Very impressive Rainer, hate to ask but do you have a distance photo of the tree so we can appreciate it's size?
leider habe ich kein Foto aus der Ferne. Der Baum steht mitten im Bestand, die Spitze ist nur schlecht einsehbar. Ich habe eine Position gefunden mit Sicht zur Spitze und zur Basis. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob es auch tatsächlich die höchste Spitze ist. Ich glaube nämlich, die Linde ist noch höher. In der Laubfreien Zeit möchte ich da nochmal hin, zwecks Messung.
Heute war ich nochmal dort. Von der anderen Seite aus, von außerhalb des Waldes, konnte ich den Baum nun komplett ablichten. Leider sieht man den Stamm nicht, der aber in beiden Bildern bis fast bis runter reicht. Ich denke inzwischen auch, dass die Linde eher an 42 m Höhe reicht. Aber ist das eine Sommerlinde? Die Blätter sind nicht so besonders groß. Oder ist das eher eine Holländische Linde (Tilia × europaea)?
Du musst die Blattunterseiten anschauen. Bei Sommerlinde sind sie dicht behaart. Das kann man auch von gelben Blättern sehen, auch von gefallenen Blättern. Die Blattgröße ist kein zuverlässiges Merkmal.
danke für den Hinweis. Beim nächsten Besuch achte ich da mal genauer drauf. In der laubfreien Zeit, wenn der Stamm dann besser sichtbar ist, möchte ich da nochmal hin, um eine genauere Messung hinzubekommen. Blätter am Boden wird es ja dann noch geben.
Würde gern noch eine zweite Messung von einem anderen Standort durchführen. Benötigte dazu aber Unterstützung.
meinst du eine weitere Höhenmessung, von einem anderen Standpunkt aus? Das geht unter "Neuer Messung hinzufügen" nicht. Zumindest nicht, wenn beide Messungen vom gleichen Jahr stammen. Du kannst aber unter "Bearbeiten Sie die Daten von diesem Baum" einen Kommentar abgeben. Wie in diesem Fall den Hinweis mit einer weiteren Messung.
ja ich meine eine zweite Höhenmessung (wegen des Geländes) und dachte, es gibt die Möglichkeit, das mich hierbei von euch jemand unterstützen kann, egal wann.
Wenn aber niemand in der Nähe des Standortes der Fichte angesiedelt ist, werde ich das mit Heimatfreunden hin bekommen.
jetzt verstehe ich dich erst. Ich dachte, du hättest bereits einen weiteren Messwert, und du weißt nicht, wie du den hier in die Datenbank eintragen sollst. Du möchtest aber vor Ort eine weitere, genauere Messung durchführen. Ok, also ich wohne etwa 120 km weg, ist also ohne weiteres für mich machbar. Welches Messinstrument hast du denn? Eingetragen hast du die Tangentenmethode, also eine reine Winkelmessung zur Spitze. Wenn der Baum schräg steht, ist das Fehlerbehaftet. Auch, wenn das Gelände geneigt ist, ist es damit Problematisch. Ich hätte ein Nikon-Entfernungsmesser. Damit kann ich eine Winkel- und Entfernungsmessung zur Spitze und zur Basis machen, was genauer ist, als eine reine Winkelmessung zur Spitze. Also ich hätte durchaus Interesse an eine Messung mit dir zusammen vor Ort. Bei mir geht es aber nur an Wochenenden.
bei der ersten Messung habe ich die Basis mit einem Stahlbandmaß gemessen, den Winkel mit einem Klinometer von Suunto.
Über die tan Funktion dann die Gegenkathede, also die Höhe berechnet.
Es wäre prima, wenn wir eine weitere Messung durchführen könnten. Wochenende ist ok, nur das Kommende geht nicht, sonst könnte ich mich bestimmt deinem Terminvorschlag anpassen.
also wie vermutet, nur eine Winkelmessung zur Spitze. Wenn der Standort dann noch höher oder tiefer als die Stammbasis ist, und der Baum an sich nicht genau senkrecht steht, summieren sich da Fehler auf. Ich messe deshalb mit einem Nikon-Entfernungsmesser, diesem hier:http://www.grube.de/nikon-forestry-pro-a-laser-entfernungsmesser-77-379.html?utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=grube&gclid=CMm5kYKatMECFQHlwgodgEkAbQ
Da wird auch die Entfernung zusätzlich zu den Winkeln gemessen, um einen Schrägstand des Baumes auszugleichen. Ist auch einfacher zu messen, da kein Bandmaß benötigt wird.
