Probably Betula pubescens, rather than B. pendula - the commoner of the two native 'Silver Birches' in the UK. Leaves of B. pendula are more triangular, the finer branches hang down, and the bark is usually crisply divided into smooth pure white bits and very rugged black bits (not visible in this case because of the moss).
Thank you, I hadn't worked out the differences. There are a lot of ancient birches and other tree species on Gray hill ... Mixed in with as many Neolithic and Bronze Age stone workings, enclosures, circles banks, cairns and walls
Hello demercleden, welcome. Are you a South Wales resident or from somewhere near this area? If so it would be great to have someone in that area with an interest in trees, there must be some tall trees down this way. Would you have the time or inclination to photograph a few if nothing else? There is a 43 metre Beech at Lydney Park not far from these trees and big Douglas Firs in the Forest of Dean. There also look to be some fair sized conifers in the Vale of Neath. I for one would love to see some photographs of the trees in Longleat Forest, specifically the 54 metre Coast Redwood (where it is?)
I currently live in Caldicot (near Chepstow) S. Wales.
Until 6 months ago used to live near Lydney, Forest of Dean,.. so lots of trees yes .. took them a little bit for granted.
May be able to photograph some for you ...
Have been to Longleat (Center Parks) where there is a stand of Redwoods.
My main 'tree-focus' is Gray hill because the usage of that hill has note changed much for past ... 5000 years ? Actually I am primiraly ivestigating the 'stones' and Neolithic/Bronze age stuff.
It seems you like the great 'heights' of trees? There are plent like that in the forest of dean (FoD) as they were grown mainly for shipbuilding purposes 2-4 hundred years ago ..
I will keep an eye out for you .. but easier to use a separate email address ... (or can I post pictures here, unattached to actually registered trees ?.. I have quite a few good ones already!)
RedRob, à 2014-10-24 16:21:19, édité à 2014-10-24 16:23:01, a dit:
Hello John, thank you for the offer of photographing some of the trees, very much appreciated. Forest of Dean and Longleat are two places that I would love to visit. I have also been searching on Google Maps for trees in the South Wales valleys and am amazed at what nice country it is down there now. You always envisage a pretty bleak area with all the pits and slag heaps but the scars have now greened over with forests and it looks lovely (cannot think of another word that describes it), green forested hills and great drives, definitely another area that I would love to visit before the bucket is kicked.
These are the Redwoods which you will have found at Centre Parcs as I ended up at them myself on a visit a few years ago. It is the location of the Britain and Ireland and European height champion Coast Redwood (also registered on page on link)which seems to be more elusive to find than Lord Lucan.
Yes that is a huge tree at Lydney Park. (Haven't seen it myself yet).
I walked over the back of Gray hill down to Wentwood this evening and found three MASSIVE beeches casually holding up a field fence there. Maybe not challenging the Lydney Park tree but not far off ... And three of them, just unassumingly sitting in the edge of the wood.
I shall go back tomorrow to measure and register them .... But there are so many great trees in the area that I am spoilt for choice to record them ... Such as another downy birch In a field of horses that would undoubtedly be a near-champion, if it's trunk remains 'single' for high enough....
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.
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.
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
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.
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, 17 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.
Forestry Commission plantations of Douglas Fir at Gwydyr, Conwy and Coed a Brenin are now hot on the heels of these older trees and David Alderman predicts the champion could change several times over the next few years, unless and other specimens such as the Lake Vyrnwy Giant could be found in a deep gorge somewhere breaking the 65m barrier.
Owen, reading back I came across this page. Conwy, which plantation at Conwy is this referring to? On Google Maps there are no plantations up around Conwy? Does this mean along the Vale of Conwy? I drove along the west escarpment of the Conwy valley (really all Gwyrdr Forest) and stopped and pointed the laser at quite a few but they were not on the scale of the Afon Lugwy and Waterloo trees.
I saw this tree way back in the early nineties, it was flat topped. Yes very luxuriant and healthy. Judging by the fresh fissures in the bark I would say it is still growing rapidly in girth. The trunk also has very little taper and I would not be surprised if it contained 60m3 of wood. It may reach 55-60m eventually but may take another 30 years?
A species which has not reached its full potential in the UK and with climate change, could well excel in the west. It is virtually bombproof with only man/wind/lightning the real hazard. With Giant sequoia Honey fungus and other decay fungi can attack these trees but not Coast Redwood.
Stephen, were the footpaths open on the south west bank of the river through the Dell? I really wanted to have a go at measuring the Corsican Pines which were planted as a shelterbelt and which Owen recorded as 43 metres in 2005 but the whole area was fenced off with 'no admittance' the day that I visited. I could see them but couldn't get any view of any bases? Don't know what was going on that day? I could also see the Nordmann Fir but not the base? 45 metres is the B&I record for Corsican Pine and these had probably or possibly overtaken that? Did you photograph them or attempt a measurement?
The 'no admittance' signs are just for the general public - if you ask at reception, they'll (usually) give you permission to go over them once they know why you're there if it's a special reason like measuring trees. At least that's how it used to be. All they'd likely ask of you is to give them a copy of the measurements afterward.
Hello Conifers, you may be right. The paths up the hillside were blocked off with pink ribbon which I thought unusual and that something may have happened further up, perhaps unsafe paths or a landslide?
