Search found 40 matches

Return

Zane Moore

Hi all, this is me, Zane. Thank you all for your encouragement. I have now registered to be part of the NTS and this will be my profile! Thank you specifically, Bob, for your invitation to be a part of this.
by yofoghorn
Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:24 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Zane Moore

hey Zane, are you the fellow who discovered the 180' sycamore??

The sycamore was 178.2', but if there is no top damage, I don't see why it can't reach 180'! I plan on measuring it with Impulse every year, because until its top breaks, it will be the record-holder for the tallest sycamore ever recorded. I want to study the limits of sycamore height, and this is a perfect specimen to do that with.
by yofoghorn
Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:43 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Tallest California Hardwoods Update:

Hi everyone,

These are the most current lists of my hardwood discoveries in the past year. Does anyone know if the madrone is perhaps a world record? What is the tallest known madrone tree?

California Sycamores (Platanus racemosa) - 140'+
(Updated June 2, 2012)
Height (ft.), DBH (ft.)
178.20', 3.93'
169.10', 4.03'
164.33', 2.57'
156.28', 5.89'
155.6', 4.59'
154.8', 3.85'
150.6'
148.8', 2.76'
148.2', 2.92'
148.0', 6.03'
146.9'
145.7', 5.06'
143.4', 5.46'
142.7'
142.1'
141.5', 3.39'
140.9'
140.2', 5.94'

Bay Laurels (Umbellularia californica) - 150'+
(Updated July 17, 2012)
Height (ft.), DBH (ft.), Location
165.33', 4.38', Roaring Camp
158.87', 2.02', HCRSP
155.5', 3.13'
154.0, 2.71'
150.5', 6.53'
150.5', 1.70'
150.0', 2.39'

Tanoaks (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) - 140'+
(Updated July 14, 2012)
Height (ft.), DBH (ft.), Location
162.02', 2.33' - FNMSP
158.09', 4.03' - BBRSP, large single stem
157.3', 2.60' - FNMSP
153.87', 2.87' - BBRSP
150.9', 4.22' - FNMSP, triple standard
150.5', 2.10' - Huddart County Park
150.5', 2.79' - BBRSP
150.0', 3.65' - FNMSP, double standard

Pacific Madrones (Arbutus menziesii) - 130'+
(Updated March 13, 2012)
Height (ft.), DBH (ft.), Location
135.4', 2.41', FNMSP
by yofoghorn
Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:58 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Tallest California Hardwoods Update:

Zane,

I noticed how skinny a lot of these trees are and wondered how intermixed with conifers they were .

Rand,

Many of these hardwood trees were found in second-growth redwood stands. All of the tanoaks, with the exception of those found in Big Basin, were in second-growth stands. The tallest three sycamores as well are in second-growth stands. Most likely these trees started when the redwoods were small and the amount of light was decent enough for the species to survive with. As the redwoods grew, the sycamores and tanoaks had to grow with them. These trees are testaments to the redwood competition factor. The madrone, in fact, is blocked by a redwood downhill and a tanoak uphill, so since curving its trunk one way or the other would not result in more light, the tree was forced to grow straight up and compete. Trees like the sycamores would likely not get to the 260'-270' range. The tallest tanoak and sycamore trees that aren't competing with second growth redwoods were the 156.28' sycamore which grew in an alluvial flat with sycamores and bay laurels to compete with, and the 158.09' tanoak which grew in Big Basin old growth stands.
by yofoghorn
Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:49 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Tallest Eucalypts in Santa Cruz County

