Lutz Essers, am 2022-08-30 09:14:25, geändert am 2022-09-03 08:15:29, hat gesagt:
3D model based on the original LIDAR data from 2021 (error for each point max. 10 cm). Ground (based on many points): 34.86 m (NHN), tip (one highest point): 78.01 m (NHN), resulting tree height: 43.15 m
@RedRob. Yes, it is a quite nice local area there. If you walk along the "Muehlenweg" it reminds you sometimes entering a cathedral.
In old maps the southern part is marked as "Buchenkamp" or "Alter Buchenkamp". In the north there was a plantage of Friedrich August Ludwig von Burgsdorff (end of 18th century).
See a short report about this tree which was broadcasted 10.2023 (rbb, german television).
Link (please turn on cc-comments, because there were some wrong statements in this report): https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=EC4TxPsjMSg&cc_load_policy=1&cc_load_policy=1
Hello sarevok, this is possible. The highest point of the tree was destroyed when it hit the ground after the tree broke. Personally, I did not see this tree when it was unbroken, but our forest guide did. He says that the tree was at least 5 meters taller than what remains today. This means it could have once been taller than 63-66 meters, perhaps the tallest known Norway spruce ever recorded. However, since the tree is now decaying, there is no way to accurately measure it. The trunk has very little taper, and this may have helped it grow so tall.
Hello again sarevok. Our guide had seen the whole tree before it broke and when the entire trunk all the way to the top was alive. He said that it was notably taller than even the other giant 50m tall trees around it before it broke in half. And by sawn do you mean cut down? This tree grows in an old growth forest which is protected as a reserve, so no human activity is allowed. Ofc this means no trees may be cut down and no fallen trees may be removed from the reserve. The lower part of the tree is still alive and standing until about 35m.
Hello RedRob, sadly to my knowledge there is no photo of the entire tree before it broke. Perhaps our guide or the few people who have done research in this forest may have a photo. However, this is certainly not likely as the research was based on forest structure and not individual tree dimensions, so there would be no reason to photograph the individual trees. Also the trunk may have broken before more extensive research was done in the reserve. Also this forest is very remote and very few even know where it is located, so the only photos you will find online are the ones from this page.
sarevok, am 2022-06-16 20:40:46, geändert am 2022-06-17 23:35:45, hat gesagt:
Yeah, i mean cut it down. What's the point of seeing that tree suffering which maybe was the tallest in the whole of Europe if the whole tree was still standing unbroken?
oh, the guide said 5 metres taller? Then it for sure was taller than the Sgerm-spruce in Sloveneia!
sarevok, am 2023-01-10 20:19:31, geändert am 2023-01-13 05:15:11, hat gesagt:
Hi InsearchOfGiants! Now my questions are much better. Read this!
The part of the tree was that now lies on the ground in a thousand pieces, was it ever unbroken when it was lying on the ground? and if so, did the guide ever measure the part of the tree that now lies on the ground in thousand pieces?
sarevok, am 2023-07-16 16:26:29, geändert am 2023-07-16 16:26:49, hat gesagt:
What's the point of letting the once tallest norway spruce stand there and suffer torn in half?
Ask for permisssion to cut it down. Tell me here when you have cut it down.
Hi InSearchOfGiants, about this enormous norway spruce in croatia Jezera, looking at the diametre of the highest point of the trunk that lied on the ground, how many more metres do you think the tree was?
This is my last question to you, i won't ask you more about it my friend.
Yes, there are two neighbouring big Pinus strobus trees growing in this place and they are still vivid and in a good condition. The problem is they grow by the forest road where cutted logs are sometimes transported damaging more or less these living trees. Also both pines grows at the edge of very steep slope of mountain stream...
We have made new measurements - the tree grows by forest road and there are some problems with finding out a real base (there were some earthworks connected with making that road)...
Conifers, I just struggle like hell to upload photos on this site at the moment, what the reason is? The photo here is actually of the 51.2 metre Douglas Fir, would you be able to copy it and then upload it to the 51.2 metre tree?
Probably better to drop an email to site owner Tim ( info [at] monumentaltrees [dot] com ), he can move the photo directly; if I did it, it would come up as my photo not yours!
Done, while I was uploading Rob's other new images.
Depending on your user's rights, it's possible to upload a photo under another user's name by clicking the arrow at the right side of the 'Photographer' box. This gives you the full list of site users and you can scroll to the right name and select it. Only problem is, the list is now many 1000s long and takes a while to upload (and scroll through).
AlfredHuizinga, am 2022-10-03 20:10:38, geändert am 2022-10-03 20:33:22, hat gesagt:
You can easily transfer a photo to another tree by clicking on the pencil by "specimen", right of the photo. You can than fill in the number of the new tree. Photographer, number of views and ratings will be transferred also.
Thanks Owen, I appreciate all the photos that you were adding and just thought Conifers may be able to do this swap without asking you yet again. I could have done it myself, have to try and remember how to swap the photos, send an email to myself with it on.
One of the tallest trees in the Midlands, another Douglas Fir. Didn't measure it but looks between 50 & 52 metres in height. The chap is 5 foot 10 inches tall
Hello Warrior, some very impressive Douglas Fir along that valley down from the car park, I will have measured the one in your photo has I lasered every impressive looking tree along the path has I walked, it will be likely 50 metres, I measured a number 50 or just over.
Thanks RedRob! Yes, they're amazing trees. Looked for the one you measured at 53m by viewing your photo as we walked along to see if any of them looked the same. Very amateurish, next time we'll try to actually use the coordinates! Not sure if I've posted these in the right place, if not let me know
Hello Warrior, I have just had a look at the photo, you wouldn't find that tree from that photo, that photo of the 53 Metre tree is actually a photo of the 51 metre tree I registered. I will try and upload a photo of the 53 metre tree, it is in a little ravine, probably won't be able to but will have a go.
Cannot a tree photo to upload, to confirm, Pinus strobus cones? Needles were lying about in depth but when picked up disintegrated so I couldn't determine how many needles in a bunch.
Thanks Conifers, it has a dense crown. If this is yet another idahoensis then just about every Abies grandis up here seems to be this form, far commoner than the flatter foliaged Abies grandis.
Yep, there's an awful lot of interior subsp. idahoensis in UK plantations, as its seed is much cheaper to harvest (more abundant, and smaller trees!). So nearly all the Abies grandis plantations used it until the much faster growth rate of subsp. grandis was realised in provenance trials. Newer plantations use Vancouver Island origins of subsp. grandis; it grows at least twice (often 3x) as fast as subsp. idahoensis.
I think I will label this 'idahoensis? There are several trees of 40 metres in this wood just up the path with the recurved foliage which look like idahoensis but the bark pattern wasn't a third as pronounced as with this tree with the vertical fissures. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abies_nordmanniana_bark_and_trunk.JPG
The pattern resembles that of nordmanniana which is why I was questioning?
Could I just enquire, will there have been some seed or young plants of this variant of Abies grandis brought over from the US, alot of these Abies grandis were very columnar with pretty short branches upright at the ends, quite different to even other Abies grandis that I have seen. This stand had trees with flat, comb like foliage and also with the recurved upright foliage so there seems to be a mixture of conventional Abies grandis and Abies grandis idahoensis. The trees with the denser conical heads had the recurved foliage but then there were also these very narrow, columnar trees like the one in this photo. Could there be some specimens of Abies grandis 'Johnsonii' also amongst this stand?
Unlikely I'd think. And the actual clonal cultivar 'Johnsonii' definitely won't be present outside of horticultural cultivation: it needs to be grafted, so it is far too expensive to grow for forestry planting stock.
Hello Conifers, 'Johnsonii' is a grafted clone, the sites say 'Discovered in 1897 by John A. Johnson on the lower Columbia River near Rainier, Oregon' which gives the impression that it was a naturally occurring form found in the wild which John Johnson came across?
Mindwarrior, is this Cedrus too far away for you to visit and photograph? Would like to see some photos of this tree, have to check the Register or it may be on the Ancient Tree Inventory site possibly?
Link to the tree's photo on the Ancient Tree Inventory: https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=81361&from=3523&v=2150549&ml=map&z=19&u=1&up=v&nwLat=52.19079692514447&nwLng=-2.461380630476573&seLat=52.18940090507212&seLng=-2.4557158050371197#/
The trees are carefully shown to scale based on height of people in each photo. Tallest just pipping over 40 metres. The Black pine (or Crimean pine?) is in the middle and the tallest tree is the Redwood in Arley Arboretum. Made in 2018 so they'll be even taller now and there may well be some taller trees in the Midlands.
Some fine trees around Birmingham, no laser recorder in that vicinity. For many of your photos it looks like the same gentleman, how tall is he? Photo measuring can be fairly accurate but you need the exact height of the person and a distance photo has you have provided. I am 6'2'' and someone photographed me at the base of one of the Hebden Wood Seqys, 45 metres I worked out from the photo, later when I measured with a laser the tree was 45 metres so spot on in this instance.
Hi Red Rob! Good to hear from you again, I'm the chap who planted the redwoods in Birmingham in Kings Norton. I can share some photos with you soon. Yes, mostly the same people in the photos and I know them well so know how tall they are relative to each other. The chap is 5 foot 10, but still it's not perfect given that the photos were taken at different distances from the trees. I actually bought a laser measurer from Amazon (not forestry pro or anything) to at least measure my distance from the tree and then triangulate the height like that - but I measured one tree in this way and literally the next day it fell down. It is so outlandish and absurd that this happened and admittedly unlikely owing to the laser measuring (it was a windy day)- but I still sent that thing straight back to Amazon and have never used one again. I trust the Nikon rangefinder etc is fine, this was a little different - more of an industrial DIY laser tool but stated as safe. Let you know soon about the Redwoods- that's one thing I like about redwoods - resilience! Keep well
40 m height was just what I recorded for the tallest Sequoiadendron at Arley Arboretum in 2009. There is (or was in 2019) a Black Italian Poplar in the private valley ('Naboth's Vineyard') just south of the Arboretum which I made 41.7m tall, but it's a difficult tree to photograph.
Just across the valley from Arley in the Wyre Forest there are Douglas Firs to 53m tall, a couple of which RedRob has added to this site. These are the tallest trees known in the west Midlands (area, not county) at present.
Looking again at MindWarrior's lovely composite image, I think the very tall poplar at Arley is the one photographed? Within the urban area of Birmingham, it's possible to height trees quite accurately using the altitude data for each spot in Google Earth.
Many thanks Owen and bless you and Red Rob for your devotion to one thing and doing it so thoroughly and so well, something I really respect (and need to learn). Actually have another version of the picture with the 40 metre line marked with the tallest just pipping that. Yes, the douglas firs are amazing and I have some pictures of those as well, can add those soon. The tree 6th from the left is giant lime just outside the entrance which I spotted and actually measured using a stick and a very very long tape measure (but no lasers etc). That tree is also here on this site
Some great looking trees here, it would be nice to add some more big ones to the records for this area. Could you register any of the trees around Birmingham that are not at Arley, Owen or Conifers then may be able to Google Earth them?
Peacemaker, am 2022-09-27 16:37:52, geändert am 2022-10-02 00:26:44, hat gesagt:
Hi, Yes, sure be happy to. Trees 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 from the left (from the giant sequoia to the taller giant sequoia in Arley) are already on this site. Be good to add some more though and will also send some pictures over to you soon at your awesome Redwood website. You won't believe how big the Kings Norton redwoods are now. And by the way, we managed to save the stand of redwoods in Highbury park! (sorry not Cannon Hill as I first said, rushing as usual) :)
A great number of young, thin, standing Fraxinus about 200 feet from this tree with Ash die back, the disease has well a truly arrived at Duncombe. Some superb tall Ash trees here, how much longer they will last? This tree still looked healthy with no apparent signs yet, are older, bigger trees more resistant?
Korpi47, am 2022-09-20 20:06:01, geändert am 2022-09-20 20:07:08, hat gesagt:
I think Ash Dieback is somewhat misunderstood by many. When Ash Dieback arrives to an area, every tree gets infected and not a single ash tree escapes it just because it´s a fungus that's spread by wind.
But, there is a great variation in resistance to the disease. Where I live in Sweden, I have seen Ash dieback come and go, and based on what I´ve seen, there are not so many trees in the end that seem to succumb to the disease luckily. There are around 10-30% of the Ash trees that have no symptoms because of great genetic resistance (even up to 50-60% in some stands). I´ve also seen that many of the Ash trees that get symptoms have the ability to recover partly after a few years and survive for many many years more.
Although the number varies a lot by different stands, there are very few stands I've seen where the mortality rate for large trees is over 25% after 20 years.
So yes, as you ask, the resistance on large trees is better than on small ones and probably 85% of the trees that dies are trees younger than 30 years. Also, if the Ash dieback disease has been in an area for a couple of years for example in Duncombe, most of the Ash trees that remain healthy now will remain healthy. So it´s very likely that your Ash tree is resistant to Ash Dieback :)
The reason I brought this up is that I´ve read many British articles about Ash Dieback that is somewhat misleading and when I read them it sounds like all Ash trees will be completely wiped out and it feels like many people believe that is what´s to come.
But the thing is, over the next 50-100 years, it´s most likely that the less resistant part of the Ash population will die out and the more resistant part will breed and create a more disease-resistant population of Ash. This will happen both by human help and by natural selection and this is already happening all over here in Sweden. As the most susceptible trees die out, more and more resistant younger Ash trees start to grow up to replace them.
So in the end, Ash trees will win the fight against Ash Dieback and most likely still be a common sight in the future UK and in all of Europe.
I hope this helped and gave some hope to you Rob and to others too :)
Hello SK, thank very much for taking the time with your detailed reply, appreciated and also excellent news(?), the sinuous Fraxinus were around 25 metres, I will haven't uploaded the countless photos that I need to upload but will add one here. The big trees at Duncombe may just survive, I will add an updated photo of this tree, it does look healthy, will be interesting if eyes and minds better than mine can spot any signs of die-back. Had a terrific day at Duncombe yesterday, sad that the 41 metre Beech has come down but it must have taken alot of lower trees with it as windows and vegetation gaps had opened up to the trees further up the escarpment.
Yeah, I always get the same horrible feeling every time I see an really large tree that I´ve known die. For example, I remember this really huge Aspen "Populus Tremula" I had just a few kilometers from my home. Its circumference was probably over 3 meters and 20-25 meters tall and was one of the largest of its kind in Sweden. At the beginning of February 2016, there was this big winter storm, and I remember waking up that morning and my dad told me that the Aspen had fallen that night and I was so sad when I heard of it. Now the stump is the only thing that remains and thousands of suckers around it.
It will be really interesting to see the pictures of the Ash trees and see what their health status is. :)
It would be great if users from different European countries were able to add their own experiences of Ash Dieback to this thread, as I don't think we've had such a discussion (recently).
Ash Dieback does seem able to spread faster in a humid climate, so in Sweden (low humidity) it might be less virulent than in western parts of Britain. My experience in England is also that older planted trees (central European stock?) succumb faster than most self-sown trees of 'native' stock, though this could also be explained by the tendency of the disease to spread faster in unnaturally dense single-species plantations. There is also some randomness in how the disease has spread: most of Greater London remains disease-free, whilst SW Wales was very badly hit even five years ago.
The weeping ash 'Pendula' sickens and dies particularly quickly here, and as this is a clone all its representatives across Europe should be equally vulnerable - any local observations from differing climates?
Where I live on the SE coast of England, the disease has been around for a decade now but I'm lucky that every ash tree I can see from my windows has a high degree of disease-resistance and remains very healthy. (Lucky to be able to see lots of trees from my windows anyway!)
I've noticed around here that older native specimens are holding up better than young planted trees likely from Netherlands stock.
Having never been a fan of 'Pendula' (hideous thing!), I won't lose any sleep over that being lost :-)
Korpi47, am 2022-09-21 20:15:17, geändert am 2022-09-21 20:19:26, hat gesagt:
Yeah, agree it would be interesting to hear other users' experiences on Ash dieback, especially from Poland and Lithuania where the disease has been present the longest.
Mainly because the Common Ash is my favorite tree species and because of my side interest in tree diseases, I´ve been lately looking a lot on street view for how Ash dieback has affected Britain and I´ve also noticed the large difference in resistance in different places. In some places, almost every Ash tree looks sick and it looks far worse than here in Sweden. But, there are also these places as you said Owen that still seem to be almost unaffected by the disease which is making me really happy to see.
If I´m not remembering it wrong, I think I read an article a couple of years ago that was saying that UK´s Ash trees have a lot better resistance to Ash dieback than the rest of Europe and it seems so far that the article is partly right.
One thing I find really interesting is that Street view has been a thing for so many years so I can compare how the Ash trees looked before Ash Dieback even got to the UK and how it looks now.
Another thing I´ve noticed, at least here in Sweden is that the Ash trees that grow on dry soils are more likely to die to Ash dieback compared to trees that grow on humid soils, but I think it could be a combination of drought-related stress combined with Ash dieback after several dry summers here.
When it comes to the Weeping Ash "Fraxinus Excelsior Pendula", they are relatively rare here in Sweden but seem to have a fairly low resistance here too, there are just one or two examples I´ve seen that weren't in a bad condition, but their survival can probably be explained by them growing in really favorable soils which I´ve noticed is really important for Ash trees resistance to dieback.
Another very interesting thing I found on street view a couple of months ago that isn't about Ash Dieback but about Dutch Elm Disease. In the valley where the villages named Hawes, Aysgarth, and Leyburn in the central UK are located, it seems like Dutch elm disease is almost nonexistent. I´ve found hundreds of mature Wych elms in that area and it seems like the disease is present, but isn't attacking the Elms. I don´t know if it has to do with the climate because it doesn't feel like the climate there is too harsh for the Elm beetles to survive. When it comes to resistance, it feels very unlikely that so many Elms could have resistance to DED. So I´m wondering if anyone knows about the area and why the Elms could have survived for so long?
About Elm Disease - I've noticed that too, there haven't been any outbreaks for something like 20 years now, and young trees are growing well. My suspicion is that the disease died out for lack of beetle vectors to spread it; some day sooner or later, the beetles will recolonise, and then there will be a big outbreak again. But there are other possibilities too; one possibility is that the fungus might have itself been killed or weakened by a virus infecting it (this is known to have happened in some areas with Chestnut Blight).
Many of the Elms in the area are probably well over 100 years so it seems like there has never even been a larger outbreak there from the beginning and I hope it will remain. I was recently watching the area again and over the past 10 years, I could only find a handful of Elms that seem to have died due to DED, but not more than one tree at the time. Your idea about a virus or something else weakening the fungus or killing the beetle is interesting, I haven't thought about it myself until now, but it seems logical. It would be interesting if some experts could go there and see if they can identify the exact reasons why the Elms have survived this far. Maybe it could be a helping hand for DED control? :-)
Hello SK, Conifers, Owen et al, I will add some photos when I can but just having trouble even attaching photos in any way to Outlook emails, Gmail appears to have worked?
SK, Leyburn, Aysgarth, that is my neck of the woods, I live about 30 miles south. Have you seen any decent heighted elms, the 28 metre county champion for height for North Yorkshire has been felled so looking for one of decent height. 17 metres at the moment for tallest in Yorkshire. If they are ancient old elms I will leave them for the Ancient Tree Hunt, they may actually be on their site, I haven't looked. I have to admit that stature, size-height is the aspect I am most interested in and does it for me rather than recording twisted, ancient old trees.
These Yorkshire Dales towns/villages like Leyburn are fairly high up (hence cool), in a rather wet and windy part of the country, so the beetles' opportunities to fly around looking for new trees is slightly restricted. Also, each valley is separated from the next by high, treeless moorland, so that the trees in one valley may be lucky and avoid infection sometimes. Another factor is that the poor upland conditions were not suitable for Ulmus minor (and 'Atinia' in particular, the English Elm). The greater vulnerability of many of these clonal trees to Elm Disease meant that in lowland areas, where they grew abundantly, beetle populations could quickly explode, and when the beetles ran out of Ulmus minor to eat they turned to U. glabra (a last resort for them, though the tree itself is seldom very resistant to Ophiostoma nova-ulmi). With recent warmer summers, Elm Disease has made serious advances in the Scottish Highlands (where the same limitations to beetle flight apply) and I'm afraid that most of these Yorkshire elms may not survive much longer. RedRob has observed some recent losses, I think.
The biggest and tallest Elm in that area (I think it´s an Elm at least) I´ve found is growing in a field roughly 8 km north of Bainbridge, approx 500 meters east of a small village named Gunnerside. I would guess that its height is at least over 20 meters. 54.37745013240417, -2.0678828716308617 are the coordinates if you type them in on google maps.
I know a few other large Elms, but not in that area.
Hope that the beetles will stay on the lowland and that the Elms will survive for a couple of years more..
Even though U. Glabra is the only native Elm on the Swedish mainland, that hasn't stopped DED here in Sweden unfortunately. There are very few Elms I´ve seen that survived in infected areas.
Thanks SK, I will try and locate the tree that you mention, it may be on the Ancient Tree site. Owen is right it is quite bleak up some of those dales, Swaledale, Wensleydale. There is a tall, thin elm down the river Nidd near where I live, 16 metres at least but it disappears up into the dense canopy and is impossible to measure with a laser, could have gone around it all day and night and still wouldn't have been able to measure it?
Aidan, am 2022-09-23 17:11:26, geändert am 2022-09-23 17:14:06, hat gesagt:
Around me in Surrey Ash Dieback is rather variable. There are whole stands of young ash really badly effected, while other trees (often on their own and probably older) which have almost no dieback at all and are very healthy. There a young tree right outside my bedroom window which has almost completely died back and the only live growth is at the base of the main branches, while some older trees in the woodland about 100m back are much healthier with dieback only on some of the shoot tips.
I also visit West Dorset regularly, and this is one of the most badly effected areas I have seen. Almost all trees have some degree of dieback, though field grown trees are on average healthier than woodland grown trees. Some woodland trees which were perfectly healthy say 5 years ago are now almost completely dead.
I can't really comment on DED, simply because there are so little Elms around me - only the U. laevis in Shalford, all of which are completely healthy still.
The Yorkshire Dales are spectacular. Very bleak as you say. I visited back in 2012 when I was far less interested in trees and far more interested in waterfalls, but I must go back at some point.
Interesting to hear your perspective, Aidan. I don´t think I´ve actually seen an area as bad as you described it, but still great to hear that the larger and more isolated trees seem to keep their health! :)
Thought it was too good to be all true, caanot get the image of the die back trees to upload although have had success with an image of this 36.4 metre tree. 45 metre Fraxinus were recorded here in the 1950s but this is likely the tallest here now, there are a couple of trees up the escarpment above this one but there is a cat in hell chance of measuring them with a laser, I am not confident that they will be much taller than this tree if they are.
The 36.4-meter Ash is beautiful, It reminds me of why the Common Ash is my favorite tree. Unfortunately, it´s hard to see if the tree has any symptoms in the new picture, but nothing obvious at least! Hope you can upload the other pictures soon :)
Hello SK, the photo turned out disappointing, it hasn't quite auto-focussed properly, it was abit gloomy as I was early, 7.15am. It didn't appear to have any signs of die back, foliage to shoot ends and no apparent defoliation. To it's left is another fine, tall Ash further up the escarpment (love that word, always reminds me of Tarzan and Johnny Weismuller), may be of similar height or taller but unmeasureable, the base is not visible.
Korpi47, am 2022-09-25 17:57:01, geändert am 2022-09-25 18:16:49, hat gesagt:
Hi! The Ash tree's health should be good so no need to worry. :)
Sad you can´t measure the Ash behind, it looks really tall! The small tree in front of the Ash, is that an dead Elm?
Also, about the Elm in Gunnerside I tipped you about, I saw yesterday that it is on the Woodland trust Ancient tree site.
Hello SK. it was a young Ash, there were many of them dead or dying under the trees disappearing off to the right of the photo.
That is a fine Elm at Gunnerside, in 2003 it looks every fine, is it visible on Google Maps, could you register it and plot it on the map? The champion at 28 metres has recently been cut so this does look like the county champion for height even just looking at it, it looks more than 17 metres.
Thanks SK, presuming the wooden stakes are 3 feet and photo measurement gives 20.90 metres which looks about right and the height which you estimated. I see no reason why you cannot register, it is standing in July 2022 although that said if the date is July it looks decidedly sparse in foliage in it's crown? Could be the drought or could be DED?
I would love to measure that big Ash further up the escarpment at Duncombe, impossible though as there is no window to the base just a mass of clutter twigs and branches in winter and totally obscured in summer. Measuring from below you wouldn't be able to see up on the top of the crown only the underneath of the side of the crown.
Thank you SK for registering the Elm, will try and visit up there at some, may not be until the spring of next year unfortunately. If I am up that way for any other reason I will try and stop by.
Have just managed to upload an image of the top of this 36.4 metre Ash, it was early and abit gloomy so this is the best that I could do. Looks healthy, apart from some very top foliage lost but possibly from wind across the top and earlier leaf loss because of the drought.
Oh, thanks Owen for uploading the die back photo to this tree as well. I am just attempting to upload a photo of the Cryptomeria plantation but it has failed twice.
Hi Rob! If the tree has looked like that in the entire summer, it´s unfortunately damaged by Ash dieback, but hopefully, it´s just as you said that it is just a result of the extremely dry and warm summer. :) To be 100% sure you should revisit the tree next year when the leaves start to burst.
Great name for a location, Bradley Howl. A surprise this, a very nice one, 13 metres has been added on to the Champion for height for North Yorkshire. There is a plantation of Cryptomeria here, there must be numerous trees of 30 metres or around but they are so hemmed in it is very difficult, impossible to measure the vast majority of them. This tree was emerging above the others, just behind the 30.2 metre Sugi on the plantation edge so it is likely the tallest in the plantation/grove.
RedRob, am 2022-09-27 12:13:44, geändert am 2022-09-27 13:37:40, hat gesagt:
I have taken some closer up photos of foliage and form in the sunshine, haven't got to uploading them yet onto the computer. One of those trees which doesn't look quite normal for species, I found a very small leaved Quercus cerris in my local graveyard which I thought was another type of oak until Owen confirmed.
I met one of Harewood's forest workers, he said that this tree was planted as Atlas Cedar, I may have misidentified this one? It doesn't look 100% correct as Deodar but trees do vary so in form. I will post some better photos to see if we can ident.
Not 100% sure that this is the same tree that I measured in March 2018, 36.8-37 metre readings yesterday. Superb, long leading shoot so it may be, growing fast. I would highly recommend anyone in visitable radius to visit this grove of Thuja, the photos don't do them justice, absolutely superb trees.
Thank you Owen for uploading the photo, superb little grove of Goat Willows. It is strange how things happened, hardly found a decent sized Salix caprea in my 10 years of laser measuring, this week have found five trees over 20 metres in various locations, these three and two more.
Owen, just for interest, I won't add every tree for this location but several Picea abies of 30 metres, a Hornbeam of 20 metres, 23 metre Sycamore, some large Beeches the tallest of which I will add, it is the tallest tree in the valley and woods. Nothing really exceptional in this location and valley apart from the fine Salix caprea.
These trees really do look magnificent in situ, this photo reminded me of the photos of Sequoias that I have seen in Tall Trees Grove In Redwood National Park with the tallest grove immediately next to a sandbar in the river. Anyone near enough I really would recommend visiting them, go to the far bank of the river where this photo was taken to get the best appreciation, the photo doesn't do them justice.
Could I ask a question, there may be reasons why not? Why aren't these Balsam Poplars planted for timber or pulp, at least for use, wood too brittle for lumber? I know that the purists will jump and down but why don't we plant trees that can grow this fast in the climate crisis that we have now to absorb and mop up carbon at a pretty fast rate? Aliens or not, these are beautiful trees for the landscape, they enhance it. Though certainly not supporting the number of species and life as Quercus robur for example there still must be a wide variety of creatures that do live in and on them.
I'd presume these are Populus trichocarpa, or a hybrid of that with another poplar; P. balsamifera is a poor performer in the UK climate.
@Rob - yes, it is a bit odd that there isn't more use of poplars as a timber crop!
RedRob, am 2022-09-23 15:04:55, geändert am 2022-09-25 15:38:32, hat gesagt:
d
RedRob, am 2022-09-23 15:11:24, geändert am 2022-09-23 15:32:30, hat gesagt:
Above is the email that I received back from Bolton Abbey, June 2021, I will leave it on for a day or so then delete. The wood msut be quite brittle, still could be planted and the trees felled at a much lower height for pulp or similar even if it couldn't be used as timber. The 'alien' trees enhance this valley, I am vehemently opposed to this type of thinking where 'alien'-non native has to be removed. Trees were introduced, this woodland is absolutely full of Sycamore, more than any other tree, they are non native also so if this is the criteria, they need to be removed as well.
RedRob, am 2022-09-23 15:47:25, geändert am 2022-09-23 15:50:39, hat gesagt:
I think it obvious from the letter that even the Bolton Abbey estate doesn't know for sure what these are so whatever is decided is the likeliest ident, Owen, Conifers et al in agreement, please change the ident.
Interestingly, reading the Bolton Abbey letter, these Poplars have grown up from brash laid on the bank from trees previously felled in Strid Wood, there must have been Poplars of this type previously growing there that were felled, I wonder how tall they had reached? Another interesting point, in the 30 years that these trees have been growing and the height that they have reached, there is no evidence from the look of them that any have lost their tops, they all have straight, unbranched trunks with nice 'spires' on the leading shoots.
Hi Rob - the note from Bolton Abbey Estate "We always thought they may be balsam poplar" could of course mean either Ontario Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera) or Western Balsam Poplar (Populus trichocarpa) - or of course the hybrid between them. But the growth rate and shape strongly favours Western 👍
According to Plants of the World Online (my preferred authority for nomenclature for the Tree Register) we should now be calling Poplus trichocarpa Populus tristis, but I'm going to drag my heels on this one... A shame the familiar name wasn't conserved, as it's a tree familiar to many who aren't professional botanists.
Under whatever name, Western Balsam Poplar is the tallest deciduous tree in the world (I think), so it's a red herring to say that the wood's brittle: there's no reason for youngsters in a sheltered valley not to go on growing taller.
Such poplars used to be planted for matchsticks, but then the market collapsed when smokers switched to lighters, or died. They are just about our fastest growing trees, so are getting planted a bit more for biomass (on a very short rotation).
I did what I could on behalf of the Tree Register to make the Bolton Abbey estate/National Park/Forestry Commission aware of these trees' importance. Let's hope that the fact they haven't been cut down yet is significant.
I agree Owen, I wasn't expecting to be still there. Thanks again for what David and in particular your good self did on their behalf, very much appreciated.
I am going to email Bolton Abbey again I think, the number of people who passed me last Sunday and asked me what I was doing and were interested when I told them about these trees, the Abbey estate are missing a minor tourist attraction here, there should be a wooden board near them giving visitor information about them never mind cutting them down.
Owen: "Western Balsam Poplar is the tallest deciduous tree in the world (I think)"
The tallest deciduous tree could be Koompassia excelsa in Malaysia, 86 m.
The tallest winter-deciduous tree is probably Larix occidentalis at 64.9 m
http://ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=8736
The tallest winter-deciduous angiosperm may be Liriodendron tulipifera, 58,5 m
http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=2423
I think the tallest measured Populus trichocarpa is 57-58 m.
Though, apart from Koompassia those all are American, where much more measurig has been done than in other continents. What do we know about max. heights of east Asian trees - almost nothing! So there may well be taller deciduous species in the Himalayas or in Taiwan or elsewhere - who knows...
Conifers, am 2022-09-24 21:05:31, geändert am 2022-09-24 21:25:48, hat gesagt:
@Owen - "According to Plants of the World Online (my preferred authority for nomenclature for the Tree Register) we should now be calling Poplus trichocarpa Populus tristis, but I'm going to drag my heels on this one"
And quite right, too, judging by the original description of Populus tristis (near end of page; scroll to next page for continuation)! "Arbuscula mediocris, distorta, nigricante et fere lugubri aspectu" ("A medium-sized shrub, distorted, blackened, and generally gloomy in appearance"!!) does not describe Populus trichocarpa at all; and the description gives no location clues that could fit it to P. trichocarpa either. I can't see a shred of evidence to apply this name to P. trichocarpa (it does apply better to P. balsamifera, though); this should I reckon be taken up with POWO.
Yes, poplars were grown for matches, but also plenty of other wood products; cheese and other food boxes are made from poplar, and more importantly, all sorts of other general wood uses where a lightweight but tough wood is wanted and decorative appearance isn't important, like pallets, etc. Poplar wood is also difficult to burn (matches had to be impregnated with wax to burn at all!), so good for building work where low flammability is important. Britain should be growing far more; that is a failure of policy (an all-too British trait these days!), not anything to do with low quality.
@Red Rob - OK if I change this tree to Populus trichocarpa?
Kouta: In 1913 Elwes and Henry wrote of P. trichocarpa: "attaining its greatest size on Puget Sound, where it is sometimes 200 ft in height" (59m). They don't give further details. Hugh Johnson in the International Book of Trees (1973) says that the record at that time was 225 feet (68.5m) but again doesn't give a source.
Hello SK, not the tallest in Europe to say the least but Duncombe does have some very nice, good sized Ash if this is your favourite tree. This one has a little sign at the bottom of it saying it was once 45 metres, the one measured in the 1950s, but lost it's top.
I suggested to Duncombe that the wrong tree may have been labelled and it is in fact this tree which has clearly lost a major part of it's crown at some point.
Hi, thanks for the tip! :) Wonder how tall it was before the large branch broke off, but it´s likely that you are right that it could be the wrong tree if the girth hasn't grown since the 50s. Have they responded to you after your suggestion about it?
My name is Paul Howard-Kyan and I have recorded and had verified over 250 ancient/veteran/notable trees in the last few years, by the Woodland Trust .My first tree was a Tree of National Special Interest ( TNSI ).This tree was an ancient ash ,number 191504, near Whittington in Gloucestershire.
As it is now over a year since I recorded this silver birch but I've had no feedback from the Woodland Trust regarding it, I feel it is time to tell you about it lest it get forgotten about. Perhaps in that neck of the woods their verifiers are few and far between and very busy.Whatever,according to your records this silver birch is the 3rd biggest in girth in England and I think someone should take note of it.
On 11/8/21 I measured it at 3.14m in circumference at the height of 1.5 m above ground. I have lost access to the 12 photos I sent to the Woodland Trust and until I learn how to copy and paste them from there, I cannot send them to you.
This might be an excellent incentive for you to send one of your verifiers to check it out. I have recorded a few other trees in this area which have been ignored for over a year . This is making me itch slightly so if you are interested I can send you the details plus map grid refs. Best wishes, Paul Howard-Kyan.
Hello Paul, welcome to the forum, nice to make your acquaintance. Gloucestershire, South Wales and all over that region is an area where tree measurers with lasers are sparse, I am North Yorkshire for example so along way for me. You wouldn't fancy joining us would you, great fun wandering around looking for trees to measure. Lasers are really coming down in price, some great trees to re-visit in your area, likely 60 metre now Douglas Firs in the Forest of Dean plus other very tall trees, some nice conifers which I spotted next to Tintern Abbey which may be Douglas Firs and almost certainly height champions for Monmouthshire. You don't live anywhere near Kemble do you, visited Longleat in 2016 and drove by a Horse Chestnut at the side of the road in full flower, didn't stop but drove on then wished I had stopped later, could be a height champion for the county, not sure?
Paul, Owen is the Registrar of TROBI, the Tree Register so he may be able to help with your Woodland Trust photos possibly, Owen? I have tremendous problems uploading photos to this site, what the reason is, Aidan reported similar issues at one time, so I will unlikely be able to help?
I've found that you can download any image on the ATI by selecting 'add/organise images' under the 'manage' button (if you're logged on as a Verifier). You then get the standard option of 'Save Image As...' to download it your device (rather than downloading the whole webpage which is the only equivalent option when seeing the images in the 'view photos' section). The 'add/organise images' is also useful when you want to look at fine detail in an image, as they appear at full resolution (at least for a year or so), rather than at the small default size in the 'view photos' albums.
I'm not sure from your comments which tree on the ATI your birch is; I could find a 3.14m Betula pubescens in the Forest of Dean but this was recorded back in 2018 by Brian Jones, the most prolific recorder in your area (I'm not sure if he's still well and active?) I do look at all the ATI records each year to transfer the largest trees to the Tree Register, to help keep the lists of county champions up-to-date, but very occasionally I think I miss trees when they get verified in the same time period as the annual list is extracted for me. But as this is something I do as a volunteer in my spare time, I don't get time to comment on many of the trees. Whether anyone else is likely to see a record on the ATI I don't know: with 240,000 trees and limited facilities for searching for them or commenting on them on that site, it could be that nobody does. Always verify your own trees if you can, since otherwise they tend to get bulk-verified by Woodland Trust office administrators, with consequent misrepresentations and delays.
One of the benefits of monumentaltrees.com is that there is this active forum page. I tend to feel that only the very top tier of ancient or champion trees should be showcased here - giving them a better chance of being noted and admired by casual site visitors - but other contributors have their own policies about what to upload.
Thanks Owen for commenting here, your expertise is far superior to mine. The Ancient Tree Inventory site is difficult to navigate, I have found for myself anyway.
Just googled and this has come up, looks like another not very easy page to navigate. I agree with you entirely about the forum on this site, MT, I also do exactly has you suggest, only add champion trees for county, country, Britain and Ireland.
Thank you RedRob for your welcome. It is kind of you to make contact. I'm sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I'm not sure how this forum works so I'll just answer all the messages that come in ,in the order they come in.It might take a while.
I very much enjoy getting out and about finding interesting trees etc.However I'm old school, I get around with paper maps and an old-fashioned tape-measure ( and absolutely no phone to disturb me ) . So I do girths but not heights. No lasers in my backpack I must admit. There are simple techniques to work out approximate heights anyway.
I'm lucky I move around so I get to see new areas , things stay fresh, it's all part of the adventure.Yes, I know both the Kemble and Longleat areas quite well.
Thank you for telling me about Owen.He made contact. I'm beginning to see how this 'forum 'thing works. I usually talk face to face or email to personal email.I thought I had to go back to each individual email to answer it. Now I see this is not the case. Please excuse my 'forum'ignorance, I'm on a learning curve here. Never done a 'forum'until today.
Thank you for your most helpful messages. To save everyone's time here I'll cut to the chase.Sending emails plus attached photos is all I do , or intend to do, my life isn't geared up for anything more complex.So I've no intention of trying to retrieve lost photos that I know I can see on my'unverified'Woodland Trust list of recorded trees pending.
Simply put I'm not very computer savvy, I only learnt there was a new meaning for the ancient word 'forum' today.The Romans would be quaking in disbelief in their sandals, if only they knew.
My suggestion is that if you or indeed anyone else is interested in viewing my 12 photos of possibly the 3rd largest (in girth ) silver birch in England ( according to Monumental trees ) then the answer might be quite straight forward.
First of all the tree in question is Tree Id number : 220949 on the Woodland Trust's ATI. To reiterate the girth as I measured it at 1.5 m above ground level is 3.14 m. The Grid reference is SU 2568621404.It is right beside a public footpath in Landford Wood, Wilts.
As a tree recorder for the Woodland Trust I can visit these photos of 'unverified ' trees at any time, along with thousands of other amateur tree recorders.They are on the ATI until an accredited verifier checks them out.
Therefore whatever advice you have given me can be given to another Woodland Trust tree recorder with links to Monumental trees, as long as he/she is computer savvy. Then he/she can do what you have suggested to retrieve the photos should they prove to be of any interest.My main concern here is that the tree seems to being forgotten and so after more than a year of waiting I decided to raise your attention to it.Possibly something might happen now. Let's wait and see.
A link to Paul's birch. Certainly looks like an impressive specimen, but I wonder if its B. pubescens rather than B. pendula. It is in need of verifying, so I'll leave this to the verifier to decide.
I've just verified the tree (as 'veteran', and agreeing with Aidan that it's Downy Birch). It's because it hadn't been verified that I'd not spotted it before (and that it wasn't viewable for non-verifiers, such as Conifers). In this case when the mapped position and the comments agree and there are photos from which to judge the size and condition, I'm happy to verify trees 'unseen'. But as it's a slow process on that site, I don't do much of it.
It looks like quite a tall birch, with lots of life still in it.
First of all my apologies for getting it wrong by thinking this tree was a silver birch. I have much to learn.Thank you all for your combined efforts following this up and for correcting my mistake.Finally my thanks Owen for verifying this as a veteran Downy birch so quickly after I first raised the subject.
What an absolute treat, I have been to Duncombe several times but couldn't measure this tree, some vegetation has been cleared or perhaps the 41 metre Beech fell and flattened some but a magical window was opened up at some point and quite a wide one for the laser to be fired through. Could see and aim at the very right top tip of the tree base whilst still being able to see the tree top shoots.
What a treat tonight, photos uploading to this site easily!? Why is it not possible at other times? Must be the volume of users in the week I think, worker and streamers perhaps.
Sadly, tragically this magnificent tree has gone, former County champion for height-North Yorkshire. All that remains is the bottom 5ish metres of the trunk.
Just added another photo from last week, sad when a very tall tree goes, my trees that I have measured seem to be falling like flies. Always an upside though, vegetation has been lost which resulted in a surprise.
Is this tree a native of the Wharfe valley-Bolton Abbey estate?! Technically from what I have just been reading, it isn't, it is a non-native. Using the same rules and criteria that Bolton Abbey set out and being consistant in applying the rules, unlike F1 and the safety car rules, the Sycamores and Beeches should also be removed along with all the Poplars. Conifers, I almost feel like it needs a strongly worded letter from your good self to point out these inconsistencies. I really did expect to find stumps where the huge Poplars were when I visited last Sunday, heart was in my mouth has I approached the area and then relief and delight when they were still there. Next time?
This is a beauty SK, great find. The squirrels have taken the nuts off the Hazels in along the back near my house very early this year, they didn't even let them ripen but had them all off by late August.
Thanks! Remember when I first found it, walked passed it several times but one day I chose to go another way and it was growing just a few meters from the path. There are a lot of other trees right next to (mostly Black alder, Norway maple, and Ash) that have forced the hazel to grow straight up like any other tree and that is very remarkable for a hazel!
I think I´m going back soon to remeasure it, probably upload some better quality photos too. :)
Has I have said in the comments, very difficult to measure this tree (shrub), I will have to take a piece of wood or known height when I visit again. I am 1.87 metres (used to be anyway the last time I measured my height, years and years ago now), standing at the base I was looking at the top of the bank so the base may be 1.7 metres or more below the point on the path that I measured to.
Great tree Havaar, second photo is that the tree nearest the left of the photo? What a sheltered location against the rock face, is it open behind where the photo was taken. Was this one easy to measure, cannot quite work out from your photos, measured from the side where the drone shot was taken? Is that your good self in the bottom photo?
Some great trees being added for Norway, we have seen the potential and trees in countries on the continent, Germany, France etc, it is great to see the tallest and most impressive trees in countries like Norway for which there has been a gap on here. Great trees Haavar, love the drone shot, like to see trees in landscape context, how they stand.
Cannot get a photo to upload, cannot attach a photo to an email in any way at the moment, internet very slow at the moment, must be volume of people and streaming at this time. Absolutely majestic trees, my new photo does even more justice to them. They have survived, possibly still under threat of being removed, if that decision is made then it is ludicrous in my opinion, alien or not they majestically enhance the landscape.
Still maintaining it's height, couldn't see the base because of summer vegetation but pretty accurately assessed it's position to aim at, 42.6 to 43 metre range.
RedRob, am 2022-09-20 17:10:10, geändert am 2022-09-20 17:10:50, hat gesagt:
Magnificent tree, I wasn't 100% of the ident, when I originally measured there was both Quercus petraea and Quercus robur foliage lying on the ground underneath. Today, the light was just right, I could see stalks on the leaves on the highest shoots that I was aiming at through the 6x laser. 40.2 metres to the lowest bit of base I could see, estimating on viewing and assessing that the base was 1 metre lower so this tree is around 41 metres still, it hasn't added any height to the shoots that I could see and measure. The tree is up the escarpment so you cannot see up on the top of the crown, it may have shoots a metre or more taller up on top of the crown.
Great tree Haavar, how tall would this one have been now if it hadn't lost it's top and lost some of it's momentum? It broke off 10 to 12 metres from the top, how tall is the trunk below the fork?
It's a good question. No one really knows the exact date or year this happened, and how tall it was back then. But it surely both lost momentum and potential with the break. It would've definitely been a norwegian record without the break. I suppose it would've been atleast 55 meters today. The tree splits about 38 meters above the ground, after I've checked more closely. That means that last approx. 15 meters are with two trunks. It have long top shots and is growing fast, so it still has potensial to get quite alot taller.
The Douglas fir seems like the tree with maybe the highest potensial to get really tall though, as it has grown close to 2,5 meters in the last 5 years. It has optimal proportions and looks very healty.
Would have been a superb tree Haavar, absolutely, still is, given the northern location. Great potential though in Western Norway with the deep ravines, rainfall and some influence from the Gulf Stream. Look forward to seeing what else you find, perhaps taller still. Visted the fjords in 2008 in May, great weather, sunny and warm but quite windy with it, saw it at it's best, looked great from the ground and from the ship cruising up the fjords. Cannot swim and don't like water but always wanted to visit the fjords and a cruise was the best way. Quite an experience cruising up the coast, high waves and the ship rolling up and plunging back down like a rollercoaster. Everyone had to walk to the restaurant for breakfast clinging to the rail, you couldn't walk un-aided the ship was rolling up and down and side to side so much.
Western and Northern Norway in good weather is indeed spectacular! As I live in Eastern Norway myself, it's always nice to experience the nature in west or north. And yes, Western Norway has the biggest potensial for record trees. Atleast when it comes to imported species like sitka spruces, douglas and grand firs.
Can you get some close-up photos of the foliage (both upper & under sides!) and cones (if present), please? From this set of photos, they look more like Thuja plicata to me.
Whenever I see Gelderland, it always reminds me of 'A Knight's Tale' 2001, Heath Ledger, Ulrich Von Liechtenstein of Gelderland. Had to double check the spelling there, Leich, Conifers would have had 'me guts for garters'. (winks) Had to make sure I put an 'i' in that last word as well, no typo error(laughs)
Hello Finn, thank you for the update, yet another one 'bites the dust', the number of trees this year that I have either re-visited or have been (re-)visited by others and have either been felled, wind blown or lost their top! The champion for Larix decidua is now only 29 metres in Wiltshire though there were some Larix decidua var 'polonica' which Owen measured of around 30 metres from 2009 I think the date was offhand?
Are you a Longleat area local, great area if you are? Would love to visit again at some point, quite a way down. Keep your eye out for taller Larix if you are local.
I am indeed. Very lucky! There are some true champion trees in and around the area for one reason or the other.
Hoping to get out and measure a lovely sequoia I’ve been eying up later this week. Not a massive whopper just really well situated. Great tree
RedRob, am 2022-08-30 16:22:23, geändert am 2022-08-30 16:24:46, hat gesagt:
Hello again finn
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7091054
If you have time at some point, would you be able to visit the Monkey Puzzle stand at the top of Southleigh Wood? When I visited in May 2016 had no idea that this stand was there but was watching a Michael Wood documentary about King Alfred and he visited the earthwork which is now 'Robin Hood's Bower. The stand is very unusual, the tallest look around 20 metres perhaps but abit difficult to judge without a context.
I stayed in the cabins amongst the Sequoias in Center Parcs when I visited, very evocative.
Hello Andre, nice to hear from you again more regularly, you have been quieter with contributions recently. It is a very nice little tree, likely around 80 cm girth below the forking. The 'smoke' just the moment looks great, it stands out on this street. In the same garden at the back is a 17 metre Ulmus glabra which is now county height champion for North Yorkshire, one likely nearing 30 metres by now had been felled when I visited a couple of weeks ago.
You are right Finn, this is like my old grizzled Western veteran, George 'Gabby' Hayes or Walter Brennan type story that I repeat, wandered about for 4 days in 2016 and never did find Bucklers and the 54 metre Sequoia, someone who was at the climbing of the tree in 2010 by Sparsholt college directed me to the south of Centre Parcs, Bucklers Wood was frustratingly the only part of the whole Longleat Forest that I didn't visit. Driving along the little road through the forest you would never know that there were such big trees just in the dip at the side, completely hidden from the road to the west of Center Parcs.
Will no doubt risk the wraith of Conifers here but have to comment on this, this Cotinus is growing like stink, it has put up some long shoots above the crown this summer (do they like more heat), the tallest of which is now 8.2 metres to the tip. Whether you like these or not this is a superb specimen, I told the owner about it and I think she is now proud of it and not going to prune it, so she said.
Conifers, am 2022-08-15 22:40:38, geändert am 2022-08-15 22:41:04, hat gesagt:
Don't worry, at 8 metres, it counts as a tree - Alan Mitchell defined a tree as a woody plant capable of reaching over 6 metres on a single stem (yes, this individual has two stems, but it could be pruned or trained to a single stem so the species still counts :-)
And yes, it is native to areas with hotter summers, so it does like them.
Ernesto Rubio Velasco, am 2022-08-16 18:19:23, geändert am 2022-08-16 18:26:54, hat gesagt:
Ja,ja,ja, ¿ Alan Mitchell... 6 metros, de verdad? Eso fué una iluminación sobrenatural , sin duda. Si mide cinco metros y 90 cms. no es un árbol?
Hay árboles de cientos de años de edad que no miden más de un metro , creciendo en dificiles condiciones en sitios fríos , áridos o rupícolas. Si los extraes y metes en una maceta se les llama Bonsai.
RedRob, am 2022-08-20 15:24:10, geändert am 2022-08-20 15:46:10, hat gesagt:
Another one bites the dust, formerly the tallest Salix x fragilis in the GB and Ireland but now steadily losing height. The foliage looked quite brown today, obviously not enjoyed the very dry, hot summer that we have had.
Do you live anywhere near Middle Fork, Lytle Creek, the Calocedrus look very impressive? Are you aware of any surviving Sequoiadendron of any size in the San Gabriel mountains or San Bernadino?
mchrqrd, am 2022-08-12 17:00:22, geändert am 2022-08-12 20:45:32, hat gesagt:
Maybe you are talking about redwoods in southern California? No, I don't know of any native redwoods, but they were often used as ornamental trees in Arcadia and in many of the mega rich gardens in the early 1900's. There are probably a couple hundred redwoods throughout the San Gabriel Valley from the early days, most of them thrive but don't grow to full height, staying in the 100 foot range. They sometimes have the offshoots growing, but that is more rare, again. The areas where they are planted are usually well watered but not spacious gardens. While restricted watering rules may kill the grass around them, the redwoods are fairly drought tolerant. That said, the shallow roots are quite restricted in the gardens and are restricted from spreading widely. The arboretum and the neighborhood redwoods looks quite healthy in their isolated pockets of gardens, even if they are stunted from full growth of height and girth.
Hello MC, I wondered if you lived anywhere near the valley with the Calocedrus growing in them in the link which I put above? They look as if they would really be worth measuring for height. Also wondered if you had hiked in the San Gabriel mountains and come across any Sequoiadendrons?
I would love to see a Calocedrus, seen thousands and thousands of trees now over here but yet to see a Calocedrus, would like to see a good sized one. Pinus lambertiana is another tree which I would like to see. Visited California as a kid in 1982 and no doubt saw some big lambertiana but was too young to really appreciate them, was only interested in redwoods at the time.
Magnificent stands of very tall Pinus sylvestris standing up this valley. I visited this location in May 2018 but didn't go up the right arm of the valley. I came across these trees on Youtube via a shooting video of all things,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8IktuaG3pE 24 mins 41 secs in
Not an advocate of shooting in any way but superb stands of trees, hope the tops don't get blown off with poor shot pheasant shooters.
Looks like France and England are becoming Spain :)
In the case of England you can see pretty well the shadow effect of the mountains in the atlantic humidity, the standard situation in the Iberian Peninsula.
RedRob, am 2022-08-12 13:37:11, geändert am 2022-08-12 13:37:34, hat gesagt:
Great images robur, it is certainly very brown east of the Pennines where I live, 40c recorded at Braham nearby where I live on July 19th, very hot today, 35c in the shade at the bottom of my garden at the moment. Makes you anxious for all the trees that you have measured over the years, there must be alot of stress on them. On a walk the other day I saw a Prunus laurocerasus whose foliage had completely wilted, a 20 foot plus tree/shrub under Betula and Acer campestris, the ground is cracked and bobe dry.
Very harsh drought, but I wouldn't worry too much, even if they loose their foliage they will probably resprout next year, only weak or diseased trees will die. After all, this is natural selection. Atlantic vegetation can tolerate this type of drought (as long as they are not recurrent, of course, and water stress accumulates year after year), it is not an unknown situation for Euro-Siberian ecosystems.
Birch trees tend to lose their leaves in situations of high water stress like their cousins the poplars, in Spain it is common to see Populus nigra with yellow leaves in August not because they are drying, but because as a defense mechanism they prefer to enter a period of lethargy that risk drying out completely. The following year they are perfectly fine. With Acer campestre it is a similar story, anyway Acer campestre has the ability to withstand summer drought quite well, much better than birch. This new climatic situation will put ecosystems to the test, so it is very important that they are in good condition.
Wim Brinkerink, am 2022-08-12 15:59:13, geändert am 2022-08-12 16:27:33, hat gesagt:
I hope that the reaction wil be rational. Stopping climate-change is an illusion. Adaption is the only way to deal with the new problems. I hope that the momentum will lead to a surge in methods and techniques to desaliate salt water. In relation to the draught that could be (next to adaptation) one of the most promising methods in dealing with the draught. And actually I trust in that. Societies were able to survive by adaptian. And I am proud on (not of) the Dutch who have dealt with climatological threats to the country. I'm sure engineral heritage will make a change. And if not? Hmm... I'm not interested to start a political discussion.
"In the case of England you can see pretty well the shadow effect of the mountains in the atlantic humidity, the standard situation in the Iberian Peninsula" - it's even more obvious in Scotland!
@Conifers yes, at least in Scotland only the eastern coast seems to be dry, in England it is practically the entire territory!
@Wim Brinkerink Spain is already the 2nd country in the world by desalinated water production (in %), the south-east coast is specially dry, and suffers the tremendous water stress that tourism entails. However desalinated water is very unpleasant to drink, it is best to ensure a supply of fresh water at least for human consumption. Many things are going to change in this century, resource management is one of them.
Sure I don't denie that developments are not a threat. But we must be realistic and hope that science and private intelligence can help to overcome the problems we are facing. If not...don't expect anything from politicians. They are just jobhunters and not able to solve problems by themselves.
Adaptation to climate-challenges is essential. In Andalusia it was no item. I've been there and seen the drought. The drought doesn't disappear by itself. Engineering has helped in New Orleans and in New York. It will help in more countries. But ,,, Essentially we should be more humble. And furthermre be aware of what's happening and don't start an ideological discussion. Let's prepare for the change in a lot of existential items.
Listen to engineers, use them, stoo the overpopulation, get rid of outdated treaty-conventions, be rational!
And most of all keep the desert-dwellers there. We don't want and need them. Stay in the desert and build your own country ad community. Destroying western communities isn't helpfull for your wellbeing Stay away.
@Wim yes, trusting politicians is a very big mistake. And many times not only do they not solve our problems but they aggravate them or create new ones. I hate them so much.
I also believe that Europe is suffering from overpopulation, and that we are not capable of self-sufficiency, which would have to be the first indication that would limit our population. I also believe that a drastic change in border policies is needed because the demographic decline of native Europeans is becoming very worrying, but I am not going to get into a controversy because I do not want to offend anyone.
In Spain one of the measures to cultivate with very low/irregular precipitations was terracing and leveling the fields, and everything was done manually by the peasants themselves, by brute force. In this way, the little water regularly penetrated the soil and did not drain down the slope. Here is an example of a traditional leveler:
Just reading Aidan's comments, walked up this valley on Saturday and this tree is now 'dead as a doornail', no foliage just dead trunk and branches. Meant to photograph it on the way back but went a different route. Sad to see it.
Just as another comment about this valley, absolutely superb location, deep glacial ravine with large stands of 30 to 32 metre Fraxinus growing along the beck side below impressive plantations of Larix decidua but a great many, probably 70% of the Fraxinus have die back, many completely bare of foliage. I happened to meet the Gamekeeper of Duncombe Park and he said that the estate is very worried about the Larch plantations has the trees are showing signs of disease and may eventually have to be felled. I must admit that the extensive plantations of Larix that I saw on Saturday looked superb, luxuriant trees with perfect spire tops (at the moment) Very difficult to measure though in such dense stands and up valley sides with lower vegetation, the trees along the edge are the only ones that you can really measure with accuracy but invariably are not the absolute tallest.
I really wanted to see this tree, a former tallest tree in Britain and yet it is almost forgotten. Fine tree, I will send a photo to Owen has it at least deserves a photograph.
Thank you Owen for uploading the photographs of this tree and the others. A tree deserving a photo at least as long time holder of the Britain's tallest tree title. 47-47.2 metre reading Abies alba standing to it's right, one of many impressive in two groves, both containing trees far excelling 40 metres.
I photographed and measured this tree but thought it was another Ponderosa pine, from Owen's placing it looks like it is this tree. I will send a photo to Owen to upload.
The comments say that 56.2m was recorded from two directions in 2018 but this is rounded down to 56m because of the possibility of error in estimating the base of the tree (hidden behind the roadside wall). The 2022 comment was presumably added by the user 'Treeface' who has provided the latest photo, in which the tree certainly seems to be making good height growth.
I have heard alot about Alan Mitchell and had some of his guides when I was a kid but never knew what he looked like? Not quite what I was expecting, didn't quite think he looked like this in my imagination?
I remember Robert Symes in documentaries when I was a kid and on 'Tomorrow's World', loved him and his way back then, eccentric professor type.
Hello Owen, thank you very much for uploading all the photographs.
Sowdley Wood is a very impressive location for tall conifers, tallest trees in Shropshire. I came across it in photos on Street View and then on the Geograph site and knew that there were Sequoia, Noble and Douglas and of some size. I visited in May 2021 but didn't have permission to visit from the Hurst for a walking visit. From across the fields from several hundred metres wasn't ideal measuring, I really wanted to go back and did this last May. This grove of Sequoia are in the grounds of the Hurst and are very impressive, in the ravine to the left of my photo is another grove of what looked like 50 metre Sequoias, looked as tall as the tallest that I measured-this 50.6 metre one, but I couldn't measure from any angle despite circling the trees as the undergrowth and clutter was impenetrable, I could see the tops but through too much density of small branches. The Douglas Firs are very impressive but again difficult to measure down the steep slope from the path and with ground vegetation, 54.8 to 55 metres was the tallest tree that I could measure the top and bottom of but I suspect another that I attempted to measure was 56 metres, I couldn't see the base for young trees in front but got 52 metres from the highest bit of exposed trunk to the tip.