I've just added some historic measurements for this tree. It's growing remarkably steadily! (Tim, one feature that could be added is a calculation of annual growth-rate between the planting date and the first measurement for trees with known planting dates?)
Rob, the Corsican Pine was very difficult to measure tangent-fashion, as they generally are, and it could have been more than 43m. But probably also hard to see the highest shoots with laser. As it's part of the official 'shelterbelt' it may not have added more height. Much of the garden was also shut to the public on my visit in 2005 - is this a permanent condition? I know that recently Bodnant has been undergoing 'restoration' at the urging of various influentual landscape gardeners. This is a word that always fills me with dread as it generally means cutting down the existing 100-year-old trees and planting new ones to 'recreate the spirit in which the garden was originally conceived' or words to that effect. At least they've spared this one.
Hello Owen, perhaps we need a petition from someone, the Tree Register members perhaps amongts others to protect these older trees, it would be tragic if any of the tall conifers and others were felled just for the sake of it, they are irreplaceable.
This Coastie doesn't grow very fast does it, I measured 51 metres for it MT standard reading (centre of base on slope), Tree Register standard it will be about 50.4 metres I estimate, the girth probably now 6 metres perhaps taking into account Stephen's comments. It looks glaucousy as you described so will it be some sort of variant and hence have a lower growth rate?
"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.
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.
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.
Half of my registered trees are probably incorrect on the map because of a problem that I had with the said map (if people go looking for some of them they will end up in the Irish Sea for some of them) Would it be advisable to change the location for the Waterloo Grove trees for one? On my visit in September there was hardly a soul to be seen other than passing cars which use the road. I wanted some pedestrians to get some good photos in context but the only person who went past was a jogger who was away before I could get the camera in to position.
It has been suggested that it was probably the person who roped up for the presenter who caused this spur damage so does all this need to be put in perspective? Is this just a one off either inadvertant or through lack of knowledge rather than amateurs? Did amateurs attempt to climb the Vyrnwy tree, the Hermitage tree, Dughall Mor or the Stronardron tree causing spur damage when claims were made and reported for them being the tallest? These trees are also in public areas as well aren't they rather then being in closed collections like Ardkinglas?
Stephen, I hope that you decide to tell all about all your finds as they sound fascinating. If you don't want to disclose on here, could I request being included in any emails that you submit of your finds to the Register. I am suspecting that Coed Y Brenin will be one of the places that you have been in your 1,326 miles, it would be nice to see some of the trees at this location.
Stephen, did you take a look at this stand of Larch when you visited? This must be the largest stand of Larch by wood volume of any in the UK possibly? I could only get a view of bases and tips of a few trees at the bottom but I can clearly see on my photographs that I have almost certainly or have certainly not measured the tallest in this stand. There are emergents further up with their tips clear of the rest by metres and even accounting for slope I estimate that they will be 43 perhaps even as much as 45 metres. This stand is also growing on the southern slope of the lake facing north east so it has mountain shelter, certainly much more than the 64 metre Douglas Fir stand will have at the other side of the lake. What sort of growth rate can we expect for Larch trees in a tight stand like this and in this location? How long before some of these trees might be challenging the 48 metre tree at Reelig Glen?
I saw this tree and definitely Abies grandis. Possibly from the Cascades or just east of the crest. Foliage there typically has upturned foliage at the end of branch tips, where as trees from the Pacific coast have needles which lie flat on the shoot.
Off to Wales next week to see your trees near Waterloo Bridge plus some new ones. Will try to take a look at the Elan Valley Douglas on the way, where exactly are they?
Have you contacted the F.C. (now Natural Resources Wales) about these trees as I think they need a guarantee of protection. Especially it seems very likely they are the tallest Douglas Fir in the Northern Hemisphere outside the Pacific Coast of North America. I am sure they would be very interested. Although some ways better to keep the public quiet about them as having thousands of people trampling around them can be detrimental to their health due to root/ soil compaction, as the F.C often makes a trail to the trees. But letting the forest manager know is I think a good idea. What do you think?
Owen reported the Waterloo Grove trees to the Forestry Commission last year if I remember correctly. You are right about people tramping around them would cause damage although that said the land in front of them is full of bracken, brambles and hidden gullies. Have a good time, look forward to hearing about your experiences. Take some photos and report your trees whatever or wherever they are.
Got back on Sat. 12 days in North Wales. 1326 miles driven! Loads to talk about some good some bad with discoveries expect posts and much talk in the coming weeks. Waterloo Grove is amazing!
RedRob, à 2014-10-23 15:46:25, édité à 2014-10-23 16:03:55, a dit:
Hello Stephen, have you been to North New South Wales, 1,300 miles is some going! Looking forward to hearing about what you found and hopefully some trees registered with photographs?
How long did you spend at the Waterloo Grove, it is the sort of place that you don't want to leave in a way as the trees tower. Did you measure it yourself? Don't be afraid of submitting readings, your readings for the Aber Hirnant trees were practically identical with what the Forestry Pro recorded when I pointed it. I think anyone or everyone will accept your measurements.
This is an interesting point, as we have English (country) names for trees on this site in the English language version rather than American ones, which would be more logical for trees with an American distribution. In this case 'Weymouth' commemorates Captain George Weymouth who first brought the tree to England in the early 17th century but has no relevance to American users of this site. I shan't offer to change the names to the American ones myself as I don't know all of them!
