Adjusting my first mail. I like people who are interested in the images, and their qualities and overall-view of the tree. So I have an individualistic approach to trees. Some of us are more interested in numbers and records. I welcome everyone who prefers the image. And especially if they can make a difference. You will do so, I'm sure of that.
This is one of the corky-barked clones, though with broader more regularly lobed leaves than the commonest variant. We don't have reliable clonal names for all of these, but 'Lucombeana' covers all the forms that came out of Lucombe and Pince's nursery.
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.
Hello Owen, what is the champion for height for Ceanothus in Britain, can only find two on the register of 5 and 6 metres, Lambeth 2001 and Canterbury Cathedral respectively when I use Champions of B&I and county search? I have come across one which is around 5 metres, not sure which type it is?
Stephen, any news about your trees, have you managed to get the photos off your phone? Still looking forward to hearing about and seeing more of or some of your trees from your visit to Wales? Hope that it isn't a wait in vain?
Very frustrating, given a phone which has so far been impossible to upload to my computer, will try over the holidays and failing that will have to scan prints! Been busy, but now have a month off work to hopefully upload some pictures and a couple of reports.
To change the subject, I have reclaimed some old growth Western Red Cedar timber from a children's climbing frame and hopefully to make a great garden bench.
Last night with a magnifying glass I counted 300 years of growth in a piece of timber 13cm x 8cm!!!!!!!!!!!!
Never seen such slow growth!!! Sadly from a tree which could be a 1000 years old, likely from B.C Coast or Vancouver Island. Worth a fortune and I could not accept that someone wanted to cut it up for firewood!!
A few weeks ago I mentioned a newly met problem with uploading pictures. My new system operates under Windows 8. The Windows explorer automatically rotates pictures 90% if they are taken vertical. For everyone who will meet this problem in due time, there isn't an easy solution. This problem is caused by Microsoft and Microsoft takes no responsibility, so I learned on a microsoft-community blog. I have asked the question to my computer manufacturer and to the FAQ man of a well-known Computer-magazine. The manufacturer said that it is a problem of the Microsoft software and they cannot help. The FAQ man of the computer magazine says, I have to process the picture with a qualitatively good rotating-program.
In the meantime I solve this problem by uploading the pictures on my second system (windows 7) and using my network to upload them to my main computer. So be prepared all, once you switch to Windows 8, you will meet the same problem.
I would agree. I've found it very difficult to be confident with this clone as it just represents an extreme of the variable natural habit and never seems to have been raised as grafts, but this one looks as good a candidate as any I've seen.
Hello Owen, I was looking through the trees from gosford which you uploaded onto the tree register website, I just wanted to clarify that the chamaecyparis pisifera which was uploaded is the cultivar, plumosa aurea.
As I was reading the section on sequoia trees outside their natural range, I noticed that there was no information about sequoia trees in Africa. I can confirm that they exist: I was recently in South Africa where I visited the Stellenbosch University Botanical Garden in the city of Stellenbosch, where they have a giant sequoia growing side-by-side with a california redwood. Unfortunately, I did not take any pictures, but the trees are mentioned on the garden's wikipedia entry:
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.
Ik heb gisteren een onderwerp opgevoerd over het feit dat Turkije zowel in Europa en Azië ligt en hoe dat in deze database is opgenomen. Ik had deze vraag beter in jouw overleg kunnen starten. Ik mag er immers niet van uitgaan dat jij alles ziet. Zou jij willen reageren op dat onderwerp. Het lijkt me ook nuttig dat anderen het weten, vandaar dat ik het als algemeen onderwerp heb gepost.
alle Ginko-Bäume in Deutschland (bei MT) mit gleich- oder größerem Umfang sind erst am Anfang, in der Mitte oder im 2. Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts gepflanzt worden. Kann es sein das du dich mit den Pflanzjahr vertan hast? Bist du dir wirklich sicher? Das würde bedeuten das dieser Ginko sehr langsam an Umfang zugelegt hat.
RedRob, at 2014-12-11 18:16:34, edited at 2014-12-11 18:21:27, said:
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, at 2014-11-30 10:09:56, edited at 2014-11-30 10:18:42, said:
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, at 2014-12-09 18:18:25, edited at 2014-12-09 18:18:59, said:
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.
Another great mystery like the monster of Loch Ness and the Yeti, wrote 'Tallest tree in Southern England' once in the heading bar and yet it as come out repeated?
RedRob, at 2014-12-09 18:07:15, edited at 2014-12-09 18:12:45, said:
Hello Owen, look forward to hearing about your visit to Longleat Forest. It is a place that I would like to visit as well, when I visited Centre Parcs it was a foul day with torrential rain, thunder and low cloud but the conifers did look very, very tall around the cabins and central area where there is a heavily forested ravine, valley. Doubt that I would have been able to use the laser but would have loved to have had one that day. Have the trees in this area ever been properly looked at, who measured the Sequoiadendrons in the grove in the photo in the link below? In the photographs, the 54 metre Coast Redwood is not in a plantation but in a more open stand with other trees, I suspect that it may be or must be in the Centre Parcs area as the plantations that we looked at in Longleat looked dense more like the Charles Ackers Grove.
It says that Centre Parcs is home to hundreds of Coast Redwoods.
I think that the photo here of the Sequoiadendrons must be taken upslope from the ravine that I mentioned in the top paragraph, there looked to be some tall trees down there. These Seqys look as if they have quite nice spires so may still be adding height.
Do you think that the tallest tree in Britain could eventually be in Southern England somewhere like Longleat? I am just thinking about the frequency of very strong winds compared to Scotland and west Wales and the drier climate possibly protecting abit against fungus attacks.
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.
Well, this one doesn't look like 'Stewartii' - probably the late afternoon sunlight has turned it yellow in your picture of the bigger tree? So it's a green cultivar with semi-juvenile foliage (free tips to the scale-leaves) but not one I know.
For this tree, the foliage close-up is Chamaecyparis pisifera but the crown photo is of C. lawsoniana 'Stewartii' (moderately confident this time!) I wonder if this is actually the photo you said you would upload for '19993' (Lawsons cv with golden foliage at tips, which fits a mature slow-growing example of 'Stewartii'?)
I think to transfer this picture to 19993 you'd need to delete and re-upload it. You've probably worked out that you can edit each tree's details by clicking on the link 'edit data for this tree' (and other details by clicking on each pencil icon) - that is, to change 'Tree of undetermined species' into the right name.
Foliage detail photo shows Chameacyparis pisifera or Ch. p. 'Boulevard'
Tree photo is a Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. But I am pretty sure it is not a 'Stewartii' the ones I know are more yellow throughout, even if they are planted in a shady place. See photo of Ch. l. 'Stewartii' at Westonbird Arboretum (Valley Gardens) GB
The picture of the whole tree is the same as the picture of the foilage.... Not a great picture of the tree as I took it just before sunset... There are a few other examples of this tree I could upload if that would help?
Perhaps 'Stewartii' does have unusually long-tipped leaves then - I don't think I've studied the foliage close-up. Whole tree photo is certainly good for 'Stewartii' - the brightness of the colour always fades as these trees get older and produce less new growth each year.
WW, you said you were going to upload a whole-crown photo for the cypress with the yellow only at the shoot-tips? ('Naberi' is a possibility here - an attractive but seldom-seen clone).
Hello, I was out this afternoon getting some measurements, unfortunately the light faded too quickly to take decent photos... I will get a clear photo of both this tree and the crown of the tree with yellow only at the tips on Saturday hopefully.
Monique1961, at 2014-12-04 14:01:37, edited at 2014-12-04 14:06:37, said:
Als vijfjarige heb ik begin 1966 een takje van een populier wat in een vaas stond en wortel had geschoten, samen met mijn moeder geplant, als geboorteboompje, voor mijn pasgeboren broertje.
Als ik nu, bijna 50 jaar later, in Nederland ben en over de Kamerlingh Onnesweg in Hilversum rij, is de inmiddels reusachtige populier goed te zien. (Kamrad, Vogelpan 36). Dàt is ook de reden waarom ik deze twee "geboorte"boompjes voor mijn zoontje heb geplant.
In this special reservoir (13 km from the center of the village of Luras) there are two big specimens: the oldest one with 3000 years old, a second one around 2000 years old. And a third little one, with "only" 500 years old.
Our Old Sycamore is said to be perhaps around 300 years old, which would take it back to a time when the colony of Pennsylvania really WAS "Penn's Woods." It seems never to have grown straight upward. It has two main branches that sprawl over the original farmhouse's front yard. The closest branch here rests on the ground now and also has a support post that it has grown into. The other branch, closer to the house, is also supported by a large post.
Wow! This one escaped me on MT. I have been here several times and yes quite remarkable that trees of this size can be as big here as in Scotland or Wales, with only 900mm of rain! This tree may surpass the Douglas in Broadwood, Dunster?
Obviously the deeply weathered sandy brown earth soil type derived from the Lower Greensand has been a factor. A pity Southern England was not covered in Greensand as opposed to horrible chalk. There is something magical about this soil which I am interested in finding out about. Here in Oxon, Nuneham Courtenay also on Greensand grows big conifers with only 600mm of rain.
Big Western Hemlock too at Polecat.
I noticed the Sequoia had probably been hit by lightning above the cottage, presume this is the one Alan measured as 170' in his book? An overestimate perhaps?
