube films and local newspaper articles.
Unless Moris has uploaded a photo of a different tree, the full-length picture of 'Stratospheric Giant' with the man at its base was taken from an angle slightly above the tree's mid-point (note the horizon line), so that the usual problem of the tree's top being foreshortened doesn't apply here: if anything, it will be the base and the human figure that are very slightly foreshortened. Assuming no foreshortening, and assuming the man is 1.8m tall, I get 37m to the tree's apparent top, so the pine in the photo will probably be in the region of 35m - 36m tall.
KoutaR, op 2020-01-26 20:00:10, gewijzigd op 2020-01-26 20:01:12, zei:
I asked a Russian friend to translate the info board texts.
------------
Name General Grant. (Im not sure about the numbers near the name. Perhaps, they describe location in some way.)
Height 47 meters, girth 5 meters
Age 226 years
Species Pinus strobus. The biggest tree in Magoriha (Ukraine). Under protection.
You claim that the height of the "stratospheric giant" is only 40 - 45 meters. Then explain to me how it turns out that the Giant Sequoia "Il Gigante di Appiano" on SS 42 in Appiano Sulla Strada del Vino, Trentino Alto Adige, Italy, is 52 meters high and men is placed 20 times near her " stratospheric giant "man is placed almost 30 times (for comparison, I used the first photo where the perspective is insignificant) it proves his height is 61 meters.Yours sincerely moris3,
The photo of the Italian tree has been taken from the same height level with the base and the man. So the distance to the top is much greater than to the base and the man. This makes the upper part of the tree looking much smaller than it actually is. The photo of the "Stratospheric Giant" has been taken at the height level of the middle part of the trunk, so the photo measuring gives better results. Anyway, measuring from photos is always VERY inaccurate.
And then what about the Tasmanian blue gum in Stern Grove park in San Francisco, California, United States, around this eucalyptus (66 meters in height), a person is placed 30 times as well as near the "stratospheric giant (photo taken from the middle of the trunk). Regards moris3
Aidan, apologies if that was the case. I didn't see the label when I visited but they do tend to disappear. Maybe I was looking at a different tree but your picture of the crown seemed to match what I was looking at.
Certains botanistes (cf. Owen Johnson) font de Q. marilandica une espčce ŕ part entičre ; je partage cette opinion. D'autres, comme Hélardot en France, l'assimilent ŕ Q. nigra. Ne faudrait-il pas ajouter Q. marilandica ŕ la liste de Monumentaltrees ?
I've just added the species for you. (I should add that I've not seen Q. marilandica or Q. nigra in the wild so can't offer an opinion, other than to say that Q. marilandica as grown in collections in the UK is nothing like Q. nigra.)
Species only get added to the MT species list as and when someone records an example, so a species' absence from the list never implies that it is thought to be a synonym of something else.
'Western Red Cedar has been planted in Britain since the late 1800s, with some of the finest stands in existence dating from early Forestry Commission plantings in the 1920s for example at Gwydyr and Forest of Dean. A number of private estates throughout the country have a notable record with the species, including Novar (Easter Ross), Darnaway (Moray), Kyloe (Northumberland), Longleat and Stourhead (Wiltshire), Dunster (Somerset) and Weasenham (Norfolk)'.
Come across this article, in my several visits to Gwyrdyr forest I have not come across any stands of Thuja plicata, is anyone aware of where these are? Did you see them Owen? The Register is being updated at the moment and I cannot see the records to check? Dating from the 1920s and given the excellent conditions in that are these could be pretty big by now (?) if still there? Did you see the stands of Thuja in the Forest of Dean Owen?
There are also photos of the stand of Monkey Puzzle at Longleat which I came across photos of just after I had been to Longleat in 2016 and wished that I had been able to visit. I know the location.
The Isle of Wight has notable plantations of Lawson and Leyland Cypresses, but in addition the Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) has been planted at a number of locations on the island'.
I did see a good stand of Thuja near the tall Abies grandis group above the Swallow Falls in Gwydyr Forest at SH770578; one was 42m in 2016. In the Forest of Dean there are a few among the tall Douglas firs near the middle Soudley Pond; one at SO66161125 was 44m in 2015.
I've not seen the cypress plantations you mention on the Isle of Wight (Brighstone Forest?)
At Longleat there are some Monkey Puzzles by the Picket Post Drive (one is a very big and old tree, dating from 1849) - but not close enough together to be called a 'grove'.
I do like big stands of Red Cedar. At Coed y Brenin there are some fine stands to over 40m and growing steadily. Also some of the oldest at Uig near Benmore in Argyll dating from 1887? Measured some over 42m there in 2002.
As its a minor species, there was only early experimental plantings, but now renewed interest. Too difficult to tell how big they will get, at least 50m eventually but current plantings to few and may not be on the best sites to give a proper evaluation. This applies to may species of conifer. Can't base ultimate size from just a few trees in arboretums.
Hope to do some measuring Rob down in the New Forest/Longleat next month so heads up!
Hello Stephen, look forward to seeing your measurings from Longleat, hopefully the 57 metre Sequoia and big Sequioandendrons will have added height and won't have been damaged by all the recent storms. 54 metres in 2010, 57 metres in May 2016, 4 years growth the Sequoia could be near 59 metres now if continuing at the same rate.
Did you see my message about the trees at 80 miles from you, straight up the M40?
I wonder if David Abrahams was using the sine method to measure this tree as I recorded 31.5m in 2016; as a mature tree it won't have grown significantly, and it's unusual to have that much of a discrepency between two laser measurements. (I also recorded 24.5m for the biggest Lucombe Oak near the lake, cf. nearly 29m?)
RedRob, op 2019-12-01 15:11:48, gewijzigd op 2019-12-01 15:14:41, zei:
Owen, is this the location of the Douglas Fir which you measured as 53 metres a few years ago? The base wasn't visible from this location on the road so the tree is likely 54 metres or abit more as the land falls away to the right of the photo and away from the photo.
Yes, that's the valley at Vivod with the tall trees. The banks of the valley are steep and craggy and the trees growing in the bottom of it are probably taller than you might have estimated from the lane.
I shall return to Vivod next year or in a few years' time.
One of the year's best ancient tree finds in Britain (ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk), discovered by Will Bick (and confirmed as a hybrid by Aljos Farjon). It grows on private farmland in the parish (visitors to the yew in the churchyard will not see it) and at the owner's request the record is hidden on the Ancient Tree Inventory and visitors to the site can't see it. The bole has massive burrs.
Yes I will look something out - need to revisit the area too though and might be quicker to take another picture, there are a small number of Douglas fir and Sitka spruce over 50m but this particular tree is quite prominent.
Do you know if any data has been collected from the abandoned? aboreta at Inverawe in Scotland? It is part of a west coast Forestry Commission block and has some relatively tall broadleaved species planted late 19th century I think.
The aboreta appears to have been absorbed into the Forestry Commission holdings. On checking planting years on the subcompartments they are 1890-1910 which predates the formation of FC. From the roadside appears to be a block of beech and sycamore.
Definitely an Abies, though not sure which species. I am visiting Dorset again at the end of next week, so hopefully I will have time to visit the Minterne Gardens again and get some clearer pictures of the tree. Personally, I am thinking this is Abies alba or Abies grandis, as registered.
I know of one other tall Abies alba in Dorset, at Kingston Lacy, 44m in 2006. This is a county without many gardens on a suitable soil for the tree.
Tallest Abies alba in each county along the south coast (according to the Tree Register records, mostly quite recent):
Cornwall: 38m
Devon 46.5m
Dorset 46m
Hampshire 47m
Sussex 43.5m
Kent 30m.
I love it when the statistics confirm what you'd expect, as neatly as this: Cornwall too exposed, Kent too dry, and the best conditions halfway along with several trees reaching what is presumably the maximum potential for the species in this kind of climate.
I've just overwritten your estimated figures for the Silver Fir at Minterne with my measurements from 2006 (otherwise the current estimate would take precedence over the older figures).
As for Surrey, there used to be a respectable 40m example on the Normanswood estate at Elstead in 2000 but when I revisited this area last year it had gone. The next tallest (again measured in 2000 when I was particularly studying Surrey trees) were 28m specimens at Alderbrook Park and Burwood Park, neither of them really big enough to count as a county 'champion'. It's a tree that has hardly been planted in the south and east for the last century or more.
It's by no means impossible that you could spot a taller one. Though Surrey is a well-studied county there are plenty of big gardens hidden behind tall hedges and security gates which have never been visited by lovers of trees.
On second thoughts, I have previously seen a large fir in the Farnham Cemetery, though by the looks of the crown, I think it is an Abies grandis rather than an Abies alba.
You can see the tree in this link for Google streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2102866,-0.8110443,3a,60.2y,147.27h,104.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPg8UTk9ogzAizchrKs0JMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Have just added a tree of unknown species in Otley, 17 metres, but unable to add a comment?? Owen has told me previously but have just forgotten what type of Lawson cypress this is?
Woodland Walk, S. Very impressive bole; several stems make a narrow upper crown, now rounding off in exposure. 2018 height by Ron Kemeny.
Aidan, this is in your territory, would love to see a photograph of this tree if you are anywhere near, another impressive Surrey tree. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6122958 Not sure (?) but is this the tree on the right side of this photo?
RedRob, op 2019-10-17 14:11:52, gewijzigd op 2019-10-17 15:08:44, zei:
Sequoia sempervirens
Leith Hill and Leith Hill Place
TQ1447143129
41.00
165
517
2019
PU
Reigate
Surrey
England
National Trust
Category: A County Champion: Remarkable
Comments Latest Recorder: Owen Johnson
Mosses Wood arboretum; just above road near S end of arboretum. The tallest and most vigorous of many youngsters
Any photos of these Owen? Surrey is quite good to say the least for 40 metre Sequioas, multiple of them.
Another place Aidan perhaps?
79565
Larix decidua
Hascombe Hill
TQ00623855
43.50
97
304
2015
PU
1855
Godalming
Surrey
England
Category: A County Champion: Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Owen Johnson
Valley above Lodge Farm; mid tree of four in 2015.
These are very impressive as well.
I used to visit this area for years up to 2011, from 1983, wasn't measuring trees then, what a shame, could have visted so many trees.
Hello Rob, I have been to Ramster before. I think I went around this time last year. Unfortunately I didn't know about MT when I went, so I didn't record any of the stunning trees there. There is also a very large sessile oak there. Hopefully Ican go again soon and record the trees there.
I have just seen your comment of the county champion Larix decidua at Hascombe Hill. I have not seen or heard of this tree before. I will look for it next time I visit.
I have just added the larch to this site (I thought I already had). It's a survivor from a stand that was planted by the Parkhurst Estate in 1855 but is accessible from the main paths on Hascombe Hill by simply scrambling down the brackeny slope. There's a young Douglas Fir nearby which was 45m in 2015.
I didn't photograph the Coast Redwood on Leith Hill as it was a grey day. It's a young tree growing very fast. Other good trees I saw that day on this stretch of the Greensand scarp included a Giant Sequoia now 50.5m tall in the garden of 'Somerset Hill' on the east side of Holmbury Hill, and a mature 48.3m Douglas Fir beside the Greensand Way as it climbs the Deepdene Terraces from the A24 in Dorking.
As the scarp here faces south the presence of such tall trees is slightly surprising, but the soil is very good for American conifers.
I think those Douglas Firs will have been in Mosses Wood under Leith Hill where there is a small arboretum (including the 41m Sequoia RedRob mentions). The two old trees were only 31m tall this spring but have impressive trunks (the larger 497cm girth). There might be some slightly taller younger examples down the slope - I can't remember.
I suspect the 'Mother Larch' at Dunkeld is more massive, though not so tall. There are several on Rabbit Bank at Dunkeld with similarly impressive boles.
Not Surrey but some very impressive trees not far away. I would have loved to have seen these, used to visit this area up to 2011, Petworth etc, but didn't know that these were here.
You can see these trees from the lane, but the owner of Keeper's Farmhouse is proud of his trees if you fancied knocking on his door. He also has a Eucalyptus dalrympleana which was 27m tall last year when it was 13 years old.
This is a good contender for the English champion; it has rather more of a single bole than most, though the girth is greatly inflated by the massive low limbs.
I found it was lying on its side on this site, and it's taken a bit of work to get it upright again (a very heavy tree...; Tim, there is a function to turn images 90 degrees left and right on each's photo's page, but it doesn't work?). Aidan's original comment seems to have disappeared during the process.
I've also noticed a lot of trees falling over on my computer recently - presumably something to do with how the latest Windows update decides which side of an image is the top. Is this one now upright for other viewers?
Owen, planning any visits to Shropshire tree measuring? On the Register there are some impressive older trees, 41 metre Larix decidua measured in 1984 and still there according to Andy Gordon in 2018, would you have a contact for Andy, would love to see some photos. What height are they now?
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6008633
Linley Hall looks as if it has some very tall conifers, perhaps tallest trees in Shropshire. Walcot Hall had a Sequoiadedon of 45 metres back in 1975 and Leaton Knolls had Sequoias recorded as 42 metres in 1981, these trees if still there and growing reasonably must be big by now. Perhaps Andy would have some photos and idea? I thought that I had measured Shropshire's tallest tree but was mistaken.