I'd favour using native names (i.e., use Eastern White Pine for Pinus strobus), provided they are botanically accurate (thus use e.g. Lawson's Cypress for Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, and not call it a cedar Cedrus as many in the USA regrettably misidentify it).
geertaa, à 2014-10-23 08:45:47, édité à 2014-10-23 08:51:57, a dit:
Ik heb een heel aantal jaren geleden een aantal mammoetbomen gezaaid en gekweekt. Velen zijn tijdens een strenge winter overleden. Gelukkig zijn er een paar die het hebben overleefd. Eentje is op het moment zeer hard aan het groeien in de volle grond (net toegevoegd aan jullie archief), de ander staat in kuip en is zo'n 2 meter hoog nu. Weet iemand hier of er partijen zijn die in deze boom geïnteresseerd zou zijn?
I don't know if you're aware of the site www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk, which is designed to allow people to record details of veteran trees (ie trees which are important for their associated wildlife and intrinsic age) around the UK. I've just transferred your pollard sallow to this site (http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/recording/tree?tree=96d3cccd-659a-41fe-b3fe-1b6aca7f5852), as it's clearly ancient from your pictures and one of the most significant in Wales. (You'll see the record appearing under my user-name on that site. The details of where I transferred the record from are in the notes.) I hope I've got the location right. If you want to upload your photos (or other tree records) to the Ancient Tree Hunt site, this is quite easy, though the site doesn't have much professional support these days. It's working OK today anyway!
I think this tree is Salix caprea (possibly the hybrid Salix x reichartii), rather than Alder Buckthorn. The leaves should be wrinkly above and very finely grey-woolly underneath - very smooth and quite shiny green in Frangula alnus. I'd love to see an Alder Buckthorn with a single trunk more than 30cm thick, but I doubt I ever will! 3.6m girth is also near the maximum size for Salix caprea, though it tends to grow bigger in relatively harsh upland climates like this.
Thank you again (I apologise for my inexperience) but have to start somewhere .. Yes I can see that you are right as I have checked the leaf against picture in Wikipoedia .. Can I change the classification?
Conifers, à 2014-10-21 21:39:59, édité à 2014-10-21 21:41:00, a dit:
Thanks, I can do that. Probably won't be near any records but it is a splendid and notable tree nevertheless. I shall take a measurement of the largest trunk,(and for reference a measurement of the trunk below where the three join, and the height of this above the ground).
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.
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
Mountain silverbells. This is often still called Halesia carolina (which is properly now called H. tetraptera), but it is a distinctly different species. H. tetraptera is a shrub, while this is a medium-size tree.
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.
Ik snap er niets van. Ik heb jarenlang foto's geüpload in verticale stand. Ineens lukt het niet meer. Ik heb deze foto 3 a 4 keer geüpload. Steeds weer is hij gedraaid. Ik heb de foto ook vanuit 2 camera's genomen. Geen idee hoe dat komt, geen idee hoe het op te lossen. Ik heb Tim gemailed .
The original top has snapped a long time ago, but the tree is still almost 60 m tall. Otherwise the tree is, as far as I remember, in a good shape.
Still more than this tree, I liked neighbouring Olympic National Park. One of the greatest park I have hiked. A primeval wilderness with giant Douglas-firs, Sitka spruces and western redcedars, wild rivers and snow-capped mountains.
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 for adding this tree. From your photos I can see it is actually a Turkey Oak, and I assume it is the tree which was last measured by the late Hatton Gardner in 1985, when he noted a spread of 26m. I've just updated the record with these details.
It's very unusual for oaks to layer (produce roots from branches touching the ground). In fact I've never seen a native oak doing this. The masses of sprouts along the branches of this tree are also unusual, and are presumably what has helped it to layer.
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
"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:
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.).
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).
Heb je de boom ook op de standaardhoogte 1.30 meter gemeten? De aantaster is een tonderzwam. Beuken kunnen daar lang mee leven. Maak me meer zorgen over geboorde gaten om de verwonding heen. Mooie vondst deze boom.
Jij heb in het Haagse zuiderpark de gezaagdbladige eik opgevoerd chêne du Japon (Quercus acutissima) '9021'. Je hebt er geen foto bijgeplaatst. Ik heb een paar keer gekeken of ik hem kon vinden. Tot nu toe heb ik één boom gevonden die in de buurt komt en het zou kunnen zijn. Ik zal de foto's plaatsen. Kun jij kijken of je denkt dat het klopt. Zo niet dan gooi ik de foto's er weer af. Ik ga binnenkort nog wel een keer contact zoeken met de beheerder, maar als dit iets oplost lijkt me dat vast meegenomen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-10-06 17:01:45, édité à 2014-10-06 17:50:09, a dit:
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.
RedRob, à 2014-10-06 17:19:57, édité à 2014-10-06 17:21:44, a dit:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for uploading this tree, Rob! It's amazing how trees so enormous continue to pop up (like the 11m Sweet Chestnut at Cwmdu near Crickhowell which was first found by a Dutch contributor to this site and whose Ancient Tree Hunt record I was able to verify on the basis of his information here).