Greensand is indeed the best soil in south-east England for tree-growth, and so many good tree sites are concentrated on it despite the tiny proportion of the country which it covers. I think the secret is that the grains are coarse enough to allow easy root-penetration but fine enough to be water-retentive. Soils washed down the from the Old Red Sandstone (Welsh Marches etc) and from ancient Scottish sandstone have just the same qualities. So, presumably, do loess soils in the Netherlands where trees can also grow very tall (without the benefits of much side-shelter from high hills as we have in England). Chalk is also much better than heavy clay, which covers so much of lowland England.
I have no idea how tall the Polecat Copse trees will grow. They are in a superbly sheltered spot and the two tallest have continued to produce long leaders through the 14 years I've known them, though they've lost their leaders once or twice and some others in the same line now have rough, bushy tops (but are still growing). Given the right soil, and shelter from dehydrating winds, Douglas don't seem to be troubled by drought or high summer temperatures. I don't know the local conditions for the 65m tree in the Massif Central of France but I would assume that summers there are hotter and drier than in Surrey.
That said, I suspect drought-stress rather than lightning for the loss of the top of the Giant Sequoia opposite Angle Cottage. Lightning would have been more likely to strike the higher tree-tops of the bank to the west. In 1995 we had a very dry summer near my home in Hastings and many of the taller Giant Sequoias died back a few metres (and have now recovered but rounded off).
Thanks. Yes I think the secret with Lower Greensand is the ability for trees to extract soil water much more easily due to the pores and matrix of the soil, coupled with a moderately acid ph and reasonable fertility. On a clay soil water holding capacity is obviously greater, but trees cannot extract it as well as on say Greensand due to the pores and soil matrix unfavorable for tree root growth and penetration. Subsequent capillary action of soil water through the soil is much better on Greensand. As it is a soft sandstone is must have weathered deeply as well. It also probably has no root depth restriction caused by an iron pan, which is frequent on acid sandy soils.
Ulmus and Quercus robur as an opposite example seems to love surface water gleys on clay vales.
It appears to me that Giant Sequoia much prefers sandy soils and the Bagshot Sand near my locality at Crowthorne and also at the Valley Gardens Near Windsor as you know grow big trees, despite only 600mm of rain, some 300mm less than at Polecat. Also Giant Sequoia and Douglas are adapted to grow on sandy well drained soils in their native habitat so it is no surprise.
The tree at Angle Cottage lost many metres due to crown dieback which I think is most likely lightning. Yes I have also seen Giant Sequoia die back due to drought, but I know that when lightning strikes Sequoias it often rarely leaves a scar on the trunk, possibly due to the insulation properties of the bark, however it sometimes does and I have seen trees blown apart in the most extreme examples. I know that Beech rarely leaves a scar and yet oak is badly affected. A difficult question and needs more research.
I know that the Massif Central is the wettest place in France with up to 2000mm, but one has to remember that with higher temperatures the evapotranspiration and summer soil moisture defict would be greater than at Polecat, so perhaps only the available rainfall/soil water there will be only slightly greater?
Windspeed is much less in Surrey than in Somerset, so perhaps they will grow to 60m+ at Polecat.
Is the Sequoiadendron near the cottage, here called 'King Kong' still likely to be 51 metres which you measured, assessed it as a few years ago or will it have added some height? I remember looking at this tree from angles and it would have been difficult to see the top and bottom to measure it. The Coast Redwood in the photo above is one at the top of the hill near the old big house but there is a taller one I am sure, immediately on the hillside above the 51 metre 'King Kong' Seqy. I took photos on an old mobile phone and have not been able to get the photos off it as don't have Bluetooth on my laptop. They would be 1.5MP photos so may not be that great. Anyway, this Coast Redwood looked pretty tall, slim and surely 40 metres plus. There is/was also a conifer plantation just the west of the 59 metre Douglas Fir grove, if I remember Larch and Spruce, Sitka snd Norway, which looked pretty tall.
Near Angle Cottage at Polecat Copse, the Sequoiadendron that died back around 2005 was the taller but slenderer of a pair. I had measured it at 48m in 2000 but may have underestimated - Alan's 170' c.1990 was presumably a bit too high. The fatter tree beside it (the one in 'Redwood World' has preserved its tip and had grown to 51m by 2011, but I can't guarantee how accurate this was either. I shall return with the laser in due course.
The larches are behind you in that Geograph photo, Rob. There are some Sequoia and Sequoiadendron crowning the hill-top which are very conspicuous across this part of Surrey, but the larch group are hidden in a small valley within the south-facing scarp.
Thanks too for the Center Parcs links. I'm not sure that the Grand Firs are as tall as they look. 50m has been quoted for the Sequoiadendron plantation there. I shall try to get on my next visit to Longleat.
Rayn, at 2014-06-20 11:32:02, edited at 2014-06-20 11:34:26, said:
There is a majestic elm at Övraböke, Halmstad, Sweden, as reported by Lars G Andersson in 2011. He believes it to be a pollarded tree, now abandoned, with an impressive girth of 10,6 metres. Looks multistemmed but still quite a monumental specimen.
I hope to visit this location some day but it's a long trip for me so it's unknown when I get the opportunity. I thought I might share it with you if someone are in the neighbourhood for some reason...
It's a few hours away from me, but I'll try to give it a visit and take some photos but I can't say when, quite busy right now with work and familythings etc... Hopefully it will be left standing for a litle while longer...
Hei Rayn, Thanks, it looks like the people there are very persistent, which is a good thing when this kind of projects are developed without caring these kind of elements. In many cases these valuable elements can be integrated in plans if people really want to do so.
Have good times with family and frends end of the year. Take your time.
Best wishes, Maarten
For readers who wonder what's this about, see: https://www.facebook.com/radda.appeltradet/info?tab=page_info Use Google Translate to get the point of what this is about.
Doesn't look like P. nubigenus, which has shorter, stiffer, denser leaves. How large is the plant? If just a small, young plant it could well still be P. salignus, as when young (up to maybe 1-2m tall?) they do have shorter leaves like this.
Unfortunately, there are no historic Alan Mitchell records for these younger plantings at Gosford. Do we know where the Forest Service (?) may have been sourcing them from?
wwhiteside97, at 2014-11-26 19:01:14, edited at 2014-11-26 19:46:22, said:
I will have to get down on Saturday to get a clearer picture of the tree and foliage. Would be hard to know where the Forest Service would have sourced these from as there haven't really been any plantings since and there may not be any records.
Not Podocarpus cunninghamii, that has shorter, broader leaves, and - like Podocarpus totara and Podocarpus nubigenus - is also harder and spinier than your comments suggest. Unfortunately, it's a large genus, and though not many are hardy, tracing the right one won't be at all easy.
Your picture of the crown now rules out P. salignus. I'd still be inclined to plump for P. totara (probably young vigorous trees have longer leaves than is quoted for old wild ones) but hybrids between salignus and totara do occur in cultivation. The largest and oldest known, at the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens, was 9m tall a couple of years ago, so if a sister-seedling was distributed to Gosford, it would be about the size of your tree by now.
Conifers, at 2014-11-29 18:02:26, edited at 2014-11-29 18:38:10, said:
That hybrid is the best option so far, certainly (a new one to me!).
Graag wil ik u uitnodigen in het beschermde kloosterdorp Steyl. Op uw pagina staat slechts 1 Sequoia (mammoet) uit +- 1880. Eenzelfde soort staat bij ons op Sequoiahof naast ons woonhuis. Deze is met zekerheid hoger. Daarnaast staan op het hofje nog een Amerikaanse eik en een wilde kastanje, beiden uit circa 1860. Verder ligt er naast ons woonhuis een botanische tuin die in 1933 is aangelegd. Er staan echter ook bomen van het vroegere landgoed. Al met al een boomrijke omgeving. Met vriendelijke groet, sjaak Smetsers www.moeejendaag.nl tel 06-21878303
The hybrid is of course intermediate between the parents. Leaf length / width ratio (A. koreana has shorter, broader needles, A. veitchii longer, slenderer needles), and the degree of white below (A. koreana more vivid white often covering the full width of the underside, A. veitchii less vivid white and usually in two bands with the green midrib showing easily) are the best features to look for.
Jeroen Pater and I visited this oak at a day in November 1999. At the same day we also visited the oak Napoleon in Zabor, somewhat more to the north-east, wich had a girth of even 10.45 m and was the biggest circumferenced oak of Poland at that time. It was also hollow and a few years later this oak also was set on fire. It survived, but the burning was repeated after a few years and the oak died.
The biggest girthed tree of the Netherlands, a hollow Sweet Chestnut (see Kastanjedal ) also was set on fire several times, the last time in 2005 and till now has survived.
die Eiche in Hornoldendorf (Außenmauer des Ritterguts) wurde vor zwei Jahren auch in Brand gesetzt. Letztes Jahr hat es noch so ausgesehen, als ob sie es wohl nicht überlebt. In diesem Jahr, als ich dort war, hat sich wieder recht viel grün gezeigt. Und zwar an Ästen, die noch 2013 kahl waren. Sie scheint sich also zu erholen. Vielleicht schafft es ja diese Eiche hier auch so wie die in Hornoldendorf. Hoffen wir also mal.
I don't think keeping trees a secret is a good idea. They give Chrobry a value of 4.300000 (I think) zlotty. That is a lot of money. If the Chrobry oak is that expensive, why did they not put smoke and heat detectors inside.
