I have two sequoia trees approximately 20m tall x 5m girth in scenic North Bend Washington, USA. One recently lost a limb, which unfortunately almost destroyed my neighbor's garage. My neighbor has engaged a lawyer to force me to cut these beautiful trees down. I would like to find an arborist expert on sequoia. I want to do all I can to save these trees from destruction. Is there an arborist in western Washington State that would be best for this assignment? Thanks
RedRob, thanks again for the information. I was also able to find an arborist in a local town, Fall City, that may know about sequoia. It was a little to dreary to take premium pictures today. It should be nice tomorrow, before five days of forecasted rain.
I was not certain I should register my trees; they are not that big by sequoia standards. I have a Bigleaf maple (girth about 8 - 9 m) as well as cedars and firs that are larger. I'll take accurate measurements with the pictures tomorrow.
The weather here is very nice. We are not getting pounded by the storms that are rolling through California.
Could someone tell me, is it Q x Hispanica that keeps it's leaves all year? And 'Lucombeana' that loses most but not all of its leaves? I recently uploaded a 5.18m oak which I think is Q x Hispanica as it still had all its leaves(this was in mid November). Would I be correct in saying this?
The commonest clones of Q. x hispanica in Britain and Ireland are 'William Lucombe', which should have about 80% of its leaves left in December and 20% by March, and an unnamed corky-barked clone grafted at the base on Turkey Oak, which is almost completely evergreen. Rarer clones include 'Fulhamensis' which loses most of its leaves after Christmas and a few unnamed deciduous clones. 'William Lucombe' is the only clone that regularly reaches 5m girth with a good single bole.
Thanks, this makes things clearer, I shall upload an image of the tree as it is at the minute. The trunk was hidden away for many years by Rhodo Ponticum until these were cleared about 5 years ago and until this time you couldn't see the size of the trunk.
'William Lucombe's' leaves are Turkey-Oak sized but more regularly lobed. The most vigorous examples might have slightly bigger leaves - it's probably the biggest-leaved clone (or group of clones perhaps by now) of Q. x hispanica. Q. castaneifolia is always a possibility for a look-alike with significantly longer leaves: this is deciduous but can hold only its dead leaves through winter.
I have uploaded pictures of the two trees, both are not the same examples but are the same species of tree. The 5.18 tree is exactly the same species as the one I have uploaded with nearly all of its leaves still on. The other Lucombe Oak? I have uploaded has nearly all of its leaves gone, I have also uploaded images of the leaves of both trees.
Ik heb net een tripje naar Turkije gemaakt. Wel wat aardige bomen gezien. Ik ga ze plaatsen. Een kernvraag is echter of op onze database Turkije alleen Europa is (bestaand0 of ook via Azië benaderd/bereikt kan worden. Ik heb de neiging om nu mijn bomen onder Turkije, Europa te uploaden. Dat is wellicht niet correct, omdat Antalya en Cappadocië tot het werelddeel Azië behoren.
Wees hier helder en transparant. De Bosporus en Zee van Marmora vormen de grens tussen Europa en Azie. Bomen ten westen van deze wateren horen in Europa te worden geregistreerd. De overige bomen horen in Azie thuis.
Staatkundig klopt dat. Turkije is voor een klein deel Europa en een groot deel Azië. In onze database is Turkije echter geheel onder Europa geclassificeerd. Dus alle provincies staan onder Europa. Ik kan (geloof ik) geen bomen onder Turkije Azië invoeren tenzij ik me vergis. Tim moet daar maar uitsluitsel over geven. In essentie vind ik echter wel dat het grootste deel van Turkije staatkundig onder Azië valt.
Cultureel denk ik daar genuanceerder over sinds mijn laatste bezoek,
Maar dat doet er niet echt toe. We hebben hier toch een staatkundige classificatie?
Russia is of course also in both continents, which could be significant if we get many trees there.
For completeness, Kazakhstan also has (a small) part in Europe, part (most) in Asia. Mostly treeless steppe, but there could be some large Populus or Salix on the banks of the Ural River (the boundary between Europe and Asia there).
I agree that more diffuse situations exist. Concerning Turky, the only European part of Turky is the west of Istanbul. The overwhelming rest of the country is Asian Let's say about 99%. In this database I haven't any problems if Tim decides that Turky belongs Europe. Politically I have problems with that idea, but we are not in politics here.
RedRob, am 2014-12-11 18:16:34, geändert am 2014-12-11 18:21:27, hat gesagt:
Could I ask a question, the small blue Douglas Fir here, is this going to be just a normal Douglas Fir or could it be the variant 'Glauca'? I noticed it in particular when I measured these trees a couple of years ago now but didn't really think anything about it and wasn't aware that there was a 'Glauca' type then. The reason that I ask is that I have noticed another very bluey tree in another photograph in a group of trees which the laser measured at 48 metres in Aug 2012. I have uploaded a photograph of it (bottom photo) it is directly in the centre of the photo and clothed with foliage right down it's trunk.
Hello Conifers, incredible winds, 81 mph here at High Bradfield near Sheffield yesterday, 61 mph at Emley Moor which I suspected as the TV is being affected at the moment.