Very difficult trees to measure as a dense stand with dense lower undergrowth, managed to measure one on the edge of the stand at 41.8 to 42.2 metres and used the same base to aim at the tallest spire I could make out in the stand and the height was c 45.4 metres so this tree is likely circa 45 metres. Very fine stand of Hemlocks, clearly visible from the road on Street View, unable to upload a photo at the moment, trying to cut them down abit. Tallest Western Hemlocks I think in Gwynedd. Next to them are some Picea sitchensis which looked very similar in height but I didn't get across to them.
Replying to RedRob's message about Shropshire not TimB's about the Brussels Lime which is in the same string [I'm not sure why RedRob's comments keep appearing in the wrong string if no-one else is getting this problem?]:
There ought to be some taller trees hiding somewhere in Shropshire as the 61m trees at Leighton Hall are only just over the Welsh border.
Andy Gordon I think is the veteran tree consultant for the National Trust and records as a volunteer for the Ancient Tree Inventory (ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk) which is where I contact him. As such he's interested in the girths of old trees but as a professional arboriculturalist he may also have height measuring equipment. Those larches at Linley Hall (your ancestral pile??) are very old trees planted in 1768 so are unlikely to have added height since 1984, when Alan Mitchell's 1981 may or may not have been accurate.
I visited the garden at Walcot Hall in 2009 but didn't go to the Pigeonhouse Plantation where the 45m Sequoiadendron was in 1975. Looking at the map this is a very well-sheltered conifer plantation and so the Sequoiadendron could be a lot taller by now - worth a look some time.
There's a young Grand Fir in Dale End Park in urban Ironbridge which was 42m tall when the Google 3D mapping was one - one of the tallest town trees I can think of.
Owen, this is a view up to Pigeonhouse Bank at Walcot Hall, does the upstanding treat the top middle of the photo look like a Sequoiadendron? Nice spire whatever it is. The stand behind the house looks impressive as well.
I thought it apt about Linley Hall, wish it was my country pile, not bothered about the house, a shed would do, but would have some nice trees in the grounds.
Shropshire deserves attention, wish that I could have visited more but time didn't permit. Did visit part of Shropshire, as said thought that I had measured a tall tree but when I checked the country boundary line it was just outside.
Forest, is this tree within your range area, it would be very interesting to have a reading for it with your instrument? It is another tree which has large variations in measurement, readings between 63 and 68.4 metres? The undergrowth might be easier in winter.
Owen, which position did you measure this tree from? The base doesn't look visible from this side in the photo because of the protruding bank of ferns. There doesn't look to be as much twiggy clutter in the photo as there is at the Waterloo Grove in Betws.
The only easy place to measure this tree from is about where the photos were taken, about 100m from the tree on the road outside the gate. This is about 10m below the tree's base, so that the angle to the top is still quite steep and the leading shoot is partly obscured by side-shoots about 1m down on the near side which have a lot more foliage on them. A lot of my measurements to the top must have hit the near-side shoots instead and, rejecting these plus a few measurements which I suspect were machine error, I got 63 - 65m to the tip. I couldn't begin to reproduce Graham's and Chic's independently recorded 68.4m, but Chic did tell me that on his first visit, his measurements were also much lower and all over the place. There isn't really anything between the tree's base and the observer at a height much lower than the tree's base for the laser beam to the base to pick up, and Chic says he's aware of that potential problem. I suspect that with the typically humid climate with lots of insect life, the laser beam tends to pick up water droplets or midges in the air beyond and above a tree's top, but that's only guesswork. I did scramble up the rocky bank to do a tangent measurement from a position level with the tree's base, and that I think was where my 63m came from.
It is in range, about an hour 15 mins drive. I need some older western hemlock data so I will try to go if there is a good day...winter is setting in here, snow line dropped a few hundred metres over the weekend.
If there was ever a meetup I'd be happy to travel to share experiences with different measurement methods.
I finally did a trip to Ardentinny today and had just enough time to measure the 5 douglas fir in the plot.
The tallest Douglas fir I made as 65.6m tall using the vertex, 65.2 with a nikon forestry pro (2 point measurement to base), and 66.5 using nikon forestry pro with a target at 1.3m. Although I see the advantage of the forestry pro laser with regard to accounting for lean, it does generate varying results - is that your experience?
I found it hard to get a tape around the taller Douglas fir to my satisfaction - but I made the circumference as 4.27m at 1.3m. It has a steep drop on the east side.
The second tallest Douglas fir produced results more consistent with the observations here. I measured that as 62.4m tall with both devices and 4.3m circumference.
There are some tall Western hemlock across the road from the Douglas fir, I measured a couple of those to complete a plot but at ~46m don't think they were the tallest there.
Just south there are some Norway spruce in the area at around 38-39m, and further south still some big Douglas fir by a stream ('only' 56m). I didn't have time to measure anything else properly though, just quick heights. There is ominously some clearfelling underway (12 May 2019), currently amongst the P1929 Norway spruce and Japanese larch. I am aware of P1933 Sitka spruce throughout the area which I didn't have time to visit.
Splendid to have some corroboration of the height of this tree. 65.2m is very close to the highest figures I could get with the Sine method the other year (allowing two years' modest growth) so I think this measurement quite accurately reflects the tree's true height. (We should also remember that the bank where it grows is very steep and different recorders' estimation of 'average ground level' could differ quite a bit.) So not as tall as one or two at least of the Douglas Firs at Coed Craig Glanconwy, and probably not quite as tall as the Scottish tree in Reelig Glen, and too close to separate from the Argyllshire tree at Dunans Castle.
This tree demonstrates that simple hand-held lasers can be accurate to within 1 or 2%- but only if you take lots of measurements from different positions, filter out obvious mistakes, and then find where the concentration of average figures lies.
(ForestDynamics: in 2017 I got 53.5m for the tallest of those fast-growing Tsugas down the bank, and did manage to get a precise girth of the Pseudotsuga, with a bit of clambering. I saw no other really tall trees in this forest, though didn't have time to explore exhaustively.)
RedRob, op 2019-05-19 15:49:05, gewijzigd op 2019-05-19 16:47:19, zei:
Hello Forest, apologies for not replying to your message, I have just returned from a trip to Wales, a successful one I have just found from checking records on TROBI. Thank you very much for visiting this tree and taking the time to measure with several instruments.
''The tallest Douglas fir I made as 65.6m tall using the vertex, 65.2 with a nikon forestry pro (2 point measurement to base), and 66.5 using nikon forestry pro with a target at 1.3m. Although I see the advantage of the forestry pro laser with regard to accounting for lean, it does generate varying results - is that your experience?''
Does this mean you aimed at 1.3 metres above the actual central base so 65.6 plus 1.3 metres making 66.9metres for example for one reading? Would that be correct? Which reading, measurement would you go for with this tree? What variations for each reading session did you get with the Nikon? I think several measurers at Betws have now had the same experience, myself, Michael Spraggon, even Stephen with his better laser. The undergrowth and twigs are just so bad at the location.
I have been able to properly test my RAF adaptation on the Nikon Forestry Pro this time (the tap washer in plain Yorkshire) and it has made a definite difference to the usage, that is if you can find a window through at all. I have quite a number of newly found big trees, now have to try to Bluetooth them to the new computer which I have had trouble getting to work up to now, keeps asking for a pin.
Third attempt at this, my comments are disappearing for some reason tonight?
The 66.59 metre tree at Betws, first proper occasion that I have had to test the RAF (tap washer in plain Yorkshire) out on the Nikon laser and it has made a definite difference. Found a very small window through the tangle of vegetation to hit clean trunk just a small distance up from the tree base centre and aimed at it, 66.8-67 metres with no wild readings 2 metres or more out. For this reason have assigned 67.2 metres. I would now definitely recommend using the tap washer adaptor for important trees or trees in very tight spots with tight windows. The adaptor is no good for distance readings even clean hit ones as the laser will not record at around 100 metres. Pretty sure myself that the varied readings at the times with the Nikons is due the wide beam, the beam edge hitting twigs as the laser goes in.
Owen, I am pretty certain that I found and measured your 68 metres tree this time, about 20 metres up from the three front line trees. Using the laser with tap washer to a point at the high side of the base, only place I could see of the base. I recorded 65.2 to 65.4 metres so have assigned 66 metres to tree base centre slightly down the steep slope. Not 100% sure if I hit the apex tip, fairly sure that it was the apex tip that I could see but wouldn't stake my life on that.
I just noticed that the claimed Douglas-fir record is really over 3 m lower... after two growth seasons, so the original measurement was perhaps 4 m too high! How can this be possible? Has Graham Alcorn perhaps used the 3-point method? The difference cannot be explained with dirrerent ground level definitions.
Graham and Chic were both using the sine method with Nikon lasers when they recorded 68.4m for this tree, and were aware of the need to avoid brash near the tree's base, confirming what I have long suspected: under certain conditions, these machines don't seem to be reliable to better than +/- 5%. RedRob's recent measurements at Betys-y-coed suggest that my machine was generating errors of a similar scale when I (consistently, but with only one position where I could see the top) got 67.5-68m for two firs there in 2016. I think it's reasonable to assume that some other measurements posted by users on this site will be subject to similar errors, though the only way of proving this may be to climb the tree.
That said, some Nikon users seem to be able to be able to get consistently accurate results. I expect individual machines vary in what quirks they have.
This doesn't worry me very much, as most trees have features which are more interesting than their precise height, and I shall continue to use my laser as one of a range of methods I have for accumulating tree statistics.
Sounds very strange. I have two lasers, one of which is Nikon, and I have compared my Nikon measurements with those made by others on the same trees, with Nikon and with other methods, and I have never seen that large differences. It is possible that your laser as well as that of Graham & Chic have a defect but I think more plausible explanation could be a human error at measurement, like e.g. shooting ground below the base (instead of the base) or shooting wrong shoot or holding the machine tilted around its lenght axis. Owen, I see you have made thousands of measuerements, perhaps the machine is not anymore accurate... another possible explanation... it's getting old...
Great you measured 67m Rob. A very difficult task at this location. It is also possible to measure the trees in sections at different windows of view to the tree.
To get really accurate results I must admit a tripod is essential. With the Trupulse 200x I found it difficult to maintain a steady handhold. With a tripod I could get many consistent readings to tree tops (generally) all within 0.10-0.2m multiple times.
I always check my instrument with objects of known height and the Trupulse readings suggest that I can get readings to within 0.10m with a tripod.
I took a number of measurements of the tallest Douglas fir, ranging from 64-66m. The highest reading was obtained by aiming at a device I had attached to the tree at 1.3m, then adding that to the result as you guessed.
However that was the absolutely highest measurement I obtained, around 65m seemed to be mean result. I should have said at the time I visited the site, conditions were close to ideal as there was no breeze or wind causing significant movement of the upper crown.
Enjoying reading about your visit to Wales, must visit some of those sites myself.
@Owen
I will have to go back and look at the Western hemlock more closely to find the taller specimens :) I might combine it with a trip to Pucks Glen as I have not had the opportunity to visit that site to date.
Thanks again for the suggestion to visit Ardentinny.
I am convinced myself that at the Waterloo Grove at least it is the Nikon beam width that causes the measuring to be so difficult, the windows are so small and the wide beam hits twigs of vegetation as the laser beam goes in. I don't think that it is a faulty laser/lasers or user error, myself, Michael Spraggon recorded 68 metre readings for the tree he climbed at 66.59 metres, Owen, even Stephen with his more accurate laser recorded readings of a couple of metres above the true height. It is the difficulty of measuring there with the dense ground vegetation and extreme heights of the trees which makes it so difficult. I have just found some more locations like this on my trip.
Stephen, you missed a treat, I posted a location of trees that I had found on Google Maps before your Wales trip last year but you must not have looked on the forum and you missed it.
"even Stephen with his more accurate laser recorded readings of a couple of metres above the true height"
Which tree do you mean? Link?
The experiments of the Californians and Tasmanians do not support your view. With Impulse and TruPulse lasers it is possible to measure their super-tall trees fairly accurately. Nikon is somewhat less accurate but in my opinion entirely sufficient for European trees. Yes, its beam width may cause problems. Most importantly, you must NOT aim above the tip! Shame on me, I claimed previously it is the right way until my test showed it is absolutely the wrong way. This might be one possible reason for a couple of metres too high heights. Another is the wildly jumping clinometer: you should make several measurements.
Because I (still) use a Nikon rangefinder and a Suunto hypsometer in combination, I can spot where the errors arise in my case, and it's always with the distance the rangefinder records to the tree's top (I use 'distance priority mode'.) 95% of the time when I measure a tree I'm still using the tangent method with the rangefinder just to check the distance to the tree's trunk and, with a fairly broad, flat surface to aim at, I've never noticed any irregularities in the distance recorded here, except occasionally when my hand twitches a bit just as I fire the laser. (So it's not the laser getting old, just me....)