I think a better solution is to some how close the gabs of a hollow tree, so nothing that can burn can get in. It won't work with all hollow trees, but I think it will work with a lot of them. I think is is very hard to burn a tree that has a trunk with no gabs.
Sadly keeping champion trees secret from the public is the only way to protect them from vandalism. But in this case the tree was so well known it was impossible. As I have said before, in the UK there are many rare plants, where location details are kept deliberately vague to ensure protection.
The recent climbing damage to the 66m Douglas fir in Scotland (not deliberate vandalism) I feel is a wake up call not to give exact location details for champion trees and giving the 'wider' general public this information is a risk to them. But recording and uploading them is perfectly acceptable on MT.
I hope those responsible are caught and prosecuted!
Indeed this tree was to famous to hide it from the public. But, the other very big oak in Poland, called Napoleon at Zabor, was not well known, in fact it was a rather secret tree standing at a lonely place to be found only by insiders along a small sand road. It was set on fire very probable by local young boys and I suppose this also was the case with the Chrobry oak, like with the "Kabouterboom", the big Sweet Chestnut in Holland.
So I think most of these hollow old trees are more at risk from local young people than from people from elsewere.
Andrew Weber, at 2014-11-22 13:13:13, edited at 2014-11-22 13:27:23, said:
Moreover, in Poland many big trees, especially oaks, were set on fire, not only the biggest. I have seen in 2014 a few oaks with girth ranging from 6,5 to 8 metres that also suffered an arson and they usually grew in remote places.. So the largest trees should be preserved rather by fence, because cameras could be stolen indeed.. And it is a matter of local government that trees are conserved or 'unwanted', like here, Chrześcijanin (the Christian) Oak in Poland: street.
All in all, I hope that miracle will happen and Chrobry will survive, but it is horrible that someone wants to destroy peaceful monumental trees..
A beauty Rainer, meant the tree but you as well no doubt (laughs) Is this the tallest outside of the USA? With reading the TROBI records can remember alot of champion heights for trees and locations now but not Colorado Blue Spruce? Will have to check. Quite a few of c20 metres in my area.
with a slightly larger girth, this Chestnut does not look 34 metres. Do you have any more recent recordings Owen?
RedRob, at 2014-11-21 18:11:40, edited at 2014-11-21 18:13:33, said:
Forgot to say Owen, someone that I know in Mansfield has a friend who works at the Thoresby Hall hotel and is going to check to see if that Sweet Chestnut is still there. Hope that he photographs it, haven't heard back yet.
I am contacting you since at Reforestamos Mexico we deeply admire your work and commitment to the protection of the environment. Monumental trees is a great source of inspiration for Reforestamos Mexico and we would be extremely pleased if you would accept our offer to collaborate.
Reforestamos Mexico is a Mexican organization completely devoted to the protection of the forests, as natural natural treasure and cornerstone of national development. We believe that the future of our society is intimately linked to the survival of the forests. Particularly, we conceive forests a key promoter of economic growth, not only supplying goods and guaranteeing biodiversity, but also offering great opportunities for local communities and people that live within the forest. This is why we are engaged no only with the protection of woods, but also with the promotion of a new approach to natural resources and sustainable development that can encompass the environmental, social, political and economic dimensions.
We feel that Reforestamos Mexico and Monumental Trees share the same values, interests and missions. In fact, at Reforestamos Mexico we also have a project completely focused on the protection of majestic trees. This program aims at raising awareness on the importance of those trees for our country. Hence, we think that a synergy with you could enhance our actions. For this reason, we propose to mutually advertise our projects through websites and social networks of both Reforestamos Mexico and Monumental Trees, so that our common goal can be better and widely achieved.
I've added a measurement (from Elwes and Henry's book) from this same period and a few other historic measurements from the Tree Register, which show the tree growing away steadily. The growth-rate rather undermines the story that this tree dates right back to Bishop Gunning in the later 17th century, though it is possible that a heat-loving species would actually be adding girth faster today than in the 'little Ice Age'. (The two most recent girth measurements are misleading - I'm sure it's not started to grow that fast!)
This is a shame, B&I and European champion now ex champion. Did you put a message in Discussion about this Owen, I must have missed it if you did? Perhaps the top fell much more recently and the fallen wood was taken as firewood? A relative lived in Surrey and they had an open fire and used to go out regularly collecting firewood in the local woods, often taking a saw. With the high price of energy and fuel more and more people have been doing this.
Hello Owen, looking forward to seeing the tree if it is still there and 38/39 metres. What is the next tallest after that, 36 metres I saw when checking on the Register. The trees in the location at Southwell, Nottinghamshire reported by Richard Goodrich were not 37 metres, 31 metres was the tallest in that location that I recorded with the laser and I could visibly see that it was the tallest. I didn't spot the reported 31 metre Hornbeams at the roadside but they will not be 31 metres if they are as the 31 metre Chestnut stood up higher than the other trees in the group. They could be perhaps 27 or 28 metres if they are there.
Owen, 'Warhorse' was shown on BBC1 last night and in the opening sequences on the moors of Dartmoor, in the distance was a reservoir with some what looked like very tall dark conifer outlines in several places on the banks. I have checked and it was filmed at Burrator Reservoir. Have any tall trees been recorded here? The trees in the Geograph link look like Douglas Fir perhaps?
I did walk through the woods around the Burrator Reservoir in 2006. There was a Sitka Spruce plantation with trees reaching 40m. I didn't see any notable Douglas Firs. This is on the south-westerly, exposed side of Dartmoor, so I wouldn't expect anything to grow really tall - Sitka is probably the toughest in that situation.
RedRob, at 2014-11-17 18:08:21, edited at 2014-11-17 18:09:59, said:
Hello Jeroen, is this the Netherland's tallest tree now and likely to remain so or are there some possible challengers? From the distance photo the Douglas looks as if it has a really wide spread on the crown.
I've only seen double-grafting of Pyrus salicifolia 'Pendula' and on what in Britain were sold as 'Sheraton' cherries. (Roots Prunus avium, trunk P. serrula, crown P. serrulata cv. They don't live long.) In SE England many older Quercus coccinea are also grafted on Q. rubra and I had assumed they were 'Splendens', a clone distributed by the Knap Hill Nursery in Surrey. They have bigger axillary tufts under the leaf vein-joints, almost like Q. palustris. I don't know whether the Knap Hill Nursery also distributed to the near Continent or if there was a similar clone sold there as grafts.
Leuk dat je een foto en gegevens van de Major Oak op deze website zet! Deze boom staat echter al enige jaren op een andere locatie op de website, nl hier: http://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/gbr/engeland/nottinghamshire/968_sherwoodforest/ .
Het zou het beste zijn om je foto's en evt. andere gegevens op die pagina toe te voegen en de nieuwe pagina te verwijderen.
De omschrijving van een locatie is in Engeland vaak wat lastig, vandaar waarschijnlijk dat je de oudere pagina van de eik niet had gezien.
Ik ben vandaag opnieuw langs geweest ij deze machtige platanen. Dat heb ik wel vaker gedaan, maar ik vond het steeds niet de moeite waard om ze te meten. Toen ik me realiseerde dat de laatste meting uit 2009 stamt, dacht ik dat ik deze bomen de eerste de beste keer dat ik in Amsterdam zou zijn, moest opmeten. Vandaag heb ik dat gedaan. Tot mijn spijt zijn de resultaten weer niet corresponderend met jullie eerdere metingen. De boom met de lage zijtak London plane (Platanus × hispanica) '1874'is volgens mijn metingen dunner dan de ander London plane (Platanus × hispanica) '1876'. Ik wil graag de juiste maten opvoeren. Kan het zijn dat jij/jullie destijds de metingen hebben verwisseld?
In juni 2006 waren Leo en ik met hoofdstedelijk bomenconsulent Hans Kaljee bij de bomen en hebben ze gemeten, zie de foto met mij. Die meting staat echter niet op MT. De meting uit 2009 is van Leo, ik was daar niet bij. Als jij nu een andere boom als dikste meet, kan het zijn dat Leo foto en meting heeft verwisseld maar ik maak vaker vreemde groeispurts mee bij bomen die moeilijk zijn te verklaren.
If the tree in question is the 'hairy' one left of centre, then from the image I am guessing that it is most likely a Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) that has developed a vigorous mass of epicormic shoots. Whether this is due to an increase in side light striking the trunk since thinning operations or a genetic malfunction I cannot discern from the image. I also can't discern the cones from the image. Is it possible to obtain close up images of the bark, needles, shoots and cones, as this would ease diagnosis?
RedRob, at 2014-11-11 18:00:33, edited at 2014-11-11 18:03:38, said:
Hello Moudie, welcome to the forum (haven't noticed your name previously) Hope that you don't mind my asking, are you in Scotland or living in Scotland?
A previous discussion about this it was thought that it was another Douglas Fir, it is the tree clothed to the ground just to left of centre. There is a large grove of c50 metre Sitka Spruce about 200 metres to the left of this photo. I was so busy looking at the emergent tree two to the right of this tree which the laser measured as c55 metres, I should have noted what this tree was? At first with the dense narrow habit thought that it might be a Picea Abies that I had missed, if so it would be 49/50 metres as the tree 4 tips to it's right, Douglas Fir was 49.8 metres. If you click in the photo and then when the little magnifying glass comes up click again you can enlarge the photo.