An diesem Wochenende kann ich auch nicht. Das darauffolgende Wochenende muss ich am Samstag arbeiten, am Sonntag, den 26. Oktober könnte es bei mir gehen. Wie viel Zeit wird der Baum in Anspruch nehmen? Ich meine, wie weit muss man vom Auto aus zum Baum laufen?
Prima, den 26. Oktober merke ich mir vor. Es sind ca 25 Min Fußweg vom Parkplatz bis zur Fichte. Stiefel sind nötig, weil der Jüchnitzbach durchquert werden muß, grobes unwegsames Gelände auf den letzten 60 Metern!
Ok, bleiben wir beim 26. Oktober. Trockenen Fußes kommt man da nicht hin? Ist das ein breiter Bach, oder kommt man da auch über Steine irgendwie auf die andere Seite? Treffpunkt ist dann beim Parkplatz vom Schullandheim Geraberg? Also hier: https://maps.google.de/maps?q=50.701853,10.817295&num=1&t=h&z=18
Je nach Geländegängigkeit deiner unteren Gliedmaße ist alles möglich, kann aber auch noch ein Stiefelpaar mitbringen.
Treffpunkt wie vorgeschlagen.
also 8 m kann ich nicht weit springen, wenn du das meinst ;-) Ich will es so versuchen, aber es wäre schön, wenn du noch ein Stiefelpaar mitbringen würdest.
Dir auch ein schönes Wochenende,
alles klar - Ankunftszeit sagst mir dann noch !
Ich dachte an 12:00 Uhr. Da bleibt genug Zeit zum messen.
SEVERE SPUR DAMAGE ON SCOTLAND'S TALLEST TREE!!!!!
I send this at the request of Michael Spraggon. The text is his. It is about this tree: coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '15298'
"A friend of mine climbed the tallest tree in Scotland, at Reelig Glen Wood last weekend to measure it by tape drop. TO HIS HORROR HE FOUND THAT SOMEONE HAD CLIMBED IT USING SPURS!!! There were deep wounds ALL THE WAY from the lowest branches to a few metres from the top. There were also very bad rope burns on some branches from natural-crotched dDRT descents.
I have reported this to the Forestry Commission and also the Tree Register of the British Isles, who are investigating it.
The tree was climbed a month ago by a film unit and a presenter for the BBC. The program was aired on national TV 2 weeks ago. Is it possible that someone saw the program and decided to 'have a go at climbing it?
We need to come together to condemn such total disregard for any healthy tree, let alone a national champion!
I think this is appalling and always feared that this would happen. I feel it is a very difficult balancing act to:-
Educate and show the trees to the general public, without causing damage and also revealing such tree's exact location is perhaps not a good idea except between us tree fans/owner. I think by doing this the risk that a vandal or a so called recreational tree climber damaging it through perhaps just ignorance or just not caring is reduced significantly.
I wonder if the UK Tree Register has considered listing the trees but keeping the location deliberately vague to the public.
Owen what do you think?
I do not think it is a good idea to tell the media!
With these giants often growing in very fragile environments should we not take the policy as the same as the tallest Coast Redwoods in California? Perhaps treating them like rare protected orchids and not revealing their exact location, like say a rare military orchid.
A classic example is the Giant Sequoia just off Rhinefield Drive in the New Forest 51m tall. I have been visiting this tree for over 20 years and at first the Forestry Commission just put up a vague post some distance away which attracted little attention from the public. But now a large sign has been put up some years ago and now attracts many people to the tree.
The result is now significant soil compaction around the base, touching and picking of bark and even someones ashes had been deposited at the base! I estimate several thousand people are trampling around its root zone, which I'm sure you know is generally the most vulnerable part of the tree, with fine feeder roots only 20-30cm below the surface. I fear the tree is now showing early signs of stress. (Sequoia's are shallow rooted.)
I hope to contact the F.C. and recommend that they fence off around its root zone to prevent further damage, I am a qualified arborist/forester by the way. It would be nice if they paid for a full decompaction by compressed air to aerate the root zone.
I have a number of champion conifers which may be some of the tallest in Europe which as far as I know remain unknown except to myself, which I hope to reveal to you, but I would appreciate that they are just admired by us on this site and the UK Tree Register but not revealing exactly where they are to the media and general public to protect them.