The broadest spread of readings occurs when I aim at a tree top with nearer and further shoots in view, creating a 'fuzzy' echo. The software that decides what distance the furthest echo was from frequently over-calculates this distance by up to 2 metres. (When I can do tangent measurements from different angles and conflate the results, the results should be accurate and this has helped me to see how often the distance measurement must be wrong.) These errors seem more likely to occur with conifers, when there are lots of parallel needles 1 mm apart which might possibly have the effect of diffracting the laser beam and adding to the machine's confusion. (In my case the error has never been so great as to lead to a 68.4m height estimation for a tree perhaps only 64.5m tall, but that's what I mean about different lasers' software perhaps behaving a bit differently.)
As RedRob points out, even Stephen Verge's tripod-mounted Trupulse laser seems to have produced errors of a similar scale in these situations. It may be using the same software?
Consequently I would recommend some variation of an External Baseline method for maximum accuracy, but being able to see the tops of these trees even for a tangent measurement from different positions is a rare luxury.
Do you mean you have measured almost all the trees, you have recorded on MT, with the tangent method? You measure the distance to the trunk with your Nikon, the angles to the base and the top with your Suunto and calculate the height? Is this what you mean?
No, when I've put '2-point or sine method' as the measurement method, that's what I've used. I tend only to upload a few exceptional trees to this site, and these are then ones where I've done a sine measurement for confirmation.
I am not sure if I understand how you check the accuracy of your laser with your Suunto, but it sounds a bit like one would check the accuracy of a watch with an hourglass.
You are right in that when measuring e.g. a conifer top the laser may return the distance to a lower twig in front of the top. The solution is to go further from the tree and search a location from where you have a clear sight to the actual top. But that the instrument would over-calculate the distance... we have done so much testing that I can say you are not right. I still suggest a human error is responsible for the over-measurements. How much time do you use for measuring the height of one tree?
One factor I have encountered that can result to a false too high measurement: fog. The beam may get a reflection from fog particles a few metres or even a few dozens of metres above the trunk.
If I were to take ten measurements of the distance to the top of a 'fuzzy' tree with my Nikon rangefinder, a typical range of values might be:
51.5m
51.5m
51.5m
50.5m
50.0m
50.0m
50.0m
49.5m
49.0m
48.5m
When I first started using the laser, my assumption was that 51.5m was probably the right distance and the lower measurements were caused by the beam hitting shoots on the near-side of the tree.
But suppose that with my Suunto hypsometer I measure an angle of 30.1 degrees to the top (and the tree is on level ground, so that I add 1.7m to its base). That gives (about) 27.5m for the tree's height if I accept that the distance to the top is 51.5m.
I then go round to the other side of the tree (this is what I mean by using the hypsometer to check the accuracy of the laser) and, from an equal distance and again on level ground, I again get 30.1 degrees to the top and the same set of laser distance measurements from 51.5m to 48.5m.
There are now two possibilities: the hypsometer is wrong (the angle to the top being at least 33 degrees) and the tree's height is (about) 30m. Or, the hypsometer is right and the correct measurement of the distance to the top should be 50m (and the tree is only about 26.7m tall).
After performing calculations similar to this many times, I'm forced to conclude that my hypsometer is accurate (to a fraction of a degree) but my laser frequently over-records the real distance by about 1.5m. (Why it should so often be 1.5m I have no idea. From the feed-back from other users, many Nikon's don't seem to do this at all while if the over-recording is greater for some other machines, that would be the best explanation I can think of for measurements like the 68.4m for the Ardentinny Fir.)
Now that I'm aware of this problem, I can assess a measurement-set like the one I've concocted above, and conclude without further checking that 50m is probably the correct distance. But occasionally I can point the laser at what looks like a clearly visible top shoot and get two equal sets of measurements 1.5m apart and not be sure which value is the right one.
If I remember rightly, my 68m for the tree at Betws-y-coed which RedRob has recently remeasured as 66m was calculated using a distance to the top which I only recorded once or twice, because there was a very wispy target through a very narrow window between other branches and all my other attempts to measure the distance were no-readings. The distance I did manage to get was presumably one of those over-readings, which might have been bad luck or might be an inevitable consequence of pushing the laser right to its limits.
I've used my laser in rain many times and never noticed a different pattern of returns, so I don't think the beam can usually pick up water-droplets. I did hit a bird once. It was about 700m away. An insect near the top of the tree might be harder to spot if you hit it.
I don't understand why there must be an error in clinometer or laser if the distance to the top was 51.5 m and the angle 30.1 degrees from the both sides?
From your text I get feeling that you measure the distance only to the top. What about the base?
I don't doubt Suunto would be inaccurate. No, it is certainly more accurate than Nikon's clinometer. I meant with clock/hourglass if you check the accuracy of Nikon using suunto only. It is possible your laser has a defect. But I still suspect there is another error source. It's pity you could not attend the ECTF meeting. It would have been great to exchange experiences in measuring.
I have also measured during heavy rain and the only problem was water pouring under my raincoat making me less careful. So rain droplets seem to be no problem but fog particles are.
You're right, Kouta, my scenario would only work if you've also measured the distance to the tree's base from both sides. I was simplifying things by assuming level ground (hence the 1.7m added to the height to the top which is the height from the tree's base to the laser), but in practice I'm nearly always measuring angle and distance to the base as well.
I've no idea how the 'distance priority' software in the Nikon laser works (it might be a trade secret) but I would assume it analyzes the length and 'fuzziness' of the return echo and adds what it thinks is an appropriate number of metres to the distance calculated from the start of the echo - which might sometimes be too many metres?
I will add my two pennorths worth here, have now been using the Nikon Forestry Pro since July 2012 and know some of it's eccentricities and I am not convinced that the big variations specifically at locations like Betws are down to human error, not 2 or 3 metres out. I cannot think of one tree I have measured where you get the same exact measurement over multiple measurings, there is always a slight variation, 49.8 to 50.2 metres for example for a clean tree with clear windows. This is the variation that is down to human error as you cannot hit precisely the same spots on the base and tip with every measuring certainly hand held, even a few centimetres variation on where you hit will result in a slightly different reading in the laser. The Nikon has a cross hair with a gap in the middle which makes hitting the same precise spot more difficult, if it had a spot or even full cross hair it would make hitting or attempting to hit the same spot easier but it hasn't. In my own experience the big reading variations come with trees that are not clean but where there is clutter and low vegetation. I measured the Waterloo tree in May 2017 on a sparkling clear, blue sky day in a period of very dry weather with high pressure, there had been abit of a drought the ground was very dry, there was absolutely no mist or fog and actually the sun was abit bad as it was about 12 noon. I got readings all over the place, 66 to 68.6 metres, there is only one logical explanation for this for me, I was attempting to measure through a very small window and the beam was hitting vegetation on the way in which was lower than the tree's base and so put a couple of metres on the true reading. The same thing happened on my previous visit, I decided to give the average reading of 67 metres which was too high looking back now. The tap washer which I fitted definitely and absolutely helped in measuring this time, I didn't get one high reading despite measuring through another very tight window. It had the effect of cutting the beam width right down so the beam was nimble and able to get through the window cleanly. I think we should all fit one to our Nikons now for important trees or difficult, cluttered trees. On open, clean trees you could use the Nikon without as it is pretty accurate on clean trees, the tap washer also is no good if you want to measure a tree from distance as it cuts the laser's range to perhaps c100m.
Owen, I don't think the distance priority mode works like you proposed. I think the device emits laser beam that reflects from the target. If the beam hits multiple targets at differing distances the device calculates multiple results and shows the greatest one. The problem is that Nikon's distance priority mode does not work well enough. With TruPulse you can see the process: You keep pushing the button and TP keeps measuring... shows a distance... you still keep pushing the button and TP keeps measuring... the distance increases as it finds a greater distance... an so on.
Note that it is also possible that Owen's measurement (68m) is correct and Rob's 66m is too low (e.g. because hitting a lower twig).
Rob, your scenario of getting a too high measurement is well possible: you stand below the base and the beam doesn't hit the base but clutter below it. In a sense this is also a human error: you have not chosen a window large enough.
Owen's "fuzzy top" scenario could be studied like this: you choose a bush behind of which sky can be seen. Or you put a christmas tree horizontally 1-2 m from the ground. You put a bulky target (e.g. car) next to the fuzzy target so that the bulky target is at the same distance from your measuring location as the most distant twig of the bush. Your measuring location is e.g. 50 m from the target. If the distance priority mode worked perfectly the both targets would return the same distance. My guess is that Nikon returns smaller distance for the fuzzy target as is does not find the farthest one. Owen's guess is (if I understood correctly) that Nikon returns a greater distance for the fuzzy target as the beam get confused by the fuzziness and adds 1,5 m to the calculated distance.
No possibility to measure in 2 parts? Or even in 3 parts like this:
1. from the top to a fallen branch
2. from the fallen branch to a point at 1-2 m height
3. from the ground to the point with a measuring tape
RedRob, op 2019-05-28 15:56:27, gewijzigd op 2019-05-28 16:02:37, zei:
Owen's 68 metres, I was using the tap washer adaptor but I cannot rule that out 100%. The readings were consistently around 65.6 metres to a clear piece of the high side of the base, I had no readings metres out which suggests that this was likely accurate. The base middle on the slope will be around 66 metres if this is correct. The 67 metre tree is likely the only one which we can probably 100% say is the height.
I agree about Distance Priority mode, experimented with it but have never used it since, have the laser set on First Target Priority mode. This with the tap washer fitted makes the laser as accurate as it can be I think now.
I doubt the first-target mode would return the highest twig better than the distant priority mode. Actually this could be the reason for your differing results: Rob used the first-target mode that returned the closest twig, Owen used the distant priority mode that returned a higher twig or even the true top.
Raquel, op 2019-03-03 00:08:20, gewijzigd op 2019-03-03 00:21:47, zei:
Dear tree friends!
I am a portuguese student working with monumental trees (trees listed as public interest by the portuguese legislation) and i find myself doing a research about the legislation granting protection to monumental/ancient/big trees in several European countries and also in international level.
I wanted to analyze what criteria exist in the legislation that allow the classification and protection of monumental trees about several countries, like: Greece, Hungary, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia.
I need to know if there is:
a) national / regional legislation? If so, can you give me the website link?
b) There are well-defined criteria for distinguishing monumental trees from other trees (are they defined in the legislation). Are these criteria only about age / size or do they also recognize historical, cultural, scientific / natural and landscape importance?
c) There is a national/regional catalog for digital consultation with all national monumental trees? Can you send me the website?
d) What is the name used to designate those trees: in national language and in English.
You can contact me, please, to: raquelopes15@gmail.com
Congratulations to all for the magnificent monumental trees from all over the world!!
I shall give you the situation in the UK as a comment rather than by email, in case other users would like to contribute to the discussion.
Individual 'Ancient trees' received a degree of legal protection in the UK for the first time during a revision of the National Planning Policy Framework in summer 2018 (https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2018/07/better-protection-for-ancient-woods-and-trees/). The emphasis is on their value as a wildlife habit and the trees in question are in effect native trees which have reached the last stages of their natural lives.
This follows a 12-year (and ongoing) project, the Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI) (https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk), whose purpose is to map and catalogue the UK's Ancient Trees (as well as 'Veteran trees' which are trees in the middle stage of their life-cycle which are big and old enough to have some special wildlife value, and 'Notable trees' which are veterans of the future or have been added to the website by members of the public for miscellaneous reasons). The ATI has been a partnership project between the Woodland Trust (a large UK charity with an emphasis on purchasing and managing woodlands and on campaigning for woodland protection) and The Tree Register (a much smaller independent charity for which I am the volunteer Registrar). Locations and details of all Ancient Trees can be studied by anyone visiting the website, except for a few trees which are hidden from public view at their owner's request.
Before this, the only legal protection for individual trees were Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), which could be placed by Local Authorities on trees or woods which they felt to be of outstanding landscape value. Individual TPOs generally cover conspicuous trees in towns and are widely used to ensure that trees are kept safe during building work. I don't know how many TPOs are in force across the UK but I would imagine 10,000 - 100,000.
There are currently about 170,000 trees on the ATI, and 240,000 on the Tree Register, which includes any tree, native or introduced, which is outstanding for its size, rarity or historic interest. Because we depend on the goodwill of many private landowners to be able to record these trees, the Tree Register does not campaign for the protection of individual trees and is not involved in placing TPOs on trees. Some trees on the Tree Register become more widely publicised (e.g. on this website) while others remain generally unknown at the landowner's request.
I gathered information from Ancient tree Forum, but without this level of detail and only had as reference the Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)! I didn't know about the Planning Policy Framework in summer 2018... which are good news!!
I share with you / all the Portuguese situation:
In Portugal we have a Law since 1938 reviewed at 2012/ 2014 (http://www2.icnf.pt/portal/florestas/aip/enq-leg) that protected "Trees of National Interest" ("Arvoredo de Interesse Público"). The criteria for tree classification doesnt rely merely on dendrological such as age and size, or design aspects/shape. The Law considers other values for why trees need careful conservation. Thus, criteria of selection considers and includes: natural value (e.g., conservation status, abundance, unique individual or existing in small number, with international interest of conservation); historical value (e.g., striking history or relevant national symbolism); cultural value (e.g., elements of belief, memory, collective national imagination or associated with important figures of Portuguese culture); or aesthetic value.