The tallest hardwoods in North America are the Eucalyptus globulus located in California. The tallest on this list of groves I discovered is not the tallest eucalypt in North America or the Northern or Western Hemispheres, for that matter. The tallest eucalypt in the Northern and Western Hemispheres is a tree on Santa Cruz Island, part of the Channel Islands in Southern California. This tree was last measured to be 246.2 feet (75 meters) tall. For everyone's information, the tallest eucalypt in Europe, a Eucalyptus diversicolor , stands 236.2 feet (72 meters) in height. The tallest eucalypt in Northern California is the 241.2-foot (73.5-meter) Eucalyptus globulus that I discovered in December 2011. It was recently measured, on November 20, 2012, to be 241.27 feet tall (73.53 meters), using a tripod-mounted Impulse 200 LR and prism. To be thorough, in the Southern Hemisphere, the tallest eucalypt in the world is the Eucalyptus regnans , last measured at 99.6 meters (326.7 feet) in Tasmania, Australia. The tallest tree in Africa is a Eucalyptus saligna at 79 meters (259 feet), though a tree in the area, which fell in 2006, was 81.5 meters (267.3 feet). To be clear, in the Northern Hemisphere, the tallest angiosperm is not a eucalypt. It is a Shorea faguetiana in Borneo that measures 88.1 meters (289.0 feet) tall.

Eucalyptus globulus Groves in Santa Cruz County* (as measured by laser rangefinder) - 200'+
Height (ft.), DBH (ft.)
241.27', 5.17'
235.67', 4.25'
232.76'
228.8'
219.4'
208.0', 4.78'
206.7'
204'
203.5', 6.34' *

*tallest known grove in Santa Clara County (to the north of Santa Cruz County)

As a note, in 2012, the Santa Cruz Island Eucalyptus globulus (the tallest eucalypt outside of the Australian mainland, Tasmania, and Africa) was scheduled to be cut down because it was a non-native species. This was revoked recently due to a lack of governmental funds. However, if this tree gets cut, then the tallest known eucalypt in the Northern Hemisphere will be the tallest I found in Santa Cruz County, California. The tallest tree on this list is not right next to a road and will most likely not be cut down anytime soon. Based on its smaller DBH and the availability of water in the area, I believe that this tree will grow quite rapidly in the next few years.
by yofoghorn
Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:13 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

New Tallest Bay Laurel

Within two days of coming back to California after my first semester of college, I found a bay laurel in Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park that is the new world record in height for the species. The tree was in a part of the park near the third tallest bay laurel, which was found the same day. The tallest bay laurel is 169.42 feet tall. This makes it the second tallest native hardwood in the state. The tallest native hardwood in California is the 178.2 ft. California sycamore.
by yofoghorn
Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:31 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Albino Redwoods

On February 14th and 15th, 2013, an arborist who lives in the Sierra Nevadas discovered a very important discovery! He found an albino redwood that was producing male cones! This has only been witnessed one other time, when Dale Holderman found male cones on an albino redwood and decided to do a genetics experiment with them. He then wrote a book called The White Redwoods where he talks about the experiment. A brief paragraph of his book is mentioned here: http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_albino.shtml

This is not the arborist's first discovery. In 1997, he found a chimera redwood in Western Sonoma County. In January 2013, I discovered a chimera in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. As of now, only 5 chimera are known to exist, and two of them have come out of the Dale Holderman 1976 experiment. Chimera is a phenomenon when a single organism has two different genotypes (basically sets of DNA). This can be seen with a "mosaic" of different colors. The arborist found the male cones on a chimera redwood in Sonoma County that is over 30 feet tall and stands without a mother tree. He also reports that this tree had some older, female cones that are now dead. This albino redwood is the only one in history to have been found with any evidence of female cone production!

I wrote this post because I am curious of a few things:

1. Where are the northernmost albino redwoods? Are there some north of the Eel River (in Redwood National Park, Prairie Creek, Jedediah Smith, Headwaters Forest, etc.)?

2. Has anyone seen any albino redwoods with male cones?

3. Does anyone know where the tallest albino redwood is located? How tall have you seen them? Please do not disclose the exact location, but a general one within a few miles preferably.