Thank you for your welcome, and yes to both of your questions about Scotland. I have used the magnifying facility, but it produces a very pixelated image for me that doesn't aid diagnosis. I was thinking that it might be Serbian spruce (Picea omorika), but the apical growth rate I wouldn't have expected to keep pace with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) or Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Hence my request for some detail, if poss.
Are you involved with forestry or arboriculture? Are you in the Highlands or low lands? Whatever, you must live in striking distance of some magnificent trees of all descriptions.
I have added what photos I have of this tree at Dalby, I was so busy with the Douglas that I didn't go up to it. It was only when I later looked at the photos that it stuck out with it's very narrow habit with foliage to the base and quite heavy crop of cones whilst the surrounding Douglas appear to have none or very few. I should also have noted what the small blue conifer was, the track next to these trees is/was one of the best viewing areas for the old Lombard RAC Rally when it was held here years ago now.
Yes to both and Southern Highland boundary fault! ;¬) Aye, there are plenty to cuddle.
Thank you for posting the additional images of the trees in the vicinity of your first image. I can see why you are remarking upon the fully clothed tree and the shorter vigorous growing one with the blue green foliage. I suspect shelter, available nutrients and moisture along with the adjacency of the large trees are all contributing to it's form. It may even be the prodgeny of one of those older trees.
If I am fortunate to be in the vicinity of these trees I shall try to give them a look.
The tree is in a private garden about 50m south west across the road from Hambleden Church, in the village centre. With its roots in the Hamble Brook.
The trunk is very rectangular in shape due to the 3 massive limbs dividing at about 3m up. Horse Chestnut grows quite quickly here and may date back to only 1800-1830 as the Georgian house/gardens date back to roughly then. I had the opportunity to measure it when I worked on the tree back in 2000.
Tree trunk is not easily seen from the road as it is hidden from view by a fence. I only live 5 miles from it so will take picture and upload to MT when I have time.
Hello Stephen, looking forward to seeing photos of all your trees eventually. Are there any really tall Horse Chestnuts in your area, perhaps challenging Arundel's 39 metre tree?
I must ask about one lot of trees, the suspense is killing me (laughs) Did you manage to get to the Elan Valley Douglas Firs, how tall? I have done photo measurements on Google Maps using the telephone box as a reference (being a complete nerd and even googling various telephone boxes to ascertain dimensions, heights), c40 metres is what I got but there is obvious distortion and fore-shortening on Google Maps cameras, for example the Waterloo Grove looks nothing from the road.
The tree has a very oval, almost elliptical trunk shape, but has a clear stem of 3m before dividing into 3 massive limbs. The quoted girth measurement @0.5m was the 'narrowest point' of the trunk and measuring any higher up the trunk, one would encounter buttressing and reaction wood. This would vastly inflate any girth measurement.
No need to measure anymore phone boxes! The Douglas in question I estimate was about 50m, nice trees of 90 years old, but nothing exceptional.
Some Horse Chestnuts could be 33-35m, in this chalk river valley where conditions appear optimum. However the leaf miner and bleeding canker is sadly having an effect on their health and future growth. Has the leaf miner reached you up in Yorkshire yet?
Having trouble with uploading pictures to my PC off my phone but hopefully You will see them soon!
Yes, Cameraria ohridella has even been up here in Northumbs for 3 years now, and is starting to get common. No doubt its natural predators will catch up with it soon; it doesn't seem to be a big problem. The bleeding canker is likely a worse problem, though so far at least, it is rare up here.
I hadn't looked but hadn't realised that you had added this one Owen, I tried to take a distance photo of it but not very successfully as it is rather hemmed in.
Just added my photo for this one, not the small tree nearest the camera but the bi tree behind. Quite difficult to ascertain where or which was the tallest shoot but recorded just below 34 metres with the laser for what I could hit. The ground surrounding it seems to be well paddled and bare so not sure how this will affect the tree in the long run.
Hello Stephen, the Douglas at Elan certainly worth recording as current tallest recordest trees in mid/central Wales, Owen's 50 metre Grand Fir at Cefn Park near Cardiff being the tallest in South Wales.
Hello Stephen, the Douglas at Elan certainly worth recording as current tallest recordest trees in mid/central Wales, Owen's 50 metre Grand Fir at Cefn Park near Cardiff being the tallest in South Wales.
Hello Stephen, the Douglas at Elan certainly worth recording as current tallest recordest trees in mid/central Wales, Owen's 50 metre Grand Fir at Cefn Park near Cardiff being the tallest in South Wales.
Might I suggest that this tree is a Bigleaf Linden, Broadleaf Lime, Large-leaf Lime, Large-leaved Linden (Tilia platyphyllos)? An alternative might be the Common Lime or Kaiser Linden (Tilia × europaea), but I think that the leaves on your 'Unknown' tree appear larger than those of the hybrid and the Small leaved lime (Tilia cordata). I like the image, promoting tree 'cuddling'. ;¬)
RedRob, at 2014-11-11 18:32:28, edited at 2014-11-11 18:34:21, said:
The site webpage link on the Elm conversation mentioned that Deodars could be 250 feet in their native habitat, surely there be some taller specimans than this somewhere in Europe, Germany, France (Sisley?) Would love to see some 50 metre specimans in Europe, likely?
I have just forgotten to update this tree, I measured it again in September (2014) and I could visibly see that the top was flatter, certainly when compared to my photos from 2013. I am pretty certain that it has lost it's top most branch, must have been in the severe winds of last winter as I couldn't get this height for it. Will look in my notes and update with new height which I just cannot recall exactly offhand.
I doubt if there are Deodars over 40 m in Europe, there seem to be no very old plantations of them.
In 1981 I have been in one of the locations with tall Deodar Cedars in the Indian Himalayas, in Manali. Probably those were taller than 40 m, but from my remembrance (I did not have any height measurement instrument at that time) I doubt if they were a lot above 50 m. Alas till now nobody seems to have measured them with reliable methods. Kouta and I once mailed that it would be nice to go there and to other locations in the Himalayas, but till now we did not make real plans.
in der Mammutbaumcommunity http://mbreg.de/forum/index.php/topic,3329.msg66958.html#msg66958) haben wir auch schon über diesen Baum gesprochen. Anhand von Satellitenaufnahmen entstanden da in den letzten Jahren mehrere bauliche Veränderungen. Auf Bildern von 2009 sind Gebäude noch nicht zu sehen, die aktuell dort sind.
The Huntingdon Elm was measured by the well known UK tree expert of his time Elwes, contained 2787 cubic feet of timber which is 98 cubic metres, so well over 100 tonnes. This may not include the upper crown though, so perhaps 120m3 in total. The tree must have been severely decayed though.
Also in 'The Trees of Great Britain and Ireland' you'll find mention of a Wych Elm near Field in Staffordshire which was felled in 1636 and carefully measured as 120' tall and 16' thick at the kerf. I think we can safely say that elms were our biggest native trees.
Those elms must have been great trees! I remember coming the first time in England and Wales in 1970 when I was 15, seeing everywere dead elms in the countryside. This has been a great loss for the British landscape.
Stephen and Owen: the Magdalen College Elm contained 2787 cubic feet of timber. You calculate this as 98 cubic metre. When a foot is 30.48 cm / 0.3048 metre than a cubic foot is 0,0283168466 cubic metre. Then 2787 cubic feet is 78,92 cubic metre. It could be that only good timber was calculated, not the smaller branches and the bark. The tree in total had perhaps more volume.
As you know Robert van Pelt calculated the large Sessile Oak of Croft Castle as having a total volume of 3800 cubic feet / 107.6 cubic metre and Majesty the Fredville Oak as 3300 cubic feet / 93.45 cubic metre, but these will both be the total volume of the tree including bark, all branches and (especially for Majesty) including the hollow trunk. So this is not existing volume of timber but the volume of the tree as a whole.
Probably measured in this way the Magdalen College Elm also would have had a volume of over 3000 or more cubic feet.
Would be nice to have a guy like Robert van Pelt to estimate volumes of some more British and European trees.
Yes you are right, I entered in the conversion factor wrongly.
It could be that the old method of measurement was used, the Hoppus foot. There is 0.03605m3 to the Hoppus foot. This is still used in the UK for measuring hardwoods, sadly and not metric.
Yes a tragedy, the loss of Ulmus procera. I remember being in my pram at 2 years, sadly watching big elms being felled in 1975 in my village and ever since been addicted to trees!
Another tree not native to the UK and yet somehow some people accept these trees in the landscape and not other species such as conifers which I find rather stupid!
There are some old pictures of elms being felled which surely were as big as the biggest plane trees of today.
In September I visited the Croft Castle Sessile Oak. I remember standing beneath this tree in 1984.
I did an extensive study into the trees health/age. Sadly the National Trust has expanded the car park since 1984 allowing car parking in close proximity to the tree's root zone, which puts the tree's health at risk due to soil compaction. I have spent most of my career trying to educate people about this kind of thing, but sadly some people are ignorant.
The tree is generally in good health at present but it has extensive internal decay in the heartwood and is structurally compromised, thus at some future date perhaps in 50 years time it may fall. Nearly all oaks of this age (300 years) I have seen, have decay and have witnessed them snapping off at the base. Perhaps the only way to prevent this would be to reduce the upper crown, but this would be sad and perhaps letting nature take its course would be best, as surely we have to accept the tree has done wonderfully.
Presume B.V. Pelt just measured the trunk and main branches. If upper crown included it could perhaps amass more than 120m3? This would amount to 128 tonnes as there are 0.94m3 to the metric tonne for Oak which is fresh and green. But of course impossible to measure weight accurately if the tree has decay.
