Location within United Kingdom
Owen is doing a wonderful job in adding T.R.O.B.I records to this website. But I wonder is it enough to give
location address as United Kingdom. The U.K consists of four countries,England,Wales,Northern Ireland and soon to
be independent,Scotland!!. Well the last may not come to pass but the serious point is take Castlewellan for
example,few people within the U.K would know that it was in Co.Down,Northern Ireland and fewer still in Europe
would know that it was in the geographic location of the island of Ireland,never mind the politics. I think it
would be more consistant to make this distinction in comparing what trees grow well and where.
The regional information (Wales, Isle of Man, etc) is available for each MonumentalTrees record, so I think it would be possible for Tim if he ever gets the time to reprogramme things so that the record appears, for instance, under "United Kingdom (Wales)".
I agree with you that it makes more sense to have a location "Ireland" for all trees in Ireland, as trees (like me) are much more interested in geography than politics! But this might set a bad precedent for trees in other politically disputed areas of the world?
If the highest locations status ("country") had been given separately to each England, Wales, Scotland and N.Irland, then German users would demand the same status for Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony, etc. For example in the record lists, the UK would have four placings but Germany and other countries only one, just because Wales & Co. have been called "countries".
Perhaps I didn't understand you correctly. If you mean that Wales & Co. only appear in the tree pages and they are still under the UK, that is fully okay in my opinion. But Wales & Co. should not replace the UK as the highest level location.
I think that Bavaria,Hesse,Saxony etc should demand that they have their own football team in the world
cup qualifiers and give the rest of us a chance! Joking aside, Ireland and Britain are separate landmasses
with different climate,ecological and native species mix. An example of this has recently been discussed
on these pages where Eucalyptus globulus gets killed in Britain from killing frosts while all along the east
coast from Northern Ireland down to the south-west coast of Kerry stand 150 year old trees unharmed. This is
entirely due to the warming of the destructive easterly winds as they cross the Irish Sea. I have no problem
with the location described as Northern Ireland,U.K. I think users do not wish to have to open individual
entries to find this out.
"Ireland and Britain are separate landmasses with different climate,ecological and native species mix."
Corsica is separate from mainland France, too. And the climates between southern and northern Finland differ more than between Ireland and Great Britain.
But I think I understand now what you mean. You only want the country names (N. Ireland) appearing on a particular set of pages. On which pages? Can you give an example of an URL?
Canary Island pine – the tallest pine of Europe… or Africa
Europe’s tallest pine species is Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis
). It is endemic to five western Canary Islands: El Hierro, La Palma, La Gomera, Tenerife and Gran Canaria. Large forests mostly grow at altitudes between 850 and 1800 m. Today, many pine forests are planted.
Of course, it is questionable if the species is European. The Canary Islands are politically a part of Spain but they are much closer to Africa than to continental Europe. However, in the flora there are more links to the south-western corner of the Iberian Peninsula than to north-western coast of Africa. If the species is considered African, then it is Africa’s tallest pine species. Curiously, the closest relative is P. roxburghii in the Himalayas, 8000 km from the Canary Islands!
There are two big old pines above Vilaflor at an altitude of approx. 1500 m on Tenerife, the taller of which, “Pino de las Dos Pernadas” (pin des Canaries (Pinus canariensis) '3482'), has been said to be the tallest Canary Island pine, the official height given on a signboard at the tree is 56.03 m. Recently I had a possibility to laser-measure these trees, with my brother Tuomas. The trees are growing along a road that connects the southwest coast (incl. a huge hotel concentration called Playa de las Américas) to the Teide Volcano. The taller tree is located above the road and the other tree, “Pino Gordo” (pin des Canaries (Pinus canariensis) '3481') which is claimed to be the biggest, below the road. Our first thought on seeing the taller tree was that it might reach a bit more than 40 m at the most, but my preliminary quick measurement showed it to be really almost 60 m. The measuring conditions were excellent, the whole tree being clearly visible.
My brother held his hand on the trunk and I measured from the top to his hand – 55.8 m. Then we defined the average ground level, which was 1.25 m below the point where he had held his hand, so the whole height was 57.0 m. The official measurement is given to a centimetre and it is possible that it has been obtained by a climber (at least the “Pino Gordo” has been climbed, see:)
If so, why did I get a height one metre more? Some possible explanations:
- The tree has grown. The signboard is clearly not new. There is an emerging shoot which is now the tallest point.
- The official measurement has been done to the highest ground level, like the foresters usually do. The difference between the highest and average ground level is about 50 cm.
- The climber did not get high enough in the tree and has made a mistake when measuring the uppermost part of the tree.
- I over-measured the tree. Applying our 1% rule for Nikon laser-clinometers, the tree could be 56.4–57.6 m.
- Upwards pointing needles are not included in the official measurement. The needles may be as much as 30 cm long.
Also for the other tree, “Pino Gordo”, my measurement was one metre more than the official one: 46.2 m vs. 45.12 m. This tree has several tops that are at about the same height.
The diameters of these trees are usually given as 2.5 m and 3 m. However, both trees are clearly multi-trunked – Pino de las Dos Pernadas 2-trunked and Pino Gordo 3-trunked.
I estimated the volume of the taller (and bigger) trunk of Pino de las Dos Pernadas to be about 60 m3. I made the estimate based on the measured dimensions and the relations measured from my photos. The whole Pino de las Dos Pernadas (two fused trunks) may be over 100 m3.
Pine forest photographed from Pino Gordo:
As these two remnants are the only old trees, surrounded by much younger pine forest, it is not difficult to imagine that the original forest has been truly impressive, maybe a bit similar to the ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) forests of the western United States. The potential maximum height in a protected forest site could be well over 60 m. Canary Island pine forests are more or less monospecific. On October, the forest was very dry; the ground is covered by dead needles. Wildfires are definitely an essential part of the ecology of this forest. Canary Island pine is well adapted to fires. Protective thick bark makes older trees fire-resistant and the species is capable of sprouting from numerous adventitious buds even on severely damaged trunks and branches. There were fires in 2012 and we saw large areas of burned forest at higher elevations. The fires had killed most other tree species but the pines had sprouted vigorously. The pine forests at higher elevations are protected in Teide National Park but the productive forests around the two big pines have a less restrictive protection status (parque natural) that probably allows tree cutting. We saw some pines about one metre in diameter.
I asked a local botanist if there are other remarkably tall pines on Tenerife. He answered there are big pines in the Monte de la Esperanza and above Santiago del Teide. Unfortunately, I had no possibility to measure these pines. I know very little about the potential to find tall pines on the other islands. On La Palma there are large pine forests in Caldera de Taburiente National Park. On Gran Canaria there are remnants of old pine forests in de Ayagaures National Park.
Besides being the tallest pine of Europe or Africa, Canary Island pine is one of the tallest pines in the old world as a whole. Other tall species include P. roxburghii with a height claim of 64.63 m (*) and P. merkusii in Sumatra with 70 m (**).
Kunkel, G. (1993): Die Kanarischen Inseln und ihre Pflanzenwelt, 3. ed. Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Schönfelder, P. (2012): Die Kosmos-Kanarenflora. Kosmos.
Stephan, B. R. (2008): Pinus canariensis. In Schütt et al. (eds.) Lexikon der Nadelbäume. Nikol.
* Dhawan, V. K., Joshi, S. R. & Rana, I. (2008): Protected Trees in the Forests of Uttarakhand. Indian Forester, July 2008.
** Whitmore, T. C. (1985): Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East. Oxford.
Excellent account! Maybe someone can produce a Spanish translation?
Although Pinus canariensis is morphologically closest to Pinus roxburghii, it is also closely related to Pinus brutia, Pinus halepensis, and Pinus pinaster, and slightly less closely to Pinus merkusii, Pinus latteri, and Pinus pinea (Curtis's Bot. Mag. 16 (3): 173-184, 1999).
