Diskussion Seite von JeroenZutphen14
- (en - 2014/09/02) Stieleiche 'Dąb Chrobry' in Piotrowice, Szprotawa, Polen
- (nl - 2014/08/15) Küstenmammutbaum Parc de l'Intermittente, Vals-les-Bains, Frankreich
- (nl - 2014/08/02) Küstenmammutbaum in Parque Aiete, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spanien
- (en - 2014/07/29) National Park of Białowieża in Białowieża, Polen
- (en - 2014/07/29) Weiß-Tanne im Perucica Forest Reserve, Sutjeska National Park, Bosnien und Herzegowina
- (en - 2014/07/04) MonumentalTrees.com · Register
- (es - 2014/07/03) Pyrenäen-Eiche 'Roble de la Nava' Sierra de la Maribela, Berzocana, Spanien
- (en - 2014/06/23) Photographs.
- (en - 2014/06/17) Coast Douglas-fir west of the Park Burn ravine above Glenlee House in Glenlee
- (nl - 2014/06/14) Gewone esdoorn in een weide nabij Posso in Peebles
this is a magnificent tree, but it is no Sequoiadendron giganteum. It's a Sequoia sempervirens. And if the girth measurement is indeed correct, it would even be the largest specimen here in Europe. It sure looks like a heavy trunk. Congratulations...:-0...!
Thanks for sharing...:-)
A magnificent tree, indeed. Which instrument did you use for the height measurement?
Pour la mesure nous avons utilisé la méthode théodolite à visée laser et pour la circonférence un ruban souple apposé au tronc.
Nous sommes situés dans le Sud Est de la France en région Rhône-Alpes dans le département de l’Ardèche.
I hope you don't mind that I have changed the species from Sequoiadendron giganteum to Sequoia sempervirens, wich it very clearly is.
We like to have the right information on this website about species and measurements.
This specimen is extra interesting as indeed being probably the largest and second tallest Sequoia sempervirens tree in Europe we know of.
It seems to be a rival of the largest Seqoiadendron in Europe regarding to total woodvolume and could be one of the largest trees in Europe already.
The measures was made by personnel of the Town Hall and 'mairie 07' says that they used a theodolite, a surveying instrument.
ik denk dat is geen Sequoiadendron maar een Sequoia. En bij deze dikte zou de boom uit de jaren 185x kunnen zijn.
Groeten uit Duitsland,
About the girth-measurement: indeed we propose to measure at 1.30 m above the centre of the tree, for some countries (the UK and Belgium at least) at 1.50 m above the centre / the medium level of the gound around the trunk. This method is also advised by the Native Tree Society of the USA, wich is among the most experienced groups in measurement of big trees. You measured this tree at 1.00 m above the high point around the tree. That could be a good alternative when it it is difficult to decide what is the medium level.
Measuring from the low point around the trunk is not advisable, in big trees the vertical difference between low and high point can be more than 2 meters, in that case 1.3 m above the low point is not possible to measure.
Several groups (for example the Tree Register of the British Isles) measure (at 1.3 or 1.5 m) above the high point, but for trees on a slope this often does not do justice to a heavy trunk below the high point, so that they have a disadvantage compared to trees on level ground.
I have loads of records of elm, not just in UK, but also in Australia, USA and Canada. I would like to share some of the details with you and indeed some of the pictures that go with them. Let me know if you are interested. Peter Bourne
I am curious to see what you have.
It would be very nice if you upload record elms of several species and cultivars, especially if you measured and photographed them yourself.
Do you have record elms from the UK wich have not been registrated by the Tree Register of the British Isles?
Quercus pyrenaica is not native in the Netherlands and Belgium, but perhaps there are a few trees of this species in special arboreta.
Quercus pyrenaica no es nativo de los Países Bajos y Bélgica, pero tal vez hay algunos árboles de esta especie en arboretos especial.
Thank you very much for translating to the Spanish.
