They set fire on one of the best oaks in Europe!
I just got the news today from my friend Krzysztof Borkowski from Poland that Chrobry oak has set on fire:
I hope it will survive, but the pictures look very bad.
It is very sad news. The Chrobry oak is one of the most impressive oak trees in Europe. Why are people doing this!?
Indeed very sad and incredible that people do this. This is indeed one of the most impressive oaks I have ever visited.
I'm afraid I'm in despair with the human race!
The heat involved is likely to have cooked the sapwood and cambium layer, I am not hopeful it will survive. The Sherwood Oak in Nottinghamshire was also set on fire in the past, but it has survived.
Jeroen Pater and I visited this oak at a day in November 1999. At the same day we also visited the oak Napoleon in Zabor, somewhat more to the north-east, wich had a girth of even 10.45 m and was the biggest circumferenced oak of Poland at that time. It was also hollow and a few years later this oak also was set on fire. It survived, but the burning was repeated after a few years and the oak died.
The biggest girthed tree of the Netherlands, a hollow Sweet Chestnut (see Kastanjedal ) also was set on fire several times, the last time in 2005 and till now has survived.
So I hope Chrobry will stay alive as well.
die Eiche in Hornoldendorf (Außenmauer des Ritterguts) wurde vor zwei Jahren auch in Brand gesetzt. Letztes Jahr hat es noch so ausgesehen, als ob sie es wohl nicht überlebt. In diesem Jahr, als ich dort war, hat sich wieder recht viel grün gezeigt. Und zwar an Ästen, die noch 2013 kahl waren. Sie scheint sich also zu erholen. Vielleicht schafft es ja diese Eiche hier auch so wie die in Hornoldendorf. Hoffen wir also mal.
This may be a good reason not to publish record tree locations (though trees like the oak in question cannot be kept secret).
I don't think keeping trees a secret is a good idea. They give Chrobry a value of 4.300000 (I think) zlotty. That is a lot of money. If the Chrobry oak is that expensive, why did they not put smoke and heat detectors inside.
I think a better solution is to some how close the gabs of a hollow tree, so nothing that can burn can get in. It won't work with all hollow trees, but I think it will work with a lot of them. I think is is very hard to burn a tree that has a trunk with no gabs.
Yes Kouta I agree
Sadly keeping champion trees secret from the public is the only way to protect them from vandalism. But in this case the tree was so well known it was impossible. As I have said before, in the UK there are many rare plants, where location details are kept deliberately vague to ensure protection.
The recent climbing damage to the 66m Douglas fir in Scotland (not deliberate vandalism) I feel is a wake up call not to give exact location details for champion trees and giving the 'wider' general public this information is a risk to them. But recording and uploading them is perfectly acceptable on MT.
I hope those responsible are caught and prosecuted!
Lets hope the tree survives
Indeed this tree was to famous to hide it from the public. But, the other very big oak in Poland, called Napoleon at Zabor, was not well known, in fact it was a rather secret tree standing at a lonely place to be found only by insiders along a small sand road. It was set on fire very probable by local young boys and I suppose this also was the case with the Chrobry oak, like with the "Kabouterboom", the big Sweet Chestnut in Holland.
So I think most of these hollow old trees are more at risk from local young people than from people from elsewere.
Moreover, in Poland many big trees, especially oaks, were set on fire, not only the biggest. I have seen in 2014 a few oaks with girth ranging from 6,5 to 8 metres that also suffered an arson and they usually grew in remote places.. So the largest trees should be preserved rather by fence, because cameras could be stolen indeed.. And it is a matter of local government that trees are conserved or 'unwanted', like here, Chrześcijanin (the Christian) Oak in Poland: street
All in all, I hope that miracle will happen and Chrobry will survive, but it is horrible that someone wants to destroy peaceful monumental trees..
hello Karlheinz, this great tree is an Ulmus laevis, cheers, Leo
Hi Leo, you could be right, the trunk with the many water veins looks like Ulmus laevis. But the leaves are different. I could compare directly with those of the 200 meters away Ulmus laevis '19794'. The leaves are thicker and solid, smoother the upper side, and the lower leaf surface shows the typical pattern of profiled Ulmus minor (it looks likehttp://www.baumkunde.de/Ulmus_minor/Blatt2/
). But surely with the identification of the species I'm not. It would be good if you or someone else could check the tree on site!
please check out my additional photos of the leaves. I took a few home with me. The lower leaf surface shows a profiled or cracked pattern and I see silky hair tufts in the vein angles, focusing on the central vein. This is something I've only seen at Ulmus minor, is this also possible with Ulmus laevis?