What a magnificent tree, thanks for putting this on Kouta. I have been on holiday to Tenerife several times in the past and admired the pines as I drove up to Mount Teide but had no idea that they had the potential to get to this height and size! The long needles are also very attractive. Would this pine survive in colder locations, would it be too cold and probably more likely wet for it to survive in Blighty? (Britain)
I saw these 2 trees in 1993 and 2004 very impressive, glad to see they are still healthy. I saw many stands in 2004 and with a botanist on a seed collection expedition collected from trees around Viliflor. Do you think they could be up to 800 years old? I thought they could grow quite fast as young trees.
Strange climate, little rain, 500mm at most. Mostly fog and fog drip from the clouds. Original forest must have been spectacular. I saw stands on Gran Canaria but no where near as big as these, La Palma much wetter maybe big trees there?
On my seed collecting expedition I collected from trees at 2300m in the hope of finding hardy trees for the U.K. They have withstood -10 degrees c! I see no reason why they could not grow well in mild parts of the U.K. They grow in Cornwall and Ireland.
There are also several phylogenies derived from molecular data.
Eckert, A. J. & Hall, B. D. (2006): Phylogeny, historical biogeography, and patterns of diversification for Pinus (Pinaceae): Phylogenetic tests of fossil-based hypotheses. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 166–182.
Gernandt, López, García & Liston (2005): Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Geada López, G., Kamiya, K. & Harada, K. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of diploxylon pines (subgenus Pinus) based on plastid sequence data. Int. J. Plant Sei. 163: 737-747.
Eckert et al. end up to this phylogeny:
((((P. canarienesis + P. roxburghii) + P. pinea ) + P. pinaster ) + (P. brutia + P. halepensis )) + P. heldreichii
Gernandt et al. leave the first four spp. unresolved:
(P. canarienesis + P. roxburghii + P. pinea + P. pinaster + (P. brutia + P. halepensis)) + P. heldreichii
I don't have the last paper but according to the second paper, Geada López et al. have resolved P. bruta and P. halepensis as a sister group to P. canariensis, P. roxburghii and P. pinaster.
I cannot estimate the age of the pines. I have read Canary Island pine can grow pretty fast.
Fog drip contributes to the annual precipitation perhaps less than true rainfall but it rains mostly in winter. In summer fog drip is definitely the biggest source of moisture.
La Palma would be a good place to go pine-hunting. Though the forests are said to be "semi-natural" but perhaps the pine grows fast enough to produce tall trees even if the original forest was gone.
Yep, those molecular (mostly cpDNA) phylogenies do ± confirm the earlier morphological data, but there are still uncertainties with molecular results, notably the inclusion of P. heldreichii in this group in some studies, which may perhaps be a result of chloroplast transfer, rather than ancestral relationship (morphologically, P. heldreichii is far closer to P. nigra and P. mugo). There's a lot yet to be worked out with molecular studies, they are not the 'silver bullet' some take them to be - see e.g. the uncertainties and multiple non-monophyly found in subgenus Strobus by Syring et al. (Syst. Biol. 56 (2): 163–181, 2007).
Fog drip from the needles is very important for P. canariensis; one study (I forget the citation) found 500mm rain in the open, but 2000mm under pines. That's the main reason why the island government is so strong in reafforesting the entire past area of the pine forests - the islands' water supply depends on it.
I agree that molecular studies are not the 'silver bullet', which can also be seen from the fact that in some (rare) cases two studies end up in two very different phylogenies.
The fog drip study you mean may be: Kämmer, F. 1974: Klima und Vegetation auf Tenerife, besonders im Hinblick auf den Nebelniederschlag. Scripta Geobot. (Göttingen) 7:1 1-78. This study was referred in every(?) book I have read about the vegetation of the Canary Islands. Kämmer found that the fog drip over a larger area is barely more than 300mm/year but "on a small scale" ("kleinräumig") it may be 2500mm/year or more.
Strange climate where these trees grow. At sea level below their natural range, where it is often blowing a gale with the North east trade winds. Yet at 2300m where the highest populations I found, it is generally flat calm! Partly as a result of the Azores high pressure cell affecting the climate.
Generally much hardier than described in books/journals! Not sure if branch whorls represent one years growth, so perhaps more difficult to age young trees by this method? May grow several whorls in a year like Pinus radiata and Pinus patula when conditions suit them?
I remember I saw some huge Eucalypus globulus at the Northern and wetter part of the Island.
Stephen, you have some of the Canary Pines growing somewhere perhaps in your garden, is this what you are saying? You should register them if you have post photos as they are unusual for Blighty.
No but I had a friend who grew them in a frost pocket from our botanical outing! Have lots of seed and cones. Seem quite hardy. One thing I have learned is don't believe everything written in books and journals!
I recorded a Pinus canariensis of 25m x 2.22m girth in 2010 at Mt.Usher, Co.Wicklow. I showed it to David Alderman
November 2013 and if you check with T.R.O.B.I website it should be up soon with his recent measurments. Meanwhile
look up Tree Council of Ireland website for my photos and record. I still have to check out a reputed trial plot by
the state forestry supposedly planted in the 1960s in the Glengarriff area of West Cork in south west Ireland. Mind
you temperatures dropped down to -8c during the big freeze there in 2010 which killed most of the Phoenix canariensis
planted aboutthe year 2000 in the Bamboo Park,Glengarriff.
Hello Aubrey, a warm welcome, heard alot about you already. I met a couple of people that you may know in Sep 2012 at Fountains Abbey, two tree recorders from Ireland, Charles and (the second chaps name and surnames have just escaped me now?) Really enjoyed meeting and chatting with them.
Good to hear from you redrob. Nice to know that there are other nutters out there tilting at windmills.
The news you bring of meeting a couple of Irish tree hunters last summer is interesting. Have I got competition?
I thought I had exclusive tree hunting rights in Ireland which is what made tree hunting here so wonderful.I am constantly visiting sites that have never been looked at before and almost everyone is welcoming when I knock
on their door with countless offers of tea and chat. There must be more tree hunters per square km in Holland
than anywhere else which must involve traveling a long way into other countries to find new sites to discover.
Anyway if you are interested my first book on The Heritage Trees Of Ireland has just been published by Collins
Press and is available on their website along with the Tree Council of Ireland's website. It will give you a good
idea to what I have been up to the last 15 years.
Welcome on-board! Any chance that you would buy a laser? You perhaps know that we are building an European height record list of the trees measured with laser or tape (http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/heightrecords/europe/). An Irish laser-measurer would be a great addition to our laser-team!
Good Morning Aubrey and welcome
Wow Just shows what can be grown in the British Isles with the 'North Atlantic Drift' at 50 degrees north! I'm sure it could grow quite well in south Devon and Cornwall too, especially from my collected seed source at 2300m in the Volcanic caldera on Mount Teide where snow and frost occurs. A forestry trial plot thats interesting?
Will look up trees on your website.
Also I'm interested in big Eucalypts (and any other large trees generally in Ireland) how are the big E. Globulus johnstonii, viminalis, nitens and there are alleged to be some big regnans too (JFK arboretum?) Maybe these trees are the tallest exotic hardwoods in N.W.Europe? 42-44m+? There seems to be hardly any big globulus in Cornwall which is strange as they used to grow there.
" There seems to be hardly any big globulus in Cornwall which is strange as they used to grow there
Alan Mitchell pointed out that they always got killed periodically there by cold winters; the 1986-87 winter (when they had -7 on Scilly) would certainly have done so, and perhaps again in 2010.