We have an online catalog/ inventory called: "Registo Nacional do Arvoredo de Interesse Público" (http://www2.icnf.pt/portal/florestas/ArvoresPesquisa) with 470 isolated trees and 81 groups of trees protected by law (until 2012).
However, there still to much to do in the knowledge, dissemination and preservation of these trees.
In Spain the protection of monumental trees is the responsibility of the government of the autonomous communities. In most cases they are only inventories where x measures are recommended for their protection, but they do not go beyond recommendations that are not met. In fact, most monumental trees are not even inventoried. Many times associations like A Morteira are the only ones who care about the conservation of monumental trees, who have even bought trees in order to save them from logging companies.
"Circumference" and "diameter" are distinctly different measurements. Which is it? If we're taking a tape measure and wrapping it around the trunk of the tree, like a belt around one's waist, that's "circumference." If we're estimating the width of a slice through the trunk--as when we order a 12-inch pizza vs. an 18-inch pizza--that would be "diameter." Personally, I'm more interested in the diameter, when I look at a really massive tree, but this figure seems to be relatively tricky to find.
Agreed, trunk 'diameter' or trunk 'thickness' is much easier to visualise. The only reason that sites like this use 'circumference' instead is that it's circumference you actually measure and write down, and after you've measured enough trees it gets easy to think in terms of circumference.
When tree trunk 'diameters' are cited, these are arrived at by dividing the measured circumference by Pi (i.e. it's a notional figure rather than a real one, and viewed from any given angle the apparent thickness of the trunk would only equal this 'diameter' if the trunk was a perfect circle, which tree-trunks never are).
It would be easy to display trunk 'diameter' on this site using an algorithm to divide the recorded circumference by Pi, if enough users felt it was worthwhile. One caveat is that it's amazing how many people don't realise that 'circumference' and 'diameter' are not the same thing, and they would presumably be confused when confronted by two differing figures for the trunk's measurement.
Probably the tree which the late Derrick Holdsworth measured as 44m tall and 440cm girth in 2003. (This was the largest of three Douglas Firs in a group in this area of Brandelhow Park.)
Derrick recorded several thousand Cumbrian trees between the mid 1990s (when he retired as a forester) and his death a few years ago; all his records are on the Tree Register and these can be searched and filtered at www.treeregister.org (in the members' pages). Also visit https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/ for all the records of veteran and ancient trees which have so far been made in Cumbria, which has turned out to be one of the richest counties for old trees.
Nice to have a record of this lovely pine from Dunsinnan (Dunsinane) - an estate I've never visited (or other tree measurers, to my knowledge). Desainme and Conifers will be relieved not to have to move that Sitka Spruce from Birnam Wood after all.
Interesting record because it's right at the limits at which Sequoias will have been able to get established, a hundred years ago at least. This is presumably why there are very few in the central Highlands, though those that did make it to maturity include some of the biggest in Britain. The other year I measured one 218cm dbh at Rosehaugh on the Black Isle, which might be a little north of Guisachan here, though with a milder microclimate.
In the same year I had 56.5m for the tallest of the Grand Firs (also 1905 perhaps?) on the road to the Plodda Falls (and 48m for a very straight vigorous Giant Sequoia in the glen by the falls). But it was just getting used to the Nikon laser then and could have missed the true top of the Grand Firs. I didn't measure any of the Douglas. Alan Mitchell made the tallest of these 51m back in 1981.
I know this area very well and visited way back in the mid 1980's.
Just shows how Redwood can tolerate low temperatures. This part of the central Highlands must get down to -25 about twice a century!
The Douglas here are rather strange to me, as being of very slow growth and rather coarse. I put this down to a high altitude provenance say in BC or Cascades. I have not seen this repeated anywhere else. But lovely stands anyway, look like old growth.
Interesting mixed planting near the waterfall I remember. Must of cost the landowner a packet back then!
I would be interested to know about the history of the planting here Forest?
Hello Michael, nice to hear from you. This was last year and the date that you had climbed this tree had just slipped my mind, it wasn't September 2017 but June 2017, I now remember asking you if you thought that the tree had added any height for 2017 and you said that it was just budding. If the growth rate remained consistant that may put the height now at 67.3, 67.4 metres rather then 67 metres. Would you be able to add some of your photos of the climb, they were fascinating. particularly the ones of you at the top. Thanks.
Just found this footage of a Coast Redwood blowing over in Nelson New Zealand, very dramatic.
Just shows trees blow over as they can in the UK and elsewhere, subject to mid latitude gales. Thought it was quite topical as we were discussing NZ tall Pacific coast conifers. I doubt this would have happened to a Giant Sequoia? I suspect the windspeed was in the region of 80-100mph to do this and an ex tropical cyclone to hit New Zealand?
Thanks for sharing the link, it went over quite slowly - must check youtube to see if there are any more examples. Saw a presentation years ago of an entire pine stand falling in a storm.
Yes very sad, looked like a healthy tree. The leverage on trees in winds like this is huge. As I said Giant Sequoia can withstand 100mph winds. In Oct 1987 the only tree left standing undamaged at Toys Hill in Kent was a Giant Sequoia, where wind speeds were in the region of 90-110mph! Coast Redwood more vulnerable to windthrow. I have seen Giant Sequoia fail where root damage had occurred or where there was a root infection though, but this is rare.
However in this case we do not know why the tree failed, It could have simply been a planted pot grown tree with pot pound roots making it unstable in later life?
Nope, definite Coast Redwood - you can see the foliage a bit better at 1 min 02 sec.
Erwin Gruber, op 2018-11-24 09:43:02, gewijzigd op 2018-11-24 12:54:48, zei:
Had been a well shaped tree! As the last seconds of the video revealed, it's roots were extremely shallow in the ground, obviousely the reason it was blown down by the storm. This conifer, apparently a Coast Redwood, still most regularly, slenderly conus shaped like often with Araucaria heterophylla, seems to have never suffered from drought. Thus precipitation needed to be sufficient year round at region, otherwise such shallow root system had caused growth reducing drought stress.
Yes, Taxodium distichum. No reason for them to be as rare as they are in your part of Yorkshire, as the summers you get are long and warm enough for them to grow quite well, as this one shows.
At the moment, when uploading photos under 'specific tree' I cannot get the 'browse' box to come up to upload a photo? I wondered if this is a general problem, I noticed that 'forestdynamics' had uploaded his photo for the Loch Awe Sitka in the same way, having to use one of the two other options rather than 'specific tree'.
I think it's a lilac (Syringa cv.) Twigs with fat buds in opposite pairs, visible to left of photo, are more useful than the leaves for identification here.
Hello Erwin, Owen, I seem to have a knack for finding trees that don't look quite right (to me at least it must be) I stood right in front of the shrub in the photo and didn't take it as Syringa vulgaris (I have a purple one in my garden)?
Since the upgrade problems, the system does not seem to be allocating new tree numbers (and tree home pages) to new records such as this one?
Tim, op 2018-11-16 08:33:28, gewijzigd op 2018-11-16 08:34:28, zei:
Hi Owen,
if I understand you correctly, you mention two issues:
- the image is not assigned to a particular tree (a tree number)
- this tree does not appear in the record lists
Both are unrelated to the system upgrade, I'm afraid.
The first one is because when the photo was uploaded, the person doing it chose to assign the image to the location, and not a specific tree (the first choice you get when uploading a photo). This could be because the person thought the image was not of a specific tree, but was rather a view on the location as a whole, or it was a human mistake during the upload (in that case, I could fix this).
The second one is because the records lists only show measurements which were done using a measurement method that is seen as "reliable", and if I understand correctly the tangent method which was used here, is not such a method.
Thanks Conifers Interesting! If Alaska seed sources are used even more hardy/exposure resistant.
If we 'removed' the sheep problem in this country, then perhaps we would know the 'true' physical tree line! They are a complete menace in this country and I do not see why we continue to support this industry in my opinion! The amount of damage they have caused to the Lake District is terrible. Nothing natural about the Lake District at all! Tree line to 700-800m without sheep there Baaaaaaa!
If there were mountains in South east England, I suspect the physical tree line would be 900-1000m?
What is so special about trees of 43m at 500m? Well with the UK on the Atlantic coast and storm track, high average wind speed is the main factor limiting tree growth at altitude here. Wales has lower average wind speed then say western Scotland hence the trees can grow taller at altitude. Hope that answers your question?
@ Stephen - yes, agree sheep are a menace! Have you heard of the term 'sheepwrecked' coined I think by George Monbiot? But also grouse and deer shooting interests are very bad for trees in Britain.
@Manu - on an international level, 700 m is nothing for trees. But in Britain, it is very rare, partly due to massive overgrazing, but also due to the combination of wind exposure and high latitude. Britain has a very windy climate compared to Spain (see this global wind map), and that acts as a significant constraint on tree line.
I was amazed by a 53m Sitka at 250m at Balavil near Kingussie (the UK 'cold pole'). But I can't remember seeing trees as good as this anywhere at 300m, let alone 450m!
roburpetraea, op 2018-11-11 21:03:22, gewijzigd op 2018-11-11 21:07:00, zei:
@Conifers
Mmmm... I see. Pretty windy up there... But looking at those spruces does't seem like much of a problem. In a wooded environment the effect of the wind is very muffled. As a curiosity related to trees and wind: Burgos is a very windy city due to the fact that the Cantabrian mountain range is very low to the north (it is still higher than the highest mountain in England😜) causing the cold northwesterly winds to flow from the Cantabrian Sea to the Plateau spoiling many afternoons of swimming pool. Therefore some forests in exposed places grow crooked, like this english oaks and maples in Las Mijaradas:
Yes often read George Monbiot articles. Agree with what he says about most things, but disagree regarding his anti upland conifer forests views.
Going back to to sheep I do not understand why this continues to be a supported industry. What do you think? Lets rid ourselves of this menace and return to a forested country like it always was.
After Owen's Cotinus the other day, couldn't resist adding this one to MT as it is such a fine speciman which I have admired regularly. They have significantly cut it back and it has been taller than this, at least a metre possibly near two.
Bronzy red Owen, how I would describe them anyway. Visible on Street View in 2012, the owners let it grow and then trim it every other year. They have quite a nice elm in the back garden, not really worth measuring but perhaps 15 metres, plus a Field Maple. Not very keen on measuring trees in people's gardens as you look suspicious, even if you knock at the door and ask they wonder who you are, the expressions on their faces. Measured this one through a chink in the car window pretending to answer the phone.
Hello Owen, tallest that I have so far found in West Yorkshire. Nice clean hit on the base but as said, thin top shoot would not record a reading at all. Growing in amongst a very nice stand of Beech also c30 metres.
RedRob, op 2018-11-08 17:30:23, gewijzigd op 2018-11-09 16:41:52, zei:
Batman and Robin will string me up for this one, took several photographs and this was the best that I could do with a 23mp camera from distance from the road to this tree on private land. 100% a willow but has visibly drooping, pendulous branches and a very dark coloured trunk. Yet another of these trees which seem to plague me, looks like Salix x fragilis but never seen one with such pendulous branches, almost like a weeping willow. 25.6 metres into the long grass but couldn't see the actual base as in a ditch.
I think White Willow. Was it raining? The silver under the leaf is duller if it gets wet, and the weight of rain would exaggerate this species' slightly weeping habit.
In agreement with Owen i would vote for Salix alba, in preference to it's hybrid with S. fragilis. I do not expect mixed offspring of S. × sepulcralis or S. babylonica at the site. In case you liked to be cautious you could as well ID as Salix sp.
RedRob, op 2018-11-09 16:41:20, gewijzigd op 2018-11-09 16:45:52, zei:
Hello Owen, Flaxby Covert I use the willows around Knaresborough as a template, they are very silvery white close up, this one at Owston was a lighty green rather than white. I am a fine weather tree measurer 99% of the time (unless caught out in Wales for example at times, don't like the rain myself and don't like to use the laser in it either), the sun came out about 10 minutes after I took the photo, it was a fine dry day and there had been no rain the previous day. It had a pendulous habit naturally. County champion for South Yorkshire whatever it is.
In 2016 I recorded 40.5 x 226cm for the one just north of the memorial stone, which seemed to me at the time to be the tallest (or the easiest-to-measure?) and was growing fast.
One of the trees was recently felled due to a fork breaking. I'm not sure if this was your tree Owen. The tree I measured here was the tallest in the group.
Yes Rob grows like a weed! but for some reason not massive, but this maybe due to site selection i.e if planted where the best Douglas Fir sites were located on the lower valley slopes, they would have done better.
Down in Dyfi near Corris was an amazing stand at low elevation, sadly now felled! Morons!!
What is/was the precise location of the Hemlock stand in Dyfi Stephen? May 2017 when I was there alot of felling was going on around Corris, I visited King Arthur's Cavern about 8 years ago when the slopes were beautifully verdent and thickly forested, alot had visibly been felled by May 2017.
As Dyfi is outside the national Park the trees were harvested as they had reached their rotational age. I remember they were down alongside the main road. Sadly it seems where the most productive soils/shelter were located, some bright spark decided it would be wonderful to plant oak scrub, which really p****S me off!!! They cannot see the beauty of such tall elegant trees.