This and the Cryptomeria are superb trees! Good finds.
RedRob, am 2022-07-14 11:53:22, geändert am 2022-07-14 11:54:42, hat gesagt:
Hello Aidan, good to hear from you at this no doubt busy period.
The trees are not my find but in a well known grove of Sequoias at Leighton Hall. The tallest of the old grove trees is along the path side to the lower side and 45.8 metres, there were several other trees of 46 metres which I measured and another one of 47 metres below the central path. The trouble is the Sequoias are densely packed together and you simply cannot see the tops of most of them or you can see them through a clutter of lower branches. I wondered if there might be a tree approaching or 50 metres by now but I couldn't pick one out if there is. Some of the Sequoias have nice spires whilst others have wider, flattish tops which hides the leading shoot sticking up on the top. The Cryptomerias in the small grove at the top were also very difficult to measure, hemmed in and with lower clutters of branches. How Michael Taylor and associates measure the Sequoias in California, how they see the tops of such tall trees and so dense a canopy? They pick the trees to measure with Lidar now but I can easily imagine very tall trees going un-measured in the past, taller than the old Howard Libby tree when it was the tallest tree in the world.
It was a wonderfully evocative visit to the Leighton redwoods, only me there (just how I like it), rain was threatening, still, it was so quiet in the middle of the grove, no birds singing the and the Sequoias muffle the outside sounds. It really is like being in a cathedral.
Look forward to seeing more of your measuring hopefully this summer? The tall Salix alba which you reported and hope that you can get to the Puddleton area to measure those Douglas in Dorset.
The description says "There is one Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) on the north bank of the Afon Llugwy, about 200 metres above the Mi in Betwys Y Coed"
The original location mapped here was out in the Irish Sea (that's how I spotted it was wrong!!). I've repositioned it on the assumption that 'Mi' means the Miners Bridge - is that correct? Can you check to see if I've got it about right now, please?
Hello Conifers, the site used to stick when I was trying to add locations with Mobile Broadband, I have just corrected the location, straight up the path from the Miners Bridge. The Noble fir was also in the wrong location, the blue stand is clearly visible just to the east.
Hello Adrian, welcome to this site and forum (unless you aren't new and I have missed your previous additions), very impressive tree, is this the tallest Douglas fir now at Reelig Glen, are any of the others measureable? I can see what I think is the 48 metre Larch in your photo on the right, have you managed to re-measure this tree? It would be interesting to know how close to 50 metres it is now pushing?
Are you from the Inverness area or just a visitor?
38m in 2010. (All done with good old-fashioned tape measures and angles...)
It does look as if it's putting on a bit of height-spurt, but 44m still seems too high. I find my Nikon laser is particularly likely to throw in errors when calculating the distance to the top of Coast Redwoods. Something to do with the relative intervals of the spacing between the needles and the length of the laser's light beam, I suspect, but I'm not an expert.
I can measure this tree again during the next open day. The other tree in this pair is of similar height so I could measure that one as well and see how accurate I’m being.
Another big Coast redwood in Surrey only open to the public on open days is the one at Chilworth Manor. You can see it from quite a way away. Has is been measured recently?
Aidan, I wonder if you could say that you are representing the Tree Register if it might permit you free entry or reduced entry? When Owen visited Yorkshire and we met up, we blagged our way into Ripley Castle for free and Fountains Abbey so it is worth asking. I take my Tree Register Newsletters with me with my name on.
Aidan, you are famous, a mention in the latest Tree Register Newsletter.
Owen, is there any material or letters that you could send by email which Aidan could print off and use as evidence that he is representing the Register? We could do with a little name badge with our names on it and Tree Register insignia and saying that we represent the Register which we could then attach to our shirts.
With my 4.81m Eucalyptus dalrympleana at Wintershall? Yes, I have seen! Next step now is to get a photo in one of the newsletters ;).
I'd like to sign up to the Tree Register soon, but the badges are not a bad idea for all of the Tree Register volunteers to use. Only problem is that I'm quite prone to loosing things, so I might have to get more than one!
I remeasured the height of this Sequoia, this time from a different angle and got smaller measurements. You were right! 41.9m seems much more reasonable.
Hello Owen, still cannot access the Register even with a different browser like Firefox at the moment? How does this tree compare, is it anywhere near a county champion for height for Powys? it has a real lean on it and straight would be over 20 metres. I will forward on photos when I get time.
Hello lana, envy you, follow the location guide given on the map for this as is tricky to find if you haven't got the correct location, in 2016 I never did find it on a visit as Sparsholt college had told me that is was south of Center Parcs.
This is a video about this tree which Jim McConkie the head forester at Longleat has added to Youtube fairly recently. There is abit of debate about it's height?
In a large stand of very slim, tall Fraxinus in the wood above the tall conifers, dense vegetation around the bases and likely near impossible to measure in full leaf but the trees were just budding through the laser viewfinder and I hit them just right. Whether any of the trees have chalara, difficult to tell but the ones that I could measure had green shoots right at the tips.
I will forward a photo to Owen, magnificent stand of Poplars which may previously have been missed because of the very tall conifers are just below them.
Hello Geoffrey, though maybe not the flavour of the month for yourself and the good wife possibly given her project, Aidan and myself were discussing if there may be some tall Sitkas hiding somewhere in Kielder forest which is right on your doorstep? I use Google Maps to look for shadows and blocks of trees and I am not sure if there will be or if I found them in 2014? I think that there may be some taller trees down in the ravine next to the south of this tree but they will be difficult to measure, it was difficult to see bases in 2014. There were some 41 metre Sitkas labelled as Rochester measured by Alan Mitchell back in the early 1980s if I remember correctly (Owen may correct me here), I have looked on Google Maps and Street View and cannot spot any likely really tall groves up Otterburn way? Suspect that these will have been felled but you never know, might be quite size now if some have survived.
I would love to see some planting of Scots pine in the borders to re-create the old Caledonian pine forest, re-create probably old 'cat coit Celidon'.
RedRob, am 2022-05-26 12:18:54, geändert am 2022-05-26 12:19:31, hat gesagt:
Hello Geoffrey, impressive trees to have in your garden. Do you have a laser yourself, what a handy chap to to know and have on here if you have considering your borders location, would you be up to measuring any trees we come across up in your home patch?
I have a laser rangefinder, but for this job I actually used a clinometer, which is on the same descriptor for that radio button. The idea is to lay out a surveyor's 50m tape measure and then walk up it with the clinometer set at 45 degrees. When the top of the tree is on the bubble, I look down at the tape, add 1.8m for my height-of-eye, job done.
Sure. I am always willing to come out and look at some fine trees! So is my wife, who is the one who really loves trees. She has planted half a million native broadleaf trees to create her own forest.
geoffreykolbe, am 2022-05-28 13:09:56, geändert am 2022-05-28 16:38:10, hat gesagt:
Yes, by hand.... but not planted by my wife personally. There are professional tree planters who roam the country planting commercial forests - usually sitka spruce. In this case though, my wife wanted to establish a forest on what had been a sheep farm in the Borders of Scotland as an 'ecological restoration' project. And so about a thousand hectares were planted with native broadleaf trees. Oak, ash, alder, rowan and birch in the main.
Magnificent line of very tall Poplars, I cannot get photographs to upload to this site, Aidan says that he has problems with uploading photos from his mobile.
Identified as Populus x canadensis 'Balsam Spire' and an unexpected Britain and Ireland champion for height. They are towering over the road and perhaps long term they may fall foul of the Health and Safety brigade. It is a shame if they are as they have shelter from a hill and forest behind and from the look of the leading shoots there is the potential of much more height yet.
As an aside, Populus x canadensis 'Balsam Spire' cannot be right; the hybrid Populus x canadensis is restricted to cultivars including only Populus nigra and Populus deltoides in their parentage. If the parentage includes any of the balsam poplars (Western Balsam Poplar Populus trichocarpa or any other balsam poplar), then they're not Populus x canadensis cultivars. If the parentage is uncertain, then it should be cited as just Populus 'Balsam Spire'.
I spent a good half an hour attempting to accurately measure the tallest trees in this stand without success. I went down the path to the creek bottom and assessed the position of the trees looking back up the valley. As seen in the top photo, the tree heights fall away along the creek to the north, the tallest trees are right in a group at the corner where the tree I attempted to measure at 61 metres is. It is impossible to measure it cleanly because of young trees underneath it and ground vegetation but it is somewhere around the 61 metre mark, the trees further to the north are not as tall. These are magnificent trees but the nagging doubt for me has been removed, they are in no way challenging the trees at Betws Y Coed for height or for the tallest tree in Britain. On the slope opposite this stand there has been clear felling of the forest so I just hope that this stand isn't going to be next.
View of this tree here on Street View, tall tree immediately right of the road. Superb stand of Douglas Firs between 55 and 61 metres, some felling is apparent as can be seen in the Street View image above, hope that the rest of this stand escapes. This tree I think is definitely the tallest in this stand, nothing challenging the trees at Betws Y Coed for height. The highest shoots on this 61 metre tree are thinning and look quite poor so it may suffer die back in the coming years.
This area contains of alot of tall trees, this one is most likely not the tallest one. It's hard to measure correctly both on laserdata (LIDAR) and with a laser in the field. I didn't have time to measure alot, will definitely come back to this area soon. Alot of potensial record trees on different deciduous species!
Hello Haavar, superb tree, great that some big trees are now being recorded in Norway. I have visited Norway once, a cruise up the fjords in 2008 to Flam , Sognefjord, Alesund, Bergen and other locations and remember on walks seeing some tall Picea abies and other trees. The Fraxinus are/were just budding over here and the thin shoots at the top are difficult to hit the end of with the laser, it doesn't pick them up, so you have done well with this one. Did you definitely get a hit on the end of the whip like tallest shoot?
Haavar Bunes, am 2022-05-26 12:35:48, geändert am 2022-05-26 12:38:46, hat gesagt:
Hi, it indeed isn't easy to hit the very top of trees like this. It could also be tricky to actually find the branch that is the highest point, as it is usually different branches that are almost the same. I felt like I hit the top pretty well here. I had free sight, and I use a TruPulse 200x on a tripod. So it is pretty steady and precise to use. Could still be a few cm off of course, but thats just how it is.
30 cm height is no mistake, driving over the dam at Vyrnwy I could see that these magnificent Abies had been felled along with the whole quite superb stand of Larix decidua behind them where the tallest trees would have been likely 45 metres by now. Has I have just said to Owen, very big trees to be felled for timber, whether the RSPB has anything to do with this? There is a quest for the cleansing of even single foreign trees by these conservation charities which I for one vehemently disagree with.
It is indeed a great shame. They looked like very fine trees. There is a fine balance to strike with re-naturalising areas of the British countryside for the native wildlife while still leaving enough space for fine non-native trees like these.
Not the best of photos, cannot find on a quick search a full length photo but it looks an impressive tree and from other photos aptly named on comparison of cone size.
There was a shoot up on top of the grown which I must have missed in May 2017. I walked back some considerable distance and on to the little bridge and could see the shoot sticking up at 45 degrees which I didn't hit in May 2017 almost 100% certainly, the tree will not have added 3 metres in 5 years. I will ask Owen to post a photo of said shoot eventually if he will.
This was a superb speciman but it has lost it's top since May 2017, 14 metres in height has been lost. I will ask Owen if he will upload a photo eventually.
Still a superb tree, 38.6-38.8 metres consistant readings for the same twig that I could see up on the top of the crown, not 100% sure if that is the apex twig? Highly likely the twig I hit this time was the same has I hit in May 2017. Likely this tree will be 39 metres with the bit of this season's growth left.
This tree is still here/there but the Laurels have grown and spread out significantly since May 2017 and I couldn't get a view of the base cleanly and didn't have the time unfortunately to measure from the base to a point. Likely now around 63 metres.
Have you measured the big Douglas fir on the left side of this image? You can only see the trunk here but on Google street-view it looks very tall - at least double the height of the Turkey oak in front of it. I believe the tree just to the right of the Douglas is an Oriental spruce? Any measurements for that?
I look forward to visiting Cragside when I'm up in Northumbs at Easter. It looks like it promises a good day out!
I didn't measure as it is exposed but it is perhaps late 40 metres, the 44-45 metres Abies concolor are in the same area and of similar height. The spruce I remember pointing the laser at in passing but it isn't that big, cannot recall offhand prescisely what measurement I got, think it was 26 or 27 metres perhaps? I have just had a look on the Register but the search isn't working properly at the moment, I think Owen will have recorded it.
Thanks for the info. Can't wait to get to Cragside! I'll measure the Oriental Spruce - I don't think they get that big in Surrey (I don't recall seeing any big ones), so this one seems like a large one to me.
I've had a look at some of the photospheres at Cragside and unfortunately I think your fantastic Edel-Tanne (Abies procera) '11695' near the east end of the iron bridge has been felled. The one next to it on the opposite side of the path and visible on the right hand side of your photo still remains, but I don't think it's as big or as fine.
Also gone is the superb Mountain Hemlock that used to be near the top of the rockery just below the house - it wasn't especially tall, but had a lovely shape and very nice glaucous foliage. A real shame when I discovered it wasn't there any more.
Which one of these has gone? It's a shame that either of them are gone. Hopefully Storm Arwen didn't do too much damage to the champions here. I'll have to find out!
Conifers, am 2022-04-07 19:27:06, geändert am 2022-04-07 19:27:44, hat gesagt:
Not sure, as the locations given are not very clear. It was right below the main terrace, here. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos of it.
I visited Cragside yesterday, here's a quick update before I upload my records to the website when I get back home.
Tallest Douglas Fir (Douglasie (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '8700') is now 61.5m, which makes it marginally taller than the Dunster ones, though they probably need an update - I should have bought my rangefinder last year when I visited them!
I was right about Edel-Tanne (Abies procera) '11695', which has unfortunately been felled. Both the Mountain Hemlocks in the rockery have been felled. I'll add my photos of the stumps to the ATI records and update them to 'lost notable'. Gemeine Fichte (Picea abies) '13028' was sadly gone as well. I don't know whether it was a Storm Arwen victim or it was just felled for no reason. I did measure a 39.9m Norway Spruce nearby, but I doubt it was as impressive as the 45.4m one.
Unfortunately my camera ran out of battery pretty much straight away, so I took most of my photos on my iPhone, and Monumental Trees doesn't really like uploading photos from there, for some reason. I'll give it another go and hope for the best.
Owen, how common in the UK is Salix x rubens? I wasn't aware that there was a cross between Crack and White willow with this name but I have come across several willows which didn't look quite/fully right as one or the other really, Crack or White, are some of these trees likely to be crosses between the two?
Does Salix x rubens have the colour of Crack or White willow when viewed from distance? I have alot of Salix alba around me, very big ones and they are clearly alba with the flashing white foliage, others I have seen have just a slight whiteish tinge from angles but the lighter green colour of Crack overall. I will pull up one (not literally but on here)
Some users would probably prefer to use this name whenever a willow doesn't have the clear features of alba or of x fragilis. Others might only want to use it if the features in combination seem finely balanced. (Presumably by 'planted trees' the BSBI handbook is referring to the trees usually called alba var. caerulea (Bat Willows), which do have intermediate features.) Nearly all the wild trees with which I'm most familiar are clearly one or the other, but in other parts of the country I suspect the picture will be more complex.
Hi Owen - "Presumably by 'planted trees' the BSBI handbook is referring to the trees usually called alba var. caerulea (Bat Willows), which do have intermediate features" - no; Cricket Bat Willow has its own seperate entry (as a variety Salix alba var. caerulea, though cultivar would've been more accurate).
Congratulations for finding Norway's new tallest tree! If I recall correctly, I guessed 53-55m, so quite near ;)
It is impressive as it is so much taller than the surrounding spruce forest. Did you measure the second fir visible on the right in the video? Did you measure the tree also with drone? What was the result?
Thank you Kouta! The second fir was 47,5 meters in 2015 (laserdata). I would assume this tree is 48-49 meters now. We didn't have time to measure the others trees unfortunately. There is one other tree that measured 49,6 meters in 2015 aswell, which you can barely see on some of the footages in the drone videos. This one is most likely close to 51 meters now. The tallest one were 52,5 meters in 2015 as I also mentioned on the tree page. These three trees stood out from the rest.
To Conifers: You could be right! I don't have good enough info nor experience at the moment to come up with a qualified guess when it comes to the age of the tree.
RedRob, am 2022-04-07 15:02:55, geändert am 2022-04-07 15:14:20, hat gesagt:
Nothing for this tree Aidan? I remember the Sequoia that I saw at Polecate and photographed, may be this one, it would have been very difficult to height measure as it went straight up into tight canopy.
RedRob, am 2022-04-07 15:01:07, geändert am 2022-04-07 15:15:34, hat gesagt:
Anything for this tree Aidan? This tree could be approaching the B&I champion for height? Storm Arwen tore down the valley from the north which would have been right at the Deodar in Betws Y Coed. I have photos of the tip which show that it had lost some of it's tip over the year from when I first visited and then recovered with a leader, it may have lost some more after this winter. I do hope that the Waterloo Douglas haven't been damaged, they would have been very exposed to a funnel north wind.
Unfortunately I couldn't find a window for this one on my visit in Feb. It is in need of an update so I will try and get back to Polecat soon and spend a good day recording there.
This is one willow which I was definitely in two minds about, it looked exactly like a cross between White Willow and Crack Willow when I looked at it, an overall light green colour but from a distance a whitey tinge. I have some more photos which I will attempt to upload if I can.
Hello Aidan, you did well to get a measurement on this one! I visited in 2011 before I had a laser and it was a difficult tree to see in whole, base and tip, I can imagine it is difficult to measure the height of cleanly.
Managed to find a window from the same position as Owen's photo. Consistent measurements of 53m from there. Surprisingly I found this one of the easier trees to measure height for here.
I wonder how this tree is doing, 0.6 metres growth in 2 growing seasons, measured in May 2017 so may not have put on growth or all the growth for that year. Potentially including 2017 5 growing seasons, assuming say 0.3 metres of growth that is 1.5 metres, could potentially be c40 metres now. I suspect though given it's location that it will have had some damage from Arwen.
The Polecat Copse Deodar has had 6 years of growth from 2015, assuming say 0.3 metres of growth drawn up in the dense canopy it could potentially have put on 1.8 metres of growth, 38.8 metres.
Come across this list, so many trees on it to query. Might be useful to you Aidan as well for re-checking.
A. pseudoplatanus 40 x 115 1985 Lennoxlove Lothian
Owen, any news on this, was it a genuine measurement or were the eyesight problems and factor? Does the tree still exist?
Just had the Tree Register Newsletter, new 33 metre Britain and Ireland champion for Betula pendula in the New Forest, great stuff.
B. pendula 30 x 44 1989 Birse, Ballogie, Grampian
I wonder if this still exists? There must be some 35 metre Betula pendulas somewhere in Scotland, got to be surely? I cannot see any in my patch challenging 33 metres but I suppose you never know.
I wonder if the 34 metre Alnus glutinosa at Croft Castle is still standing after the wild winter storms we have had, it looks so painfully vulnerable in the Newsletter photo. I suspect it will be a long shot that it hasn't been hit in some way, shame the National Trust did what they did in the valley.
Good find! There is a saying said here in America, once quite popular in the southern mountains of the US, in Kentucky.
"The hills of Kentucky were so steep, back in the old days, that one farmer grew very rich and wealthy by breeding a mule with two legs shorter than the other two".
The slopes in that part of Poland look crazy steep!
Thanks for appreciation and interesting comment :). Yes, when you see these photos it looks similar to Kentucky hills ;). In most cases landscape in such part of Poland is more gentle, but many tall trees prefer steep slopes of some valleys or even canyon of Dunajec river in Pieniny Mountains. This is rather difficult to go there and trees are protected from stronger winds by steep slopes - that is the reason of my passion to such areas being gym centres where yoga and other outdoor physical exercises are necessary. Tree hunting can help you stay healthy (if you don't die by falling down of course) - that is conclusion :)
Truly magnificent, monumental tree Lukasz and great photo, precisely the photos that I like to see of trees so their size can be fully and properly appreciated.
the sequoiadendron giganteum in Zoersel, Belgium (the tree is recorded in this site) has leaf loss since last year. I saw the tree in september 2021.
The leaf loss is partial. The most leaf loss is in the south on 20 meters high.
I can't find the reason. There were no changes in the environment, no damage, no fruitingbodys, .... There are two other sequoiadendron giganteum but younger in the neighborhood (50-100 meters) and they have no leaf loss.
The leaf is analyzed on fungi: The most common leaf fungus in Sequoiadendron giganteum is Botryosphaeria.
Botryosphaeria was not found in the leaf sample. However, two other fungi were identified: Pithomyces chartarum and Diaporthe eres (Phomopsis).
Pithomyces is a weakness parasite and most likely occurs only secondary here. Diaporthe eres has been described as a cause of twig lesions in Sequoiadendron, but it is not clear whether it plays a primary role in the symptoms of general twig death. In addition to these fungi, caterpillars of Noctua pronuba (House Mother) were also identified. However, the damage picture is not the result of the presence of the caterpillars.
It will be rare if this tree has leaf loss because of the dry and hot weather in 2020&21 and the others not.
If anyone has similar experiences , it is very useful for me!
I can send foto's or analyse of leaf on nutritions and fungi.
info@verlindenboombeheer.be
With regards,
Serge Verlinden
RedRob, am 2022-04-07 12:41:53, geändert am 2022-04-07 12:45:14, hat gesagt:
Thanks, it was really fantastic feeling to could see such trees. Larch trees are mostly planted in lowland and lower parts of Carpathians in Poland, but there is also subsp. polonica which is native also to this area and I am not sure, if such trees belongs to polonica and are native. I saw some cones below the tree and they look in some cases like subsp. polonica, who knows...
Agree with Aidan, great finds Lukasz and this is precisely the way to photograph them for best appreciation, a person for scale standing next to the base, excellent photo.
Thanks for appreciation - I agree, it is the best way for showing the tree's real dimensions. The only problem is to "catch" best light conditions because there is usually a big contrast between dark base of the tree and the top. This time I was late, because some time earlier the foot of the tree was in full sun and this man would be more visible ;)
I 100% agree with you, Lukasz. If the light levels are not perfect you can easily end up with a bad photo. A good example of this in my experience is of this photo I took of a tall Douglas fir near me -
The exposure was far too high, so the crown of the tree was hardly visible and I ended up cropping it out. You've managed to make it work, though!
I normally take 2 or 3 photos of the tree (depending on height), and then I stitch them together in a free online photo app, and make these images of trees I have uploaded:
Aidan - yes, that's it, this is a problem, but BeeEnvironment has a good idea to solve the problem. For me it is rather difficult to use the method because of permanent lack of time ;). As for now I am just happy if I have a possibility to visit such places and take some photos.
Do we have any measurers on this site from Portugal or able to do any measuring on the Azores islands? Anyone planning a holiday? The conifers look superb on Sao Miguel, Cryptomeria, they look pretty impressive. Hedychium gardnerianum is a weed on the islands, everywhere in photographs. I have clump growing against my south facing house wall which has lived happily for many years but is slow spreading here (North Yorkshire), wish it grew like it does on the Azores has I love the flowers (had four last September) Hedychium forrestii, or at least a plant I bought under this name, does very well up here and I have a large clump (so much so that I have split it and donated some to Harewood House) but the flowers are not very impressive although the foliage is. Sorry about that, should be on a Tropical forum, wandered off there.
5,0 bei der ersten Bewertung, 2,75 bei der zweiten Bewertung. Die Geschmäcker hier sind schon sehr verschieden. Der eine empfindet das Bild als Optimal, der andere als Löschwürdig. Nun gut, egal.
I am at work now, but had a quick look at what happened here. All votes are logged, so it was very easy to see that this was caused by a single person (using also a second, duplicate account just for voting) who keeps on using the "image rating system" for voting for the tree instead of for the image, what it is meant for. I will clean this this evening and likely disable the voting system all together as it apparently keeps getting misused and misinterpret. Sad, because I hoped it had some value and I spent quite some time developing it.
du siehst ja, wer welche Bewertungen abgibt. Ich nehme an, es handelt sich immer um die gleiche Person, die die Bilder schlecht bewertet. Und diese Person bewertet eigentlich immer nur die Bilder, die zuvor recht gut bewertet worden sind. Ich bekomme für ein Bild des öfteren Noten zwischen 4,5 und 5. Und ich weiß genau, dass dann diese Bilder spätestens am nächsten Tag eine zweite Bewertung haben, und das Mittel auf unter 3 gefallen ist. Die zweite Bewertung lag also unter 2. Vielleicht könnte man ja auch nur diese spezielle Person für das Bewertungssystem sperren, statt das ganze Bewertungssystem aufzugeben?
This is far from the only tree where there has been multiple votes by individuals: the suggestion of creating duplicate accounts was made by someone (I think in may have been Wim, but can't remember for sure [apologies if it wasn't!]) a long time ago, and clearly several appear to have taken up the idea. A few (of many) other photos of high quality (both tree, and image quality) with suspiciously low votes to investigate:
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/21676/
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/21677/
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/11226/
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/14569/
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/10807/
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/24907/
http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/24954/
And in general, many of the other photos by Jeroen and Kouta in particular.
Maybe the best option is to keep all the votes separate to each member, viewable to that member only? That way they could keep their personal preferences at the top for themselves, without inflicting their views on others. It is the average between all users that satisfies no-one.
I still think that voting for the tree is what matters. Voting for the photo quality only gives advantage to the richest person who can afford the most expensive camera; this is neither fair, nor just. It does nothing to reward the poorer person who makes the effort to search out special trees, but who can only afford a cheap camera giving low quality pics.
Indeed a good photo of a beautiful tree. When you like to see who are voting the most often, you can see this when going to 'Community' then to 'Users' after wich you can choose a user. At the 'contribution' page you can see who are voting the most often.
I myself have voted only very few times and I do not bother about the people voting low for my photos. What Conifers writes about Kouta's and my photos being low valued is most often about tall forest grown trees.
I disagree with Conifers about the voting: it is not meant to value a tree. Only to value the photos relative for one tree, so that the most valued photo is in the front.
When looking to the voting of several prominent users, I see some users who never have voted. Some others like myself have voted only rarely. Others have a medium number of votes with a balanced score of most 2 to 5 stars. But at least two of us, Conifers and Wim, have voted extremely often and with a rather extreme balance. So although I like to contribute to Tim's wish to let the system serve its original meant purpose, that is only working if all users use it in a proper way.
When Conifers, Wim (and perhaps other users Tim will know about) keep using it as before and in the way Conifers describes (voting for trees instead of photos) I propose Tim to stop this system altogether.
I am sorry that I had to call names, but this discussion is already going on for years without any purpose.
Rainer, I hope you can read my English, like Leo wrote German is rather difficult!
Don?t feel embarrassed to mention my name. I can, without any second feelings give honorous and integer response to any allegation. I have voted in the spirit that Tim has intended. I have at some times tried to correct misdoers. Too late I realized that it wouldn?t work. So I stopped voting with the idea to create a Photogallery of the most beautiful trees in the world and to withstand the urge of someones to give most benefit to the record breaker in height and nature conformity. And I strongly oppose to the dogmatic socialist view of Conifers in which seeking for quality is not to be rewarded because, the seeker has too much money, How misformed can one be? I used to be a genuine social democrat, but this kind of jealousy or misplaced social concern, makes me switch to the liberals. And I hate liberals, ?no I hate dogmatics, especially religious ones. And I can only be open to openminded people who are seeking the benefit of all and especially the arts and crafts and nature.
Tim scheint etwas umgestellt zu haben. Hier waren es mal 10, oder gar 11 Stimmen, jetzt nur noch 9. Ich vermute mal, er hat die Bewertungen von einem User gestrichen, so wie ich es vorgeschlagen habe. Und das System ist jetzt noch nicht komplett angepasst. ist aber nur eine Vermutung von mir.
There have been more 'handbags at dawn' and strife about the voting system thing than anything else on the discussion part of this site. Why not just do away with it and then people will not get upset and handbags won't be flying anymore. If I like a tree I make a comment on this discussion part of this site. I like to see the actual trees whether in deep forests or where they are, if they are of note dimension wise then it doesn't matter where they are. I would like to say though I do like a distance photo of said trees with something of context, preferably person standing next to the base (and of known height for said person if tree height not known.
vielen Dank für die Glückwünsche. Ich selbst kann meine Fotos auch etwas einschätzen und sehe dieses hier auch als eher eines von den guten an. Deswegen war ich irritiert, weil es Benutzer gibt, die das Bild nur mit 1,25 bewertet haben.
Rainer, meines Erachtens ist das eine bemerkenswert schöne Buche, und ein sehr gutes Foto obendrein! Würde ich "benoten" (und es im Rahmen von MT für wichtig befinden!) gäbe es beste Bewertung meinerseits.
Aber ich enthalte mich dieser subjektiven Einschätzungen, habe noch keine Benotungen vergeben. Dieses Foto ist mir jedenfalls als Kleinbildchen entsprechend gut aufgefallen, daher mein Kommentar.
Ich will dir raten, unpassende, provokante Abwertungen deiner (und anderer) Fotos einfach zu ignorieren, dann wird dem Urheber die Freude genommen ;^P
Zudem ist MT sicher kein Forum zur Beurteilung von Fotos, dafür gibt es passendere Webseiten. Wie auch immer, Danke für deine wertvollen Beiträge und auch SCHÖNEN FOTOS !!
gerade wegen provokanter Abwertungen Einzelner, welche die ernsthaften Bemühungen des Fotografen für ein gutes Bild diskreditieren, möchte ich dich und auch viele andere Baumfreunde bitten euch am Votum rege zu beteiligen. Im Besonderen durch eine hohe Anzahl an Bewertungen können wir meines Erachtens diesen meist kommentarlosen extremen Abwertungen erfolgreich begegnen! Ich glaube dass gerade ansprechende Baumfotos die Attraktivität und die Reichweite diese Homepage für Laien und Fachleute erhöhen können.
Hi Frank I very much agree with what you have said. The question at hand reminds me on my entrance in the world of citybuilding and public engineering. As a sociologist I was very welcome because I could see the positions of hardline techniciens and the normal public. I bridged the difference that the engineers couldn't and made a career in urban development and standard-breaking developments. In this case something similar is at hand. The experts are interested in the measure-tables. What is the largest and what is the biggest and what is the oldest? Lots of people don't give a damn about the exact results. On this site there is a mixed population of amatures and technicals. If we want to enlarge the interest of normal people for trees and the monumentality of it, we need (good) pictures. And Tim has started this site in the exact idea. Originally he started with Sequoiadendron and evoluated to trees of all kind. But the images should be attractive and valuated. Not the worth of the trees in technical sense. I have tried to give direction in this discussion. I stopped out of frustation People who are mostly interested in statistics gained. Nice that I have some fellow-members who support my and Tom's views. If you ring the bell, I will support you aas much as I can.
Also ich würde es auch schade finden würde das Bewertungssystem wegfallen. Dem Argument "bessere Kamera = besseres Foto" kann ich gar nichts abgewinnen, denn es knipst ja nicht nur der Finger, sondern auch- und vielmehr- das Auge ! :-) So ist meine Kamera etwa doppelt so teuer wie die von Rainer Lippert, trotzdem sind seine Fotos besser ! Mich begeistert vor allem sein Bildaufbau der Fotos ! Da wäre es schade wenn man das nicht in Vergleich zu andere Fotos setzen kann. Und wie schon Frank gesagt hat: um so mehr "richtig" bewerten um so weniger fällt der "Unterbewerter-Kasperl" auf... :-)
vielen Dank für das Lob. Als so gut, was den Bildaufbau angeht, sehe ich meine Fotos eigentlich nicht. Inzwischen habe ich aber auch eine neuere Kamera. Eine Canon M6 mit diversen Objektiven.
I just wrote to Fredrik Reuter. As I found the 49-metre spruce from the skogsforum a few years ago I registered at the forum and wrote through the skogsforum to F. Melakari but he did not answer. I hope I have better luck with F. Reuter.
Thank you for adding the trees. I changed the measurer to Melakari (I hope it is correct), changed the method to the 2-point-method and the measuring date to the date of the youtube video. Now the trees appear in the record list.
Am I mis-remembering, wasn't there a reference once on here to some tall Abies grandis in Sweden which may have been 51 metres tall? I cannot remember the location? I remember it wasn't on the coast but so far inland?
Surprising what they make from conifers, chewing gum from the resin of spruce and Abies grandis in Sweden, coffee subsitute from the young shoots of Pseudotsuga, spruce beer.
After months of searching with good help of Quick Terrain Modeler (laserdata), we finally seeked out to our most interesting find. The tree that stood out from all the other trees we had earlier seen, should now be found and measured. We had high hopes, and we were excited if the tree was still standing and if it was in good condition. It did, and the results were overwhelming.
Hello Haavar, don't keep us in suspense, the video finishes (what I can see?) before it gives anything away? What is the height of this new tallest Norway Spruce in Norway?
We will announce the height of the tree on the 31. of march! We will have a lecture about it on "Geomatikkdagene 2022" (the Geomatics days 2022) in Norway. There are also more videoes of this project on the channel, and we will soon post more.
It's a cultivar. Cheap, mass-produced, chainstore junk. Plastic chair in a waiting room, not even IKEA flat pack, let alone Chippendale. Aluminium toy trumpet, not Stradivarius. Nylon, not silk. Plastic mug, not crystal glass. Made by man, not by God, nor by nature. Genetic pollution that destroys biodiversity.
Would you give a 5* Michelin Award to a MacDonalds burger joint or a Taco Bell? No, you give it to something that is distinct, unique, and with real quality. Cultivars don't have that, they don't deserve it. And neither does this junk tree! Give cultivars lower scores than planted trees, and planted trees lower scores than 'Urwald' Old Growth natural trees - those are the real masterpieces that deserve 5 stars.
BeeEnvironment, am 2021-08-18 21:40:11, geändert am 2021-08-18 21:42:04, hat gesagt:
Conifers,
Thanks for the insight. As I usually say in the end, you make very good and convincing points, at least to me. I did not even notice this was a cultivar until I changed my laptop contrast settings which showed the purple (was dark green before, due to night-light settings and the browser I was in).
You are definitely correct about the part of destroying genetic diversity, and the part about rating old-growth natural trees, "made by god/nature", as you say. Did not realize this was man-made (well, man mass-produced).
While I mean no offense to Frank, or anyone else here, Conifer's points really changed my mind with cultivars of these types. While I always knew norway maple cultivars here in America are total nonsense and garbage, I did not know about european beech. Rating is gonna go down...
Conifers, am 2021-08-18 23:16:02, geändert am 2021-08-18 23:18:22, hat gesagt:
@Bee - thanks! Yes, very much mass-produced; hundreds of thousands of genetically identical plants, means hundreds of thousands places lost to unique individuals each with their own unique genes. A truly massive loss of biodiversity.
And yes, absolutely, no offence meant to Frank; I rate the tree and its environment, not the photographer. Many of Frank's trees are really nice; here for example, is real beauty, a lovely Ulmus laevis in its natural wetland habitat, fully deserving 5*:
Jeroen Philippona, am 2021-08-19 06:08:22, geändert am 2021-08-19 19:57:33, hat gesagt:
Well, now all contributors can see that you, Conifers, agree you are the one who mostly gives this absurd low scores for photos by Frank and other contributors of this site. Tim and I knew this for a long time, but did not want to reveal this nor your real name. I value it as a childish habit, because it was done anonimously, also while you are a well known dendrologist but hide your real name. Also I see your way of dealing as quite arrogant as it has hurted several contributors because they could not get in open contact. For years there even was a kind of battle with the scoring system between you and another contributor who has opposite opinions.
I have stated several times the star system was created by Tim to give contributors the possibility to give scores to photos just to get them to the front when a lot of photos are posted for one tree, while the system standard shows only 5 photos of a tree (this to make the appearance of the page of a tree less heavy / slow on internet).
Of course I agree that the mass production of clonal trees is not good from an ecological point as well as for biodiversity. But we have to deal with the urbanised and man made landscape, where trees do not grow in primeaval forests. From the point of view of Conifers the millions of clonal trees like Ulmus x hollandica 'Belgica', Tilia x europea, Populus x canadensis, Fagus sylvatica 'Atropunicea' and many others who make large parts of the landscape of the Netherlands as well as many countries can be compared with hamburgers and cheap plastic. This denies the fact that without them the landscape in large urban and suburban as well as rural areas was largely empty of trees and much more left to shadeless and overheated areas.
Of course it is much better to plant native trees of non-clonal and most diverse possible origin as wel as a diverse number of species even in urban parks, along streets and in rural landscapes. Also it is good to preserve as large as possible natural forest reserves. In my country there still are far to few forest reserves: there are 60 reserves with a surface of 2907.6 hectare, so only 29 square kilometer in a country of 41.500 km2 (of wich 34.000 km2 land) surface. Only 10 % of this is forest, but most of that is production forest, for a large part planted with non-native conifer species like Dougas fir, Picea abies, Larix, etc. Also large parts with semy-native Pinus sylvestris and native Betula, Quercus robur and Fagus sylvatica (but of these often non-native seed-origin).
So large parts of the Dutch landscape is artificial. The many old estates are areas with comparatively a lot of old trees, among which many ornamental trees. Of these many are copper beeches and most of these are clonal grafted trees. To my opinion very beautiful and valuable for the landscape and of a cultural value. This is also the case with many old lime trees, Tilia x europea. Several of these are among the oldest trees in the Netherlands, from around 1600 - 1650, with a known history. They are of clonal origin but still very valuable, even as a habit for lots of birds, insectsand funghy.
What I said about the Netherlands can be said of many European counties, although most of them have more natural forest landscapes.
Yesterday i visited some nice older Ulmus laevis trees but not in their riverine natural habitat, as we don't have these anymore.
I cannot see why culture, i.c. what people make and create, is inferior to nature. It’s the distinguishing characteristic between man and animals. If we reject what man adds to nature and other environments because that’s artificial, than we could as well stop living. And if one’s worldview sprouts from it, is that enough reason to annoy and irritate others with an alternative one man suggested voting parallel system?
I appreciate Conifers’ contributions, they are of great value, but indeed by doing what he does he mistreats the voting-system is quite arrogant and irritating and it is respectless to others. I feel sorry about it.
Never knew Conifers was a dendrologist. Interesting to know that.
While my opinions might not be valued as much as some others here, mainly because I live across the world from many of you, I believe that mass-producing (by the millions by private corporations) popular cultivars of any kind, whether it be Beech or Maple, just because some people happens to like the color of the leaves/bark, is not a smart idea.
Of course, you guys also make good points with Tilia x europea, but however tree species like those are primarily NATURALLY OCCURING hybrids (in other words, nature made rather than man-made), and not man-mass-produced on a HUGE scale so some companies can make a quick buck just for a plant that looks nice. The same thing goes for Populus x canadensis, which occurs naturally without nearly any assistance from man, unless to mass-produce.
Like purple Norway Maples here in North America, and also this beech that frank added, Fagus sylvatica 'Atropunicea', these species have been widely mass-produced for their "unique" color that just happened to occur in very very few trees that had a genetic variation.
Of course, now, I dont think that every single purple beech or norway maple should be cut down just because they are mass-produced and don't help out with natural genetic diversity.
As Jeroen mentioned, some of these trees have great history with them, and some culture. However, can you see how hard it is to have culture with something that, to this day, is mass-produced by man, and is not something that can ever be found in even some of the most disturbed forests that have been scarred by man? I am not against using/planting these cultivars, but I think their use should be limited so that we don't grow up with a whole forest of purple norway maples that hardly can photosynthesize. Its almost like planting invasives, in some sense.
Anyway, as to what Wim says, I do not disagree with you in most regards. However, at some point when man changes nature SO MUCH, it damages us all, in one form or another, whether it be a complex system or a simple one. Culture, I have to argue, is not mass-producing by the millions a "brand" or Tree species for the profit of a company just because the leaves might look "cool" to some people (which, even though I am against it, a bit interesting to me also). Now, natural hybrids, like Populus x canadensis and others, they are, at least to me, very interesting and "better" hybrids, as they were created without the help of man. They seem to contain the true culture of man, as they have been able to propogate what nature created for their own benefit occasionally, like European Beech in some parts of the country, because of its nut-bearing capabilities.
Anyway, I think that having all of our different views is very important, as it gives us all new perspectives and comments on this subject. I hope no one here is trying to take my comments as rude; just trying to get my views out.
Wim Brinkerink, am 2021-08-19 19:45:49, geändert am 2021-08-19 21:35:29, hat gesagt:
Hi Bee. DonÂ’t be to modest. Your contribution is valuable like anyone elseÂ’s. But this is not a content-discussion. The problem is that Conifers doesnÂ’t respect the rules of the site and corrupted the voting-system and he doesnÂ’t respect the contribution of people who donÂ’t have the same opinion or intentions as he has . ThatÂ’s really not done in a community like this one. Remember: one doesn't have to vote!. And if you vote extreme you have some kind of policical agenda. Shouldn't do that here. But I must admit the Conifer-way is seducing me to countervote. And sometimes I just do that to my own regret.
The blood or purple beech goes back to a mutation of a copper beech. Around 99 percent[3] of all existing specimens are said to go back to the mother blood beech from 1690 from the Possenwald forest on the Hainleite near the Thuringian town of Sondershausen. Around the tree germinated the so-called 11 sisters, where the breeding of the blood beeches was specifically started. The plant attracted interest throughout Europe, so that, among other things, a very early descendant could also be found in London's Hyde Park, and from there the blood beech spread further.
Under Prince Günther Friedrich Carl II of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen (1801-1889), a hunting and forestry enthusiast, Eduard Michael, who was appointed forester in 1823, investigated the mother tree. In 1841 it was published that the original tree was 27 meters high at that time and had a thickness of 80 (measured from east to west) and 85 centimeters (from north to south). Michael, as Oberlandesforstmeister, sent seeds and scions from Sondershausen to other forestry offices, nurseries and private individuals from the 1860s onwards. Thus the systematic breeding and spreading of the copper beech began demonstrably strengthened only in the 19th century. Trade was expanded worldwide to France, England, and America, among other places.[4]
The largest populations of blood beeches are said to be in Scotland.
The mother beech itself still existed until it was broken off in 1926. On the blood beech hiking trail to Oberspier, a sign on the heavily weathered stump reminds us of the place of origin. In the immediate vicinity is the even better preserved remnant of one of the sister trees.
Is it any wonder I kept quiet about voting, when I get this pile-in of bullying for not voting according to what you think I should vote? Is voting only to be allowed if you vote for the 'right' party or vote in the 'right' way? This sounds more like something out of the Donald Trump playbook, a denial of genuine democracy, than any reasoned response. It is timidity and fear of bullying (abundantly proven correct by the above) that kept me quiet about what I vote, not arrogance: if I had been arrogant, I would have said it loud and clear, the way arrogant people do. That is why anonymous voting is so important in democracy - if it is not anonymous, it is not free or fair, as it gives the powerful undue influence over the weak ("make sure you vote for Trump [/ Putin / Lukashenko / the Taliban / Hitler], or else ..."). This hostility is strongly pushing me towards leaving this site.
"So large parts of the Dutch landscape is artificial ..."
I don't see the relevance of that here - it would merely mean that the smaller numbers of wild trees in the region would be picked out more easily by high ratings. Britain has exactly the same problem of poor environment, in fact, more so; Britain is the 10th-most nature-depleted country in the world. That is no reason to give high votes to low value trees, just because it is all there is there!
"Anspruch und Wirklichkeit - siehe:
Claim and reality - see: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/benutzer/Conifers/"
What is that supposed to mean, please? Is it a genuine question, or an attempt to bully? If it is a comment about the votes for the trees I have posted, then remember I do not have any influence on what votes other people give for them. I am saddened that some appear to have downvoted the Pinus peuce specimen as it is a high value wild tree in its natural habitat and not some artificial dross, but equally, I think some of my others have been over-rated, particularly that Populus nigra 'Italica' which I posted mainly for cultivar identification discussion. Posting trees is not the same as voting for trees!
To let it be known, I agree with Conifers that he reserves the right to privately vote and not be bullied for it. If I ever asked you Conifers, or other voters in the past, I only meant to ask for my own real questions, or logical reason, like why you thought a certain photo or tree seems to not deserve a higher rating than a native one, like that, and not to criticize your way of voting. I hope I never annoyed you; just wanted to understand (because I am still very much learning about trees), the reason. Sorry If I did. I never had any intention to bully anyone for this reason.
Also, don't leave the site. While some believe that your actions are probably "weird" and "arrogant", I think that you are doing the right thing. To be honest though, I wish you explained or, at least, sent me a private message explaining, but I understand that others have pushed/bully you.
In addition, just as a side-note, do you know if there is a list of the most nature-depleted countries on earth? I often like reading studies and papers on the world's trees/ecosystems, so if you know that exists, I would enjoying studying it.
Anyway, all in all, I strongly believe Conifers reserves the right to not be bullied/have his own vote, and that this discussion should end. After all, all this was just voting for this single tree/photo.
I appreciate that you react in the open. In the end an open discussion on platforms like MT are the distinguishing elements in open societies. But it’s not about democracy. I think you miss the point. Tim has started this site/database and it is appreciated and valued by a lot of people. In constructing the website, he created a voting system with a purpose. A legitimate claim as I see it. You, and I think only you, refuse to accept that. You don’t vote for pictures as it was intended and has a constructive aim, but you try to take control or disturb the way doing, by changing the rules of the game. And it goes further, you punish people who don’t fit in your ideas how the voting system should work. And talking about bullying? I think you have bullied Frank for some years now.
Your contributions are valued but you consciously offend people who have another opinion about what’s valuable and you disregard the (legitimate) intentions of the creator of this site. Sorry I have to say that. In my case it resulted in not voting anymore. Nevertheless, I appreciate that your reactions make clear that preferences and consequences for site-behavior are now in the open.
And, stay with us in your own and in our interest. Your contributions are of enormous value. You have respect of a lot of people, but also for you there are rules you have to respect. You cannot respectfully bully others and turn things around and say that you are bullied.
Stay with us, look in the mirror, be modest and enjoy life and nature. But most of all respect others who differ in values, aims, and …..
Kind regards
Wim
BeeEnvironment, am 2021-08-21 19:42:24, geändert am 2021-08-21 19:43:15, hat gesagt:
Wim,
To be honest, Conifers is not bullying anyone. Now, I thought that the "annoying guy" that was downrating MAINLY Frank's photos had maybe something against Frank and thus giving unfair ratings. Now that Conifers explained his reasoning, there is no bullying going on at all, in my view.
It is just a rating system!!!, and if it is causing this much controversy among members, Tim should know what to do...
Thanks all! After a few days rest, I'll be back :-)
For Wim - I am fairly certain I am not the only person who rates the tree rather than the photo quality, several others do too. And I don't think it is reasonable to exclude that as a fair vote, as that fits the ethos of the site better; the site is as I've said before, 'Monumental Trees', not 'Finest Tree Photos'. So I like to see the "most monumental" individuals of each species at the top of their species pages.
For Frank: apologies for appearing to have been 'against' you! That is not true; I (as I've said before!) always vote for the tree and its environment, not the photographer: quite often when voting, I don't even notice who the photographer is. So yes, that does mean some of your photos get low votes from me, if they are cultivars, or in heavily human-damaged situations, or are insignificantly small specimens, etc. But I do exactly the same for trees from other photographers. Other times, your photos show very nice trees, and those I give high scores. Of your most recent photos, these two I have just given 5* votes to, as they show a very nice wild tree in a fairly natural environment:
Hi Conifers, I am a 100% liberal and if not to say anti-authoriaran guy. But. once you're in a community you have to respect a minimum of rules and respect. Gyssling has a real other objective than you. You cannot say that also others vote for the tree in stead of the photo to justify your voting. That's like saying you can do....BECAUSE OTHERS DO THAT. I won't accept that. Nevertheless, fine you're on the road again.
I (and I am sure lots of others) appreciate your contributions.
Really incredible discussion when one participant is several times smeared and bullied. This is not acceptable imho.
Voting is secret. There is absolutely no reason to give for one's choice and vote. Such "comments" are useless:
"first score 5, second score 0.5, third score 0.25
the intention is obvious"
Or:
"Frank Gyssling, at 2014-04-23 11:41:18, said:
Vielen Dank für die Wertungen! Schade dass sich der Erst-Bewerter nicht zu Wort meldet ;-).
Frank Gyssling, at 2014-04-22 12:53:01, said:
Wer hat und warum dieses Foto mit 3,5 bewertet?"
Even the form is far from polite. No one has to justify his ratings. No one has to say what his vote was. "Conifers" is much too kind in my opinion, especially after such arrogant sentences which were addressed to him. Arrogant people are accusing someone else of arrogance and behaving like a child only to hide the fact that they are themselves arrogant and childish.
"Conifers" deserves excuses.
The following comment too is not acceptable, especially when targeting one contributor:
"this absurd low scores"
There is no "absurd low score". Otherwise delete once and for all this voting system.
I will never post a comment about one photo specifically, I will never justify my vote, because it is not a scientific question and everyone is free to like or dislike one photo. There is nothing to argue about tastes and colours.
I will suggest to people who get crazy about the "low" scores of their photos to open their own website, with their own voting system. For instance with the possibility to delete immediately every vote under 4 so as to preserve their ego.
I am sorry, but I was thinking we were among gentlemen.
stenocoma, am 2022-02-23 17:45:29, geändert am 2022-02-23 17:47:14, hat gesagt:
To Wim:
"But. once you're in a community you have to respect a minimum of rules and respect. Gyssling has a real other objective than you. You cannot say that also others vote for the tree in stead of the photo to justify your voting. That's like saying you can do....BECAUSE OTHERS DO THAT. I won't accept that."
Incredible again. Is English your mother language?
First of all: which rules?
Second: if you respect "Conifers" you will not write that you "won't accept that". First because "Conifers" is entitled to his choices whatever the reasons, and second because you misunderstood completely his explanation, building a strawman fallacy to smear him. When I read "Conifers"'s comments, it is obvious that he has a strong personality, that he does what he thinks and that he does not need to copy what other people are doing or thinking. ("Conifers" could tell me if I am wrong...) Obviously it did not come to your mind that it could be the other way round, that is: "Conifers" convincing other participants of the rightfulness of his approach.
Last: writing in capital letters is like shouting.
Wim Brinkerink, am 2022-02-23 21:02:55, geändert am 2022-02-23 22:40:21, hat gesagt:
Hi stenocoma.
Hi I respect Conifers, he has helped here and me specifically, but Conifers is abusing the voting system. It was intended to vote on the most beautiful pictures. not on the trees. (Those were the rules set at the start) Conifers has tried (partly succesful) to change it to a system in which one votes to the originality or the value of a tree. That was not the intention of the founders. It was told repeatedly and he ignored it and thatÂ’s arrogance. The result is that a valuable system of a picture gallery is distorted. Nevertheless Conifers and I do well together. I appreciate hi mand I think itÂ’s mutual .
By the way is it important what my motherlanguage is? Only respectful and understandable communication should be of concern in my view.
And what about gentleman-behaviour: Conifers didnÂ’t. He bullies pictures of trees that donÂ’t fit to his preferences. I respect him nevertheless, but he deserved a critical reaction. What heÂ’s doing in Bullying Frank Gyssling isnÂ’n very respectful or gentlemanlike.
Ad last but not least, youÂ’re upbringing an old discussion. But nevermind. Contribution is valuable whatsoever.
Kind regards
Wim Brinkerink
PM, Could you please be more open please to as who you are? Your real name is not known and I think thatÂ’s an abuse of open and respectful communication. Show yourself and discuss then.
You are writing that "Conifers is abusing the voting system. It was intended to vote on the most beautiful pictures."
Where is that written down? For I could find it nowhere on the site. And to everyone his taste, as for tastes and colours no discussion is possible.
"He bullies pictures of trees that don’t fit to his preferences."
He voted according to his preferences, that you do not like his preferences is your problem. Why do you want to impose your views on others. This is arrogance.
"What he’s doing in Bullying Frank Gyssling isn’n very respectful or gentlemanlike."
No, he only downgraded pictures without any consideration on the photographer. Unless you want us to believe that the pictures and the photographer are the same thing.
"By the way is it important what my motherlanguage is?"
Yes if it can lead to a misunderstanding.
"Could you please be more open please to as who you are?"
With such unfriendly, disruptive exchanges, no way. Is there a rule about that too? I hate control freaks. For what you are doing is just that, to control how people are supposed to vote. And Herr Gyssling more than once wanted to control the ratings when - as I understood - he is putting systematically a 5 to his own photos. How convenient!
Here is a beautiful example of a Monumental Fraud with a beautiful "tree":
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/33373/
Right, we are supposed to vote for the picture not for the tree so that the absence of a tree is not so important.
So who is abusing whom? Next I suppose I can post a photo of my cat at the foot of my cedar. Right? Or a photo of the sky above my cedar at sunset...
Very sorry, but when words like bullying, absurd low score, childish, or arrogant are targeting one person by a pack, it is no more about pictures, it is about harassing someone and it is not acceptable at least for me. I am still waiting the excuses Conifers deserves.
Hi Wim - I do know who stenocoma is; I can vouch for that he is a serious botanist with multiple published botanical papers on various tree species (including publication of at least 2 new species). I should perhaps mention, English is not his first language, and knowing him, some of what he says above reflects poor choice of English rather than his real character (had he asked me, I would have suggested he post in his native language, and not English!). He does, like me (and I from what I know, professional taxonomic botanists generally!), feel strongly that that natural species in the wild are much more interesting, important, and valuable than cultivated trees generally, and even more so still than mass-produced cultivars. I don't know who Aude is; perhaps another botanist working with stenocoma or a friend he has co-opted, but that's just a guess with no evidence. Hope this helps!
I will reiterate again; I do not bear any grudge against any photographer, I go strictly by the tree and its environment, which I think is an absolutely valid method of assessing photo ratings. This site is after all, 'Monumental Trees', not 'Nice Photos With Trees'. See again my comments above (2021-08-18) about Frank's photos of Flatterulme (Ulmus laevis) '13351', where it would be nice to see some more 5* ratings to add to mine already there.
Hello Aidan, look at all the photos of this tree and you will see the adaptor that I have made to narrow the beam of my laser to make it more nimble in tangled undergrowth. Very easy to make, a tap washer carefully reduced in size shaving slivers off with a Stanley knife keeping the hole central, slips in and out of the laser aperture. It was definitely more accurate with the Betws Y Coed Douglas Firs which have such a tangle of growth underneath when looking up from the road. You should visit Betws Aidan, I would highly recommend it for tall tree lovers.
This Walnut is another tree which I will have to re-visit this summer, it is in an open field and quite exposed, I hope that Arwen hasn't damaged it, the gales coming from an unusual angle from the north.
Very ingenuitive of you! This could be helpful. I had a a bit of trouble measuring the tallest Corsican pine at Albury Park - pesky beech twig in front of the base! I meant to find out the beam width of the Huepar but got preoccupied. I will have a look.
I visited Betws y Coed on my first trip to North Wales, and Coed y Brenin Forest Park on my second trip. I had no idea any of the tall trees here existed at the time. I would love to get back up to Wales some time.
Hello Aidan, exactly the same position as myself, 1994 was the first time that I visited Betws Y Coed and I admired the trees but didn't know that they were so significant. If you do manage to make a visit this year or whenever, point it out and I will bring the trees up to the top on here for visiting and re-measuring. I might make a visit myself this summer, see how Covid goes as everything is more difficult, no last minute deciding to go anymore.
Forgot to add to that previous post, Surrey could be a good place for a tall Walnut somewhere, heavily wooded county, there may be a tall one somewhere drawn up in the woods that is more than c27 metres? I don't know offhand what the county champion is for height, will have a look next.
Tallest Juglans regia, 16 metres in 2014 at Worplesdon, Juglans nigra 22 metres at Albury Park in 2010. You may be able to beat 16 metres Aidan surely, just trying to remember if I have seen any decent specimens in passing? It is 11 years since I was last down in Surrey. I can imagine one drawn up in a wood somewhere in Surrey, I know of a couple in Yorkshire that were previously unrecorded exactly like this, I have always noticed Juglans when I have passed by one since I was a kind, one unfortunately has gone since I used to see it when I was a kid with my dad.
I'm sure there will be a taller Common walnut somewhere in Surrey. Which of the two Black walnuts at Albury Park is taller? The 'Alburyensis' behind the main house, or Schwarznuss (Juglans nigra) '52698' behind the cottage and visible from the main road? The vegetation around the latter has recently been cleared so I may be able to measure its height soon.
There are some good videos on Youtube highlighting how to germinate a walnut, tempted to do so but then wouldn't know where to plant them and would hate it if the trees died.
Has Kouta says, will keep walnut discussion on a walnut thread.
From the name here it is likely that this area had walnuts growing years ago, whether any have survived? Owen is absent at the moment from the looks of it but he has visited Norbury and may have some idea? None recorded on the Register but there may be some hidden somewhere, this actual walnut at Newby Hall actually went under the radar.
The finest specimen that I have seen in person is this tree, a magnificent specimen, I needed a person in the photo to truly do it justice. I need to visit this tree again as it is 9 years since I measured it, it may have added some height.
Found this very old looking specimen near the Mickleham Priory, which is part of Norbury Park. Looked near the end of its life in 2008 so it's unlikely to have survived until now.
Albury Park really is a superb site for tall rare trees.
Monterey pine to 38m, rivalling Polecat Copse tree for county height champion - https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=158563
Sweetgum to 27m, nearing a national height champion - https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=158564
Bhutan pine to 34m, perhaps English height champion - https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=8483
Corsican pine to 37m, taller than Schwarzkiefer (Pinus nigra) '47128', so probably county height champion - https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=158568
And several tall London planes, up to 39m, likely county height champion - https://ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk/tree-search/tree?treeid=158561
All of the trees I've linked here are in the private garden here and (apart from the London plane, which is visible from public access and I can measure without trespassing), will only be visible from the garden. The next open day is in March - https://ngs.org.uk/view-garden/12141 - so I will be able to visit and measure some of the trees then. My 30.7m Nothofagus may also be a county height champion, along with the 25.6m Black walnut, unless the Wisley tree is taller.