A laser rangefinder has been on my shopping list for some time.Talking to David Alderman and reading the
discussion page on this website suggests that a nikon 550 forestry would serve my needs best. It would
need to be idiot proof and easy to use.It is available on U.K websites for about 430euro but that it might
be a lot cheaper in mainland Europe.I am visiting family in Krefeld,Germany over Christmas which would
be a good time to buy one over the shop counter if it is cheaper than 430 euro. I welcome your advice
and perhaps with your computer skills find out where in Krefeld or Dusseldorf I could buy one.
Sorry, I don't know any shops in the area but you could make an order at a German Internet-shop and place the address of your German relatives as the delivery address or let your relatives make the order. After a quick search I found a Nikon Laser 550A S at 349 € and a Nikon Forestry Pro at 400 €.
The eye-piece of Nikon Laser 550A S is a bit different from that of Nikon Forestry 550. The former is orange, the latter yellow. Otherwise they are identical.
Nikon Forestry Pro is as Forestry 550 but has also the 3-point routine.
Perhaps another German member knows a shop in your area.
"Maybe these trees are the tallest exotic hardwoods in N.W.Europe? 42-44m+?"
How do you define "N.W.Europe"?
You probably have by now checked out the few eucalypti on the heritage tree database on the Tree Council of Ireland website. Up to now all height measurements have been taken useing a hega hysometer.Most of the tallest
conifers have since been remeasured by laser by David Alderman. Most of those have shown to be 0 to 2m lower than my
figures with the worst descrepency being a leaning sequoia at Luttrelstown Castle,Co.Dublin dropping from 54m to 49.5m. There is potential for even greater discrepency in measuring eucalyptus with their swaying crowns. What David
did find with my measurements is that the tallest trees remain the tallest and in the same order in our league table
of tallest trees. David recently came over and measured some of the largest eucalypti at Mt.Usher,Co.Wicklow and
those measurements should be very interesting but I do not have them to hand. Keep checking T.R.O.B.I website for
latest updates. There are over 40 eucalypti species at the J.F.Kennedy Arboretum in groups of 3 and in trial plots
which were planted in the 70s and 80s.I went back in trepedation in 2011 to check on losses after the big freeze in
2010 with temp low of -12c. Only 5 species lost which was a huge relief. I still have to go through my notes to find
which ones are gone. Anyway for what its worth I found in 2007, E.subcrenulata to 34m, E.obliqua to 19m, nitida to 29m,
deleegatensis to 27m,racemosa to 23m,glaucescens to 24m, dalrympleana to 35.5m, pauciflora to 23m, pulverulenta to 26m,
nitens to 29.5m, mcarthurii to 29m, rodwayi to 26m, sieberi to 25m,pulchella to 22m, risdowii to 13m, aggregata to 19m,
perriniana to 18m, regnans to 32m, viminalis to 35.5m, cypellocarpa to 26m, rubida to 24m, ovata to 25m,johnstonii to
27.5m, vernicosa to 24m, urnigera to 24m, gunnii to 34m, cinera to 17m, cordata to 32m, stellulata to 22m, globulus to
34m, mitchelliana to 31.5m, x irbyi to 26.5m, just to name a few.
Das ist ein wunderbarer Bericht über einen gigantischen monumentalen Baum, Danke dafür.
Aber ungeachtet dessen ist er im Nirvana verschwunden, (ich habe noch nie davon gelesen), da er ja mehrstämmig ist.
Gerade bei solchen Bäumen sollte man über die "eigene Messlatte" springen und ihn einfach einstimmig zur Einstämmigkeit verhelfen um bekannter zu werden.
Solche Bäume sollten wesentlich mehr beachtet werden, als die tausenden undokumentierten und mickrigen Einstämmigen, welche sich derzeit in diversen Rekordlisten versammeln.
Danke und liebe Grüße
http://www.cameranu.nl/nl/search?q=Nikon+Forestry+Pro This is for reference for anyone interested (click on the little Dutch flag at the very top of the page, a Union Jack will appear, click on it to get a translation into English) If you want to know Courier delivery price, go through the order procedure to that point but you don't have to confirm the order, you can just look)
www.cameranu.nl The direct link didn't work, put Nikon Forestry Pro into the box marked 'Zoeken' top right hand corner of page, when result comes up click on the little Dutch flag to get in translated.
It looks like they are out of stock at the moment.
Good morning Conifers
Yes periodic freezes do kill globulus including mine in Oxfordshire 21m tall in 8 years. Before 1947 there were many in Cornwall of considerable size. By the time a killing winter comes along maybe every 50 years they can be well over 30m x 1m diameter. There are also hardier sources of seed now and much has been learned.
Would define N.W.Europe as Scandinavia France, Germany British Isles, Holland, Belgum etc.
Entschuldigung, ich verstehe dich nicht ganz. Diese zwei Bäume sind doch berühmt, sie sind in jedem Reiseführer. Aber nicht eine einzige Quelle sagt, dass sie mehrstämmig sind.
Then a good candidate for the tallest exotic broadleaf tree in N.W. Europe is this Platanus x hispanica:
platane (Platanus × hispanica) '8378'
There is also a claim for a 55-metre Platanus x hispanica in southern France (Sisley's message on this forum).
A candidate for the tallest non-Platanus: this Populus x canadensis:
Mehrstämmige Bäume waren bis vor kurzem ausgeschlossen von den diversen Listen auf MT. Es steht zB. auch bei den Umfangrekordenhttp://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/umfangrekorde/
angeschrieben. Dennoch sind sie jetzt aber sichtbar, aber ich glaube auf Grund eines Programmfehlers. Daher kannte ich bis vor deinem Bericht, diesen Baum nicht.
Wie soll man sonst auch auf die Existenz kommen, wenn er zwar auf MT enthalten, aber nirgends aufscheint?!
Es ist auch auf einer "Österreich-Rekordliste" ein mehrstämmiger von mir enthalten.
Das muss wirklich ein Fehler sein, weil die Bäume nicht in der Pinus canariensis -Rekordliste stehen http://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/baeume/pinuscanariensis/rekorde/). Oder die Liste wurde nicht aktualisiert nachdem ich die Bäume als mehrstämmig änderte. Ich werde Tim fragen (auch wenn er wahrscheinlich nicht antwortet).
When I saw this tree in 2002 it appeared to be still adding height by about 30-40cm per year. Likely tallest Abies procera now?
What height did you record Stephen in 2002?
In Sept 2002 I recorded 53m from 2 different taped baselines of 50m at 2 different directions. Owen recorded 51m in 2007 but not sure if tangent or sine? As you know the tangent clinometer method is not very accurate, but the measurements indicate the tree is reasonably vertical. I am confident it is well over 50m and including the girth is very likely the largest in the world outside of its native range! Perhaps the tree at Taymouth Gardens maybe equally as big by volume. Possibly 40-50m3? Noble Fir generally has little taper in the trunk so can have larger trunk volumes as opposed to other species.
Will perhaps be one of our tallest species (to 60m+) but height growth often retarded due to heavy cones at the top causing breakage, but this tree cone free and still adding height. Most trees are in arboreta with little forestry plantings so as it is not frequently planted as Douglas we may not know what potential size it could reach. It maybe our longest lived Abies here? I Love it!!
I love Nobles too, especially if they keep a nice spire at the top instead of going more flat topped. The Dunans speciman looks superb, looking forward to hearing how tall this one is when no doubt it eventually gets measured. Even with the perspectives in the photo, it does not look that far beind the big Douglas Fir.
I just did a rough hypsometer measurement off a paced baseline in 2007, so it could well be 53m not 51m. This site has encouraged me to pull my socks up and start taking more care over height-measurements, though in fairness I remember recording about 300 trees at Benmore that day, plus another hundred up and down the mountainside at Kilmun (in June, so not dark until 10pm) - it's impossible to lavish enough attention on every good tree in Britain!