Could not reach Dyfi this year as the Welsh Car Rally was on and there was road closures and path closures, which was very frustrating and seemed to follow me around all week, even up at Betws.
I saw the Coast Redwood in 2016 (Gwynedd county champion by a long way) but not that Giant Sequoia - last measured by Alan Mitchell in 1975 when 41m x 560cm.
It's particularly hard to decide which boundary system to use in Wales! In terms of 'traditional' counties, Abergwynant is Merionethshire and Bodnant in Denbighshire. The Welsh regions such as Clwyd and Dyfed had a brief existence following boundary changes in the 1970s and I think are still used in some postal addresses (and as options on this site). One reason I don't use them as the basis for the Tree Register's county champions system is that I don't have any maps of the right vintage to show where they began and ended, though Gwynedd still exists in reduced form. For county champions I tend to use the current Local Authority boundaries, hence Conwy for Bodnant, reverting to the 'old' counties when Unitary Authorites have too small an area, such as Wrexham (in Denbighshire) and in parts of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. If it ends up that there's one big Sequoia in each area, I'm happy!
Must admit, I didn't know there'd been micro-transfers like that. I'll have to look up the Watsonian vice-county boundary - they'd be the most sensible ones to use for the Tree Register I guess.
One thing for sure Coast Redwood will be the only 'Pacific Coast' species to benefit from climate change, but only in the far west/northwest, with the possibility of Douglas Fir in the Scottish Highlands.
This is the county champion for height for Douglas Fir for Lincolnshire, surely this can be beaten somewhere. Definitely Pseudotsuga cones when viewed through the laser viewfinder but quite a droopy looking habit.
Drats, on Google Maps I have spotted some shadows at Bainland County Park in Woodhall Spa which look like Douglas Firs and have nice spires on Street View in the distance. Almost certainly the county champions for height. Don't know if I could have entered the park but could have measured these.
If Douglas Fir can do 46m in north Norfolk, and 50m in the North York Moors, there's no reason for it to be so unhappy in Lincolnshire. Having Lincolnshire in my mind as a bad place to hunt for trees, I just don't know how many old estates and well-situated forestry plantations remain to be explored.
Hello Owen, the soils around Tattershall and Coningsby are very sandy, extremely so. Where I do my spot of plane spotting is like a dustbowl in dry weather and even in October. The big pine I came across was impressive I thought considering the local soil. It may be the same at Revesby for soils likely. I do enjoy coming across decent trees in locations like Lincolnshire where perhaps they shouldn't be. The area around Coningsby for example is very flat and there is always a wind, never visited without a wind, accentuated across the airfield.
Owen, there is an Ivy on the right tree here of 19 metres, is this included on the Register at all? It really needs cutting off or it ill smother the tree. Both of these Lawsons are right around 20 metres, couldn't see the actual bases as can be seen in the photo.
The champion for ivy is 31m, in a Norway Spruce just up the hill from the Waterloo Bridge Douglas Firs near Betwys-y-coed. It's not a tree of course, but if you look at trees you find interesting and veteran ivies occasionally.
This is a small-growing tree in the UK (and apparently in the wild) so the identification of this one has to be questioned. Any further information would be very welcome.
I do wonder if true Chamaecyparis lawsoniana could grow to same sizes as these Thuja trees at the area, but i think they needed much longer to reach nearby 45 m in height and more than 4.5 m in girth. I do suppose "Port Orford Cypress" might reach such sizes in the region, as the climate shall be favorable. Your opinions, dear Owen and Conifers?
It would be better to comment a photo than a tree / location because if you comment a photo the author gets a notification by e-mail. If you comment a tree / location he will not read your comment if he doesn't follow Recent changes or Discussion list.
Erwin Gruber, op 2018-10-27 17:36:19, gewijzigd op 2018-10-27 18:09:02, zei:
DBZT, at 2018-10-27 15:51:14, said: "For example, I'm NOT AT ALL sure that trees 20490, 27504, 27645, 27969, 28673, 29033, 29463, 30249, 30387 and 34045 are really ''Lawson cypresses''. They all look like typical giant thujas."
DBZT, at 2018-10-27 16:01:43, said: "Because of their layering from huge low branches and their conic shape with wide base, giant thujas are rarely used in tight alignments or plantations, mostly in sloping forests as the Bager one."
It will be interesting to find if your laser can come up with some precise heights for the Waterloo Bridge trees, where Nikon lasers can't. Unfortunately the undergrowth will still be in leaf for you.
There is an old Forestry Commission Forest Garden near Beddgelert which I've not been to (or succeeded in locating - it's not the same as the Gwydyr Forest Garden W of Waterloo Bridge).
There are probably some more very tall stands in that general area still awaiting 'discovery'.
Survey pole helps certainly. Another possibility is to measure with laser to a point on the trunk (branch scar, attached tape etc.) and to measure from that point to the ground with a tape.
Stephen, I'm not sure if you know: On this site we record height measurements to the AVERAGE ground level (the mean of the highest and lowest ground levels), NOT to the highest ground level as TROBI does (I think...).
Hello Owen, the forest park could likely be in Beddgelert Forest, canno see any really dark shapes and shadows around Beddgelert but there are some in Beddgelert Forest just west of the campsite, Street View allows you to click on a spot in them and they are Sitka Spruce and look about 35 perhaps to 40 metres.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2412630
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1597534
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1373548
I have spotted what looks like a very fine stand of pretty big Sitkas at the south end of Llyn y Parc up above Betws to the north.
Stephen, spotted some more tall looking conifers! Not far from Betws again so ones that you may be able to visit and can get to with the car. Go on to Google Maps, put 'Gwydir Mawr I Bach 'into the search, choose the satellite image. Just to the south along the Nant Gwydyr there is a line of dark shadows, this stand looks big from Street View and in a deep valley, they look promising.
RedRob, op 2018-09-30 16:08:14, gewijzigd op 2018-09-30 16:13:06, zei:
Stephen, I would continue down the road to Nant Bwlch yr Hearn, there are all sorts of conifers along that road, spotted some dark trunked pines which are possibly Lodgepole pines. There is also a line of big shadows at the delightfully named Coed y Fuches las just to the east of Nant Bwlch yr Hearn, they may be on a hill top emphasising the shadows but it isn't clear but definitely worth a drive up that way to assess.
I've just added some historic measurements from Elwes and Henry and Alan Mitchell. These place its origins in the earlier 19th century so it's almost certainly a David Douglas original. Like a lot of American conifers, it's started growing faster in girth in the last few decades.
It is a beauty! Looks to me like Susp. ponderosa and possibly collected somewhere around the Cascades on the Oregon/Washington border. I will upload a photo of the foliage/shoot. Leaves are in two's. Strangely this tree is little planted and yet can grow well. Little is known about best seed provenances for the UK. There seems few Susp benthamiana which I suspect would grow better in the UK, collected from the Sierra's.
No sign of the dreaded Dothistroma here on this tree.
I carefully counted the remaining rings on the Giant Sessile Oak nearby. I presume this was 'The Giant'? 29' girth, which recently finally died. At best I think it was no older than 420 years! about 300 countable rings then the rotten hollow core which looked like it has grown quickly.
@ Steven, you happened to write leaves are in 2s, as one photo proves these are in 3s as usual with P. ponderosa, don't know if there will be some bundles of 2 occasionally.
Yes you are right, but most were in two's. I would be surprised that the Spokane area would provide such a fine specimen here, due to the climatic contrasts with that part of interior Washington compared to the maritime climate of the UK. Who knows where Douglas collected exactly?
I think that this tree will reach 50m, perhaps the first time in Northern Europe for a Pinus.
has 3 needles; 2s are quite rare in subsp. ponderosa (though common in subsp. scopulorum). Could the 2s counted have been from a very weak, heavily shaded low shoot, or else partly disarticulated fallen needles?
Hi Stephen - "So does this mean conifers that it is more like Subsp benthamiana? So perhaps not from Spokane after all?" - no; subsp. benthamiana also has needles fairly strictly in 3s. It usually has longer needles, but is most easily distinguished by the young cones in summer being green, not purple.
Stephen, it's for sure just a guessing that Pinus ponderosa originating in more humid climates, as subsp. benthamiana, might prove to grow better in UK plus Ireland in general. Even in case sufficient experimental plantings where scattered today, we hardly would get to know about results in future of several decades to even cebturies. Nevertheless, let's start experimenting step by step 👍😃
Conifers, you wrote (needles in) "2s are quite rare in subsp. ponderosa (though common in subsp. scopulorum". I do suppose that needles in 3s is usual with subsp. scopulorum, still there will frequently be as well (a minor?) part in 2s, or am i wrong? In case both, bundles in 3s plus 2s are generally mixed with this subspecies, could you try to estimate relations, or has the issue be cleared by studies?
C.J. Earle tries to explain infraspecific distinction of P. ponderosa at The Gymnosperm Database This is surely a most complex matter, apparently still far from being cleared, and i got to admit i don't know enough about.
The general description of all subspecies together is rather confusing, thus i couldn't figure out at first view if needles in 2s are usual or predominant with subsp. scopulorum. C.J. will have adapted this page recently (last modified 13.10.2018) so it might have changed since your last visit. I had to study the text and map thoroughly to get all the meaning so far i wished.
I did look at the database myself which was interesting.
Strangely this species is mostly confined to tree collections in the UK. One cannot judge a species performance by purely by looking at a few trees. A full seed provenance trial is required and as you say can take decades to study in detail. This was done in the UK extensively for Sitka Spruce.
I suspect as you say the coastal and Sierra form would grow better, but strangely there appears to be little subsp benthamiana planted here.
Difficult to measure but could just hit the top from some distance hitting the ground visible in photo so the tree may be between 36 to 37 metres. Does the fir to it's right look like this
Abies concolor Lowiana Group
Revesby Abbey
35.00 78 245 1991 PR Horncastle
Lincolnshire
England
Category: A County Champion: Historic Girth & Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Alan Mitchell
I couldn't get any clean view on the top of this but it looked a few metres shorter than Sequoiadendron, 35 metres may be about right.
My best guess for the 'fir on the right' is Blobbius viridis, but it could possibly match a Picea smithiana recorded by Mitchell as 31m in 1991, 'shrubbery by road'.
This was right at the end of Alan's measuring career and I think his eyesight was deteriorating through late-onset diabetes, so the heights at Revesby would be suspect (including a 27m Fern-leaved Beech). It's clearly a favoured and interesting site for tree-growth - Greville had Grand Firs to 43m in 1950 (again suspect in accuracy) and for a Low's Fir to have reached 35m in Lincolnshire is quite remarkable. If it was still there now it would be even more remarkable but I don't think it would resemble your blob. Sorry.
Just had a look at the green blob on Street View. There seem to be two conifers which are directly in line from your distant viewpoint but whose tips are separately visible on Street View from the road near the wrought-iron gates. The taller and nearer tree is indeed an Abies and I'd guess A. cephalonica of which Greville measured several in 1950. The shorter tree behind could be the Picea smithiana from 1991. Both are some metres shorter than the Sequoiadendron.
Owen, are these Limes likely to tbe these trees recorded by Alan Mitchell in 1991? Revesby is private but I could see some trees from the main road, this line is in the deer park.
Added in a spirit of contrariness to show that Cotinus coggygria can reach tree-size, though the bole always tends to lean towards the horizontal as it gets bigger. This is an example of the purple-fruiting f. purpureus.
The misprint 'Continus' needs correcting. I'll try to do this myself.
There is one of these I have noticed on a street in the area that I live, I will photograph it and try and measure it although I am not that keen on standing with a camera and strange instrument on roads outside houses where people live.
RedRob, op 2018-10-12 15:45:38, gewijzigd op 2018-10-12 15:46:02, zei:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5225828
Hello Owen, three records from the Pembury area on the register but any other records of the conifers in this area? Corsican Pine (?), look quite decent in size.
What should be or is the convention for measuring plants like Trachycarpus? The tallest physical part of this palm is the top leaf end and that was 5.6 metres, 4.2 metres to the bud base. For me I don't think that it should be bud base as that is not the highest physical point of the plant.
I started recording palm heights to the bud not the leaves as this helps with sorting young Phoenix canariensis - in Hastings there are no 'old' trees with long trunks, two or three which have survived perhaps 20 years and which are 2m to the bud and about 5m to the leaf-tips, and lots which have been planted in the last few years and which may be 3m to the leaftips but don't yet have a trunk at all so can't really be called trees. This would also screen out records of plants like Musa which can be imposingly tall but have no woody growth. In Trachycarpus it doesn't matter so much as the leaves are smaller and the plant wastes no time in growing a trunk. A few other large-leaved trees, like Ailanthus, probably lose half a metre in height when they shed their leaves in autumn, while others, such as Salix alba, might be a metre shorter if heavy rain weights down the upper branches.
Acknowledged Owen, measurement to the base of the bud. It will be the same with other trees like Catalpa and Paulownia I imagine. Much easier to measure in leaf with something solid to hit rather than very thin shoots but then the leaves come off and the tree is shorter as you say. Some deciduous trees like Willows and Beech in particular I have found can have very thin wippy leading shoot tips.