As to the damage, I would say that it is just confined to a small area of the thin bark at the tree top and the cambium layer and as long as this is not repeated should only have a minor impact, with transpiration and subsequent growth unaffected.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a worry for me for sometime.
You can always put the coordinate point to the nearest village or onto a lake, for example, and write in the description something like "the exact location is not revealed for preventing vandalism".
My feeling is that the benefits to trees in general by interesting the public in remarkable and champion specimens outweighs the risk that the most famous trees may be damaged by climbing or soil compaction. People as a whole are less and less aware of the natural world around them and the threats which it faces, and trees, being big and spectacular, are a good way of getting them (and especially their children) more emotionally involved.
We sometimes have to disguise tree locations at the request of owners who are touchy about their privacy, but 95% of trees on the Tree Register do have precise location details. To re-record the trees in 20 or 50 years time, the recorder needs to know what and where it is, and the extra paraphernalia involved in keeping the locations disguised makes me worry that sometimes this may become difficult. A tree record kept in somebody's head or on the back of an envelope is of no use at all after 50 years!
The 50m Giant Sequoia at Nymans has a boardwalk for the 10m of path that traverses its root-run, which seems a good idea.
I don't think the BBC news item that showed the Reelig Glen Douglas being climbed clearly showed at any point which of the many similar trees there the tallest actually was. I suspect they were deliberately keeping its identity unclear, as copy-cat climbs are a health-and-safety nightmare even if they don't damage the tree. The tree called Dughal Mor (on OS maps) and which has or had a plaque claiming it as Britain's tallest tree is about 30m from the new candidate and would have been the obvious tree for people to have climbed. When I visited in 2013 and identified the new tree as taller, this wasn't evident at all from the few viewpoints on the ground - hence I don't have a good photo with this one as the centre of attention.
Thank you for your views.
It is always a difficult balancing act to educate the public and at the same time, preventing damage either accidental or worse, deliberate.
My personal feeling is that there are enough sacrificial trees in arboretums and collections now to educate the public and the next generations of tall trees which are often in fragile environments should be protected.
Trouble is when the word gets out, that there is a new tall tree, it does attract public attention, especially when its in state forests which inevitably leads to a trail to the tree and over the years much potential damage can be done by soil compaction. I always advised the FC of their trees but to keep quiet about them where possible. I notify them just to let them know and hope they will be retained for their scientific value.
I would of course let the Tree Register know where they are, but often in big stands of many hectares with hundreds of trees pin pointing the tree exactly even with GPS can be impossible.
For us dendrologists I think studying these trees is great, but I think letting the general public know 'exactly' where they are is a potential risk to them. One can always say a new tree has been discovered and dimensions given, though but location kept is deliberately vague from the public.
Good arguments presented here speak for not to reveal the Champion Tree by single photo or exact coordinates. On the other hand we want to raise interest of people in forest and nature, which is supported by focusing on distinctive superlatives. MT also heats up the search for the champion with the ability to sort by tree heights and by the "European tree height records list". The competition of the regions according to the motto: "Who has the highest tree" is opened. Who has measured a tree and now claimes the title of champion for this tree, must allow for review, anything else would be unfair. The incentive for me to go to Scotland to see and remeasure the tallest tree is little, if not previously is clear that I can find and identify the particular tree on site. Who does not want the tree to become famous, may not register it on MT. He must not boast of having found it. He must keep the secret for himself and approve that others will discover and publish the tree.
Thanks for your comments. I have no problem posting the tallest trees on this site or the UK Tree Register. However giving precise location details to the UK public and media can be a potential risk to them, mainly too many people can visit and cause damage mainly accidental, caused by soil compaction. As you can see here someone has climbed the tree using bad techniques which have caused damage, we need to prevent this from happening where ever possible.
The location for some of the tallest Coast Redwoods in California are kept secret and only a few know where exactly they are.
There are many trees in the UK where people can visit tall trees now in private grounds or in state forests and be educated which I strongly recommend, but some of the tallest are in very fragile locations and having potentially thousands of people visiting them I feel would damage their health.
I hope to purchase a trupulse 200x soon as I am entirely scientific and dislike inaccuracy.
All the best
Is dit een 'gewone' gele treurwilg Salix x sepulcralis 'Chrysocoma'? Die de afgelopen weken hel-gele twijgen had. Of is het de veel zeldzamer groene treurwilg Salix babylonica, die altijd groene twijgen heeft?