You may have noticed I cannibalised the ATH records last winter when I was uploading a selection of the best UK trees so that they showed on this site. They should appear with 'Ancient Tree Hunt...' for the recorder's name but some of them may have my name still. As they weren't all trees I'd seen myself, there may be the odd misinterpretation in the location details, etc, and if you do spot anything like that, feel free to correct it.
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.
8 or 9m is usually the limit. The 16m one in Ireland has somehow grown up through a Yew, almost like a climber, from Aubrey's description, though I can't remember seeing pictures. They like really rich soils, so in Yorkshire you would need to go to the Carboniferous Limestone.
Tantalisingly close to 30 metres but closely consistant 29.6 metres, Britain and Ireland Champion. There must be a 30 metre Birch somewhere in the British Isles surely!? There must be taller Birch trees?
I have downloaded Mozilla Firefox and what a difference on this particular site, I can now get the map to zoom in, it doesn't freeze. Recently downloaded Internet Explorer 9 but had more trouble than ever with it since I last had it and un-installed it to go back to IE 8. Firefix definitely more compatible with this site.
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.
KoutaR, à 2014-10-06 04:34:35, édité à 2014-10-06 04:35:21, a dit:
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.
RedRob, à 2014-10-05 16:41:37, édité à 2014-10-05 16:42:45, a dit:
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.
KoutaR, à 2014-10-06 17:49:40, édité à 2014-10-07 08:02:01, a dit:
The tallest oriental beech (Fagus orientalis) I measured in Mtirala NP was 42 m tall (hêtre d’Orient (Fagus orientalis) '19526'). The tree grows on a mountain ridge and I expected to find taller beeches in more protected locations. So I did not take any photos to save time. However, the rest of the time the forest was shrouded by such dense fog (actually cloud) that my laser could not penetrate it. I believe there are taller beeches in the park although this may not be the home of the height record beech. The following is my own speculations. I was told by the park administration that the high elevations are covered by cloud almost daily. The result is that the light is mainly diffuse, which may not be the best for growing trees very tall. The beech canopy is also strangely open, Alnus glutinosa ssp. barbata grows on ridges and slopes, and undergrowth is dense, all of which may partly be results of the diffuse light.
beste Wim is de zwarte walnoot Junglans nigra op het Buitengoed Dorrepaal aan de Westvliet weg 115 te Liedschendam de zelfde soort als op begraafplaats Crooswijk in Rotterdam je kan die noten toch ook eten? wist niet dat er in Rotterdam een stond mijn oom is er vorig jaar op 18 mei 2013 daar begraven 90 jaar
Altersangaben Laut Tagungsband der Polnischen Dendrologischen Gesellschaft, Szczecin, 6.-8. September 2012: Międzynarodowy Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Dendrologicznego, Drzewa i krzewy w krajobrazie i kulturze materialnej Pomorza Zachodniego i Brandenburgii, ISBN 978-83-7518-464-8: 84 Seiten. S. 77-78.
bin durch Zufall auf Ihre Seite gestoßen.Ich möchte zur Libanon Zeder mitteilen, daß nach meinen Unterlagen, Fotos und Bemerkungen auf den Rückseiten mein Ur-Urgroßvater Hofgärtner Johann Wilhelm Merle (geb. 13.05.1812, gest. 9.02.1879) gepflanzt wurde.
Sollte Interesse an Fotos oder Hinweisen bestehen, schreiben Sie mich an.
Hi Martin - yes; Leyland Cypress is no longer considered an intergeneric hybrid, since it has been shown that both its parents (Monterey Cypress and Nootka Cypress) are embedded in Cupressus. Excluding Nootka Cypress from Cupressus leaves the rest of the genus paraphyletic (which is not admissible in classifications).
I couldn't see the label on the trunk despite walking around it several times. The base has quite a few dead lower branches and it was difficult to get near the trunk. Very impressive base though, most impressive Cypress base that I have observed myself.
I expect it's grown a bit. The climbed height is halfway between my laser estimates and those of David Alderman and Chic Henderson, so seems good to me. You can also add or subtract 40cm depending on where you decide 'ground-level' is among the leaflitter built up around the roots. Also, if you watch the BBC news item, Andy was pushing his pole up to the tip from a good few metres down and won't have been able to estimate when it was level with the true tip within a metre or so.
RedRob, à 2014-10-03 15:55:02, édité à 2014-10-03 16:20:24, a dit:
I was going to ask tonight whether there were any photos of the climb so will Google and try and find the BBC item.
This is another negative for the accuracy of climbs then, not being able to always see if you have the measure level with the apex tip of the tree.
Don't know if these links work but found the climb of this tree on the BBC i player from Wednesday 1st October on 'The One Show'.
What a spectacular valley and stand of trees, Owen I hate to say it but your photographs have not done the place justice! To see the distance views, aerial views. Your 46 metre Lime is featured plus your Norway Spruce and Larch. I was hoping that the part where Mr Talbot stretched his measure to the top may been on so that we could see and try to judge if it was level with the tip but the footage cut off before that. The valley looks quite sheltered but visually to me there looked to be more exposure than at the Waterloo Grove at Betws which has a high wooded bank directly behind giving shelter to west, south west and north west.
Could there be a taller Douglas Fir at Reelig? What are the chances?
Must try and visit Reelig Glen before I kick the bucket, definitely a place I would like a walk in.