I imagine all the trees listed above are already on the Tree Register? Have a look.
Hello Aidan, good idea to use the Ancient Tree Inventory.
Monterey Pine, Bhutan Pine et all on the Register but 37 metre Corsican Pine isn't, nigra subsp laricio 33m at Albury back in 2010, likely one of your trees. The tallest laricio is a 40.4 metre specimen which Owen found in 2021 in Windsor Great Park. There is also a 38 metre laricio at Lythe Hill Park from 2010 which may have added height. 39 metre Platanus x hispanica at Albury Park from 2017 and a Mr Young. 34 metres at Witley, Surrey from 2007. Would have loved to have found some decent sized Platanus up in Yorkshire defying what would be expected but it is probably just abit too bracing up here, it is not a commonly planted tree at all. Somewhere like Duncombe Park with shelter it could have had potential. Perhaps Hull or somewhere down around Doncaster would have potential also, in the weather forecasts Doncaster is always mentioned as being the warmest.
I believe the 37m Corsican pine is the same as the 33m tree, just a more updated record. I did notice on Google streetview there were a good population of Corsican pines around Lythe Hill Park, in the same woods as my tall holly.
The planes at Albury are all very impressive, and they may reach 40m in a couple of years. I would love to see the champions at Bryanston one day. They look like fantastic trees.
Was there any record at Albury on the Tree Register of my Nothofagus? I ought to sign up to the Tree Register soon and have a look myself.
Hello Aidan, no Nothofagus recorded at Albury on the Register, 30 metre Nothofagus obliqua recorded in 2021 in a part of Windsor Great Park in Surrey is the tallest Nothofagus in Surrey.
Thanks! The Albury Park tree is a young one and looks to make a very big tree in the future. Not entirely sure on the species of Nothofagus so I will have to check the leaves in summer.
A stand in Chantry Woods also may have potential to be county height champion Nothofagus. Chantry Wood is another good location for tall trees. A Leylandii on top of the ridge there can be seen from quite a way away. I will have to measure it before it blows down.
Hello Aidan, can you see the leylandii on Street View? You have a great many trees to measure this summer, should be fun. Hope that you van get down to Puddleston to measure the Douglas there, Dorset appears to be the only county where the tallest tree is a deciduous tree, I wonder if the Puddleston trees will challenge this? Owen is Norris McWhirter relating to the Register but I can look up trees when you want or do my best to. I cannot think of one walnut in Surrey that I saw driving about and it is a tree that I always pick up on has said previously. For example I used to drive up and down from the M25 to Woking passing the McLaren factory but cannot think of any down there?
I have found one view of the Leylandii. Not much detail but it does show how it towers around the surrounding trees. It is directly above the Google logo - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2127406,-0.5617191,3a,15y,28.5h,98.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVyu_Wmh6fOAMTNSyhWuFXQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Yes, I will have a very busy summer tree recording. Can't wait! I will try and get down to Puddletown Forest at some point, as the trees are certainly rather tall. Other Dorset locations for me are the Minterne Gardens, with the 46m Abies alba, Thorncombe Wood, with the tall Sequoias and Pinus radiata and maybe Forde Abbey, which looks like it has some good trees. I would also like to visit the Bryanston Planes and see if the tallest has passed 50m yet.
I can't think of any big Common walnuts in Surrey. Either they don't like the climate/soil or simply weren't planted.
Found another view of the Leylandii - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2238225,-0.5558949,3a,15y,233.88h,84.33t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMsXLRyORFIEoNA4rSso7SAEXa5mzA90SLh4o1P!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMsXLRyORFIEoNA4rSso7SAEXa5mzA90SLh4o1P%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya168.8724-ro0-fo100!7i12000!8i6000
Tall birch(?) foreground right, tall Western hemlocks foreground centre, and tall Douglases and hemlocks in the woods behind. Chantry's has potential for a 45m tree somewhere? - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2238225,-0.5558949,3a,20.4y,178.67h,82.9t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMsXLRyORFIEoNA4rSso7SAEXa5mzA90SLh4o1P!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMsXLRyORFIEoNA4rSso7SAEXa5mzA90SLh4o1P%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya168.8724-ro0-fo100!7i12000!8i6000
In my understanding this is a wild banana plant. It was brought from Rwanda to the Gembloux botanical garden, for sake of preservation of CWR (crop wild relatives), hence gene bank. It continues to be multiplied over there, but shoots are regularly pruned, and hence I got it through friends of friends.
I have to cover the roots each winter with a thick pack of straw to protect it from frost.
Have given so many cuttings already, but hardly anybody manages to keep it, mainly because they forget to protect the roots in winter.
It is indeed not a real tree, if desired by the managers of the site, I will remove it.
RedRob, am 2022-02-03 13:14:49, geändert am 2022-02-03 13:17:05, hat gesagt:
Hello jnyssen, Musa including basjoo can grow to small tree like proportions, adding them is certainly ok with me but I respect that others on here may not be so keen. I wonder what type your Musa is coming from Rwanda, looks like basjoo in the photo but coming from Rwanda? Unless that it is that someone was growing basjoo or substituted it in Rwanda and this what this is? Probably not. The plant, basjoo and basjoo 'sakhalin' seems very hardy up here in North Yorkshire, I have had a clump in my garden for must be 26 years now, used to cover it but I don't bother any longer, just leave it to it's own devices. The stems when they get bigger are hardy to about -6, -7c here before they are killed and flop over rather than mushing. I have had -14c here and the basjoo root survived un-covered. My hedge is only about 7 feet so if it grows above it it gets shredded by the wind as it is quite open to the west.
Presumably Musa basjoo (the only species hardy in N Europe). But like all bananas, a herbaceous plant, not a tree - should this be included in MT?
RedRob, am 2022-02-02 16:17:16, geändert am 2022-02-02 16:22:11, hat gesagt:
This reminds me of the old UK Tropicals forum that we used to frequent Conifers, you may still do, how we were acquainted and I mentioned my interest in trees and you pointed me over to this forum. A few years ago now, must be 12 years at least, more I think it was 2008.
Years ago now, must be 25 years I purchased a Musa basjoo 'sakhalin' plant and have kept splitting it and gave a large stem to the owner of this garden, it grew about 15 feet to the leaf end but then was completely cut down by Dec 2010, it has grown back but has never reached that size again.
This little fella has now grown into a very impressive clump with thick stems and leave again to about 12 feet. I took a photo before the first frosts this year, I will have upload it somehow, it is a very impressive Musa this far north and so inland. It does benefit from wall protection as you can see.
Fantastic holly, Rob. Looks like at has a good single bole?
I think I've found a contender for a perhaps new height champion near Haslemere. Seems to be around 20m? Have a look in Google streetview - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0837497,-0.6992131,3a,75y,55.27h,111.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbv5Jk7N6Bnzrt2k-1kG5NQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Hello Aidan, you have a really big one there (sorry, been watching Carry On films over Christmas). How did you find it, from Google Maps and Street View? I have gone up the road from it and done a rough photo measurement using the lady in the photo on the road, even assuming 66 inches for her the height is coming out around 25 metres. She is just past the tree which isn't ideal, tree 120mm in photo, figure just over 7mm but assigned 8 mm, this tree does look as if it will be seriously challenging the B&I champion. Did you say where you lived exactly, is this near enough to visit soon? It will be easier to measure in winter but there looks to be alot of high twiggery which may make hitting the highest shoots of the Ilex difficult. The Ilex is evergreen which will make hitting the top easier.
Time really flies, 2013 since I measured that superb Ilex at Fountains, another hemmed in by other trees and difficult to measure to the top of. It won't be 22 metres even if I didn't hit the top most shoot, presuming the 22 metre B&I champion is still there even.
Funny, I was browsing on Street View last week and came across anoother fine stand of what looks like Douglas Fit just the the east of Polecat Copse.
Are you sure that you did hit the top of the Cherry tree, with no foliage the shoots are quite difficult to hit plus it looks in quite a difficult place to measure. I wonder if my adaptor would be useful with your laser to narrow the beam, you could do it with a piece of card but I think my adaption is better as it is solid. I will bring it and you can have a look.
Indeed this is a huge holly, I found it by chance while browsing around Haslemere on Google streetview. Looks like some decently size Norway spruce and Corsican pine in these same woods. I hope I can get down to Haslemere soon, but I am only restricted to the weekends at the moment due to school, and especially at this time of year when it gets dark early and the weather is usually not ideal for measuring/photographing. I could combine a visit to these woods with Polecat Copse and kill two birds with one stone. Where abouts are the Douglas firs east of Polecat? Other fine trees in and around Haslemere are the Surrey champion (girth) Sitka spruce at Thursley Hall, a few fine conifers around Black Down and Lythe Hill Park.
I know of a couple more tall hollies around me. Europäische Stechpalme (Ilex aquifolium) '49976' in Chantry woods could also be up to 20m, and there are several very tall ones at Farley Hill. I will try to measure all of these in due course, but I have a very, very long list of tree sites I want to visit/revisit!
I'm sure I hit the top shoot on the Farley Hill cherry, but it may be a good idea to measure again in summer when there is a bigger target to hit. This is one of my favourite trees to visit in spring when it is in full blossom.
Hello Aidan, it is great that you have such an interest in trees at such an early age, probably like all the rest of us this forum possibly, certainly myself and Owen I know. Do you have a car or do you go off with your dad for trips? That is what I used to do with my dad when I was a kid, we went all over bird watching and for me looking for nice trees specifically conifers. I always loved Walnut trees when I was a kid, it is such a long time ago now, mid 1970s, but it is either the oak tree seedling that we were given at school to grow that sparked my interest in trees or a beautiful walnut tree outside the balcony on a very early holiday abroad to Corfu in 1976, I can still remember the aroma from the leaves and tree. I cannot remember which came first now? What sparked your interest in trees? Are you considering a career in forestry or conservation or anything related? Stephen (Verge) would be a good man to talk to if you are? If you do go into conservation would you do me a favour, start a new trend of reasonable conservation instead of the almost zealot type that exists these days, anything alien has to be removed. A gorge not that far from me has some beautiful scattered specimens of Sitka, Norway spruce, larch in amongst all the native trees and the last time that I went down every one of them that I came across had a red dot on the trunk, they will probably have gone now. The conservation group, Bilton Conservation group is abit of a zealot for this type of thing. The scattered conifers were doing no harm, they added variety and interest to the woods which are rather scabby to be honest otherwise.
Anyone else have any interesting stories about how their interest in trees started? Kouta, how old were you and what started your interest? Jeroen? Wim?
Thanks. My interest in trees started when I was only a baby. My parents tell me that I used to look up, fascinated, at the branches of the trees on Tooting Bec Common in London, near where we lived at the time. It was heightened by this Monterey-Zypresse (Cupressus macrocarpa) '40101' in one of my relative's gardens. It is definitely my favourite tree in the world because of how shapely it is and the door in the bole, which my family told me some elves lived behind! It has been part of me my whole life so I am very attached to it. The fact that it's a champion tree makes it even more special.
I am not old enough to drive yet, so we often go on family walks and outings to good tree locations (my younger brothers not quite as grateful as me!).
I don't know of any big Walnuts in Surrey. There are a number of big Black walnuts, like at Wisley and Albury Park - including the original 'Alburyensis' clone which produces more nuts per cluster than the type - but not as many big Common walnuts. I will keep my eye out.
I would definitely like to go into a career with trees. I'm not sure what yet, though. Owen - what does you role in the Tree Register consist of? If all goes to plan I should be doing work experience at Wisley in the summer, which will be fun. I see what you mean with the issue of conservation charities removing any alien trees. I think this is a tricky issue, as obviously native trees are better for the native fauna, but in my opinion they can often get quite monotonous and a conifer or non-native tree does well to break up that. I think what the conservation charities need to focus on is trying to remove aggressively invasive species that actively put other species at risk rather than removing the odd conifer from native woodland, which, as you say, will often not be doing any harm. I think conifers get a bad name due the huge biodiversity-destroying monocultures, which I think should be slowly thinned so different species can be introduced to improve biodiversity, while keeping most of the often impressive conifers at the same time.
Cool stories. My interest on trees started when I went with my grandmother to our big old chestnut trees to take the chestnuts. I remember going to one (sadly is already dead), and for me it was the biggest tree of the world. I remember stumping in the chestnut hedgehogs with my rubber boots to open them and take the chestnuts in my spongebob beach bucket hahaha my poor grandmother meanwhile was filling sacks of tens of kilos. I was like 5 years old.
RedRob, am 2022-01-28 14:37:15, geändert am 2022-01-28 15:42:20, hat gesagt:
That is a superb tree Aidan, no wonder you are attached to it.
I have been doing abit of a search, the Norbury estate near Leatherhead was once famous for it's walnuts, whether there are any left? None appear to be recorded on the Register?
Chestnut hedgehogs, love that rob(urpetraea) I have never tried chestnuts, always mean to at Christmas when they are in the shops but never have. The nuts tend to not ripen that well up here although the sativas become magnificent trees.
roburpetraea, am 2022-01-28 15:09:39, geändert am 2022-01-28 15:10:06, hat gesagt:
@RedRob, yep that's how they are called in Spain, hedgehogs (orizos) hahaha.
How is it possible that you have never tried chestnuts? I thought they were popular in England! In my father's area, the chestnut has always been a fundamental food in the traditional diet. Here we have a party and everything dedicated to chestnuts, it's called "magosto", and either family or friends get together to roast chestnuts between October 31 and November 11. Even in my school one of those days we didn't have class and we spent the day eating chestnuts and playing games hahaha.
I actually prefer to eat them raw, but not all chestnuts are edible. Here there are selected different varieties that are then grafted onto wild chestnut trees, since chestnuts from wild chestnut trees are usually horrible (in some cases they come out very tasty, but good luck finding one hahaha).
Here it is said that for the chestnut to ripen well, August must be very hot and September must be very rainy.
Conifers - thanks for the nest identification! I was a bit confused as I was first told it was treecreeper and then nuthatch and then back to treecreeper. Good that this is now sorted out. I looked inside a few years ago and saw some newly hatched chicks, which was a lovely experience.
Nice stories of how everyone's interest in trees started. My family collects chestnuts every autumn from the trees around us, where most years they ripen well. Unfortunately last year was not a good year, however.
Rob - Do you know where abouts in Norbury park the walnuts are/were? Norbury is on my list of sites to visit due to the Druid's Grove of ancient Yews there, so I can have a quick look for any walnuts while I'm there. What is the height of the Black walnut at Wisley? May be taller than any of the Albury Park ones?
As a similar story to roburpetrea's, I also got started in a interest in forests/trees when my grandparents would show me how to garden. I then started wondering how trees could grow so perfect and yet require absolutely no care (as in old-growth areas). I then sparked the interest in me!
I guess it also suites that I also live in the only state in the U.S.A that was literally named after its forests, hence the name: Pennsylvania, meaning "Penn's Woods" in latin or some language like that.
Never knew that about Pennsylvania! I suppose it makes sense when you think about it. I always find it interesting to see where place names come from, as you often rarely think about it, but when you find out you wonder why you didn't notice it before.
Conifers, am 2022-01-28 19:00:03, geändert am 2022-01-28 19:03:05, hat gesagt:
@ RedRob, roburpetraea - all chestnuts (Castanea; es: Castaño) are edible, though some are supposed to taste better than others. Horse-chestnuts (Aesculus; es: Falso castaño) are definitely not edible, though, don't attempt to eat them. Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa) ripens good, viable nuts at least as far north as Castle Leod near Inverness; natural regeneration is reported there. I often collect chestnuts around here too, and have seen natural regeneration, at 55°N; they ripen in most years without any problems, only rarely not in exceptionally poor years. The one difference you will notice is that nuts in Britain are typically of unselected wild-type trees, so are smaller (2-2.5 cm, rarely 3 cm wide) than the nuts of the selected orchard cultivars that you buy in shops (typically 3-4 cm wide).
roburpetraea, am 2022-01-28 19:20:47, geändert am 2022-01-28 19:25:39, hat gesagt:
Yes, you can eat them, but they taste horrible. Sometimes you can find a wild chestnut tree that gives good fruit, but it's rare. With edible I meant for human consume, you definetely don't want to eat a chestnut that tastes like an acorn.
One time I saw some gypsies taking Aesculus nuts in my city lmao.
In my region the best variety of chestnut is "parede", that are sweet and can be pealed easily. Wild chestnuts are more difficult to peal. Here rather than buy a variety you look for a chestnut that gives good production and quality and you graft a small young wild tree with a cutting of the other chestnut.
Interesting stories! (Though it would perhaps better to have this discussion in an own thread, not under the holly...)
For me, I was always interested in the nature, but my particular interest in trees arised much later as I had a possibility to hike in Vancouver Island. Especially the giant Sitka spruces left an immense impression. Later I noticed the smaller trees are interesting, as well. Though I remember already as I was kid, I found it intresting as my dad showed me how to tell apart silver and downy birch, black and grey alder, and goat willow from other Finnish willows.
Aidan, it was a surprise to me that you are so young ("not old enough to drive yet")!
Agree, some nice stories, it seems most of us gained an interest early, primary school or even earlier. I wondered if anyone had come late to trees, adulthood say 30 years or more with no previous related interested, Kouta the nearest but already had an interest in nature.
It is a long time since I collected Castanea nuts, I remember you used to pick them up and squeeze and there was nothing inside the kernel, empty or shrivelled, one after another. Some must have ripened as you do see young trees but that used to be my experience, empty kernels. I will have to try some from the supermarket the next time that I see them.
Lukasz, this is a superb specimen, looks very luxuriant and healthy. 60 metres maybe in a couple of years. I will have a look at the Youtube video on my telly tonight.
I couldn't get Lukasz's link to work, it kept saying 'private video' but this lonk does work. Very impressive, the drone shots really give a perspective. 60 metres perhaps after this summer's growth even?
This is another tree which I need to have another look at this year, a couple of years ago I took a photo from the hill overlooking the valley and there is a piece on top of the crown which I almost certainly didn't hit from the location where I measured in the grass to the photo right, I wouldn't have been able to get far back enough to see it. I suspect that this tree will be 37 metres up on the top of the bump on the crown top, whether I can find a spot to see it? Hopefully the tree will all be still intact after the gales of the recent years, there is quite alot of wood lying about which they leave. The Castaneas really are magnificent down this valley, the 34 metre tree just abit further down is an immense specimen.
I should take a post a better photo of this tree, this one truly doesn't do it justice. I had some nice photos on my old computer which stopped functioning.
Hello Ernesto, can you post a full length image of this Castanea? It looks a magnificent tree even from the base, if it is 38 metres! Can anyone measure it to confirm the height? Always thought that there must be some big chestnuts in Spain, (trees, no offence, winks)
Lovely twisty bark on this specimen. Reminds me of one on Battleston Hill in Wisley which I believe was felled a few years back leaving just a tall stump.
Hello Aidan, yes, I agree, really striking twist pattern of the bark. The ground vegetation has been removed so will have to re-visit this tree has will be easier to measure. Shame abit as was surrounded by Rhododendron, ponticum I think but they would have been a picture in spring. Admit to liking ponticum a great deal although I do know that it is an invasive alien in this case.
This is one of the trees that I hope is still there down the Nidd Gorge, it had a red dot on the trunk clearly visible from across the river. It is right on the side of the river bank so is also probably vulnerable to falling from erosion. There are some really nice conifers down this valley, like Tarzan country in places for access, tangled undergrowth. I haven't been back down since I last measured it.
I didn't realise that there was a new B&I champion from 2019, 25.2metres, is there a full length photo of this tree anywhere Owen, only a base photo on the Register.
Hello Aidan, another tree which you might like to visit, 30,3 metres the B&I champion for height, this Betula may be challenging.
I thought that I had added a 29 metre Betula pendula on here from Knaresborough in 2012 but I cannot find it? I have been meaning to stop and re-measure for several years but haven't, you get to know trees when you see them repeatedly and I knew that the top looked different, flatter. I finally stopped today and it has lost it's top, it is now 26.8 metres into the bracken at the base so may be just over 27 metres. Disappointing has I hoped it would surpass 30 metres but it is an emergent in a wood that is very exposed to the westerly winds and there are trees laid down every winter.
I have had my eye on Alice Holt for a while now. I would love to visit soon, and when I do I will try and find this birch, as it sounds tall. Nearby on the map there is a tall Nothofagus that also sound of interest. I found some tall Nothofagus myself in Chantry Woods which are also on my list to visit.
Shame about your birch, hopefully you find some more tall ones soon.
At Alice Holt, the height discrepency is what you're likely to get between a sine measurement (possibly missing the highest shoot) and a tangent measurement when the measurer naively overestimates how close to the apparent tip the true top of the tree is.
2021, they are widening the road and the roadside bushes have been removed but again above the red roof of the building, same Birch with a visibly flatter crown, the top has definitely been lost.
Just to the right of the lamp-post, there is another tall Birch which is visible now because trees have been felled, 26.6 metres on the brown earth in front of the tree but the 'muck is piled up' as we like to say up here so this one is likely c27 metres.
There are some superb Salix alba in this same wood just up the road, 30 metres plus. The two further over in the wood to the left look very tall, definitely 30 metres plus but it is very difficult to even see the base cleanly from the road.
Hello Aidan, these are possibly in your range, absolutely superb specimans. My sister used to live at Woking and I have passed down this way many times on the way to the south coast but didn't know that these Sequoias were there. (Muttley impression, you likely far too young to remember Dick Dastardly and Muttley)
Aidan, am 2022-01-04 18:02:50, geändert am 2022-01-04 20:41:54, hat gesagt:
These look like superb redwoods. I believe we've had a discussion on these trees before, when Owen said there was a tall Eucalyptus dalrympleana nearby as well. If I am down in this direction again soon I will try and remember to visit them.
Hello Jeroen, any news about this tree, have you been back to it? Willows are quite brittle, it would be interesting to to know now if it has surpassed 35 metres or has lost height?
Swapped a Christmas email with Michael (Spraggon) and he hadn't heard about the fall of the Bodnant Sequoia. He despaired abit that it is unlikely that Sequoias in these islands will ever reach their potential of 1,000 years and 300 feet, any comments about the likeliest locations if it were to happen? I suggested this location nearer the bottom of the hill at Aucombe Marsh, fairly dense planting raising the topography for tall growth, trees sheltering each other. Likely a more sheltered location than the west facing slope at Leighton Hall in the Charles Ackers Grove in Wales.
Pinus contorta var. contorta A 31.0 251 2021 Parcevall Hall North Yorkshire England
Just browsing the Register and this one is abit of a surprise! Quite close to the B& I champion height. I have driven past Parcevall Hall many times and decided it wasn't really worth visiting, have some nice photos of the trees taken from the hills above. It is tucked away right in a deep valley bottom albeit quite high up in the dales. I am glad that Alan and John visited looking at the records as their identification skills are infinitely superior to my own.
The Brechfa tree in Owen's photo looks more like Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia (thin, open crown), but in a 'forest garden', I'd assume they have planting records that can be checked?
There were several plots of Pinus contorta at Brechfa, some labelled as var. latifolia and some as var. contorta (I think). They all seemed to me to have quite short leaves. I don't think the group in this photo was labelled, but I remember them with shorter dense leaves than the photo suggests. The bark was dark and square-cracked. So - not sure!
Noooo! What a shame. I visited Bodnant on my first visit to Wales a few years back and remember what a massive tree this was. Are there any images of it blown down? I imagine the carnage is rather impressive. Do you think a replacement tree will be planted where this one once stood?
It just goes to show how many of our big and heritage trees are under threat as a result of increasingly severe weather due to climate change.
A very sad loss of the Coast Redwood. I had admired this tree several times and hoped to visit again soon.
But an analysis and post mortem of why this tree failed can surely be seen in the above film/images.
I suspect the following:-
1) Wind gusts in the region of 70mph+ from a unusual northerly direction.
2) Local topography enhancing wind and gust speed, i.e winds funneling down the valley.
3) Tree was exposed to northerly high winds.
4) Perhaps most importantly it appears in the film that the location of the tree was growing on seriously impeded ground, preventing the tree's roots penetrating to a substantial depth, to anchor it sufficiently i.e 2m. Root plate looks barely 60cm deep! The impeded roots could also have been due to the high water table next to the river. Also tree looks like it had a serious disadvantage due to the tree being on the edge of the river and thus tree roots were only sufficiently anchored on one side. I have never seen root decay in this species in the UK.
Tree was a beauty planted 1887, but had not grown especially fast.
There has been damage reported at Cragside and I hope the tall trees there are ok, Rob??? Plus the tallest trees in Northern Europe at Gwydir too. The last were exposed to northerly winds.
The above met office document shows the max gust speed in knots. Looking at the map for the country it would appear that north Wales experienced gusts of 50-60 knots, but it may have been greater in the vicinity of Bodnant.
Conifers:- They could propagate the tree by cuttings and ensure its survival. I would estimate the tree trunk alone would have 40-50m3 so quite a task in its removal.
Victor Meldrew! Tragic, what an awful shame. I can imagine how the gardeners/staff must have felt when they walked down and saw the carnage. It must have been some fall, impressive to have witnessed if you had been down there.
I agree with the assessments, there was quite a drop on one side of the tree down to the stream with some undermining by the stream itself. Plus the tree has-had a pretty wide crown to catch the wind and that gale in Arwen hit from an unusual direction north to north east.
It would be a fitting tribute to the tree to clean up all the foliage and small branches and leave the trunk where it is, cutting a section out for the path as they do with fallen trees in the forests in California. But, I imagine the health and safety, woke and god knows what other brigade will be out, kids climbing on it etc, so I imagine the Trust will remove the trunk.
Is this the most massive, biggest tree to ever fall in this country?
What is now the tallest Sequoia in Wales, there was a claim of a 47 metre tree in the Charles Ackers Grove that I have seen, can this be substantiated at all?
Came across this during the search relating to Gwydyr Forest, very interesting read.
Stephen, what is the damage at Cragside, any specifics reports? Cragside would have abit of protection from the north and east by the hills and forest above to the north and east.
Thanks for the link to that FC booklet - which indicates that the early Douglas Firs at Gwydyr (at least the stand N of Miner's Bridge with trees to c.62m by 2015 - were from Oregon seed, and the Grand Firs, added from 1927 on, were British Columbian seed.
Replying to the earlier of your comments - every tree falls down eventually, unless someone cuts it down, and some have been much bigger than Bodnant's Coast Redwood. A hybrid elm at Magdalen College in Oxford that blew down around 1912 was about 140' feet high and 28' girth (from memory. I'm relying on Conifers to proof-read this and convert to metric!). A Wych Elm at Field in Staffordshire in the 17th century, c. 120' x 50', comes into the 'felled' category. It's easy for us nowadays to forget how massive elms can grow.
The tallest Sequoias at the Ackers Memorial Grove were about 43m in 2009. They were then adding height very slowly, but if the youngsters that bulked out the plantation have continued growing fast and sheltering one another, conditions should be better for adding height by now.
I've not heard of anything from Cragside, I'd hope it is likely OK given its shelter from the north. Kyloe is a much bigger worry, my fear is devastation there, close to where the wind was at its very strongest. But even there, it might have had some protection from the Kyloe Hills ridge (part of the Whin Sill system) on the N side of the wood.
The FC booklet file is really interesting, the old photographs of the forest path above Miner's Bridge with the car, I took my photograph from the same spot almost. 90 feet in 45 years is pretty good going. Page 32, are the plots of Serbian Spruce and Sequoia from 1927 above the Miner's Bridge still there, have I we missed them somewhere?
At the bottom of this page is a photograph of the remains of the same tree with the same side branch to the left of the trunk, the branch about double the height of the man rather than many times the height of the people in the drawing.
An interesting article Rob about Gwydyr. I have all the FC seed import data for that period and I will check to see if that is true. The vast majority of Douglas came from coastal/Cascades Washington and British Columbia, from the Lower Fraser River valley near Vancouver. But perhaps there was an exception?
Some of the Cedars of Lebanon felled or blown would have wood volumes bigger than Bodnant's Redwood.
I follow climate science updates regularly. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no long term evidence to suggest the UK climate is becoming more gale prone. In fact as climate change progresses, research has indicated that the jet stream track is likely to move north, due to 'Artic Amplification' i.e Artic warming. The reducing temperature gradient between the Tropics and Polar regions will ensure weaker Atlantic storms, perhaps?
With regards to storm damage to trees, its the speed of acceleration from a relatively low mean wind speed of say 30mph to a gust of 70-100mph in a matter of seconds which causes windblow, causing a massive strain on the tree itself, breaking or ripping it from the ground. Research into this revealed that 'most' trees fail at 90mph. However as seen in Oct 1987 in south east England Giant Sequoia no doubt survived gusts up to 100mph, while everything else was flattened all around.
I have always worried that the Leighton Grove was vulnerable to wind damage as its not at all sheltered to the west. its quite remarkable that the trees here have grown so tall.
As is often the case, trees such as these were never planted in the most sheltered parts of Wales on the most productive sites, but there is now renewed interest in the species, so in the future better sites will be planted.
Hello Stephen, I have read the same thing about the movement north of the jet stream in sources, logical when you think about it but conveniently left out when all the climate scaremongering is going on. Eventually Britain will probably lie underneath the persistant high pressure which lies over southern France and often extends up to central France whilst the low pressures move over us just north of the channel.
Have you visited the tall Douglas in Oxfordshire, hope they are ok?
"No news about Cragside, assume ok" - I'm starting to be less sure about this - adjacent Rothbury, as with much of rural Northumberland, is still without power, 9 days after the storm. Much of that is due to the incompetence and rank profiteering of the local electricity company (putting shareholder dividends ahead of service, resulting in massive under-investment in the infrastructure), but it does also tell a lot about the severity of the impact, too. No news could well still mean, no-one has been able to inspect yet.
In the video on this page at the top, the falling Sequoia has wrecked another tree near the base of which looks like a Metasequoia? I cannot remember what tree it was in that location?
I was wondering what the broken trunk by the Sequoia in those photos was, but Rob's right, there was a big Metasequoia there. They never seem to blow down themselves (being used to anchoring themselves in soft wet ground) but do seem to have a knack of ending up underneath others.
The Cowthorpe Oak was 14.45m girth at 1m in 2011 (C. Hurst). Judging from earlier measurements this was probably about right, though old measurements can sometimes be misleading. So, a bit bigger than any oaks alive in Britain right now - as was the Newland Oak near Coleford (13.63m in 1954). Both have collapsed in storms since then.
Probably not the most exciting of 'trees' and discussions after the Bodnant Sequoia, amazing how you can miss things straight in front of you at times. Have walked by here many times and just haven't looked up there for whatever reason, looked a few weeks ago and saw this and immediately thought 'that is pretty big for a Buddleia davidii. One of the shoots at the back rises to 7 metres (did anyway a few weeks ago before the recent gales), the base is also slightly below the tarmac surface in a gully. It may be left has it isn't really bothering anyone, it doesn't look as if it is being pruned, or someone may decide that it is disturbing the foundations of the electrical shop and so remove it. Hope it is the former has it may grow taller with the building shelter.
There are a group of tall Poplars, estimate 35 metres plus for the tallest, at the bottom of Harewood Bank which I have been meaning to measure for some years but because of the lack of parking anywhere near just haven't got to. Drove up the A61 this morning, the Poplar nearest the road in the Street View photo above is smashed, trunk snapped about a third of the way up. Several of the other trees further over were also visibly damaged with debris on the ground. There is a particularly tall one at the base of the bank further over from the road, hope that it hasn't broken off, couldn't spot it this morning unfortunately. God knows what other trees in all the various locations have lost their tops?
Well, it looks like, and I hope it is not the final :)
Stephen Verge, am 2021-11-14 11:21:56, geändert am 2021-11-14 11:39:07, hat gesagt:
A beautiful tree Lukasz!
The genetic resource of Beech here in the UK has been much depleted over the centuries. Trees in the UK are rarely of good form. Coupled with the introduction of the American Grey Squirrel in the 1870's which destroy young beech, by bark stripping.
Another factor which I am always trying to educate other foresters, like myself, is the fact Beech is rarely at its best on Chalky/Limestone soils, here in the UK. With the best stands on acid sandy soils, with a moderate ph. I imagine the trees here are on acidic soils, with good summer rainfall, another important factor for this shallow rooted species.
Climate change will impact beech in Europe I fear severely.
Stephen Verge, am 2021-11-14 11:33:13, geändert am 2021-11-14 11:37:42, hat gesagt:
Here is a lovely UK Beech. Quite a rarity in form. The best seed for the UK is from the Foret de Soignes in Belgum. But this is far form the largest in the UK.
So I can see that in UK there are also tall beech tree forms similar to our carpathian ones. Here in my area, they grows in rather acidic loess-like or clay substrate with higher, but not regular rainfall. What is interesting - I have noticed that tree growth rings in that area were relatively thin and it was difficult to count them, so for me trees had to grow in a poor light condition within dense forest what was probably another reason of its tall, straight trunks. Not far from my home (as well as this forest stand) there were some trees more than 1 m diameter cutted last time (beeches and oaks) which have wider tree growth rings and were not as old as it looked, but they were also not very tall.
@Stephen Fagus sylvatica grows perfectly on basic soils like limestone, the problem with beech in the British Isles is that it is not native and with the temperatures on rise it's struggling to survive. Beech needs more continentalized climates than those on England, needs cold winters. In it's native area is perfectly fine, too fine sadly.
Stephen, you are right, beech grows better on more acid than lime-rich soils. That can be read from basic forest ecology books, e.g. Ellenberg, and that is also confirmed by our height records that are all from less lime-rich soils.
Kouta, Stephen is not talking only about the size of the tree (which is understandable because clay soils retain water uniformly and efficiently better than other soils, and in the end it's also something dependent on weather conditions, soil depth, genetics, state of conservation, etc.), but he is talking about beech trees rarely growing on basic soils, which doesn't make sense, since in Spain, much further south, the beech LOVES limestone soils, forming huge monospecific mature forests in their potential area and astonishing relics in their most extreme areas. In its potential Cantabrian area there are massive beech forests on limestone soils in the Urbasa, Aralar or Ulzama mountain ranges between others, all limestone. And in its most limiting area we have the small relictual stand of Mambrillas de Lara, where in arid summer climatic conditions it survives embedded in the middle of a Mediterranean forest:
The floor is literally littered with limestone, you can't get more basic than this, and if beech can grow in its most limiting conditions on this soil, it can perfectly do in wetter climates. The key is in the temperatures, all these areas are much colder than England.
Yeah, I have to agree. The American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), also seems to attain tallest heights and biggest girths on limestone, lowland, soils, which typically have to be moist.
As for the amount of limestone, I have never seen the amount you show in that photo! That is just amazing.
American beech dominated stream valley in Pennsylvania. Some of the largest beech (in volume) in the state can be found in such lowlands on rich, undisturbed, soils. It can take a long time for such beech stands to form, especially from clear cuts, or farms.
What are the girth and height records for American Beech, Russ? I'd be interested to know if they have got as large as some of our European beeches.
BeeEnvironment, am 2021-11-24 19:21:14, geändert am 2021-11-24 19:22:16, hat gesagt:
Hi Aiden,
Well, I have measured only a few regarding height, but according to the Eastern Native Tree Society records, American Beech maxes out at a proven height of 143.2 Feet (43.65 meters), in Savage Gulf, Tennessee (The Appalachian Mountain area).
Though, I strongly believe American Beech is highly under-measured as a tree in our eastern forests here. Where I live, in southeastern Pennsylvania, it appears that it might have the ability to top the record of 43.65 meters, especially in a mix of older-growth and second growth forests in rich, hilly, terrain found in this part of PA and Delaware. I have not been out measuring for a while, though.
As for girth, the maximum girth of American Beech recorded is ~7 meters. I have seen one, a few years back, that was probably a American Beech (not too sure if it was European or not), at around 6.5-7 meters also, but I was unable to verify, as the tree was cut to a stump.
It appears, overall, that the European Beech is able to grow taller and larger than A. Beech. Though, I have found out that American Beech can grow VERY VERY slow in the dark forests we have here. I remember reading a U.S Forest Service report on the species that it took a certain 20 years for a Beech to get 8 feet tall, and ~80 years to get up to 40 feet tall! Pretty slow, hahah. It can grow faster in favorable climates, of course.
Besides that, the large older-growth American beech are now under threat from the Beech Bark Disease. Many ancient ones have been wiped out. Strangely enough, where I live in SE PA, BBD has yet to ravage the beech lowlands, it seems. I hope it stays that way for a long time!
Thanks! I was just curious. It seems that both species have a similar max size, but the European beech is slightly larger and big specimens are more frequent. For me any beech more than 5m girth I consider as large, and anything more than 30m I consider as tall.
Its a shame about the beech bark disease that is affecting the American beech, and hopefully it stays out of PA for a while. I would imagine some specimens are more resistant than others, so maybe that is the case with the PA population? I don't think there are any serious threats to European beeches (other than animals like rabbits, which gnaw the bark at the base of young trees).
Yeah, a lot of the forest growth beech here, especially the old-growth ones, often reach over 30 meters. I think it then has trouble breaking the 40 meter mark, which is interesting. The American Beech here need a lot of rain, and is quite easy to burn if wildfires break out (which basically does not happen).
Yes, BBD has already proven deadly and devastating to millions of Beeches, old-growth/virgin and younger, all across Eastern U.S and Canada. Pennsylvania, my home state, has already seen a big part of that devastation.
Like I said though, it seems that where I live in Southeastern Pennsylvania has been able to somehow resist BBD for the past 15 years, despite invading nearly every other place in the state. Maybe it is perhaps due to the fact we have the warmest climate in the state? This might be the reason. The Smoky Mountains of the south also have been invaded by BBD, and they lost many of their beeches, but despite being many hundreds of kilometers south of Southeastern PA, we have not yet it seen here.
Hopefully the European Beech stays safe for a long time!
Would it possible to adapt and accept this tree measuring technique for those who don't want to shell out a fortune on an integrated laser? Instead of a tape could you buy a cheap distance only golf laser or similar to measure the 'height' along the ground? It would be ok for trees in open positions, possibly not so easy in forests. I just wondered for members like Aidan.
Presumably the 'cheap' laser could also be used for measuring with the sine method, in combination with a clinometer expensive enough to be accurate. But there's a question as to how good the 'cheap' laser would be at getting a meaningfully precise measurement to the tree's top (or its bottom). Has anyone experimented with lasers 'cheaper' than a Nikon? I'm sure Stephen's 'expensive' laser is more consistently accurate than the Nikon, even though experience shows that the Nikon can sometimes - indeed often - be accurate to within a metre.
It is also in the list of methods, when you are adding a new measurement, as "Measurement with a stick of known size".
Using a cheap distance only laser and an external clinometer is a perfectly acceptable sine measuring method. Such instruments, Nikon Prostaff 440 and Suunto clinometer, were used as the ENTS invented the sine method.
Today there are Chinese lasers with inbuilt clinometer that are practically as good as Nikon and many times cheaper. Huepar HLR1000 is sold for EUR 139,99 in eBay
Rob - This looks like a good way to measure the height of a tree. I could try it out soon.
The Chinese laser that Kouta pointed out also seems like a good option for me.
RedRob, am 2021-10-16 13:16:18, geändert am 2021-10-16 13:17:15, hat gesagt:
Hello Aidan, I have never used a clinometer alone so have no experience but I believe that there are mathematical calculations that have to be made which have to be accurate and can be problematic. This method may cut that degree of inaccuracy out even if it is abit inaccurate in other ways. I imagine unless you have a perfectly flat location, a tape measure along the ground going perhaps over low bushes and other obstacles would cause some degree of inaccuracy.
Above I wrote "Brett Mifsud from Australia told me it is practically as good as his Nikon Forestry."
I asked Brett again and I must say I quoted him uncorrectly. The Chinese laser he tested was SNDWAY, not Huepar. He writes Sndway was ok but a Sndway laser his friend bought started to go 'weird' after a few months.
It was Rainer Lippert who told me that Huepar was practically as good as Nikon. Unfortunately, Rainer has become inactive here. Perhaps you could try to get his attention by starting a discussion with title "Rainer Lippert".
Jeroen Philippona, am 2021-11-06 12:31:03, geändert am 2021-11-06 12:33:30, hat gesagt:
Hi all,
a friend of mine recently has bought the Huapar HLR 1000 laser after Kouta send the information. We have tried the results: the measurements are very comparable to those of my Nikon Forestry 550 (from october 2009, still doing well!). It seems to give only the real distance and the angle after the first measurement to a top; only after measuring the base of the tree as well it gives the total height. We did not find a possibility to get the height of the top 'above eye position' wich makes searching for the tallest top of a tree with broad crown much easier. But still it is easier to work with than with a simple 'distance only' laser together with a clinometer. Mechanical Suunto clinometers are very precise and reliable for measuring angles, the laser for the distance to the top, but you need to use mathematics. Measuring the distance to the base is not very helpful as it works with the less reliable tangent method.
To Owen: measuring with the Nikon can be more precise than within a metre, as Leo Goudzwaard and I tested with a tower of 38 m height we measured after the testing exactly by tape: results were within 10 - 15 cm. Also Kouta and I measured the 62.26 m tall Norway spruce in Slovenia within 6 cm of the measurement by climbing with tape and pole by Michael Spraggon.
But you have to take the medium of several measurements and not the heighest result.
Jeroen
RedRob, am 2021-11-06 14:30:57, geändert am 2021-11-06 14:36:27, hat gesagt:
Oubel Golf Rangefinder with apparent height mode £79.99
There are a number of Golf Range lasers now available with height mode and at reasonable prices. It will be interesting to compare how accurate they are? For £79.99 I would be tempted to buy just to compare to the Nikon.
Aidan, what budget were you thinking of for your laser? I am really curious now about these more reasonably priced lasers, it would be interesting to see how accurate they are? Mine is 10 years old nearly now, if it does pack up I would probably purchase one of these and try it against some of the local cleanly measured trees that I have measured with the Nikon. If they have narrower laser beams they might turn out more accurate than the Nikons and others possibly.
Thanks for the info, Jeroen! The lack of the "1-point-method" is a real shortcoming.
About my first laser measurement of the Sgerm Spruce: The real measurement error was more than 6 cm. It was almost 10 years ago but I remember it very well because I have already written this here: I shot to an approximate mid-slope point at the tree base before we defined the real mid-slope point more precisely. After defining the mid-slope point, I noticed that my measuring point was too high. Thus, the real measurement error was perhaps about 30 cm. Anyway, I agree that it is possible to achieve a higher accuracy than 1 m. Sometimes we have used a basic rule of +/- 1%, meaning about half a metre for typical tall European trees. I also consider this as accurate enough. The definition of the mid-slope point alone may cause a difference of around 20 cm.
There is the possibility of picking up a Impulse 200 laser second hand. There are hundreds in the UK, about 20 years old now, but still serviceable. Perhaps a search could yield a bargain? Cost the same as a new Nikon? But far more accurate. It predates my modern Trupulse 200x.
I think the Huepar laser looks like the most likely option for me, as it seems to be reliable but not overly expensive either. If Rainer Lippert has used it then I would be interested in what he has to say, if we can get his attention.
According to the ENTS people, the older Impulses, although more accurate than Nikon, have a serious disadvantage: their beam is wide and it is difficult to shoot through clutter. I haven't use them myself, I have only read opinions of Bob Leverett etc. Karlheinz' tests gave similar results.
ich habe jetzt durch Zufall diese Diskussion gesehen und meinen Namen gelesen. Also, ich hatte mehrere Laser zum Testen gehabt, unter anderem das Huepar. Gut gefallen hat mir das externe Display, was ja auch das Forestry Pro hat. Ich hatte damals um die 100 Euro für das Huepar bezahlt gehabt. Dafür habe ich es als sehr gut empfunden. Und ja, es hat natürlich auch 1-Punkt-Messung. Im richtigen Modus kann man jeglichen Punkt anvisieren und sich die tatsächliche, oder horizontale Entfernung anzeigen lassen, jeweils mit der Höhe. Hat man also die höchste Spitze des Baumes gefunden, kann man die Stammbasis messen. Also kein Unterschied zum Nikon. Ich hatte im gleichen Zeitraum auch das Nachfolgemodell vom Forestry Pro gehabt, das Forestry Pro II. Das hat mich völlig enttäuscht. Die Messwerte waren nicht Reproduzierbar. Der Schwankungsbereich war mindestens +/- 2 m, bei der Höhe. Völlig Indiskutabel, meiner Meinung nach. Bei schlechten Sichtbedingungen und größeren Distanzen habe ich beim Huepar mehrere Versuche gebraucht, bis die Messung geklappt hat. Da war/ist mein aktuelles Nikon Pro Stabilized besser, kostet aber auch fast fünfmal so viel. Ich habe parallel mehrere Bäume gemessen und konnte zwischen dem Nikon und Huepar kaum Unterschiede feststellen, bei der Höhe, was mich sehr überrascht hat. Zwei Objekte die ich gemessen habe, habe ich zuvor mit dem Bandmaß exakt gemessen gehabt. Ich konnte auch recht gut durch Äste eines anderen Baumes hindurch, durch eine kleine Lücke durch, zur Spitze eines dahinterbefindlichen Baumes messen. Von der Leistung her kommt es im Gesamtpaket nicht ganz an das Nikon heran, der Unterschied ist aber deutlich geringer als der Preisunterschied vermuten lässt. Das Messergebnis des Huepar ist auf jeden Fall viel besser, als jede andere Methode zur Höhenbestimmung. Ich hatte auch einen Entfernungsmesser von Suaoki getestet, welches auch erstaunlich gut war. Allerdings ohne außenliegendes Display, aber nochmals billiger. Auf mein anraden hin haben zwei Personen bei Baumkunde.de sich diesen Laser besorgt, weil sie wenig Geld ausgeben wollten, und sind sehr zufrieden damit.
Vor einigen Jahren noch hatte das Nikon fast ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal in Sachen Laser zur Baumhöhenmessung gehabt. Aber die Billiglaser aus China haben in den letzten Jahren stark aufgeholt und sind für den schmalen Geldbeutel erstaunlich gut.
Danke sehr for this incredibly helpful information. I think I will get the Huepar, as it seems to have lots of good reviews and is cheap in comparison to other lasers. Also good to see you are active on Monumental Trees.
mir geht es gut, danke. Der Grund, warum ich hier kaum mehr aktiv bin, ist letztendlich meine eigene Webseite, die viel Zeit benötigt, Dort habe ich inzwischen über 1.100 Eichen erfasst und knapp 400 andere Bäume. Und vor allen Dingen die technischen Probleme die ich seit Jahren mit MT habe. Bilder hochladen gelingt mir fast nicht. Kommt immer Fehlermeldung. Auch das aufrufen einzelner Seiten gelingt oftmals nicht, die Benutzung der einzelnen Tabellen auch nicht. Die Seiten werden einfach nicht geladen. Ich kann in MT eigentlich fast gar nichts machen. Keine Ahnung warum. Mein Internet ist mit 100 MB nicht das langsamste, und mein Computer ist jetzt auch erst zwei Monate alt.
@Aidan: Gern geschehen. Für das Geld wie gesagt kein schlechter Laser.
Hello Rainer, I echo Aidan's comments, thank you for giving us the feedback about the Huepar and other lasers, very much appreciated.
''I'm fine thank you. The reason why I am hardly active here is ultimately my own website, which takes a lot of time. There I have now recorded over 1,100 oaks and almost 400 other trees. And above all the technical problems that I have had with MT for years. I hardly succeed in uploading pictures. Always comes an error message. It is also often not possible to call up individual pages, and neither does the use of the individual tables. The pages just won't load. Actually, I can hardly do anything in MT. No idea why. My internet isn't the slowest at 100MB, and my computer is only two months old now.
@Aidan: You're welcome. As I said, not a bad laser for the money.
Many greetings'', (quoted Rainer)
I have just Google translated your comments Rainer, you are not the only one, I can only get certain photos to upload, the smaller sized ones. Perhaps the site is just full, has others have said previously we need to really just add essential photos of the trees and only add genuinely monumental trees, champions for county/district/region/country, not small saplings and small trees. I could add thousands of trees but only add county champions for mostly height or girth.
I now saw this discussion by chance and read my name. Well, I had several lasers to test, including the Huepar. I really liked the external display, which the Forestry Pro also has. At that time I had paid around 100 euros for the Huepar. I found it very good for that. And yes, of course it also has 1-point measurement. In the correct mode you can aim at any point and display the actual or horizontal distance, in each case with the height. So once you have found the highest point of the tree, you can measure the base of the trunk. So no difference to the Nikon. During the same period, I also had the successor to the Forestry Pro, the Forestry Pro II. That disappointed me completely. The measured values were not reproducible. The range of fluctuation was at least +/- 2 m for the height. Completely out of the question, in my opinion. In poor visibility conditions and greater distances, it took me several attempts at the Huepar until the measurement worked. My current Nikon Pro Stabilized was / is better, but it also costs almost five times as much. I measured several trees in parallel and could hardly find any differences between the Nikon and Huepar in terms of height, which surprised me very much. I measured two objects that I measured exactly with a tape measure beforehand. I could also measure quite well through branches of another tree, through a small gap, to the top of a tree behind it. In terms of performance, the overall package does not quite come close to the Nikon, but the difference is much smaller than the price difference suggests. In any case, the measurement result of the Huepar is much better than any other method for determining height. I had also tested a range finder from Suaoki, which was also amazingly good. However, without an external display, but even cheaper. At my request, two people at Baumkunde.de got this laser because they didn't want to spend much money and are very satisfied with it.
A few years ago, the Nikon had almost a unique selling point in terms of laser for tree height measurement. But the cheap lasers from China have caught up a lot in recent years and are surprisingly good for those on a tight budget.
Hello Owen, I measured this tree in calm conditions on Tuesday and the laser gave readings consistantly between 32.6 and 33 metres, the highest shoot off the top being quite difficult to hit the end of. It is a near dead heat between this tree and the tree at Harewood House but I think that the Harewood tree will just pip this this tree now, the readings were c32.6 metres for that tree but the base was in a ditch at the side of the path at least 0.5 metres below the point on the path I had to aim for so 33.1-33.2 metres overall. The Harewood tree has shelter behind from the woods from the west so probably has more potential for adding height.
I have just had a look on the Tree Register at this tree and Alan Hunton has visited and taken some more photos of it, half of it has gone!! Gutted, beautiful tree, looks about half of it left, hard to judge? I travelled past Duncombe in September and couldn't spot it on Waterloo albeit I was driving and couldn't look too well. At the moment my trees seem to be jinxed, my champion Magnolia grandiflora was felled at some point recently, 41 metre Larch at Fountains lost it's top. Owen, did Alan measure it, how much is left, height? Could we use a photo of Alan's of what is left?
Alan will have been verifying for the Ancient Tree Inventory (which of course only records girths).
Fortunately you've already found two more Deodars in North Yorkshire also 35m tall. If both of these have broken off too, you really are jinxed!
It's easy to underestimated the rate of attrition among current champion trees. To become a champion, a tree is likely to be one of the oldest of its kind and therefore near the end of its natural life, and/or at the limits of timber strength and stability.
Hello Owen, have tried to line up the remaining branches with those on my photo and there looks to be about 15/16 metres of the tree left in height. What a shame, it was a luxuriant tree. It is on top of the hill though above the river valley and clearly visible from Waterloo (the name the A170 road is known by in this section locally)
Directly over the camera shadow facing north you can see the double near 40 metre Sequoiadendron and the big dark conifer to it's left which is further back in the wood, the Deodar which I couldn't see on my last drive down here. It is 9 years since I actually visited the tall trees at Duncombe Park, Limes etc, will have to visit next spring. The top of the tallest Lime was dying back abit, was 44 metres to the tip of the foliageless top shoot. It may have died back further, the tip may have come back to life perhaps?
Hello Stephen, did you happen to point the laser anywhere near this Copper Beech? Likely not, it would have been interesting to know how far that shoot on the top had continued, 5 growing seasons possibly 6 with some of 2016, what had it added if any? So close to the B&I champion.
This is his rival, this tree looked gorgeous with the sunlight shafting through the foliage when I was measuring it, an absolutely superb tree.
Kouta, Jeroen, Sisley, without having to go through every Beech on the site, what is/are the tallest Copper Beech trees in Europe-Germany, Netherlands, France etc? There must be some as tall or taller?
Hello Valentina, fine trees, the Taxodium looks impressive, can you estimate the height? Shame about the Atlas Cedar, another tree that has lost it's top.
Hello Owen, are these two County Champions for height for County Durham if correct? Cannot get anything to come up on the Register? The Poplar looks like 'nigra 'italica', the other is a Service tree, not sure which, cannot upload photos here, they won't resize, but will send you them to confirm.
Yes, these will be worth installing as champions. I'd like to see a leaf of the service tree as Sorbus decipiens is equally widely planted in the area and has rather narrower leaves.
The first photo on the Polecat Copse site page is of the Deodar. I must have omitted to attach it to the right tree. I couldn't find a position where the whole tree would fit in.
For Aidan or anyone else visiting: the woodland is mostly unfenced but must include land belonging to the various big houses nearby rather than the NT which owns the core of land above Lion Lane. The tall Deodar and several more of the best trees are on the west side of the ridge, above or below a drive which leads to an Islamic retreat centre (outside the wood) and had a security gate halfway up it when I last visited (but nothing to stop pedestrians walking through the woodland on either side of this). When I last visited, a fence had been built above the tall Giant Sequoias, which must mark the legal boundary of the land belonging to a house called Honeyhanger which is accessed from the road in the valley to the west; the big Hemlocks were all (?) within that plot of land.
Thanks for the info Owen, I did notice a fence between the Giant sequoias and the lane. If there are any other fences that have "private property" or "keep out" signs I will respect them and not go any further. I will try and get a clearer photo of your Norway spruce as well!
Sorry Owen, blind as a bat, I didn't scroll the page down from the trees listed as the top, it was right at the top. It is an impressive tree, very nice shape, looking forward to hearing more about it when it is re-measured.
Not sure if I have duplicated this tree with yours Owen? There has sadly been some thinning in the last 2 years, so maybe your tree has been lost? Difficult to say.
However this was the tallest I measured nearest from the entrance from the public road, well within the stand. A fine slender tree. Suspect this is the tallest at present.
Also uploaded another better tree at the opposite western end of the stand. Growing well of larger girth.
I have found Owen that its very difficult with the Trupulse to measure without a tripod, due to handshake etc. The Trupulse is a very accurate device but costs £2500 but mine was secondhand. However we could both be right with either instrument with these tall trees, such as the difficulties of measuring these giants.
Hello Stephen, from using the Nikon for now near 10 years I think that the laser beam width definitely plays a big part in why it returns a range of readings, diverging beam. Even if you attempt to aim at precisely the same spot in practice it will be just that little bit out from where you aimed originally and another part of the beam strikes the target first giving a slightly different reading. I try to use my tap washer adaptor but unfortunately it greatly reduces the range of the Nikon so isn't practical at times where you have to get way back to see up onto the top of the crowns of particularly broadleaved trees. The Nikon I think could be improved by giving it a spot beam, a narrow tight beam, instead of the crosshairs just a spot in the viewfinder to line up
I have never used the Nikon Rob, so I can't comment. But with the Trupulse on a tripod, you can repeat the height measurements aimed at say a leader tip, well within 10cm every time, aiming in between the crosshairs.
Sorry to here about your Grand Fir losses. So annoying. At Hollidays Hill, they have felled some trees and I suspect some 50m plus trees too. Rather unnecessary I feel, just for profit. I will write to them and reiterate their significance and my other findings at Puck Pitts.
Owen has mentioned these in the Register Newsletter so I will mention them here. These may soon be 'an ex parrot', they originated from brash inserted into the bank of the river Wharfe c1990 to stabilise the bank and have grown incredibly since then. It is a SSSI and so the estate is talking about removing them as they are non-native, ironic really as the wood is full mostly of Sycamore and even Beech.
Perhaps in this current world, we should be planting these trees not cutting them down, prodigious growth and mopping up and locking carbon away very quickly, certainly much quicker than planting many scrubby, native trees.
I should remove this tree really as the Abies grandis beneath the Seqys have now all been felled. Were screamers of trees, little bit of foliage at the top of very long slim trunks, probably 40 plus metres of trunk. Shame really, would have been approaching 50 metres before long.
Growing steadily, 54.6-54.8 metres readings but not particularly easy to measure as cannot get further enough back to be ideal to see the top shoot, can just see it from amongst thick vegetation at the other side of the path. Someone in August/Sep 2021, after I had measured it reported a 56 metre tree at Hebden Wood, suspect it is this tree otherwise it is one of the trees which I have failed to get a view on?
Hello Ernesto, thanks for adding this one and the 70.70 metre Lawson and other trees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Cedar
The Duncan Cedar is estimated to be over 1,000 years old. Most of the tree is dead, with the exception of a strip of bark on one of the trunks.[1] In addition, the tree's root system was damaged when an interpretive trail was built around its trunk.[6] However, due to redcedar's natural resilience to pests and rot, the Duncan Cedar is not necessarily in poor health.[6] According to University of Washington Forestry Professor Robert Van Pelt, the tree may live for many more centuries, unless destroyed by wind, fire, or human intervention.[7]
Amazing the tree still survives but judging by the photo definitely a Victor Meldrew 'seen better days'. Victor Meldrew will not be familiar I expect but is/was a grumpy comedy sitcom character from over here.
Are you living in the Pacific North West, any Bigfoot encounters to report?
Glad you saw this tree Aidan. Funny how we have both looked up the trunk of this tree, only 2 months apart.
I only got 44.3m with the Trupulse on a tripod from a range of 45m away, not sure if its lost height? But definitely the longest clear Larch bole free of branches I have seen. 32m to the first branch!
Stephen, I know I've pestered you about this already, but if you get the change please visit Hascombe Hill near Godalming. Another >40m Larch as well as many other fine trees. It's definitely worth the visit.
I have had a look on Google Maps at Hascombe Hill and can see Douglas firs in the distance, how tall are they?
Aidan, I hope that you don't mind my asking but do you have what I would deem a champion surname, you can just say yes or no? I won't disclose the surname but what a great name.
Yes, that is my surname. Lots of people comment on it!
Many tall Douglas firs at Hascombe Hill, some perhaps being in excess of 45m, others having large girths. It is a superb location for tall conifers, but also ancient Beeches as well.
I think the larch at Puckpits was one of those difficult trees where my laser offered two groups of heights, one about 1.5m higher than the other. Stephen's research is showing that Nikon owners should plump for the lower heights, sometimes or often. Or buy a better laser.... But the loss of some topmost shoots isn't impossible.