Ik heb hem pas ontdekt op een nieuwe wandelroute, dus kan helaas noch bevestigen noch ontkennen. Ik gok dat het de gewone treurwilg is. Maar dat is nergens op gebaseerd....Ik kan alleen de volgende lente afwachten. Of kan ik het nog ergens anders aan zien? En ook veel dank voor je boeken tip.
Deze treurwilg stond er op MT (zonder foto) met een omtrek van 4,12m. Ik herkende hem gelijk vanwege de uitgebroken top. Als je op de kaart kijkt zie je het ook. Kun jij deze boom verwijderen en je foto toevoegen aan de boom die er al op stond. Thanks!
Overigens de dikke populier aan de overkant is toch echt een populier hoor en geen berk. De stam en bladeren laten geen twijfel.
Mooie wilg die je hebt ontdekt verderop.
Hallo Narno, jammer genoeg weet ik niet waar de treurwilg mt staat die je bedoelde. Ook de reden waardoor ik dit zo lang uitstel...Ik heb net gezocht...maar zonder resultaat. Wil graag alles in orde maken. Kun je me helpen?vast bedankt karin
excuus dat het zo lang duurde.
Frage an Conifers & andere Experten:
How could this tree have 2 different kind of leaves??
Wie kann dieser Baum 2 unterschiedliche Blätter haben???
This is 'Aspleniifolia', which is a chimaera - a clone with two parts, which have different DNA, but have fused together. Normally, the fern-leaved part of the chimaera is at the surface and produces the cut leaves, but sometimes the ordinary-leaved beech which is underneath produces some sprouts.
Sorry no to be able to put this in German! In fact, someone else could probably put it more precisely in English, too.
Thanks, its Ok for me, I am better in reading english, as in writing....
I looked at this site to see the tallest tree in South America. This pulled up your list of greatest girth, tallest, and oldest trees of "South America". Unfortunately a number of the greatest girth and all of the tallest are listed as being in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is not part of South America. I still do not have an answer.
Indeed officially Costa Rica is a part of Central America, not of South America. Webmaster Tim can change that.
The few trees I put at this website from Costa Rica have been reliable measured with laser technology by Bart Bouricius from the USA. He has measured many trees in Tropical Rainforests in Costa Rica, but also in Panama and Peru and probably some more Latin American countries. These three trees are the tallest of all trees and species he has measured till now in Latin America.
Regarding South America Bart Bouricius has measured trees of several species in Peru, he writes he as well as an other measurer have measured trees in that country up to 58 m (190 feet).
Of South America we know very few reliable measurements, in Chile recently Josh Kelly has measured Alerce, Fitzroya cupressoides up to 54.1 m (177 ft) (so less than often reported as above 60 m) and of southern beech, Nothofagus dombeyi up to 49.2 m. See at the NTS website: http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewforum.php?f=44
andhttp://www.ents-bbs.org/viewforum.php?f=93 for the Central American reports.
We would like to have measurements at Monumental Trees of South American trees, but till now very few people have sent reports of trees they measured at this continent to this website.
"Josh Kelly has measured Alerce, Fitzroya cupressoides up to 54.1 m (177 ft) (so less than often reported as above 60 m)"
But note that Mr. Kelly writes: "I doubt this is where remnant alerce trees reach their maximum size. My guess is that, like Nothofagus dombeyi, they reach their largest size on deep volcanic soils with high precipitation" and then lists some promising sites. His report is here:
Die Art Carya illinoinensis wird falsch sein, ist es Carya cordiformis? Nüsse habe ich noch keine gefunden.
The species Carya illinoinensis will be wrong, it is Carya cordiformis? Nuts I have not found yet.
Both the bark and the foliage are a good match for Carya cordiformis
; compare e.g. here
I agree, Carya cordiformis.
thanks, I have changed to cordiformis.
I asked on the American NTS forum, what they think about the species identity. Follow the discussion here:
Thanks Kouta, it'll be interesting to see the consensus there.
For clarification for anyone who doesn't understand bbeduhn's comment 'it is not one of the "true" hickories', the hickory genus Carya is divided into two subgenera, the pecans (Cc. illinoinensis, cordiformis, aquatica, myristiciformis), and the true hickories (Cc. ovata, laciniosa, tomentosa, glabra, etc.).
Conifers, thanks for the clarification. I did not understand that comment either.