"Bestimmungstabelle für Ulmen"
your added leaf pictures show U. minor, but the leaves at your tree pictures are typical U. laevis.
I have added a photo showing an enlarged part of one of your tree pictures combined with a part of your collected-leaves pictures.
These cannot be from the same tree, because at the left side there are U. leaves trees and on the right side U. minor leaves.
U. laevis has much wider leaves with long curved teeth at the edges
U. minor has narrower leaves with short teeth
If this was a test, I hope I have passed, cheers, Leo
I want to go there again and photograph leaves tomorrow. Is there still something else I should particularly look out for?
Most importantly, the leaves from fast growing sprouts or coppice shoots are unusable for identification - they readily result in missidentification. The best leaves are the subdistal ones (next below from the leaves at the shoot tip) from the short shoots (Kurztriebe) in the crown, including the lowest branches of the crown. Never leaves from the shoots at the tree base.
you are right Kouta, but even from leaves from the treebase or epicormic shoots, I will be able to distinguish U. laevis (which is my favorite tree) from other U. species.
Ok. I believe that YOU can do it.
einen Scherz habe ich mir nicht erlaubt und Verwechslungen oder falsche Zuordnung der Blatt-Fotos schließe ich aus. Auch ohne die Fotos erinnere ich mich daran, dass ich unter dem Baum neben den normalen Blättern zahlreiche dieser Feldulmen-ähnlichen Blätter gefunden habe. Sie hatten Nervengabelungen auch in der oberen Blatthälfte. Ich kannte dieses Unterscheidungsmerkmal und habe vor Ort sehr bewußt darauf geachtet.
Gestern war ich wieder in Gartrop, ich hatte aber leider keinen Zutritt zum Schlosspark. Über die Sprechanlage zur Hotelrezeption erhielt ich immer nur den Hinweis auf "Privatbesitz", zu weiteren Auskünften war man nicht bereit.
Ich kenne eine weitere Ulme, die als Flatterulme bekannt ist und wo ich zu Beginn der Laubfallzeit vor etwa einer Woche auch solche Feldulmen-ähnlichen Blätter fand: orme lisse (Ulmus laevis) '19851' . Auch dort war ich gestern und habe Fotos gemacht. Die obere Kronenhälfte ist inzwischen völlig blattleer und unten rieselten die Blätter. Zu meinem Erstaunen konnte ich im dichten Laub unter dem Baum keine Blätter mit Nerven-Gabelungen in der oberen Blatthälfte mehr entdecken, nur noch normale Flatterulmenblätter.
Beide Bäume weisen ein übereinstimmendes Merkmal auf:
Durch baumpflegerische Eingriffe in der Vergangenheit wurde die Krone eingekürzt und an den Schnittstellen haben sich Büschel von Neuaustrieben entwickelt, welche nun die Kronenperipherie prägen.
Ich schliesse daraus:
Diese für Flatterulmen untypischen Blätter bilden sich an den Neuaustrieben oben in der Krone. Zu Beginn der Laubfallzeit sind das die ersten Blätter, die der Baum abwirft und die man dann unten auflesen kann. Später, wenn die große Masse der Blätter fällt, sieht man nur noch normal geformte Blätter.
Nach meiner Einschätzung ist das eine Flatterulme, ich habe das entsprechend geändert.