I will upload pictures and report for MT in due course.
Has anyone in Europe tried to estimate volume using Laser Technology's Criterion RD 1000 dendrometer? Perhaps some of the UK's conifers could be measured to estimate volume this way. Although climbing and measuring diameter at certain heights would be more accurate?
2 years old, that takes some beating Stephen! 2 years old in 1975, I was curious as to how old you were and this as given it away. Not my long list twin then. Don't think that I can remember as far back as that, remember how my interested first sparked, all the kids in my Primary school class were given an Oak sapling to look after. It was my second year in Primary so 1975 coincidently again. I cannot remember what happened to my little Oak? Hope that it was planted somewhere and is growing strong now. My interest was further engaged when my late Dad and myself began searching for a grove of very tall trees that he had seen but which he could not remember the location of. We drove right to within a few hundred metres of them from both directions but couldn't find them and turned back. Took us many outings and we finally dropped down over the edge of the ravine and found the redwoods at Hebden Wood. The trees were very, very tall to a little kid.
I seem to remember discussing this with someone before and realising that Elwes and Henry were using Hoppus feet whenever they wrote 'feet of timber'. I believe that Bob van Pelt will have recorded even the minor branches of the Croft Castle oak with some precision, as that is what he does when surveying the giant American trees. But our big, young conifers are easier to measure as they only have light branches so far.
If Elm disease had not happened perhaps my interest in trees would have never occurred! That day in December 1975 obviously had left an imprint on my brain! One of my earliest memories was 100ft elms being felled across the main road into the pub car park whole, falling with an almighty bang (no health and safety then) There were 200 of them lining the road! The whole of the Vale of Oxford was full of them and a guy who I worked for said he spent years constantly felling dead Elms.
There was an interest in genetic engineering Ulmus procera inserting a gene to make it resistant, but there are 'anti's' that do not like this, so project halted! Trouble is there are about 2 clones of Ulmus procera so when the disease struck there was no resistance. Whereas Ulmus hollandica 'vegeta' (Huntingdon Elm) does have some resistance.
The bookmark for the online book shows some interesting trees of the past, nice beech etc.
The Huntingdon Elm at Silk wood Westonburt has now sadly died.
Measuring the upper crown must be a very complicated task for an oak. Has the Tree Register considered measuring girths at different heights to determine volume for some of the big conifers like the Grand Fir at Strone or Murthly etc. when doing tape drops?
Hello Stephen, are there any large Elms of any type left in your territory? Up here there are very few although quite alot of shrubby specimans forming parts of hedges. The tallest that I have recorded is a 27.8-28 metre speciman at Ribston Hall. Cannot remember if I have added this to MT or not, will have to a check? I don't like adding just any tree as it wastes webspace for Tim but this one is worth adding probably because it is a County Champion for Yorkshire.
There is some hope that there will be still elms in the UK as well as other parts of Europe in future. In Amsterdam there is a very good program for preservation of elms, of wich there are around 70.000 in the city. Among these are still some beautiful old trees of Ulmus x hollandica 'Belgica', but as far as I know there are no large U. procera in Amsterdam. Of U. hollandica 'Vegeta'(Huntingdon Elm) there are medium large trees but not as old as of 'Belgica'.
By the way: 2787 Hoppus Feet = 100,47 cubic metre, a lot more than with modern feet.
Stephen, I don't know anybody measuring volume in the way you ask. In the USA there are several persons who do, like Robert Leverett, Robert van Pelt, Steve Sillett and Michael Taylor.
Beside giant conifers in the Pacific Northwest they have measured the volume of a huge Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) as nearly 5000 cubic feet = 140 cubic metres and of a tall big Tulip Tree of 4200 cubic feet, by measuring nearly all branches by climbing and taping.
I think I will frame the above picture of that beautiful Elm and hang it on my wall! I am going to invent a time machine and return to 1960 with a good camera and 50 Kodak slide films!
Yes there are some survivors, very rare in The Chilterns. There was a Ulmus glabra of 26m x 1.3m which survived at least 3 phases of the dreaded DED. and finally died in 1993, I reported this to Alan Mitchell. Now there is the largest Ulmus glabra probably in the Chilterns about 25m tall with two trunks 60cm diameter still with no disease and strangely in the same valley an Ulmus procera 15m tall x 40cm which has somehow survived 2 bouts of disease and recovered! I do not know why? Just very lucky isolated trees?
Also a half hectare wood full of elms about 25m x 60cm unable to determine the species, but clearly very resistant to disease, Possibly a Ulmus carpinifolia clone or perhaps a rare Plot elm. There are just so many types.
Interesting about Elms in Holland I know they had an extensive breeding program. I am sure that Elm disease could be stopped by advances in breeding/genetics but there is no political will or money to do the research?
So the historic Elm at Oxford could have amounted to 100m3! The hybrid arose in Hinchinbrook Park in Huntingdon in 1760, so after 151 years the tree accumulated 100m3, which I find hard to believe. I know the rich alluvial floodplain soil around Oxford is fertile, but growth rate would surely be comparable with Abies grandis, Sequoia, Sequoiadendron! Perhaps the tree had everything it needed, as well as hybrid vigour. What do you think?
Perhaps volume measurement is another project for European trees although technically challenging. Certainly big conifers with little taper would be the easiest and would be interesting to see which ones were really the biggest, as we know measuring just height and diameter is possibly a inferior method of identifying the biggest.
Thanks for that, that makes sense of my query. I wonder if this clone is now extinct? Certainly a massive tree I would estimate it would take at least 250 years to amass 80-100m3 of wood. It was certainly in a very advanced state of decay, judging by the 1911 photograph.
Perhaps Black Italian Poplar could have approached these sizes, as I have seen some enormous trees in old photographs which had been sadly felled.
There are still breeding programs in the Netherlands for resistant elms, but indeed there is little money to do more research. Still there is a professional nursereyman in Holland breeding many resistant clones and in Amsterdam there is a good preservation / protection program for elms. Leo knows more about it, he is the co-author of a book on Elms in the Low Counties wich was published in 2009 (alas only in Dutch language). The other co-authors are Hans Heybroek, who did most off the research on breeding resistant elms and Hans Kaljee, who is the tree-consultant of the City of Amsterdam and among the most influential tree-people of the Netherlands.
About the Magdalene College elm: if it was much older than the first breeding of the Huntingdon clone (wich is given in the above book as 1746), was it sure it was a Huntingdon elm or just a hybrid of an unknown clone?
Very interesting about the Elms in Holland. There was an attempt to genetically engineer Ulmus procera so it would hopefully be resistant and was undertaken at Abertay University in Scotland.
Ulmus procera proved to be an ideal subject for this as it does not produce seed and is sterile, so there was no chance of it breeding with other Elms with its changed genetics. However there are anti's in this country who did not like the idea of genetically modified trees (sadly a lot of ignorance here in my opinion), so sadly the project did to proceed to the next phase of testing the resistance in the field. However I believe it could still be done if there is the will!
A French Study has shown that none of the Common Elms in Europe have total resistance to the disease, although some are more resistant than others, Huntingdon Elm being one of them.
A recent statistical analysis of the spread of Elm disease has shown nothing could be done to stop it after the import of 'Rock Elm' logs from Canada in the late 1960's, into the ports of the UK, once it was established in the countryside.
Yes Giant Sequoia will be the biggest conifer, but London Plane will surely be largest broadleaf. The trees at Ely, Cambridgeshire and Lydney Park could be 80-100m3 perhaps as big as the tree at Croft Castle?
Also I am worried that climate change is going to seriously retard tree growth in South and Eastern England due to a predicted drop in summer rainfall during the growing season, in the next 100 years. However Northwest UK should become more productive for tree growth unless there is another disease.
Hmmm . . . that tree doesn't look anything like 33 m to me; at a guess, you can knock at least 10 m (and probably 15 m) off from that. The narrow single-lane driveway beside it gives a fair estimate of scale.
Problem is, I don't think either method is giving a reliable estimate. The 11 m pole is some distance (about 25 m) beyond the tree, and down slope, so looks a lot less high by comparison. Also the bend in the access road where one can measure its photo-width is beyond the tree too, which inflates the comparative height of the tree. Measuring on google earth, the photo was taken from the adjacent main road 30 metres from the tree, with the bend in the access road 50 metres away, 20 m beyond the tree. And finally, as is usual with broad-crowned trees, the highest visible shoot is not the real top but a branch closer to the observer and so appears higher. It will need a laser device to get a real measurement. But my prediction would be in the 15-18 metres range, perhaps 20 m at most.
Yep, should have had a look on the Google map and have and Conifers is right, the tower is some distance beyond the tree from the position from where the photo is taken. Bringing it forward, the height is probably around 20 metres. Needs lasering to confirm if anyone is near this area?
Doesn't look like it to me, and I'd be doubtful if P. wallichiana is fully hardy in Salzburg. I'd like to see a close-up of the cones and foliage. My suspicions would be for Pinus × schwerinii, though can't rule out P. monticola, or other cultivated origin hybrids.
Warning: mysql_connect(): User monumentaltrees already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/login/database.php on line 72 User monumentaltrees already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
The rest of the site seems to be working OK, though.
Still happening, I have had to bookmark one of the sub-pages like 'Discussion' to enter MT. This is OK for me as I know how to do this, but it will stop new visitors from finding out about the site, which is sad. Also the low number of recent additions suggests some established members are not being able to post at the moment. Hope it can be solved soon!