4. Has anyone seen any chimera albino redwoods? A picture is attached of a common growth pattern. Chimera redwoods tend to be part green and part white with distinct separation between the two colored tissues. Also, nonchimeric variegated (green white) albino redwoods are important to know about. There are 19 variegated (both chimeric and nonchimeric) albino redwoods known. To add more to that list would be of great importance!

5. Has anyone ever seen any pale-green or pale-yellow albino redwoods? Right now only 3 of them are known to exist, so I am hoping to change that!

I know albino redwood locations are very secretive. I mainly just want to have a discussion about albino redwoods, because I think we could all learn a lot from each others' observations. If anyone would like to message me privately with locations of either variegated or northernmost albino redwoods, that would be appreciated! Also, if anyone has pictures to share of albino redwoods, please do so. I think the WNTS can and should have this discussion. Also, if anyone has any questions about the anatomy, physiology, or just general information about albino redwoods, I, along with others on this forum, can help to answer those questions!

I personally have studied Santa Cruz County albino redwoods and have looked at their ring growth patterns, leaf and stem anatomy, and some physiology differences as well. I have a pretty decent understanding of what is going on except with genetics. Currently, even the geneticist working on albino redwoods is trying to find more variegated albino redwoods to study. So let's try and make this an open discussion, more or less, about albino redwoods. Please keep locations decently vague.
by yofoghorn
Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:43 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Northernmost Redwoods Discovered

The northernmost known naturally occurring redwoods ( Sequoia sempervirens have been discovered increasing the range more than 2 miles north than previously thought. They occur on a tributary of the Chetco River in Curry County. This grove of redwoods has a lot of young seedlings and is spreading fairly rapidly to the north as well as other directions. The health of the young redwoods is good, however the old growth redwoods were cut likely over 50 years ago. The northernmost old growth redwood stump is 10.69 miles north of the Oregon border and the northernmost redwood (a young tree) in the grove is 10.84 miles north of the Oregon border. If anyone knows of any redwoods north of here that we might have missed, please let me know. Otherwise, this is it!
by yofoghorn
Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:45 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Structure From Motion to create high resolution point cl

Here is a video of a mesh that I did on the Auto Tree in Big Basin that used a point cloud approach. Calibrating this point cloud will allow the most accurate volumetric measurement of this tree and others. Measuring volume on large trees, especially redwoods, will show that their trunks are no where near round at their base. Usually volume over estimation occurs. This method, as developed by Michael Taylor, seeks to eliminate additional volume that is measured but does not exist via the tape diameter "conventional" method (i.e. discrepancies from nooks and crannies that aren't actually part of the trunk).

Bob VanPelt has implemented this technology on the Redwood Climate Change Initiative that was recently completed.

This method is also being used by Tom Stapleton and me for chimeric redwood cuttings he is growing in his greenhouse. We can measure the surface area and ratio of green to white tissue on the chimeras to better understand photosynthesis and the stresses that the plants endure. This is also an important area of research when it comes to redwood climate change, as albinos redwoods can arise due to a stress-related mutation. Studying how these intimate relationships interact with each other might tell us more about redwood climate change and stress than we ever thought possible. This technology I'm sure has other applications, so perhaps brainstorming about "what we can do next" might be the next best thing to think about!

But alas, here is the link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh1hjdl7BHs
by yofoghorn
Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:48 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

New Tallest Umbellularia californica Discovered

About a year ago, I informed you of the new record bay laurel in California, a 169.4' tree in Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park. For the previous blog, please see: http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=4805

Well, I'm here to inform you that on New Year's Day of 2014, I discovered a grove of taller bay laurels. Three bay laurels measured over 170' with the tallest being 177.5' tall! The trees are located in Hendy Woods State Park, a small patch of old growth redwood forest in Mendocino County. None of the U. californica had trunks over 2.5 feet wide. The tallest tree at 177.5' had the smallest DBH of only 1.77'. I believe this might be the tallest native hardwood for its DBH known in the state of California. It's definitely the only hardwood I know of to have a DBH under 2 feet and be over 150 feet tall! Either way, it's quite the impressive tree, however it is not the tallest native hardwood in the state: that tree is a sycamore I discovered in December 2011 last measured in May 2013 at 178.6' tall. All of the mentioned trees have been measured with the Impulse 200 LR for the best accuracy.