Gestern bin ich nochmal hingefahren. Bei intensiver Suche konnte ich doch noch Nüsse finden. In diesem Park gibt es keine weiteren Hickory-Bäume. Die Nüsse bestätigen die Art Bitternuss (Carya cordiformis).
I went there again yesterday. With an intensive search, I could still find nuts.
In this park there are no other hickory trees. The nuts confirm the species bitter nut (Carya cordiformis).
ich habe gerade die Eiche merfach neu vermessen und komme in 1,3 m Höhe auf einen Umfang von mindestens 7,90 m. Das korrespondiert aber leider nicht mit deiner letzten Messung in 2010. Wobei, wie öfter bei solchen Bäumen, Fußpunkt (wo?) und Maserknollen die Messung schwierig machten.
viele Grüße Frank
I hope you can read English, in German I make a lot of faults with the "Fälle".
Kouta and I together measured this tree (see on the photo) and we did it at around 1.30 m above ground level, but this can be done above the high point or at the medium ground level. I don't remember how we did it in this case. Also, I try to get the smallest possible girth at or below 1.30 m, you can call it the "waist" = "taille". Since May 2010 five growing seasons have passed, for an open grown oak this could be 10 to 15 cm growth at breast hight. That means still 16 to 21 cm difference between our measurements. Sometimes a hollow tree seems to grow very fast because of "bulging out" (sagging) of the trunk. That seems to be the case with the biggest girthed oak of Kvill in Sweden. But in this case I would not expect this with this rather sound trunk. So compared to you probably Kouta and I measured at a higher point or less over burls.
Kind regards, Jeroen
Ich weiss nicht mehr, wie wir den Fusspunkt definiert haben. Aber ich erinnere mich, dass Jeroen versucht hat, allen möglichen Knollen auszuweichen. Das könnte den Unterschied machen.
ich werde ev. bei Gelegenheit noch mal hin fahren und erneut möglichst defensiv (optimal) und mit verschiedenen Fußpunkten messen. Die offene Frage ist, ob man trotz Maserknollen das Maßband noch mölichst wagerecht führt und im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs".
In einigen Quellen werden für diesen Baum Umfänge von > 8 m genannt.
viele Grüße Frank
"Die offene Frage ist, ob man trotz Maserknollen das Maßband noch mölichst wagerecht führt und im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs"."
Jeroen, könntest du auf dies antworten.
Hallo Frank und Kouta,
Wenn ich versuche die kleinst mögliche Umfang auf Brusthöhe zu bekommen, führ ich das Maßband zwischen Maserknollen eventuell etwas im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs". Das ist besser als horizontal über die Maserknollen, wenn es ein kleinere Umfang gibt.
Viele Grüße, Jeroen
Direction of development MT
As this database is developing more and more into a podium where you can find all kinds of answers relating to pictures, growth, size and dispersion of all kinds of trees, in my opnion, there is a moment of realizing what we are doing and what our aims are.
Please don’t take it as an attack or offense. I saw that Karlheinz is very sincerely and thoroughly describing what we can see in the Kleve gardens in Germany. Karlheinz has an attitude inwhich he wants to be scientific and thorough.
I am wondering if that is what we should do here. If I take in account the detailed contributions of the Kleve gardens I soon stop scrollin
g the pictures. Off course that’s not a problem, but it poses the essential question of our focus or aim. What do we want? Scientific registration and documentation or something else?. Nice pics of trees that matter?. And do we want to influence laymen or other potentially interested people?.
I start thinking about a website where we can see the nice pictures or (on another place) view the scientific correct database about trees, what they are and where they are to be seen.
To be honest I would like to see both.
I would appreciate a site where you can see the champions per country, city or region. And in connection with that, I would like to go deeper and learn more about the characteristics of a special tree.
Is this a positive contribution? I hope so. It is intented so. I value the work of Tim. Next to that I think we have to help Tim in finding his way in accordance with the users and contributors of the site.
Crack your minds please and have a nice day.
Simple answer for me, scientific registration and documentation for me, I come on here to view and see champion trees, my priority interest I admit is height but I also appreciate girth. I could upload pictures and register thousands of trees but I only register those of significant height either for species or location. The artistic photo thing does not bother me, I just want to see the trees whatever they look like. In truth the artistic element can be irritating as all it ever does is cause handbags at dawn with people upset at ratings of photographs. I would delete the rating system from this site if it was mine to end this dispute for good.
My commitment in this discussion is not the rating. Nevertheless thank you very much for this opnion. We need that.