I'va had serious problems in signing in. And indeed I have scarcely been able to upload or even see what's happening. Furthermore I have met a problem in uploading. At the moment it prevents me from being all too active. I have bought a new computer. Its operating system is windows 8.1. This OS rotates the taken pictures in the vertical form if they are taken that way. The problem is that the photo's consequently appear horizontal....
I have asked Packard Bell for a solution. (Microsoft won't discuss this problem because I have a OEM version). Packard Bell says that this is a known problem in Windows 8 and they cannot do anything. I have the same problem with the database of "De Bomenstichting" .
Will be continued. I have asked a problem manager of a computer magazine for a solution.
Funny, I am the archetypal 'problem user' on MT but not experiencing any of these problems. What I did find was using Mozilla Firefox is much better than Internet Explorer 9 which kept coming up with the message 'Monumentaltrees.com is not responding' 'Recover webpage?'
I'm aware of these problems but I'm still thinking about decent solution.
The cause is that at certain moments there are a lot of Chinese visitors (likely all of them automated robots) from Chinese search engines like Baidu etc. These hammer the site each one creating a connection to the database and making some queries (e.g. to show the recent changes list) making my database overloaded.
I could simply block these, but this would prevent the site from popping up in Baidu search results (and the Baidu robots don't show this behaviour all the time), but that might be a solution for now. Other bots like the one from Google behave more nicely, spreading their requests in time. A better solution would be to make the querying lighter, by e.g. also caching the recent changes list so not every user has to build up this list independently.
The non availability is always a temporary issue that can happen at any moment (for Conifers by coincidence at the main page), usually when there are a lot of users active at the same time.
Maybe I'll block Chinese users for the moment, and work on a decent solution later. Currently my time for the site is consumed by work on the cultivar/variety editing possibilities.
While it would be very nice to get some trees from China, it hasn't happened yet. So I'd agree with blocking their robots (if feasible!), even if it does mean fewer potential 'real' Chinese visitors to the site.
ich habe seit gestern Mittag keinen Zugriff mehr auf MT. Jetzt geht es auch nicht. Ich erhalte immer die oben genannte Fehlermeldung. Das ganze allerdings nur bei Firefox. Erst jetzt bin ich auf die Idee gekommen, mal den IE zu verwenden. Da geht MT, konnte so auch diese Diskussion finden.
Hi Leo, you could be right, the trunk with the many water veins looks like Ulmus laevis. But the leaves are different. I could compare directly with those of the 200 meters away Ulmus laevis '19794'. The leaves are thicker and solid, smoother the upper side, and the lower leaf surface shows the typical pattern of profiled Ulmus minor (it looks likehttp://www.baumkunde.de/Ulmus_minor/Blatt2/). But surely with the identification of the species I'm not. It would be good if you or someone else could check the tree on site!
please check out my additional photos of the leaves. I took a few home with me. The lower leaf surface shows a profiled or cracked pattern and I see silky hair tufts in the vein angles, focusing on the central vein. This is something I've only seen at Ulmus minor, is this also possible with Ulmus laevis?
Most importantly, the leaves from fast growing sprouts or coppice shoots are unusable for identification - they readily result in missidentification. The best leaves are the subdistal ones (next below from the leaves at the shoot tip) from the short shoots (Kurztriebe) in the crown, including the lowest branches of the crown. Never leaves from the shoots at the tree base.
einen Scherz habe ich mir nicht erlaubt und Verwechslungen oder falsche Zuordnung der Blatt-Fotos schließe ich aus. Auch ohne die Fotos erinnere ich mich daran, dass ich unter dem Baum neben den normalen Blättern zahlreiche dieser Feldulmen-ähnlichen Blätter gefunden habe. Sie hatten Nervengabelungen auch in der oberen Blatthälfte. Ich kannte dieses Unterscheidungsmerkmal und habe vor Ort sehr bewußt darauf geachtet.
Gestern war ich wieder in Gartrop, ich hatte aber leider keinen Zutritt zum Schlosspark. Über die Sprechanlage zur Hotelrezeption erhielt ich immer nur den Hinweis auf "Privatbesitz", zu weiteren Auskünften war man nicht bereit.
Ich kenne eine weitere Ulme, die als Flatterulme bekannt ist und wo ich zu Beginn der Laubfallzeit vor etwa einer Woche auch solche Feldulmen-ähnlichen Blätter fand: European white elm (Ulmus laevis) '19851' . Auch dort war ich gestern und habe Fotos gemacht. Die obere Kronenhälfte ist inzwischen völlig blattleer und unten rieselten die Blätter. Zu meinem Erstaunen konnte ich im dichten Laub unter dem Baum keine Blätter mit Nerven-Gabelungen in der oberen Blatthälfte mehr entdecken, nur noch normale Flatterulmenblätter.
Beide Bäume weisen ein übereinstimmendes Merkmal auf:
Durch baumpflegerische Eingriffe in der Vergangenheit wurde die Krone eingekürzt und an den Schnittstellen haben sich Büschel von Neuaustrieben entwickelt, welche nun die Kronenperipherie prägen.
Ich schliesse daraus:
Diese für Flatterulmen untypischen Blätter bilden sich an den Neuaustrieben oben in der Krone. Zu Beginn der Laubfallzeit sind das die ersten Blätter, die der Baum abwirft und die man dann unten auflesen kann. Später, wenn die große Masse der Blätter fällt, sieht man nur noch normal geformte Blätter.
Nach meiner Einschätzung ist das eine Flatterulme, ich habe das entsprechend geändert.
Was haltet ihr von dieser Theorie?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
here is my English translation:
a joke I'm not allowed and confusion or incorrect assignment of the leaf photos I exclude. Even without the photos I remember that I found under the tree in addition to normal leaves many of these field elm-like leaves. They had nerve forks in the upper half. I knew this distinctive feature and on site I have paid attention very consciously to it.
Yesterday I was back in Gartrop, but I had no access to the park. Over the intercom to the hotel reception I always received the reference to "private property", for other information they were not willing.
I know another elm, which is known as white elm and where I also found such field elm-like leaves at the beginning of leaf fall time, about a week ago: <European white elm (Ulmus laevis) '19851' . Even there I was yesterday and took pictures. The upper half of the crown is now completely empty from leaves and also below the leaves trickled strongly. To my amazement, in the dense foliage on the ground under the tree I could no longer find leaves with nerve forks in the upper half, only normal elm leaves.
Both trees have a matching feature:
By arboriculture interventions in the past, the crowns of both trees was shortened and the stumps have developed tufts of new sproutings, which now shape the crown periphery.
This for Ulmus laevis untypical leaves are formed at the sproutings in top of the shortened crown. At the beginning of leaf fall time these are the first leaves that the tree throws off and you can pick up from the ground. Later, when the large mass of leaves fall, you will find only normal shaped leaves.
In my estimation, this is a white elm, I have changed accordingly.
ja, eine besondere Eiche ist das. Die Eiche ist laut Literatur geschützt im Wald aufgewachsen. Fröhlich gibt in "Wege zu alten Bäumen" aus dem Jahre 1992 eine Höhe von 25 m an. Im Jahre 2000 wurde die Krone bei Pflegemaßnahmen stark eingestutzt. 2011 wurde die Krone dann nochmals eingekürzt.
Visit Bramham occasionally professionally and noticed a number of Weeping Willows growing. Visited today and measured several of them all of very similar height. Have a an idea of which type these are but will let the expert eyes confirm. From the Register, this looks like the tallest recorded 'Weeping Willow' in Yorkshire.
Hello Leo, Owen, Con, from looking at photos thought that it would be Sepulcralis of some sort, Thanks.
Owen, trying to think of where big Weeping Willows could be in York? Visit York regularly, think (?) I may have seen some unsubconsiously on the side of the River Foss at Foss Island although may be seeing them there in my mind? There are some big Willows down at New Earswick which I have passed many times and must take the laser at some time when I pass. White and Crack Willows I think they are.
RedRob, at 2014-11-05 18:21:31, edited at 2014-11-06 17:45:40, said:
Yep, not dreaming, two along the River Foss across from 20 Huntingdon Road, difficult to assess the height, only ducks for real context.
The big Weeping Willow in York was an Ancient Tree Hunt record from 2009 - S side of Acomb Road, Holgate (W of New Lane), if it was placed correctly on the map; SE58235140. I've just realised that the 127cm trunk diameter recorded is exactly 4m girth so 99% likely to be an estimate (and 50% likely to be a hopelessly bad one...) though the lady recorded it as a precise measurement. So worth a visit if you're out that way! I may even have walked past it as I visited West Bank Park in that part of the city (which has an especially good Metasequoia) but I can't remember a very big willow.
Hello Owen, yet again, know the West Bank Park well, have looked after dogs at York and walked them through thisn park may times but again pre-treeing. The Metasequoia is near the gate on Acomb Road, have seen it on passing in the car and have been meaning to have the laser with me when I pass at some point. I will look for the Weeping Willow next time that I am there and will measure the two on the River Foss at Huntingdon Road as well.
Owen, reading information on this site, (844 down left margin) Castanea Sativa, very large specimans (86 feet to first branch) reported at Godinton, Kent circa 1908, do any of these still survive? 113 foot speciman at Dynevor Castle, does this still survive? I notice that the Mackershaw, Studley Royal Castanea is mentioned here (after number 850) 112 feet, 34.1 metres c1908, now 34.4 metres, has hardly grown at all if any any.