Just to inform, the tallest known hardwood in the state is a Eucalyptus globulus at 246' on Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands. The second tallest is a tree I discovered near Watsonville, CA at 241' (last measured December 2012).
by yofoghorn
Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:25 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Albinism in a Sitka Spruce Sapling

This is super important! These are some of the only albino/chimeric sitka spruce specimens ever documented. Thanks for the great pics!
by yofoghorn
Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:54 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Tallest Northern California Eucalyptus

A week ago, Luke Hickman, my friend, and I discovered a grove of Eucalyptus globulus in Contra Costa County that are significantly tall! They are competing with redwoods and are actually taller than the redwoods they are competing with. There are 4 trees taller than 240', the two tallest being 243', one with a substantial lean. The tallest hardwood in the northern and western hemispheres that I'm aware of is a 246' Eucalyptus on Santa Cruz Island. In a few years, these Eucalyptus will likely become records for the hemispheres, as they are in a perfect area to continue growing taller. These are now the Eucalyptus and hardwood (non native) height records for Northern California.
by yofoghorn
Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:31 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The Floyd Otter Sequoia, third largest?? Never heard of

I've now scouted out Garfield Grove for 3 days and below are my findings:

Floyd Otter Tree is shrouded in mystery, but appears on the national parks' largest sequoia list as the twelfth largest tree in the world by bole volume. It was accurately measured to be 39500 cubic feet! Its lower 30 feet is much larger than the King Arthur and with taper, the tree is around 15 feet or so at 50 feet up. Then the tree's taper slows way down and the trunk remains very large until the tree's top at 273 feet. Basically, the King Arthur has a bit of a smaller trunk for the first 30 feet, but it's lack of taper leaves its trunk wider (nearly 16 feet) at 50 feet up. Its taper remains slow but at around 230 or 240 feet, the tree tapers drastically. This is where Floyd Otter tree stays large and still adds volume. In conclusion, Floyd Otter is only 1100 cubic feet shy of the King Arthur and it's volume comes from the top and bottom of the tree where the King Arthur's volume comes from the middle. It appears substantially smaller than King Arthur simply because of its immense taper. The taper illusion, however, does not influence the tree's volume much. 1100 cubic feet is not much of a difference when considering a massive 39000-cubic-footer. The basal flare is actually due to where Floyd Otter is situated; it is tapping a spring just below. Floyd Otter is also currently home to a pair of breeding California Spotted Owls, a fairly rare find.

Another large tree stands right next to Floyd Otter and is over 21 feet in diameter. Its top, however, breaks out before 200 feet and a huge reiteration has grown and become the leader. This tree has a comparable trunk to both Floyd Otter and King Arthur, but because of the break and the smaller base than the other two, it will not make 30000 cubic feet, though it is fairly impressive. That tree has a sign screwed in (probably vandalized) and is dubbed the Eric De Groot Tree. This tree might not even reach 25000 cubic feet.

The forest above King Arthur and Floyd Otter is immense. It is my favorite sequoia grove if one considers the solitude and size both. There are many 20-footers and some impressive trees in that area. The best part of Garfield Grove for both height and size is located within a half-mile radius of this site. I spent a few nights backpacking in this area and can say that the Floyd Otter and King Arthur are the largest trees. The next largest trees in the grove are a tad over 30000 cubic feet. The 29000 cubic-footer is a lone giant in the end of the grove.