Was haltet ihr von dieser Theorie?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
here is my English translation:
a joke I'm not allowed and confusion or incorrect assignment of the leaf photos I exclude. Even without the photos I remember that I found under the tree in addition to normal leaves many of these field elm-like leaves. They had nerve forks in the upper half. I knew this distinctive feature and on site I have paid attention very consciously to it.
Yesterday I was back in Gartrop, but I had no access to the park. Over the intercom to the hotel reception I always received the reference to "private property", for other information they were not willing.
I know another elm, which is known as white elm and where I also found such field elm-like leaves at the beginning of leaf fall time, about a week ago: <orme lisse (Ulmus laevis) '19851' . Even there I was yesterday and took pictures. The upper half of the crown is now completely empty from leaves and also below the leaves trickled strongly. To my amazement, in the dense foliage on the ground under the tree I could no longer find leaves with nerve forks in the upper half, only normal elm leaves.
Both trees have a matching feature:
By arboriculture interventions in the past, the crowns of both trees was shortened and the stumps have developed tufts of new sproutings, which now shape the crown periphery.
This for Ulmus laevis untypical leaves are formed at the sproutings in top of the shortened crown. At the beginning of leaf fall time these are the first leaves that the tree throws off and you can pick up from the ground. Later, when the large mass of leaves fall, you will find only normal shaped leaves.
In my estimation, this is a white elm, I have changed accordingly.
What do you think about this theory?
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
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.
Have no problem posting the trees to MT or Tree Register, but keeping the location vague to the 'general public' I think is the best way to keep them safe. Sadly what man creates often destroys! As I have said before there are enough tall trees to educate the public now around the UK.
With Giant Sequoia, bark is either punched or picked off and sadly the FC is ignorant by allowing a path to the trees and then soil compaction results. Trees are not adapted to having hundreds if not thousands of people trampling around their root zone.
Coed Y Brenin:-
Sadly Rob, Dothistroma is having a big impact on these trees. There is a whole valley of 1928 50-60m Douglas with some of the trees have lost 50% of their foliage. 3 years ago these trees were growing 0.5m a year (perfect health) and in 2013 0.2m and now 0.1m due to defoliation. Trying not to get too upset as some trees appear completely resistant but it is a real worry. There are so many diseases entering that most of the UK forest stock is at risk from something.
This stand was on course to become the tallest stand of trees in Europe, but now I am not too sure? Lets hope it is a passing phase and they will become resistant!
The planted 1931 Grand Fir here could be as tall as 63m (tangent) measured it very carefully last year, very likely fastest growing tree anywhere in the world north of 52 degrees! It appears Dothistroma is affecting Grand Fir as well.
Coast Redwood is bomb proof and this tree I feel will have a great future in the warming U.K. climate in the west.
Out with the natives!
Are some of these diseases coming over in wood and plants imported in from mainland Europe like Ash Die Back? According to experts, Britain imports vast amounts of young trees and seedlings from Europe with which it is suspected Ash Die Back may have come in with. Why do we have to do this, I know the answer-economic, cheaper- but why can't all this business be given to British growers! I know the answer to this, EU need I say more, but all the growers and business it could provide over here also helping to cut down on imported diseases.
Looking forward to seeing forests of Coast Redwoods, probably have kicked the bucket by the time and will be a ghost, but will be a nice sight.
Forgot to say, Stephen, hope that you register and post some photos of the Coed Y Brenin trees (how tall now is the 50 metre Sitka Spruce?) Stick the locations in the Irish Sea, drown anyone trying to find them to damage them (laughs)
(Probably shouldn't have made that joke given the modern PC ridden world)
Yes would be nice to see forests of Redwoods. But now forestry has changed.
At Coed Y Brenin its all about restoring 'ancient broadleaved woodland' and throughout the UK. This is significant as where redwood would grow on low altitude sheltered fertile sites, mature conifer is being felled to replaced with scrub! This makes my blood BOIL! I am fed up with these 'native only tree fascists'. Don't get me wrong, I like broadleaves and I am environmentally conscious, but this country spent the last 95 years building up a strategic reserve of timber and now squandered! If the political world changed then the UK would be vulnerable to a gross shortage of timber.
