Second largest Douglas Fir in Canada discovered
Thought you might have seen this, but if not look below.
This appalling Forestry practice continues! This would not happen in the UK!
The tree is sadly doomed and will blow over in the next Pacific gale.
Trees such as these need the whole valley side to protect them.
See 23/9/14 post to view it
Sorry meant 23/3/14 post not easy to find.
How old 4-500 years?
This is not forestry and I thought the Amazon was bad!
Is there any hope for the Human Race!!
You can sign an online petition here:
Very impressive Rainer, hate to ask but do you have a distance photo of the tree so we can appreciate it's size?
leider habe ich kein Foto aus der Ferne. Der Baum steht mitten im Bestand, die Spitze ist nur schlecht einsehbar. Ich habe eine Position gefunden mit Sicht zur Spitze und zur Basis. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob es auch tatsächlich die höchste Spitze ist. Ich glaube nämlich, die Linde ist noch höher. In der Laubfreien Zeit möchte ich da nochmal hin, zwecks Messung.
Heute war ich nochmal dort. Von der anderen Seite aus, von außerhalb des Waldes, konnte ich den Baum nun komplett ablichten. Leider sieht man den Stamm nicht, der aber in beiden Bildern bis fast bis runter reicht. Ich denke inzwischen auch, dass die Linde eher an 42 m Höhe reicht. Aber ist das eine Sommerlinde? Die Blätter sind nicht so besonders groß. Oder ist das eher eine Holländische Linde (Tilia × europaea)?
Du musst die Blattunterseiten anschauen. Bei Sommerlinde sind sie dicht behaart. Das kann man auch von gelben Blättern sehen, auch von gefallenen Blättern. Die Blattgröße ist kein zuverlässiges Merkmal.
danke für den Hinweis. Beim nächsten Besuch achte ich da mal genauer drauf. In der laubfreien Zeit, wenn der Stamm dann besser sichtbar ist, möchte ich da nochmal hin, um eine genauere Messung hinzubekommen. Blätter am Boden wird es ja dann noch geben.
SEVERE SPUR DAMAGE ON SCOTLAND'S TALLEST TREE!!!!!
I send this at the request of Michael Spraggon. The text is his. It is about this tree: sapin de Douglas (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '15298'
"A friend of mine climbed the tallest tree in Scotland, at Reelig Glen Wood last weekend to measure it by tape drop. TO HIS HORROR HE FOUND THAT SOMEONE HAD CLIMBED IT USING SPURS!!! There were deep wounds ALL THE WAY from the lowest branches to a few metres from the top. There were also very bad rope burns on some branches from natural-crotched dDRT descents.
I have reported this to the Forestry Commission and also the Tree Register of the British Isles, who are investigating it.
The tree was climbed a month ago by a film unit and a presenter for the BBC. The program was aired on national TV 2 weeks ago. Is it possible that someone saw the program and decided to 'have a go at climbing it?
We need to come together to condemn such total disregard for any healthy tree, let alone a national champion!
I think this is appalling and always feared that this would happen. I feel it is a very difficult balancing act to:-
Educate and show the trees to the general public, without causing damage and also revealing such tree's exact location is perhaps not a good idea except between us tree fans/owner. I think by doing this the risk that a vandal or a so called recreational tree climber damaging it through perhaps just ignorance or just not caring is reduced significantly.
I wonder if the UK Tree Register has considered listing the trees but keeping the location deliberately vague to the public.
Owen what do you think?
I do not think it is a good idea to tell the media!
With these giants often growing in very fragile environments should we not take the policy as the same as the tallest Coast Redwoods in California? Perhaps treating them like rare protected orchids and not revealing their exact location, like say a rare military orchid.
A classic example is the Giant Sequoia just off Rhinefield Drive in the New Forest 51m tall. I have been visiting this tree for over 20 years and at first the Forestry Commission just put up a vague post some distance away which attracted little attention from the public. But now a large sign has been put up some years ago and now attracts many people to the tree.