Before anyone comments, tried to change the name in registering but it as stayed as Nottcutts when it should be Notcutts. The drive down the side says private and you have to register in via intercom so didn't venture in. This tree was the tallest of lines of Limes, photograph not brilliant but Tilia x europea? County champion for height if it is unless some of the Limes at Clumber are also Common Limes.
I've not seen the Clumber Park Lime avenue but I had assumed that it's T. x europaea with (just one?) bigger and older T. platyphyllos incorporated within it.
You are right Owen if this correct, measured several of the tallest trees along the line (there are several which are significantly taller than the rest, 32 to 37 metres) which stand out above the rest which are 25 to 28 metres from sample lasering. Whether all the tallest ones are platyphyllos? This avenue, double avenue in effect is an exceptional one and well worth visiting I would recommend for anyone passing by.
This one does look like Common Lime, though it's hard to be certain without seeing detail of the hairiness of the foliage. John and Alan's tree should be on the ATI if you want to compare the locations.
It could be 'Serotina', which is male, very late into leaf (end of May in Yorkshire?) with a pale reddish cast for a few days.
RedRob, op 2018-09-26 15:39:59, gewijzigd op 2018-09-26 16:39:10, zei:
Thanks Owen, I was going to have a walk around Plumpton Rocks but the biggest trees are visibly near the A661, these Poplars tower over the other trees. A circa 30 metre Beech with a largish girth of what looks like c500cm is the only other really notable tree and is next to these Poplars, 20 metre Birch, early 20 metres Ashes, similar Sycamores, the trees are tightly packed and slim and difficult to differentiate to measure. In photographs of the lake area they don't look big either, perhaps 20 metres.
Have driven past this long line (almost hedge) of Poplars many times but didn't think them tall enough to warrant stopping on this very busy road to measure. Their colour on Saturday (22nd September) was almost dazzling though so had to stop and make a measurement and take a photo. Varying heights between 28 and 34 metres but the lovely autumn colour is the most striking. Photo likely not good enough as usual but identifiable from the autumn colour?
Interesting experiment with the laser, the Nikon's range was/is long enough to measure these trees from the shore on the other side of Ladybower reservoir. Chose a spot in the clearing just below the Grand Fir in the lowest group and measured up from that, had to bury the laser in the tree to make sure that was the tree that I was hitting, 3 or 4 metres below the tip. The base of the tree is 227.78 metres, the point to which I measured 225.74 metres, minus the bracken likely 224.5 metres, minus 3 from my 46 metre reading. I aimed at least 3 metres likely 4 metres below the tip of the tree which gives a distance tree height of 46 metres.
Tim, apologies but I had to look at Google Maps three times to adjust the measuring point for this tree. I may have to do it with one more tree.
What do the blue conifers look like, a blue Pseudotsuga or Abies procera? They must be at least 40 metres and judging by the Abies grandis next to them perhaps 44 metres.
What a good tree this has grown into. Normally when you find an Abies lasiocarpa as old as this in Britain (it was planted in 1959), it's either dead or looks as if it wishes it was. This one is clearly neither.
Hello Owen, there is only one tree along the path and no other speciman was visible anywhere near? I think it a great shame but the other lasiocarpa must have gone. Hope that this one stands up to all the coming ex hurricanes this week, Helene and likely Florence at the weekend, it is a fairly exposed position.
These Sitkas do not look that healthy now, visibly browned. They face north east up the valley so whether this is another result of 'Beast from the East' last winter or drought stress or disease? Shame if the last as now clearly visibly the tallest Sitkas in the reservoir areas, tallest trees in Derbyshire.
I would guess they are retreching drastically in response to the early summer drought. Being next to a reservoir with its fluctuating water levels must confuse them too. In SE England there are several big Sitkas which died back 20 - 30m (most likely in the 1977 drought) and have continued since then as healthy but much shorter trees. But the tallest one in this stand looks as if it's still green?
I've just seen your record of your Tulip Tree plus the photos emailed to the Tree Register via David Alderman.
If it is Liriodendron chinense, it will become a new (European) champion for girth, though I think the fork from 2m slightly inflates in comparison with the current champion at Ashford Chace in Hampshire which was 336cm this spring. Your garden is covered by 3D imagery on Google Earth and using this in combination with your photos to see the changes in ground-level at the tree's foot gives a height of 86' (just over 26m). The Ashford Chace tree was 29m by laser.
Unfortunately I couldn't see enough detail of the leaf-shape in your photos to feel confident that it is Chinese (which of course it would be if the Ernest Wilson story is correct). From the bark and habit I would have plumped for L. tulipifera but I thought I could see a hint of the purplish flush to the young foliage in the spring photo, which is probably the surest way of confirming L. chinense. A photo of leaf would convince me!
It would be wonderful if Edgbaston could claim a Wilson champion tree, as it's where he worked before becoming a professional planthunter.
I suspect this one is Cedrus libani, on the basis of crown broadest near the top with fairly level shoot-systems. Contrary to general assumptions, blueness of the foliage isn't a useful identification feature among cedars (though I've not seen a C. libani as grey as the greyest C. atlantica selections).
This is a very interesting oak. About the age I hope there will be done really scientifical research with the dendrochronological method. The age you write about of 2000 years is difficcult to believe, as in other parts of Europe such big oaks have been proven to be less than 1000 years old. About the girth your information is very much conflicting, so it would be best that you measure the tree together at several heights above ground level.
I see in the newest photo that a large branche at the top has fallen. You give also a much lesser height, 28 m in stead of 36 m, is this because of this fallen branche?
Best regards,
Jeroen Philippona
Alberto C F, op 2018-08-27 12:42:43, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 13:06:34, zei:
Hello Jeroen,
I think that it does not measure 12 meters at 1.30 from the ground. Around 9 measured with my own hands. Below 1, 50 has many bumps and warts due to many years of pruning and cutting new shoots. At about two meters, enough height above these malformations I calculate that it measures around 8 meters in circumference. However I want to go one day and measure it with the laser because it is not far from my house and the last time I went I still did not have it. According to the book of Arbores Senlleiras de Galicia, it was 33 meters tall but for the photo that upload Manu the highest branch has been split. As for 2000 years old I do not think so either, I estimate that it will have around 600 because it is in a deep and fertile plain.
I'd think even 600 years is too much - my guess would be around 250-300.
Alberto C F, op 2018-08-27 14:04:17, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 14:11:44, zei:
Probably here in Galicia the growth of the oaks is slower than in other more northern places of Europe where the summers are more humid. I have observed that in more rainy summers the oaks can grow up to three times what they grow in dry summers.
roburpetraea, op 2018-08-27 16:32:06, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 16:50:31, zei:
No, the tree is between 1500 and 2000 years old, as I explain in the description. It has been measured by a state institution, seriously and without any intention to deceive anyone. Here's the original document in spanish: https://www.ragc.gal/sites/default/files/revistas/articulos/pdf/carballos.pdf
Sadly the tree has lost the main branch during a heavy storm this spring, and it could begin its decadence when the water enters the broken branch and rot the tree inside. Since hurricane Hortensia the tree has lost more than 3/4 of the cup, but it stills growing. Constantino, the caretaker, said that in the last years the tree has grow up to 12 meters of perimeter.
Jeroen Philippona, op 2018-08-27 17:21:26, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 22:08:26, zei:
Hello Alberto,
I thought the summers in Galicia are rather wet and cool compared with other parts of Spain. Still they will be warmer and somewhat drier compared to Scotland, NW England, Wales and Ireland. But still perhaps wetter than large parts of the Netherlands, Germany and Poland.
About the age of big Oaks: in the Netherlands ring counts of some fallen oaks have been done and planting dates of some oaks are known. Two open grown oaks of 6.1 and 5.9 m girth @ 1.30 m (circumference at breast height = cbh) were proven by ring counts to be 280 years in 2000, so dating from 1720; there is also a drawing of these oaks with the neighbouring castle as young trees in 1740. See: http://www.bomeninfo.nl/warnsveld2.htm or (shorter version in English) http://www.bomeninfo.nl/english6.htm .
An open grown oak of 510 cm cbh is known to have been planted in 1753 http://www.bomeninfo.nl/treek.htm and zomereik (Quercus robur) '31866'.
This January an oak of 540 cm cbh in the Netherlands was thrown over in a storm. It had 285 yearrings near the ground, so dated from 1732: Zelhemseweg 4
The biggest Dutch oak (cbh 775 cm) had a cbh of 460 cm in 1767. An oak planted in 1791 at the same estate had a girth of 500 cm in 2008, when 217 years old. So the big oak, wich has a comparable location and growthhabit, probably was around 180 - 200 years in 1767, so dating from around 1567 - 1587.
Tree ring research of the Oaks of Ivenack in 1995 revealed that the largest oak probably is over 800 years. Summers in the region of Ivenack are rather dry, total precipitation is around 500 - 600 mm each year.
I know some very large Sessile Oaks in the rather cool and wet border counties (precipitation 800 - 1200 mm / year) of England and Wales were thought to be only 300 years by the late dendrologist Alan Mitchell. It could be that they grew much faster than the measured Dutch and German oaks.
I think the estimate of 600 years for the Spanish oak could be right and the 250 - 300 y estimate of Conifers is to low.
You don't need to make any estimate. In 1967, technicians from the Forestry Research Institute of Madrid practiced a small hole in the trunk and extracted a cross-sectional sample in which they accounted for up to 2,000 annual growth rings. As we say in Spain: more clear, water. Also, according to studies conducted at an oak close to this one and with very similar characteristics, after its fall due to the action of Hurricane Hortensia, they obtained ages of approximately two thousand years.
The climate in Chantada is oceanic mediterranean:
But in my opinion are the genetics, and not the climate, what make this oak so special.
Manu says that the estimate of 2000 years was reached by taking a core-sample from this tree in 1967, but the source he links us to (Revista Real Academia Galega de Ciencias. Vol. XXX. Págs. 37-64 (2011)) actually says that an age of 2000 years had been estimated for another tree nearby after it blew down. It does not say how this estimate was obtained, unless I missed that in translation.
It's a shame that we don't have a more precise source, as an age of 2000 years for a tree of this appearance would completely contradict the large body of information built up by studying the growth of big, old oaks across northern Europe. I'm quite prepared to believe that growth and longevity can vary widely between different populations, but (like that Turkish yew) it's a shame not to have the hard facts behind such extraordinary claims.
I can't find the other document where I got the rest of the information. @TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, you read mi mind. Every time I think of this oak, the Turkish yew comes to mind. I can't agree more with your reasoning.
Manu it's a pity but for me the man who wrote this does not have much credibility. He says that the trunk is surprisingly beautiful and that the tree is intact by the hand of man when it is not true, it seems that he is talking about another specimen. The Carballo of Cartelos has been poorly pruned for a long time, the only part that can appreciate the natural beauty of its branches is the highest part of the crown where they never reached.
Jeroen, very interesting the relationship data between circumference and rings. In Galicia it rains a lot but we have drier summers than other parts with oceanic climate. Here, as in the north of Portugal where the most common oak species is Quercus robur, the climate resembles the Mediterranean climate more than for example in the Basque country, French Brittany, Ireland or the United Kingdom. Also within Galicia there are different climates with a range of annual rainfall ranging from 2500 to 800 liters. In Carballedo, where this oak is located, 1200 liters a year fall, of which 90% of this rain precipitates from the September 27 until May 31. Only 120 liters fall from June 1 to September 26 and the driest months are July with 20 liters and August with 25 liters.
I have only counted the rings of an sessile oak felled in the forest of Muniellos, Asturias, a closed forest with tall, straight trees in a climate very similar to that described before. It measured 214 cm in circumference and had 166 rings, I do not know how much it would have measured in an open field. This one of the Pazo de Cartelos had to grow in a closed forest its first years and later they cleared the forest to make a meadow or fiel only on the one side.
roburpetraea, op 2018-08-27 21:16:13, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 21:17:22, zei:
Pero ya dije que en los 60 se barrenó el tronco y se contaron los anillos. Lo que pasa es que no me acuerdo de dónde saqué la info. De todos modos te puedo asegurar que no me la he inventado! żQué interés iba a tener yo en mentiros? Y es la misma historia que me contó Constantino cuando me lo enseńó. El roble puede tener perfectamente 2000 ańos. Eso no quiere decir que sea la regla, se trata de un espécimen muy especial con una genética sobrenatural que le permite vivir mucho con un crecimiento muy lento. Es la versión oficial, la que además cuentan los dueńos del carballo, y sea no no verdad la más adecuada para poner en la página...
Alberto C F, op 2018-08-27 21:24:26, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 21:25:43, zei:
Manu nobody thinks you want to lie, I at least but sometimes you have to be more incredulous, you can not believe everything you read or tell you. You say it is 2000 years old and has grown 3 meters in 3 years? It is not possible ... The tree is in Carballedo not in Chantada. Climogram of Carballedo here:
roburpetraea, op 2018-08-27 21:39:58, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 21:42:15, zei:
Es una forma de hablar, hombre. Como parecéis tan reticentes a creerme a mí y al Instituto de Estudios Forestales de Madrid... Ambos modelos meteorológicos son genéricos y no muestran los datos reales. Además, el climograma que me enseńas tiene una resolución de 30km, y la distancia entre Carballedo y Chantada es de sólo 11km.
