Sie sind nicht angemeldet · anmelden · benutzerkonto erstellen

Diskussion Seite von JeroenZutphen14

Neues Thema hinzufügen

Jüngsten Diskussionen


Nur Diskussionen in deutscher Sprache zeigen

Archiv · Register
Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · en
ulmusenthu2, am 2014-07-02 20:15:04, hat gesagt:
Dear Sir,

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

Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-07-02 20:52:09, hat gesagt:
Hi.. On this site there are a lot of interested people. They all share a love for trees. Some call it treehuggers. Feel free to upload what you have... You're welcome.

I am curious to see what you have.

Kind regards


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-07-04 22:26:16, geändert am 2014-07-04 22:28:57, hat gesagt:
Hello Peter,

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?


Jeroen Philippona

Alberto Cuervo Flores, am 2014-07-03 06:00:33, hat gesagt:
¿ No hay arboles en tu pais ?
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-07-03 21:17:47, geändert am 2014-07-03 21:20:06, hat gesagt:
Hi Alberto,

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.


Alberto Cuervo Flores, am 2014-07-03 22:41:23, hat gesagt:
Hi Jeroen,

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.


Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-22 07:32:58, geändert am 2014-06-22 07:56:13, hat gesagt:

es soll sich laut Naturschutzbehörde um eine der ältesten Steineiche Deutschlands halten. Ich denke aber, es handelt sich um Stieleiche.

Viele Grüße,


Conifers, am 2014-06-22 07:42:11, hat gesagt:
It must be a typographical error in the report, 'stein' for 'stiel'. I cannot believe it is an error of identification!

There is also a typo ("=") in the link, here it is corrected ;-)

Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-22 07:57:24, hat gesagt:
Danke für die Bestätigung, dass es sich um Stieleiche handelt. Meinen Link habe ich oben auch korrigiert.

Bei beiden handelte es sich wohl um Tippfehler ;-)

Viele Grüße,


Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-22 17:44:29, hat gesagt:
Auch die Informationstafel vor Ort spricht von Steineiche, siehe hier:

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-24 20:39:58, hat gesagt:
It looks indeed like a Quercus robur, but Quercus petraea = "oak of the rocks" could also be translated as "Steineiche". The leaves indeed look like those of a Pedunculate Oak = Stieleiche and do not look at all as a Sessile Oak - Traubeneiche, but perhaps you have made a photo of them, Rainer?

Regards, Jeroen

Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-24 20:57:44, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen,

ich habe jetzt noch drei weitere Bilder hochgeladen. So richtige Detailaufnahmen von Blätter habe ich leider nicht. Bei einigen Blätter sehe ich aber sogenannte "Öhrchen", was auch für Quercus robur spricht.

Viele Grüße,


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-24 21:16:24, hat gesagt:
Ja, dies ist typisch Quercus robur, nicht petraea.



Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-25 17:00:12, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen,

dann lasse ich es bei Quercus robur.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · en
RedRob, am 2014-06-16 17:02:51, geändert am 2014-06-16 17:03:39, hat gesagt:
Please can I suggest that a rule now be implemented, imposed on this site, no tree posted without accompanying at least one photo and preferably from several aspects for record trees. Just posting trees with no accompanying photographs is not a proper record for each tree, the photograph is a/the visual of the tree which will be kept on this site as a long lasting record. I am still waiting to see a photograph of the 35.8 metre Sweet Chestnut which I have requested several times now, new record trees have been measured in Ireland and photographs still not added yet? Please, if you are recording trees please do it fully and properly, take photographs of the tree and post them with the tree when you add it. The record of each tree is not complete in my opinion without accompanying photographs, they are as important as the measuring, a a visual record.

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-16 19:19:42, geändert am 2014-06-16 21:18:33, hat gesagt:
Of course photographs give extra information and are valuable. For part of our members they are the most important aspect of this website. For most of them the photographs have an esthetic value or are meant to document the esthetic quality of trees. For me this also is important. For others the website is important as a database with species and measurements. For them photographs have a value as a document underlining the determinations or the measurements.

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.


Conifers, am 2014-06-16 20:39:37, hat gesagt:
And there are times where publishing photos - and accurate locations - is not advisable for security reasons. Pinus longaeva "Methuselah" and Sequoia sempervirens "Hyperion" spring to mind.

Tim, am 2014-06-17 11:43:41, hat gesagt:
What I would personally like, is that if a photo is added, that a small caption is added too.

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.

Kind regards,


RedRob, am 2014-06-17 16:01:54, geändert am 2014-06-17 16:12:21, hat gesagt:
Hello Jeroen, the Netherlands were extremely impressive in thrashing Spain the other night by the way, I don't think that the raining argument can be used as a real excuse, it was hammering down when I visited Cragside last year for example but I still managed to take some decent photos.

