Je bent niet aangemeld · aanmelden · registreer
 

Overlegpagina van JeroenZutphen14

Nieuw onderwerp toevoegen

Recent overleg

Meer...

Toon enkel overleg in het Nederlands
Archief

Archief


Winter storm damage.
Zichtbaar voor iedereen · permalink · en
RedRob, op 2014-04-15 17:17:30, zei:
How has everyone faired with damage from the winter storms? Quite alot of my own to report, alot of damage, fallen and shattered trees up here.

Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-04-15 21:21:32, zei:
In the NW of the Netherlands there was a lot of storm damage in November and December, in Amsterdam a lot of trees in the old city fell over. In the region where I live in the east there was little storm damage this winter. The winter here was a lot dryer and with less wind compared to most of the UK. January to March were very warm and dry.

Jeroen


Martin Tijdgat, op 2014-04-16 00:57:40, zei:
RedRob and Jeroen,

From the 10.000 trees I take care off in my area (Wijdemeren next to Hilversum) there were 45 storm victims after october 28 2013. 10 birch in one street, 7 young Liquidambar, 5 young Pterocarya stenoptera, and only a few 60 year old trees as oak, Groeneveld-iep, aspen, London plane, willow and lime.

We have already replanted 19 trees like 4 Ostrya carpinifolia, Ulmus 'Frontier', 3-stemmed Parrotia persica, Ginkgo biloba 'Saratoga', Acer platanoides 'Eurostar' Acer rubrum 'Karpick', Ulmus 'Dodoens'. I have to find room for 11 other trees to keep in line with our 60% replant in the local tree policy paper.

Martin



Beuk op de Burcht in Leiden
Zichtbaar voor iedereen · permalink · nl
Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-04-06 20:16:29, gewijzigd op 2014-04-08 19:44:49, zei:
Hoi Wim,

Kun je de leeftijd van deze beuk onderbouwen? Volgens jouw melding de oudste beuk in Nederland die op MT is vermeld en ouder dan de oudste beuk die we in het boek Bijzondere bomen in Nederland hebben gemeld, die uit Haastrecht van 1694.

Dat het park in 1651 is aangelegd zegt weinig over het plantjaar van de beuk, wellicht heb je meer specifieke informatie.

Zo ook is de leeftijd van ± 314 jaar van de beuk van Oegstgeest bepaald niet zeker. Van de beuk in Haastrecht zijn er in ieder geval documenten betreffende de aanplant ter gelegenheid van de geboorte van een kind van de toenmalige eigenaar, zie het artikel in Bijzondere Bomen.

Frank Moens meldt in dat boek voor de beuk in Oegstgeest 1860 - 1870 als plantperiode, ook dat onderbouwt hij niet, maar het vermoeden van de eigenaar van 300 jaar moet op meer gebaseerd zijn om het als feit te accepteren.

Groeten, Jeroen


Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-04-07 07:34:18, zei:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik zal uitzoeken op grond waarvan ik die leeftijd heb toegevoegd. .

Tussendoor een vraag. Normaal krijg vragen ook via mijn mail door. Deze vraag kwam ik toevallig tegen omdat ik op de hoofdpagina langs de nieuwe posts scrolde en jouw vraag tegenkwam. Snap jij het, weet je er iets meer van?.

NB. De eerste keer ( 5 minuten geleden) dat ik deze vraag probeerde te beantwoorden kreeg ik de melding dat er geen verbinding met monumentaltrees.com gemaakt kon worden. Nou gebeurt dit laatste wel vaker, maar in dit geval waard om bij stil te staan, terwijl ook mijn tekst verdwenen was.

Groet

Wim


Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-04-07 09:19:47, zei:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik heb me gebaseerd op het feit dat de Burcht in 1150 is aangelegd en dat het stadsbestuur hem heeft aangekocht en er in 1651 een stadspark van heeft gemaakt. Gezien de plek van de boom en het feit dat deze zo hoog boven het maaiveld stond, vond ik het niet onlogisch dat de boom er al vanaf het begin heeft gestaan. De vertakking van de wortels lijkt daar ook op te duiden. Jij vindt dat dus niet aannemelijk?

Groet

Wim


Conifers, op 2014-04-07 11:30:56, gewijzigd op 2014-04-07 12:04:23, zei:
I agree with Jeroen, this tree is not so old. First, Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare. Second, the cultivar 'Atropunicea' was only described in 1770; there are no records of any purple-leaf Fagus sylvatica cultivars until 1680 (when one was reported at Buchs, Zurich, Switzerland).