The result is now significant soil compaction around the base, touching and picking of bark and even someones ashes had been deposited at the base! I estimate several thousand people are trampling around its root zone, which I'm sure you know is generally the most vulnerable part of the tree, with fine feeder roots only 20-30cm below the surface. I fear the tree is now showing early signs of stress. (Sequoia's are shallow rooted.)
I hope to contact the F.C. and recommend that they fence off around its root zone to prevent further damage, I am a qualified arborist/forester by the way. It would be nice if they paid for a full decompaction by compressed air to aerate the root zone.
I have a number of champion conifers which may be some of the tallest in Europe which as far as I know remain unknown except to myself, which I hope to reveal to you, but I would appreciate that they are just admired by us on this site and the UK Tree Register but not revealing exactly where they are to the media and general public to protect them.
As to the damage, I would say that it is just confined to a small area of the thin bark at the tree top and the cambium layer and as long as this is not repeated should only have a minor impact, with transpiration and subsequent growth unaffected.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a worry for me for sometime.
You can always put the coordinate point to the nearest village or onto a lake, for example, and write in the description something like "the exact location is not revealed for preventing vandalism".
My feeling is that the benefits to trees in general by interesting the public in remarkable and champion specimens outweighs the risk that the most famous trees may be damaged by climbing or soil compaction. People as a whole are less and less aware of the natural world around them and the threats which it faces, and trees, being big and spectacular, are a good way of getting them (and especially their children) more emotionally involved.
We sometimes have to disguise tree locations at the request of owners who are touchy about their privacy, but 95% of trees on the Tree Register do have precise location details. To re-record the trees in 20 or 50 years time, the recorder needs to know what and where it is, and the extra paraphernalia involved in keeping the locations disguised makes me worry that sometimes this may become difficult. A tree record kept in somebody's head or on the back of an envelope is of no use at all after 50 years!
The 50m Giant Sequoia at Nymans has a boardwalk for the 10m of path that traverses its root-run, which seems a good idea.
I don't think the BBC news item that showed the Reelig Glen Douglas being climbed clearly showed at any point which of the many similar trees there the tallest actually was. I suspect they were deliberately keeping its identity unclear, as copy-cat climbs are a health-and-safety nightmare even if they don't damage the tree. The tree called Dughal Mor (on OS maps) and which has or had a plaque claiming it as Britain's tallest tree is about 30m from the new candidate and would have been the obvious tree for people to have climbed. When I visited in 2013 and identified the new tree as taller, this wasn't evident at all from the few viewpoints on the ground - hence I don't have a good photo with this one as the centre of attention.
Thank you for your views.
It is always a difficult balancing act to educate the public and at the same time, preventing damage either accidental or worse, deliberate.
My personal feeling is that there are enough sacrificial trees in arboretums and collections now to educate the public and the next generations of tall trees which are often in fragile environments should be protected.
Trouble is when the word gets out, that there is a new tall tree, it does attract public attention, especially when its in state forests which inevitably leads to a trail to the tree and over the years much potential damage can be done by soil compaction. I always advised the FC of their trees but to keep quiet about them where possible. I notify them just to let them know and hope they will be retained for their scientific value.
I would of course let the Tree Register know where they are, but often in big stands of many hectares with hundreds of trees pin pointing the tree exactly even with GPS can be impossible.
For us dendrologists I think studying these trees is great, but I think letting the general public know 'exactly' where they are is a potential risk to them. One can always say a new tree has been discovered and dimensions given, though but location kept is deliberately vague from the public.
Good arguments presented here speak for not to reveal the Champion Tree by single photo or exact coordinates. On the other hand we want to raise interest of people in forest and nature, which is supported by focusing on distinctive superlatives. MT also heats up the search for the champion with the ability to sort by tree heights and by the "European tree height records list". The competition of the regions according to the motto: "Who has the highest tree" is opened. Who has measured a tree and now claimes the title of champion for this tree, must allow for review, anything else would be unfair. The incentive for me to go to Scotland to see and remeasure the tallest tree is little, if not previously is clear that I can find and identify the particular tree on site. Who does not want the tree to become famous, may not register it on MT. He must not boast of having found it. He must keep the secret for himself and approve that others will discover and publish the tree.