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-09-30 18:52:00, édité à 2014-09-30 18:54:53, a dit:
Ik heb vandaag een acer rubrum geregistreerd. érable rouge (Acer rubrum) '19478' met een afmeting van 2,78 m op 0,90 cm is het een respectabele boom. Als ik de lijst van Acer rubrums zie blijkt deze boom niet serieus genomen te worden. De door mij gedane meting komt niet tevoorschijn en de boom telt kennelijk niet mee. Dit verbaast me. Het is zeker geen meerstammige boom. Hij vertakt op 90 cm maar dat betekent niet dat hij meerstammig is, waarom verschijnt hij dan niet in de normale lijstjes.? Erg onbevredigend.
Heeft Tim toch eerder uitgelegd: de bomen verschijnen pas na enige tijd in de lijstjes, waardoor het totale systeem minder traag is geworden. Jouw esdoorn zal binnen enkele dagen in de lijsten verschijnen.
Maybe the non-standard measuring height of 0.9 m excludes it from the 'stoutest' table? Just like multiple stems affects the 'true' girth of a tree, so does measurement at other than 1.3-1.5 m. I am guessing those two low branches are the reason for the 0.9 m measurement. Did you also measure the girth above those branches?
On the Tree Register, we distinguish 'B' class trees, where the trunk can't be measured at the standard 1.5m but the measured girth is not significantly inflated by forks etc, from 'C' class trees, which do fork and where the measured girth can't be meaningfully compared with clean-boled trees. 'B' class trees can become girth-champions, while 'C' class trees only appear as alternative champions or as champions when the girth is very much bigger than any others.
On Monumental Trees, the distinction can also be made by answering yes/no to 'does the tree have multiple stems'. But I have noticed that some recorders (eg Red Rob) are answering 'yes' to this in the case of trees that fork higher up in their crown (and where the fork doesn't affect the girth, except that the crown will be broader and might power faster growth).
When I first saw this tree in 1997, it had recently died back about 4 metres to 43m. This could have been lightning damage, though I suspect it was a consequence of the summer of 1995 which was exceptionally dry in Sussex and may have caused the small dieback I've noticed in a lot of Sequoiadendron (but not other species). At the time I wasn't expecting this tree to regrow very far, but I couldn't have been more wrong.
Though it's not clear in this photo, it grows in quite a steep, narrow valley, so that tree-crowns within 400m on almost all sides side rise above its tip. Once it's tip becomes exposed to the prevailing westerly wind, I suspect it will stop growing.
Any chance someone could visit Haslemere and Polecat Copse and take some new measurements and photograph the trees? Great place to visit when I visited several years ago, a very thin Coast Redwood just above the 51 metre Sequoiadendron intrigued me, took some photos on an old 2mp camera phone but they didn't come out as would be expected.
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.
Hello Owen, Conifers. There is a small river between my position and the trees and I didn't think anymore about these, thought that they were just European Larch. I could see some bases and tips through the young trees just in front of the camera and measured several around 38, 39 metres in the line in view although one or two could be tadge taller possibly, 40 metres. Perhaps you can see more from Street View if you take a drive?
From their apparent youth, and location within a FC planted forest, I wonder if these are hybrids (Larix x marschlinsii), but I can't tell for certain from this photo. Larches are easily identified from the old cones which always lie underneath them - did you look?
For Tree Register purposes, I shall plump for Hybrid Larch as I suspect that true Japanese Larch is rare in FC plantings (while the hybrids are often back-crosses and quite close to Japanese Larch). As such this will be another UK and Ireland height champion. At this rate you'll soon have a clean sweep, Rob.
A beautiful yewtree that is part of the remarkable repertoire of the Conseil General (C.A.U.E.), will disappear very soon. Before winter, from this yewtree, aged above a millennium, growing in the cemetery,there will nothing left but the memory and photos. The venerable tree has become dangerous.
A great disaster for the community. This yew, placed close to the tombstones, near to the church has seen many parishioners, year after year, strolling under its branches. What did happen to the tree? On august 19th, explains Pierre Pitrey, the mayor of Mongardon, a survey has been carried out by a company, specialized in arboriculture and city forestry. This yew tree shows very bad machanical defects on its stem and its rootcollar.
In simplified language: this yew tree is hollow and multiple cracks at and around the trunk threaten the direct environment of the tree. Verdict: He should be killed, for the security of people and property. The paperwork is being prepared for slaughter by professional pruners, as it will not be easy to cut this tree down. The veteran tree is located very close to the to the church and cemetery. This will be costly for the municipality, approximately € 3,500, between diagnosis and slaughter: and its beautiful foliage and trunk will end for disposal.
This is a tree with a circumference of more as 9 metres.
The yew , with and estimated age, between 1000 and 1200 he was honored in 2005 as a remarkable tree of Le Manche department, and listed as such by the C.A.U.E. Its circumference is 9 to 10 m, it has a height of 9 m and a crown of 11 m circumference. Its powerful trunk is leaning heavily, but seems stopped from falling by a tombstone, slipped under the bulge of the trunk, which seems to help keep the tree in balance.
This millenium old yew tree would become dangerous?! And the only solution would be to cut it down ?! I am totally appalled at how we condemn this ancestor which, I quote, " its beautiful foliage and trunk will end for disposal " ...