It should be possible to find historical evidence for planting dates, or old illustrations with useful information. In a quick look, I found this 1742 drawing showing newly planted trees where this tree is now, but whether it is one of these is not certain (if it is, it would be the middle right tree in the set of nine). However, I suspect even ~1740 is too old for this tree; my guess for its planting date would be around 1800. Can anyone estimate a date for this undated drawing, where the tree is not present?

Edit: I asked someone with experience of historical clothing fashions; he dated the undated drawing as later 18th century, 1750-1800, and definitely later than the 1742 drawing. So the young trees in the 1742 drawing had been removed and replaced with a parterre garden, and cannot include the beech in question.


Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-04-07 15:43:27, zei:
Hi Conifers,

A

I started to try and find an answer to your question about the age of the drawing. It's not that simple. I think I'll go to the archives this week. And thanks for your research.

Greetings

WIm


KoutaR, op 2014-04-08 10:28:33, zei:
Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare.

Hi Conifers,

I guess you slightly under-estimate the longevity of beech. At least in Central Europe, it regularly reaches 300 years in the few remaining old-growth forest remnants, also at low elevations. Or maybe you mean that specimens over 250 years are very exceptional because there is so little old forest left?

Kouta


Conifers, op 2014-04-08 18:15:41, zei:
Hi Kouta,

Thanks for the extra details! Although I had not known about these older trees in natural forest conditions, it does not surprise me, as they will spend a long period growing slowly in the understorey before reaching maturity (same applies to e.g. Abies, which I did know about). That won't apply in the present case of a planted tree, of course.


Rayn, op 2014-04-08 18:57:58, zei:
I know of one beech in that grew naturally to over 400 years:http://www.dendrochronology.se/res/pdf_s/niklassonfritz2003.pdf

Girth was only 232 cm.

"In 2001 an extraordinary old (Fagus Sylvatica) was found in a beech forest at the Mårås nature reserve. The tree died in 2002. A sample from about 50 cm off the ground contained 397 annual rings. Normally the beech in that area needs between three and ten years to reach that height. The tree was therefore at least 400 years and is the oldest dated individual so far in Northern Europe. Slow growth during most of it's life is like to have contributed to it's high age by keeping it's dimensions down. The tree showed no signs of having been pollarded"

There is one heavily trimmed beech in Epping Forest in England mentioned in that pdf that is said to be between 500 to 1000 years, is that tree on this site?



Sessile oak in Knole Park, Sevenoaks
Zichtbaar voor iedereen · permalink · en
Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-04-03 20:06:36, zei:
Hi Owen,

Nice you confirmed it to be 41 m! I visited Knole with Tim Bekaert in April 2007 and was a bit frustrated I did not know where this tree stood so that I did not find it.

Did you remeasure the girth also?

Regards, Jeroen


Tim B, op 2014-04-04 06:58:54, zei:
Yes indeed, I remember very well. I looked on the map where the tree stands, and reconstructed our walk in 2007: luckily for us now, Jeroen, we did not walk very close to the tree and missed it.

Kind regards,

Tim


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, op 2014-04-06 16:37:10, zei:
I've now heard that the tree was climbed by Waldo Etherington last year at 38.7m, which is much closer to my hypsometer estimates, so this time the laser height is probably not accurate. I could only record 41m from one direction - the rest of the time I was getting around 39m but felt I was only hitting near shoots on the side of the crown. It is a difficult tree to record because of the broad, even dome, and I doubt if Waldo's team got to the very highest shoots.


Frank Gyssling, op 2014-04-03 09:21:51, zei:
Hier hat sich wieder mein "Abwerter" gemeldet.

Das ist ein historisch bedeutsamer Baum an historischer Stääte, gepflanzt anlässlich der Vereinigung Deutschlands! (siehe Kommentar zum Herbst-Foto).

Frank Gyssling, op 2014-04-03 09:33:06, zei:
Ich bin gespannt ob sich der Erstbewerter einmal meldet und seine Note kommentiert.
Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-04-03 12:04:05, gewijzigd op 2014-04-03 12:47:20, zei:
Hi Frank, This time I agree with the rating, allthough I myself will not rate it. My preference is nice and beautiful trees of some monumentality.For me the picture is the most important and not the height of a tree or whatever record might be broken.

I like your picture but I think the composition could be better. In my opinion the tree should be dominant and to be seen completely. This composition gives too much weight to the bridge as if that is the object of intrest. I like the idea of the bridge in the background, but it should be less dominant. So I wouldnt rate above 3 and than I do not rate it, Unless it has an average score of above 4,25.