That group of tall larches at Hascombe Hill is even older, and I don't think they'll add any more height. Rob, this is quite a high hill (195m), and the good growth of conifers near the summit shows how, in south-east England, the extra humidity that comes with altitude is a more significant factor than the exposure to higher winds. You can see the conifers on this hill from all over southern Surrey, but the tallest are tucked away on the slopes and only visible at close range. I had 45m for one Douglas Fir here in 2015 which had been growing very fast when I first saw it 15 years before, but had then recently died back a bit.
Yes, the tallest conifers on Hascombe Hill are on the lower slopes or at the bottom. I still have more notably tall Douglas firs and another Sitka spruce and Coast redwood to add, as well as many other trees.
You are probably right about the larches. I imagine they will start adding girth rather than height now. Where was the 45m Douglas fir? Is it one of the ones recorded? The largest of the three opposite the track below the larches Douglasie (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '44361' looks pretty tall, perhaps more than 45m. Did you measure this one?
Hello Stephen, surprising the tree hasn't split, the point where the boles join must be a weak spot surely? I suppose Sequoias like this are common in California but they have more forest shelter and won't be subject to perhaps such strong winds like we are here.
The Douglas at Puddletown do look quite impressive, that looks like a big vehicle parked, not sure what it is but the Land Rover Discovery 3 is 74 inches in height. The Douglas look mid 40 metres in height, plus these Google photos have distortion which caused for-shortening. Hope that you can measure these if you get your laser, certainly county champions for height.
Glad you visited the tree Aidan, it is a monster. Not the most perfect example of the species, but interesting nevertheless.
It is a weak point as you suggested Rob, but often forking can still form a strong structure, it all depends on how strongly attached the two stems are and how much 'included bark' there is. In this case unless there is decay it looks quite strong, after all it came through the 87 and 90 storms unscathed whereas single trees with single stems had blown over here.
Interesting the trees at Boulderwood, Rhinefield, and here, which suffered windblow, were too large and very few sawmills could handle trees which would have been 30-50 tons each.
Hi Stephen. It certainly is a monster. These two Douglas firs are the most impressive I have seen, as you can get a clear view of the whole tree with both specimens, unlike with most at places like Rhinefield and Bolderwood. I only scratched the surface of Puckpits as it was already getting dark when we found the trees and we had to get to a dinner reservation. I will definitely come back. Also looked like there was some rather tall beeches within the conifers. Did you measure any of them?
'"and we had to get to a dinner reservation" . . . 'dinner reservation'? What sort of a creature is that, when there's trees to see?? 😆"
As a side note, I forgot about the word "dinner reservation" completely till you mentioned it now. All the restaurants here on the East Coast of America are pretty much empty, no reservations required for about all now.
foomanz, am 2016-04-27 09:49:50, geändert am 2016-04-27 09:50:58, hat gesagt:
Hi,
This tree is not 52 m tall. It is one of the larger Kauri trees near the eastern entrance to the Auckland City Loop walk at the Cascades Kauri Park. A recent measurement performed with a Nikon 550 gave a height to the highest top of 35.7 m. The diameter of the tree is reported in park documentation as being 2.7 or 2.8 m. (8.4 m girth). The stated girth of 9.7 m may be plausible, as girth measurements on kauri tend to be above the 1.4 m standard (in NZ), at the location where the trunk becomes circular. This is a hangover from the days when Kauri were assessed by usable timber volume. As can be seen, the tree has a basal flare which may account for the difference in stated girth.
An actual girth measurement was not taken for two important reasons:
1) Kauri trees have delicate shallow feeding roots, and it is known that the health of the trees suffers significantly with foot traffic and subsequent compaction around the base.
2) Kauri have become greatly affected by Phytophthora agathidicida, formally known as Phytopthora taxon agathis (PTA), or kauri dieback disease. One vector is infected soil on footwear. The disease is known in the Cascades.
As a result, in any of the kauri trails, there is constant signage reminding people to stay away from the trees to protect the roots and prevent PTA infection.
There is at least one 50 m kauri tree in the Cascades, identified by LIDAR and climbed for a scientific survey, but this tree is not it.
the correct height that I later reported is indicated in 46.4 meters and maybe the photos are not those of the tree I climbed and measured because the report on Monumental trees was done a few years later and not directly by me.
Please note that I climbed up wearing disinfected "five fingers" on my feet in order to not damage the cortex.
see also pictures in https://www.gianttrees.org/it/alberi-giganti/king-of-the-forest
I compared location and data of "King of Forest Kauri" with trees reported at The New Zealand Tree Register. So this tree is not registered at this website, and i moved the location at map a few hundred meters to northeast where a huge apparent Kauri is visible at satellite view. The added photos are obviously the same as of the Kauri which was climbed and measured by Giant Trees foundation, and their measurings shall be right. Hence i got to suppose the tree meant by Matt was definitely another one, as there is a difference in height of 10.7 m.
The tree's location has already been corrected, now directly at the large tree visible at satellite view. The formerly added place was obviously wrong, some hundred meters to the southwest, where a circular place densely covered by trees or shrubs looks similar to a huge single crown top. This was an optical illusion, the circular spot seems to be more than hundred m in diameter, certainly no single tree crown.
You did manage to get the location correct. The tree is just off the loop track of the "Auckland City Walk". That track, and many others are now closed to protect the trees from Phytophthora agathidicida infection: People were not using the disinfection stations present at the track entries, and going off track to stand next to the trees risking spread of infection.
The crown in the aerial photography is a little bit misleading, as there is a slightly smaller neighbouring tree a few metres to the west of the larger tree.
However, the height of ~46 m is still incorrect. I lasered the tree, both before and after I found the MT entry, at 36 m. High resolution 2014 Lidar data for the park shows a true height of 36 m as well. The highest LIDAR return above ground is actually 44.7 m, but that is because the tree sits at the top of a slope to the south, and the large spreading crown reaches over that drop.
I will be able to add my photographs once I get home from work, and include visualisations of the Lidar data (I actually used this particular tree as an example of a down-slope Lidar height error for a presentation at the 2017 NZ Arb Conference).
If you want to check the Lidar data independently, it is available through OpenTopography.org (just search for Auckland).
Just to follow up on this tree - it is now dying from the Phytophthora agathidicida (Kauri die-back) infection, likely due to people carrying the fungus on soiled shoes and walking around the tree, rather than sticking to the walkway.
The tree is actually known locally as Aunt Agatha, not "King of the Forest".
See https://www.facebook.com/groups/BigTreeSeekers/posts/3020033861647174 and https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/99440291/kauri-dieback-national-treasure-on-the-brink-of-extinction
Owen, the shoot off the top of this tree/bush on the right had readings of 7.4-7.6 metres, is this now the tallest recorded specimen in the UK? I was talking to the owner only last week and told her that it was the tallest in North Yorkshire because I thought the B&I champion height was 8 metres? I have just received the Register Newsletter and it says that John Weightman has found a champion for Cotinus, 7.2 metres so I checked the Register? The owner of this tree is thinking of cutting it down! I will have to go back to do some pleading as it is such a fine specimen.
Smoke-bushes are trees (or shrubs) which always seem to grow to 'about 8m' tall, so I've not awarded any champions for height on the Tree Register. Given warm summers, however, they can grow quite thicc, and John's tree is a new (joint) record for this.
Cotinus obovatus, being American, grows a bit bigger (to 9m). Among the "dummeri" hybrids, 'Grace' seems vigorous - I've seen it to about 8.5m.
Hello Owen, great that this tree is still there and has added height and is now 21 metres tall (Alan and John 2021) Is this the Britain and Ireland Champion for height, the search on the Register brings this tree up and the historic 22 metre tree in Perth when I search for B&I champion?
Impossible tree to measure directly because of young trees and had to pick a spot to aim at the base on estimation but this time I measured it in two parts, measuring to a distinctive broken branch and then from distance to that branch and to the top. My last measurement of 52.8 metres in 2017 was probably just abit under. Tallest tree in North Yorkshire, all of Yorkshire-all of the four Yorkshire counties.
I am glad that I have been able to upload the better photo as this tree and the others surrounding it are absolute screamers, thin and sinuous to say the least, remove the big surrounding Douglas firs and they will be Scotch mist. Very difficult to measure, I
trampled down the tall bracken as best I could to expose the base. The numerous other equally tall Pinus sylvestris behind it there is little chance of measuring.
Surprising how our laser measurements vary, Alan and John measured this tree in January and got 41 metres I believe using an identical Nikon Forestry Pro (?), I measured it in July and got 39.8-40 metre readings, it hadn't changed in height?
I have just compared the photos and this looks like the same tree which Owen measured in 2015 as 33.5 metres so your estimate may be not too far off. The big Deodar at Betws Y Coed had lost a tadge from the top at one point, the top looked visibly flatter when I measured it and it looked like the leader had probably been broken off by the wind.
Hello Aidan, that is interesting, the tree must have lost a considerable part of it's top from the looks of this? Owen may clarify? Just reminds me, there are some beautiful, straight, specimens with long leading shoots near Grassington up here in the Wharfe valley which I must visit again soon.
Yes, Aidan has found the right tree. I can't remember whether I decided the tree had lost some of its top or whether the my 2006 measurement just wasn't very accurate. 33.5m in 2015 was with the laser, anyway.
Just read a fascinating article about one of my 'choice' tree species, a true giant of the temperate world.
It appears that a tree has been measured in Iran in the Hyrcanian Forest near the Caspian Sea at 60.4m x 4.9m DBH! With a circumference of 22m at the base! If accurate, it surely could potentially be the largest temperate broadleaved tree in the Northern Hemisphere except Eucalypts.
Only one recorded at any of the Yorkshires, 2018 at Askham Bryan not far from me, no height recorded by Alan (Hunton) and John (Killingbeck). Owen, do they live near enough to re-visit? I have driven through this village many times but not noticed this tree? It was a few years ago though since I was last there. Champion for UK, 36.6 metres 2017 at Kew, correct Owen?
Hi Rob yes it is massive, just wondering if the height has been correctly measured?
If only I could have some acorns from it!
The Kew tree is amazing and never seems to slow down its growth rate. I know people who have worked on this tree. I wonder if it becomes the biggest tree in Greater London to 40m perhaps?
Jeroen Philippona, am 2021-10-27 15:28:09, geändert am 2021-10-27 15:28:46, hat gesagt:
Hi Stephen and Rob,
In 2017 we had the ECTF meeting at Kew. After lectures we had a tour in the garden with Owen Johnson. I measured the cbh and height myself with a Nikon Forestry 550 laser. The top most leader was 36.6 m tall, but that stook out a bit above the main crown, wich was around 35.6 meter. The height is impressive but the girth and total wood and crown volume are even more impressive. The height seems to gain a bit still, but I doubt if the tree ever will become 40 m tall.
The biggest Quercus cerris at Knighthayes court is just about as tall and big.
The heights measured or estimated in the Iran forests for Quercus castaneifolia are very interesting. A dr. Sperber, well known forest researcher from Germany around 2005 also visited these forests and reported trees of 50 m height and 10 m cbh, just like Jozef Soucek in the report in International Oaks Society. The tree with dbh of 4.9 m (cbh 15.4 m) and height of 60.4 m looks impressive at the photo, but it is not sure if the height was measured reliable.
I did ask Roderick (the author of the TSO article) if he could put me in touch with the measurer or provide more details about this tree, so it could be added to this site, but this reminds me that I've not heard back (yet).
Ernesto Rubio Velasco, am 2021-10-27 17:32:19, geändert am 2021-10-27 17:48:59, hat gesagt:
Many thanks and very interesting. It is truly gigantic. A tree such as this size would need to grow in a high rainfall environment. I wonder if there are even larger trees hidden away in its native range?
Jeroen:- I saw the Kew tree last year but had no laser with me. Judging by the rakish upper crown its still adding height, about 15-20cm per year I would estimate. I am sure the tree has tapped into the groundwater several metres down, from the nearby Thames. One of the UK leading tree care companies looks after it, sprays it for OPM and decompaction of the root zone, by an 'Air Spade + fertiliser. Time will tell but I think its got plenty of life yet to grow larger.
Measuring the height in the photo the tree have about sixty meters, for the dbh the surface is not regular, we have the habitual problem.
Let's hope that the measured of the tree will upload it, or someone who knows its location, if not, it will be difficult to locate. Hyrcanians mountains are 800 km long ... really big.
From the photo at treesandshrubsonline.org we can see that the tree is clearly much lower than 60 m. Neither looks it so tall when compared with other objects in the photo, nor is its growth habit that of a 60m tree, nor is the surroundings of the tree such one that would encourage the tree to grow to such heights. Let's remember that 50% errors are not rare when measuring broadleaf trees with traditional measurements. But it is a magnificent tree nevertheless.
My grandfather also told me that, during his childhood in the 1930s, he heard many stories of very wild animals coming down to the villages from the mountains, and often dragging a kid or elderly off.
It still is a very wild region today, as it appears there are very few logging companies, trails, roads, or anything really crossing into the wilderness.
Thanks for the link. Indeed, he did tell us kids (back years ago), about wild tigers. Though, he did mention that wild monkeys would also come and drag entire families off to the forests sometimes, hah.
They were interesting stories to us kids, for sure.
Hello Aidan, some great trees, looks like an enjoyable measuring session. I have just had a look on the Register, Owen measured 39 and 38 metres respectively for two Sequoias at Bolderwood, likely the same trees, so they have either lost their tops or your estimate is some way under? Father Crimbo, if you are good boy, he might bring you a laser? That Chinese laser which Kouta highlighted looks good value, if mine packs up I would likely buy one of those just to try.
There is a great video of a drone flyover of the Sequoia wood in Longleat Forest.
1 min 20 secs, the clear cut area at the edge of the Sequoia wood on the right.
3 min 40 secs, I think that the 58 metre Sequoiadendrons are visible on the far right margin of the film. On the left of the film you can see the slight gaps in the Sequoia forest canopy where Centreparcs have removed some trees to put their cabins. They have actually done it all pretty well, minimal tree felling and impact on the canopy.
The Sequoias in this stand have some very nice spires, I measured trees only along the edge so there may be taller emergents further into the stand, possibly 45 metres or more by now. Perhaps the trees in this stand will relatively quickly overhaul the
The trees are clonal here Rob so genetic diversity zero hence generally all the same height. More sheltered in Bucklers wood too so tree may reach 60m in 10 years?
We can discount the possibility that this pine has had any work done on it as it's in such an unfrequented part of the Forest. It must have been crowded enough when young to lose its branches early but not so crowded that its growth was slowed (pines are light-demanding trees), and the trees around it will have been lost to natural depletion - they'd gone when I first saw this tree in 2006, but there are taller Douglas Firs within 50m on each side still to provide adequate wind protection. It has the longest, straightest, cleanest bole of any tree I've found in Britain.
Stephen Verge, am 2021-10-26 21:04:23, geändert am 2021-10-26 21:40:42, hat gesagt:
I updated the height measurement this summer. Growing about 10-15cm in height per year. It is a beauty, but I have a shorter tree but with an equally fine stem. Some of the best Corsican Pine in the UK here.
Regarding its long fine bole, there appears to have been heavy losses here after the 87 and 90 storms, judging by the old stumps and root plates around and gaps in the canopy and a little replanting. Perhaps in the process of falling, trees stripped off the dead and dying branches of this tree, as trees fell around, either by man or the weather? Was this stand much larger? Has it been thinned in the past? Perhaps during wartime? Wondered if this site is a SSSI?
That pine has a very straight bole! Very skinny also! Impressive tree for sure!
The tallest tree I have measured probably had no branches for also ~30 meters, but here is a photo of one that branches at 23 or so, which is located in the U.S state of Pennsylvania:
I am confident I have seen other trees that have not branched until about 30 or more meters, but I have not measured the height to the first branch. These trees, both also from Pennsylvania, come to mind though:
A 46.56 Meter Tulip-Tree:
And a tall, but unmeasured, Eastern White Pine that I found not long ago. It might be old growth:
Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts and info on this interesting pine!
I see your tree at Mount Stuart, Argyll is a tad taller, for now. Interesting that this species dislikes high rainfall and high humidity and prone to needle cast and dieback in the northwest.
As a species I think it potentially could reach 50m. My Ponderosa Pine may beat it first though near Welshpool!
Amazing Corsican pines. There are a group of similar trees just south of the main path heading towards Blackwater Arboretum which also look rather tall. Perhaps 40-45m?
Stephen Verge, am 2021-10-22 21:40:55, geändert am 2021-10-22 21:45:34, hat gesagt:
How's about that then! An even bigger one!
This could be the champ Norway Spruce in the UK Owen and co?
I visited on 4/8/21 and took a reading with the Trupulse on the tripod in a difficult to view window to the tree top. I recorded 49m! But could not quite believe it for this species. To settle my curiosity I returned on 22/9/21 and managed to find another window in this tall forest for another reading of 48.5m. Either could be correct!
What a magnificent tree. I have a Picea abies plantation next to my house and this completely dwarfs all of them. Must me more then double the height of most.
Yes, this becomes comfortably the tallest - and interestingly refutes the assumption that such trees are always at their best in cool, high-rainfall areas of Britain and Ireland. (There's an old record of a 52m tree at Reelig Glen but I'm inclined to discount this figure as it's so much in excess of anything growing there now - unless Stephen visits and finds this tree hidden away somewhere....) I'm assuming you haven't found a 55m Abies alba yet, anywhere in Hampshire or Wiltshire? I had imagined that Abies alba and Picea abies had very similar habitats and requirements in their native forests, which makes it slightly surprising that their performance in England differs in this striking fashion.
When you said you record 49m on your first visit, do you think this was a one-off error or would the 50cm be within your margin of error for an awkward-to-measure tree? If the latter, we might say 48.7m or 48.8m?
It's been a great summer for tree recording around Britain, after all the restrictions of lockdown last year. Hugo Egleston discovered a brand new UK champion Metasequoia on Thursday, in a field at Shepton Beauchamp in Somerset and 556cm girth. I'm hoping this can be added to monumentaltrees.com, once publicity issues are checked with the owner. All told there are nearly 700 new and updated UK champions for 2021, so far!
That Metasequoia you mention is quite large! Almost as large as the largest in America! I am located not far from a 5.79 meter CBH Dawn Redwood that is the champion of the U.S.A. Maybe the English one is larger in volume?
Hello Stephen, agree with Aidan, what a magnificent tree. What a series of successful tree measuring sorties you have had recently, already justifies the Trupulse.
There isn't really too much visible from the nearby path on Google Maps which suggests such tall trees, are the Norways and others in a slight depression? Is that a Tsuga in the Google Maps Street View image above, panning to the right towards the tall Larch and Norways?
I wish that you had ventured into Centreparcs at Longleat to measure the Seqy, the wife could have put a blindfold on you (nothing kinky) to get you to the trees, the area around them isn't too bad for development. You would have had another B&I champion for height (unless the tops have gone which you never know) With your 57 metre Seqy at Bucklers, I am even more curious to know what height they are?
The last time that I visited Cragside I got 45.40 metres for this tree in a clean reading, the National Trust had removed some smaller trees and clutter from the area. It won't be challenging the 48.5 to 49 metre tree but it may have added some height by now, perhaps 46 metres now? Cragside is quite open to the south west so you just don't know.
As Alan Mitchell said "The Norway Spruce is too dull and inherently mediocre in every aspect to detain us long."
(Trees of Britain)
But I wonder what he would have made of this fine specimen?
I agree with you that it can show that spruce can grow as large as this outside optimal areas, but then Abies alba grows well here too. Which indicates to me that the relatively cool maritime summers and high humidity from the nearby channel ensures good growth conditions despite <950mm of rain. The lack of high summer temperatures here I think is crucial. One can just look at the great amount of moss on tree canopies here in the New Forest as a clear indicator of high humidity compared to areas of southern England say 60 miles inland where moss growth well up into the tree canopy is missing.
I am surprised that there are not larger specimens in cold more continental climatic mountainous regions of Scotland, where climatic matching would compare with cold continental regions of Europe?
I am sure growth is much faster here in the UK. But lifespan much shorter (200-220 years)-most trees eventually die due to being snapped off at the base due to Heterobasidion annosum and Armillaria decay in the lower trunk. (It can be seen at Puck Pitts) I doubt many actually die of old age as such. I would hope that this tree reaches its 200th birthday though in 2160! But climate change will probably put a stop to that.
Regarding the slight 0.5m difference in recording height. I measured from 2 different windows in the canopy from different directions. As the laser is on a tripod and 'fixed' and aimed at a precise datum point i.e the top of the leader the difference in height readings I would not put down to the trees top (I would if broadleaved). Instead I suspect as I can recall, its the finding of the 'correct soil level' to the base.
There was a very thick layer of needles piled up at the butt and when walking around the base, where large basal root spurs occurred, which gave way under my feet by some 30cm. (Doubt more than a handful of people have visited it in 160 years) I scraped back this to find the correct soil level to measure to, the last 2m by tape. The rest of the difference I would attribute to the accuracy of the instrument +-10-20cm.
I discounted this tree being a champ some 8 years ago even though it was huge, as I thought it was one you had seen? As I knew you had measured the tree by the path not far away. Which I will enter tonight.
Stephen Verge, am 2021-10-24 20:54:22, geändert am 2021-10-24 20:55:26, hat gesagt:
Thanks Rob & Aidan
There is no Hemlock here dating back to 1860 sadly. Wish you could see my Spruce though.
I suspect the G. Sequoia at Longleat centreparks are increasing in height by some 10-20cm per year, so hopefully approaching 59m now. But I suspect the tree at Buckler's Wood will overtake it.
There was a report from years ago of a 48 metre spruce at Fountains Abbey in North Yorkshire, it was labelled 'Black spruce', Owen will have the details. Probably over measured and your tree is the tallest ever recorded in the UK. The 52 metre reported tree is interesting though, I took it as being further down on the way to Loch Ness but if it is Reelig Glen that would make sense.
The Fountains Abbey spruce was 40m in 1837, 42.5m in 1905, 46m in 1931 and 48m in 1952 (Maynard Greville) but with the top 5 metres dead by then. So 48m maximum was probably about right. Fountains is still a good place for Norway Spruce. I had an idea in my head that the cooler summers and cold winters of the 19th century were better for the species, at least in SE England, than today's warmer wetter climate - there was a 46.7m tree at Cowdray Park in West Sussex in 1911 and a 45.4m at Rookesbury Park inland from Portsmouth in 1913, neither of them ideally well-sheltered spots - but Stephen's New Forest measurements really refute that idea. (Even though Puckpits is an 'old' plantation - c. 1860 - and these trees will have done a lot of their growing in the 19th century.)
Hello Owen, I didn't realise that, 48 metres with the top 5 metres dead, the tree was 53 metres at some point, is that correct? That must have been some tree, the ones that remain, the 38.8 metre tree up near the Pinus strobus and the one on the lawn are just under or around 40 metres.
That is a large Dawn redwood at Shepton Beauchamp. I wonder wether the one at Woking Park would have surpassed 5m girth by now? Looks like the 2006 measurement needs updating. I have been wanting to visit for a while now, so hopefully I can get there soon.
I last visited Woking Park in 2016 when I made the Metasequoia 460cm girth (cf 405cm in 2000. I suspect I had the tape a few cm lower in 2006, but I get the impression that it's reached middle age and is slowing down. (You wait....)
I don't know if you've ever visited the private garden of Snowdenham House which I think is very near you (and shouldn't be confused with Snowdenham Hall on the other side of the lane, also with big and unusual conifers in 2000). There are two Metasequoias at Snowdenham House last measured by the Surrey Tree Survey in 2008 which are outstanding for their combination of girth and height.
And hello Russ,
the biggest Metasequoia at Longwood Gardens has the same very flared, fluted bole as the one Hugo's found in Somerset, but yours is certainly taller and so presumably more massive. I'm hoping the owner at Shepton Beauchamp will be happy for his tree to be added to this site, with photos.
Yes, I am actually rather desperate to visit the many houses/gardens along Snowdenham Lane (turning into Thornecombe Street)! Thornecombe Park seems to have many grand conifers, along with another large house the other side of the road. This may be Snowdenham Hall. They are all private properties so I will need permission to visit them, but I really want to and they are right on my doorstep.
'As Alan Mitchell said "The Norway Spruce is too dull and inherently mediocre in every aspect to detain us long".'
One of Alan's less insightful moments! Usually his comments are far better than that. While it is true that a poor Norway Spruce can be a very dull tree, a good one is very good indeed 👍
Aidan - yes, it's about time some of these fine Surrey estates were revisited. I spent the summer of 2000 measuring in Surrey and this was just as security gates and the culture of mistrusting strange visitors was taking hold, so getting access nowadays will probably be more of a hurdle. The 'Surrey Tree Survey' (Dick Alder with Brian Spooner and Mariko Parslow from Kew) updated my records from 2006 onwards for a book about Surrey trees they were going to write (but never have). Tree Register letterheads might help you to apply for visiting such gardens and we'd be happy to provide you with some. But perhaps wait until you're equipped with some way of recording heights, to save visits having to be duplicated?
Snowdenham Hall was a religious retreat in those days but it's since been subdivided into flats I believe. Snowdenham House may have open days for the National Gardens Scheme still?
Owen:- I would agree the climate early on in the 19th and 20th centuries was more suitable for the species, but I think that there has not been any significant impact on most conifer growth, in southern England with regards to climate change until the rapid warming which has occurred since the 1970's? Some species such as S. sempervirens have improved growth whereas Picea sitchensis has suffered. Interestingly I have a Norway Spruce in south Oxfordshire nearly 40m and still growing well, planted in 1893 (will upload). But its in a sheltered valley and microclimate.
I am convinced this species could reach 50m-52m+ in the UK, especially central highland Scotland like Abies alba, but why is there none? Perhaps most of the old plantings from the last 300 years have died and the species which could be planted in the right location in the last 150 years has fallen out of fashion? Only in very frosty areas is it planted much now, otherwise its Sitka. The cold winters and short growing season would ensure greater longevity as pathogenic fungi are often slowed in more extreme environments, allowing to grow to greater dimensions. Perhaps past larger trees were never measured in highland Scotland?
It is a shame people are a bit more suspicious now, and not as friendly to us tree measurers. From my experience when I explain what I am doing they seem to understand are interested in why I measure trees. Hopefully the owners of these estates are nice people and will let me look around.
Snowdenham Hall is now either a very nice block of flats like you said, or an old peoples home. I believe you are right about Snowdenham House having open days. I will have to look out for when they are, along with open days at Albury Park, who I know are rather strict with visitors wondering from the footpaths.
I think it would be a good idea to wait for when I have a good laser measurer and I know how to use it confidently.
Replying to Stephen's comment about Picea abies in Scotland, I think there are enough to records to imply that the species doesn't reach great sizes in the wetter western Highlands, even though it's a commonly planted tree here.
Alan Mitchell's 52m record from Reelig Glen in 1986 is an outlier - as indeed are the 47m and 46.5m trees I found here in 2013. (This is a spot with a surprisingly low rainfall, though with good humidity and shelter.) Next tallest are 44m trees at Ballindalloch Castle in Moray in 1982 (a place I've not visited, but also quite dry), at Culdees in Perthshire in 1986 - I couldn't find this tree in 2017, and in the Glamis Castle pinetum in 2017 (again with less than 900mm of rain a year?) I had a 43.5m tree at Bonskeid in Perthshire in the same year, and 43m trees include(d) a couple at Inveraray - blown down by 1971 - at Blair Atholl (blown down around 1893), at Ardkinglas (leaning, and lost between 2007 and 2015), and another at Glamis.
It could be that the wet climate of the west encourages butt-rotting fungi, so that trees fall over before they have time to reach their full potential. Spruces must be about the most apically dominant of all trees - they continue adding height with a single leader and a spire-shape until they die (or die back from drought stress, something you very seldom see in Picea abies even in the driest parts of England).
Looks an impressive tree Aidan, was the other lost bole part of a bigger tree or was there an original big tree which was lost and the multi stems grew up from the stump? The Prunus laurocerasus, how tall would you estimate? I have just had a look on the Tree Register and none seem to be recorded for height for Surrey, this will be a champion for height whatever at the moment if you measure it.
Hi Rob, This was originally one big twin-trunked tree. The slightly bigger stem fell away a few years ago. It's also fairly tall, maybe 30m.
The laurels I'd say would be around 5m tall. I know of a superb laurel in a private garden next to the River Wey not too far away from here. It is much taller than these (Perhaps 10m?) and has a superb single bole maybe approaching 2m girth. I will try and remember to add it to Monumental Trees next time I pass it.
Aidan, am 2021-10-26 17:30:20, geändert am 2021-10-26 17:31:23, hat gesagt:
Owen, which clone of P. x canadensis do you think this is? I can get a photo of the crown in due course if you need one.
Hi Conifers, I think this tree is one of the later trees to come into leaf, though I can't remember. I will have to check next spring. I was thinking it could be Serotina, too.
I think more likely to be 'Regenerata' (Group) rather than 'Serotina', which in my experience grows a straighter, less branchy trunk with even more regular furrows. In England ou see lots of 'Regenerata' forking from the base - either these forms have a tendency to do this, or they were traditionally used in hedgerow situations where the plants got cut the base every now and again.
'Serotina' is male and 'Regenerata' is a female group - this can be checked in April.
Thanks for everyone's opinion. I will not put it as a specific clone yet and will wait till spring to see when it comes into leaf to make my decision then.
Hello Stephen, did you come across any big Norway at Longleat in any of the places that you wandered? This is the tallest that I measured, I think, cannot remember offhand what was in the stand immediately below Centreparcs, not far from your Thuja? Given your findings I wonder if there are taller trees still hidden? When I think about, I can remember walking past the Norway spruce grove in the dip and coming to a junction in the path, left down to Aucumbe Dip and the other way came to a dead end at a wire fence of Centreparcs. I saw the top of your Thuja behind Sequoias and went right past it, measured some Sequoias around it at around 40 metres and then walked on. It is amazing how you can miss trees, I did see your tree, the top anyway but didn't think it was taller than the 40 metre Thujas in Longleat and walked away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmM1bwEMJ4g 1 minute 10 seconds in
Rather annoyingly I have spotted what looks like a taller Norway at Shearwater Lake than the ones that I measured, on the bank down below the 50 metre Sequoiadendron. I was all round the Seqy in 2016 so was very near this Norway but didn't spot it form where I was. There are some nice videos of Longleat Forest on Youtube, it is a very impressive forest, one of my favourites that I have visited along with Cragside.
Douglas firs are like Hen's teeth in Nottinghamshire, very rare. The previous champion was a single very young tree at Edwinstowe, not worth recording the height it was so small.
This is a beautiful stand of Douglas Fir at Longleat, the gentleman walking his dog in the photo really gives an appreciation of size. Difficult to measure the trees further in the stand but the tallest one that I picked out near the edge was 56 metres in 2016.
Yes I saw Rob, but was still recovering from shock at the big R. Cedar! Ran out of time and it was getting dark and walked about 15km plus 80 mile drive back home.
I shot a few trees at 50m but did not see your tree. No hemlock either
Hello Owen, I haven't visited this location for many years, before my tree measuring days and in my Robin Hood days, I suspect that some of Nottinghamshire's tallest trees may be growing along the entrance drive. The Lawsons (?) in this photo near the gate look quite impressive, any ideas what type? There looks to be a very big Copper Beech growing immediately to the left of the Abbey. I will try and visit at some point next year.
I don't think those Lawson Cypresses were planted as any particular cultivar, as seed can easily produce specimens this weeping and these individuals appear to vary slightly. The Copper Beech was measured as 455cm girth by John Revill in 2007, but no-one's ever recorded any heights at Newstead.
Hello Ole, would you be able to clarify as to where this tree is, it looks a very impressive tree? I wish that it was in the Museum Gardens in York, that really would be something!
These were the tallest Tsugas I found at Longleat, difficult to measure the trees in the stand centre on a slope but the edge trees were c36 metres. Did you see any taller Stephen?
Hello Owen, did you measure the 43 metre Pseudotsuga and other tall conifers, Abies procera etc, at Melbury Park in 2009? How much height are they likely to have added, taller than the Bryanston Planes? Just interesting because of your previous comment about Dorset being the, of one of, only county which doesn't have a conifer has it's tallest tree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqEiCHnEGms
At about 50 seconds and 1 minute 25 seconds, there look to be some decent sized Aesculus growing next to the Platanus, have these been recorded? Judging by the distance view at around 50 seconds one of them could be c30 metres. To the left of the Platanus is a taller, darker tree. The video does justice to the 49 metre Platanus, especially from the distance view they really are magnificent trees. Would be better if they weren't being used as a climbing frame by the students.
Yes, I visited Melbury Park in 2009, but security was very tight there and I don't know if/when someone will be able to get in again. The Noble and Douglas Firs were old trees, no longer adding height, but the park is well situated for tall trees and there could be something a bit taller by now.
Bryanston is one of those places where everyone goes to look at/measure the planes are is blinkered to the existance of other trees, so no measurements for the Horse Chestnut. I've never actually been there myself. Again, it's a good spot for (broadleaved) trees to grow tall.
I visit Dorset often, and from my experience tall conifers are particularly hard to come by compared with other places in England. I do know of the odd tall tree, for example this 46m Abies alba at the Minterne Gardens - Weiß-Tanne (Abies alba) '40148' Another interesting site for tall trees in Dorset is Thorncombe Woods near Dorchester - Thorncombe Wood There are some tall Pinus radiata, Pseudotsuga and a stand of Sequoia sempervirens. Perhaps a few county height champions? There also a group of relatively tall conifers (either Pseudotsuga or Picea sitchensis - I can't get close enough to find out) on the west side of Frampton. I don't think the climate is quite right for most conifers, especially Pseudotsuga, to get very tall.
The Pseudotsuga you describe at Melbury Park have my interest. I was already interested in visiting because I wanted to find Billy Wilkins, a huge ancient oak also in the park. I believe a lot of the park is private so I would have to get permission before visiting.
I am just looking on Google Maps, spotted a nice line of Pseudotsuga in Puddletown Forest near Thornecombe Wood, look quite impressive although the photo is distorting abit. Judging by the walkers the trees look c40 metres. It looks a largish block of tall trees so there could be something taller? This is not far from the New Forest so there should be some potential for tallish trees. It looks as if you could get some distance away with a clear view so the ruler and distance laser technique probably would be fairly accurate for these. There look to be some other tall conifers further down the road.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/786571 tall Corsican pines in the same area.
Its more the geology of Dorset which makes conifer growth less favorable than say the New Forest closeby. Most of Dorset is on Jurassic Limestone/Kimmeridge clay except some Eocene sands around Wareham etc. The climate is quite good being moderate and maritime, for conifer growth. I do remember Puddletown Forest had some big Sitka some 40 years ago.
Those tree you've found actually look pretty good. I haven't really been to that side of Puddletown Forest yet but looks like I should check the area out now! I think east Dorset is slightly more favourable for conifer growth, as all of your links are from locations east of Dorchester, which is more or less central on the east-west axis of the county. Also, yes, that is me in the photo of the Silver fir. ;-)
Stephen, I think you are right about the geology. I was thinking that the geology of the area could be another factor. The clay and chalk probably isn't the optimal soil for conifer growth, even though the humidity and other climatic features are ideal.
Hello Aidan, great to have someone so youthful interested and contributing and adding trees rather than all us old codgers, older codgers anyway. Interest in trees develops early in some instances, at primary school, mid 70s, every class member was given a sprouted acorn which we had to grow on and that is where my interest in trees grew from, further developing because I have loved dinosaurs since a similar age and Sequoias are associated.
Look forward to reading about your visits and hopefully recording of some of the trees, I hummed and ahhhed for a while before buying a Nikon Forestry but it has been worth every penny for the enjoyment it has brought. I cannot believe it is nearly 10 years since I bought it, next summer. It is quite satisfying recording trees in particular where none of any decency have been recorded before, Nottinghamshire for instance where I have just done abit of measuring two weeks ago, despite it's association with forests hardly anything of decent size had been previously recorded. Now have Pseudotsuga to 32 metres, Corsican pine to 32 metres, Larix to 30 metres and others. Dorset strikes as another county under-recorded with trees still hiding.
Hello Stephen, can you remember the specific location of the Sitka in Puddletown? 40 metres recorded at Melbury Park in 2009, they could possibly rival this in size?
Aidan, am 2021-10-20 10:03:58, geändert am 2021-10-20 10:04:19, hat gesagt:
Hi Rob, thanks for the kind words. I would definitely like to purchase a rangefinder soon. They certainly seems worth it.
I guess the other thing that Dorset lacks, is decent deep valley shelter - most of it is relatively flat (not flat like Cambridgeshire, but flat enough to make tall very trees exposed at the top).
@Aidan "Also, yes, that is me in the photo of the Silver fir. ;-)" - curious minds want to know, who then took the photo! :-)
Conifers, there are actually a few decent valleys in Dorset, but most are just pasture/arable land at the moment and even then I would imagine trees would need to be planted fairly large blocks to gain large heights.
I believe it was my dad who took the photo
Conifers, am 2021-10-20 22:45:51, geändert am 2021-10-20 22:46:56, hat gesagt:
Thanks! Never been to Dorset, so I don't know local details like that :-)
As others here have said, I am also glad for more youthful voices here on MT! I thought that I, in my late high-school years, was the only one, but I am glad that is not true! :)
Hello Bee, I didn't realise that you were so youthful, your knowledge and enthusiasm/passion belies your age. Great work has said previously for highlighting all the trees in your area/neck of the woods.
Thought we would have a Norway Spruce feast! Puck Pitts has come up trumps yet again with this beauty, but the best is yet to come! A remarkable location.
Yes, growing splendidly and a joint English height champion. (My 46m tree at Polecat Copse is a slightly dodgy record as it didn't look obviously taller than the c.44m trees near it, but I'm fairly confident the 47m one at Reelig Glen in Scotland is really taller.) I don't think I ventured into this part of Puckpits, away from the main ride. There was a Norway Spruce by this ride with a big girth (330cm in 2015) which seemed to be 45m tall and had a good leader.
I spent about 2 hours measuring this tree with the Trupulse 200 mounted on a tripod, from 2 different vantage points, it was impossible to measure from any other window in the tree canopy.
I was expecting a height close to 58-60m but I was surprised that I only got an average 56.2m, with the most 56.3m on one reading. I took 6 different measurements, mainly from one window, where the recent photographs were taken. Range from the tree was 51.6m. Difficult to place the laser due to dense vegetation, brambles, bracken etc.
It appears to be growing steadily at 20-30cm per year, with a single leading shoot. It should reach 60m in time and become yet another species to reach 60m along with Noble/Lows Fir in the near future in the British Isles.
Nevertheless it is a magnificent tree and within the top 5 tallest in Europe and likely the Northern Hemisphere outside its native range?
I have uploaded some nice photographs to reiterate its magnificence.
The nearby wonderful Copper Beeches to over 40m were rather subdued which otherwise would have been remarkable anywhere else.
A fine redwood! I wonder which species will top 60m in the British Isles first - Sequoia sempervirens or Sequoiadendron giganteum? Both are very close!
Hello Stephen, thanks for measuring this tree, it is a great tree with a very fine bole. Your photos are great and blow up nicely so you can see in closer detail. The crown top looks quite, relatively sparse, do you think anything has been lost from the tip of the tree? It looks slightly flat topped and the stem seems quite wide under that top clump of foliage? Is that clump of foliage the absolute tip or is something hiding behind it?
I'm entirely happy with Stephen's height for this tree. It's one of those with a complicated, 'fuzzy' top where the Nikon rangefinder (or mine at least) struggles and produces a wide spray of distances. To get 57m I went with some of the higher distances, but judging from the baseline of 54m measured reliably by climbing in 2010 and its apparent growth-rate in Stephen's telephoto shot of the top, this was a misjudgement on my part: from forest-floor level I thought it might be growing a lot faster. (I think I did have 54-55m using the tangent method but this was from the 'upwind' side. My laser nearly always seems to record higher values for Sequoias than the tangent method suggests.)
It's still by far the tallest Sequoia in the UK - so much so that errors of +/- 2m become insignificant!
In 2016 I had 56m (sine method) for the Douglas Fir next to this tree, and 55.5m for one of many in the plantation extending up the hill to the SW. Stephen may yet enlighten us on this!
I saw no evidence of leader loss or breakage through my binoculars. Some Coast Redwoods have very little taper and resemble a power station Chimney all the way up which I love, like this one. These trees will have the greatest volume of wood in the trunk, as opposed to rapidly tapering trees. This is entirely a genetic trait and the natural variation in the species.
Yes Owen I reckon you were spot on with the Douglas next to the tallest Redwood. Another Redwood was 47m to the right of the photo. The Douglas looked the same age as the tallest Redwood and surrounding Douglas Fir forest appeared younger.
I had so many trees to measure but I would agree the younger Douglas nearby were 50-55m.
I have never used a Nikon I'm afraid so I can't comment, but with the Trupulse you can zoom in slightly and sight the cross hair inline with the leader tip. I have found that a Tripod is essential to stop handshake to give consistent readings.
I would put my money on Giant Sequoia being first, it might have beaten Coast Redwood already with some of the specimens since last measured?
Giant Sequoia is much more resistant to wind exposure. As both of these species (so far) are rarely planted in large stands and consist of small groups or isolated specimens, a lack of mutual shelter is lacking for UK specimens, especially important for Coast Redwood. Therefore the few isolated specimens often lack the ability to grow exceptionally tall, except this one. Partly due to the surrounding 50m+ Douglas Fir.
It would have been superb if the 57m Giant Sequoia I measured and updated on here was planted with hundreds of others, but alas these trees were very expensive then and difficult to obtain.
Hi Stephen, I would probably say Giant sequoia as well, as there are more tall specimens around, in contrast to only this specimen for Coast redwood. Did you measure the Giant sequoias at the Longleat Centre Parcs? They could be on the brink of 60m by now?
Just reading about Joshua's Sycamore reminded me of this that I came across, the rot in the UK's tallest Butia doesn't look great. Some great palms in London, the Washingtonia filifera is a beaut. I wonder if it has been recorded on the Register?
Just had a look on the Register, it doesn't look as if it has. A height measurement using the car in front of the white mini and assuming 60 inches for the car height gives 9.1 metres to the growing tip, c11.6 metres to the physical top of the palm at the frond end.
Some fascinating links here, thanks Rob. That Washingtonia in London is in a front garden in Wimbledon and was brought back by the owner from Tunisia in 1992, https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/10996087.giant-palm-tree-is-turning-heads/.
The old Butia at Trewidden was in just about the same state of decrepitude when I first saw it in 2004. As palms don't have a cambium layer the outer part of the trunk isn't vital for them. But the rot does suggest that Cornwall is too humid for this species.
RedRob, am 2021-10-19 12:16:58, geändert am 2021-10-19 12:17:23, hat gesagt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcXr4FL3HuM
Came across this video of the 40 metre Cragside tree being climbed. The screamer of a Pinus sylvestris at Dalby Forest has now matched this height this summer and with a very nice spire looks likely to keep adding height.
There are good views from the air of the giant Platanus at Bryanston in these photo, to their right is another tree which which must be c40 metres comparing to the Planes.
Hello Stephen, this was another gutter, spotted a lovely, blue stand of trees on Google Maps from above and thought they would be Abies procera, when I got there to measure them the stand had been decimated with stragglers left standing. It was a sizeable plantation and likely would have contained some c40 metre trees but I never got the chance to measure them. Haven't been back, whether the stragglers in the photos have now also gone? The trees were self-seeding underneath as small trees and seedlings had managed to remain in the places that the felling machines hadn't churned up the ground.
Hello Stephen, Fab-u-lous, I am partial to a tall Sitka as it is so this one is superb, I wish that I had come across this stand when I was down there. Did find the tall stand just west of Centreparcs so that is some consolation. I have just had a look on the Register and it is the tallest in Southern England and nearly the tallest in England. I have just noticed that John Weightman has measured a 50.6 metre Sitka at the Lancrigg Hotel, Easedale, Cumbria in 2019, the Sitkas at Dalby Forest I had a go at measuring a couple of months ago and the tallest is now c54 metres, the tallest that I could get a clean measurement on with clear base was 52.6 metres. Owen measured a 49 metre Sitka at Stourhead in 2016 so you have beaten it. Wiltshire is a great place for tall trees, I wish that I lived within striking distance of Longleat as I would be visiting regularly just to wander in the Sequoias. Would have been great in Lockdown.
A lovely tree spire topped tree to its steadily growing leading shoot, which I reckon is growing 30-40cm per year. As its well sheltered I would expect it to overtake your trees Rob in Centre Parks, within a few years and reach 60m in 5-10 years.
All my tree height measurements are done with the Trupulse 200x mounted on a floating tripod.
Superb tree Stephen, Owen, another thing that I am gutted about (gutted a good word to use to describe) is that I didn't get to see any of these trees on my visit, the 41 metre Copper Beech, the Sequoias. Did you put a mark on the bark and measure in two parts or aim at the base as in Owen's photo there is vegetation clutter at the base? June 2016 to Autumn 2021, do we call this 5 or 6 years growing seasons, finished growth spurt by June? 1.5 metres in if it is 5 years isn't bad, 0.3m per year. The 58 metre tree even with 0.2m per year should be c59 metres by now, providing the top hasn't been lost.
Rob with dense vegetation I often place tape above the undergrowth and carefully measure to top of the tape with the laser then add remainder to tree height by adding the tape length to the ground. Average ground level i.e where the tree most likely started growing when planted.
It would have been amazing if they had planted the whole wood with this species. But then plants were very expensive to purchase.
Hello Stephen, judging by your comments on the Longleat thread about some good news and some bad news, may be expecting some lost tops or felling? I went this summer to check this absolutely, absolutely superb uniform stand of Abies grandis to find it clear cut, rather gutted to say the least. Would have been 45 metres or more now.
Oh Rob that's so sad. I know how it feels when stands like this are felled. I suspect its a short sighted plan to fell trees such as these, planted on previous scrubby broadleaved sites and the plan is to restore back to scrubby broadleaves too. Sadly where trees were planted on lower valley slopes on the best sheltered sites were broadleaves in the past and at times people think its such a great idea to restore them back. Mentioning no names of course we know who they are!
Grand Fir makes poor quality timber, mostly pulp and low strength class timber so why fell? Should be retained for beauty and amenity and carbon capture of course.
RedRob, am 2021-10-12 15:36:39, geändert am 2021-10-12 15:37:27, hat gesagt:
Great, I am able to add photos again, it is working again. Cannot get the photo of the Castanea to upload at the moment, all these trees are height champions for the county of West Yorkshire. The Tsuga grove is a fine grove, cannot get the photo of the boles to upload at the moment. There is also a nice Sequoia in this forest approaching 30 metres and some nice Lawson.
Hello Stephen, Bee et al. There are more photos of the Sequoias in Longleat Forest from my visit several years ago. It is a superb forest I think, as near as possible in this country to experiencing one of the Californian parks. Part of the Sequoia forest has been butchered, I stayed in a cabin amongst the Sequoias at Centreparcs on my visit which was very nice but trees had been cut down to accommodate them and the cabin was surrounded by stumps now re-sprouting into small trees.
Unfortunately, no. I got this info from the ENTS forum online the other day. I believe that the National Park Service wants to keep the location secret, but I do wish there was a photo or two...
Or the third species - apparently the 'Centurion' Eucalyptus regnans was remeasured at 30.5m in 2018 (https://www.facebook.com/thetreeprojects/posts/937968919729672); and the 'Doerner Fir' Pseudotsuga menziesii was 100.3m in 1991 then lost a couple of feet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doerner_Fir) - but could have regrown them since? It's a bizarre co-incidence that the round figure of 100m should mark such a divide - especially as these trees grow in countries which prefer the imperial system.
It is of course misleading to term any of these individuals the 'second-tallest tree'. I wonder if anyone has estimated how many Sequoia sempervirens in the wild groves exceed 100m? Presumably it's in the thousands.
BeeEnvironment, am 2021-07-04 16:32:49, geändert am 2021-07-04 16:33:41, hat gesagt:
@Owen,
Yeah, I should have been more specific. I should have said that this new find is the second tallest tree over 100 meters other than a Coast Redwood, and proven to be at least 100 meters as of current records. I have heard that the Fir tree was once taller than 100, but as you said, it lost height as its top died.
I think that there is over 2000 Coast Redwoods that have been documented above 100 meters in height, which is quite amazing!
Wow! That's a big spruce, even by Sitka standards! Also amazing that there's over 2000 documented Coast redwoods that are over 100m in height.
Whilst I'm on the subject of Sitka spruce, @Owen - I've spotted a rather fine large specimen in a private garden along Barhatch Lane north of Cranleigh. Looks like its an impressive tree for Surrey. You can see it on Streetview here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1674894,-0.4645922,3a,34.4y,107.3h,98.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshTYWFDQjvWTregKAP3utQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Is there any information of this tree on the Tree Register? (I'm not a member yet. I should probably think about joining!)
The Sitka at Findhorn is a magnificent specimen so if this tree looks anything like that one it will be, that said it is more likely to be in deep forest so will have a longer bole and smaller crown so may not be quite such a superb specimen. Just had a look on the Register Aidan and your Sitka isn't recorded, 39.5 metre tree at Haslemere from 2015 and a 41 metre Sitka in Windsor Great Park from 2017 which I think will be Stephen's (Verge) tree and will be on this site. Stephen is very quiet these days, tree measuring has been difficult during lockdown, certainly I found it so, it is likely the same for Stephen as well. Cannot get the photos to upload to this site at the moment so have lost motivation abit to add new trees, I have more to add from a trip to Wales in May.
Red Rob beat me to in replying to Aidan's question. The two largest Sitkas I've seen in Surrey are in the former grounds of Thursley Hall, Farnham Lane, above Haslemere (one behind the entrance lodge, one in woodland to the south), where the extra humidity and shelter tips a balance in favour of this very picky species. They're about 40m tall x 4m - 4.5m girth. The Betchworth Lane tree is new.
Yes, someone should buy you Tree Register membership, Aidan. And a laser!
Aidan, am 2021-07-05 17:56:27, geändert am 2021-07-05 18:03:22, hat gesagt:
Hi Rob, thanks for checking. Yes, Stephen has registered the Sitka at Windsor Park. I'd like to pay that area a visit at some point over the summer (I visited the Valley Gardens a few years ago but back then I wasn't interested in tree measuring.). The one at Haslemere could be at Polecat Copse, which I'd also like to revisit? There's one near Hascombe which I've registered on this site that could be between 40-45m. I'm almost certain it's a new county champion for height, and it looks very easy to measure. I'd really like to get an accurate height measurement on it but I don't have a laser rangefinder unfortunately. Maybe over the summer I can get one!
Do you know someone with a old rangefinder? That is how I was able to get mine. A member of the ENTS gave me his because it was a old model and did not get any use. I would give you one, if I had any extra (I got 1). Ebay might have some for good prices?
Hi Bee, no, unfortunately I don't know anyone with an old laser rangefinder. Ebay is probably a good place to check though. Thanks for the tip.
RedRob, am 2021-07-07 09:15:55, geändert am 2021-07-07 09:16:51, hat gesagt:
Hello Aidan, if I had upgraded I would have given you my Nikon Forestry Pro, it would have been worth it on the proviso that you would go on a few trips. I would love to see the redwoods measured again at Longleat, it was May 2016 when Owen and myself were there so maybe 5 growth years by now, be fascinating to see where the 57 metre Sequoia is by now, 59 metres perhaps? My old girl (laser) is still working perfectly, treat her like a lady so should be (clean, treat her so gently so as not to damage the inner workings)
There is a Nikon for sale here but it is in the US, would you be able to ship it over? The only trouble with second hand is you don't know how people have treated the laser, around this price it wouldn't be too bad taking a risk.
BeeEnvironment, am 2021-07-07 11:33:29, geändert am 2021-07-07 13:01:59, hat gesagt:
@Redrob and Aiden,
It's a coincidence that that Nikon for sale on EBAY is shipping from my state of Pennsylvania, in the U.S! Its in a village called Rockville, according to EBAY. That is about at least 150 miles (over 240 kilometers) to the west of where I live. It is a very good price though, for 100 U.S dollars.
RedRob, It appears that this EBAY listing only ships to people in the U.S unfortunately.
Maybe this would work though???: Aiden, if you are able to find out the international shipping cost via USPS (or UPS) from roughly Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to your city/town in the United Kingdom, let me know of the price (try to find a package that would ship under 20 U.S dollars, if possible).
Then, maybe you can try to purchase it through EBAY, and ship it to my local Post Office. Then, I can send to you via USPS international shipping (or UPS; whatever is better for the shipping price).
Let me know if this might work? There is no rush, so dont worry if this is not possible.
BeeE
RedRob, am 2021-07-07 12:44:40, geändert am 2021-07-07 12:48:16, hat gesagt:
Hello, Bee, that is an exceptionally nice and helpful thing to offer, over here we would call you' a jolly nice chap' or a 'jolly decent chap'. I will leave it to Aidan to decide but I will say from me thank you very much for your offer like this, for being willing to put yourself out like this.
No problem. Just trying to help out. Let me know, Aiden, if it works out for you. Notify me of the shipping in US Dollars from Philadelphia PA to your area, because I have not shipped a package internationally for a very long time, and have no idea of the pricing nowadays.
It seems that this specific NIKON laser-rangefinder on EBAY is going to be sold in just 4 hours to a highest bidder. I know this might be a bit "outdated", but here is the type of rangefinder I was given, and it is a nice model:
However, here is one for the same price, and ships to the United Kingdom with FREE SHIPPING: https://www.ebay.com/itm/124789439018?hash=item1d0e07ba2a:g:3fAAAOSwtElg2RDV
However, the seller does not remark if it still works, though according to the official EBAY listing, it states, "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully operational and functions as intended".
The one that ships free to the UK looks like a good option, and not a bad price either. As you say it's probably a bit touch and go as to wether works well or not, but I'm sure it should be ok.
I'll try and find out how much it costs to ship something to the UK from PA for you soon.
BeeEnvironment, am 2021-07-08 15:10:16, geändert am 2021-07-08 15:14:07, hat gesagt:
Hi Aiden,
I hope it works out for you. The bushnell laser-rangefinder is a nice model, though simple. It can measure distances in Yards or Meters, and is very accurate. However, make sure you buy a few CR2 3V batteries for it (I recommend 3 or 4 at a time, as they can run out of power fast if used a lot).
No need to worry about shipping price from Philadelphia to the UK if you do buy the one that has free shipping :-)
BeeE
EDIT: just realized. You can make an offer for the Rangefinder. Maybe the owner would accept only 100 U.S dollars instead of 125 U.S dollars.
I think the Bushnell with free shipping looks good. I'm not it a huge rush to get a rangefinder but it's good to know that there is one at a good price here. I'll be sure to keep an eye on this one.
I wonder if it would be worth emailing Cameranu and asking them if they have any used Nikon Forestry Pros or 550s for sale? It says 'Used' in the top right hand corner? Jeroen recommended Cameranu to me and I couldn't fault them, laser was here in about 3 days. If they sell 'Used lasers, they will likely have a warranty. I hummed and arred about buying a laser in unbelievably 2011 now, would it be worth the money? I have to say that it as been worth every single penny, as paid for itself a hundred times with the enjoyment that it has brought. I would recommend getting a laser Aidan, there are some trees that I could certainly point you to.
But remember that if you buy just a range-finder, you will also need a hypsometer (an instrument for measuring the angles accurately) - and a calculator if you want to do the resultant sums in the field. (This sounds cumbersome, but is actually more versatile than the all-in-one Nikon device, because you can combine sine and tangent methods to the top and the base depending on which parts of the tree you can see and how precise you need to be, however you choose.)
Also, I'd presume that a cheap range-finder could be less accurate than a high-quality machine. If it's only accurate to about the nearest metre, this could easily introduce errors of +/- 5% when heighting a small tree (sine method).
So, perhaps good advice to all of us is to wait and save until we can equip ourselves with something that will last a lifetime.
I do agree with you. However, you can get a fairly accurate result by backing up (or going forward), with the laser-rangefinder, until you get close to a "Full" meter. I dont think I'll ever get a newer rangefinder, mainly because I am very happy and content with the accuracy and compatibility of mine.
@Aiden,
I forgot to mention: the Bushnell Rangefinders all have a hypsometer (clinometer) already built into them, so you can get both the distance and angle measure for measuring trees.
Have not vanished, often visit the site. Hope to do some measuring this summer. Just there has not been much activity from the UK lately which is understandable with the pandemic.
Oh and that Sitka is amazing in California. How tall did Sitka grow before logging? Although always in the shadow of Douglas Fir I expect.
Aidan:- The Sitka growing at Windsor Great Park is very unusual as its so far from its ideal habitat, with only 600mm of rainfall. But close to a stream in deep humid shelter from the other tall trees there. I hope to do some remeasuring there soon.
"How tall did Sitka grow before logging? Although always in the shadow of Douglas Fir I expect"
Probably not the latter - Sitka Spruce is more tolerant of exposure than Douglas-fir; it is more likely that the Douglas-firs grew up in the shelter (and shadow) of the Sitka Spruces.
Thanks everyone for the advice on laser rangefinders, I really appreciate it and find it very helpful. Looks like I'm in the market for a new measuring tape as well as my current one is coming to the end of its days! 😂
@Stephen - If you visit the Sitka at Windsor try and get some photos as there's none at the moment. I will try and visit the Valley Gardens myself over the summer. While your down in the Surrey area I highly recommend giving Hascombe Hill a visit, as a lot of the exceptional trees there need measuring accurately. It might be a bit far for you but it's worth the trip.
I have been sitting, so to speak, on these trees for two years since I found them on Google Maps in 2019, Covid putting an end to visiting them last year. I was really quite excited as I judged them by the height of the telegraph poles in front which are either 8 or 10 metres. I wasn't sure of the height of the telegraph poles but if 10 metres then these Douglas Firs were big, very big, 60 metres plus, could they even be challenging Betws Y Coed!? Need to say, magnificent trees and the tallest in Southern Wales but a tad disappointing I cannot help admitting. I got a clear view of the 54.8 metre Douglas Fir but the 56 metre Douglas and 55 metre Grand Fir I couldn't get a clear view of the base (54 metre Grand Fir clean measurement in front of this taller tree). The 56 metre Douglas Fir I have been conservative with, the base is in a ditch at the road side and totally obscurred by shubbery, it is somewhere between 56 and 57 metres likely closer to 57 metres. Superb valley with mountain shelter and very damp, wet climate, can vouge for that. I will send Owen some photos and he may be able to post some photos.
WOW! Yeah, if you found a 56 meter tree, there is bound to be a 60 meter tree hiding in that area!