The list of the largest sequoias is at the link below. Floyd Otter is the unnamed tree at spot number 12.
http://www.nps.gov/seki/naturescience/upload/FINAL-30-Largest-Sequoias.pdf
by yofoghorn
Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:20 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The Floyd Otter Sequoia, third largest?? Never heard of

The large trees I discovered and measured in Garfield Grove are as follows:
Sequoiadendron Rank - Name - Bole Volume (not including branches) - DBH - Height - Trunk Diameters at Various Heights

#42 - Sawtooth - 29590 cubic feet - 23.9' DBH - 233' height - 15.5' at 50' - 13.4' at 100' - 10.0' at 150' - 3.7' at 200'
#43 - Incredibole - 29032 cubic feet - 19.7' DBH - 237' height - 13.5' at 50' - 13.0' at 100' - 11.4' at 150' - 8.3' at 200'

Sawtooth is a large tree on an old trail that runs through Garfield Grove. It has incredible branch structure and might be, if accurately measured, around 33000 cubic feet total. The other, Incredibole, is the opposite. It has little branch structure and is the smallest diameter Sequoiadendron tree to reach a volume of 29000 cubic feet. Two trees, Howland Hill Giant and Adventure, both Sequoia (coast redwood), reach a larger volume with smaller trunk diameters. It's also important to note that both those trees are over 100 feet taller than Incredibole. I discovered Sawtooth this year, and Incredibole last year when I did not have any equipment to calculate its volume.
by yofoghorn
Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:40 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: new dbh champ for SESE (and other records)

Mario,

I'm planning on going to the Sierras in about a month from now. At this point, I want to check out the Waterfall Tree. Wendell Flint makes it sound like undisputed trunk, but I want to see the tree for myself and see if it's a trunk or a root. There are photos of the tree here on ENTS-BBS. http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5138

My thought is this: if the slope itself is greater than 45 degrees, then I'd definitely count it as root. Slope always enhances ground wraps. Grant is the largest tree on perfectly flat ground. Jupiter has the same ground difference (12') as the Boole Tree does as per Van Pelt's book. The Waterfall Tree obviously has HUGE ground difference. If the ground difference is greater than the horizontal distance between top and bottom (i.e. greater than 45 degrees), then I would not count it as trunk.

Also, my one other comment: the 43.3' axis is the largest HORIZONTAL axis of any single-stem tree. It's not on the slope at all. It's flat. The Grant Tree was the previous largest at 40.3'. I haven't measured the Boole Tree to know it's largest horizontal axis, but I'd like to revisit it and figure that out, at least roughly. I think it's much less as the trunk is rounded. Jupiter's trunk appears almost like a right triangle, with the right angle at the upper slope and the hypotenuse at the lower slope. Really weird trunk shape for a hill. One would expect, like with the Waterfall tree, that it's longest axis is along the slope, not perpendicular to it.
by yofoghorn
Wed May 27, 2015 1:39 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: new dbh champ for SESE (and other records)

Mario,

What would be your suggestion of how to determine root from trunk that isn't subjective to interpretation? I can't think of a really definitive way to do it. Can you?
by yofoghorn
Thu May 28, 2015 12:47 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The sequoia with the greatest ground perimeter - 155 fee

I finally got to see this tree close up and inspected it to determine what is and is not "trunk" or "buttress." I have been wanting to verify the validity of the 155' basal circumference for quite some time, and now I have. The tree is NOT 155' as far as what I could determine. The big "lobster claw" is definitely trunk or buttress, but this strange growth next to the lobster claw that Flint included is clearly root and not stem. So, as for the images, here are my explanations.