Wim Brinkerink

Frank Gyssling, op 2014-04-03 15:01:02, zei:
Tank you for your friendly opinion.

best wishes frank

Martin Tijdgat, op 2014-04-03 23:47:12, zei:
Hai Frank,

I did rate this picture first. My comment is almost the same as Wim wrote as a comment. I think the tree should be more dominant in this picture and more complete to rate it higher than I did. I do rate a lot of pictures in MT in this way. I also try to rate the photo's for their technical skils

Greetings, Martin Tijdgat

KoutaR, op 2014-04-04 12:20:08, zei:
Hello Frank,

Die Komposition ist super, wie in deinen Fotos immer, aber da MT eine Baumseite ist, könnte der Baum wirklich ein Bisschen mehr Gewicht haben.

Frank Gyssling, op 2014-04-04 17:09:21, zei:
Ja, da hast du prizipiell recht. Aber ich wollte der weltbekannten Glienicker Brücke, welche als Pflanzort hier bewust anlässlich des Falls des "Eisernen Vorhangs" gewählt wurde etwas Raum geben. Das können naturgemäß wir Deutsche besonders gut verstehen. Ich bin direkt an dieser furchbaren Grenze aufgewachsen. Insbesondere dieser Baum hat für uns einen hohen symbolischen Wert und ich hoffe sehr, er wird reletiv alt und mahnt uns immer Diktaturen ernergisch zu begegnen.

Vergleichbar wäre ev. dieser noch so junge Baum mit den vielen "Kaiser- od. Königs-Eichen bzw. -Linden die wir nicht nur in Deutschland kennen.

viele Grüße Frank

Conifers, op 2014-04-04 21:44:53, zei:
What I find odd with this tree is the choice of species, a very short-lived one, to commemorate such a momentous event of history. Sadly, the tree will likely be dead while there are still people alive who remember the event. I saw it was a gift from Japan, maybe a long-lived species like Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) or Keaki (Zelkova serrata) would have been a better choice?

The photo composition (unless truly dreadful!) doesn't matter to me in giving a rating, this is after all a site about monumental trees, not monumental photographs. It is a nice pic for balance of subjects (though a bit over-saturated*), but what matters to me in rating is the monumentality of the tree itself.

* (something I've noticed with many of Frank's photos, perhaps the camera settings need adjusting slightly so as to reflect actual colours better?)

KoutaR, op 2014-04-05 11:18:46, zei:
About the saturations: I think it's only that tastes differ. What someone regards as over-saturated, is a stunning photo to another. And what is natural for the first person, is boring to the second.
Frank Gyssling, op 2014-04-05 13:01:06, zei:
KautaR,

I wish a little more tolerance of conifers to other opininons and a correspeonding rating. He always finds something to criticize. He should better more owne trees present of MT.

Greetings Frank

Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-04-05 23:40:51, gewijzigd op 2014-04-06 12:19:20, zei:
It seems that several of the frequent users of this website still have completely different opinions about what is important at the website, what are beautiful or important trees and what are beautiful or good photographs.

The same discussions can be seen many times again but there seems to be little understanding of each other.

I like to repeat that Tim Bekaert did start the photo-rating system to rate the quality of the photos, just to get a good order in the photos of one tree so that the heighest rated photos would be on top and seen first.

Alas mr. Conifers has never understood this and still likes to give ratings of the monumentality of the trees themselves, wich never was the meaning of the system. The monumentality, importance or beauty of a tree is rather subjective and I don't like to make ratings of them. Everybody can have his own preference and it is clear that those differ a lot among the users.

Concerning the photograph by Frank of the Sargentkerselaar at Glienicker Brücke: to my opinion it is a very beautiful photo of an important subject. Indeed also a photo of the whole tree would be nice.

Regards,

Jeroen Philippona


oprus, op 2014-04-01 16:00:11, zei:
How old is this tree?
Conifers, op 2014-04-01 16:58:01, zei:
According to Alan Mitchell (1972, Conifers in the British Isles), it was planted in 1861.

Previous measurements: 30 m tall, 3.45 m girth, in 1931; and 40 m tall, 4.50 m girth in 1970.


Beuk op het landgoed Elswout, Overveen
Zichtbaar voor iedereen · permalink · nl
Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-03-30 21:19:58, zei:
Hallo Henk,

Deze beuk is dezelfde als nr 1894, die Leo Goudzwaard eerder op MT zette. Het beste kun je jouw foto's toevoegen aan zijn pagina.

Groeten, Jeroen



TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, op 2013-11-15 17:55:00, zei:
The historic heights for this tree seem to show the limitations of both hypsometers and lasers. 33m is optimistic, aiming at branches which are arching slightly towards the observer. 27m is much too low, due to the laser hitting low twigs on the near side (the top of a tree with a crown as rounded as this is completely hidden, even from a distance, in summer. Having measured it several times (with hypsometer) before it leafs out, I'm going to plump for 30.8m - though I can't really claim that degree of accuracy.
Jeroen Philippona, op 2013-11-16 00:43:03, gewijzigd op 2013-11-16 00:46:48, zei:
Yes, I think with 31 m you are near the true height of this tree. My 33 m measurement in 2007 with Suunto clinometer was not very accurate. Owen, you should add your 30.8 m measurement also in the system with the right date.