You could spend a whole fortnight looking at trees here, so much to see. Maybe more tree species here over 50m than anywhere else in N.W. Europe!
Noble fir measured an average 53.6m for the record, but clinometer too inaccurate to measure to this accuracy. Assuming growth 30cm per year since 2002 would be in the region of 56m now, possibly? Seems to be growing a steady 3cm per year in girth.
"but clinometer too inaccurate to measure to this accuracy"
Perhaps it is time to by a laser? You would be a valuable addition to our team!
I meant, to our laser-team. Of course, you are valuable member without a laser, too!
I agree with Kouta, you would be Stephen. I hummed and arrred for ages about buying a laser when I first started coming on to this forum (and at first struggled to appreciate how the Nikon laser hypsometers worked), would it be worth shelling out all that for the trees that I would find? Jeroen worked his magic and supplied me with a source where I could buy a new laser at a reasonable price (as opposed to rip off Britain), I bought one and don't regret it for a second now, have spent many enjoyable hours using it and from using it now understand exactly how it works. Conifers, you were also humming and arrring, are you ever going to take the plunge as well? For anyone considering, from the service I received I would definitely use Jeroen's recommendation, new Nikon Foresty Pros are available at a fraction of the cost that they are over here in Britain.
If you buy Forestry Pro, remember to use the 2-point routine! The 3-point routine (that is in the guide book described as the height routine) is not more reliable than Vertex and other tangent-based instruments.
More I think about it, the next progression for the Nikon lasers, zoom in on the eye piece, instead of just having a 6 times magnification spotter scope, a zoom in scope of up to say 30 times, how much easier to see and hit then would the tips of Douglas Firs be for example. Would a zoom work with one of these lasers, the eyepiece cross and laser must be calabrated to to hit the same point must they not when you look through the eyepiece and put the cross on the tree tip and then fire the laser? How does this work though with varifying distances, how does the effective focal point work, stay the same?
I think the most important improvement for Nikon would be a better clinometer. Now the clinometer readings (and hence the heights) fluctuate too much. A higher magnification would not help much without a tripod, I think.
Yes you are right I am hoping to purchase one soon. Trying to tape baselines in undergrowth is hopeless and much time consuming and yes very outdated with a considerable risk of potential error. I agree one needs to progress to more credible measurement techniques! I understand that clinometers are likely to have an error of 2% even with care? Although I am a fastidious measurer and take great care and with caution. Some of my measurements have come remarkably close to the laser sine method though.
Such a detailed topic I will start new discussion on which are generally the best lasers to measure tall trees.
Stephen, search right down the list of previous discussions and you will eventually come to several long discussions about lasers, we have had it all out before for my benefit and others. The discussions are pretty recent.
Not sure, the most difficult thing I find, parrticularly with conifers like Douglas Fir, is actually getting a hit on the long leading shoot as from the distance you have to be back most times to see the top properly, the shoot becomes very thin even through the 6x finderscope, that with the inevitable slight handshake plus any wind buffeting makes the tip very hard to hit. With a greater magnification, the shoot would be much bigger and you could aim right in the centre of it as it would be much easier to see. This would probably make a clean hit much easier.
I have been looking at my laser, not sure how the focal point works, whether the laser beam and eye view from the cross do converge to a point at some distance? The laser and the eye piece are only about 1 inch apart so I suppose the discrepancy is at a minimum. Even if the eyeline view via the cross is about 1 inch above the line of the laser beam coming out of the Nikon, 2.5 cm is a very small discrepancy.
Rob and all
Been thinking of buying an Impulse 200 but cost £1900! Dr Robert Van Pelt (big tree man on west coast US) told me they are by far the best and most accurate (to 3-5cm horizontal distance accuracy to a tree from 150m away) Been thinking about this for years! One UK dealer I know and have met on various forestry shows I have been to. You can tripod mount and have a remote trigger cable for the laser so you don't move it when pressing buttons. Also can be shock proof and waterproof to 1 metre below water, not that I would be scuba diving with it though!
Interestingly they have just brought out a much more accurate tru pulse laser?
Good video on timber cruising bottom right of page
Would welcome any feedback on these if anybody else has used them
Oh just a thought that as we both like big Pacific Coast conifers here is a great link from Washington State Dept of Natural Resources showing how these trees grow in the wild. See pdf downloads.
Could you explain the difference between the 2 and 3 point routine, one is like tangent I assume? Does the impulse work the same way as a Nikon Forestry Pro? I remember reading in the past about all of these lasers on the Native Tree Society site, the pros and cons of each device. Seemed to get the impression that the vertex and transponder were not very accurate in their method.
It makes no sense to buy an Impulse anymore. TruPulse 200X will replace it. First five 200X-lasers have arrived in Germany and Karlheinz (a member of this forum) has got one of them. His first feeling is that 200X is excellent but it costs 1900 eur. The NTS folks from the eastern US say Impulse is not good for meausuring in broadleaf forest because its beam it very wide and it is difficult to penetrate broadleaf clutter with it. Old TruPulse 200 and 360 have narrower beam but still wider than that of Nikon. Otherwise 200 and 360 are more precise instruments than Nikon. The beam of 200X is narrower than that of 200 and 360 and probably also narrower than Nikon's beam. 200X also has a filter that ignores all the objects that are closer than a distance given by user; this should still improve its clutter penetration. Karlheinz will write a report on 200X on this forum soon. I only have Nikon, I can only say what I have read and heard but the reasonable choices seem to be:
- Nikon Laser 550A S - not very accurate but reliable enough for our purposes
- Nikon Forestry Pro - as the preceding plus 3-point routine (which you should not use!)
- TruPulse 200 - more accurate than Nikons but wider beam
- TruPulse 360 - as the preceding plus an integrated compass that allows to measure azimuth
- TruPulse 200X - still more accurate, narrow beam
2-point routine: You shoot the top - the device measures the distance d1 and the angle a1. Then you shoot the base - the device measures the distance d2 and the angle a2. The height is d1*sin a1 + d2*sin a2. This is the sine method.
3-point routine: You shoot a point at the trunk - the device measures the distance d. Then you shoot the top - the device measures the angle a1. Then you shoot the base - the device measures the angle a2. The height is d * tan a1 + d * tan a2. This uses the tangent method. Accurate only if the trunk is perfectly straight and upright. -> DON'T USE!
The methods have also been described very well on this page, written mainly by Jeroen:
Of the above-mentioned instruments Nikon 550 has only the 2-point routine, the others having the both routines.
Like the 3-point routine, Vertex is accurate only if the trunk is perfectly straight and upright.
Thank you very much a great help in deciding which is the best. Obviously the 200x is going to supercede the Impulse, looks like the 200x for me, will find out its cost from our U.K based dealer, if available yet. Look forward to the report on it soon.
If the 3 point routine is so inaccurate why do they persist in using it? A good question as most trees lean as we know.
Query, I presume to get the most accurate reading one has to be generally the same distance away from the tree as its height when shooting to the top? (Not a 100m away on a 30m tree if possible?) to be within an 1% error etc?
I actually forgot to mention Nikon Forestry 550. It is identical with Nikon Laser 550A S apart from the eye-piece that is a bit better in Forestry, but fully ok in AS too. The A S has obviously been made for the Continental Europe markets as it does not have feet, only yards and metres.
The 3-point routine is fully acceptable for the forestry use. Foresters don't want to know the heights of individual trees. If you measure hundred trees, you will get under-measurements and over-measurements but what is interesting is the mean. The result for the whole stand is accurate enough. You should know better than me, as you are forester if I have understood correctly. It is much faster to measure with the 3-point routine as you don't have to find a canopy window where the beam can penetrate. You only need to measure angles, so you can also shoot tops through clutter.