That's a good point, Wim. If the site were to feature every 'monumental tree' in the world there would be many millions and Tim would have to work even harder to keep the software running smoothly (and pay even more for bandwidth)! But many countries already have extensive, even near-comprehensive, databases of their notable trees. In Britain and Ireland, we have the Tree Register (with 215,000 trees) and the Ancient Tree Hunt (with 150,000 trees), and I've only transferred a very few of our best trees onto Monumental Trees, which I would like to see as a showcase for really special trees which can stimulate interest in a wider public (and act as a cross-borders forum for the initiated).
If anyone wants to find out about the rest of our UK and Irish trees, I hope that they would be sufficiently interested to join the Tree Register and consult its online database. The same applies for the USA, New Zealand and several European countries. Conversely, if anyone has an interest in updating and adding to the data on the Tree Register, I would hope that they would liaise directly with myself as Registrar. (A few trees have gone onto Monumental Trees instead and I have to search this site to find them and transfer them onto the Register. So long as it's only a few, this is a comment, not a complaint!)
Perhaps the links to individual countries' national tree database could be displayed more prominently on the main page of Monumental Trees, so that people with special interests are redirected to these sites. If Monumental Trees is to act as a large-scale database in its own right, I think some redesigning would be needed, so that it's quicker to draw up lists of, for example, particular species in particular provinces or counties, and to order these in different ways.
I have stated my opinion on the goal of this website before. It is not my intention to copy or compete with national registries, it is merely about offering anyone the possibility to document loosely defined "trees of interest", so there is room for everybody: those that find pleasure in comprehensively documenting trees in an area, those that like to have a relaxing browse through photographs of interesting trees during some spare time in the evening, those that are merely interested what is to be seen in their neighborhood, those that have a scientific interest in how trees of a specific kind in this or that area compare to anywhere else in the world, to promote tree hunting, to offer statistics for the record hunters, to offer a possibility for photographers to share and persist their photo collection, ... , and yes, because I also like the technical aspect of it and for me it is rewarding to see that what I made as a hobby is actually being used by people and visited by many more. There is still a lot of potential towards the future, e.g. growth curves using historic measurements and - related - automatic age estimations.
That said, indeed, Owen, the "link" section http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/links/ definately needs some updating (after which I could make it more prominent). I'm not sure who has edit rights there, but that page is editable, so feel free to add links to "official" tree registrers or databases anywhere in the world.
wir haben unterschiedliche Meinungen, welches Maß an Sorgfalt wir aufbringen sollten bei der Registrierung von Bäumen. Nach meiner Vorstellung soll die Baumdatenbank von MT nicht nur eine Plattform zur Präsentation eigener schöner Baumfotos sein, sondern wir wollen auch der Allgemeinheit eine verläßliche Informationsquelle bieten.
Wenn sich etwas als offensichtlich falsch herausstellt, sollte es erlaubt sein, das Problem anzusprechen und um Korrektur zu bitten. Ein Beispiel aus dem von dir angesprochenen Park in Kleve verdeutlicht, was ich meine:
coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '16910'
Die Douglasie auf dem Foto hat nicht die Höhe und den Umfang des hier registrierten Baumes (ich habe gemessen: Umfang 3,04 m und Höhe 30,1 m), es muß also eine Verwechslung vorliegen. Das Baumschild auf dem zweiten Foto hängt nicht an diesem Baum, sondern an einer anderen Douglasie. In der Umgebung stehen mehrere Douglasien, einige auch erheblich höher (bis 38,80 m). Die registrierten Koordinaten sind ungenau und lassen eine Identifizierung des Baumes nicht zu. Bei solchen Ungereimtheiten macht es für nachfolgende User keine Freude, hier weitere Douglasien zu registrieren.
my English translation:
we have different opinions, what level of care we should apply for the registration of trees. In my idea the tree database of MT should not only be a platform to showcase our own beautiful tree photos, but we want to offer the public a reliable source of information.
If something obviously is found to be wrong, it should be allowed to address the issue and ask for correction. An example from the Kleve gardens, named by you, illustrates what I mean:
coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '16910'
The Douglas fir in the photo does not have the height and the girth of the here registered tree (I measured girth 3.04 m and heigt 30.1 m), so there must be a confusion. The board on the second photo does not hang at this tree, but at another Douglas fir. In the surroundings there are several Douglas firs, some significantly higher (up to 38.80 m). The registered coordinates are inaccurate and do not allow an identification of the tree. With such inconsistencies it makes for following users no joy, to register more Douglas firs here.