Just a question though: Can you measure it now that the stay-at-home orders have been lifted and vaccination rolled out?? I dont follow up with the news, so I dont really know whats happening overseas.
Great stuff! My comment about the 52m tree above Merthyr Tydfil being the tallest in the south end of Wales was premature - I should have realised you were teasing us, Rob. While we try to sort of uploading a photo, here's a link to Streetview for the Grand Firs: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9195896,-3.0675603,3a,75y,206.21h,126.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC_02pLo2OfCABJEo6Jx2uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.
A mildly interesting fact about Mynydd Du Forest is that it was planted up to 765m on the Black Mountain, making it the highest-altitude woodland I've noted in the UK. (We had a discussion the other year about a plantation to 727m above Glen Lochsie in the eastern Highlands of Scotland, where the tree-line has since retreated to 700m.) At Mynydd Du, aerial images show the highest slopes also now treeless, but there are some patches (birch regeneration??) up to 740m.
I have just had a look on Street View and the Google camera van must have been up just before me in April 2021, I could have done to have been up there earlier as by mid May the green shrubs and vegetation was obscurring the view. The Grand Fir which I estimated the base at and got 55 metres, the base looks further down the gully than I estimated, looks like a metre or more on the Street View.
Hello Bee, I am fairly confident that I measured the tallest tree but that said I wouldn't bet much on it being so. The Douglas's are quite densely planted and on a steep slope with ground vegetation with basse not visible so it is difficult to measure. It is much easier on a flat as you can measure the front visible tree and fairly confidently use that base for the trees behind. They are not challenging for Britain's tallest trees but there may be some on the stand that exceed the one that I measured.
Hello Robert, this a fine Sequoiadendron, very nice shape. It looks a decent height as well, 39.5 metres is champion for Norfolk at Sandringham in 2019, this doesn't look that height but perhaps c30 metres. Could you take a distance photo with a human figure of known height at the side of the centre of the base so the same distance from the camera, it may be possible to then fairly accurately assess the height?
Hi RedRob. Thank you very much for commenting. It is indeed a superb tree although growing slowly girth-wise. I found out about its existence from the superb website: http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk. I'm not due to be passing again for a couple of weeks but will try to do as you suggest.
Incidentally, it's odd that your query doesn't appear on the specimen page. I would have missed it if it wasn't for the fact that I have started checking the 'Recent changes' tab fairly frequently :-)
Unfortunately, as my High-School work has been increasing for the past few months, it has been harder to find the time to add trees/answer discussions/etc.. than it used to be.
As a result, I likely won't be active for weeks at a time, starting next week.
While this does not really matter to anyone else I suppose, I just wanted to let everyone know that I likely won't be able to answer any discussions or questions in the meantime.
Hello Bee, I haven't contributed to MT for some time but recently on catching up I have been reading your discussions and looking at the trees that you have contributed, very impressive, your contributions have been extremely so. The work that you have done on trees from the eastern US is invalueable. Just for curiosity, are you a bee keeper or just a nature and environment lover?
Thanks! I am glad you enjoyed some of my contributions from here in the U.S. Many of the trees I have myself contributed, but I also have added many measurements from other U.S tree-lovers and foresters.
I am both a part-time hobby Beekeeper and a environment lover :-) I register trees on MT mainly for documentation, and I also enjoy learning from the discussions here.
The Ardentinny Douglas Fir I have discovered was climbed in August 2017, Forest, excellent measurement of what must be a difficult tree to measure, Owen you too.
The contest for Britain's tallest tree is between the Waterloo Grove trees at Betws Y Coed and those at Reelig Glen.
I bought my first smart TV last autumn and have come across many interesting tree videos on Youtube. This is one about the Redwoods at Leighton Hall, according to this one was measured as 47 metres in 2013 or before.
A few years ago I asked what the tallest tree was in Norway and this really answered that question. What a fine speciman the Grand Fir, lovely spire shaped tip and leading shoot.
Some reports of a 200 foot redwood in Hamsterley Forest are I think as legendary as the Yeti. I cannot find it anyway, only this 33 metre tree which hasn't added any height.
Hello Aiden, I cannot see this tree on the TROBI database, I don't think that it has been measured (or attempted to measured by the look of it's position in the photo) by laser? It could be challenging the B&I champion for height, European champion for height. Owen, any chance that you could drop in on this one, do you know of this tree?
Because you can't see the whole tree, I'm not sure how accurate my measurement can be. The tree could only be 30 metres rather than 35. Therefore this tree may not be the champion for height.
Hello Aiden, from the looks of the location it probably won't be possible but could you take a distance photo of the tree with you standing at the base, something like this https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/7822/ Before I bought my laser I estimated the height of this tree at 45 metres as I knew my own height, it was 45 metres with the laser so photo measuring can be quite accurate if you take the photo from distance and know the precise height of the person standing next to it.
Aidan, am 2019-08-12 16:46:57, geändert am 2019-08-12 16:55:13, hat gesagt:
A photo with the whole tree and me at the bottom may be possible, yet difficult because there is a tall oak stump blocking the clear view of the tree.
I went on a last minute walk up the hill today. Lovely sunset. I fear I may have overestimated the height of this tree - it's more likely to be high 20s to maybe 30m. If you were to measure this tree with a laser it would have to be done in winter or early spring, when there is no foliage blocking a clear view of the tree.
Had several failed attempts to upload a photo but gutted about this tree, went to the hospital last Wednesday and all that is left is a cut off stump at ground level! A really good height for Magnolia grandiflora this far north and don't think that I will find a tree as big as this in any of the Yorkshires. Really 'end knocked in' feeling when this happens with champion trees which you find, I don't know how many more will have gone after the abysmal weather of this winter, never ending gales up here.
Maxie, if you are up this way I would be interested to see how these trees in this superb stand look as many looked brown and not well, as can be seen in my bottom photo. The location is good for tall tree growth, good shelter from the west and south.
maxie014, am 2019-03-16 19:41:29, geändert am 2019-03-16 19:42:27, hat gesagt:
I will have a look at them for sure in the next few weeks,see how they are getting on.
Im based in north cumbria just above the lakes,bassenthwaite only about 12 miles away,just been tree hunting for a year or so just a novice but keen.
Had a look up that way today but all paths are closed due to forestry work,the higher parts had been cut but lower down still intact,logging continuing to july 2019.
Hi rob was at Peil Wyke today and those douglas firs are still there and looking well,also another fine stand of them further up in the wood,been a lot of felling on the hill above there.
'Western Red Cedar has been planted in Britain since the late 1800s, with some of the finest stands in existence dating from early Forestry Commission plantings in the 1920s – for example at Gwydyr and Forest of Dean. A number of private estates throughout the country have a notable record with the species, including Novar (Easter Ross), Darnaway (Moray), Kyloe (Northumberland), Longleat and Stourhead (Wiltshire), Dunster (Somerset) and Weasenham (Norfolk)'.
Come across this article, in my several visits to Gwyrdyr forest I have not come across any stands of Thuja plicata, is anyone aware of where these are? Did you see them Owen? The Register is being updated at the moment and I cannot see the records to check? Dating from the 1920s and given the excellent conditions in that are these could be pretty big by now (?) if still there? Did you see the stands of Thuja in the Forest of Dean Owen?
There are also photos of the stand of Monkey Puzzle at Longleat which I came across photos of just after I had been to Longleat in 2016 and wished that I had been able to visit. I know the location.
The Isle of Wight has notable plantations of Lawson and Leyland Cypresses, but in addition the Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) has been planted at a number of locations on the island'.
I did see a good stand of Thuja near the tall Abies grandis group above the Swallow Falls in Gwydyr Forest at SH770578; one was 42m in 2016. In the Forest of Dean there are a few among the tall Douglas firs near the middle Soudley Pond; one at SO66161125 was 44m in 2015.
I've not seen the cypress plantations you mention on the Isle of Wight (Brighstone Forest?)
At Longleat there are some Monkey Puzzles by the Picket Post Drive (one is a very big and old tree, dating from 1849) - but not close enough together to be called a 'grove'.
I do like big stands of Red Cedar. At Coed y Brenin there are some fine stands to over 40m and growing steadily. Also some of the oldest at Uig near Benmore in Argyll dating from 1887? Measured some over 42m there in 2002.
As its a minor species, there was only early experimental plantings, but now renewed interest. Too difficult to tell how big they will get, at least 50m eventually but current plantings to few and may not be on the best sites to give a proper evaluation. This applies to may species of conifer. Can't base ultimate size from just a few trees in arboretums.
Hope to do some measuring Rob down in the New Forest/Longleat next month so heads up!
Hello Stephen, look forward to seeing your measurings from Longleat, hopefully the 57 metre Sequoia and big Sequioandendrons will have added height and won't have been damaged by all the recent storms. 54 metres in 2010, 57 metres in May 2016, 4 years growth the Sequoia could be near 59 metres now if continuing at the same rate.
Did you see my message about the trees at 80 miles from you, straight up the M40?
Hello David, you have been lurking under the radar since 27th of March this year but welcome to the site. If you have a laser and are local to the Longleat/Wiltshire area then that is great. There are a number of trees in the area that it would be great to be updated on and hopefully with some new photos as well.
RedRob, am 2019-12-01 15:11:48, geändert am 2019-12-01 15:14:41, hat gesagt:
Owen, is this the location of the Douglas Fir which you measured as 53 metres a few years ago? The base wasn't visible from this location on the road so the tree is likely 54 metres or abit more as the land falls away to the right of the photo and away from the photo.
Yes, that's the valley at Vivod with the tall trees. The banks of the valley are steep and craggy and the trees growing in the bottom of it are probably taller than you might have estimated from the lane.
I shall return to Vivod next year or in a few years' time.
Yes I will look something out - need to revisit the area too though and might be quicker to take another picture, there are a small number of Douglas fir and Sitka spruce over 50m but this particular tree is quite prominent.
Do you know if any data has been collected from the abandoned? aboreta at Inverawe in Scotland? It is part of a west coast Forestry Commission block and has some relatively tall broadleaved species planted late 19th century I think.
The aboreta appears to have been absorbed into the Forestry Commission holdings. On checking planting years on the subcompartments they are 1890-1910 which predates the formation of FC. From the roadside appears to be a block of beech and sycamore.
Impressive trees Dean, would you be able to visit again and take a photo from some distance, say 200 metres or more, with a person of known height standing at the base? You can get a pretty accurate measurement if you have distance and with someone or something (a clearly visible stick of known measurement). I tried with myself and a Sequoiadendron and got 45 metres with photo measurement and later 45 metres with a Nikon laser so if done right can be very accurate.
RedRob, am 2019-11-26 15:08:34, geändert am 2019-11-26 16:03:12, hat gesagt:
Dean, are you near enough to visit these trees at this location? They look quite impressive from this photo although not enough really to properly assess. Would love to see some better, full length photos.
These have google 3-D coverage; the tallest two (near the middle) are exactly 30 m tall (ground base 155 m altitude, tree tops 185 m altitude) on google's 3-D profiles.
Yes; the tallest I can find there (a slender tree where the roads just N of the abbey meet; 52.416083°N, 1.409118°W) is 37 m tall (76 m base, 113 m top).
There may be taller trees in the dense group west of there, but it is difficult to find base levels there.
Stephen, your mission if you choose to accept it will be to measure some very tall, apparently near undiscovered trees (at least by tree boffins like us lot) in a fairly surprising place. Spotted the shadows on Google Maps and have cross referenced and they are known about locally.
This message will self destruct in 5 years.
Seriously, are you up for some tree measuring Stephen, you live in Oxford(?), they will be about 80 miles away but look definitely worth visiting.
Been very busy doing other stuff and family commitments, but hopefully might be able to do some tree measuring this winter. Where are your tall trees within reach of me.
Tree growth has been badly retarded the last 2 seasons due to exceptional drought and heat in Southern England. I visit this site fairly regularly to view any new finds etc.
Hello Stephen, that is great if you would be able to visit these and measure. I would love to visit but they are some distance from me and I wouldn't have the time in likely just passing that area for a proper, thorough search around.
The location is 80 miles away from you but straight up the M40 so shouldn't be that far away time wise.
On the map, the big shadows are up the valley to the left of Lord's Yard Coppice. The valley is known as the Valley of the Giants on the Woodpecker Trail. As said, I was using Google Maps satellite and spotted the line of shadows just north of Go Ape and googled and it came with this.
Someone has helpfully walked up the valley and photographed parts of of it. Left column, third photograph down, the wooden benches have a general back height of c 2 feet 11 inches to 3 feet, that is a tall Douglas Fir behind it! The one in the distance looks as if it could be even taller as the land may be falling away slightly.
This is a very good page I would say practically for likely the greater number of members on here who don't possess measuring instruments like lasers. It would be nice to have height measurements with the trees posted on here. If done correctly, the resulting measurements can be pretty accurate. The photo technique for example, get far enough back from the tree, have a person or stick of known height and stand at the side of the base at the same distance from the camera as the tree base, after calculations the resulting measurement can be very accurate.
Missed this one, great find DB. There are almost certainly, well 100% going to be taller Salix x fragilis than this yet to be discovered. Two superb trees fell in a storm a few years ago that were over 30 metres, gutted about them. They are fragile trees though as the name says and the tops come off easily if not the whole tree.
Missed this one, great find DB. There are almost certainly or certainly going to be taller trees than this yet to be found. A couple of trees over 30 metres fell in a storm and few years for which I was gutted but the name is very appropriate, they are fragile.
Definitely an Abies, though not sure which species. I am visiting Dorset again at the end of next week, so hopefully I will have time to visit the Minterne Gardens again and get some clearer pictures of the tree. Personally, I am thinking this is Abies alba or Abies grandis, as registered.
I know of one other tall Abies alba in Dorset, at Kingston Lacy, 44m in 2006. This is a county without many gardens on a suitable soil for the tree.
Tallest Abies alba in each county along the south coast (according to the Tree Register records, mostly quite recent):
Cornwall: 38m
Devon 46.5m
Dorset 46m
Hampshire 47m
Sussex 43.5m
Kent 30m.
I love it when the statistics confirm what you'd expect, as neatly as this: Cornwall too exposed, Kent too dry, and the best conditions halfway along with several trees reaching what is presumably the maximum potential for the species in this kind of climate.
I've just overwritten your estimated figures for the Silver Fir at Minterne with my measurements from 2006 (otherwise the current estimate would take precedence over the older figures).
As for Surrey, there used to be a respectable 40m example on the Normanswood estate at Elstead in 2000 but when I revisited this area last year it had gone. The next tallest (again measured in 2000 when I was particularly studying Surrey trees) were 28m specimens at Alderbrook Park and Burwood Park, neither of them really big enough to count as a county 'champion'. It's a tree that has hardly been planted in the south and east for the last century or more.
It's by no means impossible that you could spot a taller one. Though Surrey is a well-studied county there are plenty of big gardens hidden behind tall hedges and security gates which have never been visited by lovers of trees.
On second thoughts, I have previously seen a large fir in the Farnham Cemetery, though by the looks of the crown, I think it is an Abies grandis rather than an Abies alba.
You can see the tree in this link for Google streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2102866,-0.8110443,3a,60.2y,147.27h,104.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPg8UTk9ogzAizchrKs0JMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Have just added a tree of unknown species in Otley, 17 metres, but unable to add a comment?? Owen has told me previously but have just forgotten what type of Lawson cypress this is?
Woodland Walk, S. Very impressive bole; several stems make a narrow upper crown, now rounding off in exposure. 2018 height by Ron Kemeny.
Aidan, this is in your territory, would love to see a photograph of this tree if you are anywhere near, another impressive Surrey tree. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6122958 Not sure (?) but is this the tree on the right side of this photo?
RedRob, am 2019-10-17 14:11:52, geändert am 2019-10-17 15:08:44, hat gesagt:
Sequoia sempervirens
Leith Hill and Leith Hill Place
TQ1447143129
41.00
165
517
2019
PU
Reigate
Surrey
England
National Trust
Category: A County Champion: Remarkable
Comments Latest Recorder: Owen Johnson
Mosses Wood arboretum; just above road near S end of arboretum. The tallest and most vigorous of many youngsters
Any photos of these Owen? Surrey is quite good to say the least for 40 metre Sequioas, multiple of them.
Another place Aidan perhaps?
79565
Larix decidua
Hascombe Hill
TQ00623855
43.50
97
304
2015
PU
1855
Godalming
Surrey
England
Category: A County Champion: Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Owen Johnson
Valley above Lodge Farm; mid tree of four in 2015.
These are very impressive as well.
I used to visit this area for years up to 2011, from 1983, wasn't measuring trees then, what a shame, could have visted so many trees.
Hello Rob, I have been to Ramster before. I think I went around this time last year. Unfortunately I didn't know about MT when I went, so I didn't record any of the stunning trees there. There is also a very large sessile oak there. Hopefully Ican go again soon and record the trees there.
I have just seen your comment of the county champion Larix decidua at Hascombe Hill. I have not seen or heard of this tree before. I will look for it next time I visit.
I have just added the larch to this site (I thought I already had). It's a survivor from a stand that was planted by the Parkhurst Estate in 1855 but is accessible from the main paths on Hascombe Hill by simply scrambling down the brackeny slope. There's a young Douglas Fir nearby which was 45m in 2015.
I didn't photograph the Coast Redwood on Leith Hill as it was a grey day. It's a young tree growing very fast. Other good trees I saw that day on this stretch of the Greensand scarp included a Giant Sequoia now 50.5m tall in the garden of 'Somerset Hill' on the east side of Holmbury Hill, and a mature 48.3m Douglas Fir beside the Greensand Way as it climbs the Deepdene Terraces from the A24 in Dorking.
As the scarp here faces south the presence of such tall trees is slightly surprising, but the soil is very good for American conifers.
I think those Douglas Firs will have been in Mosses Wood under Leith Hill where there is a small arboretum (including the 41m Sequoia RedRob mentions). The two old trees were only 31m tall this spring but have impressive trunks (the larger 497cm girth). There might be some slightly taller younger examples down the slope - I can't remember.
I suspect the 'Mother Larch' at Dunkeld is more massive, though not so tall. There are several on Rabbit Bank at Dunkeld with similarly impressive boles.
Not Surrey but some very impressive trees not far away. I would have loved to have seen these, used to visit this area up to 2011, Petworth etc, but didn't know that these were here.
You can see these trees from the lane, but the owner of Keeper's Farmhouse is proud of his trees if you fancied knocking on his door. He also has a Eucalyptus dalrympleana which was 27m tall last year when it was 13 years old.
Aiden, this is another grove down your way, discovered by Owen in 2016. Stephen also measured all those impressive conifers around Virginia Water, Valley Gardens which are also listed on here. Surrey does possess some impressive trees.
Hello Rob, I have been to the Valley Gardens before, though I didn’t properly take in the large conifers there. I guess if you know where to look, you can find some tall, impressive conifers in Surrey.
I had missed that this is Abies grandis 'Idahoensis', impressive. There are infinitely more Idos around than thought, most seem to be that form up here. Any photos of the foliage of this one Stephen for comparison?
Hello Rob, no, unfortunately not yet, though I hope to go there soon and see the incredible trees there myself. Have noticed that there are some fantastic conifers around that area.
But you have a lot of very nice trees in England. I wished it is as easy traveling in The United kingdom as it is (for me) in Belgium France and Germany. The Channel is too big a barrier. But no London planes? Amazing.
Yorksire is too cold in summer for good growth in London Plane, it needs hot summers to grow well. It is even poorer when you come north to Northumberland or Scotland.
PS @ Red Rob, it's 1 specimen, 2 specimens - it isn't like 1 man, 2 men 😂
I'll ad another picture in which you better see high it is. And...I wasn't very attentive at the moment, but the oak next to it seems to be even higher and I just disregarded it.
RedRob, am 2019-10-01 14:09:43, geändert am 2019-10-01 14:19:23, hat gesagt:
Hello Conifers, my typing isn't great so I do see scribal errors myself, that is one that I can see when looking at it, I have stuck 'a' in instead of 'e', mind was thinking about the trees rather than what I was writing. PS, it is Yorkshire and not Yorksire (winks)
RedRob, am 2019-10-01 15:21:14, geändert am 2019-10-01 15:45:42, hat gesagt:
The trees in this stand are some of the most satisfying that I have ever measured, superb stand of conifers in a place that they really shouldn't be growing, dry south east Lincolnshire. There is a beck running close to the stand and I think that the land they are growing in may be boggy which has helped these trees grow so tall.
RedRob, am 2019-10-01 14:26:46, geändert am 2019-10-01 14:27:23, hat gesagt:
Owen, hats off to you for measuring this one, looks very difficult. I visited Polecat before I had the laser and thought then I wouldn't like to try measuring here, the Sequoiadendron it was near impossible to see a view of the base and tip. Is this Picea abies still likely to be adding height, will it have surpassed the tree at Reelig Glen?
Forest, is there any Lidar coverage for Nottinghamshire, the pines in the photos above and particularly those in photos 4511026 look impressive and could be the tallest trees in Nottinghamshire. Any ideas what species in photo 4511026, they look particularly photogenic, Pinus nigra something?
I love Sherwood Forest, what is left of it (and the Robin Hood legend which I have researched for many years) but it is not a particularly good place for really tall trees. There are many huge, old oaks but very few tall oaks but the three here in this stand are the finest I have found. Difficult trees to measure as you simply cannot see up on to the top of the crown as they are hemmed in by similar sized Beeches. 29.8 metres was the highest clean shoot that I could hit this time but it was not on the top of the crown so have estimated that the highest shoot is likely a metre higher.
Hello Forest, thanks for having a look at Lidar data for Cumbria and Bassenthwaite, I would be very interested to know what heights Lidar suggests for this stand as I only measured some of the trees along the edge of this stand, there are undoubtedly taller trees hidden in the stand further up which are impossible to measure with a laser.
Forest, I asked you once before but you must not have seen it.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5421387
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5421396
Is there any Lidar coverage for the west shore of Loch Lochy? It is a few years since I have been up to the Highlands, 2009, wasn't tree measuring then (monster hunting at the time) but I couldn't help but notice the conifers on the west shore of Loch Lochy. Is this within your territory? The comment on photo 5421387, 'monotonous', blasphemy. The trees in Clunes Forest look pretty impressive, nice Sitkas and Douglas Firs in the distance.
There is lidar data just to the south, but I don't think it extends into this section of the woodland, I will download some tiles and see if there is anything notable. I might have a look at that next time I am at Fort William though.
The lidar data in Scotland is patchy, mainly focused around areas of interest to SEPA. In England and Wales in theory there is almost complete coverage, but the resolution of the data is variable. The Scottish data is here
https://remotesensingdata.gov.scot/collections
the defra open data portal will have the England and Wales datasets. If you need any advice on processing this let me know, as I have used this at the Hermitage and Birnam hill path to look at tall trees.
Incidentally alongside Loch Ness there are big douglas and grand fir adjacent to the A82, which are around the 50m mark, not as big as your recent findings in Wales but I am tempted to have a look at that block sometime too.
Note sure how I missed your query originally but if you use twitter you can find me at @forest_dynamics there.
Thanks Forest for replying to this, looking forward to reading about your eventual trips. I stayed in Fort Augustus in 2009 and went for a walk and ended up in this area
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5404421
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3734914
The trees were very impressive, it was a stand of Abies grandis that particularly struck me, huge trees and the ground covered in self sown seedlings. If I remember correctly there were also some Abies procera, very impressive, they haven't been recorded it looks like by anyone but you. I would really recommend now fitting a tap washer to your Nikon laser, it definitely made measuring easier in Wales.
Would you be able to have a look at the Welsh lidar records, there are some trees in Crychan forest which would be worth measuring.
I have some more new big trees from Wales, cannot get the picture uploading to work for whatever reason? Have a new computer with Windows 10, had no problem uploading on the old girl (laptop) with Windows Vista.
I have had a look at the lidar data for Wales (re Crychan) and around Clunes.
Unfortunately in both cases the forest area is outside any current lidar coverage. That is disappointing in Wales because generally the coverage is ok, but in Scotland we are mainly restricted to where SEPA have commissioned surveys which are mainly focused on river catchments.
Your suggestion to look at sites like Clunes on the Great Glen did inspire me to visit Inchnacardoch at the southern end of Loch Ness, to start exploring the area. That site had some P1932 western hemlock, norway spruce and some sitka spruce (P1950), but nothing particularly outstanding (most in 35m-40m range), Not very notable compared to your recent discoveries in Wales this spring.I do have some screenshots of lidar searches but don't think it is possible to share them on this thread.
Most of my other visits over past few weeks however have been to younger stands. One of note was some P1969 Sitka spruce at Fearnoch forest near Oban with several trees in the 38m height bracket, dbh~80cm. That is quite good for the age and situation and would be worthy of retention given the habitat that has formed for red ants too.
Returning to the tapwasher revisions you made to the Nikon. I have difficulty visualising the alterations - do you have any pictures/blogpost or similar you can share to illustrate the method please? I have been using the Nikon when situations allow (i.e. more open stands) and it saves some time being able to measure several trees at once from a distance without have to attach transponders etc.
Forest, being cheeky but I have spotted a couple of other locations in Wales with what look like decent sized trees.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2611245
On the left side of this road at this location at Pwll Y Bo there look to be some fine Picea sitchensis on Google Earth and Street View. I wondered if the this stand would be covered by lidar?
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6087847
Also this stand in Twyi Forest looks quite impressive, again looks like Picea sitchensis. The location has shelter from the south west and west.
I have started sifting through Twyi data. I haven't found anything yet, but have posted a picture showing a Sitka compartment labelled with the largest height detected (only 32m in this case). What seems to be frustrating about the LiDAR data in Wales is it often only provides partial cover of forests.
Hello Forest, hope that you read this thread. If you look at all 8 photos, you will see the tap washer adaptor which I added to my Nikon laser. Use a Stanley knife blade to gradually plane off slithers of rubber as you turn the tap washer until you get a perfect fit for the laser aperture. Try to plane evenly so that the hole in the tap washer is central. The tap washer easily slots in and out of the laser aperture as you need it but as I have said before it very much reduces the range of the laser, to around 100 metres I have found with mine.
Just for interest, the Musa basjoo in the photo is now around 10 feet tall to the end of the tallest leaf and one stem has just thrown up a fruiting body so there will be a bunch of bananas hanging before long. I have had them before but they have been in November and too late to ripen, the frost got them. This time the small bananas will likely ripen, they are supposed to be edible but not of the nicest taste.
I have reduced the image size to 0.25mp and it is still saying that the image is too large when I try to upload a photo if I can get the 'browse' box to appear at all?
Only photo I have been able to upload for the trees at this location after must be 20 tries. A fine stand of Sitka spruce containing what is now South Yorkshire's tallest tree. A fine Sitka with a narrow spire.
Very disappointing this one, have been meaning to go back to it as was hoping it had touch 35 metres but the top is now dead and it looks as if it has also lost some of the twigs and the dead shoots are only around 32 metres.
Conifers, am 2019-06-25 21:37:44, geändert am 2019-06-25 21:38:06, hat gesagt:
Everything goes smoothly at first:
Tree species - OK
Country - OK
County - OK
City or village - added OK
Location - added OK
Specific location - (main location) OK
But then:
Zoom and click on the tree to pinpoint its exact position.
Please note that a tree can only be registered succesfully if also the coordinates and the additional information at the bottom of this page is provided.
No map to zoom in and click on. So no further progress possible; tree not saveable.
EU has added e.g. Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven) to the list of invasive alien specie that are not allowed to sell, grow and use. It will be interesting, what will be done with millions of Ailanthus trees that are growing throughout Europe.
Seems rather pointless - maybe if someone had given this advice a hundred years ago, but hardly worthwhile now.
At least in northern Britain it isn't a problem; it doesn't seed, and grows very slowly with negligible suckering. We have different invasives here (e.g. Picea sitchensis, Tsuga heterophylla), but they're not listed I guess?
The summers of Northern Britain are not warm enough for Ailanthus becoming a problem. In Central Europe, it is really a problem (if one considers the invading aliens to be a problem). Even here in central Germany, its seedlings grow everywhere if an adult tree is nearby. On my balcony there is one seedling from trees 50 m away (I wonder if it is now illegal to have the "accidental invasion"). The problem is still worse in many Mediterranean areas where Ailanthus and Robinia are probably the most abunbant woody pioneers. But is the problem still possible to solve? What they will do with those vast thickets in Mediterranean countries.
Easy to agree with both of you Conifers and KoutaR. EU is kind of aggregation of wishborne wise forces rather than expression of wisdom itself, hence it's decisions will frequently be the most useless, aimless at last.
Ailanthus, Robinia, as well as many other successful new European inhabitants won't be banned by wishborne decrets and laws, still one needs to know about and to accept facts.
So i let "important" people act as they need, but know how to deal with HAHA !!
Ailanthus Altissima has already become a serious problem in Andalusia, southern Spain. some actions have been carried out due to the goverment, I translate and paste what they say on their website:
"What management experiences are there in Andalusia?
Due to the wide distribution of the species, the Department of the Environment has approached its elimination by selecting the zones very well. Therefore, the actions have focused on the control and elimination of ailanthus in the Montes de Málaga and Sierra de Cazorla.
For the eradication of the species, a mixed treatment (chemical and mechanical) has been used in 3 phases, adapted to the diameter of the specimens.
First, herbicide is applied (mid-spring and mid-summer) coinciding with the periods of flowering and fruit formation.
- For diameters greater than 15 cm: injections of herbicide in the basal area of the trunk.
- For diameters smaller than 15 cm and height greater than 1.5 m: application of herbicide adhered to the basal area of the trunk.
- For diameters smaller than 15 cm and height less than 1.5 m: foliar application with pulverized herbicide, using plastic protectors to avoid damaging the native vegetation.
Coinciding with the winter, the mechanical method consists of foot pruning and mechanical treatment of rhizomes using a backhoe. Subsequently a second treatment with herbicide is applied.
Finally, a second application (spring-summer) of herbicide on the sprouts is carried out with the help of a sprayer.
Results and conclusions:
The total treated area has been 20,900 m2 using a mixed treatment, since the mechanic alone is ineffective and causes subsequent sprouts. Even applying a mixed treatment, it is necessary to carry out re-runs since some sprouts have been observed in the treated areas although seed germination has not been observed.
Studies carried out from the Program reveal that the plots with invasion of A. altissima have a much lower similarity index compared to the control plots. The analyzes of the composition of the plant community showed that the similarity between invaded plots and control (without the presence of ailanthus) was low, around 35-40%, which translates as an alteration of the plant community in the invaded plot produced by the invasive species."
KoutaR, am 2019-06-19 17:01:39, geändert am 2019-06-20 12:56:15, hat gesagt:
"The total treated area has been 20,900 m2". That is 2 hectares = 0.02 km2. That shows that used technique is totally impossible to solve to the full invaded area. That also shows, once again, that actions sadly happen only when it is too late. Eradication SHOULD happen immediately when the invasive POTENTIAL of a species is noticed. But it never happens, because people claim the species is no problem. When it is problem it is too late.
I guess what's really needed is some biological control - introduce some of the insects that eat it back in China where it came from. Then it would no longer be sterile, but itself become a useful tree for insect-eating birds, etc.
With biological control, there is always the threat that the imported controlling organism (like insect) itself becomes a plague. There are already numerous examples.
True, but also plenty of cases where it hasn't; with Ailanthus being so distantly related to anything native in Europe, there's a better chance of success. As far as I know, Ailanthis silkworm moth hasn't caused any problems where introduced in USA.
Not sure, not seen any published data, but I suspect not very much!
roburpetraea, am 2019-06-24 22:39:34, geändert am 2019-06-24 23:07:38, hat gesagt:
They are a nightmare, I hate them so much. The most effective way to end them is to uproot the tree, which is what they did last year Red Cross volunteers in Ponferrada. It´s a slow technique, but at the moment the most realistic option with zero risk for the ecosystem.
Great, the photo has uploaded. Could not measure this tree from the road as could not see the tip and base because of surrounding trees and minimal room from the road anyway. Measured from the bridge over the little river below the dam, the tip is sparse and dying back, likely from more exposure up the valley from the south, but there is at the moment still a tuft of foliage at the very tip.
This tree is visible on the photos on this site, in the magnificent stand of Sitka spruce to the left of Penbont House especially visible from the aerial photo. The trunk is the light coloured long trunk a third of the way in from the right of the photo. The stands behind the hotel are being clear cut which is clearly visible in the photos on this site and will make these trees vulnerable if they don't eventually meet the same fate themselves. Such a crying shame if they are felled.
Cannot get the photo to upload from this tree but it is visible in the series of photos on this site https://penbonthouse.co.uk/ From the aerial photo on the home page, the tree is in the stand of magnificent Sitka spruce to the left of the house, it's trunk is the light coloured clean one about a third of the way from the left side of the photo. I thought Sitka because the bark looked scaley through the laser viewfinder and the foliage looked like Sitka but when I have got back I am not 100% sure? As you can see from the other photos, clear felling is occurring in the stands immediately behind the hotel which is going to leave this stand vulnerable if it doesn't meet the same fate?
Cannot get the photo to upload from this tree (the direct comment link will not work either!) but it is visible in the series of photos on this site https://penbonthouse.co.uk/ From the aerial photo on the home page, the tree is in the stand of magnificent Sitka spruce to the left of the house, it's trunk is the light coloured clean one about a third of the way from the left side of the photo. I thought Sitka because the bark looked scaley through the laser viewfinder and the foliage looked like Sitka but when I have got back I am not 100% sure? As you can see from the other photos, clear felling is occurring in the stands immediately behind the hotel which is going to leave this stand vulnerable if it doesn't meet the same fate?
Would you be able to tell me which site to use to attempt to download Lidar data for Wales? I tried the second link above and followed the instructions but it ended up saying it couldn't download? I use Mobile Broadband so possibly it wasn't sufficient for the download. I have spotted two more stands of possible tall trees and wondered if Lidar would cover them and give us, me anyway some idea of the height?
What a truly magnificent avenue of Sequoiadendron lining the drive up, truly deserving to be photographed and appreciated. First discovered and measured by David Alderman in 2003, I measured from the the road below and recorded 54.6-54.8 metres consistently using the visible base of the 51 metre tree as my base measurement, this tree is slightly further downhill on the drive so it will be c55 metres in height, it emerges several metres above the surrounding avenue which are all of very similar height so 50 to 51 metres. I have been wanting to see these trees for several years but just never made it this far south in Wales before.
Owen, would you mind changing the 2003 name of the measurer to David's, thanks.
Forgot to add, from the photo I have managed to add you can see how these trees dominate Llanidloes, they tower and look down so impressively over the old town centre. Great find by David (Alderman)
Tim, I am having big difficulties uploading photos at the moment, have done for some time, have to upload them via Owen. 'Speciman' 'Select File' 'Browse', the 'Browse' just will not appear or does only very infrequently after attempt after attempt? Is there anything that can be done, does anyone else have this problem?
Yep and the area is impressive. Behind the two cedars there are a lot of big chestnuts. I didn't measure them, just one and it is a double-stem. Most chestnuts there were not very reachable and I am a bit fed up with ticks.
Looking on TROBI I was surprised that no height champions had been recorded in Wales for Quercus robur, well here is a fine speciman to have as current height champion for the Country. Difficult to measure, drawn up next to a Douglas and with a large branch of the crown forming almost a front platform with a higher branch and higher crown behind. The front crown the readings came out around 32 metres moving across the shoots, the higher crown above and behind the only twig I could hit through a very small window was 34.8 metres so the highest shoots are likely around 35 metres
Cannot work out why I cannot get photos to post properly on here? Re-sized a photo of this actual tree and attempted and wouldn't work, tried this one without re-sizing and bingo it has posted?
This is a superb little stand of what looks like old growthish Douglas, the 58 metre tree is a beaut but all that I measured were 55-56 metres. The stand is being used as a tree top, high wire walkway
Very sorry to hear about the death of Chic Henderson, emailed him regularly though hadn't swapped any in the last few months. Seemed like a very nice chap and will be very much missed.
Owen, planning any visits to Shropshire tree measuring? On the Register there are some impressive older trees, 41 metre Larix decidua measured in 1984 and still there according to Andy Gordon in 2018, would you have a contact for Andy, would love to see some photos. What height are they now?
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6008633
Linley Hall looks as if it has some very tall conifers, perhaps tallest trees in Shropshire. Walcot Hall had a Sequoiadedon of 45 metres back in 1975 and Leaton Knolls had Sequoias recorded as 42 metres in 1981, these trees if still there and growing reasonably must be big by now. Perhaps Andy would have some photos and idea? I thought that I had measured Shropshire's tallest tree but was mistaken.
Very difficult trees to measure as a dense stand with dense lower undergrowth, managed to measure one on the edge of the stand at 41.8 to 42.2 metres and used the same base to aim at the tallest spire I could make out in the stand and the height was c 45.4 metres so this tree is likely circa 45 metres. Very fine stand of Hemlocks, clearly visible from the road on Street View, unable to upload a photo at the moment, trying to cut them down abit. Tallest Western Hemlocks I think in Gwynedd. Next to them are some Picea sitchensis which looked very similar in height but I didn't get across to them.
Replying to RedRob's message about Shropshire not TimB's about the Brussels Lime which is in the same string [I'm not sure why RedRob's comments keep appearing in the wrong string if no-one else is getting this problem?]:
There ought to be some taller trees hiding somewhere in Shropshire as the 61m trees at Leighton Hall are only just over the Welsh border.
Andy Gordon I think is the veteran tree consultant for the National Trust and records as a volunteer for the Ancient Tree Inventory (ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk) which is where I contact him. As such he's interested in the girths of old trees but as a professional arboriculturalist he may also have height measuring equipment. Those larches at Linley Hall (your ancestral pile??) are very old trees planted in 1768 so are unlikely to have added height since 1984, when Alan Mitchell's 1981 may or may not have been accurate.
I visited the garden at Walcot Hall in 2009 but didn't go to the Pigeonhouse Plantation where the 45m Sequoiadendron was in 1975. Looking at the map this is a very well-sheltered conifer plantation and so the Sequoiadendron could be a lot taller by now - worth a look some time.
There's a young Grand Fir in Dale End Park in urban Ironbridge which was 42m tall when the Google 3D mapping was one - one of the tallest town trees I can think of.
Owen, this is a view up to Pigeonhouse Bank at Walcot Hall, does the upstanding treat the top middle of the photo look like a Sequoiadendron? Nice spire whatever it is. The stand behind the house looks impressive as well.
I thought it apt about Linley Hall, wish it was my country pile, not bothered about the house, a shed would do, but would have some nice trees in the grounds.
Shropshire deserves attention, wish that I could have visited more but time didn't permit. Did visit part of Shropshire, as said thought that I had measured a tall tree but when I checked the country boundary line it was just outside.
Forest, is this tree within your range area, it would be very interesting to have a reading for it with your instrument? It is another tree which has large variations in measurement, readings between 63 and 68.4 metres? The undergrowth might be easier in winter.
Owen, which position did you measure this tree from? The base doesn't look visible from this side in the photo because of the protruding bank of ferns. There doesn't look to be as much twiggy clutter in the photo as there is at the Waterloo Grove in Betws.
The only easy place to measure this tree from is about where the photos were taken, about 100m from the tree on the road outside the gate. This is about 10m below the tree's base, so that the angle to the top is still quite steep and the leading shoot is partly obscured by side-shoots about 1m down on the near side which have a lot more foliage on them. A lot of my measurements to the top must have hit the near-side shoots instead and, rejecting these plus a few measurements which I suspect were machine error, I got 63 - 65m to the tip. I couldn't begin to reproduce Graham's and Chic's independently recorded 68.4m, but Chic did tell me that on his first visit, his measurements were also much lower and all over the place. There isn't really anything between the tree's base and the observer at a height much lower than the tree's base for the laser beam to the base to pick up, and Chic says he's aware of that potential problem. I suspect that with the typically humid climate with lots of insect life, the laser beam tends to pick up water droplets or midges in the air beyond and above a tree's top, but that's only guesswork. I did scramble up the rocky bank to do a tangent measurement from a position level with the tree's base, and that I think was where my 63m came from.
It is in range, about an hour 15 mins drive. I need some older western hemlock data so I will try to go if there is a good day...winter is setting in here, snow line dropped a few hundred metres over the weekend.
If there was ever a meetup I'd be happy to travel to share experiences with different measurement methods.
I finally did a trip to Ardentinny today and had just enough time to measure the 5 douglas fir in the plot.
The tallest Douglas fir I made as 65.6m tall using the vertex, 65.2 with a nikon forestry pro (2 point measurement to base), and 66.5 using nikon forestry pro with a target at 1.3m. Although I see the advantage of the forestry pro laser with regard to accounting for lean, it does generate varying results - is that your experience?
I found it hard to get a tape around the taller Douglas fir to my satisfaction - but I made the circumference as 4.27m at 1.3m. It has a steep drop on the east side.
The second tallest Douglas fir produced results more consistent with the observations here. I measured that as 62.4m tall with both devices and 4.3m circumference.
There are some tall Western hemlock across the road from the Douglas fir, I measured a couple of those to complete a plot but at ~46m don't think they were the tallest there.
Just south there are some Norway spruce in the area at around 38-39m, and further south still some big Douglas fir by a stream ('only' 56m). I didn't have time to measure anything else properly though, just quick heights. There is ominously some clearfelling underway (12 May 2019), currently amongst the P1929 Norway spruce and Japanese larch. I am aware of P1933 Sitka spruce throughout the area which I didn't have time to visit.
Splendid to have some corroboration of the height of this tree. 65.2m is very close to the highest figures I could get with the Sine method the other year (allowing two years' modest growth) so I think this measurement quite accurately reflects the tree's true height. (We should also remember that the bank where it grows is very steep and different recorders' estimation of 'average ground level' could differ quite a bit.) So not as tall as one or two at least of the Douglas Firs at Coed Craig Glanconwy, and probably not quite as tall as the Scottish tree in Reelig Glen, and too close to separate from the Argyllshire tree at Dunans Castle.
This tree demonstrates that simple hand-held lasers can be accurate to within 1 or 2%- but only if you take lots of measurements from different positions, filter out obvious mistakes, and then find where the concentration of average figures lies.
(ForestDynamics: in 2017 I got 53.5m for the tallest of those fast-growing Tsugas down the bank, and did manage to get a precise girth of the Pseudotsuga, with a bit of clambering. I saw no other really tall trees in this forest, though didn't have time to explore exhaustively.)
RedRob, am 2019-05-19 15:49:05, geändert am 2019-05-19 16:47:19, hat gesagt:
Hello Forest, apologies for not replying to your message, I have just returned from a trip to Wales, a successful one I have just found from checking records on TROBI. Thank you very much for visiting this tree and taking the time to measure with several instruments.
''The tallest Douglas fir I made as 65.6m tall using the vertex, 65.2 with a nikon forestry pro (2 point measurement to base), and 66.5 using nikon forestry pro with a target at 1.3m. Although I see the advantage of the forestry pro laser with regard to accounting for lean, it does generate varying results - is that your experience?''
Does this mean you aimed at 1.3 metres above the actual central base so 65.6 plus 1.3 metres making 66.9metres for example for one reading? Would that be correct? Which reading, measurement would you go for with this tree? What variations for each reading session did you get with the Nikon? I think several measurers at Betws have now had the same experience, myself, Michael Spraggon, even Stephen with his better laser. The undergrowth and twigs are just so bad at the location.
I have been able to properly test my RAF adaptation on the Nikon Forestry Pro this time (the tap washer in plain Yorkshire) and it has made a definite difference to the usage, that is if you can find a window through at all. I have quite a number of newly found big trees, now have to try to Bluetooth them to the new computer which I have had trouble getting to work up to now, keeps asking for a pin.
Third attempt at this, my comments are disappearing for some reason tonight?
The 66.59 metre tree at Betws, first proper occasion that I have had to test the RAF (tap washer in plain Yorkshire) out on the Nikon laser and it has made a definite difference. Found a very small window through the tangle of vegetation to hit clean trunk just a small distance up from the tree base centre and aimed at it, 66.8-67 metres with no wild readings 2 metres or more out. For this reason have assigned 67.2 metres. I would now definitely recommend using the tap washer adaptor for important trees or trees in very tight spots with tight windows. The adaptor is no good for distance readings even clean hit ones as the laser will not record at around 100 metres. Pretty sure myself that the varied readings at the times with the Nikons is due the wide beam, the beam edge hitting twigs as the laser goes in.
Owen, I am pretty certain that I found and measured your 68 metres tree this time, about 20 metres up from the three front line trees. Using the laser with tap washer to a point at the high side of the base, only place I could see of the base. I recorded 65.2 to 65.4 metres so have assigned 66 metres to tree base centre slightly down the steep slope. Not 100% sure if I hit the apex tip, fairly sure that it was the apex tip that I could see but wouldn't stake my life on that.
I just noticed that the claimed Douglas-fir record is really over 3 m lower... after two growth seasons, so the original measurement was perhaps 4 m too high! How can this be possible? Has Graham Alcorn perhaps used the 3-point method? The difference cannot be explained with dirrerent ground level definitions.
Graham and Chic were both using the sine method with Nikon lasers when they recorded 68.4m for this tree, and were aware of the need to avoid brash near the tree's base, confirming what I have long suspected: under certain conditions, these machines don't seem to be reliable to better than +/- 5%. RedRob's recent measurements at Betys-y-coed suggest that my machine was generating errors of a similar scale when I (consistently, but with only one position where I could see the top) got 67.5-68m for two firs there in 2016. I think it's reasonable to assume that some other measurements posted by users on this site will be subject to similar errors, though the only way of proving this may be to climb the tree.
That said, some Nikon users seem to be able to be able to get consistently accurate results. I expect individual machines vary in what quirks they have.
This doesn't worry me very much, as most trees have features which are more interesting than their precise height, and I shall continue to use my laser as one of a range of methods I have for accumulating tree statistics.
Sounds very strange. I have two lasers, one of which is Nikon, and I have compared my Nikon measurements with those made by others on the same trees, with Nikon and with other methods, and I have never seen that large differences. It is possible that your laser as well as that of Graham & Chic have a defect but I think more plausible explanation could be a human error at measurement, like e.g. shooting ground below the base (instead of the base) or shooting wrong shoot or holding the machine tilted around its lenght axis. Owen, I see you have made thousands of measuerements, perhaps the machine is not anymore accurate... another possible explanation... it's getting old...
Great you measured 67m Rob. A very difficult task at this location. It is also possible to measure the trees in sections at different windows of view to the tree.
To get really accurate results I must admit a tripod is essential. With the Trupulse 200x I found it difficult to maintain a steady handhold. With a tripod I could get many consistent readings to tree tops (generally) all within 0.10-0.2m multiple times.
I always check my instrument with objects of known height and the Trupulse readings suggest that I can get readings to within 0.10m with a tripod.
I took a number of measurements of the tallest Douglas fir, ranging from 64-66m. The highest reading was obtained by aiming at a device I had attached to the tree at 1.3m, then adding that to the result as you guessed.
However that was the absolutely highest measurement I obtained, around 65m seemed to be mean result. I should have said at the time I visited the site, conditions were close to ideal as there was no breeze or wind causing significant movement of the upper crown.
Enjoying reading about your visit to Wales, must visit some of those sites myself.
@Owen
I will have to go back and look at the Western hemlock more closely to find the taller specimens :) I might combine it with a trip to Pucks Glen as I have not had the opportunity to visit that site to date.
Thanks again for the suggestion to visit Ardentinny.
I am convinced myself that at the Waterloo Grove at least it is the Nikon beam width that causes the measuring to be so difficult, the windows are so small and the wide beam hits twigs of vegetation as the laser beam goes in. I don't think that it is a faulty laser/lasers or user error, myself, Michael Spraggon recorded 68 metre readings for the tree he climbed at 66.59 metres, Owen, even Stephen with his more accurate laser recorded readings of a couple of metres above the true height. It is the difficulty of measuring there with the dense ground vegetation and extreme heights of the trees which makes it so difficult. I have just found some more locations like this on my trip.
Stephen, you missed a treat, I posted a location of trees that I had found on Google Maps before your Wales trip last year but you must not have looked on the forum and you missed it.
"even Stephen with his more accurate laser recorded readings of a couple of metres above the true height"
Which tree do you mean? Link?
The experiments of the Californians and Tasmanians do not support your view. With Impulse and TruPulse lasers it is possible to measure their super-tall trees fairly accurately. Nikon is somewhat less accurate but in my opinion entirely sufficient for European trees. Yes, its beam width may cause problems. Most importantly, you must NOT aim above the tip! Shame on me, I claimed previously it is the right way until my test showed it is absolutely the wrong way. This might be one possible reason for a couple of metres too high heights. Another is the wildly jumping clinometer: you should make several measurements.
Because I (still) use a Nikon rangefinder and a Suunto hypsometer in combination, I can spot where the errors arise in my case, and it's always with the distance the rangefinder records to the tree's top (I use 'distance priority mode'.) 95% of the time when I measure a tree I'm still using the tangent method with the rangefinder just to check the distance to the tree's trunk and, with a fairly broad, flat surface to aim at, I've never noticed any irregularities in the distance recorded here, except occasionally when my hand twitches a bit just as I fire the laser. (So it's not the laser getting old, just me....)
The broadest spread of readings occurs when I aim at a tree top with nearer and further shoots in view, creating a 'fuzzy' echo. The software that decides what distance the furthest echo was from frequently over-calculates this distance by up to 2 metres. (When I can do tangent measurements from different angles and conflate the results, the results should be accurate and this has helped me to see how often the distance measurement must be wrong.) These errors seem more likely to occur with conifers, when there are lots of parallel needles 1 mm apart which might possibly have the effect of diffracting the laser beam and adding to the machine's confusion. (In my case the error has never been so great as to lead to a 68.4m height estimation for a tree perhaps only 64.5m tall, but that's what I mean about different lasers' software perhaps behaving a bit differently.)
As RedRob points out, even Stephen Verge's tripod-mounted Trupulse laser seems to have produced errors of a similar scale in these situations. It may be using the same software?
Consequently I would recommend some variation of an External Baseline method for maximum accuracy, but being able to see the tops of these trees even for a tangent measurement from different positions is a rare luxury.
Do you mean you have measured almost all the trees, you have recorded on MT, with the tangent method? You measure the distance to the trunk with your Nikon, the angles to the base and the top with your Suunto and calculate the height? Is this what you mean?
No, when I've put '2-point or sine method' as the measurement method, that's what I've used. I tend only to upload a few exceptional trees to this site, and these are then ones where I've done a sine measurement for confirmation.
I am not sure if I understand how you check the accuracy of your laser with your Suunto, but it sounds a bit like one would check the accuracy of a watch with an hourglass.
You are right in that when measuring e.g. a conifer top the laser may return the distance to a lower twig in front of the top. The solution is to go further from the tree and search a location from where you have a clear sight to the actual top. But that the instrument would over-calculate the distance... we have done so much testing that I can say you are not right. I still suggest a human error is responsible for the over-measurements. How much time do you use for measuring the height of one tree?
One factor I have encountered that can result to a false too high measurement: fog. The beam may get a reflection from fog particles a few metres or even a few dozens of metres above the trunk.
If I were to take ten measurements of the distance to the top of a 'fuzzy' tree with my Nikon rangefinder, a typical range of values might be:
51.5m
51.5m
51.5m
50.5m
50.0m
50.0m
50.0m
49.5m
49.0m
48.5m
When I first started using the laser, my assumption was that 51.5m was probably the right distance and the lower measurements were caused by the beam hitting shoots on the near-side of the tree.
But suppose that with my Suunto hypsometer I measure an angle of 30.1 degrees to the top (and the tree is on level ground, so that I add 1.7m to its base). That gives (about) 27.5m for the tree's height if I accept that the distance to the top is 51.5m.
I then go round to the other side of the tree (this is what I mean by using the hypsometer to check the accuracy of the laser) and, from an equal distance and again on level ground, I again get 30.1 degrees to the top and the same set of laser distance measurements from 51.5m to 48.5m.
There are now two possibilities: the hypsometer is wrong (the angle to the top being at least 33 degrees) and the tree's height is (about) 30m. Or, the hypsometer is right and the correct measurement of the distance to the top should be 50m (and the tree is only about 26.7m tall).
After performing calculations similar to this many times, I'm forced to conclude that my hypsometer is accurate (to a fraction of a degree) but my laser frequently over-records the real distance by about 1.5m. (Why it should so often be 1.5m I have no idea. From the feed-back from other users, many Nikon's don't seem to do this at all while if the over-recording is greater for some other machines, that would be the best explanation I can think of for measurements like the 68.4m for the Ardentinny Fir.)
Now that I'm aware of this problem, I can assess a measurement-set like the one I've concocted above, and conclude without further checking that 50m is probably the correct distance. But occasionally I can point the laser at what looks like a clearly visible top shoot and get two equal sets of measurements 1.5m apart and not be sure which value is the right one.
If I remember rightly, my 68m for the tree at Betws-y-coed which RedRob has recently remeasured as 66m was calculated using a distance to the top which I only recorded once or twice, because there was a very wispy target through a very narrow window between other branches and all my other attempts to measure the distance were no-readings. The distance I did manage to get was presumably one of those over-readings, which might have been bad luck or might be an inevitable consequence of pushing the laser right to its limits.
I've used my laser in rain many times and never noticed a different pattern of returns, so I don't think the beam can usually pick up water-droplets. I did hit a bird once. It was about 700m away. An insect near the top of the tree might be harder to spot if you hit it.
I don't understand why there must be an error in clinometer or laser if the distance to the top was 51.5 m and the angle 30.1 degrees from the both sides?
From your text I get feeling that you measure the distance only to the top. What about the base?
I don't doubt Suunto would be inaccurate. No, it is certainly more accurate than Nikon's clinometer. I meant with clock/hourglass if you check the accuracy of Nikon using suunto only. It is possible your laser has a defect. But I still suspect there is another error source. It's pity you could not attend the ECTF meeting. It would have been great to exchange experiences in measuring.
I have also measured during heavy rain and the only problem was water pouring under my raincoat making me less careful. So rain droplets seem to be no problem but fog particles are.
You're right, Kouta, my scenario would only work if you've also measured the distance to the tree's base from both sides. I was simplifying things by assuming level ground (hence the 1.7m added to the height to the top which is the height from the tree's base to the laser), but in practice I'm nearly always measuring angle and distance to the base as well.
I've no idea how the 'distance priority' software in the Nikon laser works (it might be a trade secret) but I would assume it analyzes the length and 'fuzziness' of the return echo and adds what it thinks is an appropriate number of metres to the distance calculated from the start of the echo - which might sometimes be too many metres?
I will add my two pennorths worth here, have now been using the Nikon Forestry Pro since July 2012 and know some of it's eccentricities and I am not convinced that the big variations specifically at locations like Betws are down to human error, not 2 or 3 metres out. I cannot think of one tree I have measured where you get the same exact measurement over multiple measurings, there is always a slight variation, 49.8 to 50.2 metres for example for a clean tree with clear windows. This is the variation that is down to human error as you cannot hit precisely the same spots on the base and tip with every measuring certainly hand held, even a few centimetres variation on where you hit will result in a slightly different reading in the laser. The Nikon has a cross hair with a gap in the middle which makes hitting the same precise spot more difficult, if it had a spot or even full cross hair it would make hitting or attempting to hit the same spot easier but it hasn't. In my own experience the big reading variations come with trees that are not clean but where there is clutter and low vegetation. I measured the Waterloo tree in May 2017 on a sparkling clear, blue sky day in a period of very dry weather with high pressure, there had been abit of a drought the ground was very dry, there was absolutely no mist or fog and actually the sun was abit bad as it was about 12 noon. I got readings all over the place, 66 to 68.6 metres, there is only one logical explanation for this for me, I was attempting to measure through a very small window and the beam was hitting vegetation on the way in which was lower than the tree's base and so put a couple of metres on the true reading. The same thing happened on my previous visit, I decided to give the average reading of 67 metres which was too high looking back now. The tap washer which I fitted definitely and absolutely helped in measuring this time, I didn't get one high reading despite measuring through another very tight window. It had the effect of cutting the beam width right down so the beam was nimble and able to get through the window cleanly. I think we should all fit one to our Nikons now for important trees or difficult, cluttered trees. On open, clean trees you could use the Nikon without as it is pretty accurate on clean trees, the tap washer also is no good if you want to measure a tree from distance as it cuts the laser's range to perhaps c100m.
Owen, I don't think the distance priority mode works like you proposed. I think the device emits laser beam that reflects from the target. If the beam hits multiple targets at differing distances the device calculates multiple results and shows the greatest one. The problem is that Nikon's distance priority mode does not work well enough. With TruPulse you can see the process: You keep pushing the button and TP keeps measuring... shows a distance... you still keep pushing the button and TP keeps measuring... the distance increases as it finds a greater distance... an so on.
Note that it is also possible that Owen's measurement (68m) is correct and Rob's 66m is too low (e.g. because hitting a lower twig).
Rob, your scenario of getting a too high measurement is well possible: you stand below the base and the beam doesn't hit the base but clutter below it. In a sense this is also a human error: you have not chosen a window large enough.
Owen's "fuzzy top" scenario could be studied like this: you choose a bush behind of which sky can be seen. Or you put a christmas tree horizontally 1-2 m from the ground. You put a bulky target (e.g. car) next to the fuzzy target so that the bulky target is at the same distance from your measuring location as the most distant twig of the bush. Your measuring location is e.g. 50 m from the target. If the distance priority mode worked perfectly the both targets would return the same distance. My guess is that Nikon returns smaller distance for the fuzzy target as is does not find the farthest one. Owen's guess is (if I understood correctly) that Nikon returns a greater distance for the fuzzy target as the beam get confused by the fuzziness and adds 1,5 m to the calculated distance.
No possibility to measure in 2 parts? Or even in 3 parts like this:
1. from the top to a fallen branch
2. from the fallen branch to a point at 1-2 m height
3. from the ground to the point with a measuring tape
RedRob, am 2019-05-28 15:56:27, geändert am 2019-05-28 16:02:37, hat gesagt:
Owen's 68 metres, I was using the tap washer adaptor but I cannot rule that out 100%. The readings were consistently around 65.6 metres to a clear piece of the high side of the base, I had no readings metres out which suggests that this was likely accurate. The base middle on the slope will be around 66 metres if this is correct. The 67 metre tree is likely the only one which we can probably 100% say is the height.
I agree about Distance Priority mode, experimented with it but have never used it since, have the laser set on First Target Priority mode. This with the tap washer fitted makes the laser as accurate as it can be I think now.