Bueno a mi personalmente climate-data.org que es de donde has sacado el climograma no me gusta, no coincide con los datos de otras ciudades de la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologia, de todos modos el climograma de Carballedo respalda tu postura ya que dice que hay veranos todavia más secos.
Un saludo
roburpetraea, op 2018-08-27 22:02:19, gewijzigd op 2018-08-27 22:04:25, zei:
Y sí, climate data no coincide para nada con los índices de precipitaciones reales, pero era sólo para ilustrar la diferencia de precipitaciones. Bueno, yo por lo demás no tengo nada más que decir, ahí tenéis los datos, pensad lo que queráis. Ha sido una discusión especialmente tensa, yo diría que me han volado cuchillos!
Un saludo! ;)
Jeroen Philippona, op 2018-08-28 08:56:32, gewijzigd op 2018-08-28 20:32:59, zei:
Hello all,
I did not start this discussion to create a quarrel in Spanish!
I am convinced you both are serious and don't want to lie or give false information.
Still, when we really want to have good information about the age of old trees, only using
scientifical methods will bring us nearer to the truth. This implies our research has to be open
to control and verification by others.
Manu, if you like to convince us of the very great age of this oak, it will help that you
show the original report with results and methods. It is a pity when you don't have this.
At many places in Europe and elswere there are stories about very old trees (Oaks, lime trees, yews, sweet chestnuts, plane trees, olive trees,etc.) but many of them are traditional told stories without the possibility to control
The 1967 measurement is what the guide tells you when you go to see the oak. In 1967 Spain was mired in a harsh dictatorship and this type of studies were never public domain. Obviously, this document is not available on the network, it will be stored in some private library. The guardian of the Cartelos Palace shows it in the visit because the oak is owned by the José Luis Taboada Foundation, which was a very powerful Francoist minister and who surely had access to this study.
Anyway, what I show is still much more than your mere suppositions. If you are so interested in knowing the true age of the oak, I encourage you to contact the INIA: http://wwwsp.inia.es/Inia/Paginas/Directorio.aspx
On my computer I have a folder with measurements (tree rings and girths) and within that folder I have a note which says "Watch out: With every measurement a pixie or gnome disappears!"
To my way of thinking, there has not been any quarrel, nor will there be any on my part. I have only maintained my opinion based on the knowledge I have and respect those of others. The attraction of any forum is to debate and disagree. Regarding this tree 2000 years seems crazy to me and even if scientists say trying their methods it would be hard to believe it. In 2000 years entire Celtic villages are covered, in a climate of strong winds and a lot of water erosion and rot destroys everything.
The trunk of this oak seems to be composed of a mass of coalesced burrs. Growth rings is such timber will double back on themselves in intricate, lace-like patterns. In a narrow core-sample, the twisting pattern will not be apparent and it might be possible to count 25 annual rings which happened to cut across the line of the core-sample four times as 100 annual rings. Rings in yew trees tend to do the same thing, especially when the trunk is elaborately fluted like the tree in Turkey.
This oak seems to be at least 30m tall. In Britain, at least, oaks only reach that height when conditions for growth are exceptionally good (adequate ground-water and also warmth through summer. Soil structure is much more important than actual summer rainfall totals in this respect: Douglas Firs need lots of water to grow really tall, but do so in the wild in areas of absolute summer drought.) In my experience from Britain, tall freely-growing oaks like this are susceptible to fungal attack and wind-damage and are unlikely to survive for more than about 300 years before collapsing fatally - it's the stunted, stressed oaks in poor soils which are able to grow new limbs as the old ones blow out and so reach great ages.
But I assume from its appearance that this oak and the ones in the grove behind it have been 'shredded' for most of their life, with the branches being regularly cut from the trunk for firewood and fodder. The current crown-structure, with its slender, smooth branches, doesn't look as if it can be much more than 200 years old. But if it could be proved that the tree was shredded every decade or more frequently, continuously from 50AD to 1800AD, the trunk itself would have remained stable and would have grown very slowly. I don't know if any evidence is available for such a continuity of management; in England, where the equivalent management technique is pollarding, we don't have any sites (deer parks) where this is likely to have been carried out continuously for more than 1000 years - and we probably don't have oaks which are much older than that.
The oak belongs to the Palace of Cartelos, and the oldest part of this, the kitchen, dates back to the 12th century, so with a little imagination it could be deduced that the oaks of the farm have been worked since then. It should also be borne in mind that right at their feet passes the Via XIX, a Roman road innaugurated in the first century after Christ, and it may be that the oaks on its sides were worked since then.
Hello Owen, is the foliage photo good enough to identify this variety? I suspect that this is the stand of very tall poplars which Richard Goodrick reported some years ago at Warter Priory. The trees on the outside were 36 metres, very difficult to measure the trees in the middle of the stand, the tree in the photo centre in the middle of the stand, the bit of foliage I could hit with the laser whilst still seeing a glimpse of the base was 36.8 metres but it wasn't the tree top. The tallest in the stand is probably 40 metres or close to I suspect.
I'm going to plump for 'Gelrica' though without full confidence. I assume you were too late in the year to check the trees' gender ('Gelrica' is male).
With these hybrid poplars I find the best way to height them is usually to stand at the base and aim the laser straight up into the canopy (adding the height from the tree-base to the instrument). The foliage is sparse enough for the laser to hit the highest leaves, if you keep on trying, though if the foliage is in motion my laser at least throws in the odd false reading (usually 1.5m too high), just to confuse things.
This is a really interesting photo, I think that this could be a side by side comparison of the habits of Abies grandis and Abies grandis 'idahoensis'(?) The tree in photo centre had the flat foliage of conventional Abies grandis, the tree to it's left had visibly and quite strongly recurved up needles viewed through the 6x viewfinder of the laser. It looks identical to the Flassendale Abies.
Though in this case both trees were presumably sown from the same batch of seed. Dense upcurved needles are more likely to occur on coning shoots - if a fir gets to coning age earlier than another, would its foliage and general appearance alter?
Should we accept Abies pseudochensiensis, which was published basing on cultivated trees in Europe, but not on wild ones in supposed native regions? Is this taxon largely accepted by specialists in the meanwhile?
In case we should add it to MT database and rename this tree.
Here is a link to the full article: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1556/ABot.52.2010.3-4.9
The paper on a quick glance to me does not adequately explain why the name Abies gamblei cannot be applied to these trees, but I'll take a more detailed look later. I also suspect that their new name may be a nomenclatural synonym of Abies vasconcellosiana as they appear to treat this earlier name as a synonym; again, it'll need a more detailed look.
In my opinion it is bad practice to describe new species from cultivated specimen of unknown origin and native range, leading easily to creation of unwished synonyms. In other words Abies pseudochensiensis might turn out to be kind of "pseudo-naming". We will see later, am curious for your expertise about publication.
I do hope these authors won't spread superfluous synonyms the way like Silba did!! :-O
The Abies at Dawyck (and the very similar one at Durris which I revisited last month and will add here if I've not already done so) is almost certainly from a wild collection of seed by Wilson or Forrest, though the collection number isn't known. (The younger fir at the Hillier Gardens which is one of the types for 'Abies pseudochensiensis' is more likely to have been grown from cultivated trees, i.e. this one if it's considered the same species.) So I suppose the implication would be that 'A. pseudochensiensis', if sufficiently distinct, describes a wild species, but one which hasn't been refound in the wild for a century and could even be extinct in the wild (like Franklinia alatamaha).
I'm not convinced at all by a Wilson / Forrest (i.e. from China, in the 1910-1935 period) origin for the Dawyck tree at least; it is surely too old to derive from this period, more likely being planted in the late 1800s. My guess would be in the northwest Himalaya somewhere, geographically fairly close to A. pindrow, but on drier 'rain shadow' inner ranges rather than outer ranges in the full monsoon. The cones are very similar to A. pindrow (8-14 cm, dark purple, concealed bracts), and the foliage is fairly similar, but needles shorter and less pectinate, and with less conspicuous stomatal bands below - adaptations to a drier climate.
Yes, there are risks with describing new species from cultivated material, even if it is from imported seed; Abies chengii was described in 1983 from cultivated trees grown from seed collected in China by Forrest, but is now considered to be a [natural] hybrid between A. chensiensis and A. forrestii.
The 1931 Conifer Conference Report gives a 1913 planting date for the Abies gamblei at Dawyck - so perhaps a Forrest collection from his 1910 Yunnan expedition, which Balfour at Dawyck sponsored? I don't have a planting date for the Durris tree but its growth since 1970 suggests it's the same age within a few years. (There are several Wilson originals from this period in the same area at Durris, but no known Forrest collections here.)
As a footnote to that, the only 'Abies pindrow var. brevifolia' in Britain known to have been older than 1913 were a 1905 planting at Pencarrow and a 1908 planting at Borde Hill, both long dead. Another was planted in 1913 at Tilgate Park (same source as the Dawyck tree?) but failed to survive long enough for Mitchell to see it. In 2013 I could not refind a big (old?) tree recorded by the late Jim Paterson at Cawdor Castle.
So it seems quite likely that the handful of 'Abies gamblei' in collections in Britain and Ireland today all belong to 'A. pseudochensiensis'.
"The 1931 Conifer Conference Report gives a 1913 planting date for the Abies gamblei at Dawyck" - under what name?
I find this a bit odd though; as I remember, the label on the tree didn't have a planting date or collector's number, unlike the Wilson & Forrest specimens which did all have this on their labels.
My source as usual was Alan Mitchell's Tree Register record, but I assume it's accurate. (The British Library has a copy of the original CCR from 1931.) Mitchell first saw the Dawyck tree in 1974, presumably using field identification to name it as 'A. pindrow var. brevifolia' and making the match with the CCR record. Its growth (6.5m high x 47cm girth in 1931, 22m x 182cm in 1974, 27m x 242cm in 1992 and 34m x 339cm in 2014) certainly provides support for its being the same tree. RBG Edinburgh was clearly unaware of this when they catalogued the tree as one without a known planting date.
However it now occurs to me that if the Dawyck estate knew the planting date when it sent the record to the RHS in 1931, they probably also knew the source, and the name A. pindrow var. brevifolia wouldn't have been chosen if the tree was known to be Chinese.
Thanks! It'd be worth checking the 1931 original, and even more, the Dawyck planting records, if they still exist. Abies pindrow var. brevifolia was only named in 1923, so Dawyck's original name for it could be very revealing over where they thought it might be from.
I was very pleased to find this new UK champion ash, in an area already badly affected by Chalara dieback. This one hasn't escaped infection, but is very healthy so far and is still growing taller. The leaves were larger and darker than is usual.
Workman's Wood was managed as continuous cover forestry by the late John Workman, who donated it the National Trust. It is part of the Cotswold Commons and Beechwoods National Nature Reserve.
I was hoping to find a 40m beech here too, but of the tallest, which are on the steep bank just north of the ash, the best I could get with the laser was 39m for a couple. One tree, too hemmed-in for laser measurement, could have been 42 (hypsometer).
Yes, I came here looking for exceptional beeches and found several outstanding ashes instead. This tallest one was showing quite good resistance to Chalara so the prognosis should be good, though the disease is bound to limit its vigour. I don't know how Chalara is progressing up your way, Rob. In Gloucestershire it's seriously affecting some mature trees here but at my home in Hastings, where saplings were being killed several years ago, it's almost fizzled out (for now). Maybe the wild ashes here have exceptional degrees of resistance.
Conifers, op 2018-07-26 15:31:13, gewijzigd op 2018-07-26 15:31:31, zei:
Only really noticed the disease this year up here, though it has been reported in Northumbs for several years. I've noticed too that young planted trees (likely from imported seed sources) are dying back badly, while older local trees seem hardly affected if at all. But I suspect it'll take a few more years yet to see what's really happening.
One positive I'm hoping for - dead Ash wood is really good for woodpeckers, so all the branch dieback (lots of upper crown dead wood) might result in an upturn for the endangered UK population of Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
Ash dieback is currently devastating populations of F. excelsior in Austria. I got aware of this disease some years ago, probably soon after first detection and description, i think in Poland.
However, this seems to rival other diseaseas in consern of the damage to species and ecosystems formerly rich in ashes. It might be a !slight! benefit in case woodpeckers could find more housing place, yet this could never outweigh this kind of calamity. In fact ashes killed by dieback will always soon crash down, thus woodpecker shall be warned to nest within. Roots of affected ashes do die, enforced by soil fungi which attack such roots and cause rotting. Since that visibly weakened ashes are removed wherever damage could happen. Yes i have seen this process at several places, and i don't know about destiny of native ashes!
A friend of the owner mentioned to me that it could be the tallest in England. I very much doubted this as Cotswold limestone isn't good for most conifers, but there are plenty of deeply sheltered valleys. There is a fine tree collection at Miserden - all new records for the Tree Register.