I don't have any problem if you correct me. Be my guest if necessary, I also would like it if the information, of whatever kind, is correct.
Am I one of the guilty ones Owen, thought that you might be getting sick of emails and that you might pick them up on here but so many trees registered it is hard to keep up if you are away for a few days I admit.
Could the site be split, one part for scientific measurement, precise recording of location, photographing and ranking of significant trees (which also acts as a full record for these trees if they later happen to be lost or are felled) the other half for architectural trees for those who enjoy looking at the photographs and voting on composition. The two groups could then be happy.
I read you apparently register trees with an inaccurate location and assign pictures of other trees to it, likely just to have that particular photo or photos uploaded.
That of course is not what should be done. Instead of expecting others to correct it for you, it would be much better not to enter incorrect data, and to refrain yourself from uploading pictures if you don't remember exactly of which tree it was. I for example have quite a few photos of great trees (e.g. chestnut trees in Corsica, or baobab trees in Zambia) from my travels which I did not upload, because I cannot find back the exact location.
I'm sorry if my contribution makes people believe that I am starting a controversy or antagonism. Please disregard my remarks. i will refrain from this kind of discussions. Apparently it is not appreciated.
Hi Tim, Your conclusion is inaccurate. I uploaded pictures with the correct coördinates. My exif data will prove that. Please don't jump to conclusions on an incorrect comment of Karlheinz.
A replenishment to my earlier reaction. I have spoken to you earlier about the fact that I didn't upload some beautiful trees in Mexico, because I didn't have the right coördinates. Since a few years nobody can accuse me of not posing the right coördinates. I have had about 4 camera's with gps function. So please ferfrain of accusations please. That's pissing me off.
The Tree Register or something similar, where large trees are documented, there is not in Germany. Who wants to document large trees with measured values is dependent on Monumental Trees. In Germany there is still the Championtree list, where trees with thick trunks are recorded, but tree heights are rarely measured.
Also my camera can store GPS locations in the Exif data area. But more exact coordinates I achieve with both my Garmin GPSMap 60csx and my modern smartphone Galaxy S5 with a suitable app. The accuracy is always dependent on the local situation and the care of my measurement. In special cases, I also measure by rangefinder the distances to striking objects in the terrain. Because a direct coordinate input in MT is not yet possible (hello Tim!), I set this measured position by the method "trial and error" in the map (satellite or map view). Then I check this position in the map for plausibility and correct if necessary.
In my experience the Exif coordinates in the photos of cameras and smart phones are a great help, it avoids rough error of positioning, you always will hit the right park. But for the exact positioning of the tree within the park, it is not enough in most cases. Of course there are differences in quality of the GPS features of cameras and and also your handling is crucial.
A few more thoughts (Tim and Karlheinz). A record of a monumental tree is interesting straightaway, of course, but after 50 years or 100 years it will be even more valuable, because the tree will probably still be there but people might not know about it until the find the old record. (And we won't be there for them to ask.) The change in girth will then help people to estimate the ages of trees in more situations, without having to count the rings.
This means that it is worth thinking how the data on a site like Monumentaltrees might be curated and kept safe and available into the future. A paper record is easily curated, and a robust database can probably be kept up-to-date as technologies change. But I suspect that digital image files might not be decipherable in 50 years time, and a pin on a Google map certainly won't be! I've been able to relocate nearly all the trees recorded in Britain 50 or 100 years ago, even though at that time they didn't have GPS, or camera phones, or even map grid references, so I don't think that putting the icon on exactly the right spot on a map is necessarily essential.
If recorders want to adopt Monumentaltrees as the place to store their records of German trees, you might in the longer term even have to think about creating a charitable Trust to curate the site's information.
That's right Owen. I also often think about that. As the data (measurements, locations, coordinates, image files) are all digital, they can in fact be stored and maintained indefinitely. All physical digital data carriers like e.g. dvds or hard disks eventually become unreadable, but as long as the data (which is just of sequence of 0's and 1's) is copied over once in a while, the data can live forever.
As I'm a still a young man (currently 32 years old) I plan to be around for many decades to come. The site's content is kept safe not only by the site's hosting company, but I also often make backups on dvds.
If I would be run over by a truck tomorrow, the site would probably stay alive and be accessible for a long time, as long as my automatic yearly payments are done. The data on the dvds would still available for anyone interested. Anyone with an even limited IT background would be able to get the info back. But indeed, in the long term, I would have to think how to share with others. Maybe even make the entire content downloadable by other registers or something.