Call the city hall to try to influence this absurd and expeditious decision: 02 33 46 04 65
I shall forward this conversation to Tim Hills, who runs the website www.ancient-yew.org and who has years of experience in campaigning to protect ancient yews when they get condemned by ignorant consultants. He may want to offer his help to a campaign to save this tree, if he's not already aware of the threat to it.
on the "all species" page and on the page of each separate species (example) there used to be non-clickable lists of its cultivars, varieties, subspecies, ... Now these links are clickable and counts are shown.
added rudimentary variety pages on which you see some information (photos, ...)
- changed the display of subspecies, varieties, forma, cultivars, and cultivar groups per Conifer's suggestion
Addenum: the text on specimen pages still needs a bit of tidying, e.g. here it says "The tree is a specimen of the cultivar 'nigra'", whereas it should say "The tree is a specimen of the subspecies nigra".
I will first add the possibility to rename the cultivars/..., change their type, and to delete them (it is already possible for a long time to create them, and to assign trees and reassign these trees).
Once the missing functionality is there, I will give the possibility to a restricted number of users to collaborate, agree on standards and to tidy up the cultivar list. I will post it here once the site's up to it.
Uit de veelheid van bomen heb ik er één gekozen om te meten. Op foto leek deze dezelfde als jij hebt opgemeten. Ik vond echter het verschil van 25 cm te veel en heb toen maar besloten een nieuwe op te voeren. Ik heb overigens de coördinaten aangepast. De strook bomen ligt ten noorden van de Ravensteinselaan en ze zijn op de kaart goed te onderscheiden omdat er twee paden doorheen lopen. Jij had ze ten zuiden van de Ravensteinselaan geplaatst.
I don't know what the convention and protocol is for naming trees but I think that this tree deserves more than being called '19364'. I also think that this is a superb stand of trees which were brought to light more fully and recorded with no fanfair in 2005. I think that credit is deserving and recognition. I don't know as said what the convention is, can the first person to measure a tree add a name, but I would like to give this tree a name and it will be the 'Owen Johnson Tree'.
Owen, if you are not happy with this just say but I think that you are very deserving of recognition.
Naming a splendit tree is in my opinion a good habbit. And why name tree only after kings or queens or to remember certain occasions? In Kortenhoef a Elm is called "Luijt Postma tree" after a retiring coworker of our office of public works. So please give this tree this name.
Naming a splendit tree is in my opinion a good habbit. And why name tree only after kings or queens or to remember certain occasions? In Kortenhoef a Elm is called "Luijt Postma tree" after a retiring coworker of our office of public works. So please give this tree this name.
Agree Martin. Over here, a tree should have been named in honour of Alan Mitchell as he was such an early pioneer of tree measuring and finding trees. I wonder which tree would be appropriate for him, perhaps we could formally name one in his honour? I think this Douglas Fir is appropriate for Owen as I suspect that he may have some Welsh connections anyway given his name. Is this correct Owen?
Another photo has been added here, what a spectacular little spot, reminiscent of Cragside House in Northumberland with the house just visible through the giant trees. I agree with Stephen on the other thread, watch the weather forecasts and you will see how High Pressure lingers over France (and Germany) with no isobars when we have tight isobars and gales here in the UK. I noticed it particularly last winter with all the storm systems passing over us and High Pressure just over the channel in France, over and over this pattern prevailed.
Wow at least 6 trees over 60m! How long are the leaders of these trees Rob? Any noticeable wind damage from last winter?
I saw these trees in the dark with the car headlights and kick myself for running out of time to see them last year, will have to return soon. Looks like the weather will change next week so may hold off holiday there, until another anticyclone arrives to ensure good weather in Wales.
Will be at Europe's largest forestry show on Sat in the Midlands so may look at impulse lasers and the new model out and may or may not be tempted! Trouble is that would I have the time to use it? 10 years ago definitely would.
Hello Stephen, just run out of time with fiddling with the maps.
Six trees of 60 metres, the lot I bet are 60 metres if you could find windows in to measure them, the whole stand of probably nearing a hundred trees.
RedRob, à 2014-09-17 17:00:58, édité à 2014-09-17 17:26:35, a dit:
Stephen, your visit on Saturday, I wouldn't be tempted would be my advice. Look, ascertain what you want but don't buy or else you will be robbed blind. Try sourcing the same instrument in Holland or the continent, you will get the same thing much cheaper, ridiculously cheaper. I got the Forestry Pro that I bought for half the price that they were being advertised over here. I couldn't have justified £500 odd quid for the laser but I am happy now with what I paid, I think that I have measured enough trees to justify it. Don't think that I could have ever have justified the price of one of the Impulse lasers, not for the number of trees that I have found and measured and am now likely to find in the future. I think you would have to be travelling the world measuring or a forestry professional or professional tree measurer to justify the Impulse. Judging by Karlheinz's and Kouta's recent measuring of the 59 metre Norway Spruce, the margin of error is not too bad for the Nikon Forestry Pro. We don't know if Kouta and Karlheinz chose precisely the same spot on the trunk to measure to so this is another error margin also Kouta may actually have had the correct spot and Karlheinz may have just been a tad high, we don't know but some of this probably accounts for the small difference.
Many thanks for your sensible advice. Just a query if you purchase something from abroad, UK dealers are often rather awkward when it comes to service and repair? What do you think?
Will look and not touch and find out prices, with me I can offset against tax which is helpful.