Not tall or big girth but the crown coverage, under the crown it appeared to be one tree, was impressive. Must be 100 feet across by how I paced it, surrounded by vintage cars that day. It is Aesculus but what type is it likely to be?
Current champion Abies nebrodensis (at Erwin Gruber's request), measured by volunteers from the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens. The placement on the map is not precise (it's at point 720 in the pinetum).
One of 45 known examples of this very rare fir in Britain and Ireland - plus a 46th where I didn't have any documentation to help with my identification. They are all quite young trees and look as if they should grow much bigger.
Magnificent new champion for 'Robusta', and one of a surprising number of trees which, despite being the most vigorous of their kind, are heavily infested with mistletoe (Viscum album).
Most parasites attack trees which are already weakened, and whose immune system is already compromised, but presumably trees have no immune defences against mistletoe? The presence of the mistletoe must draw some vigour out of the tree - but not measurably so.
we got just a single report of A. nebrodensis from Potsdam, Germany at MT at time. There is one report of the rare species planted in southern England, probably the current UK champion at Leonardslee Garden. It is visible at iNaturalist report where a famous dendrologist gave the hint to this tree, you surely do know him. Maybe you liked to add this champion to MT?
you probably missed my first message here, thus i ask once again. May you tell if this Abies nebrodensis is the UK champion, and would you like to share it with MT?
Hello Owen, this as been intriguing the hell out of me, didn't you visit Thorpe Perrow some years ago, did David Alderman visit recently? I am asking because this tree isn't on the register? I have visited Thorpe Perrow twice now and missed it twice and really only came across it again by chance. 29.8 metres into the grass at the front of the tree, 30.00 metres to a dry brown patch of soil to it's right with no obscurring grass so this tree will be 30 metres from base to absolute tip. Superb tree, it had no number on the trunk so assuming it is Picea omorika? Not fond of Thorpe Perrow's number system, it would vastly better if the little tags were names of the trees rather than numbers which you then have to check in a book, if it is available.
Struggling yet again to register trees, the dropdowns just will not dropdown, it took me half an hour to register the Sledmere cedar. What is causing this problem, no experienced it like this before, the Google Maps app used to lock for but not had this problem before?
I think this must be tree R14, which I made 24m back in 2004 but had assumed lost since as it was missed by David in 2014. Instead, it's grown really well and looks as if it's still adding height quite fast (for this species). A champion for the future, I think. R14 was grafted at the base (not sure what on).
Hello Owen, I thought it unlikely that you had missed this, I have on two previous visits, it is quite hidden despite it's height. I just visit Thorp Perrow because it is a nice place and measure a few trees that I can identify. It is like being a kid in a sweet shop, so many unusual trees that I haven't a clue what most are without ident tags. This spruce has a really nice leading shoot, difficult to hit with the laser, so is growing very nicely. It is extremely dry up here, local weatherman last night said it could be the driest June on record if it doesn't rain before the 30th is out, hope that it is isn't damaging the trees. A breakdown in the weather is forecast next week, I just hope that we get some thunderstorms this time and the south doesn't get it all like last time.
Almost hate sticking this tree on here but looked something interesting. Resembles photos of Cryptomeria japonica 'Radicans' but probably not that. Measured and photo taken from this position on the Coulton to Hoveringham road and best that I can do for a photo. To the right of the photo is east-north east and interesting that several of the conifers are browned on that side, must be significant damage from the winter weather, the 'Beast from the East'. Have emailed the Hovingham estate for an ident but as usual no reply.
Are you sure they weren't Sequoiadendron? The 'fuzzier' appearance of the foliage made me think Cryptomeria at first, but that could just be the photo (sorry)? It would be slightly surprising for Cryptomeria to be growing that vigorously once 28m tall in NE Yorkshire.
Apologise about the photo, taken from distance a week last Thursday on morning when low cloud had come in from the North Sea and the light wasn't good. I haven't had a reply from Hovingham Hall but will have another look the next time that I am over there. It didn't strike me as Sequoiadendron though the 6x finder in the laser but as seen recently, trees do try to fool with their varying growth habits at times.
Hello Nardo, absolutely sopt on with your ident and comments, these are Sequoiadendron with pretty bad scorch on the south east side, almost certainly a result of the 'Beast from the East'. Not seen Seqys with this shape in Yorkshire or anywhere personally, clothed with foliage nearly to the ground and an almost tear drop shape. I couldn't isolate the top from the oak behind and had to hit with the laser so far down, 30.2 metres is the height to the tip of the tree.
A problem uploading the photo at the moment but have looked at this
128473
Ulmus glabra
(near Douglas)
33.00 140 440 1998 PR 98-113 Douglas
Isle of Man
Isle of Man
Category: A Britain & Ireland Champion: Height; Country Champion: Height; County Champion: Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Frank Harrison
Between Braddan old church and gatehouse. Straight bole for 17m.
Just watching the Isle of Man TT which reminded me of these, some great Ulmus glabra in the Isle of Man. Was this island spared relatively the ravages of Dutch Elm disease? How tall are these trees likely now if they are still there? Glen Helen looks the likeliest location for the tallest trees on the Isle of Man, some very nice Sequoias in a group in photos plus tall Sitkas.
There is an elm disease control project active in the Isle of Man. The island's isolation must also help. So there's a fair chance that Frank's tree is still there, though I suspect his height will have been a bit over-optimistic.
What fun I had with this tree, as much as you can with a tree with your clothes on. The tree is growing in a ditch, at the low side are two very straight stems which have grown and drawn up into the neighbouring tree, a Salix caprea. If you blow the photo up you can see the stems continuing up into the Salix canopy. I had to hit the high side of the base with the laser, could not see the base of the sinuous stem at the bottom side. There was also grass stems on the bank that I had to avoid so had to aim so far up the stems. I traced the stem up into the canopy of the Salix but it continued on and I was getting hits against Salix foliage. 13.6 metres is what I recorded but that long, sinuous left stem must be 14 metres taking into account not being able to hit it's base and not being able to follow it up to it's end in the Salix canopy. Tree measuring is not easy at times to say the least. This Hazel is one of a number along this ditch of more than 10 metres, superbly sheltered in woodland at the bottom of a deep gorge like valley.
This Douglas Fir, the tallest in the area around the bowling green and what looks like at Castlemilk, didn't look well at all, sickly.
Owen, could the Fagus along the river be Fagus orientalis? Alan Mitchell reported 21 metre Fagus orientalis in 1976 and was it him who also reported the Abies procera near a bridge, the 46 metre procera is near the bridge of the Water of Milk. It seems reasonable to think that if he saw the procera near the bridge he would have seen the several Fagus in the same location. I just presumed them to be Fagus sylvatica, doubt I would have been able to identify an orientalis.
Not Fagus orientalis for this one. It has much darker longer leaves by this time of year. Alan's record will have been for a younger planted tree in an arboretum area on the estate.
Could I ask a favour, would you be able to place this tree precisely on the Google map? Have I put it in the right place? I could see the top from the bowling green and the point on the bank and did a measurement. Need the exact spot of the tree though. If I have the right spot then it looks as if it had grown quite well. I also have a measurement for the younger spire topped Abies grandis on the left of the group in the long distance photo above. It looks not far behinfd your 54 metre tree, maybe a metre or so lower.
I was measuring through the gate at some trees down the drive and someone came out and asked what I was doing and gave me a look so I moved on. I wouldn't have exercised right to roam with this one I think. Looking at your records on the Register, I would have been over my head with idents anyway if I had entered.
I put 2009 in the date of previous measurement but it as come out as 0 and 000 for some reason. 58 metres is the measurement that I got attempting a measurement to a nominated spot and the tip of the tree when I couldn't see the base of the tree. 62.74 metres elevation-the clean spot on the river bank. On the Google map the tree elevation is 68.76 metres. From the spot on the river bank to the tree tip, 64.2 to 64.4 metres, minus 6 metres (difference between 62.74 and 68.76), tree height circa 58 metres. Feasible for this tree looking at it, 4 metres in height in 9/10 growth years?
Owen, hope that you are looking in. I rang Castlemilk up and asked permission for a walk into the estate, they refused but I attempted to measure this tree and the tall spire topped Abies grandis near it. I picked a spot on the bank and measured to the tip of both trees and have a measurement. Would you be able to pin point this tree on the map. I will register the spire tipped grandis as well, think it must be your 49 metre tree from 2009, measured to the tip of it as well but need to pin point it on the map. I don't know how you measured this in 2009, clinometer or whatever so apologise if I have registered your measurement incorrectly. Around 54 metres it as put.
Yes, the tufty-topped one was the tree I made 54m (clinometer from a couple of directions) in 2009. The others are perhaps younger and adding height. They look as if they must be on a hill but are actually in a dip, surrounded by trees about 30m tall.
What a shame the Estate 'refused you permission'. As you probably know, even in England 'trespass' (crossing land without the owner's consent) isn't a criminal offence, and under Scottish law you have a clearly-defined right to roam anywhere in farmland, woodland and parkland, the only restriction being the courtesy issue of not disturbing people in gardened areas, school grounds etc. A minority of immensely wealthy Scottish landowners continue to try to exclude their fellow citizens from much larger areas than can reasonably be termed 'private gardens' and Castlemilk currently seems to be an example, with locked gates and menacing notices enclosing an area more than mile across. You would have been entirely within your rights to enter the estate (if you could find a point of access), though I can understand that you preferred to avoid any confrontation or unpleasantness. (In 2009, I wrote and phoned for formal permission to update the Tree Register's records at Castlemilk, but did not get the courtesy of a response. I did manage to record on most of the estate without seeing anyone and certainly without disturbing anyone's privacy - I really don't like operating in this way, but previous owners and foresters at Castlemilk have left a magnificent legacy of rare and fine trees and I think it's important that some sort of record is kept for this part of our shared heritage.)
Yes, it looks like Abies nordmanniana. Alan Mitchell recorded trees of 30m and 30.5m in 1976 but without location details - it's probably one of those, grown well.
The usual is to use a forestry diameter tape - a plastic measuring tape with centimetres on one side to give the girth (circumference), and divisions of π cm on the other side to give a direct diameter reading from the girth. Obtainable from forestry suppliers; not expensive.
The tapes I'm seeing online are not large enough to measure the tree I'm interested in. Could I get a specific make model that would be long enough to measure a tree that is 15 ft or more in diameter? Thank you -
Buy a standard 100 foot/30 metre tape measure from a builder's merchant - that will be cheaper and should go round the largest trees!
The only reason that dendrologists (as opposed to foresters) sometimes use diameter for the trunk measurement is that it's easier for non-experts to visualise. It's always arrived at by measuring the girth then dividing by Pi.
There is no access to this estate but I have just discovered that there may be a way of getting a measurement using the google map on this site without being able to see the base but seeing the and hitting the tip? This tree is 22.88 metres elevation, I measured to a point at the base of the perimeter wall, elevation 18.40 metres. From this point at the base of the wall to just below the Cedar tip was 36.4 metres. 22.88 minus 18.40 metres = 4.44 metres. 36.4 metres minus 4.44 metres = 31.6 metres. The lasers measure the vertical separation between the two points rather then linear distance, correct? If this is correct then this should be a way of measuring height without being able to see the base? Correct or not?
This should work, so long as you use the same method for recording the altitude where you are, and where the base of the tree is, and so long as the tree is in an area of fairly level ground. The altitude given on Google Maps used, at least, to differ from that given by Google Earth by 10m on occasion, the contours used by Google Maps being rougher approximations. (But for this tree's base, they're exactly the same.) My GPS unit sometimes tells me it's accurate to ten feet then tells me that I'm fifty feet below sea-level, which can be mildly disconcerting. I think it assumes the Earth is a perfect sphere.
Correct ident for these? Often visit this garden centre (excellent one with very nice restaurant if anyone passing and needs a place for a meal)and have been meaning to measure this line of superb specimens. All between 32.8 and 35.6 metres to the high side of the bases.
Owen, anything interesting ever recorded from this location on the banks of the Thames at Reading?
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/609708
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3592408
Taxodium distichum? Looks a decent height as welljudging by the bench next to it. The Deodar also looks quite impressive in the distance although the ground level cannot be assessed.
26m on Google Earth for this Taxodium, which does look as if may be quite old and have quite a good girth.
The gardens on this side of Caversham are full of handsome trees. The only one I've been into is Chiltern Court (37 St Peter's Avenue) in 2004, with big examples of Cornus mas, Juglans regia 'Laciniata' and Quercus robur f. fastigiata.
Caversham Cemetery (which I've only explored on Google Earth) has a very good Weeping Beech and Douglas Firs and other conifers which are tall for Berkshire, so I'll pay a visit some time if Stephen doesn't get there first.
It was handheld so your accuracy Owen would I'm sure be much the same as mine. Tripod much more time consuming, especially when in such a great collection!
RedRob, op 2018-04-20 16:00:31, gewijzigd op 2018-04-20 16:01:25, zei:
I so much hope that you can do a couple of trips with your laser Stephen, the Wales one as said previously and perhaps Scotland as well to confirm a tree with your laser on it's tripod. Appreciate your position fully but hope that you can.
_-_Budapest.JPG){kind=link}