Yes, I think what the difference with Quercus robur is that pyrenaica needs dry season to develop correctly. In my house, in Galicia (Atlantic climate) I planted, Quercus ilex, faginea and pyrenaica, and i do not know if will grow well. (Although also influence soil) such faginea prefers calcareous soils. And in Galicia predominate siliceous soils.
Thanks and sorry for my english.
Both aspects I support strongly. Still, when you don't have good photographs of a tree it can be interesting to document its existance somewhere as well as its measurements. I have added rather many tall common oaks in the Netherlands: of the 38 locations at MT with Quercus robur of 35 m and taller 17 locations are in the Netherlands (in stead of 6 in Germany, 5 in the UK, 3 in Poland, only 1 in France, etc.), not because we have taller oaks, but because I measured and documented many locations.
I did it just to document the many places where there are oaks above this height. I added photos of several of them but I don't think it is necessary to have photos of all of them as they often are tight grown forest specimen wich look alike a lot and are difficult to photograph.
My conclusion: very nice when there are photographs of a tree but also measurement information without photos can be valuable.
Tim has given all these possibilities and I hope these will be there in future.
About Ireland: Leo wrote it was raining a lot so photographing was not always possible. Also, adding photos is time consuming wich not everybody has in the same measure.
Now this functionality is used rarely, and it would be good if photos would be annotated with a caption that contains some info of the specific content of the photo. After uploading I might redirect to the 'add caption page' instead of the uploaded image, to stimulate captions.
You are probably right Conifers with exceptional trees like Hyperion and the fear of over visiting and damage. The article that I read recently somewhere (think it was on here) about gangs going about in California cutting burls off living Coast Redwoods to sell and leading to the trees being damaged and some dying was appalling. Over here there doesn't seem to be the interest in trees apart from some of us enthusiasts, for example I don't think anyone in Betws Y Coed gives a stuff about the huge trees growing there, certainly not the proprietors of the B&B where I stayed and who asked me why I was visiting.
Sometimes I meet trees, I measure them and make pictures. (I Always make pictures), but when I want to register I see someone has registered a kind of vague tree on approximately the same place. Where do I post my trees??? A new one?, or an existing one??
I have met this problem more than once. Today I met the problem with some trees in Limburg, Netherlands.
I will solve the issue, but it makes one think if we make registering as profitable as we can.
Let's put an example. I could easily post the magnificent Baobabs on Madagascar. I can locate the trees quite exact and add a lot of information. Some people would do that to have a result on their name. (Some people here have done this)
What are the consequences? Will there anybody be triggered to meet the trees and make pictures and measure them? If it is that easy to do it from their lazy chair?
In spite of this thinking, I will go there and make pictures and measure them, but it is not fair, that people have the opportunity to post without actually having seen the tree,
Lists with only figures can be valuable for scientist if the figures are produced accoording to sientific rules. On this site this is not the case.
The monumentality of a tree (whatever definition you use) is the reason that someone is impressed and like to show the tree he likes. Without picure this is not possible.
Conclusion: Additions of remarkable tall, thick and old trees even without a photo has a value. But I am ready to support the view that rather ordinary-sized trees should not be added without a photo. Actually I wonder why members add such trees at all (there are lots of such trees on MT).
About Yggdrasil... Seriously, the trees of mytology could be a new area for MT in the far future. I am not a fan but I think that many laymen and particularly laywomen at least in Germany are much more interested in tree mythos than measurements.
This tree is called Yggdrasil (see the book Monumentale Bomen in Europa by Jeroen Pater).
that's my opinion on this topic:
A registered tree must be clearly identified on site for review. This is best achieved with a photo. The quality of the photo is not important for this purpose. Also a photo by mobile phone from the base of the trunk accomplishes this purpose and is always possible, even in rain. I do not understand why that's a problem for some users.