RedRob, am 2014-06-17 16:08:07, hat gesagt:
Will gladly add captions to photos if required, will figure out how to do it as Owen is already doing it.

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.

Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-06-17 20:18:05, hat gesagt:
RedRob and Jeroen are right in their own point of view. I support them both. On the other hand I did have some problems with the fact that people have registered trees without pictures. I met the trees and had quite some problems in assigning the right measurements to the tree I saw.

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.


Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-06-17 20:37:57, hat gesagt:
In rethinking the issue I support Redrob's view.

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,


Maarten Windemuller, am 2014-06-18 20:14:15, hat gesagt:
Contributions to this site without foto's has, in my opinion, little value.

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.

KoutaR, am 2014-06-19 07:34:09, hat gesagt:
Let's suppose the following scenario: A tall tree lover from Australia visits his relatives in France. Besides his family activities he also wants to visit a tall tree. He makes an Internet search with 'tallest tree of france'. The corresponding MT page is first in the search results. Now he finds the 66.44-metre Douglas-fir. There is no photo but there are coordinates and he can visit the tree. If there was a rule "don't add any tree if you don't have a photo", he would think there are no that tall trees in France.

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).

RedRob, am 2014-06-19 16:46:44, hat gesagt:
From my own experience in trying to relocate many trees to re-measure, the value of a photograph as really been apparent, if there had been a photograph then you could study it and note it's shape, form and position when going searching for it. Even with GPS co-ordinates it is quite difficult to re-locate trees precisely, I don't have a GPS mobile so for me I cannot use GPS anyway but rely on directions. I think many people with just a passing interest in trees might not use or know about GPS either. I think someone coming from Australia would find a tree much, much easier to locate having seen a photograph or photographs for reference. As it says on registering a tree on here, it is also proof that the tree exists.

KoutaR, am 2014-06-19 18:01:18, hat gesagt:
Of course, it is much better if also photos are added, but my point was that adding a tree without photos should not be banned.

Bess, am 2014-06-19 19:06:30, hat gesagt:
Is there really abuse? Are there people who post trees who don't exist? I always try to post pictures, but i agree with KoutaR! Even measurements without pictures can be valuable and guid us to a 'tre(e)asures' :-).

Conifers, am 2014-06-19 19:32:39, hat gesagt:
I don't think anyone has added Yggdrasil yet . . . but maybe?? ;-)

KoutaR, am 2014-06-19 20:04:17, hat gesagt:
I have never heard that anyone would have reported a non-existing tree in any tree-related forum. Some "almost-accidental" over-measuring may happen. Apparently there are honest people here.

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.

Maarten Windemuller, am 2014-06-19 20:19:54, geändert am 2014-06-19 20:23:20, hat gesagt:
Aha, there is a new Yggdrasil. It is alrerady on this site.

Gemeine Esche (Fraxinus excelsior) '4279'

This tree is called Yggdrasil (see the book Monumentale Bomen in Europa by Jeroen Pater).

Karlheinz, am 2014-06-21 02:20:51, hat gesagt:
Hello tree friends,

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.

Greetings, Karlheinz

Karlheinz, am 2014-06-21 10:07:18, hat gesagt:
An example:

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?

Karlheinz, am 2014-06-22 07:03:50, hat gesagt:
Hi Jeroen and Wim

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.

Regards, Karlheinz

Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-06-22 09:26:59, hat gesagt:
Hi Karlheinz,

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

Karlheinz, am 2014-06-23 14:42:24, hat gesagt:
Hi 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: (or here

Greetings, Karlheinz

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-21 13:39:31, hat gesagt:
Huis Voorstonden in april 2014 met links de plataan en rechts de dikke rode beuk nadat deze fors is gesnoeid.
Maarten Windemuller, am 2014-06-21 14:14:18, hat gesagt:
Hei Jeroen,

Mooi object. De zwam op de beuk is zorgelijk. Weet je in welk jaar de beuk gesnoeid is? Mooi dat je de foto met plataan en beuk van verschillende jaren hebt. Hoop dat debeuk er op de volgende foto nog staat.

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-21 14:18:32, hat gesagt:
Ha Maarten,

De zwam zit al jaren op de beuk, nadat een zware tak was afgebroken (ik denk rond 2009) is de kroon rond 2010 ingenomen. De eigenaren zijn zeer betrokken, onderhoud is door een deskundig, terughoudend boomverzorger.

RedRob, am 2014-06-17 17:06:49, hat gesagt:
This would be one hell of a tree at 30 metre girth, hit the button prematurely whilst dragging down and cannot change it to 3 metres as only one measurement per year is permitted.

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-17 17:32:38, hat gesagt:
I changed it. You should ask Tim to give you also the possibility to change your own measurements and texts with the 'pecil' possibility.