There is a gardening programme on BBC2 in the mornings called 'Great Gardens from above' with Christine something in a balloon. I couldn't catch it but this morning she was in Northumberland, I wondered if she could have been at Cragside? Did you see it Con? I would love to see the trees at Cragside from above, would be spectacular.
This type only has the yellow at the tips of the branches.... Most of the branch is green while the ends of the shoots are a bright golden colour.
Martin Tijdgat, am 2014-11-30 10:09:56, geändert am 2014-11-30 10:18:42, hat gesagt:
I rather see a photo off the whole tree but this can be the cultivar Ellwood's Empire. I have no knowledge off this cultivar, but I know Esveld Nurseries in Boskoop has a picture of this cultivar that resembles wwhitsides97 photo.
Hello Martin, I'm afraid there is no planting date for this tree, however, it is older than most of the lawson cypress cultivars in the arboretum. I wouldn't like to say for sure but it possibly is 50-60 years old. Ellwoods Empire could indeed be a possibility.
Can anyone tell me why Monkey Puzzles die? in the last 10 years there have been 5 that have died in Gosford, including the county champion girth tree. One month they are growing fine then the next they show signs of dying.
Not I think 'Fastigiata', which has steeply rising branches so that it retains a rather conic shape, but certainly a fine straight stem. (From this photo I wouldn't like to distinguish atlantica from libani, but I'm sure you can from the tree itself.)
Hi Martin - in one sense I'd disagree; at least in Britain, most trees planted as Atlas Cedar are Atlas Cedars.
But in a botanical sense, Atlas Cedar is so closely related to Lebanon Cedar, that it can't really be considered distinct at species level, so all Atlas Cedars are Cedrus libani; best classified as Cedrus libani subsp. atlantica.
Thanks for the corrections. I agree. But I see almost no Atlas cedars over here. Almost alll are Lebanon cedars, even the blue forms (Glauca). I don't know if it's right but our dutch climate is not correct for the more mountainnes heritage of the subsp. atlantica.
RedRob, am 2014-12-09 18:18:25, geändert am 2014-12-09 18:18:59, hat gesagt:
Hello Martin, Atlas Cedars seem to grow just as impressively with you as over here and in hilly areas. Perhaps it is down to popularity, Dutch aristocracy, toffs didn't like them, they weren't in vogue or fashion.
An un-named hybrid Abies forrestii × Abies homolepis. I've seen this hybrid at several places (including RBG Edinburgh), likely that someone collected a whole lot of seed of one growing close to the other in a garden, and sold the seedlings to various gardens.
Very interesting - and an attractive foliage plant. I'd be interested in seeing the bark of this tree (as the parents are so different in bark, this is presumably distinctive in itself) - and in the height and girth of this specimen.
Yep, it is an attractive plant - combines the bold foliage of A. forrestii with the better dry-climate tolerance of A. homolepis; also starts coning young, and often bears cones low down. Always a good-looking tree whenever I've seen it.
Thanks - I shall enthrone this as the champion for the hybrid by default. Conifers, is the Edinburgh RBG tree of similar age (and a bit smaller in the drier climate there)? I've not measured it (or any of the others you refer to), doubtless passing them over as forrestii.
"Conifers, is the Edinburgh RBG tree of similar age (and a bit smaller in the drier climate there)?"
From memory, it's a little bit larger (maybe 20m?, and the largest of this hybrid I've seen). It's many years since I last got up to RBGE now so it's likely to be even larger now. It is (assuming it's still there!) a short way in northeast of the West Gate, toward the southern edge of the Pinetum area.
Discovered I took some (rather bad!) pics of it last time I was there, including one of the label; the label says "Abies homolepis var. umbellata" (which it obviously isn't), and accession number 1971.5734A - does that help locate it in any records?
In that case I do know the tree, and it was thriving last summer (16m x 234cm girth, so the Gosford tree is slightly taller). As it had grown from 198cm girth in 2004, the '1971' accession date could just possibly reflect the actual planting date as it's not a common number at Edinburgh.
In the pinetum at Edinburgh there is also a genuine A. homolepis var. umbellata from Wilson 7707, planted in 1915 but slightly smaller than 1971.5734A. I didn't compare the two - when it comes to Asiatic Abies I'm just glad when there's a label on them! The Edinburgh tree is the only known survivor from W 7707, but a much bigger var. umbellata at Dawyck was planted in 1924, presumably from a Wilson collection. On Alan Mitchell's card-index he suggested W 4078 for this tree (and also for trees at Vernon Holme, planted in 1908 and since lost, and at Holkham Hall). Oddly, a tree known to be from W 4078 still grows in the Edinburgh pinetum (1911.1010A) and is labelled, credibly, as A. forrestii. (It was one of two in 1985 when Alan commented 'verging on A. fabri').
I was also at Holkham the other month, and found a tree which I assumed to be the one Alan had suspected to be from W 4078. It had an unusually columnar habit for A. homolepis and unusually long leaves, so certainly not A. forrestii. The differences might suggest it's var. umbellata (I didn't see cones) but might be a result of the dry, continental climate there.