Solely on the specified coordinates the reliable identification of the tree is often not possible, especially in the woods with many trees of the same species. Unfortunately coordinates can not be entered and documented as a measured value like girth or height. Positioning the tree by clicking the Google satellite map is often a gamble and everyone is allowed to try his luck. You can not find out who has set or moved the coordinates, and when he did so. In such circumstances, the exact calibration of the coordinates via GPS device does not make much sense; on the accuracy of the coordinates it is better not to rely.
I would never register a tree without photographic evidence. A mandatory field for photo, height, girth and coordinates would improve the quality of our database.
I am looking for the highest Douglas Fir of Europe. I have to review and remeasure the highest 66.44 and 66.40 meter Douglas Firs in France and Scotland. From the French tree there is no photo on MT, as Kouta already stated. From the Scottish tree there is only a photo with a group of trees. Should I risk the costly trips for an only incompletely registered tree which on site I possibly can not identify exactly?
I think these two examples in Forstgarten Kleve make clear why I think a photograph for identification of the tree is essential and should be a required field:
1) Ahornblättrige Platane (Platanus × hispanica) '4461' This is an avenue of plane trees, on the left and right side of the street at small intervals there are old plane trees, no photo.
2) Edelkastanie (Castanea sativa) '16908' A sweet chestnut in a dense park area, no photo, girth and height both unknown.
In the case of Edelkastanie (Castanea sativa) '16908' I decided not to post pictures because I couldn't make up which pictures belonged to which tree. I had two meaurements of two nearbye trees, 3,65 en 3,95. I couldn't assign the meaurements to either the sequoia or the chestnut. Furthermore I was there in a period when there were no leaves on the trees. I must have thought I will find it later.
But in essence I agree with you that pictures are essential. This is one of the rare moments I haven't posted one. I will post a pic of the tree now. I have found the right picture.
kind regards WIm
in reference to the two chestnuts in Forstgarten Kleve I can say the following:
The coordinates of both trees are faulty. Tree '16908' could not be identified with the original sparse information. Looking at your photo, the plate hangs at the left chestnut. The right chestnut has no plate and I have not measured it. You used this plate for the description of the tree '16909', but you uploaded now its photo at tree '16908'. I suggest you delete the photo of the plate at '16908' and upload it at '16909'. The chestnut '16909' with the plate is pretty much at this position: N51.79845 E6.12768. The specified value for girth is suitable.
At the current Google satellite maps from Forstgarten Kleve reliable positioning of trees is hardly possible, that's my opinion. Each sets the position elsewhere. The trees are tumbling wildly. A GPS device is more suitable. But also on the German base map (Deutsche Grundkarte, DGK5) you can determine the locations more accurately. In this map all parkways are located. For NRW you will find it here: http://www.tim-online.nrw.de (or herehttp://www.geoserver.nrw.de).
It is a bit confusing that these two giant Sycamores at Posso, Peebles, are not registrated on a common page, although they grow at the same field very near to each other.
(This time the problem was that Peebles is in the county now called 'Scottish Borders'; it used to be in Peebles-shire. As neither county appears on the drop-down list, I must have selected 'Berwickshire' (old name for an adjacent county) the first time and 'Lauderdale' (never was a county?) the second time, when I didn't back-track far enough to find the site already recorded under Berwickshire. I suppose difficulties like this are bound to arise!)
Indeed normally you should add a new tree at an already excisting location on the site by first going to the already recorde trees at that site and then adding the new tree. But, Red Rob preferred to give the next trees of a location another location name to have their measurements separate at the measurent databases. Also he does not like large pages with a lot of photos at one page as they are or were loading very slow at his computer, i-pad or i-phone.
But for having an overview of the whole website it is preferable to have trees of a location lumped together.
I tried to change the location of one of the trees to that of the other, but it seems that in the easy way this can only be done at a lower level. To change the location of one of the trees to the other location you have to go to that location and add the tree, its measurements and the photo's anew. But probably Tim knows a shortcut.