Karlheinz, am 2014-06-15 16:26:31, hat gesagt:
The overview map of the park shows at location J-4 the No. 17, which is Chamaecyparis. Xanthocyparis nootkatensis is not listed on the plan. On the tree itself I have not seen any plate. Jeroen, how safe were you in determining? Please, can anyone else verify the species?

Der Übersichtsplan vom Park zeigt an der Stelle J-4 die Nr. 17, das ist Chamaecyparis. Xanthocyparis nootkatensis ist gar nicht gelistet auf dem Plan. Am Baum selbst habe ich kein Schild gesehen. Jeroen, wie sicher warst du dir bei der Bestimmung? Kann bitte noch jemand die Baumart überprüfen?

Grüße, Karlheinz

Conifers, am 2014-06-15 18:05:13, hat gesagt:
Yes, that's a definite Nootka Cypress.

This species was in the past often classified as Chamaecyparis nootkatensis and also by some as Xanthocyparis nootkatensis, but recent genetic research has shown it is best included in the genus Cupressus, as Cupressus nootkatensis (which is interestingly, what it was also first described as, by David Don in 1824).

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-15 20:04:05, hat gesagt:
Well, Conifers gave the answere. I did not much research to verify the species, it just looked exactly like some Cupressus nootkatensis at Rhederoord in Holland.

Regards, Jeroen

Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-02 21:04:59, hat gesagt:

um welchen Baum handelt es sich hier wohl? Um Ulmus laevis, oder irgendeiner anderen Ulmenart?

Viele Grüße,


Conifers, am 2014-06-02 21:08:13, hat gesagt:
Agree with Ulmus, but the bark and trunk shape does not look right for U. laevis. I would guess probably Ulmus minor, but elms are tricky to identify to species (particularly as there are so many hybrids, too!).
Martin Tijdgat, am 2014-06-03 00:29:46, hat gesagt:

To identify this elm is possible from the seeds. Have you found any seeds? Or a picture with seeds on it?

I agree with Conifers it is not a U. laevis. It looks a lot like Ulmus glabra, but the shape of the tree is not broad enough.

Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-03 17:41:24, hat gesagt:
Hallo Conifers und Martin,

vielen Dank für eure Einschätzungen. Bilder von Samen habe ich leider keine. Leider kann man ja nicht einfach Ulmus angeben, sondern muss sich konkret auf eine Art festlegen. Ihr meint jetzt aber verschiedene Arten. Wie jetzt vorgehen?

Ich habe mich jetzt auch noch etwas in den Fachbüchern umgeschaut. Da würde ich jetzt langsam zu Ulmus × hollandica tendieren. Was meint ihr dazu?

Viele Grüße,


Conifers, am 2014-06-03 20:25:20, hat gesagt:
The leaf shape (short, broad) points me to Ulmus minor, particularly perhaps one of the clones formerly separated as "Ulmus procera" or the clone 'Sarniensis'. Unfortunately the crown shape of the whole tree is too irregular to see any of the crown shape characteristic of younger specimens of either of these clones.
Martin Tijdgat, am 2014-06-03 21:07:59, hat gesagt:

The tree shows caractiristics of both U. minor and of U. glabra in the barkstructure, leafs and twigcolouration. I support you if you put it in as Ulmus x hollandica. Maybe that Leo Goudzwaard can give his opinion. He knows more about the different elms in Europa. If you visit the tree again look for the seeds, they give the best look into the species or hybrides.

Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-04 17:20:59, hat gesagt:
Hallo ihr zwei!

Vielen Dank für eure Einschätzungen. Wenn ich dort nochmal hinkomme, will ich mal nach Samen ausschau halten. Ich Frage jetzt auch mal Leo, was er dazu meint. Ansonsten ändere ich es in Ulmus × hollandica, mit dem Hinweis, dass es auch eine andere Ulmenart sein könnte.

Viele Grüße,


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, am 2014-06-13 16:54:52, hat gesagt:
The leaf is actually right for Ulmus laevis. U. glabra and U. minor show a proportion of the secondary veins branching half-way up, and I can only see one vein on one leaf in the pictures of this tree which does branch like that. The very elaborate hooked toothing around the upper leaf is also a feature of U. laevis. But I agree that flowers/fruit (March/April) would be needed for complete confidence.
Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-13 18:04:52, hat gesagt:
Hallo Owen,

vielen Dank für den Kommentar. Ich habe es jetzt mal in der Beschreibung vermerkt, dass die Art nicht sicher ist.

