Page de discussion de JeroenZutphen14
- (de - 2014/10/16) Chêne pédonculé dans le domaine du parc de Petworth, Petworth, Royaume-Uni
- (de - 2014/10/16) Chêne pédonculé dans le National Park of Białowieża, Białowieża, Pologne
- (en - 2014/10/16) MonumentalTrees.com · Register
- (de - 2014/10/09) Chêne pédonculé au cimetière du Kirche, Lüttenhagen, Allemagne
- (nl - 2014/10/09) Direction of development MT
- (en - 2014/10/05) National Park of Białowieża à Białowieża, Pologne
- (nl - 2014/10/03) Meerstammig of niet
- (nl - 2014/10/01) Séquoia géant dans les fôrets du Nymans Estate, Handcross, Royaume-Uni
- (en - 2014/10/01) Coast redwood in Bodnant Garden, Conwy - Tal-y-Cafn
- (en - 2014/09/22) Coast Douglas-fir west of Waterloo Bridge by 300 metres, along the Fford Craiglan road, Betwys Y Coe
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.
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: http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=5176#p22550
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 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
Jeroen, könntest du auf dies antworten.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kun je eea verhelderen.?
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.
Ok..Ik wacht gewoon af.
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).
The 2005 37 metre Abies Cephalonica the laser recorded as 39.6 metres but I didn't photograph that one as the other was taller.
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.
Would be nice if you also measured the CBH of such trees, as it gives an impression of the growth just like the heightmeasurement as well as of the total woodvolume.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Belvoir is about 200 miles away, bit too far. But I know a cherry in The Chilterns which could be a champ for height, possibly over 30m!