Thanks for your comments. I have no problem posting the tallest trees on this site or the UK Tree Register. However giving precise location details to the UK public and media can be a potential risk to them, mainly too many people can visit and cause damage mainly accidental, caused by soil compaction. As you can see here someone has climbed the tree using bad techniques which have caused damage, we need to prevent this from happening where ever possible.
The location for some of the tallest Coast Redwoods in California are kept secret and only a few know where exactly they are.
There are many trees in the UK where people can visit tall trees now in private grounds or in state forests and be educated which I strongly recommend, but some of the tallest are in very fragile locations and having potentially thousands of people visiting them I feel would damage their health.
I hope to purchase a trupulse 200x soon as I am entirely scientific and dislike inaccuracy.
All the best
Must see this marvel of creation. But tell me, what is its condition? Live top? Much decay or dead wood?
Plenty of pics available with a google search (it's a famous tree). From these two, it has a good dense healthy crown, though looks like it's lost its top at some stage:
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.
So you have been there and I advertised the park needlessly!
wonderfull,I am deeply impressed
I looked at this site to see the tallest tree in South America. This pulled up your list of greatest girth, tallest, and oldest trees of "South America". Unfortunately a number of the greatest girth and all of the tallest are listed as being in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is not part of South America. I still do not have an answer.
Indeed officially Costa Rica is a part of Central America, not of South America. Webmaster Tim can change that.
The few trees I put at this website from Costa Rica have been reliable measured with laser technology by Bart Bouricius from the USA. He has measured many trees in Tropical Rainforests in Costa Rica, but also in Panama and Peru and probably some more Latin American countries. These three trees are the tallest of all trees and species he has measured till now in Latin America.
Regarding South America Bart Bouricius has measured trees of several species in Peru, he writes he as well as an other measurer have measured trees in that country up to 58 m (190 feet).
Of South America we know very few reliable measurements, in Chile recently Josh Kelly has measured Alerce, Fitzroya cupressoides up to 54.1 m (177 ft) (so less than often reported as above 60 m) and of southern beech, Nothofagus dombeyi up to 49.2 m. See at the NTS website: http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewforum.php?f=44
andhttp://www.ents-bbs.org/viewforum.php?f=93 for the Central American reports.
We would like to have measurements at Monumental Trees of South American trees, but till now very few people have sent reports of trees they measured at this continent to this website.
"Josh Kelly has measured Alerce, Fitzroya cupressoides up to 54.1 m (177 ft) (so less than often reported as above 60 m)"
But note that Mr. Kelly writes: "I doubt this is where remnant alerce trees reach their maximum size. My guess is that, like Nothofagus dombeyi, they reach their largest size on deep volcanic soils with high precipitation" and then lists some promising sites. His report is here:
Die Art Carya illinoinensis wird falsch sein, ist es Carya cordiformis? Nüsse habe ich noch keine gefunden.
The species Carya illinoinensis will be wrong, it is Carya cordiformis? Nuts I have not found yet.
Both the bark and the foliage are a good match for Carya cordiformis
; compare e.g. here
I agree, Carya cordiformis.
thanks, I have changed to cordiformis.
I asked on the American NTS forum, what they think about the species identity. Follow the discussion here:
Thanks Kouta, it'll be interesting to see the consensus there.
For clarification for anyone who doesn't understand bbeduhn's comment 'it is not one of the "true" hickories', the hickory genus Carya is divided into two subgenera, the pecans (Cc. illinoinensis, cordiformis, aquatica, myristiciformis), and the true hickories (Cc. ovata, laciniosa, tomentosa, glabra, etc.).