Perhaps now I can return to Scotland as it remains now in UK! To measure big conifers!
RedRob, à 2014-09-20 15:51:42, édité à 2014-09-20 15:52:27, a dit:
Hello Stephen, the Nikon Forestry Pro that I purchased has/had a 1 year manufacturers warranty which expired a year ago last July. A year on it is still going strong and hoping that it will not break. If it does at any point, it will probably cost nearly as much to repair as buying a new one so I wouldn't be getting it repaired and wouldn't be buying a new one. I think it comes down anyway to how you use the laser, I am ultra careful with mine, I don't let it dangle about from my neck letting it swing around as I am walking about, I hold it in my right hand horizontal and cushion it against jolts as I walk. As I have said umpteen times on here before, I roll my finger over the buttons at the top rather than pressing on them, I found early that this cuts down on agreat amount of laser movement at the time you press but it also cuts down on wear and tear on the buttons as well. I think with simple care and use, you can look after the laser and make it last. I always carefully clean the case and lens when I have finished with it before I put it away and so the laser still looks like new even though it is over 2 years old.
Are there many more tall trees, 50/60 metre conifers to measure in these Isles? Chic Henderson is busy up in Scotland measuring and re-measuring trees at places all over Scotland where tall trees have been reported over the years. He has recently been at a place called Adverike (think that is correct spelling just offhand) on Loch Laggan where some tall trees were reported a few years but have not heard the results yet, even Owen hasn't? From the silence he cannot have measured a new tallest tree in Britain can we presume? An area that I would like to find some tall trees is mid Wales and South Wales, been scouring Street View and the forests of South Wales, going up and down the network of roads and there appears to be some tall looking conifers, Douglas Firs I think, just south east of theA465 at Cwmgwrach just south west of Glynneath. The tallest tree currently recorded is a 50 metre Grand Fir at the Cefn park near Cardiff which Owen found and recorded.
Stephen, do you live in Oxford or further north? If you decide to get a laser, would you be near enough Belvoir Castle for a visit? I had hoped to visit but will not be getting right down there, at least this year? A 42 metre Quercus Robur was reported there, a 29 metre Yew and 32 metre Prunus Avium, the first two are probably exaggerated possibly not the latter but it would be good to see them and confirm?
My Nikon Forestry 550 is 5 years old now, very intensive used and not at all as careful handled by me, but still works fine. I have not heard from Kouta, Leo, Sisley, Nardo and many others that one of their Nikon laser instruments broke down till now. What I heard from long time users from the USA like Robert Leverett is also that their lasers work still after many years.
I was at the forestry show on Sat and tried out the Trupulse 200x. Impressed but very expensive £1700!!! Obviously Nikon far cheaper.
Rob I would say there are many places in the UK to find tall trees but mainly Scotland. Yes Ardverikie Estate in the Highlands has miles of tall trees big Noble/Grand Firs along Loch Laggan.
I think your 67m Douglas would be the tallest outside of its native range in the Northern Hemisphere at least, but there are taller trees in New Zealand apparently.
Wondered if it would be interesting in Monumental trees to rank which European Country has the greatest number of trees/species say over 60m? Presumably Scotland first, then Wales then Germany? There must be over a 100 trees at 60m in the UK by now.
I think Noble and White Fir Hemlock, Giant Sequoia will reach 60m in time.
I was looking at pictures of tall Douglas in Germany perhaps not as many as in Scotland and a climate not so good for growth, but what could be more important is average wind speed less which could mean trees there suffer from less damage from gales as the trees are not within the 'Atlantic Storm track.' Possibly grow taller?
Thinking about going to Wales this week, undecided!
Hello Stephen, where do you live? From what you have posted it seemed like the Oxford area but Oxford is 105.7 miles away from Belvoir so you must be alot further south if it is 200 miles? Do you live on the south coast?
im 30-jährigen Krieg, 1643, standen schwedische Truppen vor den Toren von Weida. Die Stadt wurde dann schließlich von den Schweden zurückerobert. Die Eiche wurde dann 1644 von der Bevölkerung aus Dankbarkeit zur Schwedeneiche erklärt. So die Erzählung.
Vreemd dat dit zo loopt. Wellicht dat je Tim kunt vragen ze ook gelijk bij het openen rechtop te zetten. Heb je trouwens een detailfoto van bebladerde twijg. Het lijkt wel een zilverlinde, maar ik zie liever een detailfoto voor ik meer zeg.
Nee, helaas niet we waren daar op vakantie, het kasteel en tuinen waren eigenlijk gesloten voor bezoekers. Gek genoeg ging onze wandelroute achterlangs en we konden gewoon door lopen. Heb gauw wat foto's gemaakt van het kasteel en de bomen die daar staan. Deze linde was behoorlijk groot en heb er ook wat foto's van genomen. Helaas zo gauw niet aan gedacht om meer gedetailleerde foto's te maken.
Het is mij niet duidelijk wie aan de beschrijving een verhaal over meten op verschillende hoogtes heeft opgeschreven. Mijn ervaringen stroken daarmee. Ik heb nadrukkelijk het centrum van de boom opgezocht, maar daar alleen meten is hachelijk. Het is de kunst om het meetlint strak te houden en steeds te letten op 1.30 meter. Mijn eerste meting kwam uit op 6,57 meter en mijn tweede en derde op 6,56 en 6,49. Ik probeerde met alle macht het lint strak te trekken op de middenpositie. Uiteindelijk lukte me dat (denk ik) en ik kwam op 6,38 meter. Ik had van tevoren wel wat gegevens verzameld en in mijn gegevens stond een hoogte van 6,10 meter. Ik kan die hoogte absoluut niet aan mijn praktijkervaring koppelen.