The Douglas at Coed y Brenin are safe I hope! but the upper slopes are being felled for broadleaves, mainly rubbish like weedy birch and oak bonsai. This also removes shelter to the tall trees, as tall trees above the Douglas increase topography and therefore shelters the Douglas.
They have been ring barking the naturally growing Western Hemlock to prevent their spread, as they can be slightly invasive, but the stupid thing is they are removing the very tree that is immune to Dothistroma!
They felled a large area of Sitka at over 400-500m so they could grow broadleaves. The planted broadleaves failed and guess what grew back SITKA!
Things will change I hope, so don't despair you may see redwood forests they do grow very fast!
Amazing Red Cedars at Coed y Brenin planted 1931 and already over 40m! Will be champs soon!
There maybe Sitka 48m here but not any taller I think. My 50m tree has died back but this maybe due to Honey Fungus damaging the roots. There is something strange about the climate of Wales that prevents Sitka growing to giants like in Scotland. The rainfall is sufficient, but it maybe the temperature is too high, as it likes to be very cool. I have been puzzled by this. Sitka grows well in Cumbria.
I think that I have found a long lost twin brother, falling down the same holes, the views expressed above, we must have been separated at birth!
I agree totally with your views on the purists, zealots I call them. There is a valley near to where I live, the Nidd Gorge valley which contains some nice conifers, 40 metre Sitka, Douglas, 31 metre Norway Spruce, 30 metre Larch, from the photos now on here a group of Bhutan Pines possibly(?) but they all have red marks on the trunk, many have already been felled at the request of the Bilton Conservation group. It makes my blood boil as these trees add diversity and interest but these lot zealously want the woods to be pure. Up here in Yorkshire there are vast areas of barren land, moorland and field where natural woods could be planted without felling any conifers which many people love. The moorlands and fields are referred to as Yorkshire's natural beauty but they are no such thing, man cleared this land, it is all man made.
Low Dalby meadow
The west Wales Sitka thing, the winter at this location, Dalby is going to be colder (and not as wet) but the summer temperatures are going to be signifcicantly higher and again less wet (local weather foreccasts, Vale of Pickering of which Staindale is a side valley and will be a sheltered south facing one as well), is nearly always the sunniest and warmest part of this area) and yet Sitkas are seemingly thriving and superb specimans?
Yes conservation groups with their open toed sandals and butterfly nets skipping through the long grass!! Perhaps you could try to educate them, I am always doing this! They are blind! Rub off the red marks on the best of them!
I see no difference in a tree coming to this country either naturally or having been introduced by man. Sweet Chestnut and sycamore long naturalised are we gong to fell them all? Perhaps Beech North of S. England? With that awful totally biased Coun*** Fi** program pulling up Hemlock. When was the last time there was anything about forestry other than planting Squirrel fodder! I'm afraid there is so much propaganda and B*** SH** in this world!
Yes Yorkshire Moorland a barren biological desert created by man caused by sheep grazing, plenty of room for Conifers and Broadleaves, but as usual they like to think this is natural. It is not!
Fed up with the Lake District and their anti conifer mentality, all thanks to Wainright and his romantic thoughts of man made open desert moorland!They think that open mountainside is 'normal'. They soon complain about windfarms but want cheap green energy!
A totally independent report on planted coniferous forest showed that it was not detrimental to wildlife and birdlife.
Yes strange about Sitka, perhaps because Sitka is planted only at high altitude and therefore would never grow to large size due to soil conditions. If planted on fertile low altitude sites would grow to giants but species selected often Douglas and Larch here.
Interesting Yorkshire Sitka, Have been to Hammsterley Forest further North and been to Dalby long ago.
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:
A technical hint: it is possible to post Youtube videos on the discussion page.
To do that, on the Youtube page of the video, click on "Share" somewhere below the video and then on "Embed".
Just copy paste the text you see there in your comment.
The second photo down in Conifer's link (the man looking up the trunk), there is a horizontal line across the base of the trunk, is this a cut mark, have they had a bite at this tree?
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.
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).