Conifers, thanks for the clarification. I did not understand that comment either.
Gestern bin ich nochmal hingefahren. Bei intensiver Suche konnte ich doch noch Nüsse finden. In diesem Park gibt es keine weiteren Hickory-Bäume. Die Nüsse bestätigen die Art Bitternuss (Carya cordiformis).
I went there again yesterday. With an intensive search, I could still find nuts.
In this park there are no other hickory trees. The nuts confirm the species bitter nut (Carya cordiformis).
ich habe gerade die Eiche merfach neu vermessen und komme in 1,3 m Höhe auf einen Umfang von mindestens 7,90 m. Das korrespondiert aber leider nicht mit deiner letzten Messung in 2010. Wobei, wie öfter bei solchen Bäumen, Fußpunkt (wo?) und Maserknollen die Messung schwierig machten.
viele Grüße Frank
I hope you can read English, in German I make a lot of faults with the "Fälle".
Kouta and I together measured this tree (see on the photo) and we did it at around 1.30 m above ground level, but this can be done above the high point or at the medium ground level. I don't remember how we did it in this case. Also, I try to get the smallest possible girth at or below 1.30 m, you can call it the "waist" = "taille". Since May 2010 five growing seasons have passed, for an open grown oak this could be 10 to 15 cm growth at breast hight. That means still 16 to 21 cm difference between our measurements. Sometimes a hollow tree seems to grow very fast because of "bulging out" (sagging) of the trunk. That seems to be the case with the biggest girthed oak of Kvill in Sweden. But in this case I would not expect this with this rather sound trunk. So compared to you probably Kouta and I measured at a higher point or less over burls.
Kind regards, Jeroen
Ich weiss nicht mehr, wie wir den Fusspunkt definiert haben. Aber ich erinnere mich, dass Jeroen versucht hat, allen möglichen Knollen auszuweichen. Das könnte den Unterschied machen.
ich werde ev. bei Gelegenheit noch mal hin fahren und erneut möglichst defensiv (optimal) und mit verschiedenen Fußpunkten messen. Die offene Frage ist, ob man trotz Maserknollen das Maßband noch mölichst wagerecht führt und im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs".
In einigen Quellen werden für diesen Baum Umfänge von > 8 m genannt.
viele Grüße Frank
"Die offene Frage ist, ob man trotz Maserknollen das Maßband noch mölichst wagerecht führt und im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs"."
Jeroen, könntest du auf dies antworten.
Hallo Frank und Kouta,
Wenn ich versuche die kleinst mögliche Umfang auf Brusthöhe zu bekommen, führ ich das Maßband zwischen Maserknollen eventuell etwas im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs". Das ist besser als horizontal über die Maserknollen, wenn es ein kleinere Umfang gibt.
Viele Grüße, Jeroen
These are superb, what is the tallest Omorika ever recorded? What height ar they likely to be in the wild, will there by 50 metre specimans somewhere?
The Gymnosperm Database reports a 50 metre maximum, but no citation of any measured specimens. Personally, I'd be surprised if there's any over about 40 metres, it isn't a particularly large or fast-growing species.
Prof. Dr. Peter Schütt writes in Lexikon der Nadelbäume (ed. by Schütt et al., 2008): "Omorika-Fichten können im natürlichen Areal 53 m hoch werden und einen Stammdurchmesser (BHD) von 72 cm erreichen." = "Serbian spruces can become 53 m tall and reach a diameter (DBH) of 72 cm in the native area." The reference is: Plavić, S. (1939): Die Standorte von Picea omorika im mittleren Drina-Gebiet. Mitt. Dt. Dendrol. Ges. 52, 76-83.
Thanks! Tried to find Plavić, but it doesn't appear to be available online; it isn't on the MDDG website here
, and Biodiversity Heritage Library only have volumes up to 33 (1923).
That old volumes are not online. It can be found in some libraries, but not in my city. I could try to get it in the future when I visit a city with a good library.