The Giant Sequoia of Nymans looks like an easy victim for lightening as it towers far above the surrounding trees. To the left also some Sequoia sempervirens.
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.
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.
Apologies Jeroen, didn't think that the girth would have altered too much in 4 years so didn't go across the stream to girth it.
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.
Maar de boom verscheen al in het lijstje.....Alleen met een niet ingevulde meting..Dat had ik nog niet begrepen.
Ok..Ik wacht gewoon af.
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?
I didn't. It didn't seem logical at the place. I will have another inspection to be sure.
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).
Hello Owen, which ones have I done incorrectly, will correct unless someone else will.
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.
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!
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?
Hi Rob and Stephen,
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.
Hey thanks for all of the above helpful info
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!
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?
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.
De Villa dateert uit 1742, maar hoe weet je dat de lindes ook uit 1742 dateren? Zijn het heel zekere winterlindes, ik zag ze tot nu toe aan voor Hollandse lindes maar heb er niet heel goed op gelet. Leo, Maarten en Simen Brunia waren tijdens de Donateursdag van de Bomenstichting vorige week ook present bij deze bomen, misschien hebben zij er ook op gelet.
You are doing a great job by posting so many beautiful big and old trees in Poland at this website! To my opinion the girth measurement of this oak was done the best in 2013 at 0,8 m: we recommend with trees with this form to measure it below 1,3 m at the smallest possible point, the 'taille', like advised at the measurement page: http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/measuringgirth/ . So best would be to measure this also in 2014 and everytime you measure the tree, because this can be compared and gives an indication about the growth of the tree.
this is a magnificent tree, but it is no Sequoiadendron giganteum. It's a Sequoia sempervirens. And if the girth measurement is indeed correct, it would even be the largest specimen here in Europe. It sure looks like a heavy trunk. Congratulations...:-0...!
Thanks for sharing...:-)
Agree totally with Frank, what a magnificent Coast Redwood, second tallest recorded in Europe at the moment. The photo with the people walking past really gives a context, a perspective of it's size. Well done for bringing this tree to light. What is the climate like In Vals-les-Bains, not familiar with this area so will Google at some point if no rely.
A magnificent tree, indeed. Which instrument did you use for the height measurement?
bonjour et merci pour vos commentaires et compliments.
Pour la mesure nous avons utilisé la méthode théodolite à visée laser et pour la circonférence un ruban souple apposé au tronc.
Nous sommes situés dans le Sud Est de la France en région Rhône-Alpes dans le département de l’Ardèche.
Still needs changing to Sequoia sempervirens - any objections to my doing so?
I hope you don't mind that I have changed the species from Sequoiadendron giganteum to Sequoia sempervirens, wich it very clearly is.
We like to have the right information on this website about species and measurements.
This specimen is extra interesting as indeed being probably the largest and second tallest Sequoia sempervirens tree in Europe we know of.
It seems to be a rival of the largest Seqoiadendron in Europe regarding to total woodvolume and could be one of the largest trees in Europe already.
Very nice tree !!
The measures was made by personnel of the Town Hall and 'mairie 07' says that they used a theodolite, a surveying instrument.
Merci à tous pour votre intérêt pour notre sequoia sempervirens. Je pense effectivement que ce sequoia est le second en Europe.
Les mesures ont été effectuées par une entreprise externe de géomètres experts.
Merci d'avoir rectifié sa catégorie. j'avais fait erreur lors de l'enregistrement sur le site.
The largest tree in Poland, really monumental trunk.. Proud of being a Pole :)
Yes, this is a tremendous oak, the most impressive I have seen in Poland. At the same day, November 15, 1999 Jeroen Pater and I visited also the big Dab Napoleon in Zabor. It is a pity that was put on fire by vandals.
ik denk dat is geen Sequoiadendron maar een Sequoia. En bij deze dikte zou de boom uit de jaren 185x kunnen zijn.
Groeten uit Duitsland,
Agree, it is Sequoia sempervirens
Thank you both, I've changed the species.
About the girth-measurement: indeed we propose to measure at 1.30 m above the centre of the tree, for some countries (the UK and Belgium at least) at 1.50 m above the centre / the medium level of the gound around the trunk. This method is also advised by the Native Tree Society of the USA, wich is among the most experienced groups in measurement of big trees. You measured this tree at 1.00 m above the high point around the tree. That could be a good alternative when it it is difficult to decide what is the medium level.
Measuring from the low point around the trunk is not advisable, in big trees the vertical difference between low and high point can be more than 2 meters, in that case 1.3 m above the low point is not possible to measure.
Several groups (for example the Tree Register of the British Isles) measure (at 1.3 or 1.5 m) above the high point, but for trees on a slope this often does not do justice to a heavy trunk below the high point, so that they have a disadvantage compared to trees on level ground.