Viele Grüße,


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-14 11:23:58, geändert am 2014-06-14 11:24:37, hat gesagt:
Recently I have seen again a lot of Ulmus laevis trees along the river Elbe in Germany. Their leaves are more a-symetric than these wich Rainer photographed. So I don't agree with Owen. I think Ulmus x hollandica or U. minor is more probable. I will ask Leo and Hans Kaljee, elm-expert from Amsterdam.
Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-14 12:25:33, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen,

ich selbst tendiere Anhand meiner Literatur zu Ulmus x hollandica. Leo hatte ich vor einigen Tagen schonmal kontaktiert, aber ohne Antwort. Vielleicht hat er meine Anfrage auch einfach nicht bemerkt. Mal abwarten, was die beiden dann dazu meinen.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Leo Goudzwaard, am 2014-06-14 15:37:35, hat gesagt:
In my opinion it is U. minor. Certainly not glaba or laevis, cheers Leo
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-15 12:26:37, geändert am 2014-06-15 12:29:27, hat gesagt:
Hans Kaljee (tree-consultant of the municipality of Amsterdam and elm expert), thinks based on the trunk structure it is Ulmus minor. He writes Ulmus minor is quite variable and often the leaves on he lowest branches are larger than the leaves higher up. Those are best to use for determination.

Best regards, Jeroen

Rainer Lippert, am 2014-06-15 19:55:39, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen, Hallo Leo,

danke für eure Beiträge. Dann passt ja jetzt die Zuordnung mit Ulmus minor.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-14 11:17:47, hat gesagt:
Hi Owen,

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.

Regards, Jeroen

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, am 2014-06-14 16:55:38, geändert am 2014-06-14 17:08:54, hat gesagt:
Yes. I think I have made this mistake before when I've imput two trees from the same site at different times - generally when the site is an equal distance from two towns or villages which are both on the list, and choosing the 'wrong' town and forgetting that the site had already been recorded, I enter it as a new one under this town. Is there an easy way to either: 1) backtrack when entering the tree so you can choose a different town instead, until you find the right town under which the site has already been recorded; or 2) move trees from one recorded site to another?

(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!)

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-06-14 17:24:11, geändert am 2014-06-14 17:32:50, hat gesagt:
The problem with the changed county-names only Tim can solve for this website.

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.


RedRob, am 2014-05-13 16:12:23, hat gesagt:
This is a superb record for this tree, by that I mean how it is recorded with these superb photographs. Is the reported 50 m Oak likely to be real or are these measured the tallest?

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-05-13 18:12:21, hat gesagt:
Alas I did not meet the forestors who measured some trees of 49 to 50 m, so they did not show me the exact location. I wrote them in French but their heightmeasurement methods seems to be a Tangent method with a clinometer or hypsometer. I looked and measured for some hours most tall oaks in the valley where the first 50 m tree was measured by the forestor, perhaps I have missed a tree wich was higher even. The two tallest I measured in that valley were 46 and 48.4 m. In another valley I measured the oak you commented for 47.3 m and Sisley even as 48 m. He also measured a second tree as 47 m.

In a third part of the forest later also an oak of 50 m was reported, but it seems to be an oak wich I lasermeasured as 44 m only.

There is another forest not far from the Foret de Bercé were also sessile oaks of 50 m have been reported, Sisley knows more about it.

An oak of 50 m could be possible, but there is a good change we have measured the tallest oaks in this forest already.

In the USA the tallest reliable measured oak (Cherrybark oak, Quercus pagoda) till now is 48.8 m, but as I wrote recently in Costa Rica in April was measured an oak of 60.3 m, by far the tallest oak measured reliable till know.


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-05-13 18:12:36, hat gesagt:
Alas I did not meet the forestors who measured some trees of 49 to 50 m, so they did not show me the exact location. I wrote them in French but their heightmeasurement methods seems to be a Tangent method with a clinometer or hypsometer. I looked and measured for some hours most tall oaks in the valley where the first 50 m tree was measured by the forestor, perhaps I have missed a tree wich was higher even. The two tallest I measured in that valley were 46 and 48.4 m. In another valley I measured the oak you commented for 47.3 m and Sisley even as 48 m. He also measured a second tree as 47 m.

In a third part of the forest later also an oak of 50 m was reported, but it seems to be an oak wich I lasermeasured as 44 m only.

There is another forest not far from the Foret de Bercé were also sessile oaks of 50 m have been reported, Sisley knows more about it.

An oak of 50 m could be possible, but there is a good change we have measured the tallest oaks in this forest already.

In the USA the tallest reliable measured oak (Cherrybark oak, Quercus pagoda) till now is 48.8 m, but as I wrote recently in Costa Rica in April was measured an oak of 60.3 m, by far the tallest oak measured reliable till know.



Hauptseite · Zum Seitenanfang · Teilen/Sichern

© · Disclaimer · auch in · Castellano · English · Français · Nederlands · übersetzen?