160 foot Castanea reported from Madeira (844), whether that ever existed, anyone else have any old info relating to this?
873, mention of 146 foot Fraxinus Excelsior at Cobham ,Kent, any still there Owen and if so, how tall?
Really interesting to read about the conifers further up the page and writers enthusing about 90 feet Grand Firs, Douglas Firs as tallest recorded. Owen, any places mentioned that you haven't visited? 827, Douglas Firs mentioned at Eggesford, Devon, about 40 years old in 1865 and 100 feet tall (properly 93 feet), 128 feet in 1908, any of these still there Owen?
Your text is from 'The Trees of Great Britain and Ireland' by Henry Elwes and Augustine Henry (1906-13), which was the definitive text on specimen trees of its day and is still an important source and point-of-departure for the Tree Register and for websites like this one. The Chestnut Tell at Godinton Park does still exist, though some of the best trees were blown down in the 1987 storm. The survivors are about 34m tall. I've been to Dinefwr, but did not find anything notably tall.
In 1910 most of the American conifers were still youngsters in Britain, so it wasn't evident to Elwes and Henry that the examples in the south (which had grown faster in the warmer climate) would begin to fail before very long, while those that were plodding along in the Scottish Highlands would continue to thrive - indefinitely as yet.
The tall ashes at Cobham have all gone - in common with several others Elwes and Henry recorded as taller than any known in England today.
The Douglas Fir at Eggesford is still there, and still the biggest. It's the only American conifer I know that has reigned supreme since the 1860s at least. I shall add it to Monumental Trees in due course.
I do think the chestnuts in 'Mackershaw Trough' are the same ones you've recorded at Studley Royal, and it's interesting how they have maintained their height over more than a century. Matching current records like this to trees measured a hundred years ago is fascinating, and Alan Mitchell and I have certainly tried to relocated all of Elwes and Henry's records.
Good when you can search discussions for yourself, I posted this and found it again relatively easily. Haven't typed in the address but one of these old sites did have old photographs of GB trees, might be this one.
'There are many hawthorns of greater height in other districts, notably one at Lenchford, in Worcestershire, whereof the dimensions in 1875 were recorded in the Gardeners' Chronicle as 60 feet high and 9 feet in girth'.
Big Hawthorns, taller then anything today if accurate.
The Queen Beech at Ashridge was a beauty.
Interesting webpage, some of the old latin/botanic names are interesting.
RedRob, at 2014-11-05 17:22:42, edited at 2014-11-05 17:23:39, said:
'The finest chestnut I have seen anywhere is in the woodland of Thoresby Park, near Nottingham, being within the bounds of the ancient Sherwood Forest. In 1904 it was 110 feet high, with a straight bole quite clear of branches for 70 feet. Its cubic contents in timber were estimated at 300 feet. Loudon measured this tree in 1837 and found it to be 70 feet high, with a girth of only 11 feet at 1 foot from the ground. Its girth at that height is now over 17 feet. It is impossible to imagine a more perfect specimen of the species than this beautiful tree. It was planted about the year 1730, and is, therefore, now, say, 180 years old'.
40 feet growth in 64 years for Sweet Chestnut, is this likely?
'Perhaps the most striking display of the true English elm to be found anywhere is the magnificent quadruple avenue known as the Long Walk, at Windsor. Many of these are 120 feet high and 15 feet in girth. The avenue leads from the Castle gates to the statue in the park, a distance of two miles and three-quarters. Taller individual elms may be seen elsewhere, as in the grounds of King's College, Cambridge (130 feet), Boreham House, in Essex (132 feet), and Northampton Court, Gloucestershire (150 feet by 20 feet in girth). The last-named tree, by the way, may no longer be seen, for it was blown down in 1895, but there can be no doubt about its dimensions, which were accurately ascertained as it lay on the ground. It was probably the champion of that particular species in England; but it was inferior in bulk to the great elm which stood in the grounds of Magdalen College, Oxford, until it was blown down in April, 1911, pronounced by Mr. Elwes to be "the largest elm I have ever seen and the largest tree of any kind in Great Britain." Mr. Elwes carefully measured the fallen giant, finding it to be 142 feet high, 27 feet in girth, and containing 2787 cubic feet of timber. He and Dr. Henry pronounce it to have belonged to the variety or sub-species classed as the smooth-leaved Huntingdon or Chichester elm (U. vegeta, Lindley), although in this case no suckers had been produced, which the Huntingdon elm usually sends up in profusion'
150 foot Elm at Northampton Court, Gloucestershire, Owen, any tall trees left in this location?
Yes, I visited Blair Drummond in 2009 - a magnificent site but with nothing above 50m. I think I put the biggest Sequoiadendron on MT.
18m should be possible for hawthorn, though I've not managed to measure anything above 15m.
Interesting record of the Chestnut at Thoresby as I've mentally written off 'The Dukeries' as a region where the soils are too poor to grow really big trees. It could even still be there! Whenever you read 'Loudon measured' this is actually short for 'Loudon published a record which had been sent to him' - when he was compiling Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum he posted hundreds of questionnaires to estates up and down the country and the Head Gardener of Forester filled these in as best as he was able. So, for this chestnut, 110' by E&H should be fairly accurate, but it will have been more than 70' in the 1830s as a mature broadleaf just wouldn't put on a growth-spurt like that.
'Northampton Court' should read 'Forthampton Court' - I think the text of Elwes and Henry you're looking at was digitalised by a print-recognition programme so beware of mistakes like this. Elms reached these huge heights in places where only Hybrid Black Poplars, Common LImes and London Planes are likely to be able to do so today, so sites that were formally graced by towering trees often nowadays only grow quite low ones.
Hello Owen, a few years ago there was a diversion on the A614 and it sent me through Thoresby Park, it is a nice estate and quite evocative because of Robin Hood. This was before I started 'treeing' and I didn't really look for champion trees but if you are planning to visit Belvoir, I would definitely say that this is worth visiting as it is not that far away. The Thoresby Hall Hotel I think is open to the public but alot of the area seems to be private, where the Sequoiadendron avenue is near Perlethorpe, it said 'private drive' and I went no further. Nottinghamshire seems to be under-represented on the Register, that 37 metre Horse Chestnut near Southwell isn't, not in the location stated, I think Richard Goodrick over-estimated. Clumber Park is probably worth re-visiting with your eye rather than mine. I once pulled in at Wollaton Hall several years ago and it had some fine trees.
I thought that growth rate for the Sweet Chestnut seemed abit high, judging by the Mackershaw trees the tree may have at least have kept it's height if it hasn't lost it's top, 110 feet 33.5 metres, it is not far off B&I champion height and could be taller? I have some Nottinghamshire Robin Hood acquaintances, I will ask them again if they know of any hidden locations.
I don't suppose that anyone esle caught this but Tony Robinson visited this location in his TV series 'Walking through History: Victoria and Albert's Highland Fling' aired last Saturday, 1st November Channel 4 8pm. He walked from Dunkeld up to Balmoral and ended up at Loch Muick. Some very tall trees were visible near Blair Atholl House, Diana's Grove? I also noticed a very tall grove of conifers along the river at Kilikrankie Bridge. Any idea what these are Owen and how tall?
Lucky Tony. I've walked some of that, at least, myself. Diana's Grove itself isn't really visible from the main thoroughfares up the valley, though the landscape there is dotted with giant conifers. Steven (Verge) sent the Tree Register a record of a 56m Douglas at Killiecrankie about ten years ago so it could well be 60m by now. I didn't spot it when I walked up the gorge in 2007 but may have been on the wrong bank. (Tony's walk would also have passed the 62m Grand Fir at Kinnaird below Pitlochry which is also very visible from the railway, though not measured before 2007.)
Goede morgen , heb tijdens mijn Modder Bike ( MB ) tochten een schietwilg opgemeten en ja 5.50 m omtrek hoogte ongeveer 15 m op het grondgebied Tienen op 200m van de autobaan .Een tweede in Waals Brabant in de gemeente Cocrou fusiegemeente Grez-Doiceau en heb dus op 1.5m hoogte een omtrek van 5.55m gemeten . Beide bomen zijn meerstammige bomen .De derde schietwilg staat op grondgebied Vertrijk in een onopvallend natuurgebied en meet 4.40 m en ik schat ongeveer 17 m hoogte . Zal weldra , dank zei een gps de juiste coördinaten kunnen doorgeven . Heb ook enkele uitzonderlijke populieren op het oog , u hoort nog van mij . Depré Yves 0499 10 65 56
This is a superb location, why aren't the Forestry Commission using Coast Redwood if they are bombproof and can grow like this? I have also read that Coasties can tolerate very waterlogged soils, is this correct generally? Sequoia would have done much better in my local Redwood location, Hebden Wood, as the valley is waterlogged in the middle where the Sequoiadendrons are growing but some don't look too well, defoliating.
Yes, Sequoia is an excellent timber tree, but not one with much of a market. (Most softwood timber produced in Britain just goes for pulp, and Sequoia can't compete with Sitka, at present at least, in cold upland sites.) Taymouth Castle, deep in the Highlands, is actually right near the limit at which Sequoia can withstand the winter cold when young, though clearly ideal for it as it matures. Has anyone ever thought of coppicing Sequoia to produce high-quality bark mulch?