This is the lobster claw growth with me for scale.
IMG_0941.JPG
IMG_0964.JPG

Looking down the lobster claw, the growth has grown as trunk for anywhere from 200-400 years, with tree rings lining up parallel to the normal trunk.
IMG_0984.JPG

This shows the height of the determined ground level of this tree. By using tree rings on the growth just right of me, I could see that the rings, instead of being parallel with the above trunk, were perpendicular acting like a root or some other weird trunk feature growing sideways. This would not typically occur unless it as a burl (which it wasn't) or if it was below ground. This ground level also is supported by the slope on the upwards side of the tree before the drop off.
IMG_0999.JPG

This is the growth that Flint included but I did not. The reason is because below my determined "ancient ground level," this growth branches into three separate axes (indicated by my fingers since lighting and contrast was not on my side). These three axes remain distinctly separate, and since their branching occurred in a downward direction, it can only be concluded that these were once (and still are) roots, no matter the ground level dispute. The ground level does not make any difference, making this photo one of the most indicative photos of why that part of the base should not be considered trunk by any means.
IMG_1012.JPG

The tree, however, still remains a very large tree and may even have a decent volume (25000+ cubic feet). Here's a trunk shot with me about 5 feet above upper ground level.
IMG_1061.JPG

All in all, after 2 hours of closely examining the tree and doing my own tape wrap, this tree remains the champion ground perimeter. It is 140.1' ground perimeter. The difference between upper and lower ground levels is well over 30 feet, and the slope of the lobster claw is 51 degrees. The tree has a monster base, but the exposed root growth Flint included should not be considered part of the trunk or buttress.
by yofoghorn
Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:35 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

New 28k SEGI in Peyrone Grove

I spent a week in the Giant Sequoia forests with my friend Luke Hickman. He and I worked on a few different things, one of which was exploring Peyrone Grove. We were prompted by a photo in Dwight Willard's book of a monstrous looking giant sequoia. Peyrone Grove is very difficult to access and was partially logged. Some of it actually extends into the Tule Reservation to the west. We accessed the grove by an old logging road and transferring into the creek. I had marked a few big trees on my GPS and eventually discovered what we were looking for: a monster tree I call "Ballpoint" after the ballpoint pen we found in the ground near it. The tree, sadly, does not have a massive basal taper nor does it have an extremely tall top, but some of it's numbers are still impressive and rather large. The total height was only around 220 to a broken top with a few reiterations and live crown that were taller. The tree's bole is 28048 cubic feet!

Height (above upper ground) - Diameter
0' - 20.3'
26' - 15.1'
75' - 13.9'
150' - 12.1'

Historical Photo
image.jpeg

Rock with Peyrone Grove Overlook
IMG_1099.JPG

Ballpoint with Luke for scale
IMG_1153.JPG

The Hike Out with me for scale
IMG_1159.JPG

There is still much of the grove left to explore, including some very very large crowns in the unlogged, western parts of the grove (before the Reservation). If you decide to go, get ready for a hike! Also, access to the Reservation is not allowed without permission, so please be respectful and do not trespass should you decide to go out there. There are still 30000 cubic foot trees in the SEGI species to discover. Garfield Grove is a place to look, so is Peyrone. There may be some monsters in the more remote parts of Mountain Home Forest and the surrounding groves as well!

We also measured the Waterfall/Day/Big Base Tree in Alder Creek Grove, where I posted about it here (see most current post): http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5138

Also, this trip yielded one of the most important trees of the species in my book. I'm working with some folks as far as how to publicize the discovery. Stay tuned! I hope to let all of you know about it within the next few weeks!
by yofoghorn
Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:59 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The sequoia with the greatest ground perimeter - 155 fee

That's kind of my thinking too. I know there ha been a lot of buzz about the coast redwood finds lately but I still think that if a singlestem, undiscovered tree is going to be larger than Sherman or at least in the high 40000 range, its going to be another GS. As much great work as Flint did I think toward the end of his life he had to leave a little to assumption. I know a lot of those remotes groves are tough to get into "out and back" ordeals that would require camping to really spend the time needed to explore and do the necessary measurements. Have you been to Ishi yet?

Haven't been to Ishi yet. And I was just speaking of giant sequoia. I believe that there will probably be a few more redwoods found over 30000 cubic feet, though whether or not they are going to be 40000+ is a real question. There could be a few real big monsters, such as one I found after a fairly long bushwhack pictured here. I have not measured its volume, though its lack of taper is impressive.