I doubt the first-target mode would return the highest twig better than the distant priority mode. Actually this could be the reason for your differing results: Rob used the first-target mode that returned the closest twig, Owen used the distant priority mode that returned a higher twig or even the true top.
Finest stand of Larix decidua that I have yet seen around the Betws area, trees in the low to mid 30s below the big Douglas Firs near Llanwrst but this is the best stand. The tallest trees are possibly at the sheltered lowest part of the wood (readings c42.6 metres for this tree) so probably measured the tallest. Tree to the left 41.4 to 41.6 metres through the laser on several readings so around 41 metres likely.
This is a superb little stand of shapely trees, worth adding to MT. Owen recorded the height in 2016 and judging by previous measurements likely around 55 metres by now, this summer.
For anyone who has not seen my 'Heath Robinson' adaptor for the Nikon Forestry Pro, click on all the photos above and you can see my two photographs of it. Someone in the US had the same idea and selotaped a piece of card with a hole in it on the laser aperture, I think the tap washer is much simpler, robust, effective, easy to use and aesthetically pleasing to look at, just carefully shave down a tap washer evenly with a Stanley knife until it fits snuggly into the laser aperture and you are away. It pops out easily with a finger nail when you don't need it. It has proved it's effectiveness to me recently at Betws.
Cannot get the photos 'browse' to appear, probably couldn't do it anyway.
Couldn't measure this tree directly as undergrowth just too dense to hit the base, totally obscured. Measuring from the same point as for the 58.6 metre tree, the reading was 59.8 to 60 metres, the base must be slightly downhill form the 58 metre tree as the land is falling it's way so this tree must be around 60 metres. There may be a taller tree yet in this little bit of the forest where the tallest trees are but extremely difficult to measure even with the tap washer fitted,. It could be 61 metres but it will not be challenging the Waterloo Grove for height.
If anyone is planning a trip to Wales will they mention it on here before they go. I didn't get the time to go so far south but I have come across mention of some potentially tall conifers in mid Wales which have not been recorded before.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5760818
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5760815
There may be more yet unmeasured potentially very tall trees in mid Wales like these in Crychan Forest. Would involve some hiking well away from the roads.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5760527
Possible tallish Scots Pine in this location?
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6087847
Some parts of Twyi Forest around Llyn Briane also look as if they may have some tall conifers. Llyn Briane looks a stunning location,
This stand of Sitka Spruce further south at Pentwyn reservoir also look impressive, looked at them on Google Maps, certainly champions for county. Need someone to go on a nice little holiday in Mid and South Wales with a little tree measuring on the side. Would be fascinating to know if trees further south in Wales have or could match those further north. Any takers, made it as far Rhayader on my trip this time.
This is a superb little stand of Tsuga, I definitely didn't measure the tallest tree as there was too much vegetation around the base, the tree next to this one was 52 metres to same ground point as this tree on it's base and the bases looked level. I couldn't see the base of the taller tree never mind the base plus top. New Country champion for height for species.
The tap washer fitted to the Nikon Forestry Pro has made a big difference for measuring this tree. I was able to fire through a small window at a piece of the base just above the central point of the base and my readings were consistant at 66.8-67 metres with no wild readings 2 metres and more out. I am pretty sure that the beam width of the Nikon picks twigs out as the beam goes in and that is what accounts for the varying readings. I would now advise anyone with a Nikon Forestry Pro to fit a tap washer, at least for important trees from closer range. For distant measurements of 100 metres plus it makes the laser unable to record a reading so is no good for longer measurements.
The RAF (tap washer in simple Yorkshire) has made a great difference to the measuring of this tree. I was able to fire the laser through a very small window in the vegetation to a point on the base I estimate just above the central point of the base, 0.2 metres I estimate and recorded consistant measurements of 66.8-67 metres with no wild readings at all. I would advise anyone with a Nikon to fit a tap washer adaptor, specifically for important trees with tight windows and vegetation, it greatly improves the consistency. It is no good for distance measurements though of 100 metres plus as the receiving part of the laser is also reduced greatly and the laser doesn't record.
I am fairly certain that I measured this tree this time, 65.4 metres to the high side of the base with the RAF, the only side I could get a hit on base and tip of the tree so assigning 66 metres to the base centre. Pretty certain that I hit the apex shoot though wouldn't like to state it as fact.
There is a definite problem with the 'comment' feature, adding discussions, I only added the message immediately above, the messages at the top are ones I attempted to add last night for a tree in the Waterloo Grove and they didn't appear at all.
Some of the comments are going all over the place, will add this one again here.
Thank you Owen for uploading the photo of this tree, a superb specimen, the tallest of a number of 40 metre Picea abies along the roadside up the valley. Country champion for height at least, unless the 44 metre specimen (think that is correct just off the top of my head without re-checking) at Vivod is taller than this now?
Thank you Owen for uploading the photo of this tree, a superb specimen, the tallest of a number of 40 metre Picea abies along the roadside up the valley. Country champion for height at least, unless the 44 metre specimen (think that is correct just off the top of my head without re-checking) at Vivod is taller than this now?
I definitely know think that this stand of trees may have specimans that are the nearest challengers to the trees at Betws. The floor of the forest is not visible at all but aiming at the what looked like the lowest part of the young trees below them I again got 61 metres for this tree. How tall the young trees are and how far the actual base of this tree is below them? I suspect at least 3 metres from looking at them through the laser viewfinder. They would have to be climbed to measure as the ground vegetation is just so dense as you can see in the photo. Will ask Michael if he fancies a quick shimmy up one.
Hello Maxie, pleased to make your acquaintance on MT. I visited your neck of the woods a few years ago after spotting dark shadows on the satellite of Google Maps. The tree here was the tallest that I found of all the trees and types that I measured. I also found some big Douglas Firs near Windemere, I will find them on here.
They have done a bit of thinning out of trees around dodd wood area last winter,especially up the path from the cafe,supposedly to improve the feeding for squirrels!,i suppose it is forestry commission land though.
Still some impressive douglas firs around there but some definitely gone.
I do a bit of walking around the north lakes,if i can combine it with tree hunting happy days,some nice trees around the shore of derwentwater and buttermere,also around the area between carlisle and the lakes which is a pretty undiscovered area i think.
Also do a bit of fishing up in dumfries and galloway,see some big trees up there on old estate lands.
You slipped this one in quietly Owen, missed it. European height champion as well unless someone out there has something? Looks quite a comparatively open wood and yet this tree is so tall and slim, any reason why? Not come across a Hawthorne so slim and straight myself before.
Tallest tree in Cumbria with a number of other county champion trees. Quite exposed position but wonder if this tree is now near 60 metres or has hit that height?
The highlight of my visit to Cumbria in 2015, superb (Alan Mitchell would have my guts for garters) Copper Beeches, Britain and Ireland champion for height just beating the tall Copper Beech in Longleat Forest.
Forest(dynamics), does the Lidar cover the western shore of Loch Lochy? Spotted some tall conifers on the north west shore of Loch Lochy on Google Maps a while, likely some of the trees in these links. Open somewhat to south west winds up the Great Glen but some shelter from the west and north west.
KoutaR, am 2013-12-11 22:54:32, geändert am 2013-12-15 09:29:28, hat gesagt:
During my recent trip to the Canary Islands, I used one day for searching and measuring some tall trees in Garajonay National Park, with my brother Tuomas.
INTRODUCTION
Garajonay National Park on the island of La Gomera is the largest (40 km2) and the best preserved example of ?laurisilva? on the Canary Islands, though the same type exists even better preserved on Madeira. One can read differing explanations what is ?laurisilva?: forest dominated by lauraceous trees, forest dominated by Laurus or forest dominated by trees with laurel-type leaves (broadleaf, evergreen & mesomorphic). The park is also a World Heritage Site. The Garajonay laurisilva is formed by about 20 tree species. The forest formations range from stunted thickets of Erica arborea (tree heath) and Myrica faya = Morella faya (faya) in the exposed sites and the drier highest elevations to tall subtropical-looking forest with little undergrowth in protected valleys where the tallest tree species, more demanding Persea indica and Ocotea foetens grow. The most abundant tree is Laurus novocanariensis, which is adapted to various habitats. Almost all the species are evergreen. Differences between many species are small but learning to identify the main species is relatively easy. I had hiked on Madeira before, so I was already familiar with most species.
Some trees of the park:
Annual precipitation is approx. 750 to more than 1000 mm falling mainly in the winter. Additionally, the park is in the cloud zone of the north-eastern trade winds; water condensing from fog compensates the lack of summer rains and increases the annual precipitation by about 300 mm. Winters are frost free. Elevations range from about 700 m to 1484 m. The slopes are steep.
Particularly in German literature Garajonay is often considered to be primeval forest (Urwald) but true primary forest can only be expected on steep slopes and in ravines. Old cut stumps can be seen in places. One can also find protected productive valleys without large trees (apparently logged in the past). Grazing continued until the 1940s and its impact on the understory was significant; particularly the southern part of the park (incl. the highest mountain tops) is seriously degraded. However, for several decades there has been very little human intervention. Introduced rats, mice, rabbits and cats are abundant.
OUR EXPLORATION
In advance, I had asked a local botanist where the tallest stands can be found. First he replied they are located above Meriga, in the next e-mail he clarified they are located above El Cedro, Los Aceviños and Meriga along a road inside the park connecting El Cedro to Meriga. It remained a bit unclear to me whether the tallest stands are located along the whole length of the road or only above Meriga.
We started from a car park at Mimbreras, above El Cedro. Close to it, I spotted an unusually tall and large Erica arborea (Baumheide (Erica arborea) '15911') surrounded by Laurus and Persea. The species commonly forms shrubberies in exposed sites but can become taller in lauraceous forest. It rarely grows in sites like this because it cannot compete with the lauraceous trees. My measurement gave 22.2 m.
We started to hike along the road. The small road follows elevations between 950 and 1050 m, so hiking was easy. However, the road runs along a steep mountainside ? not a place for tall trees. But before and after Aceviños, there are side valleys that looked promising on my map. Ilex canariensis (small-leaved holly) about 5-10 metres tall were rather common in places and in a small depression I spotted a much taller specimen (I. canariensis (Ilex canariensis) '15910'). Tuomas hiked further but I stayed behind for measurements and to make sure of the identification. My measurement gave 21 m, much taller than the species commonly reaches.
Tuomas returned soon and said he had found tall trees in the next side valley. It was a group of three trees that towered above the surrounding canopy.
The trees proved to be Persea indica. Measuring was almost as difficult as measuring beeches in the summer. The crowns were not as broad as beech canopies but just as dense. We searched for a hole in the canopy for at least half an hour. All the trees were more than 30 m. The tallest (Indische Persea (Persea indica) '15907') was the thinnest: 31.7 m and 116 cm, the second tallest (Indische Persea (Persea indica) '15908') was 31.2 m. We were not able to get any measurement for the thickest tree but it was likely the shortest. However, its top was broken and it has likely been the tallest in the past. While measuring these trees, something happened that I had never experienced before. After getting consistent heights around 31.5 to 32 m, I got over 70 m! Then over 40 m. I feared my Nikon had got a defect but then realized there were dense clouds going through the canopy. The laser beam likely got a reflection from cloud particles when I shot a bit above the top!
Behind Los Aceviños we also explored two side valleys further from the road but they were big disappointments: all the old trees had broken stems, a lot of stumps and saplings. Perhaps the valleys have been logged before the establishment of the park and only the trees with broken stems have been left or alternatively the trees have been snapped by winds after the neighbouring trees had been felled. The slopes of the valleys were steep and hiking difficult.
We had to turn back without reaching the sites above Meriga. While hiking back, Tuomas spotted in a valley some tall trees that we had not noticed before. One was Laurus novocanariensis 28.3 m, the tallest tree for this species we found (L. novocanariensis (Laurus novocanariensis) '15909').
Another tree was even a metre taller but it proved to be Persea, thus no record tree. All the mentioned record trees were relatively close to the road. Surprisingly, we did not find one single Ocotea foetens in this part of the park although valleys like those, where we found our tallest trees, should be the very habitat of Ocotea. Its wood is valuable, so it is possible O. foetens has been exhausted by logging before the establishment of the park. Perhaps just O. foetens trees were felled from the ?valleys of disappointment?.
EVALUATION OF THE MEASURED MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
Are the maximum heights we measured remarkable or even exceptional for the species? I try to evaluate this by comparing them with the height ranges given by these identification books:
Schönfelder, P. (2012): Die Kosmos-Kanarenflora. Kosmos.
Hohenester, A. & Welss, W. (1993): Exkursionsflora für die Kanarischen Inseln. Ulmer.
Press, J. R. & Short, M. J. (1994): Flora of Madeira. The Natural History Museum, London.
Below our max. heights followed by the heights given by the books:
Laurus novocanariensis 28.3 m -- 15-25 m ------- up to 20 m -- up to (10-) 20 m
Persea indica ------------ 31.7 m -- up to 30 m --- up to 40 m -- up to 15 (-25 m)
Ilex canariensis --------- 21 m ----- 5-10 m -------- up to 10 m -- to 6.5 m
Erica arborea ------------ 22.2 m -- 4-12 (-20) m - up to 15 m -- usually up to 5 m but sometimes more
In the light of this information, I argue:
Our record Persea indica is not exceptional for the species.
Our record Laurus and Erica are tall for the species but not necessarily exceptional.
Our record Ilex canariensis is exceptional for the species.
FINAL WORDS
Much more measuring is needed before we really know the height potentials of the laurisilva trees. Most species also remain completely unmeasured by reliable methods. For possible new explorations, I suggest the following sites as promising locations for tall trees:
Valleys above Meriga along the El Cedro ? Meriga road. We had not time to go there.
The trail along Barranco del Cedro in the both directions from Mimbreras. The forest looked promising but we had no time to go further.
The heights were measured with Nikon Laser 550A S instrument.
If you ever get back to Gomera... for Ocotea, try the Forestal de la Meseta forest dirt road. It's SW of Vallehermoso, leaving the main road from VH up to Epina de Chorros. The first section of the dirt road is unexciting open countryside, but it does eventually get onto good, old forest. There are some large Ocotea at a bend of the dirt road after c.1.5km, at 28°9'16.97"N 17°17'31.18"W (see GoogleEarth etc.)
I have a small book called Árboles y Arbustos de la Laurisilva Gomera (1982), which says:
Ocotea -
"can reach up to 25-30m"
"altitude 800-950m"
"in the Meseta de Vallehermoso (Cueva Encantada*, Canada de los Madronos*...) there are pure stands of til, represented in the arboreal layer by magnificent specimens with thick and straight trunks".
*Cueva Encantada is somewhere along/near the forest section of the Forestal de la Meseta dirt road.
*Canada de los Madronos - I cannot find a location for this at all.
Erica arborea -
"in very advanced stages of recovery of the laurisilva, it [Erica] reaches up to 20 m"
"it is worth noting the presence of huge specimens, up to more than 20 m in height, in a fayal-brezal stabilized in Canada de Jorge* and in Palo de Salta*".
*Canada de Jorge is about 28° 8'48.75"N 17°17'51.18"W. I think the path to it from the central road starts at 28° 8'51.67"N 17°17'27.26"W (see Google StreetView).
*Palo de Salta is somewhere about 28° 9'46.22"N 17°17'49.38"W.
Thank you very much! I have saved your information into my files for the future.
KoutaR, am 2018-01-27 13:00:33, geändert am 2018-01-27 13:03:56, hat gesagt:
Hi Lance,
First, sorry that I am reporting my measurements only after more than a year after my exploration. I was on La Gomera on October 2016 and visited also La Meseta de Vallehermoso. Indeed, a beautiful forest dominated by Ocotea. The tallest tree I found was 32.5 m tall:
Below an updated table of my top measurements by species and corresponding data from the identification books listed above.
Laurus novocanariensis 30.3 m -- 15-25 m --------- up to 20 m -- up to (10-) 20 m
Persea indica ------------ 31.7 m -- up to 30 m ----- up to 40 m -- up to 15 (-25 m)
Ocotea foetens ---------- 32.5 m -- to 30 m --------- to 40 m ------ up to 30 (-40) m
Ilex canariensis --------- 28 m ----- 5-10 m ---------- up to 10 m -- to 6.5 m
Myrica faya -------------- 24.6 m --- 4-10 (-20) m --- ? -------------- up to 8 m
Erica arborea ------------ 22.2 m -- 4-12 (-20) m --- up to 15 m -- usually up to 5 m but sometimes more
Sambucus palmensis --- 10.7 m --- 4-6 m ------------ ?
All these trees are on MT.
Above I claimed that our 21-metre Ilex canariensis would be exceptional but apparently the data in the identification books is simply incorrect. The species is an important component of “Fayal-Brezal” formation on the upper slopes where it likely attains only 10 m but it is common on lower elevations, too, where it becomes much taller.
I don’t believe on the heights of 40 m for Ocotea and Persea, at least not on La Gomera. They develop the largest basal burls and without reliable height measuring methods it has perhaps been supposed that they also grow remarkably taller than the other species. In contrary, the max. heights of the other species have been underestimated.
Above I wrote: "I don’t believe on the heights of 40 m for Ocotea and Persea, at least not on La Gomera". At least Ocotea seems to get slightly taller in Madeira.
Not sure what this is but cannot upload a photo tonight as no 'Browse' appearing. 21 metre Betula pendula next to it (county champion for height-South Yorkshire) 26 metre Quercus petraea (county champion for height-South Yorkshire) and Quercus robur 26.4 metres (County champion for South Yorkshire) in the same bit of woodland.
Hello Michael, nice to hear from you. This was last year and the date that you had climbed this tree had just slipped my mind, it wasn't September 2017 but June 2017, I now remember asking you if you thought that the tree had added any height for 2017 and you said that it was just budding. If the growth rate remained consistant that may put the height now at 67.3, 67.4 metres rather then 67 metres. Would you be able to add some of your photos of the climb, they were fascinating. particularly the ones of you at the top. Thanks.
Hello Owen, cannot get the 'browse' to appear so cannot upload a photo but this is a fine tree, not spectacularly tall but a wide, fine speciman, county champion for height-South Yorkshire. In the same location are a number of 10 metre Holly trees, a 7.4 metre Sambucus nigra 45 cm girth, a 30 metre Common Lime 300 cm girth with a 17 metre Taxus baccata next to it, a 21 metre Cedrus atlantica 300 cm girth, a 24 metre 376 cm girth Cedrus libani, all county champions for height-South Yorkshire. On the golf course also a couple of Aesculus hippocastanum of 21 metres, current height champion for South Yorkshire.
This photo illustrates how accurate photo measuring can be if you pull far back enough from the tree and know the height of the person, thing that you are using to work out the measurement. The Aygo is 7mm in the photo, the tree 115mm giving a height from photo of 25.04 metres, pretty good for accuracy compared to the laser and estimating the base position at that in the photo.
I will report the other county height champions here rather than individually.
26 metre Beech on the left, county champion for height-South Yorkshire
29.2 metre Ash behind the Sycamore, base in a small gully and basal vegetation so likely near 30 metres, county champion for height-South Yorkshire.
9.8 metre Hazel on the right of the photo, couldn't isolate the tallest shoots against a neighbouring elm of 14 metres so likely at least 10 metres. County champion for height-South Yorkshire.
What tools do you use to help with the image processing to work out the height? I think I have seen someone try to use the same approach to work out tree taper.
This is another one, measured the tree on the corner as 45 metres using yours truly standing next to it in the photo as a guide, 45 metres with the laser from the same position. If you can get far enough back and know the exact height of the person or thing in the photo then photo measuring can be very accurate.
I wonder if this fine stand is still standing (entered the reading incorrectly, I picked a tree out with the laser, others may have been marginally taller. A large part of the stand looked poor, brown and sickly looking (bottom photo), fungal infection most likely. A great shame as a sheltered position with great potential for 60 metres.
Hi Kouta and all others interested in height records!
Yesterday i did a short visit in the only wood in Styria with several large Pseudotsuga menziesii, some of with more than 1m DBH. This wood is in about 1.5km from my home in Frohnleiten, still i rarely get to there. There are in about 50 trees, which were recently counted and signed by numbers with colour. When walking up the wooded slope i tried to estimate the largest "Douglasia" (avoiding naming as "fir"). When in about 30m above the ground where large trees have been planted, the (hardly visible) top of one seemed to be further 30m higher. Thus i got reason to believe that highest Pseudotsuga in this small, apparent experimental forest, might be even 60m in height!
There might be (some of) the highest trees in Styria, respectively in Austria. The current height records at MT for Pseudotsuga in Austria are dwarfed in comparison. I got no equipment and experience in measuring heights, and this will be quite tricky from inside of the wood. You may find the exact position here at Google Map. There are some further trees of comparable height quite close (till about 100m) to the west.
Apart of these planted Pseudotsuga i do know several places with high grown native trees, certainly some Picea and Abies +50m, Fagus (+ other Dicots) +40 (45?)m. Unfortunately i got no time to start measuring of heights.
It would be nice to say the least to get this Douglas stand measured, anyone close enough with a laser to have a go? Could you put some photos on Erwin, or have you already?
The shapes and shadows do look big on the satellite photo Erwin, also some emergent shapes next to the S35 opposite Komptech. A photo from the field to the left of your trees would be interesting to see.
Agreed, it was useful to get reliable height data for those trees, as they are truly unusual for the region, so there will be champions amongst. I thought about asking the forest management of the owning family which got vast woods and companies in Styria, including Mayr-Melnhof Karton industries. They shall have numbered and counted remaining Douglas-firs, as this stand will have been thinned since planting.
When i visited and took a few photos, there were several large branches cut down from crown high up, got no idea for what purpose. Perhaps they took height measurings, or at least were interested to know about?
I see no reason why this species could grow tall in Austria in a high rainfall area say the Alps. Also I am not surprised if Abies procera would thrive in alpine climate similar to the Cascades in US.
I think the climate in the Alps is more continental than those on the Pacific Coast Ranges and the UK. Also the high rainfall areas are likely at so high elevations that the climate is too cold for optimal growth.
Hm, i do not study and compare regional or local climates in detail, but you will be right that in general the climate close to N American Pacific coast and at British Isles will be more humid, oceanic than with Austrian Alps. For sure precipitation at higher altitudes is increased, still growth season is shorter, average temperatures lower and wind speed higher. Despite there are surely many favorable sites at lower elevation and humid, oceanic climate, as e.g. at foot of mountain ranges, where clouds do lose their load frequently, so called "Staulagen".
In other words, local climates may allow exotic conifers to reach considerable heights comparable to UK, but not neccessarily to W USA and Canada.
I liked to ask Mayr-Melnhof forest management about height measurings by chance, perhaps someone is interested?
Oceaniny is not only humidity, more important for tree growth are equable temperatures. Rainfall must be sufficient and reliable, not more. Eccessive rainfall makes soil more acidic and leaches nutrients, and cloudy periods decrease the received light and photosynthesis. For example, it has been found that redwoods in California grow better in the years with LESS rainfall because they get more sunshine then.
A simple measure of oceanity is the difference between the highest and the lowest mean monthly temperatures. You find climate data e.g. here:
https://en.climate-data.org/
Write a locality in the search field, top right. A few examples:
Dingle, westernmost Ireland - January mean: 6.6, July mean: 14.8, difference 8.4 (shown under the table)
Leipzig - January mean: -0.3: July mean: 18.1, difference 18.4
Moscow - January mean: -9.2: July mean: 18.4, difference: 27.6
The author is not the only person that has noticed that the climates in western North America (redwoods, Douglas-firs etc.) and SE Australia (tall eucalypts) are similar. He has studied the climate parameters of the locations where over 90-metre trees have been reported and searched for other regions that would be capable to grow super-tall trees having similar climates (e.g. western Europe). I should perhaps agree with the author as he is Finnish but there are some weakness in his theory, notable:
1. The discovery of the 93-metre Shorea tree in Sabah (in a totally different climate) destroyes the theory almost completely.
2. The map showing the potential tall tree regions include some regions where the natural vegetation is rather shrubland than forest.
I think it is more like a coincidence that the two regions with the tallest trees have similar climates. The factors contributing to extreme tree heights must be much more complex, including historical factors. However, the article shows that the tall tree regions are in regions where temperatures are equable, not necessarily where rainfalls are the highest.
Yes I would agree that equable climate is most important. Perhaps another region where tall trees could grow is southwest parts of South America i.e Chile and Argentina? These regions apart from southeast Asia are in the mid latitudes but it has to have the right combination of low average wind speeds to allow trees to reach 80-100m tall, with equable climate, shelter, good soils, an evenly distributed rainfall.
Large areas in Chile & Argentina are shown in Larjavaara's map. Copy the link from my last message and see the map on page 4 (or 347). However, this is one example where the map shows also shrublands (southeastern Argentina).
Yes, Taxodium distichum. No reason for them to be as rare as they are in your part of Yorkshire, as the summers you get are long and warm enough for them to grow quite well, as this one shows.
Could I ask a few further questions about the Nikon lasers and specifically their beams?
'I estimate the beam of my Nikon 550 A S is about 8cm wide at a distance of 11.5 metres (4cm above and 4cm below the middle point) I tested hand held' (Kouta)
The aperture of laser exit on the Nikon Forestry Pro is 2.3cm
Kouta, you have done the research into this and probably understand it all more than anyone. You said that the beam may not be round but seldom is measuring done sideways, the above and below the centre point is going to be the important figure although that depends, it it? At 100 metres you estimated the beam width would be 70 cm, would that make the beam width at 50 metres 35 cm wide? 50 metres is probably a common distance to measure from for conifers and also for tall deciduous trees with flattish tops where you are tryng to see on to the top. If you have a beam width of 35 cm at 50 metres, which part of that 35 cm width are you going to get the reading from? The laser works by picking up reflected beams which will be beams hitting the object at 90 degrees and bouncing back towards and into the laser receiver. Even if a leaf is at 45 degrees to the laser and reflects the beams off at 45 degrees, there will be or may be an edge at 90 degrees to the laser which will reflect back. Just trying to work through this logically but what I really want to know is if you have a 35 cm beam width which bit of that beam is the laser recording for? If you aim the middle of the crosshair at a tree tip from 50 metres, are you recording a reading from that tip or 17.5 metres lower down the tip at the lower edge of the beam? The same with the base measurement, if you aim at a spot on the base with the middle of the crosshairs, where is the laser recording from? Is it that spot or 17.5 cm higher than that spot at the top of the beam width or 17.5 cm lower at the bottom of the beam width? These distances are going to add up, if you are 17.5 cm out on the tip reading and 17.5 cm out on the base reading that could be a potential discrepancy of 35 cm, more at greater distances like 70 metres? Can you or anyone clarify? Thanks.
With all respect for Kouta he is not a laser technician. Perhaps Karlheinz has done more research to this topic, but some American users like Bob Leverett and Michael Taylor for sure also.
In fact there will be technicians, Mathematicians and Physicists from factories in optical instruments and universities who will be able to give the best answeres.
Very probable is that a wide beam laser like the Nikon 550 and Pro will not give a very secure reading from 50 m or more, just because of the wide beam and also because of the inbuilt clinometre, wich will give a rather large error margin. So don't expect better than 50 cm margin at such a distance.
The expensive infrared instrument of Karlheinz (with a narrow beam) gives a better error margin for distances.
also Karlheinz hat Lochblenden aufgebaut und mit dem Laser hindurch auf ein Ziel gemessen. Er hat die Entfernung untereinander und auch die Größe der Löcher an der Blende geändert. Er kann darüber bestimmt etwas genaueres sagen. Ich werde ihn mal Informieren, vielleicht schreibt er dann was hier.
Hello Jeroen, I accept that Kouta isn't an expert and probably acknowledges that himself but he definitely deserves great credit for the research and tests that he has done. I accept that the Nikon lasers have a margin of error but what I am trying to do or ask is if there is a way that we can limit the margin of error to the minimum? The type of equipment which Karlheinz and others use is beyond the scope of most amateur tree measurers I suspect. The tall conifers of most interest, I use the hovering technique with the Nikon to try and get a reading from the edge of the beam and hopefully also hitting the apex tip of the tree. Is this a way of at least attempting to reduce the margin of error? The base, looks like there is no way to cut down on the margin of error if the beam is 35 cm wide at 50 metres? Which bit of that 35 cms had recorded or records the reading? I wonder if the disc of card with a central hole in it would work has Kouta suggested? The laser is picking up the reflected beams through the same opening as the beam is fired from, would a small central hole make picking up the reflected beams very difficult? The hole in the card would have to be perfectly alligned with the beam I suspect.
Probably the best technicians with data would be those from Nikon itself but are they liable to give an honest answer or at least acknowledge the limitations of their instruments?
Unsere Puls-Laser-Geräte wie Nikon 550AS, Nikon Forestry Pro oder auch TruPulse 200X sind keine präzisen Messgeräte, sondern Handgeräte für die schnelle Messung. Auch deren integrierte Neigungsmesser sind keine Spitzenprodukte. Ich selber habe keine Ausrüstung, um den Messkegel sichtbar zu machen und die Strahlbreite zu bestimmen. Von den Herstellern konnte ich seinerzeit keine verbindlichen Aussagen darüber erhalten.
Auch mein TruPulse 200X hat im Vergleich zu den Messgeräten mit sichtbarem roten Laser (von Leica und Bosch) einen breiten Strahlenkegel, wenn auch weniger breit als bei den Nikons. Den Toleranzbereich eines Messwertes würde ich nach meiner Erfahrung beim 550AS im Vergleich zum 200X mit etwa dem 3-fachen angeben. Das 200X hat jedoch präzise einstellbare Filter, die Reflexionen im Bereich vor dem Ziel ausblenden können. So lassen sich auch durch enge Lochblenden hindurch noch gute Messwerte vom Ziel dahinter erfassen. So läßt sich im Wald durch „Clutter“ hindurch noch gut messen, wo es mit den Nikons sehr schwer wird.
Genauere Messergebnisse sind mit hochpräzisen Tachymetern möglich, wie sie professionelle Landvermesser verwenden. Deren teure Tachymeter sind auch mit integrierten Lasern ausgestattet. Aber auch ohne Laser nur mit rein trigonometrischen Messmethoden und Berechnungen (vertikales oder horizontales Hilfsdreieck) kann man mit solchen Tachymetern wesentlich genauere Ergebnisse erzielen als mit unseren Geräten (nach meiner Einschätzung um vielleicht eine Zehnerpotenz genauer). Ein Beispiel sind die Messungen des Vermessungsamtes Freiburg bei Waldtraut vom Mühlenwald.
Sorry, I did not translate to English, because I spend more time to take care of my young Grandchildren and play with!
Our pulse laser devices such as Nikon 550AS, Nikon Forestry Pro or TruPulse 200X are not precise measuring instruments, but handheld devices for fast measurement. Also their integrated inclination knives are not top products. I myself do not have any equipment to make the measuring cone visible and to determine the beam width. I was not able to obtain any binding information about the manufacturers at the time.
Also my TruPulse 200X has a broad beam cone compared to the measuring devices with visible red laser (from Leica and Bosch), although less wide than with the nikons. The tolerance range of a measured value I would in my experience with the 550AS compared to the 200X with approximately 3 times. However, the 200X has precisely adjustable filters that can hide reflections in the area before the target. In this way, good measured values can also be captured from the target behind these through narrow apertures. So in the forest through "clutter" is still good, where it is very difficult with the nikons.
Precise measurement results are possible with high-precision tachymeters as used by professional land surveyors. Their expensive tachymeters are also equipped with integrated lasers. But even without laser only with purely trigonometric methods of measurement and calculations (vertical or horizontal auxiliary triangle) one can achieve with Tachymeternes much more accurate results than with our devices (in my estimation perhaps a ten-point more accurate). One example is the measurements taken by the Surveying Office Freiburg near Waldtraut vom Mühlenwald.
What I was trying to get from this discussion is what is/was the optimum way to use the Nikon lasers to get the level of innaccuracy to the minimum? The Nikons are probably less accurate but conversely if they were not being used then a massive number of trees would have not been found and measured. Certainly all the trees that I have found and measured as I could still not justify spending thousands on a laser.
Back to the Nikons, I suppose the ranges of measurements which come with measuring trees in my now three year experience of using the Forestry Pro, for example range 49.8-50.2 metres for a tree, comes partly or even mostly from which part of the beam reflected back the laser receiver picks up with the Nikons having the wider beams. You do get absolute repeated measurements but much more often not than so. I am going to continue the 'hovering' over the tips of important trees as if you do hit the absolute apex of the tree it is most likely the lower edge of the beam which is hitting and hence the laser beam width would effectively be reduced. The base, little can be done to make this more accurate even when aiming at precisely the same spot as because of the laser beam breadth the return could be coming from 17.5 cm higher or lower than the point at which you are aiming ( at 50 metres distance) for example.
You said I have done "research" on the beam width. I would not say it research, rather I just explained a method how you could measure/estimate the width and done a quick hand-held estimate at my home. The result is certainly not accurate. I think you could measure/estimate the width more accurately if you did it carefully with a greater distance, using my method. You should support the laser something, to a tripod for example.
About your actual question on the aiming point: That's a topic we have discussed many times and I think we don't have a definitive answer. A major part of the problem is the biggest weakness of Nikon (in my opinion): the farthest mode (distance priority mode) does not function properly. If it did, we would aim at the tip and the laser would return the distance to the tip, not to a point below the tip (if there is another twig behind the tip, that's another problem...). We have recommended to aim above the tip that the laser would return the correct distance to the tip but then the angle is too steep. We have proposed it is more important to get the right distance as the angle would differ only little but I am not sure anymore. You could test it like this:
1. Use a flagpole or similar rather than a tree that you have no potential error sources from additional twigs.
2. Support your laser to a tripod or similar.
3. Measure the distance to the top aiming above the tip so that the lowest part of the beam just hits the tip.
4. Measure the angle to the top aiming EXACTLY to the tip.
5. From these separate measurements, calculate the height above the laser (distance * sin angle). This should be the correct height.
6. Now measure the height using Nikon's vertical distance measurement (measuring distance and angle simultaneously). Take two (sets of) measurements: one with aiming exactly to the tip, another aiming above the tip so that the lowest part of the beam just hits the tip. Which measurement is closer to the result you got in the step 5? That's the answer to your question.
You are focussing on the part of the beam wich is hitting an object. What you probably know is that a basic laser instruments first measures the distance to the object by measuring the reflection time wich has passed. That is without measuring the angle and the width of the beam does not alter this distance significant.
The Nikon Forestry 550 / Pro etc as well as the impulse 200 also measure the angle of the beam compared with the horizontal plane, wich it will get from gravity. This is a digital inclinometre. I suppose this will be a source of variation in the measurements also with a handheld instrument. So I doubt if trying to make the beam of your laser narrower will make the error / variation less.
The instruments Karlheinz writes about will work from a tripod making the inclinometre more precise.
Hello Kouta, nice to hear from you. I will attempt what you have put forward at some point, just trying to think if there is a flagpole or something similar around here. Need a Totem Pole like the one that Stephen tested his new laser with at Virginia Water. The true height of that was known as well. Would have been easy to test the Nikon with that one aiming with the crosshair centre at the pole tip and then above it.
Hello Jeroen, yes I was aware of the time indicating the distance, that is how they know that the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, the time taken for the beam to return from the laser fired at the moon at the object left on the surface. Even a distance of 17.5 cm above or below on a conifer tip for example, the time and hence the distance would be slightly different. This surely does explain the usual range of measurements that you get with the Nikons, always a range in my three years experience now. The Distant Priority Mode definitely cannot be relied on, I have clear evidence with that from the start when measuring the 51 metre Sequoiadendron at Hebden Wood up the hill. 55 metres when firing through fine branches which supposedly the mode could cope with, 51 metres when I clambered up and removed the said branches to give a clean, uninterupted window, view into the base.
Just continuing this and thinking about it further and assuming Kouta's tests are fairly accurate and the beam would be 35 cm wide at 50 metre measuring distance. Considering that the laser measures the time the beam reflects to calculate distance, if you are looking up at a 60 metre tree tip and aiming at the tip, the distance at the edge of the beam 17.5 cm below where you aimed the middle of the crosshair is going to be less back to the laser and hence the return time less. Is the shortest distance, the first thing that the beam hits going to provide the distance measurement? If it is then that is going to mean that the Nikon lasers undermeasure if you look up and aim the middle of the crosshairs at the actual tip. Aiming at the base you are going to be just about level with base most of the time but you are certainly not going to be level with the tree tip 95% of the time plus. It would seem or point to the optimum way to measure using the Nikons is to hover the laser over the tip and not aim at it thus automatically cutting the beam width at the top of the tree at least.
You did not react at the key point in my last post: the Nikon instrument you and I are using is not a simple laser rangefinder, but a combined laser hypsometer with a calculator within.
The people who started with laser measuring of tree heights in the Sine style, did this with three separate instruments:
1. a laser rangefinder just measuring the straight distance to a treetop (D)
2. an inclinometer or just called clinometer like the mechanical Suunto climometer, wich is just measuring the angle from your eye-point to the same treetop compared with a horizontal axis (a)
3. a calculator doing the necessary mathemathics to calculate the height difference between vour eye point and the top of the tree: A = D1 * sin a
See this website: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/measuringheight/#sinemethod .
Our Nikons are all three combined in one instrument.
To my opinion it is not the distance measuring were is the weakness of the Nikons, but the angle measurement by the inclinometer.
Many American tree measurers still use the separate instruments. These are better to understand the whole procedure.
The Impulse instrument Kouta and Karlheinz have are also combined instruments, but of better quality.
The point is that the difference in straight distance between the centre and the lower or upper side of the beam is rather small, it is the difference in angle wich is larger.
Also when you use a hand held inclinometer this is moving up and down (you can see this with a mechanical inclimometer, wich is just like a level used for making things horizontal: when you hold it in your hand it is moving all the time).
Jeroen
RedRob, am 2017-05-29 16:22:39, geändert am 2017-05-29 16:24:17, hat gesagt:
This all started because I had an email discussion about the Nikon Forestry Pro with Michael (Spraggon), he now has a Nikon but hasn't used it much yet to get to know it's eccentricities, nuances. I said that I would put a post on here to get ideas and advice from you guys, particularly about aiming above the tree tip instead of directly at it.
Hello Jeroen, acknowledged about the inclinometer. I always carry, hold the Nikon and try to cushion it when I am walking to minimise any damage through the movement that you explained here, also stand and hold the laser for a while before I do measure to cut down on movement but acknowledge your point. The point about the width of the beam still stands though, 35cm wide beam, the lowest part of the beam is going to hit first looking up at a tree to give the distance measurement and that measurement is going to be out by possibly 17.cm too low. Some tips I think that could be useful
Hold the laser still for a minute before you use it possibly, to cut down any unnecessary movement in the inclinometer before you start.
Roll the finger over the button instead of pressing down directly on it, something that I have always practiced as said before as the laser definitely does not move as much. Even a slight movement up and down of the laser at the point of pressing may affect the line of the beam. Possibly not so much as I had thought now as I didn't know that the beam could be 35cm at 50 metres distance.
Aim above the tip of the tree to cut down the beam width?
Let the CR2 battery recover, do not do too many measurements repetitively at once as the laser will start throwing up stupid measurements. A few measurements, let the battery recover for a while.
I've finally joined MT. (My username wasn't accepted until I added 123 at the start and took out spaces between words.)
My comments on the accuracy of rangefinder/clinometers, and suggestions for compensating mathematically are as follows:
As Jeroen said, the device is a combination of a laser (which only measures distances) and a clinometer (which only measures the angle of tilt of the device).
I don’t think the device is able to know which part of the diverging beam has hit the object. If you are finding that the beam hits the top when you are aiming the crosshairs above it due to the divergence of the beam then you will have measured the correct distance but an angle steeper than the true angle.
The other thing to bear in mind is: when you are holding the device and you tilt you head from looking at the top you looking as the base, you are actually moving the laser/receiver by a vertical height of around 15-20cm, so this needs to be taken into account too!
...so to calculate the error in the top reading due to a diverging beam of 0.7m/100m:
You will never catch just the absolute edge of the beam, and the device may not pick up so little of it anyway, so I assume a radius of divergence of less than 0.35m/100m. Let’s assume 0.30m.
Thus, for a distance to the top of Y, and an angle of A to the top, the over height measured by aiming as far above the top as possible to get a reading will be:
Y * cos[A] * [0.30/100] metres.
For the base measurement, I assume you are aiming the crosshairs at the true base point on a fairly flat vertical trunk at a shallow angle relative to the device, so almost no compensation is necessary for the base measurement.
If you then subtract about 0.15m for the device being raised as you tilt your head upwards (based on about 50° tilt) the two inaccuracies almost cancel each other out, which is probably why I’ve witnessed laser measurements (by Jeroen, Kouta and David Alderman, taken at the same time as my climbing) within a few cm of my tape measurements.
Maybe I will see some of you in September at the ECTF event in London...
I made myself the test I proposed in an earlier message on this thread. I measured a pole on the roof of the house I live in. I used Nikon Laser 550A S (almost identical with Nikon Forestry 550) and TruPulse 200X on a tripod. While admitting 200X is not a perfectly accurate instrument, I used it as a reference as it is at least somewhat more accurate than Nikon.
First I measured the distance to the pole tip with 200X aiming as much above the tip as possible for eliminating the possibility that the laser would return the distance to a part below the true tip. The distance was 19.62 m.
Then I measured the angle with 200X aiming the crosshairs at the true tip. The angle was 47.25 degrees (average of several measurements 47.2-47.3 degrees).
So the true height above the laser was 14.41 m.
Then I shot 10 shots with Nikon's vertical height routine aiming the crosshairs at the true tip. The average height was 14.40 m (range 14.2-14.8 m).
I shot again 10 shots, now aiming as much above the tip as possible. The average height was 15.24 m (range 15.2-15.6 m).
Thus according to this test, our old recommendation to aim above the tip for catching the true tip is wrong! I must apologize as I was one of them who claimed that would be the right way to measure with Nikon. Of course, some of us would have had to do this test a long time ago as it is a simple one and also doable with Nikon only. The extent how much the results differ surprised me, too. I have compared my old Nikon measurements with measurements done with more accurate instruments and the mean error was only +0.1 m (some too high, others too low). The reason must be related to the fairly steep angle in this test, which increases the angle error, perhaps also to the relatively short distance. Important is not to accept the highest measurement but a mean of, for example, 10 measurements (originally Jeroen's idea).
I also made the same test with 200X' vertical height routine. Aiming the crosshairs at the true tip resulted in an average of 14.35 (range 14.34-14.35 m) and aiming as much above the tip as possible resulted in an average of 14.42 (range 14.31-14.64 m). Thus, surprisingly the results were opposite here though close to each others. As I write this it occurs to me that I may have been too busy with my first test with 200X, accepting the first numbers it gave. 200X keeps searching for greater distances if you continue pushing the button. So I may have accepted the first number (14.34-14.35 m). Had I continued pushing the button, it might have given the correct figure, but this is speculation. I won't do the text again!
I conclude that Nikon is still a good instrument for our purposes if properly used. Some Nikon's features are even better than those of 200X, particularly the display (in my opinion).
Michael, great to meet you on MT! You are right about the head tilting error. I have usually used tripod with Nikon, too, and corrected the error by measuring the difference (usually 20 cm) in the position of tripod head.
nice you join at MT and your explanation is very clear! I intend to go to the ECTF meeting in London in September, so great to see you also there! I don't know if Rob is interested to come there, as they will not visit the tall conifers of the west. But Owen is also coming, he will give a lecture and be a guide in Kew gardens.
Also good Kouta did some tests. Because the Nikon measurements often were near climbing + tape measurements, I had some confidence in them. I had not expected the difference when aiming as high as possible would be so large, good to have the comparison now.
I don't think to visit Wales this year, but perhaps next year there is a possibility.
Jeroen
RedRob, am 2017-05-30 16:19:38, geändert am 2017-05-30 16:38:54, hat gesagt:
Warm welcome Michael, good old 123 saved the day.
This is a fascinating discussion, I think so anyway others may not. Your experiments and advice are greatly valued Kouta so certainly no need to apologise. Been looking back and the only trees that I can find that I have measured that I can compare to those of the more experienced measurers are these:
This one. The 37 metre Beech at Lake Vyrnwy which Jeroen measured as Welsh champion and I also got 37 metres for a few years ago. Interestingly the Larch and Sequoiadendron readings are the top readings that I got when hovering the crosshairs over the tip?? The Larch was a Welsh champion and an important tree to I went for the hovering measurement and the top reading was only the same as Jeroen's reading from several years earlier? This year I got 44.2 metres as top reading so went with that has thought the tree probably had added abit of height. The Seqy I only got 45.8 metres as top reading? The only thing that I can think of is that I aimed at a higher part of the base or that there was abit of vegetation in the way of the base? The Seqy was a clean reading on the base, there was vegetation in front of the Larch.
Does anyone with better knowledge than myself fancy registering here and asking one of the Nikon technicians just how wide the Nikon laser beams are and how much they diverge with distance? I am also interested in the type of inclinometer which the Nikons actually contain, how much they are affected or are going to be affected by movement as you carry them and in the movement up to the tip of the tree? I have not been using these instruments that long comparative so do not have the technical knowledge of the longer using tree measurers on here, how will it work in the Nikon? You aim at the base, press the button, the inclinometer registers that point. You then move up to the tip, it then registers a second point and then calculates the angle between the two lines. This is correct so far? If the inclinometer is wobbling about at the second point when you press the button for the tip, the angle will be out slightly, is that correct?
The only things that I can think of that I could experiment on around my road are street lamps but do not know their accurate height? Possibly will contact the council and ask.
One possibility why the difference between the "crosshairs at the tip" and the "hovering" measurements in my test was bigger than we have experienced when measuring trees: the pole on my roof is probably much easier for laser to get a return than a tall tree top. So I may have get a return with a very lowest part of the beam that a tree twig cannot return.
Anyway, I now recommend we should aim the crosshairs at the tip, not above it.
Kouta
RedRob, am 2017-05-30 16:43:06, geändert am 2017-05-30 16:43:41, hat gesagt:
Yes I agree Kouta, I have usually chickened out anyway with most of the really important trees and gone with a a lower average. I have just looked at my notes and the Seqy at Vrynwy was a clean base reading but there was low vegetation in front of the Larch. I have just changed the info above, interesting though because in this experiment there is practically no difference or in fact no difference with aiming at the top and hovering over it. Just for interest Michael mentions in his post above that his climb heights have been very close the laser measurements of yourself and Jeroen, were these tip readings or hovering over tip readings for these trees?
About my measurements, I think Michael means the tallest Norway spruce, that was close indeed. I think it was a hovering measurement. However, it is not very well comparable because we defined the mid-slope point only after my laser-measurement and the point may have been too high (if I recall the situation well enough, the point was a bit high).
After all, it should be good news for all that the "crosshairs at the tip" is the right way, as it is easier to do.
Rob, to your previous message - I think you are one of the most experienced laser-measurers here - don't be too modest! At least you have measured more trees than myself.
There were one misunderstanding in your message: the system does not calculate the angle between the base and top but between these points and the horizontal line. It is well explained here (largely by Jeroen):
But yes, if the inclinometer is wobbling it registers a false angle. You see that from the fact that the height measurements (and angle measurements) differ from one measurement to the next although the point you are aiming at stays the same.
Do you have a long measuring tape? You can measure for example the height to a balcony...
I have registered and submitted queries to the Nikon technicians so it will be interesting to see what they say the Nikon beam width is? I have asked them what we have been talking about, which bit of a 35cm beam (as a reference example) would hit the tree and send back the reading, aiming at a tall conifer tip with a 35 cm beam when the lower part of that beam would have to be the bit that makes the first hit by logical physics, would it be the part of the beam that returned the reading.
What I am still struggling abit to completely understand is if the two angles are combined, Sin Angle a above the horizontal line from the eye and laser + Sin Angle b below the horizontal line b from the eye and laser, how does the laser measure the vertical separation between two points when you are standing lower than the base of the tree and the horizontal line from the eye and laser is lower then the tree base? I have measured many trees when standing several metres below the level of the base, it works well in my experience to about 5 metres below base level, any lower than that then the laser irresistably wants to measure the horizontal line and not up to the tree base? Can the laser measure a reverse Sin Angle b in effect calculating angle up from horizontal line to the base of the tree and then combining with the angle from the base to the tree tip?
RedRob, am 2017-06-07 12:21:31, geändert am 2017-06-07 12:42:58, hat gesagt:
I have had a reply back from Nikon, quote
'Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately we cannot advise outside of the listed specification for beam divergence, which is outlined in the manual as Vertical: 25° - 36°, Horizontal: 5° - 8°. There is no further information we can offer on this matter'
I have looked through my manual and this is on page 18 at the bottom when I have re-read through and searched. The online manual says a completely different thing though
The info in my manual and from the technician makes sense in that it uses degrees, what 2.5 and 0.025 implies?
25-36 degrees, 5-8 dgrees, how can you have as varying divergence in the beam?? It is either 25 degrees and continues on that trajectory or 36, how can it vary in a beam? Does it mean that not all the Nikon Forestry Pros have the same degree of divergence?
Assuming that the laser beam eminates from a spot with the degrees of divergence outlined above, what would be the width of the beam at 50 metres with a 25 degree divergence and a 36 degree divergence respectively?
You were right about the beam not being circular Kouta.
I am going to have an experiment, the exit aperture of the laser is 23 mm so perhaps the 25 mm washer could be wedged in squarely at the end. The holes looks pretty accurately cut so should be central. This will cut the beam width of the laser right down to a narrow beam, whether the hole-aperture in the middle of the washer will be big enough to allow reflected beams back through to the receiver? Not sure in which part of the laser aperture the receiver is located, may block all the reflected beams back possibly. Will be interesting to see what would happen, if it works and the washer hole is exact central and big enough to allow reflected beams back through, wouldn't this make the Nikons much more accurate, no ranges of measurements and wondering which part of the wide beam is the bit that is sending back the reading?
Unless!!, the laser beams eminating hit the inside of the tap washer and reflect back to the receiver? The laser does pass through a glass lens on it's way out though so so much of the beam must be reflected back from the glass lens and that doesn't record seemingly. Will be interesting, if others want to try this experiment be my guest.
Thanks for asking Nikon, though there must be mistakes in the figures. A divergence of 25-36 degrees cannot be true, the beam would be 11-16 m wide at 50 m distance. Also, the manual information you quoted is not credible: the vertical divergence cannot be 100 times more than the horizontal. rad is radian (an unit of angle, used instead of degrees), m rad is milliradian, 0.001 radian. The vertical divergence can really be 2.5 milliradians = 0,14 degrees, that would make the beam 12.5 cm wide (or tall) at 50 m. The given divergence might also be the half angle, i.e. 2.5 mrad below and 2.5 mrad above the beam centre; that would make the beam 25 cm wide (or tall) at 50 m.
Nikon does not give any return below 10 m distance, so no problems with beam reflected back from the tap washer.
Rob, to your earlier question about standing lower than tree base. You should try the "one-point measurement" (Hgt showing steadily without flashing), which measures the height above the laser. Then you understand the principle better. If the measured point is below the laser, i.e. the angle and height is negative, you see that from the external display: the angle is shown below the horizontal line. The angle and height are not shown as negative but they are calcuated as so. If you measure a tree with two one-point measurement (one aiming at the top for the part above the laser and another aiming at the base for the part below the laser) you distract the latter measurement from the former. So if you are standing below the base you get e.g. 30 m for the top and 10 m for the base -> the result is 30m - 10m = 20m. If you are standing above the base and you get 30 m for the top and -10 m for the base -> the result is 30m - (-10m) = 30m + 10m = 40m. Nikon's vertical separation mode ("two-point measurement") just makes that calculation for you. Hope this helps.
See http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=235&t=1931 and http://ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1218 for some prior attempts to characterise and improve the beam divergence on laser rangefinders.
Cheers,
Matt
RedRob, am 2017-06-13 15:46:30, geändert am 2017-06-13 16:44:54, hat gesagt:
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/64903/
Well here it is, the removable reduced aperture filter fitted to the Nikon Forestry Pro ('abit o rubber stuck in hol' as we would say here in Yorkshire) Carefully filed the tap washer down measuring with a ruler to check that the hole was near absolute centre as possible. It sits neatly in the laser exit hole and removes easily. I thought about using paper or card as in the test above from ENTS but wondered if some light may be able to penetrate through, with a rubber washer it will definitely absorb any stray light. It also looks infinitely better than a bit of card taped onto the laser. Already tested it with the tree over the road, a Silver Birch which I recorded as 11.4 -11.6 metres in 2012, the result repeatedly came back now as 11.8 metres. The light is able to escape and return through the aperture, it also really gives you confidence when using the Nikon Forestry Pro, you are more confident that the centre of the crosshairs is where the beam is going, hitting. Aimed right at the tip of the tree and didn't hover which is what I will be doing now with the new RAF 'reduced aperture filter' (winks, laughs)
Click on 'speciman' to see a couple of photos of the laser. Stuck them on this tree as this is probably the first tree I intend to check the new RAF fitted to the laser with.
What did the Nikon 440 have for shooting through clutter? Hopefully, well it should be, the Nikon Forestry Pro will be more nimble with a narrower beam able to pass through smaller gaps in the twigs and foliage.
Rand doesn't give much feedback or details of the results when he used the card aperture reducer? Did it result in a tighter range of readings without the usual range which accompanies the Nikons, Forestry Pro at least? It seemed to do with the Silver Bich that I tested over the road from me, that said it was a clean hit on clear base and tip.
RedRob, am 2017-06-13 16:01:45, geändert am 2017-06-13 16:10:09, hat gesagt:
r
RedRob, am 2017-06-13 16:04:02, geändert am 2017-06-13 16:09:37, hat gesagt:
One thing about 440/550 comparison. The ENTS people have claimed 440 has better clutter penetration because it would have extremely narrow beam. I have compared the beam widths of 440 and 550 by testing how much above a shoot it is possible to shoot still getting a measurement. The two instruments did not differ at all, or perhaps only a little. One of them (I don't remember which one) has a greater lens magnification and therefore the comparison is not very simple. I believe 440's better clutter penetration is due to a well-functioning distance priority.
Have a fun with experimenting your tuned 550, Rob!
More news, an update about the aperture reducing filter that I fitted to the Nikon Forestry Pro, the RAF, the tap washer. I have had chance to really test it out and one thing that is clearly apparent now is that with the tap washer in the range of the Forestry Pro is greatly reduced, above 100 metres range I could not get any readings at all. I am estimating that the range of the Nikon Forestry pro with filter fitted is about 70 metres, at 50 metres records normally. It is absolutely no problem as the tap washer removes in a second and then the laser is back to normal range albeit with the much wider beam. Any trees at long distance which you want to get an idea of the height of to see if they are worth taking a closer look at, pop the tap washer out and 'Bob's your uncle'. I suspect that the range is greatly reduced because less of the beam is leaving the laser with the washer fitted and less of the returning beam is collected because the hole through the middle of the washer is so small. Any Nikon technicians looking in a reading this, the simple answer is reduce the beam size in manufacturing but still have the same size beam collection aperture as the Nikons have now. In this way the beam width is reduced right down but the Nikon keeps its range.
At the moment, when uploading photos under 'specific tree' I cannot get the 'browse' box to come up to upload a photo? I wondered if this is a general problem, I noticed that 'forestdynamics' had uploaded his photo for the Loch Awe Sitka in the same way, having to use one of the two other options rather than 'specific tree'.
I think it's a lilac (Syringa cv.) Twigs with fat buds in opposite pairs, visible to left of photo, are more useful than the leaves for identification here.
Hello Erwin, Owen, I seem to have a knack for finding trees that don't look quite right (to me at least it must be) I stood right in front of the shrub in the photo and didn't take it as Syringa vulgaris (I have a purple one in my garden)?
Hello Erwin, this is one that I know about, couldn't remember about any other discussions of tall Douglas, Abies grandis, Sitka etc in Austria? Will have a look at Picea abies in Austria in a moment to remind myself.
the linked tree is probably the highest Mountain Redwood to grow in Austria at time, with a tiny chance to be beaten by Douglas-fir in Styria, my home region in eastern Austria?
As told, i never begun measuring heights of trees, just started a little with taping girths, yet was always fascinated by trees, and plants as a whole! Who knows, perhaps i will begin, just may not predict anything. High growing conifers from W America are hardly ever planted in Austria, saying there are nearby none of Grand fir or Stka spruce, which is said to have proved as badly growing here. I don't know a single Sitka in my home region, but a few apparent A. grandis at area of the formerly well known, long abandoned "Alpengarten Frohnleiten" where lots of exotics had been collected in 2nd half of last century. So there are several relatively young A. grandis at one place, growing rapidly in girth, still have not reached great heights at time.
Douglas-fir is planted little frequently, so in some places i do know. There is one apparent experimental forest at just about 1km distance to my current place, where several Douglas-firs (around 50) had been planted, some with little more than 1m DBH. A few weeks ago i walked through to look for their heights, and i estimated some to be more than 55, perhaps up to 60m in height. I hardly could believe that, so added a short discussion here, got to look for linking later on. These trees are within a closed stand, and even in case i had laser equipment and experience in usage, it surely was most complicated to measure right. So i needed a real expert like you here!
The highest native trees should be Picea abies ahead of Abies alba i do suppose. The former one is likely to reach close to, perhaps up to 60m, the native fir might reach to 55m, perhaps as well 60? So this is just reasonable guessing, yet i can't remember all i had read about highest Austrian trees before.
Perhaps there had been a distinct discussion here, still how to find this? Kouta knows some woods with high trees, including primeval ones, like the "Urwald Rothwald" in Austria, he surely knows a lot about!
apparently the recent issues after site update caused a mixing of age estimations which were added to Sitka-Fichte (Picea sitchensis) '38280' in error. Thus the first two, clearly too old estimations, got to be removed from the Sitka spruce. I don't know if those estimations had been added to right trees as well, or to which trees they shall belong, so we needed to ask the colleagues who added.
@ Tim, the older planting date of 1650 seems to belong to Sommer-Linde (Tilia platyphyllos) '38286' with same estimation. The other one, done by visscher52 could have failed the right tree, at least this user seems not to have added the same estimation later on.
@ RedRob, wrong discussion here, will answer at fitting one.
RedRob, am 2018-11-09 17:09:50, geändert am 2018-11-09 17:12:42, hat gesagt:
Stephen, any of the Tsugas at Coed Y Brenin challenging this tree for height? This is a superb tree, love Tsugas myself, so graceful. Have loved them since a kid when I was shown my first young stand, 10 footish planted at Gouthwaite reservoir in the Dales probably about 1980, now around 20 metres in height when I stuck the laser on them recently so have grown pretty well.