45 degrees angle should be ideal, indeed. But if it is 60 or 30 it does not make much difference.
Owen, is David Alderman still up in Scotland tree measuring? Abit wild at the moment but high pressure moving in again next week, no chance that he might head this way to measure the big Noble Fir or the Dunans Noble and Douglas Firs, be a nice way to finish the year with an even taller Douglas Fir?
He was only in Scotland for a couple of days, but Chic Henderson, who lives in Scotland and has long been interested in tall trees, now has a Nikon laser and I hope he will be able to provide up-to-date measurements for the best Scottish trees. December is not a good time to visit Scotland as it only gets light for a few minutes, then it's night-time again.
"December is not a good time to visit Scotland as it only gets light for a few minutes, then it's night-time again."
Wow, Scotland seems to be at a higher latitude than Finland! ;)
Hi, I'm currently adding the Caucasian country Georgia.
Geographically speaking this country is not part of Europa, as I think it is south of the Caucasus watershed, but maybe you would like me to add it to Asia, Middle East, and Europe. This is relevant only for the records pages. If I add Georgia to Europe, then Georgian record trees will appear on the "Records in Europe" pages.
Difficult one! Traditionally, it is in Asia, but the people who live there like to consider themselves European.
Maybe we should follow biogeographical regions?http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ecozones.png
It is from now on possible to add trees in Georgia. I have added the country Georgia to the region "Asia" only ("Europe" can be simply added on request).
Using simplified climate zones or other ecozones is a good idea, but is hard to implement as parts of a country can be part of one zone, and another one of another zone. Nothing is impossible, but as it would be a lot of work for me and the expected gain very small, I prefer not to do it.
Tim, Conifers & others,
I find the question very important from the perspective of record trees. Abies nordmanniana has been claimed to be the tallest European tree but if the border is placed on the crest of the Caucasus Range, it is not a European tree! Also the Russian part, where it is native, then belongs to Asia. I would place Georgia and some other "border countries" in the both continents. The Wikipedia list of the European countries also includes Georgia:
If the continents are defined strictly geographically, the Canary Islands are in Africa. Now they are on MT in Europe along the rest of Spain.
Hi Kouta - in strict geographical terms the Canary Islands are neither Europe nor Africa, since they are not on the African or European continental plates, they are Atlantic Ocean islands (Macaronesia) ;-)
Also - re "Abies nordmanniana has been claimed to be the tallest European tree but if the border is placed on the crest of the Caucasus Range, it is not a European tree!" - the claimed tallest specimens are in the Western Caucasus Biosphere Reserve, which is in Russia, on the north slope of the Caucasus, and therefore in Europe, not in Georgia / Asia.
I have added "Georgia" to the larger area "Europe", like it was already part of "Asia". Indeed, the fact that either all administrative divisions of a country or none belong to such an area is a limitation, as Kouta's example of the Canary islands shows. There are many others too, like the French Guiana, the islands of Guadeloupe, Réunion, ... , Greenland, New Caledonia, ... I could solve that by not assigning a country to such a larger area, but a lower administrative level to an area. That would also allow us to have more fine grained areas defined (not limited to continents), eg. climate zones, soil types, ... I'll put it on the to do list with medium priority.
Yeaah, now I can load up all my trees from Atlanta....
Conifers, at 2013-07-28 21:07:15, edited at 2013-07-28 21:50:11, said:
Hi Kouta - in strict geographical terms the Canary Islands are neither Europe nor Africa, since they are not on the African or European continental plates, they are Atlantic Ocean islands (Macaronesia) ;-)
Also - re "Abies nordmanniana has been claimed to be the tallest European tree but if the border is placed on the crest of the Caucasus Range, it is not a European tree!" - the claimed tallest specimens are in the Western Caucasus Biosphere Reserve, which is in Russia, on the north slope of the Caucasus, and therefore in Europe, not in Georgia / Asia.
As I searched another discussion, I ended up in this old one.
Conifers, you don't know if the claimed A. nordmanniana tree is on the north or on the south slope. The World Heritage site extends to the both sides of the watershed. The document does not give an exact location. I would guess it is more probable that it is on the south slope as the climate is much moister there.
"Conifers, you don't know if the claimed A. nordmanniana tree is on the north or on the south slope. The World Heritage site extends to the both sides of the watershed. The document does not give an exact location. I would guess it is more probable that it is on the south slope as the climate is much moister there
But the World Heritage site is all in Russia; the Russia-Georgia border leaves the Caucasus watershed and cuts down to the Black Sea between Adler (Ru) and Gagra (Ge). I presume the traditional boundary of Europe and Asia does the same, otherwise there would be a narrow strip of "Asia" running along the Russian Black Sea coast all the way up to the water joining the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea - which I've never seen suggested before.
"otherwise there would be a narrow strip of "Asia" running along the Russian Black Sea coast all the way up to the water joining the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea"
That is how I understand the pure geographical definition "the border is on the watershed". It is also said that a small part of Georgia is in Europe.
Anyway, I suggest that we use a broad definition for Europe, including Canary Islands, Madeira, Georgia, maybe even Azerbaijan and Armenia. Then we have more challenges in measuring ;)
Are there any more tall trees of any species of any note in the Dunster woods? What will be the potentail of the Douglas Firs here, aare they liable to keep growing or will they level off? The climate will be milder and there will be more light but is there enough moisture compared to other favourable locations?
Alan Mitchell recorded some extremely fast-growing Sitka Spruce there ("in a much-flooded valley bottom at Culverwell near Dunster"), one of them 40m in 43 years (1970).
All the tallest trees in the stand below Broadwood Farm are Douglas. They have been underplanted with Nothofagus alpina, Metasequoia and Magnolia x veitchii, all of which may be inspired to great things. I think I found Alan's 1928 Sitka plantation, in Langridge Wood below Culverwells. Most of the trees were on the ground; much the best of the few survivors was about 46m, so a disappointing tail-off.
It would be great if they planted Sequoia Sempervirens here! They would grow like a rocket in the shelter. Fastest growing conifer up to 40m in 40 years here!
Have you ever visited the 'Charles Ackers Grove' at Leighton Hall Stephen? The Sequoia grove there is great, nothing else like it over here. This site and grove deserves to be on here but the warden David Williams was abit prickly about photographs being posted on the net despite the grove already being featured herehttp://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/picturepages/leighton.htm
I have a load of photos of the trees here and Jeroen also has some great photos of the trees.
Yes I have been to the redwood grove many times, was there in Sept. Amazing supposed to have the greatest volume of wood standing per hectare anywhere in Europe! Trees have grown a lot since I was last there in 2003.
I saw your picture of the giant sequoia by Leighton Hall. I saw this too and remembered that it was huge, nearby one has a dead top, probably lightning.
Strangely no redwood seedlings in the grove? Grow like weeds in the New Forest!
Did you see the 61m Grand Fir nearby?
How much is the wood volume / ha in the Charles Ackers Grove?
The Standing volume when last measured of the 1847 Sequoia sempervirens was nearly 3000m3 per hectare, this will include a fairly high bark percentage of course. Could there be any other stands in Europe that equal this?
A 1934 stand close by has already 1200m3 per hectare. Can grow 30-40m3 per hectare at peak production in a stand. Best stands in the UK equal good sites in California, but not the best where 70m+ is reached in 100 years.
There are trees in the New Forest 47m tall and 150cm diameter planted in 1955!! I think these New Forest trees are likely to be the fastest growing conifers in Europe up to 40m when Grand Fir takes over.
Thanks for the pdf. A great site! I don't think there are stands with equal wood volume in Europe. The highest figure for the native European trees, I have read about, is 2600 m3/ha for Picea orientalis in the Caucasus. Source: Schmidt, P. A. (2002): Bäume und Sträucher Kaukasiens. Mitt. Dtsch. Dendrol. Ges. 87, Teil 1.