Yes It is surprising how well Sequoia grows in the Highlands. The Taymouth trees must have survived a frost of -20 in its life there? Yes frost damage to young trees of less than 5 years can be a problem, but this is often related to the seed provenance. I have grown many redwoods and planted them at 3 years without any problems here in frosty Oxon. The hardiest provenances are from the northern part of the range in Del Norte County.
Sequoia requires a mean minimum January temperature of more than 2 Celsius, which surely is not achieved in inland Highland Scotland. It maybe that these trees are especially hardy?
This tree has always had great potential but industry requires many thousands of m3 to create a market, (much to my disgust with no diversity.)
Redwood will only grow well at low sheltered elevations with fertile brown earths, there is now an interest in this species caused by the present diseases affecting Larch etc.
Growth is best achievable in the west and south west and climate change will make it more productive there but not in lowland S. England, as climate change predictions indicate drier warmer summers which would stress the trees.
The timber can be valuable, but as in California with second growth timber, it can be of low density, therefore stand management can reduce this.
Yes bark surely would be useful byproduct and trees regenerate without being planted through coppicing!
Only low grade small logs of Sitka go for pulp/chipwood. Larger diameter material is sent for sawmilling where it is stress graded by machine to be used for construction timber. The value of timber is soaring at present so profitable.
"Sequoia requires a mean minimum January temperature of more than 2 Celsius, which surely is not achieved in inland Highland Scotland. It maybe that these trees are especially hardy?"
Means don't matter; what does is extremes. I'd suspect that central Scotland has warmer exteme minima compared to its mean because of its proximity to the sea, and also, perhaps even more important, it doesn't have the really damaging effects of cold dry air that kills Sequoia in more continental climates. Severe cold in Scotland is still accompanied by high relative humidity, and that reduces desiccation damage.
Coast Redwood must be pretty tough as this tree for example grows in a location only a few miles from one of the coldest spots in Northern England, Topcliffe, -18c recorded in Dec 2010. This tree suffered little damage, very little browning as I have visited it every year for years. This location will also be pretty dry relative although the tree may benefit from the lake, having roots intruding that way, in summer dry periods.
Hello Owen, I see what you mean about bark mulch because of Redwood having a fairly thick bark, at least on older trees. Would you mean using the wood, heartwood, also as a bark, munching it up? It is a shame, doesn't get diseases, high growth rate, wood that doesn't rot, regenerates so no need to replant, it does seem like the perfect forestry tree in maybe highland valleys. Just for interest, would sucker shoots from felled stumps be as vulnerable to cold and frost as young seed grown trees. The sucker growth is amazingly vigorous, a felled tree in the Valley Gardens in Harrogate has thrown up vigorous shoots which survived the very cold winters of a few years ago.
I would say with a high degree of confidence that the trees would be exposed to -8 every year and at least -10 to -15 every 10 years here. It is in a valley next to water and therefore likely in a frost hollow. A local temperature record would perhaps not represent the meteorological conditions here in the stand as min temperature would vary considerably locally.
I remember visiting these trees back in 2002 and to give an idea how cold central Highland Scotland gets, there was not a single Eucalypt anywhere! which perhaps gives an idea how cold it gets on rare occasions i.e. -20.
On the Continent freezing winds with low humidity and frozen soil conditions can badly dessicate the trees, basically suffering from drought as the trees cannot extract water from the soil when it is frozen, hence they turn brown.
Only the Cairngorm area of Scotland the (coldest region in the UK) comes anywhere near the conditions on the continent and even then it is not as cold in Scotland.
Nice trees, but they have a very high percentage of bark which inflates their girth somewhat and a rather brashy coarse crown, but that is with my forestry hat on tight!
Hello Stephen, is this the Aber Hirnant house valley that you were referring to on the other thread? I wasn't sure if there was public access up the road and didn't go up it. On assessment from various positions the Douglas Firs looked very similar in size.
I think you may have missed the biggest here? It is a public dead end road. Trees are bigger than lower down the valley at the picnic site! Possibly 53-55m? Next time!
RedRob, at 2014-11-03 17:11:42, edited at 2014-11-03 17:12:11, said:
In a way, this probably illustrates why accurate locative descriptions should be provided for trees as re-finding the same trees is difficult without. I did see the trees up the valley and viewed them from the opposite hillside and they looked pretty even with the trees that I did measure near the house, had to estimate where the base was and may have been 55 metres. I don't think any here are challenging the Betws Douglas.
Yes they would not challenge the trees at the Waterloo Grove, but they are much larger by volume some I reckon 1.6-1.8m in diameter and 50-55m tall. Some of the largest and oldest Douglas in North Wales.
Check out my discussion about the Huntingdon Elm at Oxford, a real beauty long ago. UK largest broadleaf tree of the past. Never seen a photograph before!
Yes they would not challenge the trees at the Waterloo Grove, but they are much larger by volume some I reckon 1.6-1.8m in diameter and 50-55m tall. Some of the largest and oldest Douglas in North Wales.
Check out my discussion about the Huntingdon Elm at Oxford, a real beauty long ago. UK largest broadleaf tree of the past. Never seen a photograph before!
Thanks for these records! I uploaded a couple of trees from the Gosford Castle pinetum last year when I was adding the UK and Ireland record-holders to Monumental Trees, but, as you've probably gathered, I don't know this site personally. (The records we have at the Tree Register include Irish National Grid grid-references but I don't have the means to convert them into latitude/longitude.) So any corrections or updates will be most welcome!
Aubrey Fennell, who recorde the trees at Gosford in 2000 and in 2010, is a member of this site, but hasn't had time to add his own records in person. But he may pick up this message.
There are some other champions as well, some Irish ones anyway. I know the area well as I live just inside the main gates. I have added a Bhutan Pine which I think might be an Irish champion, there is also a Noble Fir and an Italian Cypress.
Hello Owen, I made contact with the head gardener at Belvoir a couple of months ago as thought that I may be heading down that way workwise and could call in but it didn't happen so didn't make it. If you are planning a visit, I will forward the email on to you as the visiting hours are quite tight.
Thanks Tim. I'll consider correcting all the errors of this kind which I can find for the UK, when I have more time! You may remember that 'City of London' and 'Greater London' appear as two counties, and that some sites such as Kew Gardens are duplicated under both 'counties' - this could do with rationalising.
Stephen, I hope that you will decide to register your trees, I don't think that I am the only one who would love to see some photographs? Those Red Cedars at Coed Y Brenin, 47 metres B&I champ so they must be some trees. If you don't want to disclose location, stick them in a building or in the sea or wherever, just hope that you will share at least a few photos with your measured heights.
Yes I will post them but at the moment I'm trying unsuccessfully to upload them to my PC,I was given a camera phone and the software for the computer and phone is not working. I could scan some prints but this will take time. The phone pics will be of rather low resolution though.
The Red Cedars at Coed y Brenin are about 40-42m but only planted in 1931. They could make 55m in another 30 years! I measured them back in 2003 at 34-36m, so growing well but were slightly defoliated by the leaf fungal disease Keithia, caused by the wet summer of 2012. There are several hectares of these trees planted in small stands throughout the forest, a very underrated tree which should be planted more. Trouble is industry wants 500 000m3 before they are interested in it!
I visited the Croft Castle Oak, near Kington. The most massive oak in UK. I will write a report on this as soon as I can upload the pics.
Just looking for the Lydney Beech I have realised that I have made a mistake with this tree, must have hit the wrong digit when registering. 41 metres was the reading with the laser, David Alderman had recorded 40 metres in 2005 with one of his readings, clinometer suggested 43 metres.
RedRob, at 2014-10-24 16:30:17, edited at 2014-10-26 17:10:39, said:
Only two Common Laburnums registered! I wish I had realised this as have seen quite a few good sized Laburnums, probably around 10 metres, but didn't record them as have been meaning to visit Wakefield Castle to measure and confirm the B&I champion height there, 12 metres if I remember correctly? They are lovely trees when in flower. Will have to now try and remember where I have noticed some of the Laburnums.
Hi Rob - you'd need to check identities carefully. 'Common' Laburnum is actually far from common in cultivation now, and rarely exceeds 6 metres or so tall. Larger ones are almost all Alpine Laburnum L. alpinum, or (most frequently of all now) the hybrid between the two, Voss's Laburnum L. × watereri 'Vossii'. Distinguishing them is fairly tricky; I suspect the ones in these photos here are Voss's, but can't confirm it without close-up pics.
Intriguing that you stumbled upon this tree. Don't know how you see it, but in the 60's and 70's the babyboomers in Holland, judged this species as a thoroughly "burgerlijk" plant/tree. A lot of people (probably outside the world of agriculturalists, naturalist and dendrologists) defied this trees.
I used to be one of them. By now, I am a bit independent and judge everything without prejudice. And true, Laburnums can be very nice. That's what a lot of people in Asia think.
Rob, you probably know the very big thriving Laburnum in the Valley Gardens in Harrogate (near the north edge of the main park). This is L. alpinum. (There is one much bigger but collapsing one in Ireland, which I've not seen.) Generally L. alpinum grows better the further north you go and I've recorded 14m trees in Scotland. There should be a 15m one somewhere. (12m tree in the park at Wakefield was anagyroides and exceptional in its way, though it's moot whether we should really award champions for height for trees that grow no taller than this.)
Some great photos on this page, the Corsican Pine shelterbelt is visible in the top left photo. The weeping Sequoiadendron, I walked right past it but it didn't strike me as being any different. Should have measured it with the laser but didn't.