When you visit Kew next time you could measure it again with laser. I also think Wim B. did not hit the tallest branches.

Wim Brinkerink, op 2013-11-16 15:02:11, zei:
What both of you are saying might well be true. It's not always easy to find the highest one and a mistake is easily made.
krossdal1, op 2014-03-30 10:43:24, zei:
great tree

Frank Gyssling, op 2014-03-13 12:06:43, zei:
Was hat wohl den Bewerter zu dieser Note veranlasst?

Es wäre interessant für mich, wenn er sich mal melden würde.

KoutaR, op 2014-03-14 08:17:15, zei:
Ein schönes Foto!

Einige Mitglieder bewerten Bäume anstatt von Fotos. Es sieht so aus, dass um eine hohe Bewertung zu kriegen, muss der Baum

  • sehr gross sein

  • im Urwald wachsen

  • ein Nadelbaum sein

  • sich am Bessten in den USA befinden.

Leo Goudzwaard, op 2014-03-14 10:10:53, zei:
looks like an Acer rubrum to me, considering inflorescence and bark features
Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-14 11:56:26, zei:
Hi Frank,

I have the same experience. There is a very negative person (or more?) giving a lot of unnecassary negative ratings. If I see a tree that I don't like, I withhold rating, unless it has too high a score. Kouta is right in his analyses. I have earlier tried to open a discussion on this topic, I stopped doing that. I now accept to live with a system in which not the nicest photo's/trees have the highest score. It's a pity, because a more logical rating system could attract much more people and views.

Conifers, op 2014-03-14 16:19:09, zei:
Hi Leo - looks reasonably OK for Acer saccharinum to me on branch shape, but agree the flowers on the second photo do hint at A. rubrum. It may prove to be the hybrid between the two (Acer × freemanii). A close-up photo of leaves in the summer should help.
Rainer Lippert, op 2014-03-14 16:53:32, zei:
Hallo,

also ich erlebe das auch immer wieder. Aber eigentlich müssten es mehrere Personen sein. Kürzlich habe ich dieses Bild hochgeladen:


Es ist wohl qualitativ nicht das beste, aber so schlecht wie die Bewertungen es machen, sehe ich es jetzt auch wieder nicht. Nach vier Bewertungen hat es genau 2,0.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-14 17:34:34, zei:
Hi Rainwer, I agree on that. It's a nice picture of a nice "tree". An off course it has some peculiarities, but that's also what it makes interesting., I will give it a 5 to upgrade it. I hope we will not end in a situation where contrasting views with extreme ratings sety thye norm, ?? That's what's happening in the middle east.
Rainer Lippert, op 2014-03-14 17:49:55, zei:
Hallo Wim,

danke für die Bewertung. Ja, der Baum ist jetzt nicht besonders dick, aber aufgrund des Standortes und der Schutzplanke am Stamm aber schon etwas besonderes. Kouta trifft es wohl mit seiner Äußerung ziemlich genau.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Frank Gyssling, op 2014-03-14 18:46:20, zei:
Hallo Alle,

vielen Dank für die aufschlussreichen Kommentare. Ich dachte immer hier werden die Fotos bewertet und nicht vorrangig die Bäume, ev. nach den Kriterien die KautaR vermutet. Bäume ohne Fotos kann man ja hier nicht bewerten, trotz ggf. beeindruckender Maße. Es wäre gut wenn der/die Bewerter auch machmal die Courage hätten ihre Noten ehrlich zu kommentieren. Dann könnte ich das vieleicht verstehen!

Seltsam - nun ist das Foto des Silberahorn in Klein Briesen sogar gelöscht worden (wie geht denn das?). Ich werde es nochmals hochladen.

Bei vielen meiner letzten Fotos bin ich öfter schon wenige Minuten nach dem Upload durch den annonymen "Abwerter" meist nicht über eine 3,5 hinaus gekommen. Vielleicht grollt auch Jemand mit mir - warum nur?

Ich werde mich trotzdem nicht von meinem Vorsatz gute Fotos zu machen abbringen lassen.

Was solls, vieleicht siegt ja das Gesetzt der großen Zahl.