In terms of biomass, there could be more massive eucalypt stands in Spain & Portugal as the eucalypt wood density is almost twice as high as that of redwood.
That is a nice webpage Stephen, nice photographs. When I visited in Aug 2011, they were really thinning the redwoods out, there was a big pile of logs up near the big red house, they were throwing up sprouts off the trunks. The will to live of Sequoia is why I like these trees so much. That fallen tree in the photo with new trunks arising form it is amazing how it stands in the wind and doesn't tip over with the leverage of all those new upright 'trees'. I would love to live near this grove and be able to have a walk in it when I wanted. The planners and planters at Leighton had real vision planting en masse like this instead of the usual, staid, stately home plantings of one or two redwoods. The Armstrong planting at Cragside is another visionary planting and the Sawley Hall Sequioadendrons are also quite visionary, we certainly benefit from their vision. Would love to have another visit to Longleat, another seemingly visionary planting. There were no proper location details when I visited afew years ago and I couldn't locate the 54 metre Coast Redwood, I asked people for directions and ended up being sent to the Sequoiadendron grove in Centre Parcs (on this site)
Not forgetting this must be almost 20%-30% bark, the bark on these trees is rather thick and poorer than other stands I have seen in the UK.
Interesting about the Picea orientalis. What about Abies nordmanniana in the Caucasus?
E. globulus I assume for perhaps greater biomass?
Yes I was there in Sept seemed to have grown a lot since 2003. Yes such vision.
Wonderful stand at Dartington in Devon the speed they grow is incredible. I think this species has great promise in the U.K. especially with climate change making it even more suitable. Trouble is some 'people' are removing conifers on good sites to plant scruffy squirrel damaged oak scrub, where redwood would thrive especially in the South West!
Yes seen the redwoods at Longleat has the biggest stand outside California, 126 acres, was there when studying forestry. Must see this 54m redwood!
Bye the way big Douglas at Alnwick measured any?
"Bye the way big Douglas at Alnwick measured any?
If you mean Hulne Park, there's nothing particularly large there. I've been there several times and don't recollect anything taller than about 35-40m, nor any obviously stout trunks. Kyloe and Cragside are far better.
The same source gives 2000 m3/ha as the maximum for Abies nordmanniana. The reference does not say how these figures have been achieved, how large were study areas etc. 2000 m3/ha has been given for Abies alba, too (Bucher, H. U. (2008): Abies alba. In Schütt et al. (eds.) Lexikon der Nadelbäume. Nikol).
Actually, the source for Abies alba may not mean the total wood volume at a given time, but the maximum wood volume produced by a stand during the whole cycle, thus it may include the wood volume harvested during thinning PLUS the final wood volume at clearfelling. And it actually says >2000 m3/ha. But the source for the Caucasian trees is speaking about true stand wood volume.
Here are David Alderman's comments on his more accurate remeasurement of this tree:
Last Thursday I met up with Charles (Chic) Henderson and we went recording tall trees. The objective was primarily to gain experience and confidence using the Nikon Forestry 550. Chic has been using his for most of the year.
At Reelig Glen we thought it a good idea to attempt to match the heights recorded in the summer of 2013. The tallest of the Pseudotsuga menziesii growing below Dughall Mor, recorded as 64.8m initially gave us both readings of at least 66m.
To accurately measure this tree we pinned a 10cm square piece of white paper on the trunk at 2m above ground level, taken from the mid-point of the slope and allowing for debris. Equally we could have placed this near the base but wanted to avoid any possibility of the laser being obstructed by various small branches.
At distances of 40m-45m we both recorded heights of 64.4m + 2m. After ten minutes of recording our lowest total measurement was only 66.2m. Measuring to an agreed point near the base we were still able to record a total height of 66.4m and the result of this is on the attached image.
However, on walking downstream on the path and slightly nearer the tree 30-35m, we were able to consistently record the 64.8m as recorded in the summer and also obtained our lowest measurement of 64.2m. So, there appears to be one or more lateral branches below the tip that obstruct the laser from this angle. Elevating the laser above the apparent tip misses the true tip completely but is visually convincing to suggest you are hitting the tip when you do obtain a reading. From this point we considered that even if using a tripod the chances of hitting the tip are slim. At the slightly greater distance and with a lower angle it is enough to miss any low branches and hit the true tip.
If we had recorded first at 35m and both consistently recorded 64.8m we may not have tried from further away. We were unable to gain any additional heights to other trees and confirmed the summer heights for Dughall Mor, the Abies grandis and other Pseudotsuga. This gives us confidence that the tall tree was 66m in the summer.
Whilst measuring other trees during the day it was useful having two lasers simultaneously recording from different angles and distances as it sometimes took many attempts to both obtain the same tallest reading. Selecting the best view point is critical and not always obvious. It would have been easy to under record the height of several trees we visited if measuring alone and from one place only. On the down side, some trees were just impossible to record using the laser. A hypsometer is still an essential piece of kit to carry!
So, the unexpected result of our visit is that Reelig Glen and Scotland regains the tallest tree title and has the first tree over 66m!
Wow - new Europe record for conifers! So the measurers are David Alderman and Charles Henderson? You can also set them as measurers on the MT page - let me know if you need help.
Fantastic- exciting times for tall trees at the moment. I have been using the Nikon Forestry Pro now for 17 months and I have to say for a tree this tall, I would have tried to get further back than 30 to 35 metres, I like to get about as far back if possible as roughly the tree is tall so would have tried, tried to get 50 metres back or abit more. Yes, it does make the tip smaller but it prevents the tip being missed or hidden. It is difficult though and you have to measure where you can, the 53 metre Sequoiadendron at Hebden I have only been able to get around 30 metres back whilst still being able to see the base so this for one is rather a steep measurement than ideal.
David Alderman has measured to the mid point of the slope, is this being adopted now by TROBI as standard for measuring trees on slopes? I have to say that I agree with Kouta that it should be the standard and not the high side.
It is quite interesting because as I said to Owen, the Betws Douglas, could only get a window in to a root buttress coming off the base on the high side of the base and this is what I measured to, I wanted a hit on solid wood. The measurement to the mid point of the base would probably be abit more but I doubt a metre, possibly half a metre so I doubt it is 66.4 metres like for like with this Reelig tree.
I should have done the same thing ideally at Betws with the white card but it was so tangled with high brambles and deep, hidden fissures, I couldn't get near enough the trunk to girth it so had to estimate it.
Here is a good example of the kind of 'dodgy' records Scholem has drawn attention to! If it is accurate, this must be the largest Abies amabilis recorded outside its native range - but Abies are particularly tricky trees to identify and somebody (me in this case) has to decide whether the (anonymous) recorders for TROI 13 years ago would have been able to distinguish it confidently from the surrounding Abies nordmanniana. (The TROI report also has more misprints than it should have done, so this could even be a much smaller tree with an error in the girth.) Also, I lack the information to point to the particular crown on the Google aerial photo. This would certainly be a tree worth relocating and photographing - but finding it again really would be a job for an expert. Given the species track-record in cultivation, it is also quite likely to have died or blown down in the intervening 13 years...
Pacific Silver Firs sound like abit of a pain, why are they so fussy and prone to diseases?
is actually easy to identify, the only confusion species is Abies mariesii
. The character to look for is the shoot pubescence, which is very dense, like velvet, and pinky-orange colour (pic
), quite unlike the sparser scurfy hairs on A. nordmanniana. Abies mariesii
has similar pubescence, but with shorter needles (~2 cm), and is a smaller tree (unlikely to get over 10-15 m tall). The cones are also distinctive, purple-black with no bracts visible, 8-16 cm long (pic
; same colour, but 5-10 cm long in A. mariesii
As to why it is so unreliable - perhaps susceptibility to soil-borne pathogens like Phytophthora? Maybe it needs well-drained, but reasonably moist soil.
Of specimens, I remember seeing (and verifying from shoot pubescence) an excellent vigorous specimen years ago at the Cally Palace Hotel in Gatehouse of Fleet, Dumfries and Galloway; I didn't measure it, but would guess it was then in the region of 25-30 m tall, so it would definitely be worth checking. The only other good healthy specimen I've seen is in the Danish National Arboretum at Hørsholm, north of København, about 14 m tall when I last saw it.
I did not find an Abies amabilis when I was at Cally Palace in 2009, so it has probably done the usual, and died. The bark is also of course very different from that of A. nordmanniana, but my point was that it can be dangerous to second-guess the extent of the plant knowledge of any anonymous recorder.
Abies amabilis should grow very well in the coolest wettest parts of the U.K. I think some seed sources used in the past were unsuited. Best hopes for this species would result from seed sources from the few low elevation stands in Washington. As it is not common and so few trees it is difficult to judge its performance?
Abies amabilis has been recorded up to 236' tall in Washington state, in the coastal belt where the conditions ought to be similar to Argyllshire etc, so it's a puzzle why it's never very happy. Of the trees recorded by Alan Mitchell and others before him, we have refound ten (and found six more large mature ones), but near 60 others have disappeared. Those that are left have often retrenched, or look sickly, or have fungal attack at the base. Droughts obviously don't help, but I assumed Argyll was less prone to this than Washington.
If you are not sure about the identification, it would perhaps be better to answer "no" to the question "Are you sure the tree exists as described above".
I think the species has not been given a full trial with seed sources from its natural range. As it is so little planted with few trees I think it is difficult to judge its performance? Young trees I have seen have always looked vigorous in the right places. Could be susceptible to aphid attack like Abies alba? Adelgid?
I did put 'I'm not sure' for this tree (and for many others) during the recording dialogue, but I don't think this is reflected in how the final record appears? (I would like to answer 'I'm not sure' all the time, as you can never tell when a tree is going to die or blow down, and my memory or my GPS co-ordinates are seldom precise enough for me to be able to point the individual crown on the aerial photo. Also, the identification of rare trees in collections is always likely to change as different experts scrutinise them. The more I discover, the less I know that I know!)
Scholem has pointed out that members of the public using the information in the expectation that they will be able to walk straight up to each tree and find it just as it appears on this site, will sometimes be disappointed. I have also received feedback in the case of trees that have gone missing from www.ancientreehunt.org.uk and www.treeregister.org. Perhaps there should be a warning on this site's main page that not all the trees will still appear as they were registered?
It was I who recorded the trees at Charleville back in March 2000.It was one of the first properties visited by me
for the Tree Register of Ireland. Owen is correct to question the veracity of the Abies amabillis.I did not then have
Alan Mitchell's records from his visit there in 1989. He recorded 6 A.nordmanniana and a single A.amabillis of 34m x
87.36 diameter. I recorded 5 A.nordmanniana and 3 A.amabillis.It seems certain that I confused the 2 large A.nordman
with A.amabillis due to my inexperience. Unfortunatly the estate is very private and I have had only one opportunity
since to visit there and bring a group around,being unaware of the confused identity of the Abies.
Thanks for the note. I tested the question "Are you sure the tree exists as described above?" with this tree. Indeed, if you answer "I don't know" it does not change the appearance of the page. You should answer "No". Then "The existence of this tree has not been confirmed yet" appears after the measurements.
I think there should not be the choice "I don't know" at all. What does it mean? You are sure or you are not sure. If you don't know if you are sure, then you are not sure. I will ask Tim to remove "I don't know".
Hi all. If you visit this site, your interests are apparently in coördinance with the aim of this site. Nevertheless, you can handle the site from a very different perspective. My vieuw is mainly the monumentality of the trees and not the arithmethic properties. If a tree is 45 metres high or 50 metres is of no intrest for me. The girth is more interesting because it stands for age. If a tree has lived in the time of Jesus or Napoleon does make a differnce for me. I would very much like it if you value trees from the view. Is 48 or 50 or 52 relevant?
Both are of value to me ;-) The ancient tree that has outlasted the years, but also the tree that towers so high above you that you feel insignificant. And also a third important component, trees that are there by their own doing, with nothing of the hand of man in their history: the wild wood, where you never know just what might be round the next corner . . .
For me, one of the great things on MT is that it can accommodate diverse types of tree lovers. Some of us loves tall trees, others fat trees or old trees, some prefer trees in cultural, others in natural setting. For me personally, girth and age are only of a limited interst, the main reason being that in my opinion trees are not individuals. We human beings have a tendency to judge all the natural objects like they would be like us and other animals. However, plants can be divided and they regenerate vegetatively. If you divide a shrub, which one of the halves continues to be the old individual? Or does the old individual die although its cells continue to live? Or does it continue to live in two separate parts? Many people seem to answer yes to the last question as they claim Pando is one organism although it is unlikely that all of its original root contacts still remain. Or are later root grafts also counted? Then we also have huge organisms in our countries as trees very often make root grafts. If you imagine trees are individuals as we are and think a bit further you will very soon notice you are in a dead end. Ultimately, a plant is a mass of cells that sophisticatedly co-operate. You can divide that mass and the cells will re-organize. Or the mass may make contact, co-operate and fuse with another mass of cells.
I am not a car enthusiast but nevertheless use a car parable. Maybe I exaggerate a bit but for me, a tree like this (am Dorfanger) is like a Toyota HiAce 1970 model that has withstanded a collision and barely functions. I don't want to offend anybody and I appreciate all the other views what makes a tree interesting. Instead, trees like these (hêtre (Fagus sylvatica) '12481', épicéa commun (Picea abies) '4928') are for me like modern Ferrari sports cars. How high they can lift their leaves! Like Conifers, I prefer trees in wild settings. Particularly in Central Europe, many people see the trees as cultural objects (interesting is the HISTORY involved with trees: which duke planted the tree for who etc.) and I also appreciate that view.
Anyway, I think there is enough room for all the perspectives and views on MT.
I tried to link three trees with the [txxxx]-syntax but the system placed links to wrong trees. I now edited the post and placed there full URLs.
I can offer some objective comments on the value of maintaining records of individual trees, based on my experience in curating the Tree Register, which is a database in a later stage of development than Monumental Trees and now has 200,000 trees on it. I think that the biggest value of a resource like this is for conservation purposes. It is very useful to know the precise whereabouts and numbers of trees that are endangered - both the wild examples, and cultivated examples of species which are at risk in their native habitats. (In Europe, the great majority will fall into the latter category.) Trees in the last stages of their life-cycles will be likely to support endangered fungi, insects, etc, and their whereabouts will be of interest to scientists studying these organisms. (It has been suggested that the biggest contribution we in Britain can make to international nature conservation is to catalogue and protect our rich heritage of Ancient Trees.) Recording a tree is also a step towards protecting it - particularly if the owner is inspired by learning it is the biggest of its kind in the local area.
Another benefit in recording trees is to try to educate the wider public. It is easy to take trees for granted, and to ignore the threats facing them. Photos in particular of remarkable trees can interest and inspire people in general. As the most remarkable thing about trees is often their size, lists of 'champion' specimens can also bring welcome publicity.
As trees tend to live longer than people, it is particularly important to try to curate the information about them over long periods of time. A community-based initiative like this one, so long as it keeps pace with changing technologies, provides the best chance that a measurement I make of a tree today will still be accessible for somebody looking for it again in a hundred years time.
I do find that these considerations have altered the kinds of trees I record. When I started measuring trees, a Giant Sequoia 7 metres in girth would impress me and I would record it. But the Tree Register has several thousand Giant Sequoias over 7m in girth already, so the details of yet another one, however much it may impress people, are objectively of 'low value'. A Nothotsuga longibracteata 3m tall, by contrast, would probably be ignored by 99 tree-lovers out of a hundred, but a record of it would be of 'high value' because the species is a threatened one and we have very little information, yet, about how it is going to behave in cultivation. Similarly, I would be more likely to record a Quercus robur 4m in girth, with some interesting rot-holes and dieback, than a healthy and vigorous one 6m in girth.
I tend to agree with Kouta overall although I do treat trees as individuals somewhat and enjoy saying hello to old friends when I go to see them, thankful that they are still there. I am more interested in height than girth, I am now much better (with height measuring experience) at estimating height than girth. I am also very interested in reading and learning about what height proportions trees can attain in various regions, counties over here specifically. I do enjoy it when I find something that defies what should be the normal size and as exceeded that normality even if it isn't a national champion. With Owen's amazing input now for the UK along with the continental compilers, this site is becoming an amazing database of information. Not so fond of all the squabbling and sulking when people post photos and get upset when people rate them, beats me, the trees are the important things. Monumental to me signifies trees of noted girth or height. What I like is a photo to show me the full tree, ideally with a person or something for size context, plus ideally some more photos from wider angles to show where and how it stands.
I like more, when people who registred trees also are the people who find a tree. What I am not like are trees without any pictures or description beside, reduced only to numbers of girth and height.
We have now 3 countries (UK, Poland & Hungary) with very much trees, but very less pics and for some of them nobody knows, if the trees are really existing or only in the brain of the registrymaniacs!
But for the real treefinders and treelovers for me is everything allowed and fascinating, girth, height, climbing, finding, or whatever....
Forgot to say, I don't like regimented trees in lines but I do like (don't mind) trees is pseudo wild settings, like Studley gardens for example. I have visited the Wellingtonia avenue in Berkshire and much prefer the wild setting of the Sequoiadendrons at Hebden Wood. Not that fond of the avenue of Sequoiadendron at Benmore, if I had planted that garden last century I would have wanted the pseudo wild setting, redwoods planted hap hazzardly.
"If you divide a shrub, which one of the halves continues to be the old individual? Or does the old individual die although its cells continue to live? Or does it continue to live in two separate parts? Many people seem to answer yes to the last question as they claim Pando is one organism although it is unlikely that all of its original root contacts still remain
On this basis, the largest tree in Britain is Cupressus × leylandii 'Haggerston Grey', divided into its 50 million constituent parts . . . uggh, what a horrible thought! ;-)
"What I am not like are trees without any pictures or description beside, reduced only to numbers of girth and height."
I agree if the tree is nothing special ("VW Passat"). But as this site is also meant to be a register of the tallest & fattest trees it is important to get the record and near-record trees here even if no photo is available. Again, I believe there is enough room for trees with and without photos.
Conifers, how do you change text colour?
Hi Kouta - with HTML text formatting; you can have a wide range of colours.
Change the square brackets [ ] into triangular ones < > to get the desired colour:
[font color=green]green text[/font] makes green text
[font color=red]red text[/font] makes red text
[font color=darkred]dark red text[/font] makes dark red text
[font color=blue]blue text[/font] = blue text
Note the need to use the american spelling 'color'; 'colour' won't work.
I made my special experieces with another "tree-register", I meet yesterday the fourth tree which is only existing in that register, but not in life! Ok, I can help to bring this in the right way, but people, who are only interested in visiting trees will say after the fourth failure: This page is unseirious, you should not believe it.
If some would make holydays in the UK or Poland and maybe also looking to some "Record trees", but cannot find them because also the registring man or woman dont know really about the existing of that trees, to whom they would send the "damages suit"?
Nobody will say: "The user xyz is not serious", people would say "Monumental trees is not serious" and with this, all of us, who are interested in real trees will get also "unserious".
I hope some understand, what I mean.
A good point, Scholem. Our work is based on honesty and trust. If someone wants to make a reputation for himself as a tree hunter by dishonest means it is easy to register exaggerated numbers even with photos, by choosing a photo perspective that does not reveal the real dimensions. Proving honesty largely funktions by revealing the location: If more than one measurement will be proved to be much too high by another measurer, the tree hunter quickly make a reputation for himself as a bad or dishonest tree hunter. Scholem, I get one idea from your message: if a member registers a tree (measured by another measurer) whose exact location he does not know, he should note that in the description. Then nobody tries to go to the marked approximate location and say, the database is unreliable.
BTW, as I wrote "he" above I realized that we all really seem to be males! Is there one single lady on MT?
Regards / LG,
There are some women active on MT. There was a Japanese girl who put some trees on it and yet there's a Belgium girl active on this site. But you are right that it's a site where not many women are active. It' s a pitty.
Greetings from Han
"there's a Belgium girl active on this site"
You know her.
greetings from Han
It think Scholem and KoutaR added an interesting topic. Registered trees without pictures. I think we have to restrain that to an absolute minimum. But I am not dogmatic. I really appreciate that Owen adds so much English and Irish trees. Nevertheless there is some risks in that. I myself am alway triggered to read in a book that at some place there is one or more nice trees. I will also search it if it is one this site. But it is a more challenging tree if it is not registered here. Let's call it a sound ambition. I have used Owen's book before to search for trees. In the mean time I met other trees. I hope that once all his trees are on the site (without pictures), I will still chase them. Think so, but I am not sure and some incentive is gone.
Let me give you an example. For years now, I am planning a trip to Madagaskar. I am quite determined to go there, but I would really feel embarrased if someone registers the fantastic baobab-lane just from a book.....I think that wouldn't work out good in the long run.
correct... Bess is completely female.... ;-) Didn't knew it was that rare on this website... .
Should i give my opinion as well on the subject now?
Well... i'll post trees who are 'monumental' Or, for me, Should get the chance to get old, cause the're already special... (cause of age, history, location, species,... ) To get a list (without pictures of 'species' and young trees) i can usehttp://www.dendrologie.be/ for Belgium... But i have no problem that people post trees without pictures...
And i like to post them with pictures, cause it's nice to see there evolution... on the other hand... It's so great to go and search for a tree, with only the picture of chalon or Kerville... and then see them first 'in real life' or discover there not longer there (like
) .. . So it spoils a bit the 'surprise' if the pictures are on the internet... . It already gets chaotic this explanation... . I was wandering if there ever are 'gatherings' for the members of this website, to talk in real life... :-p? Would be productive as well i guess... .
Know this website for a while, but finally took time to start 'adding' stuff... . Very happy i finally did. So: nice to meet you all!
In reality, You are not alone. Many of that trees, I registrate in the last year were found by my wife Elfie, not me. Especially she had often the better nose where to search.
Her real portfolio: The Dragon platane (Platanus × hispanica) '9706'
the big giant redwoods at Herrmanswörth: Preinrotte
and many other big trees. Also we had some expeditions based to her ideas: Gschaider Sattel
and in den Donauauen
But the very best is, she knows very much what to do with the tree fruits: jam, juice or aromas.....
I never come to the idea to sample the broken red twigs of Taxodium disticum and bring them home as spender of a very nice aroma, which makes our appartment much comfortable.
So I think women has the much better nose to do as only to registrymania and measuremania.
liebe Grüße aus Wien
"I was wandering if there ever are 'gatherings' for the members of this website, to talk in real life... :-p? Would be productive as well i guess..."
Hello Bess and welcome!
I proposed a gathering once, perhaps about one year ago, but nobody was interested. Perhpas there would be more interest now as a girl has joined us...
Long distances and the language issue are naturally problems. A more local gathering (like Belgium+Netherlands) would be more easy to organize.