Het stukje tekst over het meten is van mij. De laatste keer dat ik er aan het meten ben geweest was dit voorjaar samen met Corine van Dun, hoofdredacteur van Bomennieuws. Bomen op hellingen zijn lastig te meten, als je de methode hanteert van het centrum van de boom, waar de boom ooit ontkiemde of werd geplant, kom je bij heel dikke bomen op steile hellingen soms onder het hoogste punt rond de stam uit. Bij bomen op zo'n locatie is het aardig op verschillende hoogtes te meten. Wat je bedoelt met die hoogte van 6,10 m is me niet duidelijk.
Lees voor 6,10 svp 6,18. 6,10 zat onterecht in mijn hoofd, dat moest 6,18 zijn. Ik had een overzichtje meegenomen met maten zoals ze op MT staan. Maar als ik jouw verhaal lees dan zou je toch een omtrek van 6,46 m moeten registreren? Of is de eerder door jou beschreven meetrichtlijn niet zo algemeen? Ik hou me er in ieder geval zo goed mogelijk aan, maar aarzel om 6,38 aan te geven. (wat volgens mij een juistere meting dan 6,18 zou zijn). (Overigens verklaart dat nog niet het verschil met jouw meting van 6,46 m.)
Het verschil tussen jouw en mijn meting bij de meting rond het middelpunt verbaast me niet: ik mat dit jaar ook een kleinere omtrek dan enkele jaren eerder, de gemiddelde hoogte is nu eenmaal moeilijk te bepalen. Dat was één van de redenen waarom men koos voor meten op 1,3 m boven het hoogste punt, dat is makkelijker te bepalen.
Het blijft een benadering, zeker bij bomen met een breed uitlopende voet, zoals veel Sequoiadendrons.
Good idea Stephen, many more trees have clear views to the base but some like these don't so it would be useful.
Meant to add about this tree and it's measurement, bought a new twin pack Lithium CR2 pack for this visit but after the initial measurement, changed to the new/spare battery to double check the reading in case of any battery drain on the first battery that I used or any fault. Same readings.
Also meant to say, this tree looked sparser then the neighbouring trees in front of it, it was a more open tree which can actually be appreciated in the photos. Hoping that it hasn't got the needle drop disease or small signs of it? Maybe it is just a more open crowned speciman that the two denser, lusher specimans next to it.
A very impressive stand of trees for that part of the country! It may be that the North Sea moderates the climate somewhat here? Although to a lesser degree than say the New Forest on the channel coast? Any Sitka there?
There is a Douglas just north of Henley, Oxon (close to me) which is almost as tall planted 1917 and still growing (on chalk!) Possibly tallest tree in Oxon if not Bucks and Berks.
I agree with Stephen, abit of a surprise but an impressive one. The Grand Fir is very impressive. I do abit of plane spotting and have been to RAF Lakenheath several times and the soil there is like dust-sandy,dry. As said to someone, amazing that the conifers in Thetford Forest can survive in the soil. I imagine it will be very dry at the moment as it has been very dry in Eastern England for the last few weeks.
Yes, I think the North Sea does help conifer growth in Norfolk - the most stressful conditions are often when there's a dry hot easterly wind and this will be cooler (and moister) when blowing off the North Sea.
There aren't any Sitkas at Weasenham Woods but at another of the Coke family's 19th century experiments in continuous-cover forestry, Fulmodeston Severals, there is a (youngish) plantation with trees to 37m. Again rather remarkable, as this tree really doesn't like it hot and dry.
I remember you mentioning the Douglas Fir near Henley before. I think there are a few of your records that have not yet found their way onto the Tree Register, for one reason or the other - this is one. It certainly sounds like the tallest tree in the Home Counties area - perhaps you would be able to add it to this site?
Of interest to tree growth and climate from the Met Office averages 1981-2010, (On climate section on Met Office site can't post hyper link here) shows average rainfall of 700-800mm for North Norfolk, slightly less than The Chilterns where I am, 800-1000mm over higher parts, hence growth of conifers is slightly better than other Home County areas. Also shows why conifer growth/productivity is some of the best in the cool temperate world in Wales and the North West UK.
Owen I am reluctant to submit tangent measurements due to their possible inaccuracies, which may or may not be correct, but would be I hope within + or - 2m. Until I get a laser?
Do you know the giant Sessile Oak near the Mezel Depot in Windsor Great Park next to the park junction? Mentioned in Alans book as 125ft x 20ft (magnificent as any) Probably the oldest oak I have encountered, because adjacent Sessile about 390-400 years based on a solid ring count! Will do report on this for monumental trees soon. It says avenue was planted in 1751!
RedRob, à 2014-09-16 17:20:26, édité à 2014-09-16 17:27:49, a dit:
When I press on 'Show on Map' the Google Map is close with individual trees visible. Press to change the location the map has panned out and I cannot get it to zoom in, I have to just stick a red bubble. Conifers, would you be able to put this directly in front of the 65 metre tree.