Owen, if all other details are contradictory, the coordinates would help you!
One reason for Owen to be able to find many of the trees from descriptions of 50 to 100 years old is probably that these are mostly really big trees (often open grown) or very special species and specimens. Karlheinz often looks for very tall (but not especially fat) trees in forests, wich is more difficult.
But Karlheinz has the most exact methods of all members of MT. We cannot expect from all members to work as exact as he does, while MT is not an Academic research institute with professional scientifical goals.
I do not claim for myself, to work using scientific methods and I do not expect that from other members. I will not make MT to an Academic research institute or something similar, I do not know who has put such thoughts into circulation. I am not saying that my measurements and records are error-free or that it would be the most accurate of all. I know and take into account the tolerances and limits of my own and by others commonly used measuring instruments and methods.
The point here is that a certain level of accuracy should be aimed and that there is the willingness to correct obvious errors. The stored data here must be traceable and verifiable for others. It must be allowed in MT, to report errors and to call for corrections, without one immediately be treated with subliminal hostility. A preservation of the status quo for the first registrator, or something as the right to sole ownership must not exist. An attitude "this is my tree, I have registered, keep out there!", I will not support. I have in mind that not only new trees are added, but also the database of the already registered trees will be maintained and updated (example: Wikipedia). If so I make unpopular myself with some members, I must live with. Should I have to recognize that MT developes in another direction, I see no future for me in MT.
Not sure what the tree (green foliage) is, possibly Pyrus sp., but it is covered in a dense Parthenocissus quinquefolia vine (Virginia Creeper; red foliage).
It has some apples on it (edible-looking). I'm surprised how healthy the bits of the tree underneath look, despite being so overgrown.
Yes, Malus domestica - I didn't look at the right part of the tree to see those apples!
It's a fun picture puzzle, right? ;-)
Owen, did Chic Henderson and David photograph this tree on their visit to Benmore? I would like to see a photo of this one.
Any news on the Ardverike trees? News about these trees is more elusive than the Yeti.
The Abies amabilis at Benmore is much hemmed in by other trees and I doubt if many people have noticed it, let alone tried to photograph it. It had also died back badly before my 2007 visit, though the bottom bit was healthy enough. (I've cheated here actually by recording to the point where the dead stem had broken, rather than to the live shoots in the lower crown - but at least this give some indication that it must at one stage have grown to a good height. But they're real drama queens in cultivation and seldom happy for long.
These are superb, what is the tallest Omorika ever recorded? What height ar they likely to be in the wild, will there by 50 metre specimans somewhere?
The Gymnosperm Database reports a 50 metre maximum, but no citation of any measured specimens. Personally, I'd be surprised if there's any over about 40 metres, it isn't a particularly large or fast-growing species.
Prof. Dr. Peter Schütt writes in Lexikon der Nadelbäume (ed. by Schütt et al., 2008): "Omorika-Fichten können im natürlichen Areal 53 m hoch werden und einen Stammdurchmesser (BHD) von 72 cm erreichen." = "Serbian spruces can become 53 m tall and reach a diameter (DBH) of 72 cm in the native area." The reference is: Plavšić, S. (1939): Die Standorte von Picea omorika im mittleren Drina-Gebiet. Mitt. Dt. Dendrol. Ges. 52, 76-83.
Thanks! Tried to find Plavšić, but it doesn't appear to be available online; it isn't on the MDDG website here
, and Biodiversity Heritage Library only have volumes up to 33 (1923).
That old volumes are not online. It can be found in some libraries, but not in my city. I could try to get it in the future when I visit a city with a good library.
Looking back through old photos I noticed the conifer on the left of the photo here, very narrow in shape and clothed right to the ground and also with distinctive brown cones at the top whilst the rest (Douglas Firs) have normal shape, no cones. I didn't go up to this tree as eye was too taken with taller emergent trees in this group but is this some variant form of Douglas Fir, is it Douglas Fir? Not come across one like this anywhere else? Should have noticed this tree when I visited last year.
Possibly a Sitka Spruce, but the photo isn't sharp enough to tell for sure; it could equally be another Douglas-fir with denser foliage. Needs a re-visit and some close-up pics.
The well-clothed tree centre-left looks like a Douglas to me. It's probably responding to the extra light being on the plantation edge.