IMG_0658.JPG
by yofoghorn
Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:27 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The sequoia with the greatest ground perimeter - 155 fee

Zane,
Thanks for clearing that up. In "to find the biggest tree" Flint seems to all but eliminate the possibility of finding one larger than the Sherman or even top 5. He leave a small possibility that one could be hiding under Homers Nose or somewhere else. With what you've seen, would you say that's fair?

I seriously believe that there are maybe 20 giant sequoias over 30000 cubic feet still waiting to be discovered. I bet there are a few 40000 cubic footers out there, but they will be in hard to access areas, like the South Fork of the Kaweah. I really want to go into the South Fork Groves north of Garfield Grove. I know of a lot of nice trees in Garfield with potential, and there is certainly some good potential in South Fork Grove and perhaps Homers Nose and Cahoon Creek Groves. The serious truth of the matter is that 20-footers are not required to reach 30000 cubic feet. I know one tree that's 19.3' wide that is huge! So the Sequoia National Park inventory Flint was following does NOT at all mean that he's seen every 20-footer, nor has he seen the freak large trees under 20' DBH. Eden Grove has always been a grove of great interest to me. So has Peyrone. I'm also interested in the groves in Wishon Creek drainage, both for height (I definitely believe the 315' record could be beat) and size.

As far as trees with large bases, I think it's completely possible to find freaks, so 140.1' is the measurement to beat in my book! Check out this one from Garfield Grove.
IMG_1452.JPG
by yofoghorn
Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:12 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: New 28k SEGI in Peyrone Grove

The chance of one 40k tree is high, however the chance of two or three is extremely low. I believe that if a 40k exists, it is a tree like Genesis: small unassuming base that has a slow taper. I saw Genesis and it looked kind of small from the ground simply because its base is small and it's hard to visualize the lack of taper.

One fascinating piece of information is that Steve Sillett's Mountain Home plot contains a ~38000 cubic foot redwood never before known. It is not far from a road and it is easily visible as being a large tree. So, what can you say? All it takes is a lot of time and effort, and the juicy sequoia areas suck up a lot of time and effort due to their inaccessibility. I found two ~30000 cubic footers in Garfield Grove that were easily seen (one very easily seen by Flint) but missed due to time. Most people want to do that grove in one day, but it needs at least 3-4 days of backpacking to really explore it. I've explored about half of it thoroughly. The other half has some wonders, like a huge snag at least 17' DBH and some other monsters. The rest of the sequoia grove explorations will require backpacking trips, as measuring a large tree's volume can take easily an hour or two. And backpacking trips with tripods, lasers, tapes and other equipment makes for a pretty hard trek. But if someone is determined, they'll find some things in the deep, inaccessible groves.
by yofoghorn
Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:23 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Albino Sequoiadendron

After a long time of looking and working with some folks who manage the tree's grove, I'm happy to announce that an albino, chimeric Sequoiadendron has been located and documented! It is one of the most significant giant sequoias in existence, and that is not by any means an exaggeration. The tree was first discovered in the early 1960s and was documented by the late Rudolf Becking from Humboldt State University. He noted that the tree was 12' tall. Today, the tree is over 82' tall, 2.2' DBH, and has an average crown spread of 13 feet! The tree is the champion for any albino chimera known in any species. It is taller than the world-famous Cotati tree, slightly shorter than a chimeric redwood that reverted green growing in the Central Valley at 84' tall, and has albinism at its tips. It is also the ONLY full-sized (tree-like) chimera known to be naturally occurring. The tree was discovered in the 1960s, "tested for albinism" around 1990, and is now first being described as a "chimera" in 2015. The tree has a spindly crown and has albinism from as low as 20 feet to its top. It's tallest foliage, its "leader," is currently albino. My friend Luke Hickman helped me document the tree, specifically through photography. I will be working with Tom Stapleton to propagate and characterize the giant sequoia growth habit through the use of the chimeras once we get permits to study this extremely important tree.
by yofoghorn
Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:40 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Tanoak Growing Conditions