No None this tall Rob, but up at Miners Bridge At Gywdr as you know may exceed this tree in the near future.
Love Hemlock but in forestry stands trees are often harvested before their full potential. Leaving the few in collections which are often not in the best areas for growth/shelter.
I'm sure you could leave a private message on this site, so maybe Tim could help?
No None this tall Rob, but up at Miners Bridge At Gywdr as you know may exceed this tree in the near future.
Love Hemlock but in forestry stands trees are often harvested before their full potential. Leaving the few in collections which are often not in the best areas for growth/shelter.
I'm sure you could leave a private message on this site, so maybe Tim could help?
After Owen's Cotinus the other day, couldn't resist adding this one to MT as it is such a fine speciman which I have admired regularly. They have significantly cut it back and it has been taller than this, at least a metre possibly near two.
Bronzy red Owen, how I would describe them anyway. Visible on Street View in 2012, the owners let it grow and then trim it every other year. They have quite a nice elm in the back garden, not really worth measuring but perhaps 15 metres, plus a Field Maple. Not very keen on measuring trees in people's gardens as you look suspicious, even if you knock at the door and ask they wonder who you are, the expressions on their faces. Measured this one through a chink in the car window pretending to answer the phone.
Hello Owen, tallest that I have so far found in West Yorkshire. Nice clean hit on the base but as said, thin top shoot would not record a reading at all. Growing in amongst a very nice stand of Beech also c30 metres.
Rob an update on this tree. Growing fairly steadily almost 60m now. But the exceptional thing about this tree is the unusually slow taper. It just vaults up like a power station chimney. Its massive! Which leads me to suspect that it is the largest in Wales by trunk volume. I suspect the diameter is still 1 metre at 35-40m off the ground, I would not be surprised that there is 50-60m3 in the trunk alone! The trees at Aberhirnant are not quite so tall but larger in diameter,so who knows, but this is my choice at Vrynwy.
However someone has climbed it!! Urgh!! Placed a Welsh flag at the top! Not good!!
RedRob, am 2018-11-08 17:30:23, geändert am 2018-11-09 16:41:52, hat gesagt:
Batman and Robin will string me up for this one, took several photographs and this was the best that I could do with a 23mp camera from distance from the road to this tree on private land. 100% a willow but has visibly drooping, pendulous branches and a very dark coloured trunk. Yet another of these trees which seem to plague me, looks like Salix x fragilis but never seen one with such pendulous branches, almost like a weeping willow. 25.6 metres into the long grass but couldn't see the actual base as in a ditch.
I think White Willow. Was it raining? The silver under the leaf is duller if it gets wet, and the weight of rain would exaggerate this species' slightly weeping habit.
In agreement with Owen i would vote for Salix alba, in preference to it's hybrid with S. fragilis. I do not expect mixed offspring of S. × sepulcralis or S. babylonica at the site. In case you liked to be cautious you could as well ID as Salix sp.
RedRob, am 2018-11-09 16:41:20, geändert am 2018-11-09 16:45:52, hat gesagt:
Hello Owen, Flaxby Covert I use the willows around Knaresborough as a template, they are very silvery white close up, this one at Owston was a lighty green rather than white. I am a fine weather tree measurer 99% of the time (unless caught out in Wales for example at times, don't like the rain myself and don't like to use the laser in it either), the sun came out about 10 minutes after I took the photo, it was a fine dry day and there had been no rain the previous day. It had a pendulous habit naturally. County champion for South Yorkshire whatever it is.
Hello Stephen, did you visit Aber Hirnant this time? Another difficult place to measure trees, particularly in the grove up the lane to the right of this tree. Your laser will no doubt be more nimble. I spotted one up the bank that looked big but my readings were all over the place, varying by 4 metres so the Nikon beam must have been hitting twigs on the way up. Didn't have the tap washer attachment but even then the tree would probably have been out of range as the Nikon range is limited with it attached. How does the Trupulse clutter filter work, I did many tests with First Target priority mode and Distant Target priority mode on the Seqy up the hill at Hebden with clutter and found no difference in the readings, the beam hit the first twigs it came across.
RedRob, am 2018-11-08 16:55:24, geändert am 2018-11-08 16:56:07, hat gesagt:
Hello Stephen, what a superb location this stand is in, deep shelter from the high hills from the west and north west. I saw this stand last year but didn't measure any trees as they were tightly packed and didn't look near 60 metres I thought, thought was wrong. You have done well to pick out trees to measure. If this stand remains and isn't felled, there will be some very tall trees eventually, especially the trees along the road side with trees sheltering further uphill.
Rest assured Rob the trees along the shoreline will not be felled. Owned by Severn Trent Water and planted about 1887. Some here are 56m, but I noted this one about 15 years ago as being outstanding.
Stephen, do you have a photograph of this tree? What a superb stand, the path through these trees is on Street View and what a superb even stand it looks. The trees look tightly packed together, do you reckon that you measured the tallest? Impressed that you managed to measure in the stand centre. From the A470, the trees at the edge along the Afon Mawddach look impressive. I asked this on another thread recently, can the Trupulse hit the ends of long thin leading shoots and thin shoots in deciduous trees in winter? My experience of the Nikon Forestry Pro is that it will not hit thin twig ends and leading shoots, this is certainly the case with my one anyway? The beam is diverging and probably a thin shoot at distance it possibly is too weak to return for the receiver to record perhaps? Would individual Nikon models vary in setup?
I suspect I measured the tallest, the one I uploaded which was 59.6m.
I suspect the stand is of Coastal British Columbian origin somewhere along the Lower Fraser River just east of Vancouver. But this seed strain appears to be vulnerable to Dothistroma. The good news is that the stand showed signs of recovery, but this maybe a blip. About 5% appeared to be untouched and immune.
As long as I can get a clear line of sight and aim the laser at the tree tip within the crosshair, I should get a target. I need to get a foliage filter to scan through the dense understorey with a reflector at the tree base.
Oh yes the trees are packed together as the stand in the past was underthinned.
Sadly Natural Resources Wales identified 2 trees, the ones which they think are the tallest but sadly they are not. Only 51m apparently! Don't think they appreciate whats in there. The tallest I found 59.6m is gorgeous and by far the best. I'm sure they do not know about the Lawson?
Thanks Stephen, good photo I would say. The clearing in the forest made things easier, the ferns look great. Were you able to get a clean hit on wood at the base, did you clear the vegetation away from the base? What is the dark coloured conifer to the right of your tree?
I would love to see what the crosshair looks like in the Trupulse, a cross with a gap in the middle or is it a full cross?
I haven't used the private messaging on this site but I would like to send you something via email which you will no doubt be interested in, is it possible to supply an email address privately?
The tree in the foreground is a Hemlock, grows like a weed, left to nature and give it 300-400 years this forest would be entirely Hemlock as it is a climax tree species, whereas Douglas a pioneer seeding in after fire/storm. Both species broadly behave the same here as they do in say Washington.
The Trupulse has a crosshair with a circle inside for you to pinpoint a conifer leader tip for example. I really need a foliage filter so I can scan through dense understorey with a reflector, but costs £50.00 for a circular piece of plastic!
Yes welcome to exchange emails but I do not know how on this site?
Oh Rob must mention a surveyors pole is very handy for shooting to a tree base, where dense foliage prevents a laser target at the base. Mine reaches 4.9m high, enough to clear sapling Hemlocks for example. Just shoot to the top of the pole then add the measured height of the pole to the laser measurement.
In 2016 I recorded 40.5 x 226cm for the one just north of the memorial stone, which seemed to me at the time to be the tallest (or the easiest-to-measure?) and was growing fast.
One of the trees was recently felled due to a fork breaking. I'm not sure if this was your tree Owen. The tree I measured here was the tallest in the group.
Yes Rob grows like a weed! but for some reason not massive, but this maybe due to site selection i.e if planted where the best Douglas Fir sites were located on the lower valley slopes, they would have done better.
Down in Dyfi near Corris was an amazing stand at low elevation, sadly now felled! Morons!!
What is/was the precise location of the Hemlock stand in Dyfi Stephen? May 2017 when I was there alot of felling was going on around Corris, I visited King Arthur's Cavern about 8 years ago when the slopes were beautifully verdent and thickly forested, alot had visibly been felled by May 2017.
As Dyfi is outside the national Park the trees were harvested as they had reached their rotational age. I remember they were down alongside the main road. Sadly it seems where the most productive soils/shelter were located, some bright spark decided it would be wonderful to plant oak scrub, which really p****S me off!!! They cannot see the beauty of such tall elegant trees.
Could not reach Dyfi this year as the Welsh Car Rally was on and there was road closures and path closures, which was very frustrating and seemed to follow me around all week, even up at Betws.
This is the county champion for height for Douglas Fir for Lincolnshire, surely this can be beaten somewhere. Definitely Pseudotsuga cones when viewed through the laser viewfinder but quite a droopy looking habit.
Drats, on Google Maps I have spotted some shadows at Bainland County Park in Woodhall Spa which look like Douglas Firs and have nice spires on Street View in the distance. Almost certainly the county champions for height. Don't know if I could have entered the park but could have measured these.
If Douglas Fir can do 46m in north Norfolk, and 50m in the North York Moors, there's no reason for it to be so unhappy in Lincolnshire. Having Lincolnshire in my mind as a bad place to hunt for trees, I just don't know how many old estates and well-situated forestry plantations remain to be explored.
Hello Owen, the soils around Tattershall and Coningsby are very sandy, extremely so. Where I do my spot of plane spotting is like a dustbowl in dry weather and even in October. The big pine I came across was impressive I thought considering the local soil. It may be the same at Revesby for soils likely. I do enjoy coming across decent trees in locations like Lincolnshire where perhaps they shouldn't be. The area around Coningsby for example is very flat and there is always a wind, never visited without a wind, accentuated across the airfield.
RedRob, am 2018-11-05 17:44:09, geändert am 2018-11-05 17:45:50, hat gesagt:
Hello Owen, for the Register, there are some very fine oaks in Woodhall Spa, this was the tallest that I could pick out along the edge and even then had no chance of seeing the base and highest shoot on the top left. 27.6 metres to the wall base in the photo but the land drops behind the houses so almost certainly 28 metres to the tree's actual base. I can almost state as fact that there is a 30 metre oak in this stand, could see the emergent tops of several trees further into the wood behind this tree. This tree at 28 metres is the county champion for height.
Click on Google Maps on the roundabout on the B1191 in Woodhall Spa, there is an exceptionally fine oak in the cemetery on the corner next to the roundabout, 23.4 metres tall but very fine bole of around 3 metres 70. There are also several Pinus sylvestris in the cemetery, the tallest 22 metres.
Owen, there is an Ivy on the right tree here of 19 metres, is this included on the Register at all? It really needs cutting off or it ill smother the tree. Both of these Lawsons are right around 20 metres, couldn't see the actual bases as can be seen in the photo.
The champion for ivy is 31m, in a Norway Spruce just up the hill from the Waterloo Bridge Douglas Firs near Betwys-y-coed. It's not a tree of course, but if you look at trees you find interesting and veteran ivies occasionally.
No, it isn't, unfortunately. But not much help even if it was, as it is dense canopy cover with no view of the adjacent ground level close to the trees.
It will be interesting to find if your laser can come up with some precise heights for the Waterloo Bridge trees, where Nikon lasers can't. Unfortunately the undergrowth will still be in leaf for you.
There is an old Forestry Commission Forest Garden near Beddgelert which I've not been to (or succeeded in locating - it's not the same as the Gwydyr Forest Garden W of Waterloo Bridge).
There are probably some more very tall stands in that general area still awaiting 'discovery'.
Survey pole helps certainly. Another possibility is to measure with laser to a point on the trunk (branch scar, attached tape etc.) and to measure from that point to the ground with a tape.
Stephen, I'm not sure if you know: On this site we record height measurements to the AVERAGE ground level (the mean of the highest and lowest ground levels), NOT to the highest ground level as TROBI does (I think...).
Hello Owen, the forest park could likely be in Beddgelert Forest, canno see any really dark shapes and shadows around Beddgelert but there are some in Beddgelert Forest just west of the campsite, Street View allows you to click on a spot in them and they are Sitka Spruce and look about 35 perhaps to 40 metres.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2412630
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1597534
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1373548
I have spotted what looks like a very fine stand of pretty big Sitkas at the south end of Llyn y Parc up above Betws to the north.
Stephen, spotted some more tall looking conifers! Not far from Betws again so ones that you may be able to visit and can get to with the car. Go on to Google Maps, put 'Gwydir Mawr I Bach 'into the search, choose the satellite image. Just to the south along the Nant Gwydyr there is a line of dark shadows, this stand looks big from Street View and in a deep valley, they look promising.
RedRob, am 2018-09-30 16:08:14, geändert am 2018-09-30 16:13:06, hat gesagt:
Stephen, I would continue down the road to Nant Bwlch yr Hearn, there are all sorts of conifers along that road, spotted some dark trunked pines which are possibly Lodgepole pines. There is also a line of big shadows at the delightfully named Coed y Fuches las just to the east of Nant Bwlch yr Hearn, they may be on a hill top emphasising the shadows but it isn't clear but definitely worth a drive up that way to assess.
A real shame but this tree has lost about a metre from it's top shoot, alot of foliage and branches on the ground surrounding so it may have happened recently in storm Calum or last winter. The tree is quite exposed and lucky to be still standing as some large specimans fell some years ago near nearby Newton Kyme.
Hello Kouta, this is-was the 27 metre Salix x fragilis at Stutton near Tadcaster, I recently re-measured it after measuring the 26.4 metre tree in Lincolnshire. There are a great many Salix x fragilis in this area, along the river banks.
Difficult to measure but could just hit the top from some distance hitting the ground visible in photo so the tree may be between 36 to 37 metres. Does the fir to it's right look like this
Abies concolor Lowiana Group
Revesby Abbey
35.00 78 245 1991 PR Horncastle
Lincolnshire
England
Category: A County Champion: Historic Girth & Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Alan Mitchell
I couldn't get any clean view on the top of this but it looked a few metres shorter than Sequoiadendron, 35 metres may be about right.
My best guess for the 'fir on the right' is Blobbius viridis, but it could possibly match a Picea smithiana recorded by Mitchell as 31m in 1991, 'shrubbery by road'.
This was right at the end of Alan's measuring career and I think his eyesight was deteriorating through late-onset diabetes, so the heights at Revesby would be suspect (including a 27m Fern-leaved Beech). It's clearly a favoured and interesting site for tree-growth - Greville had Grand Firs to 43m in 1950 (again suspect in accuracy) and for a Low's Fir to have reached 35m in Lincolnshire is quite remarkable. If it was still there now it would be even more remarkable but I don't think it would resemble your blob. Sorry.
Just had a look at the green blob on Street View. There seem to be two conifers which are directly in line from your distant viewpoint but whose tips are separately visible on Street View from the road near the wrought-iron gates. The taller and nearer tree is indeed an Abies and I'd guess A. cephalonica of which Greville measured several in 1950. The shorter tree behind could be the Picea smithiana from 1991. Both are some metres shorter than the Sequoiadendron.
Owen, are these Limes likely to tbe these trees recorded by Alan Mitchell in 1991? Revesby is private but I could see some trees from the main road, this line is in the deer park.
My best photo for this tree won't upload because it must be over 3000 pixels, this one the sun has prevented the top of the tree being seen clearly. This is the new Britain and Ireland champion for height, it has replaced the 27 metre tree at Stutton in North Yorkshire which has lost the top most branches from it's top on re-measuring the other day. Tattershall Lakes has some very fine Willows, this one is the tallest of quite a large grove of Salix fragilis 20-22 metres plus one or two Salix alba.
Hello Owen, is/would Leeds be included under West Yorkshire or a metropolitan district. Very nice Holly drawn up in to the other trees, tallest I have come across if it is included in West Yorkshire.
On Street View they look like Cedrus deodara near the kennels but possibly a younger libani at the far end. The tallest Deodar in this group was 25 metres, the cedar at the far end the tallest. They look to have been cut back quite severely in 2011 but they and other vegetation have grown back quite luxuriantly at the bottom.
From street view, mostly C. deodara, with a couple of C. libani 2nd and 3rd from the east end. Impossible to see what (if any cedars at all) further into the wood.
Hello Conifers, is the tallest one at the far end in my photo libani or deodara? The Cedrus are along the roadside and have obviously had one point had to be cut back as they were overhanging the road. You have me trained now Conifers, Cedrus libani, no capitals creeping in anymore, broken the habit.
37.4 metres onto the road but the Google Maps altitude indicates that the base is 0.4 metres higher than the road so 37 metres. Tallest tree known in Lincolnshire.
Hello Owen, I am going to report this but will attempt, attempt a measuring again the next time that I am down there. There are a number of big Beeches but this one was towering over ther line of Limes of 25 to 28 metre sample measurings. There was just too much lower vegetaion and branches to see the top with the base but I estimate 35 metres. It is so good to be finally getting some decent sized trees for Sherwood and Nottinghamshire.
Added in a spirit of contrariness to show that Cotinus coggygria can reach tree-size, though the bole always tends to lean towards the horizontal as it gets bigger. This is an example of the purple-fruiting f. purpureus.
The misprint 'Continus' needs correcting. I'll try to do this myself.
There is one of these I have noticed on a street in the area that I live, I will photograph it and try and measure it although I am not that keen on standing with a camera and strange instrument on roads outside houses where people live.
RedRob, am 2018-10-12 15:45:38, geändert am 2018-10-12 15:46:02, hat gesagt:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5225828
Hello Owen, three records from the Pembury area on the register but any other records of the conifers in this area? Corsican Pine (?), look quite decent in size.
What should be or is the convention for measuring plants like Trachycarpus? The tallest physical part of this palm is the top leaf end and that was 5.6 metres, 4.2 metres to the bud base. For me I don't think that it should be bud base as that is not the highest physical point of the plant.
I started recording palm heights to the bud not the leaves as this helps with sorting young Phoenix canariensis - in Hastings there are no 'old' trees with long trunks, two or three which have survived perhaps 20 years and which are 2m to the bud and about 5m to the leaf-tips, and lots which have been planted in the last few years and which may be 3m to the leaftips but don't yet have a trunk at all so can't really be called trees. This would also screen out records of plants like Musa which can be imposingly tall but have no woody growth. In Trachycarpus it doesn't matter so much as the leaves are smaller and the plant wastes no time in growing a trunk. A few other large-leaved trees, like Ailanthus, probably lose half a metre in height when they shed their leaves in autumn, while others, such as Salix alba, might be a metre shorter if heavy rain weights down the upper branches.
Acknowledged Owen, measurement to the base of the bud. It will be the same with other trees like Catalpa and Paulownia I imagine. Much easier to measure in leaf with something solid to hit rather than very thin shoots but then the leaves come off and the tree is shorter as you say. Some deciduous trees like Willows and Beech in particular I have found can have very thin wippy leading shoot tips.
Before anyone comments, tried to change the name in registering but it as stayed as Nottcutts when it should be Notcutts. The drive down the side says private and you have to register in via intercom so didn't venture in. This tree was the tallest of lines of Limes, photograph not brilliant but Tilia x europea? County champion for height if it is unless some of the Limes at Clumber are also Common Limes.
I've not seen the Clumber Park Lime avenue but I had assumed that it's T. x europaea with (just one?) bigger and older T. platyphyllos incorporated within it.
You are right Owen if this correct, measured several of the tallest trees along the line (there are several which are significantly taller than the rest, 32 to 37 metres) which stand out above the rest which are 25 to 28 metres from sample lasering. Whether all the tallest ones are platyphyllos? This avenue, double avenue in effect is an exceptional one and well worth visiting I would recommend for anyone passing by.
Hello Owen, have a look on Google Maps, the A616 is lined with superb, upright Castaneas in the Gleadthorpe Plantation, never seen so many in one location before. Dense vegetation, bracken and shrubbery at the base and difficult to measure this one so measured to the road and calculated with Google Maps. There may be one in this plantation which could be marginally taller, would say 31 metres, but none looked upstandingly tall enough to challenge the B&I champion. Great to be finally finding some really good trees in the olde Sherwode forest or whay used to be it. The trees looked loaded with nuts, been a good year. There are more Castaneas in the Hatfield Plantation just along the A616 after High Hatfield. I also measured a tall, thin oak nearby although unfortunately my photo hasn't come out at all, blurred, but it can be seen on Google Maps. There are quite a few very old, big girth Quercus robur in Sherwood but no records for height.
Hello Owen, when driving down the A1 last week spotted three big Salix alba right at the side of the highway growing visibly in a dip, ditch at the side of the A1. Used Google Maps Street View images to measure using cars but that will not include the height from the ditch but from the A1 road surface. Will be 30 metres or very close, certainly the county champion for height for Nottinghamshire.
Hello Owen, cannot see this tree as one that you recorded those years ago now, is it Norway Maple? 24 metre Prunus of some type just below it, seen in photograph.
Had my eye on this one as a new Britain and Ireland champion for height so a tad disappointing but an interesting story to it, Sir Tony (Robinson) helped find this one, spotted it on his Walking through History documentary has he ambled through Creswell Crags. County champion for height anyway.
Jeroen Philippona, am 2018-08-20 20:12:29, geändert am 2018-08-20 22:51:10, hat gesagt:
Hi Kouta,
Nice you have visited this location now! When these are about the tallest Normann firs wich grow in the Kaukasian, Prof. Fischer was right with his 60 m maximum. The rumours of 70 - 80 m firs or even taller ones seem not to be right.These forests look quite impressive from your photos and at google maps! I hope you will write a report on these forests and your impressions soon.
Jeroen
KoutaR, am 2018-08-21 07:42:32, geändert am 2018-08-21 07:45:13, hat gesagt:
Hi Jeroen,
There are probably slightly taller trees but I am convinced 80-metre Nordmann firs never existed and 70 m is also questionable. We were told these locations are some of the best but we did not know the locations of the very tallest trees.
Who is Prof. Fischer? Or do you mean Prof. Peter A. Schmidt?
These forests are quite similar with mountain forests of the Balkans and the Alps (Fagus sylvatica - Abies alba - Picea abies). Perhaps the biggest difference is the evergreen shrubby undergrowth at lower elevations, mainly with Rhododendron ponticum, Prunus laurocerasus and Ilex colchica - very difficult to hike through! And from the tree lovers perspective the second big difference is the absence of Picea. It was a surprise to me that Picea orientalis does not occur in the region at all, but only in the more eastern regions (this is not my observation but I was told so). Thus, these forests are overwhelmingly dominated by only two species: Abies nordmanniana and Fagus orientalis. Abies nordmanniana differs from Abies alba by having narrower crown, but I am not sure if this is the species' character or due to environmental reasons. Other trees are mainly the same species as in the Balkans and the Alps, the most common being Acer pseudoplatanus, A. platanoides, Ulmus glabra, Tilia begoniifolia (=T. dasystyla ssp. caucasica) and Alnus glutinosa ssp. barbata along rivers.
Kouta
Jeroen Philippona, am 2018-08-21 21:22:24, geändert am 2018-08-21 21:24:05, hat gesagt:
Hello Kouta,
Of course I meant Prof. Peter A. Schmidt but without looking in mail and books I mixed his name up!
How did you organise this trip? Was it difficult to get permits and to find these interesting forests?
So the treespecies composition is quite European and differs a lot from the eastern Caucasian and Caspian forests.
The somewhat greater heights of Abies nordanniana in these forests compared to Abies alba in forests we visited in the Balkans and Slovakia could be due to the character of both species but also to differences in the climate and soil.
But the measurements of one Abies alba from Biogradska Gora by the Italian group give good competition to the Caucasian results.
Thomas organised the trip. He is professional working in a German national park. I guess otherwise it would have been impossible to get local partners and the trip managed. The approximate sites of apparently best forests were told us, we didn't find them ourselves. But we didn't have any exact locations.
One thing in the comparison A. alba vs. A. nordmanniana could be that we may have searched from wrong places in Biogradska Gora. I have noticed that the tallest firs often grow on slopes (NW to NE), not on valley bottoms. In Biogradska Gora we searched almost exclusively on the valley bottom. The biggest spruces grow commonly there but firs seem to prefer slightly drier conditions.
A Montenegrian friend of mine tries to locate the new record A. alba and take photos. He is not a measurer but it would be great to get photos at least.
About the Caucasian forests: were these tallest measured A. nordmanniana also about the biggest in trunk diameter so probably age, or were there bigger girthed trees?
Interesting to know if the new record A. alba in Biogradska is a very rare specimen or that there are more such huge firs on the slopes. The girth is nearly 2 m more than the biggest firs we measured. It seems that firs still gain in height as they grow older. Lidar would help a lot here, while it is rather difficult to explore these steep slopes.
Would be good to speak with the people of giant tree foundation how they found this tree. Perhaps they had information from the park guides.
About the Caucasian forests: were these tallest measured A. nordmanniana also about the biggest in trunk diameter so probably age, or were there bigger girthed trees?
Interesting to know if the new record A. alba in Biogradska is a very rare specimen or that there are more such huge firs on the slopes. The girth is nearly 2 m more than the biggest firs we measured. It seems that firs still gain in height as they grow older. Lidar would help a lot here, while it is rather difficult to explore these steep slopes.
Would be good to speak with the people of giant tree foundation how they found this tree. Perhaps they had information from the park guides.
I have read and heard from several sources that there are also Nordmann firs 2m in DBH or even more, but of course they are not necessarily very tall.
About the record A. alba. Its girth is really tremendous and the tree must be a very rare exception, I think. I asked Andrea Maroè about this fir and he answered they found the tree themselves. It is not along a path but likely not far from one if I understood correctly (there are small unmarked paths like that one along the valley). He also said the coordinates should be rather exact.
Hello Kouta, very impressive, nice to finally see some tall Nordmanns. Excellent work on measuring these, looks a challenging terrain to measure in specifically to even see the apex tips. Does Picea orientalis grow in this same region at all?
That other reserve where we explored is the place where the most extreme height claim originated from. The difference between this (85 m) and the tallest tree we found (59.5 m) is so big that those heights can easily be regarded as fairy tales. Nobody knows how the claim originated. The reserve is so small (14.8 km2) that it is fully impossible that somewhere there would be trees that are remarkably taller than the tallest we found.
As you know we were afraid the Olympic Games would have spoiled a lot of these forests. What could you say about this? Were the most important forests spared and still unspoiled?
I have understood the loggings due to the Olympic Games were not very extensive, but they destroyed the forest where the fir Dinets estimated as 78 m grew.
If the destroyed forest was more "important" or the remaining ones, I cannot say.
This one does look like Common Lime, though it's hard to be certain without seeing detail of the hairiness of the foliage. John and Alan's tree should be on the ATI if you want to compare the locations.
Still difficult trees to measure, even in spring rather than September when I have measured before. A great deal of twiggy clutter beneath the trees which makes measuring with the Nikon Forestry Pro type laser very difficult unless you have clean windows in in. Could not replicate the measurements of Owen last May with his trees further up the hillside, 62 metres the maximum I could get but that said so difficult to measure so I am pretty sure that I didn't get the top readings. This tree was the tallest tree that I measured by some distance, we are not 100% sure but it may be Owen's 68 metre which he measured last May, it is 13 metres behind the front line of trees from the road. It is certainly the tallest tree that I could measure with the Nikon Forestry Pro, I didn't have the RAF then and wish I had as there is still twiggy clutter at the base. The RAF would almost certainly have helped.
Off to North Wales next week so will measure northern Europe's tallest trees.
Do you know where the 68m tall tree is?
Will go to Vrnwy and other notable places too.
Kind regards
Stephen
RedRob, am 2018-09-28 15:32:34, geändert am 2018-09-28 15:33:12, hat gesagt:
Hello Stephen, nice to hear from you, look forward to hearing about your trip, weather doesn't look too bad at all (at the moment but the BBC weather forecast predictions for one change ridiculously at times, computers!). Other than Betws and Vyrnwy where else will you be travelling about?
This is Owen's tree which I would recommend trying to locate, your laser with it's tighter beam should be more accurate, my last visit I could make nothing really of the Dougies as more lower shrubbery seemed to have grown still. Perhaps some of the leaves will already have fallen as well opening up better windows.
If you get anywhere near these Stephen, you may be able to make a better attempt at this tree then I could, difficult measuring again because the bases are totally obscurred by ground vegetation and young trees and the tip was difficult to isolate. I would recommend attempting to go down the steep public footpath although not sure that the trees will be visible down there?
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1375324
You can see it hairpinning below Coed Cwmcelli on the Landranger Map here.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1179548
This Silver Fir nearby to Aberllefenni also looks worth measuring.
It could be 'Serotina', which is male, very late into leaf (end of May in Yorkshire?) with a pale reddish cast for a few days.
RedRob, am 2018-09-26 15:39:59, geändert am 2018-09-26 16:39:10, hat gesagt:
Thanks Owen, I was going to have a walk around Plumpton Rocks but the biggest trees are visibly near the A661, these Poplars tower over the other trees. A circa 30 metre Beech with a largish girth of what looks like c500cm is the only other really notable tree and is next to these Poplars, 20 metre Birch, early 20 metres Ashes, similar Sycamores, the trees are tightly packed and slim and difficult to differentiate to measure. In photographs of the lake area they don't look big either, perhaps 20 metres.
Have driven past this long line (almost hedge) of Poplars many times but didn't think them tall enough to warrant stopping on this very busy road to measure. Their colour on Saturday (22nd September) was almost dazzling though so had to stop and make a measurement and take a photo. Varying heights between 28 and 34 metres but the lovely autumn colour is the most striking. Photo likely not good enough as usual but identifiable from the autumn colour?
Hello Jan, sorry, I didn't see your message until just looking back. In this grove the trees are likely to be about 6 to 10 metres apart, the gaps vary. Definitely worth visiting Centre Parcs Longleat if you are interested in trees, the Sequoia groves (small forest near enough) are superb.
Interesting experiment with the laser, the Nikon's range was/is long enough to measure these trees from the shore on the other side of Ladybower reservoir. Chose a spot in the clearing just below the Grand Fir in the lowest group and measured up from that, had to bury the laser in the tree to make sure that was the tree that I was hitting, 3 or 4 metres below the tip. The base of the tree is 227.78 metres, the point to which I measured 225.74 metres, minus the bracken likely 224.5 metres, minus 3 from my 46 metre reading. I aimed at least 3 metres likely 4 metres below the tip of the tree which gives a distance tree height of 46 metres.
Tim, apologies but I had to look at Google Maps three times to adjust the measuring point for this tree. I may have to do it with one more tree.
What do the blue conifers look like, a blue Pseudotsuga or Abies procera? They must be at least 40 metres and judging by the Abies grandis next to them perhaps 44 metres.
What a good tree this has grown into. Normally when you find an Abies lasiocarpa as old as this in Britain (it was planted in 1959), it's either dead or looks as if it wishes it was. This one is clearly neither.
Hello Owen, there is only one tree along the path and no other speciman was visible anywhere near? I think it a great shame but the other lasiocarpa must have gone. Hope that this one stands up to all the coming ex hurricanes this week, Helene and likely Florence at the weekend, it is a fairly exposed position.
These Sitkas do not look that healthy now, visibly browned. They face north east up the valley so whether this is another result of 'Beast from the East' last winter or drought stress or disease? Shame if the last as now clearly visibly the tallest Sitkas in the reservoir areas, tallest trees in Derbyshire.
I would guess they are retreching drastically in response to the early summer drought. Being next to a reservoir with its fluctuating water levels must confuse them too. In SE England there are several big Sitkas which died back 20 - 30m (most likely in the 1977 drought) and have continued since then as healthy but much shorter trees. But the tallest one in this stand looks as if it's still green?
Hello Owen, is the foliage photo good enough to identify this variety? I suspect that this is the stand of very tall poplars which Richard Goodrick reported some years ago at Warter Priory. The trees on the outside were 36 metres, very difficult to measure the trees in the middle of the stand, the tree in the photo centre in the middle of the stand, the bit of foliage I could hit with the laser whilst still seeing a glimpse of the base was 36.8 metres but it wasn't the tree top. The tallest in the stand is probably 40 metres or close to I suspect.
I'm going to plump for 'Gelrica' though without full confidence. I assume you were too late in the year to check the trees' gender ('Gelrica' is male).
With these hybrid poplars I find the best way to height them is usually to stand at the base and aim the laser straight up into the canopy (adding the height from the tree-base to the instrument). The foliage is sparse enough for the laser to hit the highest leaves, if you keep on trying, though if the foliage is in motion my laser at least throws in the odd false reading (usually 1.5m too high), just to confuse things.
This stand is so dense as to make measuring near impossible but the tree in the dead centre of the photo with the clear emergent leader must be 1.5 to 2 metres taller than the surrounding trees. I measured several trees just into the stand that I could get a view of the apex of and they were 50.8-51.2 metres. The emergent tree on that basis must be now around 53 metres, all have very nice leaders.
Hello Owen, finally found a decent sized Prunus avium in Yorkshire, so busy looking at the beautiful Tsuga that I have missed this one, saw it this time and pointed the laser at it and pleasantly surprised. A good sized trunk as well.
Abies homolepsis? Slight salmon-pink tinge the bark? The trees are numbered and the idents kept on a database which when I asked couldn't be accessed there and then? Not so helpful, oh for putting name tags on ALL trees in arboretums (with a number as well) rather than just numbers. It makes the whole experience easier and more enjoyable because you know what the trees are there and then.
Never seen one of these before, don't usually measure or really shrubs but this one in full flower caught my eye and looked a nice speciman being drawn up amongst the other trees. Only did two readings for it, 12 and 12.2 metres and didn't really try to hit the absolute apex of the shoot as didn't think it was that significant. Having a look on TROBI when I got back I was quite surprised.
This is a really interesting photo, I think that this could be a side by side comparison of the habits of Abies grandis and Abies grandis 'idahoensis'(?) The tree in photo centre had the flat foliage of conventional Abies grandis, the tree to it's left had visibly and quite strongly recurved up needles viewed through the 6x viewfinder of the laser. It looks identical to the Flassendale Abies.
Though in this case both trees were presumably sown from the same batch of seed. Dense upcurved needles are more likely to occur on coning shoots - if a fir gets to coning age earlier than another, would its foliage and general appearance alter?
Very difficult tree to measure because of very tight windows in but the tap washer fitted to the Nikon Forestry Pro (the RAF) proved invaluable this time, I was able to measure though the gaps. As said before, experience the same with the tap washer, greatly reduces the range of the Nikon laser but for closer range measurements like this it is invaluable for measuring through branches and clutter.
This Cryptomeria is unusual, it almost looks as if it is moving along, walking on it's lower limbs which eminate from around the base.
County champion for height-Yorkshire, though there could be a taller one still in existance from 1989 but unconfirmed.
I was very pleased to find this new UK champion ash, in an area already badly affected by Chalara dieback. This one hasn't escaped infection, but is very healthy so far and is still growing taller. The leaves were larger and darker than is usual.
Workman's Wood was managed as continuous cover forestry by the late John Workman, who donated it the National Trust. It is part of the Cotswold Commons and Beechwoods National Nature Reserve.
I was hoping to find a 40m beech here too, but of the tallest, which are on the steep bank just north of the ash, the best I could get with the laser was 39m for a couple. One tree, too hemmed-in for laser measurement, could have been 42 (hypsometer).
Yes, I came here looking for exceptional beeches and found several outstanding ashes instead. This tallest one was showing quite good resistance to Chalara so the prognosis should be good, though the disease is bound to limit its vigour. I don't know how Chalara is progressing up your way, Rob. In Gloucestershire it's seriously affecting some mature trees here but at my home in Hastings, where saplings were being killed several years ago, it's almost fizzled out (for now). Maybe the wild ashes here have exceptional degrees of resistance.
Conifers, am 2018-07-26 15:31:13, geändert am 2018-07-26 15:31:31, hat gesagt:
Only really noticed the disease this year up here, though it has been reported in Northumbs for several years. I've noticed too that young planted trees (likely from imported seed sources) are dying back badly, while older local trees seem hardly affected if at all. But I suspect it'll take a few more years yet to see what's really happening.
One positive I'm hoping for - dead Ash wood is really good for woodpeckers, so all the branch dieback (lots of upper crown dead wood) might result in an upturn for the endangered UK population of Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
Ash dieback is currently devastating populations of F. excelsior in Austria. I got aware of this disease some years ago, probably soon after first detection and description, i think in Poland.
However, this seems to rival other diseaseas in consern of the damage to species and ecosystems formerly rich in ashes. It might be a !slight! benefit in case woodpeckers could find more housing place, yet this could never outweigh this kind of calamity. In fact ashes killed by dieback will always soon crash down, thus woodpecker shall be warned to nest within. Roots of affected ashes do die, enforced by soil fungi which attack such roots and cause rotting. Since that visibly weakened ashes are removed wherever damage could happen. Yes i have seen this process at several places, and i don't know about destiny of native ashes!
foomanz, are there any big Pinus radiata in your neck of the woods? There was also a report of 60 metre Sequoiadendrons in New Zealand which was discussed a while ago, cannot recall the location now?
foomanz, am 2018-07-26 10:08:52, geändert am 2018-07-26 22:15:49, hat gesagt:
Hi Rob,
There are numerous large P. radiata around New Zealand. The tallest was measured at 64 m in 1982, but I'm pretty sure that tree no longer exists (it was in a plantation sample plot, and the wood for that particular batch of seedlings was known to be brittle). The radiata pines in the NZ Tree Register tend to be in for size or history, rather than height. See https://register.notabletrees.org.nz/tree/view/1312 and https://register.notabletrees.org.nz/tree/view/1008 for two of the oldest and largest.
The tallest Sequoiadendron in NZ is at Wanaka Station Park in Wanaka. It is 56.4 m tall, one of a number of old plantings at the old then farming station (other neighbouring Sequioadendrons and Douglas Firs are almost as tall). I took a few photos of it recently, and will add it here in due course. It's NZ entry is at https://register.notabletrees.org.nz/tree/view/613.
I've also added the Mountain Ash you linked to previously. The 2013 measurement of 81.26 m was used, although it is probably around 84 m now - the most recent measurement was chaining a few reference points back to the base along a path, so it is preliminary at the moment.
A friend of the owner mentioned to me that it could be the tallest in England. I very much doubted this as Cotswold limestone isn't good for most conifers, but there are plenty of deeply sheltered valleys. There is a fine tree collection at Miserden - all new records for the Tree Register.
Not tall or big girth but the crown coverage, under the crown it appeared to be one tree, was impressive. Must be 100 feet across by how I paced it, surrounded by vintage cars that day. It is Aesculus but what type is it likely to be?
A quick general report, Sledmere House near Driffield is a lovely estate with some very nice trees which are not especially big or notable. The most notable are the trees on the edge of the estate, 40 metre plus Pseudotsuga, tallest trees in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Hello Owen, hadn't heard from you in a while and I wondered if you had seen the Sledmere Cedrus libani record, having just checked the register I can see that you have. Very disappointing at Sledmere, this Cedrus libani is now the tallest in Yorkshire. It is still adding height as well and doesn't yet have the flattish crown top.
RedRob, am 2018-07-25 15:15:22, geändert am 2018-07-25 15:48:58, hat gesagt:
Superb Owen, new Britain and Ireland champion for height! How did you find this tree, reports of tall trees or you stumbled across it or Google maps? There look to be some big crowns around this tree, anything else interesting? What do you rate the chances of this tree, the 41 metre Fraxinus with the Chalara dieback it has?
Looks most like Grey Poplar, but with it being in a botanical collection, that can't be taken as a given. I've changed it from Outright unidentified, to Unidentified Populus.
Definitely does look like Populus × canescens, quite intermediate between P. alba and P. tremula. As with Conifers, i may not certainly exclude that other poplar species or hybrids might look like this one, but i don't such ones.
Apologies, a difficult tree to photograph well but unable to upload any photos at the moment, the dropdowns are not dropping down properly, the Google Maps app it says cannot be downloaded then suddenly it appears, all sorts of problems at the moment. I aim to re-visit this tree in autumn when the leaves have come off to have another go at measuring it, should be able to see the base better from a longer distance and more over the top of the crown. It is probably 40 metres to the crown top.
Wim, are you planning a trip up the Pacific coast north of San Francisco? Samuel P Taylor State Park just up the coast from San Francisco has apparently had little measuring done and there are some virgin groves of Sequioas there. Given the recent 350 foot Sequoia found by Zane Moore in the Santa Cruz mountain groves, Portillo redwoods, it would be very interesting to know if any really tall trees exist in the virgin groves in Samuel P Taylor.
It was amazing. I could correct the missings of 8 years ago. For the moment I am back home. I don't have any plans to return in the very near future. But...the son of my wife lives in Salt Lake city and I think I will visit him at least once a year. Nevertheless, California is far away from there. On the other hand, the only place I wanted to have done and didn't is the Redwood-forests North of San Francisco. I didn't make it. But....I did 6500 km or 4000 miles. That's a lot in 6 weeks.
Is this one standard Abies grandis or 'idahoensis' again as yet again the needles were visibly more recurved up (visibly even at the top of this tree through the 6x viewfinder) than the many standard Abies grandis that I have seen and measured before? I wonder if it was policy for all the estates on the North York Moors to plant these Abies grandis or if the same seed source was used by estates like Rievaulx, Hovingham etc possibly because of the drier, colder winters experienced in this area? When you see these Abies they look visibly different to standard Abies grandis, particularly the trees in Flassendale.
More likely accidental: subsp. idahoensis is a smaller tree which cones when younger, so the seed is much easier to harvest, and therefore a lot cheaper. Before provenance experiments in the 1970s-80s showed the coastal subspecies to be markedly better for forestry use, people just bought the cheapest seed they could get, not realising it would give much slower-growing trees.
Good suggestion Conifers, very likely. Must have been difficult to harvest seed from the big Abies grandis originally as the cones disintegrate when ripe, a basic climb with just rope involved?
Hello Owen, 29.8 metres is the reading that I consistantly got from two clean windows, (very clean and easy to measure) from distance to see well up on top, most likely a little shoot on top was not seen so assigning 30 metres. Superb speciman but abit disappointing to say the least.
Struggling to register a tree tonight (usual dropdown problem, may be the high pressure which is affecting?) so will comment here. Sledmere gardens are abit disappointing for big trees, 30 metre Limes, 30 metre Fagus sylvatica but nothing really exceptional apart from a Horse Chestnut which wasn't tall but big and will register at some point.
Hello Owen, this as been intriguing the hell out of me, didn't you visit Thorpe Perrow some years ago, did David Alderman visit recently? I am asking because this tree isn't on the register? I have visited Thorpe Perrow twice now and missed it twice and really only came across it again by chance. 29.8 metres into the grass at the front of the tree, 30.00 metres to a dry brown patch of soil to it's right with no obscurring grass so this tree will be 30 metres from base to absolute tip. Superb tree, it had no number on the trunk so assuming it is Picea omorika? Not fond of Thorpe Perrow's number system, it would vastly better if the little tags were names of the trees rather than numbers which you then have to check in a book, if it is available.
Struggling yet again to register trees, the dropdowns just will not dropdown, it took me half an hour to register the Sledmere cedar. What is causing this problem, no experienced it like this before, the Google Maps app used to lock for but not had this problem before?
I think this must be tree R14, which I made 24m back in 2004 but had assumed lost since as it was missed by David in 2014. Instead, it's grown really well and looks as if it's still adding height quite fast (for this species). A champion for the future, I think. R14 was grafted at the base (not sure what on).
Hello Owen, I thought it unlikely that you had missed this, I have on two previous visits, it is quite hidden despite it's height. I just visit Thorp Perrow because it is a nice place and measure a few trees that I can identify. It is like being a kid in a sweet shop, so many unusual trees that I haven't a clue what most are without ident tags. This spruce has a really nice leading shoot, difficult to hit with the laser, so is growing very nicely. It is extremely dry up here, local weatherman last night said it could be the driest June on record if it doesn't rain before the 30th is out, hope that it is isn't damaging the trees. A breakdown in the weather is forecast next week, I just hope that we get some thunderstorms this time and the south doesn't get it all like last time.
I reported the 0 metres elevation problem about 5 weeks ago now but I am having more problems, the dropdowns are not working, really sticking for me, cannot register a tree at the moment because the county dropdown menu won't dropdown to give me the county. Is the second problem just mine or a general problem with everyone else?
The Sequoia sempervirens at Hovingham look a right mess, don't think that this will be drought myself as we had a wet spring and it is only June, this looks more like scorch damage from this last winter as the valley faces east-south east and the trees are brown on that side, the shape of the valley would have acted as a funnel for the bitter wind. The Sequoia on the left of the photo behind the dead tree is beind these trees and green.
Almost hate sticking this tree on here but looked something interesting. Resembles photos of Cryptomeria japonica 'Radicans' but probably not that. Measured and photo taken from this position on the Coulton to Hoveringham road and best that I can do for a photo. To the right of the photo is east-north east and interesting that several of the conifers are browned on that side, must be significant damage from the winter weather, the 'Beast from the East'. Have emailed the Hovingham estate for an ident but as usual no reply.
Are you sure they weren't Sequoiadendron? The 'fuzzier' appearance of the foliage made me think Cryptomeria at first, but that could just be the photo (sorry)? It would be slightly surprising for Cryptomeria to be growing that vigorously once 28m tall in NE Yorkshire.
Apologise about the photo, taken from distance a week last Thursday on morning when low cloud had come in from the North Sea and the light wasn't good. I haven't had a reply from Hovingham Hall but will have another look the next time that I am over there. It didn't strike me as Sequoiadendron though the 6x finder in the laser but as seen recently, trees do try to fool with their varying growth habits at times.
Hello Nardo, absolutely sopt on with your ident and comments, these are Sequoiadendron with pretty bad scorch on the south east side, almost certainly a result of the 'Beast from the East'. Not seen Seqys with this shape in Yorkshire or anywhere personally, clothed with foliage nearly to the ground and an almost tear drop shape. I couldn't isolate the top from the oak behind and had to hit with the laser so far down, 30.2 metres is the height to the tip of the tree.
Seem to be a tad unlucky, coming across Abies which just don't seem to conform to standard. The foliage on this one was just not flat enough for Abies grandis, the needles visibly upturned to very near vertical on the older lower shots when viewed through the 6x laser viewfinder (visible in the photo above)
Anyone live anywhere near enough to visit to check to see if this tree is still there? If so must have but some height on, another B&I champion height contender.
Disappointed and excited about these trees. Absolutely superb trees, perfect aesthetically pleasing specimans. I was hoping that they would challenge for the B&I champion height title but have fallen just short. This tree has the longest leading shoot that I have ever seen on a Cedrus deodara and must be growing quickly, perhaps in just a few years it will be challenging the Betws Y Coed tree as the shelter it has at the moment is superb albeit the tip is emerging above the sheltering trees. I couldn't hit the base but fired into the long grass, vegetation just visible near it's base and didn't hit it's actual base, perhaps abit over 35 metres because the leading shoot was also very difficult to hit right at the end. Coming across so many impressive Cedrus in Yorkshire now, another one I will measure in a couple of weeks time.
Abit of a tragedy as well, on the left of the photo is a dead Cedrus deodara, it looks very near the height of this tree, 34 metres or just over I estimated from comparing to this tree.
Hello Wim, did you see and record any good specimans of Abies magnifica? Would be very interested to see them if you did. I have yet to see my first magnifica, could kick myself for missing the tall one at Dunkirk at Cragside. Doubt that I will come across many in Yorkshire, apart from the small one at Castle Howard.
This was a nice little surprise, I have passed by these trees many times in the past and was never sure what they were as the habit is slightly unusual. A small but nice grove of good sized Sequoias in North Yorkshire. Hopefully they will recover from the ravages of last winter.
A problem uploading the photo at the moment but have looked at this
128473
Ulmus glabra
(near Douglas)
33.00 140 440 1998 PR 98-113 Douglas
Isle of Man
Isle of Man
Category: A Britain & Ireland Champion: Height; Country Champion: Height; County Champion: Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Frank Harrison
Between Braddan old church and gatehouse. Straight bole for 17m.
Just watching the Isle of Man TT which reminded me of these, some great Ulmus glabra in the Isle of Man. Was this island spared relatively the ravages of Dutch Elm disease? How tall are these trees likely now if they are still there? Glen Helen looks the likeliest location for the tallest trees on the Isle of Man, some very nice Sequoias in a group in photos plus tall Sitkas.
There is an elm disease control project active in the Isle of Man. The island's isolation must also help. So there's a fair chance that Frank's tree is still there, though I suspect his height will have been a bit over-optimistic.
What fun I had with this tree, as much as you can with a tree with your clothes on. The tree is growing in a ditch, at the low side are two very straight stems which have grown and drawn up into the neighbouring tree, a Salix caprea. If you blow the photo up you can see the stems continuing up into the Salix canopy. I had to hit the high side of the base with the laser, could not see the base of the sinuous stem at the bottom side. There was also grass stems on the bank that I had to avoid so had to aim so far up the stems. I traced the stem up into the canopy of the Salix but it continued on and I was getting hits against Salix foliage. 13.6 metres is what I recorded but that long, sinuous left stem must be 14 metres taking into account not being able to hit it's base and not being able to follow it up to it's end in the Salix canopy. Tree measuring is not easy at times to say the least. This Hazel is one of a number along this ditch of more than 10 metres, superbly sheltered in woodland at the bottom of a deep gorge like valley.
Superb tree Wim, hate to ask but do you have a photo of it from a distance so it can really be appreciated?
Wim Brinkerink, am 2018-06-02 20:45:24, geändert am 2018-06-03 05:04:01, hat gesagt:
Hi Rob, I always want to make a picture from a distance. But it was impossible for this tree because that path bended and that's why the tree got out of sight. The density of trees is aso very high, so you would only see a bunch of trees.
RedRob, am 2018-06-02 15:48:22, geändert am 2018-06-02 15:49:01, hat gesagt:
The Goat willows in Finland are amazing, just found a decent sized one over here but they don't look anything like this, round headed shrubby things even in woodland.
Hello Stephen, no need (unless you want to visit for other reasons), Owen has been and measured this Cedrus, he may add the height here?
Stephen, any thoughts on the conifers, trees of undetermined species at Flassen Dale in the other discussions? I have emailed Rievaulx estates to see if there is a record of planting.
This Douglas Fir, the tallest in the area around the bowling green and what looks like at Castlemilk, didn't look well at all, sickly.
Owen, could the Fagus along the river be Fagus orientalis? Alan Mitchell reported 21 metre Fagus orientalis in 1976 and was it him who also reported the Abies procera near a bridge, the 46 metre procera is near the bridge of the Water of Milk. It seems reasonable to think that if he saw the procera near the bridge he would have seen the several Fagus in the same location. I just presumed them to be Fagus sylvatica, doubt I would have been able to identify an orientalis.
Not Fagus orientalis for this one. It has much darker longer leaves by this time of year. Alan's record will have been for a younger planted tree in an arboretum area on the estate.
What is wrong with the 'elevation' feature on the Google maps app when registering trees? All the trees I am registering are now coming up with Elevation 0 metres.
RedRob, am 2018-05-29 16:49:25, geändert am 2018-05-31 16:46:41, hat gesagt:
What a superb little valley and stand of Abies. Some felling of Picea abies going on further up the valley, I just hope that this magnificent stand is not also for the chop!
Presuming this tree to be Abies nordmanniana, more massive with larger domed crown than the trees on the other side of the valley which have perfect spires? This is the north side-south facing whilst the other side is north facing.
Leo, did you take a photograph of this tree? Any updates as to how much height it has added since 2010? Would really like to see a photo, definitely worth adding.
Could I ask a favour, would you be able to place this tree precisely on the Google map? Have I put it in the right place? I could see the top from the bowling green and the point on the bank and did a measurement. Need the exact spot of the tree though. If I have the right spot then it looks as if it had grown quite well. I also have a measurement for the younger spire topped Abies grandis on the left of the group in the long distance photo above. It looks not far behinfd your 54 metre tree, maybe a metre or so lower.
I was measuring through the gate at some trees down the drive and someone came out and asked what I was doing and gave me a look so I moved on. I wouldn't have exercised right to roam with this one I think. Looking at your records on the Register, I would have been over my head with idents anyway if I had entered.
I put 2009 in the date of previous measurement but it as come out as 0 and 000 for some reason. 58 metres is the measurement that I got attempting a measurement to a nominated spot and the tip of the tree when I couldn't see the base of the tree. 62.74 metres elevation-the clean spot on the river bank. On the Google map the tree elevation is 68.76 metres. From the spot on the river bank to the tree tip, 64.2 to 64.4 metres, minus 6 metres (difference between 62.74 and 68.76), tree height circa 58 metres. Feasible for this tree looking at it, 4 metres in height in 9/10 growth years?
Cannot get an elevation to register for this tree on the Google map? Anyone have any ideas? Pretty certain from the shadow that this tree is the correct tree on the map.
Owen, hope that you are looking in. I rang Castlemilk up and asked permission for a walk into the estate, they refused but I attempted to measure this tree and the tall spire topped Abies grandis near it. I picked a spot on the bank and measured to the tip of both trees and have a measurement. Would you be able to pin point this tree on the map. I will register the spire tipped grandis as well, think it must be your 49 metre tree from 2009, measured to the tip of it as well but need to pin point it on the map. I don't know how you measured this in 2009, clinometer or whatever so apologise if I have registered your measurement incorrectly. Around 54 metres it as put.
Yes, the tufty-topped one was the tree I made 54m (clinometer from a couple of directions) in 2009. The others are perhaps younger and adding height. They look as if they must be on a hill but are actually in a dip, surrounded by trees about 30m tall.
What a shame the Estate 'refused you permission'. As you probably know, even in England 'trespass' (crossing land without the owner's consent) isn't a criminal offence, and under Scottish law you have a clearly-defined right to roam anywhere in farmland, woodland and parkland, the only restriction being the courtesy issue of not disturbing people in gardened areas, school grounds etc. A minority of immensely wealthy Scottish landowners continue to try to exclude their fellow citizens from much larger areas than can reasonably be termed 'private gardens' and Castlemilk currently seems to be an example, with locked gates and menacing notices enclosing an area more than mile across. You would have been entirely within your rights to enter the estate (if you could find a point of access), though I can understand that you preferred to avoid any confrontation or unpleasantness. (In 2009, I wrote and phoned for formal permission to update the Tree Register's records at Castlemilk, but did not get the courtesy of a response. I did manage to record on most of the estate without seeing anyone and certainly without disturbing anyone's privacy - I really don't like operating in this way, but previous owners and foresters at Castlemilk have left a magnificent legacy of rare and fine trees and I think it's important that some sort of record is kept for this part of our shared heritage.)
Yes, it looks like Abies nordmanniana. Alan Mitchell recorded trees of 30m and 30.5m in 1976 but without location details - it's probably one of those, grown well.
Hello Aubrey (presuming it is you, maybe not?), glad that some of your trees are being added anyway. Very impressive tree, looks difficult to measure regarding the base but very well worth taking the time for.
Very nice looking leader Aubrey when the photo is blown up. The Douglas Fir near it is deceptive, looks next to the photo but isbeyond the Seqy on the photo when blown up. A very impressive valley.
239301
Acer pseudoplatanus
Luggala Lodge
O1595608396 39.00 160 503 2014 PR Laragh
Co. Wicklow
Ireland
Category: A Britain & Ireland Champion: Height; Country Champion: Height; County Champion: Height
Comments Latest Recorder: Aubrey Fennell
The height may need confirmation.
Aubrey, can you confirm this record? This would be something if confirmed! Any photos that could be posted on here?
Would absolutely love to see your Powerscourt 41 metre Cedrus libani, any chance?
Scouted this location out on Geograph and was hoping that there might be something seriously tall judging by the photos but what a disappointing place in the flesh. The forest is made up almost entirely of Picea abies and despite the photographs they are not especially tall but very uniform in height, c 40 metres for the tallest trees.
Before any complaints about the quality of the photograph, this is a private access estate and this was taken from the boundary fence and was the best that I could do. Perhaps an ultimate test of the laser with the RAF fitted (Reduced aperture filter), the tap washer! I doubt very much that I would have been able to measure this tree from this location with the clutter of twigs with the conventional laser with the standard beam. With the tap washer fitted the beam was able to fir through the limited gaps in the twigs. Couldn't see the tip with the base, measured just below the tip and got 44.4 metres so this tree is likely 45 metres.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/717092
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/906921
There are a number of tall, slim Sequoiadendrons on this estate, whether any could be be taller than the 45 metre tree?
Before anyone comments, couldn't see Scottish Borders as an option for the location, it is not Dumfries and Galloway. Very impressive stand for the elevation and spectacular drive over the top from St Mary's Loch.
There is no access to this estate but I have just discovered that there may be a way of getting a measurement using the google map on this site without being able to see the base but seeing the and hitting the tip? This tree is 22.88 metres elevation, I measured to a point at the base of the perimeter wall, elevation 18.40 metres. From this point at the base of the wall to just below the Cedar tip was 36.4 metres. 22.88 minus 18.40 metres = 4.44 metres. 36.4 metres minus 4.44 metres = 31.6 metres. The lasers measure the vertical separation between the two points rather then linear distance, correct? If this is correct then this should be a way of measuring height without being able to see the base? Correct or not?
This should work, so long as you use the same method for recording the altitude where you are, and where the base of the tree is, and so long as the tree is in an area of fairly level ground. The altitude given on Google Maps used, at least, to differ from that given by Google Earth by 10m on occasion, the contours used by Google Maps being rougher approximations. (But for this tree's base, they're exactly the same.) My GPS unit sometimes tells me it's accurate to ten feet then tells me that I'm fifty feet below sea-level, which can be mildly disconcerting. I think it assumes the Earth is a perfect sphere.
Correct ident for these? Often visit this garden centre (excellent one with very nice restaurant if anyone passing and needs a place for a meal)and have been meaning to measure this line of superb specimens. All between 32.8 and 35.6 metres to the high side of the bases.
Owen, anything interesting ever recorded from this location on the banks of the Thames at Reading?
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/609708
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3592408
Taxodium distichum? Looks a decent height as welljudging by the bench next to it. The Deodar also looks quite impressive in the distance although the ground level cannot be assessed.
26m on Google Earth for this Taxodium, which does look as if may be quite old and have quite a good girth.
The gardens on this side of Caversham are full of handsome trees. The only one I've been into is Chiltern Court (37 St Peter's Avenue) in 2004, with big examples of Cornus mas, Juglans regia 'Laciniata' and Quercus robur f. fastigiata.