Beste Grüße aus Potsdam

Frank

Rainer Lippert, op 2014-03-14 18:57:02, zei:
Hallo Frank,

nein, dass ist bestimmt kein Groll gegen dich. Eine Zeit lang habe ich da bei meinen Bildern mal darauf geachtet. Wenn ich jetzt sage ich mal 20 Bilder hochgeladen habe und eines davon hat eine Note von über 4 bekommen, wusste ich genau, dass dieses Bild am nächsten Tag zwei Bewertungen hat, wobei der Durchschnitt dann bei unter 3 lag. Derjenige welcher hat sich also gezielt die bereits bewerteten Bilder vorgenommen, um diese tief zu bewerten. In die andere, positive Richtung, beobachte ich das eher sehr selten.

Zumindest ist das wiederholte positive bewerten eigener Bilder nicht mehr möglich, so wie früher. Da gab es ja Bilder, die eine Vielzahl von hohen Bewertungen hatten. Es gab da wohl solche Benutzer, die wiederholt eine hohe Bewertung auf das eigene Bild vergeben haben, um so besser dazustehen. Aber das hat Tim vor einiger Zeit unterbunden.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-14 19:15:51, gewijzigd op 2014-03-14 19:17:01, zei:
Hi German friends I am so glad that finally other rational people start the discussion again that I have lost long time ago. i think that it is important to do Judge on images. And I think you have to make a mix of quality of the picture and importance of the tree. Some people here are able to manipulate the scores and give extreme low ratings to important pictures/trees. I have some extreme examples. I really value Conifers....But...he disqualifies every fagus sylvatica purpurea or pendula pendula. Nevertheless that doesn't clear the problem of a very negative person who is active the last few weeks.
Frank Gyssling, op 2014-03-14 19:21:22, zei:
Hallo Rainer,

nach meiner Beobachtung waren es bei meinen Fotos alles Erstbewertungen!

Kann denn auch ein Fremder ohne Editorenrechte meine Fotos löschen oder war das ein technischer Fehler?

viele Grüße Frank

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-14 20:17:48, zei:
Hi Frank.

Ein Fremder kan deine Fotos nicht löschen. Er kann sie nur sehr slecht bewerten..

Some of our members do so. and the initiators of the register, Bekaert and Philiponna do not really care about that corrupting effect.

I have tried to change their opinion for quite some time, but they don't care. They think rating is not important. They even don't want to gard the monumentality of the trees on this site.

So I stopped trying and enjoy what is. What "can be" is far out of reach for now.

Wim

Rainer Lippert, op 2014-03-14 20:49:40, zei:
Hallo Frank,

Wim hat recht. Eine andere Person kann deine Bilder eigentlich nicht löschen, sondern eben nur schlecht bewerten. Also bei mir kommen auch bei der Erstbewertung schlechte Noten vor. Das stimmt. Es müssen aber mehrere Personen sein. Hier zwei Bilder von einem Baum von vor ein paar Wochen, mit einem Durchschnitt von 2, bei 2 Bewertungen:



Also die Beweggründe für manche Bewertungen erschließen sich mir auch nicht immer.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-14 21:13:50, zei:
cannot find 29287.

I'll tell you a story. alltough I value conifers, I am sure he is responsible. He thinks that cutting a tree is mistreating. Human interference with natural growth is in his opinion "not done" I don't know how he manages it, but I think he has a lot of people to vote and work for him. And some Austrians do the same !!!

Rainer Lippert, op 2014-03-14 21:30:20, zei:
Hallo Wim,

also das Bild 29287 ist noch da. Was passiert, wenn du bei meiner vorherigen Post auf das Bild klickst?

Ich schätze Conifers auch sehr. Aber was du sagst, habe ich an anderer Stelle auch schon gehört. Aber ob er deswegen niedrig bewertet, weiß ich nicht.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

KoutaR, op 2014-03-14 21:47:25, zei:
Everybody has right to have his own criterions. I rate photos only rarely but as I do the preconditions for a top rating are that 1) the photo should be estetically fine and 2) the tree should be interesting somehow.

So, in my opinion, it is not possible to forbid members to give poor ratings or order them to rate in a certain way. However, I have said this already, it should not be possible to give multiple ratings; this is what easily makes the list of the best rated photos monotonous as a very limited subset of members give repeatly top ratings to their favourite photos/trees. The list was extremely monotonous before Tim limited the multiple ratings to once per 50 days or so. Now the situation is already much better.

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-14 22:03:47, zei:
I have the same position as KoutaR. Nevertheless once and a while I get so irritated about idiotic ratings that I handle the complete list and value extreme or counterveiling. And I also do it under an alias if necessary. That's quite easy, if you want to. I don't want it but some members press me to do so. I welcome the moment that we have a trustworthy classification of nice and valuable trees.
Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-03-15 23:51:07, zei:
Although I don't like to go ito this discussion again, because my name is called and Wim thinks he should write about my opinion (as well as Tim's) I will give a short reaction.

It is a pity when there are people who try to manipulate this site by the system of valuating photos.

The photo of Frank Gyssling is a nice photo of an interesting tree, so I don't understand why somebody will give it a very low rating.

But the valuing of the photo is not corrupting its worth, it can still be viewed by everybody.

As Tim has written several times, he created this valuating system to give a ranking order of the photos of a tree on a page, so that the heighest ranked photo is placed on top of the page and the other photos of the same tree in order of this ranking.

For Tim this is just the reason for the ranking, not a ranking between all photos on the websie or of the photos of different persons.

Indeed some persons seem to use the ranking system to give a ranking between different trees, but that was not meant to be done with the system.

Because of all the quarreling and the persons giving extreme ratings I would prefer to have no ranking system at all and myself I did not give ratings for months for any photo.

Wim, I don't know what you mean by "They even don't want to gard the monumentality of the trees on this site".

I don't know, Wim, how you want to guard the monumentality of trees with the website Monumental Trees, but of course good photos can help people to see the beauty and value of trees.

For preservation (protection) of monumental trees we are busy with the Dutch "Bomenstichting" (Tree Foundation) to upgrade the "Landelijk Register Monumentale Bomen" (National Register of Monumental Trees).

There is already a new website but it is still in a testing phase with a group of people envolved with this, several of who also are active at MT.

This is in contact with owners and local communities. The Bomenstichting tries to convince the local governments to create a better system of protection.

International protection of Monumental Trees is something wich could be organised at a European level and what is discussed by several groups like the Ancient Tree Forum, the European Champion Tree Forum, etc.

Jeroen

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-16 10:58:04, zei:
Hi Jeroen,

What I mean by not-garding the monumentality is that contributors can post very young trees or very average trees on the site. A time ago even people started registering whole streets with very average or low-worthy (in a monumental sense) trees. I will not try to locate all the not-monumental or interesting trees, you must have seen them come bye the last few months. In my opinion there should be some minumum standards to gard the quality of this register. I think that in the end a minimun girth or age or quality should be asked. In my view exceptions could be accepted, but there has to be a thorough reason. (For instance part of a collection, arboretum, or rarity)

Despite this critical observations I enjoy the register. But I think it is neccessary to once and while have a critical examination of where it is heading.

Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-03-16 13:55:00, zei:
Okay, Wim, I understand what you mean and I agree MT should not be used to post very young trees. As you know MT is a follow up website of a general website about Sequoia(-dendron). Tim used that also to give information about planting and nursing of these species. Still several contributors of MT see it in the first place as a website about Redwood and Giant Sequoia.

Tim also does not like people posting young and not-monumental trees on the website. But it is difficult to guard the site against that. For example, there are very old trees wich are rather small and also there are quite big trees wich are still young, for example Poplars and Eucalyptus.

Some contributors like Martin T. post rather young trees because these are the oldest ands largest trees in his neighbourhood.

When selecting trees wich I like to see at MT I select on girth and height from the new posts or form the older databases of countries, regions or of species, so I rarely see these young or small trees wich have been posted, for me they are hidden from the beginning behind the more interesting trees. Another selection criterium for me is the person who posts a tree.

While I am interested in the trees and the photos for me serve as information about the trees, I never look for the selection starting with photos.

But perhaps for you the selection is by photos.

Jeroen

Frank Gyssling, op 2014-03-18 18:26:43, zei:
Foto-Bewertungen und Kriterien für Bäume in MT

Nach mühevoller Übersetzung von Conifers Beitrag (nl - 2014/03/17) Guarding quality (mit fremder Hilfe) ist mir nun Einiges klar geworden.

Conifers bewertet nicht die Fotos sondern die Bäume nach seinen eigenen Kriterien. Dieses teilen eventuell noch weitere, hoffentlich wenige Baumfreunde. Das ist doch offensichtlich ein großes Missverständnis. Das Votum steht doch in MT unmittelbar bei den Fotos und hat damit Bezug auf diese – oder?

Auch seine Kriterien halte ich nicht für sinnvoll! Wenn ich Conifers richtig verstanden habe, sollten nach seiner Meinung nur Bäume die im Weltmaßstab sehr alt, sehr hoch und in vollkommen naturbelassenen Urwäldern stehen in MT aufgenommen werden. Wie wir das Alter ggf. in Korrelation mit dem Umfanges ermitteln sollen wird nicht klar. Regionale Bedeutsamkeit und Vielfalt (seltene Exemplare) spiele auch keine Rolle bei seinen Betrachtungen.

Damit müssten wir sicher über 90% unsere Beiträge löschen und uns alle auf Reisen zu den letzten Urwäldern dieser Welt begeben. Bäume in der Kulturlandschaft Europas finden nicht seine Würdigung. Auch Parkbäume würden damit nicht zu seinen Auswahlkriterien passen. Desgleichen findet er Unterarten schrecklich und verächtlicht obwohl doch viele davon auf natürlichem Wege entstanden sind. Ich glaube nicht dass dieses die Intentionen der aktiven MT-Initiatoren sind.

Sehr bemerkenswert finde Conifers eigenen Beiträge in MT: 25 Fotos, 8 Standorte mit 19 Bäumen und 7.650 Wortbeiträge. Unter seinen Bäumen findet man zum Beispiel zwei Schwarz-Pappeln mit Umfängen von 1,7 m und 2,45 m. Solche gibt es hier in Brandenburg viele die ich nicht in MT einstellen würde.

Hier ist für mich offensichtlich hier kein Akteur, sondern lediglich ein kritischer Beobachter unterwegs. Etwas mehr Toleranz würde ich mir wünschen.

Insgesamt war die Disskussion schon wichtig und solle uns voran bringen.

Vielleicht wäre es auch für uns alle hilfreich wenn wir die Grenzen für die Aufnahme von Bäumen etwas besser umschreiben könnten (es sollte m. E. kein Dogma sein). Auch möchte ich zur Entlastung des Servers eine Beschränkung die Datengröße für die einzelnen Fotos z.B. auf eine maximale Seitenlänge von 1200 Pixel vorschlagen.

Viele Grüße aus Brandenburg

Frank

Conifers, op 2014-03-19 01:18:00, zei:
Hi Frank - I suspect you are misunderstanding me there? The argument is over photo ratings, not inclusion in MT. I am not saying these trees should be excluded from MT, it is just about the ratings for the photos of them. I think it is right to give a pollarded tree in poor condition a lower rating on its photos, whereas Wim wants (I think - forgive me if I am wrong!) to give them higher ratings than spectacular, large, old trees.
Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-19 09:18:23, zei:
Off course I don't want to give a pollarded tree a higher vote. I would like to treat each others preferences respectful. That means that you only give (extreme) low ratings if you think a tree is overestimated and it should be downgraded on monumental list.

Furthermore I think one should rate with a mix of the value of the tree and the quality of the picture. The original rating of Frank's Saccharinum in Klein Briesen is not respectful. The vote is even misplaced. Wat is one's aim if you rate it at 2,5? If there was an average score of that tree of say 5, I can understand that you try to degrade it a bit. But 2,5 is out of proportion and not a a very rational doing. And lately I have experienced this mechanism quite often. It seems lik some members work together to frustrate others or aim to hustle the lists.

Do I want to give pollarded trees a higher rating? Nonsens. My preference is high rating to a nice picture of a monumental tree, especially if it stands for a valuable tree. But I have seen that some think pollarded trees at principal low-worthy trees and the same goes for brown beeches. I have seen and placed (confirmed by respected members) very nice pictures of monumental brown beeches and pollarded trees, who were down-ranked with more than 1 votes under the 2 or even under 1.

And off course pictures are just one aspect of the list and not the most important. I approach the register from more perspectives. Sometimes I start with country or region, Sometimes from species,sometimes from thickest, largest or oldest.

But I do think that in the end the attraction of the register for bigger communities lies in pictures of monumental trees of good quality. And I think that especially pictures will enlarge the number of people (not being professional) who will share our passion for trees.


Kabouterboom in Beek
Zichtbaar voor iedereen · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-11 19:33:27, zei:
Hi. Ik was op 10-3-2014 in Beek. Ik heb erg veel moeite gedaan om de kabouterboom te vinden en te meten. Ik heb in ieder geval geconstateerd dat hij het laatste jaar in de fik is gestoken. Wat meting betreft, heb ik erg veel moeite gedaan om vanuit een halve talud te meten op 1.30 meter. Ik heb nog niet alle foto's, maar ik kon het lint flink strak trekken op die hoogte. Helaas bleek ik 8.33 meter te meten. Bij thuiskomst zag ik dat Nardo Kaandorp in voorgaande jaren 8.33 had gemeten en dat Leo Goudzwaard inmiddels op 8,35 was aangeland in 2012. Ik heb me aangepast en mijn meting op 8.35 gezet, maar eigenlijk geloof ik dat 8,33 reëler is. Ben benieuwd wat volgende meters constateren.

Wim Brinkerink


Leo Goudzwaard, op 2014-03-11 20:31:06, zei:
hallo Wim, als jij 833 hebt gemeten, kun je dat het beste ook registreren. Dat verschil is zo klein dat het al kan optreden bij een cm hoger of lager op de stam te meten, Leo

Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-03-11 21:55:44, gewijzigd op 2014-03-11 21:56:05, zei:
Ik heb nooit gehoord van een nieuwe brand. De brand is alweer een aantal jaren geleden geweest, op 11 januari 2005 en is uitvoerig in de pers geweest. Zie mijn oude website:http://www.bomeninfo.nl/kabouterboom.htm.

Ook in de jaren 70 is de boom in de fik gestoken. Gelukkig heeft hij het tot nu toe overleeft, in tegenstelling tot de dikste eik van Polen, die het na de 2e brand begaf een aantal jaren geleden.

Jeroen


Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-11 22:17:15, zei:
Hi Jeroen ik ga het uitzoeken. Ik sprak wat mensen in de omgeving en die beaamden de fik vorig jaar...Even chequen of ik beeld en reacties heb verrommeld. Kom er op terug.

Wim Brinkerink, op 2014-03-13 13:58:43, zei:
Hallo Jeroen,

Dit was duidelijk een gevalletje van klok en klepel. Ik vroeg aan een voorbijganger naar de boom. Hij meldde me toen dat die boom volgens hem er niet meer was, want hij was pas in brand gestoken. Er ging wel een lampje branden dat jij er een keer iets over had gemeld, maar ik zag het licht niet. Ik trok de verkeerde conclusie toen ik de boom zag. Voor zover ik kan overzien is de boom niet opnieuw in brand gestoken. Van binnen was hij wel zwart, maar ja dat zal van de oude brand zin.

Groet

Wim



The Mainland of Greece
Zichtbaar voor iedereen · permalink · nl
Han van Meegeren, op 2014-02-16 20:47:05, gewijzigd op 2014-02-16 22:08:41, zei:
Tree-lovers

At easter I go for 4 weeks to the Mainland of Greece. From the border of Albania till Athens. One of my goals is to measure and photograph the big platanus in the region of Pilios, Volos. Do one of you have interesting tips to visit in the north of Greece. There's not much to find on the internet and I don 't have books about trees in Greece. The only thing I've got is a little part of Jeroen Pater's book of monumental trees in Europe wich descrips some of the platanus in Pilios.

All tips are welcome.

Greetings from Han van Meegeren


Conifers, op 2014-02-16 22:00:10, gewijzigd op 2014-02-16 22:03:46, zei:
Try to get some photos of Aesculus hippocastanum in its native localities - that would be a great target to achieve, there are almost no photos of this anywhere, and none here. Details of the locations here:

http://www.bio.bas.bg/~phytolbalcan/PDF/13_2/13_2_06_Avtzis_&_al.pdf

(pdf file)

Even better, if you can get some photos, if you would be willing to release some under a cc-by-ca license so they can be added to Wiki Commons (they have no natural Aesculus hippocastanum photos either).

Good luck!

Edit: oh, and some measurements too, of course!


Han van Meegeren, op 2014-02-16 22:07:49, zei:
Hi Conifers

Thanks for the info. This is very interesting. I didn't know that the horse-chessnut came originally from that region.

The coming week I will translate the article you've send and I will make a plan to visit some of the locations. A nice goal for my hollidays.

Greetings from Holland, Han


Jeroen Philippona, op 2014-02-16 22:59:28, zei:
Interesting article. It will not be easy to find these locations. In Greece there are many very big and old Platanus orientalis. Often these are at village squares, but also they can be found along streams in the country.

Beside Plane trees there are also old Olive trees in Greece, but I don't know were to go for very special specimen trees. Probably there will be some old sweet chestnuts and oaks in some regions in Greece, but I don't know anything of their location.

There are few old forests left in Greece. I remember some old trees on the slopes of Mount Olympus when I climbed it in 1979. Although I visited the Pindus mountains that year I did not look for these Horse chestnuts and did not see them.

Perhaps Jeroen Pater can give you more locations, I think you have his e-mail address.

Jeroen


Conifers, op 2014-02-16 23:19:07, zei:
Hi Jeroen - "It will not be easy to find these locations" - it should be fairly easy, Table 1 gives GPS latitude / longitude figures detailed down to below .01 seconds, which is less than a metre (so I suspect there is some spurious accuracy in those figures, but that won't affect ease of finding the locations).

fildu, op 2014-02-22 07:45:15, zei:
Hi Han,

I am very interested in contacting you about your registry of E. globulus in Spain. Could you email me please on fildurh2@bigpond.com I am in Sydney, Australia. Regards. Philip.



Meer...

 

Hoofdpagina · Begin van pagina · Deel/Bewaar

© MonumentalTrees.com · voorbehoud · ook beschikbaar in · Castellano · Deutsch · English · Français · vertalen?