Saturday, my friends and I found a new world-record tall tanoak. It is 163.8' tall, has a DBH of around 5 feet, and exists in the Little Sur River drainage. We measured it with a handheld Impulse laser and prism. The tree was somewhat an anomaly: it was way up on a hillside and not near any spring or creek. There was no visible source of water. The previous record, a 162.0' tanoak in Nisene Marks (very young), was tapping a spring and very fast growing. The next tallest is 158' in Big Basin and up on a hillside again (large, old tree). I've looked for four years (since 2011) to try and find a taller tanoak and hadn't noticed anything until now.

The entire reason for this post is this: does anyone have any ideas on where tanoaks will grow tallest? Certainly it's not in the valley bottoms, but they probably do better in springs. My guess is that there are tanoaks over 170' or more somewhere, though I haven't been able to find any. I would never have guessed to find a record in the Big Sur region. I know of a decent number of record hardwoods and they are found all around the state, and they all have access to water. So, a question is, does it make sense that the tallest tanoak could be in the Big Sur region? There must be significantly taller tanoak tree, but I have no ideas as to where it would be. Springs in the Big Sur region may be a great place to look, however.

Could the tallest native hardwood in California turn out to be a tanoak?! The tallest known trees right now are two that I found: a sycamore in Corralitos at 178.62' and a bay laurel in Hendy Woods at 177.50'. I'm curious what people think about the tanoak species in respect to these others. If a sycamore can make 178.6', maybe a tanoak can too. Steve Sillett had expressed to me that he believes tanoaks could reach 200'. I'm not sure if that's possible unless we can find prime areas. Most of the Santa Cruz Mountain tanoaks were harvested for tanneries, and a majority are very young. Big Sur, at least in the Little Sur River, does not seem to have harvested them.

Special thanks to my friends Robert Collar, Riki McDaniel, and Sebastian Alarcon for assisting me in measuring this new find.
by yofoghorn
Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:15 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Sempervirens, even after death...

I've seen a few redwoods like this, including one in Humboldt and one in Nisene Marks. It's not rare but it's definitely not common. I don't think I've ever seen those redwoods. I'd be curious as to what part of the park they are in. There's an old map from the early 1900s that shows some significantly large trees throughout the park, including the one known tree larger than the Father. I haven't been to all of them, but every notable tree is at least 12'+ DBH, some even reaching the 15' mark which is fairly rare for the region. Would you want to go exploring together this winter to some of these large, off-trail trees? There's some interesting genetic anomalies, there's a tree called the "Arch Tree." One of the trees on the map is called "Old Grizzly." Another is called Old Monarch and is the largest redwood snag in the park (15' DBH, 100'+ tall, and black). These trees are in a "closed" section of the park, so we couldn't go there unless we get permission and it's been heavily explored. The others, however, are in remote sections of the park and could yield some large (and possibly tall) trees. I'm curious to compare notes as to where you've explored and where I've explored and try going new places for the both of us.
by yofoghorn
Thu Nov 19, 2015 12:41 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Oregons largest tree?

In the 1960s, Adam Marks sold the FNM and it became a SP. At this time, the only part that the SP owned was the railroad right-of-way (now the entrance road). Around the same time, the Advocate Tree was privately owned by Marcel Pourroy along with all other properties surrounding the right-of-way. Pourroy made trails in the canyon back there and really loved plant life (he sadly planted some invasive species that are found in the canyon). Either way, he kept the redwood trees and then sold this part of the park to the state in the '90s. Mangel owned a section of the park to the east where there are old growth redwoods. He sold this part of the park to the State, yet it remains closed because of lack of SP resources. I've received permission to go into that area of the park. It's a rather fascinating ecological community.
by yofoghorn
Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:19 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic
cron