Caversham Cemetery (which I've only explored on Google Earth) has a very good Weeping Beech and Douglas Firs and other conifers which are tall for Berkshire, so I'll pay a visit some time if Stephen doesn't get there first.
It was handheld so your accuracy Owen would I'm sure be much the same as mine. Tripod much more time consuming, especially when in such a great collection!
RedRob, am 2018-04-20 16:00:31, geändert am 2018-04-20 16:01:25, hat gesagt:
I so much hope that you can do a couple of trips with your laser Stephen, the Wales one as said previously and perhaps Scotland as well to confirm a tree with your laser on it's tripod. Appreciate your position fully but hope that you can.
Did anyone else catch 'Secrets of the National Trust' a week ago last Tuesday which came from Cragside? Bad news, they had electrodes in the trunk base of on of the Pseudotsuga and did a scan which showed that the heart wood was 50% rotten, there was a small bracket fungus on the base. The tree was going to have to be felled, it wasn't this 61 metre tree but one near the 45 metre Noble Fir which I measured and put on here. The forester said though that several other of the Douglas Firs would also have to be removed because of the fungus, I do hope that this tree isn't one of them.
Thats sad Rob. The fungus will most likely be Phaeolus schweinitzii or possibly Sparassis crispa. I have seen conifers fail about 2m up. It leads to the trunk snapping due to the loss of structural integrity of the trees heartwood.
The tall Lake Vrynwy was felled because of this. This fungus is a major cause of tree failure in its native habitat as well. However the tree would probably live for many decades as the trunk growth would compensate for the loss of structural integrity, by more rapid diameter growth of the sapwood. this is called 'reaction wood.'
Hello Owen, any old records from this location? Cannot find any on the register? If the hedge is the usual around here c6 foot field hedge then these Beeches are quite impressive, 36, 37 metres perhaps abit more if they are some distance beyond the hedge. What location, county would Solihull actually be under on the register?
Fulford Hall will be Warwickshire. There aren't any records yet.
This area has Google Earth 3D coverage; the beeches in the Geograph photo are 26m tall, but there's a 27m one further east in the line (and a 26m Blue Atlas Cedar).
That spam messaging is something which Tim will presumably have to fix. It's not just you as it popped up on a post Stephen Verge made last week.
Thanks Owen, the hedge is around 5 feet on those measurements, 26 metres. Were the trees bare leaved in the satellite image, is 26 metres likely to be the top height of the trees or a penatration reading?
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4474602
Three nice Metasequoia at Jodrell Bank, very difficult to assess how tall these are, perhaps 20 metre-ish. That group of Metasequoias that you measured at Tatton Park is a fine group as you say, nice to the see the trees in groups, stands instead of isolated specimans.
The Google Earth imagery for Solihull is summer so the heights should be accurate for densely-crowned trees like these beeches. It should be the same imagery you see on Google Maps (enable '3D imagery', though Maps doesn't give you the spot altitudes you need to compute heights.
There don't seem to be any measurements of the big Douglas Firs at Westonbirt from before about 1930. The largest (18.0069 by Main Drive, assuming it's always been the largest) was 430cm girth in 1931, 484cm in 1967, 515cm in 1991 and 545cm in 2014, so would have had to have slowed down quite suddenly and not long before 1931 if were to date from as recently as 1850. So on this rather tenuous evidence I think it's a reasonable assumption that the big ones in the 'old arboretum' are from the first seed collection.
Having said that, they would only have grown such straight boles in an open, windswept area like Westonbirt if there was good side-shelter from the start. I've heard that the arboretum was established within open farmland? If so, fast-growing trees must have been planted some years before the firs were added. Even so, you'd only expect a Douglas to continue thriving like this in that part of England if there was a very good soil-structure and a suite of woodland fungi in the soil, so perhaps this part of the arboretum at least was already ancient woodland?
Yes I agree. The tree in question has a very dark blackish bark, very corky, which I have noticed is present on the old original trees.
I have done some ring counts on trees in the old part near the Specimen Avenue and they point to a date post 1860.
Perhaps this tree is the same age as the Scots Pines, located nearby?
Noticed A. Mitchell quotes 1851 for a tree in the old part, perhaps the tree in question?
Noticed the fine big oak with the umbrella shaped crown located in the centre of this section is sadly declining in health, no doubt to soil compaction by peoples feet.
Nice tree Stephen, looking forward to seeing your new trees including the 40 metre Platanus that you mentioned. Not been able to find anything above 25 metres in Yorkshire for Platanus which is disappointing. Hope that you can do a trip to Wales as mentioned before, understand your circumstances though.
@ RedRob - "Not been able to find anything above 25 metres in Yorkshire for Platanus which is disappointing" - but not surprising; the summer heat it needs for vigorous growth is lost in northern England.
Hello Conifers, don't know if the situation is the same in the North East but there are hardly any planted in Yorkshire at all, I have seen less than a handful of specimans in all my travels across Yorkshire, the tallest being in York's Museum Gardens. Walnuts for some reason seem to do very well up here in Yorkshire so wondered if Platanus would do the same eventually if the trees had actually been planted and left. The East Riding and Vale of York should have the most heat in the summer. Prunus avium is another that I was told should do well up here but cannot find any decent sized specimans of them either, 23 metres several years ago for a slim tree in dense woodland so possibly c24 metres possibly mow.
Very nice stand of Picea sitchensis including the current tallest speciman in the county of West Yorkshire. Doubt that there will be any taller anywhere else in this county. There were some taller specimans in the late 30 metres but they have been felled.
That is the direct link, don't know if it will work, there is a large block of dark green conifers to the south of Parque forestal de Queimados by which the levada do Caldeirao Verde runs, the block reminds me greatly of the Sequoia sempervirens at Longleat when I was trying to plot.
What a great shame this is, tallest speciman in East Yorkshire and all of the Yorkshire counties? Owen, can you tell from the photos if this is the 22 metres champion speciman that you measured or one of the others?
There were four in 2012, all about 22m tall (which is nothing special for a Monkey-puzzle, but Sewerby is quite a windswept place). I couldn't see from the photos whether there are still three left but let's assume that at least one is.
Is the tree on the left with the vertical fissures a Sycamore, also the trunk on the far right of the photo and the tree with the light coloured trunk just right of the photo? The tree in the photo centre had flakes on the bark further up so I took it as a Sycamore but there seemed to be quite a variation of bark patterns? The foliage on the ground was starting to break up but I could see some Sycamore foliage.
I think they're all Sycamores. They're at the age where the smooth young bark changes to the mature closely-cracking bark and different individuals do this at slightly different ages - even when, as here, the microclimate is the same for each trunk.
Visited this in 2012 and straight away thought Grand Fir and just visited again and now not 100% sure? In the second photo, the shoot ends seem rounder and not more square and comb like? They remind me of the Firs down at Lake Vyrnwy which the foliage of just didn't seem 100& right for being Abies Grandis? This is the tallest tree in the county of West Yorkshire, I have travelled the county widely and I doubt that there will be any any taller.
Michael, is there any need for all the !! which is coming over in your note, I genuinely did not know that there was a general convention in the spelling and did not do it to annoy you or anyone so I would not have done well to remember anything !!, to quote you. Polite pointing out does not cost anything. Just for interest, thinking of the first tree that came into my mind and just googling http://www.treesplease.co.uk/product/quercus-robur-english-oak/ there is a mixture of upper case and lower case. I didn't know but if that is the convention then I will abide by that from now on. Also, is it English oak or English Oak as there is also a mixture there as well. Coast Redwood, is that correct or is it Coast redwood?
Just to answer, there are/were a number of stumps so some larger trees have been cut unfortunately. The Thujas have also been thinned. The trees do remind me of the Vyrnwy trees, the foliage just isn't quite right for conventional Abies grandis. Might email Harewood as it would be quite interesting to know if it is the interior grandis.
My best estimate for the lifespan of Pacific Coast conifers in order of max lifespan, would be Western Red Cedar, Coast Redwood, Giant Sequoia, Douglas Fir.
Considering Scots Pine may live up to 500 years in parts of Scotland, I would estimate that these species will live just as long as Scots Pine. But have to factor in climate change and new pests diseases?
Never seen as yet any decay fungi attack Coast Redwood? How about you Conifers?
I'd put Coast Redwood ahead, as it has coppicing ability that Western Redcedar doesn't, so it can come back more readily after e.g. major crown loss due to lightning strike. And climate change will work in its favour in Britain.
Sitka Spruce could also be up there; it is known to 700 years in the wild. And also Nootka Cypress of course (>1800 years).
New diseases - particularly new Phytophthora hybrids - are a major hazard, but completely unpredictable; there's no knowing which species will get hit next.
Climate change coming to them, laughs, soon we will only be able to grow Siberian trees.
I watch the helicopter logging programme on Quest and some of the Western Red Cedars that they log on there you could literally cry when you see the chain saw starting on them. They are magnificent trees, quite lucky here in Yorkshire with two superb groves of decent sized trees, 35 and 40 metres respectively Harewood and Beedale. Would like to see the near 50 metre speciman at Benmore.
But reading the New Scientist quite worrying about the possible slow down of the North Atlantic Drift?
Nootka a very interesting species seems to be ignored in the UK! Cannot understand why, better provenance selection needed and a full test. Considering how Leyland cypress grows in the UK.
RedRob, am 2018-03-18 16:58:59, geändert am 2018-03-18 17:24:42, hat gesagt:
This the finest and most aesthetically pleasing Noble Fir that I have seen in Yorkshire and just about anywhere in fact. I don't know if anyone is interested, is Emmerdale even known on the continent (perhaps in the Netherlands?) but they film the Yorkshire TV soap Emmerdale on the edge of this wood in a specially built village and I recognised the weir at the bottom of this lake from scenes in the soap involving Zack Dingle and his son, mostly up to no good. If you look on the map you can see the set where it says 'Emmerdale cemetery'.
Expect you are stuck indoors on your pc in all this snow, which this species loves! About 8cm snow down here in South Oxfordshire this evening.
Sadly Rob in the future with climate change if predictions are all correct this species will only grow well north of the border and better still Northern Scotland.
Hello Owen, I suspect(?) that you may be right with your comment about there being a taller Populus Serotina, Robusta or Regenerata in West Yorkshire, I thught that this tree was the same as the Balsam Spire poplars near the bridge but it looks abit different? Couldn't get a hit on the highest twigs at all with the laser so probably nearer 36 metres.
It's a Populus x canadensis, possibly 'Robusta' but likeliest to be 'Eugenei'. Both are male (red catkins next month) but 'Robusta' will be opening its reddish young leaves a fortnight before 'Eugenei' which flushes buff-yellow.
I'd forgotten to update that poplar on this site with my 2016 figures but have now done so. Around 39.5m with the laser but very hard to tell if I'd found the highest shoots. A couple in the public park (Stratford Park) in Stroud are taller.
Hi I will have a vacation from the first of May until half June. I will again explore California. I have a trip in the first 2 weeks to the son of my partner who is living in Utah/Sandy. In that time I will visit Yellowstone. Next 4 weeks I will be in California with a camper.
Sounds great Wim. I could mention your trip on the ENTS forum if you like if you want to meet up with any of the Californian measurers like Mario Vaden and others?
Fine with me. When I was in Florida I met managers of the wildernisses (Suwannee river) and as I expected Americans are very helpful and enthousiast if Europeans come to their country. So thanks for your offer.
For the time being: I changed my route. I will first do California from 2nd until approximately 24th May and next Utah until the 12th of June.
RedRob, am 2018-03-14 17:59:02, geändert am 2018-03-14 18:00:17, hat gesagt:
What sort of temperatures would these have had to endure in the recent 'Beast from the East' Kouta, the BBC was reporting -35 to -40c in parts of southern Sweden?
From the same source: the lowest observed temperature in Mustila Arboretum: -43.5°C in 1940. The tree has germinated in 1892 and planted in 1915, so it has endured that minimum. The data about the A. amabilis trees here:
http://www.mustila.fi/kasvit/AbiesAmabilis
Btw, the grave of the founder of the arboretum is next to the A. amabilis trees.
These trees must be among some of 'the' trees on this site, considering what I have been told about how difficult Amabilis can be and surviving probably regular severe Siberian blasts, these specimans look superb, luxuriant and healthy. Are the young trees in the photo self seeded Amabilis.
I think it is up to the seed origin. The arboretum site says:
"The origin that grows in Mustila has proved to be amazingly winter hardy, that indicates that the seeds have likely been collected from the continental parts of the distribution range of the species."
So the origin is not known but it is clear that it is east of the coastal mountains. The coastal origins would not have any chance in Finland. I see that there are native populations at about 55.8N, 127.3W. The climate there seems actually very similar to that in southern Finland. I took a locality close to that A. amabilis native population, Hazelton, and Kouvola, close to the arboretum, and made a quick comparison:
LOCALITY - MEAN ANNUAL TEMP - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JAN AND JUL MEANS - ANN. RAINFALL
Kouvola -- 4.2°C - 24.8°C - 623 mm
Hazelton - 4.5°C - 25.4°C - 564 mm
Source: https://en.climate-data.org
Difference between the warmest and coldest month means is a simple index for continentality. Thus, the BC locality is even slightly more continental according to this indicator.
It is well-known among the Finnish botanists that interior BC resembles Finnish climate. I would like to make a forest comparison some day by myself.
Thanks Kouta, very interesting figures and comparison, didn't realise that there were such continental sources for some of the Amabilis in BC. It would be interesting to see some photographs of the continental BC trees to compare to your Finnish trees, would they look so luxuriant and healthy. Will have to have a look on ENTS to see if any have been measured and photographed.
I don't know why I compared Hazelton with Kouvola as I had the same climate data for the arboretum, too! Here new comparison:
Hazelton - 4.5°C - 25.4°C - 564 mm
Mustila -- 4.4°C - 23.6°C - 693 mm
I don't know how close Hazelton's data is with the A. amabilis sources. I don't know where the native occurences exactly are. Hazelton is only "about there".
Yes, Finland is continental when compared with the UK but rather ozeanic if compared with sites in the eastern sides of the continents. I searched for the localities with about the same mean annual temp. Differences of Jan & Jul means:
Mustila - 23.6°C
Victoriaville, S Quebec - 31.1°C
Sudbury, Ontario, N of Georgian Bay - 31.5°C
Brainderd, Central Minnesota - 35.1°C
Lairg, N Scotland - 11.2°C, but much higher mean annual temp.
Couldn't decided whether this very fine Cedar was Deodara or Atlantica? When I saw it initially thought Deodar but the shoot ends were not drooping that much and the top branches more resembled a Cedrus Atlantica but the tree did not have a bluey tinge?
Meant to say, before comments come in it was a very grey day with very flat light which wasn't great for photography. The tree was hemmed in and had to fire at the bushes in front so probably marginally taller then what I recorded hitting the bushes as the laser beam went in.
Owen, is this location included in the Google Earth 3D range? Difficult to tell how tall the tree is in the centre here even with the wall behind as context? Probably mid 20s if the wall behind is 5 feet. Is it a Sycamore which is what the other trees look like? From the photographs don't think that there is anything too big although this could be a West Yorkshire county champion for height perhaps?
What does the dark, flat topped conifer over the lamp post look like in this photo? From the size of the car it is c20 metres. Some nice Deodars along the road.
I think the emergent tree at Kirkstall Abbey is Common Lime. 27m on Google Earth. There are two 30m 'Regenerata' ('Serotina'?) poplars on the riverbank behind the photographer's position.
The Ginkgo is 13m on Google Earth but the laser probably missed the spiky top shoots.
I'd like to say the fir in the garden at Ilkley is Abies homolepis but it could just be an Abies alba, stunted by the local conditions. In the second photo, there is a smaller A. homolepis or A. veitchii to the right of the lamp-post, not more than 15m tall. In the first photo, there's also an interesting Thuja occidentalis cv. in the garden with the high hedge across the road. I've never been to Ilkley.
Thanks Owen, the Poplars are county champions for height for West Yorkshire.(winks) I will visit that street in Ilkley at some point as county champions again, not that keen in photographing trees in gardens and pointing the laser as always nervous that people think that I am casing the joint and I will get a visit from the coppers.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/51215
Owen, did you measure the trees at the entrance to Harewood House, are some of these Oaks? Did you also measure the four Sequoiadendrons down the drive to the house? Have measured a current height champion for Quercus Robur for West Yorkshire at a location near Harewood.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4671418
The tree on the left here, is this the 25 metre Metasequoia that you measured?
I re-visited Piper Wood at the back of the estate on Saturday and measured more of the trees, definitely the best location on the estate for tall trees as measured several West Yorkshire county champions for height. The trees are growing in quite a deep valley so a good location for eventual height growth.
I'd be interested in knowing what those two Abies in Ilkley are.
I was going to say that I didn't measure the Giant Sequoias by the drive to Harewood House as they weren't big enough, but looking at the records I see I did record the largest of the five. 30 metres, not tall enough to be worth counting as a county champion. Similarly I'm sure there must be some Populus x canadensis above 30m in West Yorkshire. I didn't measure any of the broadleaves around the Harewood gates and they didn't impress me as special. I think that is the Metasequoia in the photo, by the lake - growing very well.
This Poplar is visible from the A61 but in abit of an inaccessible location, it is head and shoulders bigger than the rest of the trees. Might have to do a distance measurement from this wall area to measure it. The location is pretty sheltered. I have measured another big Poplar in Piper Wood which even without leaves I think is Canadensis something. The Balsam Spires are also in the same location.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1528494
How tall were the Cedrus Libani in the photograph here, I cannot think that there will be any taller probably in West Yorkshire.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4221757
The Sequoiadendrons are visible from miles away, I doubt that there are any taller in West Yorkshire and have driven around the county extensively.
Not sure from the Geograph photo what that poplar will be. I don't think I measured the cedars.
My point with the Sequoiadendrons was that, since there are 54m trees just a few miles away in North Yorkshire, a 30m tree tells us nothing at all about how well the species should be able to perform in West Yorkshire.
I don't agree to a certain degree, many trees have potential but what potential they have and what they achieve is another thing. The 30 metre Sequoiadendron at Harewood is currently the tallest of what is known of what can be achieved in West Yorkshire.
Owen, is this height likely to be legit? Anything left at Fyne Court nearing this height? It is some height although 18 metres the current Britain and Ireland champion. Just found one taller than this 10 metre one at Newby Hall, a West Yorkshire champion for height and a height champion for all of the Yorkshire counties.
I've very sceptical about 'Dr Prior''s measuring methods but you never know. The 18m tree at Borden Wood is itself quite exceptional, being much taller than any others I've seen. It's a remarkable garden for tall trees - I may revisit this year.
Cherry Laurel would become worth measuring when it gets to about 13m, though I'm not sure it could ever become 'monumental'.
Before any comments come, I visited this location in May 2012 and photographed but didn't measure. The light conditions were better then than the dark day on Saturday so using the older photographs. Presumed that this was Alnus Glutinosa and not another Alder species, cones clearly visible so definitely Alnus.
These are the trees that I have spotted, the fine Corsican Pine stand on the right assuming that the cars in the photo are 60 inches tall look 30 metres possibly plus, probably beating your 29.2 metre tree at Tatton Park. There is also what looks like an Abies Grandis in the distance which looks taller than your 25.6 metres tree at Marbury Hall. Does that also look like a Larch on the left side of the car park? If so possibly beating Owen's 27 metre tree at Tatton Park.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1943593
I have also spotted what look like some good stands of all types of trees in Macclesfield Forest at Trentabank Reservoir.
There is a wire fence at the far side of the dam and if this is even a conservative 36 inches then those trees are a good size.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2728392
Some good looking Betula Pendula behind the houses near the dam at Ridgegate Reservoir, from the car size these look a very good height, possibly more than the 21 metre Cheshire champion at Tatton Park.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2928019
Some nice, drawn up Scots Pines which could be county champions for height.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/44842
Some nice stands of Larch and other conifers at Trentabank.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3763380
Trentabank reservoir and the whole of Macclesfield Forest looks a very nice place, picturesque.
Some comments were made on the other thread about contributors on here adding county champions, I for one love knowing what heights can be achieved in the various counties and how they compare to other counties. No Picea Sitchensis champions recorded for Cheshire, some here form the looks of the photo.
Forgot to say, I don't live anywhere near these locations which is why I asking you John if you were still actively measuring in Cheshire and could visit to measure? I didn't know if you were living abroad with you adding the trees in Portugal related locations?
On the subject of Cheshire sites, Abbeywood garden is a young collection where the trees have not yet been measured but which should become an interesting place to visit in a few years at least: Abbeywood.
I'm Robbert Zoon from the Netherlands and I just discovered your website. Very nice!!! I already registered and wanted to add a special tree and photos (both of the tree as on my profile)
But unfortunately to do this, I encounter several limitations and challenges. When I add a tree, the Save button doesn't work. And there are some other unconvenient situations that limit my contribution.
Hello Robbert, try another device or another time, it may be a temporary failure of the web ... I think that usually nobody has this problem.
Regards
RedRob, am 2018-03-02 17:49:16, geändert am 2018-03-02 17:50:16, hat gesagt:
Hello Robbert, had quite a few problems in the past registering trees but your one is not one that I have had so cannot help from experience. Tim is the one to ask? While I am mentioning Tim, just a word to say that MT continues to be a fantastic site and a thanks once again for running it and the work that you do on it.
Are you sure you have entered all the location details before you tried to save. I had a similar problem adding my first tree. I was unable to save it because the correct location details were not available in the drop down lists.
Without maybe a screenshot of the form when you hit the save button it is hard to solve something described so generally like 'saving doesn't work'. Likely not all fields have been filled in, as the "Save" button intentionally remains greyed out (= "doens't work") until all necessary data has been provided. My guess that is the issue. I was also notified by the company that hosts the website they had some temporary glitches on their end the last few days, maybe that was affecting your experience too.
Interesting discussion below, this is a or the definitions of monumental. I agree about not adding seedlings and young trees to this site but even that would be if they were of no commerative significance as that is also a definition of monumental. Wim's comments about cities, the analogy, yes and no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripon_Cathedral
Ripon is a very small city but is of celebratory significance because of it's Cathedral so would or could be included in a list of monumental cities.
I agree with Owen's comments about rarer trees but that said I make no secret that my first interest is in tall trees and specifically conifers and most enjoy measuring them and seeing them on this site, I think that several others on here probably have the same first interest. Also, certainly with myself, I do not have the identification skills of an Owen, Michael or others on here so would struggle to identify and measure the types of rarer tree but do my best to do so. Enjoying reading about John's rarer trees in Madeira.
Quercus chrysolepis (a similar oak from California - Q. virginiana refuses to grow in the UK climate). What an exciting find! I think there are many more outstanding trees to be discovered, or at least properly measured, in this long-neglected and inaccessible garden.
Hello Festscambo, can you persuade Aubrey to register and post some photos of the 51 metre stand of Abies Alba, the big Cedar of Lebanon in the remote valley at Powerscourt and the other giants which he measured a while ago but hasn't reported? I have tried but have given up.
Any records you're able to add will be very welcome, partly because there are users of this site who may be able to help with identification issues and partly because as you may be aware, the Irish Tree Society has failed to release into the public domain any of the records Aubrey Fennell has made over the last five years or so, despite repeated offers from partners such as the Tree Register to help process them. I'm growing afraid this means that Aubrey's hard work is likely to come to nothing and that other tree enthusiasts will never get the opportunity to see what he's been discovering.
As I know Aubrey still doing his job and he has been very busy in the last few years,so his records are impressive and contains thousands of trees.But I'm not able to persuade him anything,I can only share records from places that we both visit.That is only Rostrevor and neighborhood.
This looks like quite an impressive stand of willows, abit difficult to assess the height with no context but perhaps 20 metres. Salix Alba or some other type of willow? Definitely a stand that I can easily visit and check.
Those willows at Bolton Percy were presumably planted as Cricket-bat Willows (which can grow quickly to 30m tall) but, oddly, they seem to be ordinary White Willows, which is presumably why they've never been turned into cricket bats.
There is what looks like a popular cricket team at Bolton Percy so you are probably right Owen. Is Cricket Bat usually differentiated from Salix Alba by having larger leaves and being a darker green colour? Are there any exceptions to this general rule, lighter coloured Cricket Bats for example?
Cricket-bat willow has been selected for its clean grain and strong upright growth. This extends to the minor branches which don't have the semi-weeping habit of these Bolton Percy trees. In summer the leaves of Cricket-bat willows are less bluish and in winter the twigs are darker and redder.
You need to remember that Lodgepole Pine is normally a small and scruffy tree (especially in the extreme environments where foresters used sometimes to experiement with it). This one at Errol has perhaps three times the volume of any others I've seen in Britain: it's not generally a species I get excited about.
14th photo down, opinions on what the two tall conifers may be on the right immediately above the house? These must be hidden from the road as I have measured several trees along the road, the Thuja in photo 25 at that far side of the house and do not recognise these two? The vegetation and trees along the road are dense and visibility is not great in summer.
Douglas Firs in the 14th photo. They've lost their tops a few times by the look of it.
A superb veteran tree in the park in photo 16! I first thought it would be a champion walnut but looking at the Tree Register records for Hackness, it must be an ash described as on the 'front lawn' and measured by Lord Clinton in 2002 as 622cm girth. If Lord Clinton was the owner, and if he's still alive, it's encouraging that he's interested enough in his trees to send us measurements.
Thought that they were but never presume as they have a bluey colour.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1875308
Not a great photo but any idea what the tall stand of trees may be here? Still searching for that elusive Lodgepole Pine stand, even one Lodgepole Pine.
Thanks Owen, not a great photo but may be worth scrambling up the bank to have a look at these, if they are still there and haven't been felled. A Lodgepole Pine is like the Holy Grail. Will photograph a cone.
This sounds like a tree worth measuring if anyone is in the area. The tallest accurately-measured Rowans in Britain currently come it at just over 22m.
This tree is near this location, does that look like the bole of a large Holly on the left. The location is Eatonpark wood near Coxbench. I would have loved to have located that 23 metre Rowan reported at Scarcroft near Leeds but have been round and round the area. Possibly or probably gone but it may not actually be that near Scarcroft but reported as Scarcroft. I think that this shows that precise locating is needed in reporting not just generally locating a tree. I think P Rak must have been a person as there is no place of that name in the area that the local historian knew.
It turns out that Coxbench does have 3D coverage (being near Derby) but this doesn't help because I can't spot the rowan crown from the air and there are some steep slopes hidden under the canopy here anyway.
I'm afraid neither of those Geograph photos were high-enough definition to help me.
Stephen, are you aware of this tree or have attempted to measure in your past visits down this way? I didn't come up this road when I visited last May or could have measured this! There is what looks like a Morris Minor parked to the right of the based. Looks a good size although abit difficult to say how tall? On the bank behind in other photos is a felled and newly planted hillside of Larch so this tree much have had good shelter at what time but now more exposed.
David Alderman measured at Stockgrove CP back in 1992, when the Norway Spruces were 25m and 22m tall and the biggest of the Sequoiadendron 270cm and 254cm girth (not heighted).
Anyone on MT familiar with Abbeystead House near Lancaster in Lancashire or live near this place? No TROBI record for this place and there look to be some nice conifers but abit difficult to ascertain from these photos just how tall?
Agree with Kouta's comments, look forward to seeing some photos of this tree. If taken in winter, is it possible to have a full foliage summer photo as well. Failed to find any big Prunus Avium in Yorkshire yet despite much looking, 24 metres at the moment.
There have been some documentaries on TV about the natural history of South Korea, coinciding with the Winter Olympics, any records of tall trees from the mountains on here, particularly the conifers? What should I be looking for?
Al Carder's "Giant Trees of Western America and The World" says Picea koraiensis is up to 79.9 m (262 ft). The source is Rushforth's "Conifers" (1987). Rushforth says "In the wild it makes a large tree, to 80m, although usually smaller".
Who believes that? Must be an error by Rushforth. A close relative of P. abies and P. obovata. Other sources say up to 30 or 40 m.
Love to know more about Pseudotsuga Sinensis, none recorded on here.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42430/0
Seems to have been heavily logged and appears to have wide spreading crown habit rather than columnar. I wonder what it has achieved for height, whether in dense stands competing for light it has attained any impressive heights? It would be good to have some tree recorders on here from China, Japan and Korea.
Patrick Stileman is a forestry consultant who was employed by the company that currently owns Dropmore to survey the trees in 2014. He's also a Tree Register member and David Alderman was able to persuade him to send us his reports so that I could update the records for this important historic pinetum that's been very hard to access since the 1980s (hence low publicity for this Grand Fir and the other trees). It's most remarkable as a collection where lots of trees from the first seed introduction to Britain were grown through the 19th and 20th centuries. These have all died and what remains is a good representation of the commoner long-lived conifers. For the Home Counties, the soils here are unusually conducive to their growth and presumably the tall Grand Fir is the one in that photo. There is also one pine with a known 1949 planting date which was originally recorded as P. yunnanensis but which Keith Rushforth (who did the previous Dropmore survey to Patrick's) seems to have re-identified as P. densata, making it the oldest and biggest known in Britain. Not an issue on which I'd like to comment, certainly without having seen the tree myself.
Wow a 47.5 Grand Fir in Bucks. That would make it taller than my Douglas in the Chilterns by 2.5m. All I can say is whether this was measured using a tripod? There is a fine Deodar there according to A. Mitchells book.
The soils here Owen are Quaternary river gravels deposited by the ancestor of the River Thames, non calcareous. Fairly common on the southern flank of the dip slope of the Chiltern Hills.
Hello Stephen, the Geograph photo says it is a Golf Course Club House so a visit should be possible with a beer possibly. Look forward to seeing the result if you can visit, hopefully as big or bigger (champion) than recorded. Looks pretty big next to the human figures.
Any likely specimans of this anywhere in Europe? What is the tallest recorded? Kouta is it recorded on the Conifer database that you have quoted in the past?
Picea torano is one of the healthiest spruces when grown in SE England so ought to do well in parts of W Europe; it's one of very few spruces in cultivation here which clearly prefers a warm climate to a cold one (and won't do so well in Yorkshire, though it's perfectly hardy). Cunninghamia lanceolata is similar in its requirements and ought to do well, for example, in the Alpine foothills of Italy, if it was ever grown there.
I've seen good ones in northern Italy, but continuing the heat requirement theme, the best I've heard of (but not seen myself) are at Biltmore in Asheville, NC, where they get the hot steamy summer monsoon they like.
The big tree section for this sp is empty, so nobody has sent information about big or tall specimens.
Japan is a highly developed country and Nikon is even a Japanese company, so I guess there are tree measurers and even societies like ours in Japan, but the language barrier is high. We have no means to search for Japanese record trees online as even their writing system differs totally from ours.
Has somebody a Japanese friend who could search online for Japanese tree records? Would be very interesting!
Does anyone have any experience with growing Parajubaea Torallyi on here? I experimented with Parajubaea Cocoides in the early 1990s, purchasing three young plants from the Palm Centre when Martin Gibbons first offered them and they were supplied in a long pot made up of two, one on top of the other with the bottom cut out of the top one. The reason the palm developed a long taproot and stopped growing when it hit the bottom of the container. I attempted to grow the little palms on as in no way could I have planted such small plants out directly into the garden up here but I ended up loosing all three. In the photo of the Parajubaea offered above that is a tall palm in a very small pot. Has it been forced in to the pot for sale or cam Parajubaea Torallyi be grown on like this? So tempted to buy a plant if it can be grown on to a bigger size.
Parajubaeas of both types have been planted out at Lamorran in Cornwall which Owen found and measured in 2016.
The Belvedere is private (and probably a sensitive and highly secure site), not part of Windsor Great Park. It might be possible to height the cedars from surrounding footpaths, however. I don't have any confidence in the old heights, other to say that these cedars are tall, rather than short.
This is another tree that I would like to see, doubtful any in Yorkshire of decent size if survived perhaps, 10 metres at Castle Howard in 2009 before the December of 2010.
Yes I'm still here, Been very busy looking after my elderly mother, so little time to measure this winter so far, but I will upload some more trees shortly.
What have you been up to? Any new non native giants up north?
Hello Stephen, good to hear from you, glad that you are still active or at least perusing the board. I have spotted a tall tree (several) not far from you (Sir Roger Moore helped me) and had wondered if you would have been able to have a look at some point? Appreciate that you will be pushed for time.
Just spotted a stand of impressive new what look like Abies in a very sheltered location in the North Yorkshire Moors so hope to have a look at them when the weather takes up. Also been made aware of two very tall Cedars of Lebanon at a location which I have actually been to before but never went actually into the grounds and couldn't see them from the road outside.
Sorry guys for the lack of tree data. Will try to upload soon. Feel free to measure near Slough its 30 miles away from me Owen. Have not forgotten the Plane Owen its on my list! I suspect its the tallest outside Dorset. 40m+.
Yes great Rob, go hunting, now I have a new car as the other one clocked up 177000 miles and it was too much of a risk heading off any distance, North Wales here I come and maybe Scotland. Have you found any champs, as its been a while since you uploaded. Been fairly quiet on the site for a while I noticed.
For you both, a massive Horse Chestnut Near Thame in Oxfordshire I have seen yet to measure and a nice collection I measured, at the base of the Chilterns Big H. Chestnut, huge plane and a Yew tree with a massive clear trunk, looks like a Monterey Cypress!
Cheers
RedRob, am 2018-02-02 17:50:26, geändert am 2018-02-02 18:08:44, hat gesagt:
Hello Stephen, the main tree at Blackpark Lake is a Cedar of Lebanon which I spotted in an episode of 'The Persuaders' recently, it looks a big tree and is still there. There are also numerous what look like very tall Scots Pine which I have also spotted on various films and tv programmes (there may also be some big Corsican Pines as pretty sure that is what they were in 'A Challenge for Robin Hood' 1967) and which are also still there. This lake was used many times as a filming location for nearby Pinewood Studios. I will register the Cedar of Lebanon to give directions to whoever is near at any time. As said, if you cannot make it as it possibly reads in your message above, Owen as said will fit it in some time. Perhaps you two could have met up even? Owen found some photos, if you Google 'Black Park lake' and look at the ribbon of photos on the right which accompanies the map there are a couple of photos of it next to a tall Scots Pine.
6th photo down middle column (click on photo to enlarge) , there is a figure standing on the bank of the lake next to the Scots Pine, assuming 72 inches for the human figure the tree on the left is near 38 metres, even assuming a lower human height in to the 30s. The pines are probably into the 30 metres.
It has been the usual winter drought with the bad weather, done little tree measuring since October.
Look forward to reading about your trips, I was wondering if you would visit Betws again as the Nikon laser is very limited there with it's wide beam. Perhaps you could confirm Owen's tree further up the bank at the Waterloo Grove with your narrower beam
Actually Black Park is not to far away, I may be able to visit sometime, looks interesting. I still have not measured all the trees at the Valley Gardens at Windsor Grt. Park.
No plan for Wales just yet but definitely want to revisit shortly, just time.
Maybe you do know, or have read about the large Amerikanische Buche (Fagus grandifolia) '9926' of which i liked to know sizes we could add. We got plenty of records of European beech, but just a few of the American relative.
I do occasionally go out to Michigan, so maybe I can go check that tree sometime. It doesn't strike me as an especially large American Beech, though, except perhaps in girth. I am generally more focused on height measurement. I will post some of the best nearby specimens that I've measured.
Hi Erik, thanks for immediate response and sharing your first trees with us.
I have already spotted some of your observations at iNaturalist, as e.g. the Tower Beech, and your photos at flickr. For sure there are some interesting trees we do appreciate to see here as well, with some images i am not sure of the species, will ask you there.
At Tower beech you wrote cubic meter instead of feet at description. There are several MT users hunting for height records which will be happy about your contributions and to discuss about.
Thanks Erwin. If you see any particular trees you think I should add, let me know- I have far too many to add every one! After adding a few more Fagus grandifolia I'll concentrate on current NY state height records.
For the Tower Beech description, cubic meters was correct. It would be approximately 570 cubic feet. I assume metric units are preferred for descriptions on this site.
Erwin Gruber, am 2018-02-02 15:54:07, geändert am 2018-02-02 15:57:11, hat gesagt:
For sure i will message you in case and do undestand you will have too many measured trees to add all here. I took sizes of some larger ones here in Austria, and the list of not uploaded ones is growing longer and longer.
Sizes: ca. 570 cubic feet is ca. 16.14 cubic meter, this is in agreement with the beech dimension, 1c.f. is ~ 0.0283 c.m.
Thank you for the correct conversion factor, I'm used to relying on 3.28 ft= 1 meter for linear measurement conversions, now that you point it out it makes sense that that would not apply directly to converting volume units. I will update the entry accordingly.
This is a great tree, lovely straight bole.Any likely taller Juglans Regia possibilities anywhere Kouta?
Jeroen Philippona, am 2018-02-01 21:05:17, geändert am 2018-02-01 21:06:24, hat gesagt:
I suppose in the great forests in northern Iran near the Caspian there will be as tall or taller Persian walnuts. Kouta has visited some of these forests, so perhaps he has an idea.
I don't know. Yes, in northern Iran it could be at least as tall, but I don't think I saw it there and even if I had seen I didn't make any measurements and it is so long ago that it would be difficult to compare with the Lagodekhi tree. In N Iran the growing conditions are at least better as the climate is more equable. But consider that the range of J. regia extends through the Himalayas to Upper Myanmar. A taller specimen certainly looms somewhere!
Love the little palm in the centre of the trunk, self seeded most likely. What type is it, looks abit like a Livistona but could be a Trachy I suppose? Conifers?
Hello Conifers, spotted those palms behind but wasn't 100% sure if they were Trachys but they do look like Trachys. I wonder how the seed got into the fork of the Cedar branches, stashed there by bird or squirrel perhaps? Is wind dispersal likely?
A Trachycarpus in my local park used to have a Swedish Whitebeam growing out of the top of it, until the cuckoo-tree ran out of nutrients and died. Revenged!
Just finished the Newby Hall trees file, does this look like Norway Spruce? Alan Mitchell recorded a Picea Pungens somewhere in this wood many years ago and not likely to be that? No cones on the ground or branches and not easy to get a photo of the crown.The bark pattern threw me slightly, looked different to the other Norways that I have seen, very small scale pattern.
Thanks Owen and Conifers, it didn't look 60 metres but neither do some other trees look their height when photographs are posted so it is best to err on caution when assessing.
This record was made by our local recorder John Weightman (per its label). I've been to the arboretum at Tatton Park three times and looked particularly for this tree but never found it, leaving me with a sneaking suspicion that it's mislabelled and actually just one of the Grand Firs which are scattered around here. I do remember seeing a low-definition photo of John's in which it looked OK for Abies amabilis but not clearly so.
Abies amabilis sets off with great vigour in most parts of Britain (given a free-draining sandy soil) and can readily reach 30m, but after about 50 years tends to turn in Abies horribilis. Even in the Highlands it's picky.
Best that I could do with this tree, no cones at all on the ground and very long trunk with few and quite sparse branches at the top. Presuming that this probably is not the Abies Veitchii but perhaps Picea Sitchensis or at least a spruce?
At least some of Rob's photos are, oooh...i'd say pretty useless for any id-attempt, and i wouldn't think a moment about uploading such "photos" ;-O ... no, no matter of image size in megapixels, or worth discussing further to me.
1st. image shows trunk of some Picea, maybe P. sitchensis, or P. abies, whatever....just want to remind you, Rob, MT is about "Monumental" trees, or at least noteworthy in general. Just think about the case we all added lots of very common, ordinary trees here, we had to change name to "Ordinary Trees".
RedRob, am 2018-01-26 17:53:15, geändert am 2018-01-26 18:00:38, hat gesagt:
I meant to reply to this at the time and just did't get around to it. Erwin, unfortunately not all trees conform to being photogenic or are in fact easy to photograph at all in dense stands. Trees that can also be photographed sometimes are not photogenic either,
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/61735/
this one is one that comes up under your name, not great for identification either and perhaps not one that anyone would want to post if that is the criteria that you set above and yet it has been added here. I suspected Sitka for this tree but there was an Abies Veitchii in this wood, a tree that I have never seen in person, so I took the photos.
RedRob, am 2018-01-26 17:55:45, geändert am 2018-01-26 17:56:35, hat gesagt:
Rob, for sure i do know there are sometimes very unfavorable conditions to take propper photos. For usual i won't upload images of bad quality, at least not if aimed to be ided upon. Any tree, or tree-like plant reported here should at least represent something "unusual", as the most spindly growing apparent Cupressus glabra, i don't know any true cypress of similar shape. It was surely not easy to capture it's habit.
Another example of my images taken at way too dark condition is the Picea glauca 'Conica' with relatively large reverted top sprout, which is for usual removed. Shown here to tell others about.
I do hope you will not feel offended by my previous comments, not what i aimed at!
Hello Erwin, not really annoyed but just wanted to make a statement of fact, given weather conditions, light and deep canopy it is not always easy to come up with a good photo. I agree with your other comments, I only add champions (B&I, country or county for height, girth) or specimans of exceptional note for county. There are thousands, tens of thousands of ordinary trees that I could measure, photograph or add but I don't. As said, if this tree had been Abies Veitchii it would have been a county champion but it isn't. It is still notable as it is the tallest Picea Sitchensis on the whole Newby Hall estate and in the area for many miles surrounding.
Owen, there is a claim here that this was the tallest tree in England from 1965 to 1974, any ideas what would have preceeded this as tallest in England and what followed it or what in fact was the tallest tree in England 1965 to 1974.
Nordmann fir trees in the Caucasus mountains supposedly attain great sizes in certain areas. Specimens up to 85 meters tall have been reported, as well as trunk diameters of around 2 meters. This would make the Nordmann fir by far the tallest native tree species in Europe, exceeding the maximum height of Norway spruce by over 20 meters. However, the reliability of these measurements seems highly questionable. Currently, based on information that seems reliable of trees around 50 meters tall, I don't think these firs can grow much larger than Silver fir (Abies alba). I am interested to see what others believe in regards to the potential of Nordmann fir sizes.
KoutaR, am 2017-07-27 16:14:11, geändert am 2017-07-27 16:14:28, hat gesagt:
I have seen and measured Nordmann firs in the wild in Georgia but the area (Borjomi NP and Nature Reserve) is much drier and more continental than the Russian Western Caucasus where the tallest claims are situated. But in Borjomi, Nordmann firs were constistently taller, perhaps by 10 m, than Oriental spruces (Picea orientalis), that has claimed to reach almost or about 60 m in more oceanic regions. That is the opposite to the situation in the Balkans and Central Europe where (Norway) spruce is consistently a few metres taller than (silver) fir. As the climate on the southern lower slopes of the Russian Western Caucasus should be very favourable for the tree growth, I would not be surprised if Nordmann fir reached more than Norway spruce. I have also seen photos of huge forest grown Nordmann fir trunks. However, I think 85 m or 80 m is too much. Also Owen wrote Nordmann fir's growth in the UK does not indicate it would reach such heights anywhere. My guess is its max height could be something between 60 and 70 m. But this is only a guess.
Maybe InSearchOfGiants could search giants in the Russian Caucasus?
Kouta
Jeroen Philippona, am 2017-07-27 22:43:01, geändert am 2017-07-27 22:43:36, hat gesagt:
I wholly agree with Kouta. Several forest researchers have said they think around 60 m will be the maximum for Nordmann fir in the Caucasian area. Perhaps at the very best locations the tallest trees will be a bit taller. The height of 68 m sometimes reported could be true but I do not think 80 - 85 m will be reliable, like the same heights for Pinus strobus reported from the past in the eastern USA.
But still it would be fascinating to visit the forests in the western parts of the Caucasus.
Thank you both for your answers. Indeed the forests of the Caucasus truly seem interesting. I definitely plan to visit them one day, possibly search for 60+ meter firs. It seems like one of the regions which has been explored the least out of Europe's old growth forests.
Unfortunately I do not know Russian. There are certain similarities between Russian and Croatian language which I do speak, however, these similarities are not great enough to compensate for not speaking Russian. However, I do believe that I could find people who speak English there.
The whole world's tree measuring community is eagerly waiting for your Nordmann fir measurements from Russia! You should be in contact with some authorities who could tell you where to search for the tallest specimens. You should also contact Vladimir Dinets who reported a 78-metre specimen, though he measured the length of the tree's shadow, so the measurement is far from accurate. However, he could tell you where the tree is located. He answered to an e-mail of a NTS member and Michael Spraggon has also been in contact with him, so it is possible to reach him. I haven't contact him but I have his e-mail address if you need.
Thank you for the information, I will be sure to contact these people before I plan to visit these forests. However, for now I have no idea when I may go there. Currently, I have mostly been searching for large spruce and fir in Croatia before I leave back to the United States, where I normally reside. Such a trip to the Caucasus is likely not in the very near future, but I would definitely love to explore those forests one day. I guess the tree measuring community will have to wait a little longer.
Regards, InSearchOfGiants
Conifers, am 2017-08-03 13:05:53, geändert am 2017-08-03 13:07:12, hat gesagt:
I contacted Dinets and asked about the "78-metre Nordmann fir". He answered the entire area was logged in preparation for the Sochi Olympics. A friend of him was there recently and found only clearcuts.
Too bad! The same nature destruction goes further in Korea. For the 2018 Olympics, an old-growth forest was destructed.
That is bad news. I hoped they had spared the most important forests in the National Park in the Caucasian. There is little respect for nature among us, even when we have declared it a reserve. Do you know if the destructed forests in S.Korea also were in a National Park or forest reserve?
This says: "The mountain was officially designated a national protected forest in 2008 but that designation was lifted in 2013 for this Olympic construction project."
The organizers say they will restore the forest to its original state after the Games... Ridiculous!
Indeed, the nature seems always lose if there is an interest conflict. One problem is that as the developers try to attact conservation objects continuously they need to win only once. The conservationists must win EVERY times! If they lose once the object is gone.
The "78-metre" fir was in the buffer zone but nevertheless they would have had to spare the grove. I guess it would have been a great attraction to the visitors if the tree(s) was really so big.
Indeed a ridiculous argument! Do you know if there still are old growth forests left of Abies nordmanniana in the Western Russian Caucasian? The original area of these forests must have been much larger than the area used for the Sochi Olympics. And do you know if there is reliable information about the whole Olympic impact on the National Park?
I don't know but I THINK there are still large undisturbed forest, also with A. nordmanniana, in Caucasus Nature Reserve, but they are mostly high elevation forest. Are there still old-growth forests at lower elevations in productive sites and how much, I have no idea.
I don't also have any information about the overall impact of the Games on the Sochi NP and Caucasus Nat. Reserve.
Many of you have likely followed the "Taiwan Tree Project" of a Tasmanian tree climber group that calls itself "The Tree Projects". Their primary output is a giant image of one tree, composed of numerous small photos. In Taiwan they climbed a Taiwania cryptomerioides tree. It was 69 m tall. They claim there are taller trees deep in the forest. Probably they did not search for the tallest trees, but the height measurement was only a side product. Older sources give the max height of the species variously 65-85 m. The height measurement was at least on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/thetreeprojects/
There is also a cool video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMSm-TgsMz0
RedRob, am 2017-08-18 16:49:13, geändert am 2017-08-18 16:50:50, hat gesagt:
Hello Kouta, I had not been following this and to be honest hadn't actually heard of the tree. What a magnificent tree if it reaches those dimensions, the foliage almost looks like a cross between Cryptomeria and Norfolk Island Pine. Have seen a few trees in gardens with foliage similar to that, small trees, thought that they were some type of Cryptomeria but could have been one of these.
Wikipedia gives a Royal Botanic Garden, Kew sources that reports heights up to 90 metres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwania
Farjon, A. (2005). Monograph of Cupressaceae and Sciadopitys. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 1-84246-068-4
That's an error in Wikipedia: The reference (Farjon's book) says:
"Tree to 60-65(-70) m, ..., up to 3-4 m diam. above buttressed base"
I have heard the tallest trees are in a reserve that is allowed to enter with a special permit only. But the pictured 69-metre tree seems to be at a road, not in a deep forest.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to one and all on here, Kouta, Jeroen, Stephen... too numerous to mention all individually but very best wishes to said one and all.
There is a problem, warning note, coming up at the moment on this site and photos not attaching to the tree for whatever reason.
This is the tree that matches the emergent tree that I could see, not the Nikko Fir. It is really hidden, could not see it at all from the path. 36.4 metre clean reading with RAF from the other side, base not visible from the orchard but 35.6-36 metres from that side and the tree base is in a hollow. Presume that this may be the Silver Fir?
Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 211 Warning: Illegal string offset 'groupid' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 212 Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 201 Warning: Illegal string offset 'groupid' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 202 Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 211 Warning: Illegal string offset 'groupid' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 212 Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 201 Warning: Illegal string offset 'groupid' in /customers/0/1/c/monumentaltrees.com/httpd.www/site/recentchanges_parsing.php on line 202 2017-08-30
I think this is the Abies alba I recorded in 2009.
RedRob, am 2017-08-31 16:55:20, geändert am 2017-08-31 16:55:51, hat gesagt:
Just added another photo, I thought that it must be although the bark pattern threw me abit. It is just over 36 metres now, the tallest Ash that I could measure nearby was 32 metres (in new photo on left), could not pick any others out. There are a couple of other conifers that I measured but the foliage was just so high up? Not sure if the Abies Veitchii is still there or not or is one of these, suspect not?
Owen, this is the tree tip that I could see from the orchard and thought was the Nikko Fir, from the orchard side with no base visible and slightly upslope it was 35.6 metres, from the other side with a view of tip and some scrub at the base it was 36.4 metres. The Nikko Fir, couldn't see the base from anywhere and couldn't see the clear top form the path but aiming at what I could see at the top and the vegetation at the path side it was 27.4 metres. The base was slightly in a hollow down from the path side so have assigned 28 metres for the Nikko Fir.
Yes, this all ties in with what I saw in 2009: the Nikko Fir near the entrance to the Woodland Walk, then the tall ash (I'd measured this at 31m) and just beyond it the Abies alba which I couldn't measure but which had looked to me from a distance to be only 1m taller than the ash. (Yorkshire champion by default, but there could be a much better one lurking somewhere?)
Seem to be plagued by very difficult to measure trees with bits of them that just don't look quite right. This is a Spruce but the bark pattern just didn't look right for Norway Spruce, a very fine pattern and greyish in colour. 27.4 metres to the highest bit I could see and still see the base with vegetation in front so it will be 28 metres I am confident of.
Norway Spruce is quite variable in bark. There's a vague suggestion that the needles of this tree are significantly whiter underneath, which would mean it's one of several other species, but I really can't tell from these photos. (If it's the same spruce as appears in the background of the Norway Maple foliage shot, the large cones strongly suggest Norway Spruce.)
Hello Owen, I have just posted a zoomed in photo of the crown but that is all I can do? There were no cones anywhere under the tree but I did find a spruce cone probably about 30 metres away but I am not certain that it came from this tree? There were no other spruces immediately near it either but another one I think about 40 metres away? Alan Mitchell reported a Picea Pungens and that is what I was searching for although this tree is very much taller than the one he reported?
I couldn't find the zoom photo, but on reflection it's got to be Norway Spruce. The species with silver underleaves wouldn't have quite this crown-shape in Yorkshire at least.
The tree in the photo centre is normal Sycamore with bark pattern visible half way up, the tree to the right and those to the left had smooth trunks and the foliage just didn't look quite right for Acer Pseudoplatanus, the leaf edges were cleaner dissected through the laser viewerscope although they still had the red leaf stems varying in deepness of colour. They just didn't look right for me for Acer Pseudoplatanus. The whole group is very difficult to measure has you cannot see the top of any of them, you are aiming up from below at the highest part you can see. Every tree I measured was right on 30 metres from this position, 29.6, 29.8, 30 metres.
I think they all have to be Sycamore in this shot. As for the Norway Maple, the photos just aren't clear enough to say much about the leaf-shape, and the bark isn't in the photos?
Acknowledged, should have taken a photo of the bark of the Norway Maple but it was smooth like a Norway Maple, the foliage was just too high to take a close photo of. I think that there is a red Norway Maple in the photo with the conifer and Norway Maple and wondered if these could be red Norway Maples reverted to type?
I found the photo of the Norway Maple 'Schwedleri' which you've correctly identified. Seen in May these are bright purple, but they quickly fade to this bronzy green before reddening again in autumn. They don't 'revert', though the colour will fade more if the tree is in shade.
I would not describe the Norway Maple bark as 'smooth': it's quite closely and regularly corrugated into rounded ridges from an early age, whilst Sycamore bark is very smooth until it starts cracking into scaly plates at maturity.
Could I ask a question about the smooth barked tree on the left of the photo for this Lime? The bark seemed to be very smooth for Sycamore and yet the leaves didn't look absolutely right for Norway Maple, I may be wrong? Does that tree, the foliage is visible on the far left of photo and higher up although abit blurred, look like Sycamore or Norway Maple? There were some other trees in agrove which just didn't look quite right for either species?
Sycamore for the tree with the long smooth trunk, though there is also some Norway Maple foliage from an adjacent tree top left. I think there is a tendency for Sycamore (and Horse Chestnut) to keep the smooth 'juvenile' bark for longer in woodland shade than they do when they grow in the open.
If you see a big 'smooth-barked Sycamore' it can of course be Acer velutinum (var. vanvolxemii), an interestingly scarce tree, but from its habit I'm confident that this one isn't.
Owen, if you look on Street View there is a pretty tall, slim Sequoiadendron at this location, are you aware of it? Along the same road are also some tall looking Noble Firs and a Silver Fir I am pretty sure. The Sequoiadendron looks big, even assuming 6 feet for the sign near it it is giving 48 metres. There are a number of Sequoiadendrons all along this road, this looks the tallest.
I think the slender one with its photo in RedwoodWorld is the one Alan Mitchell measured at 45m in 1983 (the others in the line of ten Sequoiadendron here being 29m - 37m then). It doesn't look as if it will have added much height since - the site is fairly exposed. A tiddler in Highland terms, I'm afraid!
The tall tree that I photo measured as circa 48 metres is an impressively narrow tree. Tam has paced it out and estimated 50 metres.
Owen, haven't looked on the forum but are there any tree records from Balmoral Castle? Watched a programme last night and froze the image on the TV as there was a car in front of the castle and some tall slim conifers just behind. The photo measurement came out as at least 40 metres and circa 45 metres. Couldn't see what type of car it actually was and it was to the side but the conifers looked quite impressive. In a drone fly over there looked to be some blue conifers, Noble Firs.
The tallest tree I measured at Balmoral on my visit in 2007 was a 48m Douglas Fir in the woodlands by the entrance drive. There are lots of superb American conifers on the estate, though at this altitude (300m in the coldest corner of Britain) they grow more slowly and densely than in the glens of Argyll or Perthshire.
Hello Owen, those Douglas Firs will definitely be the ones in the image last night, I visited Balmoral a decade ago and that is exactly where the entrance drive is. Impressibe looking very dense, slim trees as you say, 50 metres now?
Thanks for comments Owen and Conifers. I don't think that any of my photos can show them up even zoomed in but through the 6x viewfinder the branches around the tip of the tree were loaded with slim, tall cones which really showed up but unfortunately even with 24mp they just will not pick up. I have just been looking at photos of the cones of Homo Homolepsis and they looker shorter and fatter than what I saw, unless the photos that I looked at were examples of stubby examples? The clustering of cones reminded me of Abies Koreana in small trees with the clustering. Is there a type similar to Homolepsis but with taller, slimmer cones? It was a difficult tree to measure as from the path running past it you couldn't see the base for undergrowth and couldn't see the top either? I got 28 metres from that position estimating base position and hitting what I could see in the crown but from the orchard where the tip could be clearly seen the readings that I have given. I did spot the top also on driving up the drive emerging above the surrounding canopy.
Nice you have visited this forest once more and that you found even taller ashes, among wich the tallest native broadleaf tree measured in Europe! Are the ashes still healthy there or do they show signs of ash dieback ?
I noticed dead twigs in the top of the former record ash (48m in 2011, 49m now). First I thought the tree has lose its height but then found the highest (live) top. But I cannot say if the dead crown twigs were due to "ash dieback" or another reason. Otherwise the trees looked healthy.
I didn't measure oaks & beeches but concentrated on ashes as they are the stars of the locality. The measuring was very difficult and time consuming because of lower leafy beech crowns. The forest is now a nature reserve and not managed anymore (perhaps since 10+ years?). A part of the forest floor is now covered by up to 3 m tall beeches and Sambucus nigra and up to 2 m tall nettles and other perennials making even moving difficult.
One reason for the taller heights now (in addition to growth) may be the leafy condition (leafless in 2011): The ash leaves are so long that if the topmost leaf points upwards it may increase the height almost half a metre.
Sorry for the poor photos. Evening was darkening and I didn't have much time.
@ Kouta - "The ash leaves are so long that if the topmost leaf points upwards it may increase the height almost half a metre" - sorry, but have to disagree there; (a) ash leaves don't routinely point upwards, but are ± level, (b) leaves in exposure at the top of a tall tree are smaller than those on low shaded branches (due to water stress), and (c) the weight of foliage means that the height is likely to be less in summer; freed of their weight in autumn, bare branches rise higher if anything other than perfectly vertical.
Ashes may be the stars of the locations but the sessile oaks are still the tallest measured in Germany and tallest anywere measured in Europe outside France. Perhaps there are also taller oaks than you measured in 2011.
Quite possibile. At least that the tallest oak I measured in 2011 has perhaps grown. However, had I took time to search for taller oaks I would not have found the tallest ash (50.6m). It was the very last tree I measured and the evening was darkening. I try to search for oaks when/if I go there next time.
You are most likely right in that a leaf cannot add "almost half a metre". Some tree species, particularly in warmer climates, hold their top leaves almost vertically for reducing water loss. So I wanted to do some measurements. I went to a forest near my home and tried to measure height differences between top leaflets of 30-35-metre ashes with TP200X laser on tripod. However, it was more difficult as I thought. My laser has too wide beam. So I didn't get exact results but it looks leaves may add some 20 cm in some cases.
Leafless height being more due to weight of leaves is a common thought and may be true in some tree species. However, for me it is hard to believe that these ashes would be taller leafless. All of the trees I measured in 2011 and 2017 were taller (by 0.8-1.5 m) now. Could their growth rate be still so high that the height difference would be still bigger...
Congratulations Kouta, great find. Looks a difficult measuring location even from your photo. The Sambucus, any of significant height drawn up? I have looked and looked over here and yet to come across any of decent height or at least worth measuring.
I observed the top of a ~20-metre ash from my balcony a few days ago. I then photographed the highestmost twigs with my superzoom camera. See the photos here:
