Search found 240 matches


Re: Middleton and Angel Oaks

ENTS, An updated Live Oak listing now at 156 trees! Larry

by Larry Tucei
Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:24 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Beecher Hills, Atlanta, GA


That is exciting. I have long wondered what grows in the greater Atlanta area. I remember some large trees on the Georgia Tech campus, but they may be gone. Engineers aren't the most conservation-minded people on the planet. However, it makes sense that the surrounding countryside would grow large trees.

In my just concluded trip to New Jersey, I came to appreciate that the western part of the state hold promise. I think someone posted on the Great Swamp area in the past. But whatever and wherever the inspiring places are, we're going to have to ferret them out. That's what we do.

by dbhguru
Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:56 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Atlanta city Rucker 10 index


Guaranteed you have only scratched the surface. I look back at my tree hunting life here in western Mass and I'm still finding trees that are worthy of inclusion. There are many large silver maples in the Connecticut River Valley that have not been formally documented. They hardly create a blimp on anyone's radar until attention is turned toward them and then they crop up all over the place. There are at least 2 over 20 feet in girth and many over 15. The silver maple may well be the most common big tree in the Valley, but you'd never know it from what has been documented. So, happy hunting.

by dbhguru
Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:04 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

'Weed Warriors' turn vines into vine art

'Weed Warriors' turn vines into vine art


Bethesda couple Seth Goldstein and Paula Stone started building sculptures out of the invasive Oriental Bittersweet vine in 2008. The sculptures have been exhibited at Brookside Gardens and the Nature Conservancy headquarters. (Alexandra Garcia/The Washington Post)
by edfrank
Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:25 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Clear Creek Nature Preserve, Atlanta


Nice report. I am thinking, in the interest of science, and since you and Bob seem to have already started the research, that you two should collect all of the seed pods that are pointy and sharp. Then do a double blind test of which ones hurt the most when you step on them in your bare feet.

by edfrank
Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:44 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Virginia Kendall Park, part of CVNP

Here's some of the pictures I took.

First a closeup of the almost birch like, shaggy curls on the 130' black cherry.

Next a yellow birch on stilts. Steve says he has an old black&white photo from 30 odd years ago that would make a nice comparison if he could find it.
by Rand
Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:28 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Tree climbing snakes!

Back in May 2007 when I first hiked the Boogerman Loop in Cataloochee Valley I took this photo of Joy up against this big dead tree. When I got back home and took a look at the photos I spied the big Black Rat Snake on the side of this tree only a few feet from Joy's head! I yelled for her to take a lookie-see and when she did she yelped! She's quite afraid of snakes while I have no real fear of them, only a healthy respect. Neither of us saw the snake when I took the picture.
by James Parton
Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:48 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Fork Ridge Tuliptree- new eastern height record!!!

Fork Ridge Tuliptree climb

All the variables needed for the climb of the tall tuliptree Ian Breckheimer located last May finally came into place. An NPS research permit, good weather, and competent arborists convened last week for the initial ascent and modeling of the super-tree. The expedition members were Josh Kelly, Hugh Irwin, Michael Davie, Mike Riley, Nich Maidment, Aaron Knoblet, Ana Poirier, and I. I should note that this group consisted of a collaborative effort of FIVE tree care companies! Ian Breckheimer and his father Steve, whom found the tree, also joined us later in the day.

The hike in was around four miles (6.7 km). We set up a base camp and decided to go ahead and haul the climbing gear in to the tree, verify the height, and if time permitted, rig it with ropes for the next day of measuring. We decided to access the location of the tree from an adjacent ridge, opting for a descent to the site rather than a potential nasty bushwhack up a steep slope with heavy packs. This added a good bit more hiking but left the unknowns to a minimum. Unfortunately, Ana lost a boot during the first stream crossing and she and Josh stayed back to try to locate it.

All I had to go on was a GPS point that Josh gave me. He was not in the climbing group that went up for the rigging so we entered unknown territory. The slope was ridiculously steep and the effort to stay upright was compounded by the weight of the gear. In a semi-controlled slide we dropped off the ridge and down into a steep, rich cove. The transition from dry ridge top to lush, tall cove forest was abrupt. We scouted ahead and spotted what we thought may be the tree. Nope; farther down we went. We did not know what to expect- except we knew it was a large tree.

Michael Davie and I were leading the group and at the same time we saw “the tree”. This time, it was obvious! It was also a lot bigger than I imagined, especially in the crown. Just to be sure we roughly measured the height. Various expletives echoed in the steep cove as both Mike and I measured the height of the tree to over 190 feet (58 m). Yep, we found it!
Whole tree from upslope HI001.jpg
Tall canopy HI001.jpg
The rest of the group tumbled down and we assessed the tree. I was most worried about rigging it and climbing among the large amount of deadwood present. Josh Kelly had thought the lowest branch was around 85 feet (26 m). Well, the first fork was closer to ~102 feet (31 m); the second at ~115 feet (35 m). Neither was suitable in the slightest for rigging the tree; they were too tight and too large to scramble over even if we could get a line set there. Also, potential pitches between the upper branches were few and far between. I explored with the laser scope and found the only available spot for an ascension rope. It was solidly 160 feet (49 m) above the base. This height is beyond any human capacity to hand-throw and out of the reasonable range of conventional rigging devices such as slingshots.
Canopy gnarlage HI001.jpg
Fortunately, I anticipated this being the case and with the help of my son, Aven, built a pneumatic throw-weight launcher. This device uses compressed air from a bike pump to propel a 12 ounce throw-weight with a thin line attached to it. The bag with thin trailing line is launched into the tree, over a suitable branch, and then a climbing line is attached and pulled through. This allows us to ascend up the rope, not the tree itself. Traditionally, at least in eastern trees, a pole-mounted slingshot is used. But we needed something easier to carry, more predictable and capable of greater range. Our collapsible device had launched the throw-weight and line 300 feet (91 m) vertically in testing. Now it was time for the real test.

I located a spot with a clean shot to the intended branch fork. As most arborists familiar with tall tree climbing know, the first shot is always a “calibration shot” and often results in a deployment tangle nightmare of throwline. I had full intention of a blown shot, so while the others were getting out their cameras to film the “real shot”, I opened the valve. Much to everyone’s surprise the bag sailed cleanly through the intended fork and clear out the other side of the tree! With a bit of finagling with some minor tangles the tree was rigged. A single shot rigged the tallest tree yet climbed in the eastern US!
Whole tree southeast WB001.jpg
We only had 300 feet (91 m) of static rope so we had to anchor one end upslope to allow the other end to reach the ground for climbing. With my rigging fear in the past, we had time to climb the tree and return to camp before dark. I was the only one who went up, and I did an initial inspection and tried to come up with a plan for the next day. Shortly before I ascended Ian and Steve joined us. Ana and Josh also had just arrived after an unsuccessful attempt to find her wayward boot. She hiked in Josh’s way-too-big sandals stuffed with socks and duct-taped to her feet.

The hanging rope illustrated how the tree slightly but significantly leaned and also how offset the top was. I was not sure which top was the tallest but we were definitely rigged on the correct leader. The tree forked into three main tops. All of these were stout and alive with new leaves just emerging.

I ascended the rope and watched the trunk taper a bit and then remain virtually unchanged for over 80 feet (24 m). The bark was thick and indicative of an old tree. The first limb fork was huge since the trunk was still nearly four feet thick. Epiphytic birches were present in the debris of the closely squeezed fork. No rope would ever have fit in there without locking up. Same for the next fork, which was the top of the main trunk. This point was 115.5 feet (35.2 m) above the base and 46.5” (1.18 m) diameter.
Will ascend IB001.jpg
Above the last fork the three main tops spiraled and spread apart. There were virtually no more straight sections as the tops wound their way upwards. Huge pieces of deadwood teetered and shook as I climbed into the crown. I left the ascension rope and switched to a double-rope climbing technique. At 175 feet (53.3 m) I stopped climbing higher and scouted the tops. The lead I had climbed was not the tallest point but within a foot or two. I decided I could reach the tallest point with a pole the next day for the tape drop. I set my line, descended to the other rope and rappelled down to the ground. We also identified and set the midslope position with pins. The tree was ready!

We left the gear hung in the trees and dropped down the cove to check out the stream crossing as a possible better option for the return the next day. It was a far better option, and much quicker.

The next morning was cold but clear and we were relatively unencumbered by heavy gear. Five climbers went up for the volume modeling; Mike, Nich, Ana, Michael and I. I was the primary data recorder while the others traversed the crown and relayed the measurements. I had full intention of doing the 3D crown mapping this day but soon became overwhelmed with the complexity of the tree and the logistics of doing it without a survey laser. It was all but impossible in the amount of time we had.
Five aloft HI001.jpg
Five climbers AK001.jpg
Nich on far lead001.jpg
The focus thus changed to a tape drop and volume modeling of the entire tree. I climbed up near the top and with a 17 foot (5.2 m) pole was able to isolate and measure the highest twig. The highest point was not over anything solid- and originated on a twisted part of the main central lead. With a clinometer I transferred the measurement to the other lead that Mike Riley was on so we could drop the tape from there and have it as close to the trunk as possible. The tape was dropped and Josh was on the ground and “zeroed” it on the midslope tack.
Mike Davie in top001.jpg
Nich at top of main001.jpg
Mike Riley Ana Poirier in top001.jpg
We were anxious to know how tall the tree actually was. The “Boogerman Pine” at 188.9 feet (57.6 m) was the number to beat. The pine has had the reign as the tallest eastern tree since 1995. Well, the Boogerman has been surpassed. The tape drop of the great tuliptree was 191.9 feet (58.5 m)! This is the first tuliptree ever accurately measured to exceed 190 feet (57.9 m) and it now stands as the tallest native broadleaf tree known in all of temperate North America- surpassing a black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) in Olympic National Park by over 10 feet (3 m)!
We went about the volume modeling for the rest of the day. It actually didn’t take all that long since there were not too many pieces to measure. Not having to monument them in three dimensions really did speed things up.
Will and Mike trunk wraps AK001.jpg
Basal measurements HI001.jpg
Climbing party HI001.jpg
Back at camp, Josh and I were speculating on the volume of the tree. I estimated ~2,600 cubic feet (73.6 m3) when it was thought to be 187 feet (57 m) tall. After the tape drop we both thought it may be closer to 3,000 cubic feet (85 m3). Admittedly, that is a lot of wood for a moderate sized tree. However, some of the hemlocks Jess Riddle and I had modeled for the Tsuga Search Project were surprisingly large for the relatively small basal dimensions. This is because although rather slender, they were very tall trees and had really long, slow-tapered trunks. Ditto on this tree- and our suspicions were correct.

Table 1: Sampled tree lengths, volume and relative distribution
Tree summary
Length (ft ) Length (m) Volume (ft3) Volume (m3) Percent
Main trunk 115.5 (35.1) 2,015.8 (57.1) 70.9%
Segments 438.32 (133.6) 791.3 (22.4) 27.8%
Branches 573 (174.7) 37.1 (1.1) 1.3%
Tree totals 1126.82 (343.5) 2,844.2 (80.6)

At 2,844 cubic feet (80.6 m3) this is not a small tree. It is likely larger than most other “big ones” of much shorter height. The large size of this moderate tree has us rethinking the size of some of the other big tuliptrees we know of but have heretofore not thought seriously about. Since they are short or have a short main trunk with a large crown we have regarded them as being smaller than a larger trunked tree. Curiously, the main trunk volume of this tree rivals the volume of some of the modeled giants with considerably larger diameters but shorter trunks. This, coupled with the relatively small crown of this tree still having nearly 800 cubic feet of wood has got our attention!

In addition to the climb, tape drop, and volume modeling completed by the climbers, Hugh, Ian and Josh worked on a .2 hectare (.5 acre) circular plot of the woody stems surrounding the target tree. The exceptional growing potential of the site is further demonstrated by the results of the plot which included the heights of the surrounding trees. Including the target tree, there are nine Liriodendron in the plot, all over 31” dbh. Two of the trees adjacent to the target tree are over 170’ tall (see table 2) – both tuliptree. There has been some discussion about this, but this plot certainly has eye popping above ground biomass. Whether old-growth stands such as this have higher biomass than second growth stands is a worthy topic of future research.

Table 2: Dominant and Co-dominant Trees in plot
Species DBH Height (feet)
Liriodendron tulipifera 49.15 (114.7 cm) 172.7 (52.6 m)
Liriodendron tulipifera 48.2 (122.4 cm) 172 (52.4 m)
Liriodendron tulipifera 54 (137.2 cm) N/A
Liriodendron tulipifera 41.7 (105.9 cm) 157.4 (48 m)
Liriodendron tulipifera 47.8 (121.4 cm) 167.5 (51.1 m)
Liriodendron tulipifera 42.8 (108.7 cm) N/A
Liriodendron tulipifera 55.5 (141 cm) 149.1 (45.5 m)
Liriodendron tulipifera 31.7 (80.5 cm) N/A
Liriodendron tulipifera 67.8 (172.2 cm) 191.9 (target tree 58.5 m)
Betula lenta 23.3 (59.2 cm) N/A
Tsuga canadensis 31.1 (79 cm) N/A
Fraxinus americana 34.2 (86.9 cm) 140+ (42.7 m)

It appears the crown volume of these trees is considerable and adds up to some serious volume. The “Greenbrier Giant” in Tennessee comes to mind immediately. This is a fat, stumpy tree but it has an immense crown. Another big tree in Deep Creek that we took some time to measure may fall into this category. This giant is 21’1” CBH (6.4 m) and 179 feet (54.6 m) tall. It has a rather short trunk but what a crown! This tree could very well rival the huge 4,013 cubic foot (113.6 m3) Sag Branch Tuliptree that has the current reign as the largest tuliptree known.
Giant tree JK001.jpg
These superlative titles of height and volume may soon pass to trees yet to be discovered within a new study just initiated by ENTS. This three year study of superlative tuliptree in the Smokies (NC side only) is a permitted study. Locations of the trees cannot be given on publically accessible sites such as the ENTS BBS. However, all ENTS are encouraged to participate in this project and assist in the field efforts.

Thus, the climb of the Fork Ridge Tuliptree is the beginning of a new understanding of the species. It is also the tip of the iceberg- as it is quite likely that we have not found the tallest one yet. LiDAR strongly suggests taller trees may out there. They are remote and it will take some serious effort to document them all.

The National Park Service plans to submit a press release next week about this tree and the work of ENTS. This should get some great exposure for the park and the resources it protects, as well as the important work we ENTS are doing in the eastern forests.

Submitted by Will Blozan (with special thanks to Ian and Josh) on behalf of the ENTS LiDAR and NPS Tuliptree study crew
by Will Blozan
Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:00 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Fork Ridge Tuliptree- new eastern height record!!!


Very true. The Rucker Index is off the charts for the Smokies. There is no other place in the East like it, and it is a story told only by ENTS. That fact is certainly a source of pride for us, but also accompanied by some frustration. Badly mis-measured trees by all sorts of professionals and amateurs reinforce the need for us to do the video. I recall some years back when Congaree National Park was thought to have the highest canopy, but LIDAR and ENTS tree climbs have laid that mistaken belief by some to rest. Congaree is very worthy, but cannot challenge the Smokies in terms of maximum tree height. The Smokies are ahead by a lot. Then there was that greatly mis-measured tuliptree in Winterthur. It falls nearly 40 feet short of the Smoky Mountain champ.

One by one, we dispel the tall tree myths, but until there is a clearly authoritative video that addresses all aspects of tree measuring, so-called professionals and amateurs will continue to mis-measure trees and remain aloof in their defiance of logic.

by dbhguru
Mon May 02, 2011 8:57 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Fork Ridge Tuliptree- new eastern height record!!!


Check out this video from Aaron- it really gives an idea of how large the tree is!


by Will Blozan
Mon May 09, 2011 12:02 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Sequoia/Kings Canyon NP- Giant Forest research 2011


Tomorrow I fly out to CA as a research climber under contract with Humbolt State University, CA. I will join lead climbers Steve Sillett, Bob Van Pelt, Marie Antoine, Jim Spickler, Cameron Williams, Anthony Ambrose etc., in an epic 3D mapping and modeling of one of the largest giant sequoias known (can't speak the name so... Voldemort perhaps? opps...). The climb is part of a NPS permitted study of carbon dynamics in old-growth sequoia. We will also be installing a permanent long-term monitoring plot and taking baseline data. Two feet of snow is predicted for tonight so we are not even sure if we can access the site tomorrow. Regardless, we all have snow shoes!

Provided I have internet access I will try to post some narrative and images over the next two weeks. I return June 1st and will share what I can then as well.


by Will Blozan
Tue May 17, 2011 6:03 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Photographs of Large Trees (1915)

Here is a photo of the tuliptree on Ekaneetlee Branch that Will mentioned. I am barely visible at the base of the tree.
by Jess Riddle
Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:20 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Features and Attributes of MTSF


I have been experimenting with a format to present the features and attributes of MTSF in a way as to facilitate their evaluation and comparison. The attached Excel spreadsheet is my first attempt. The features have not been prioritized. I'm unsure if this approach will work except as a convenient way of listing features that I personally consider important. However, I think Tim likes what has been done so far.




by dbhguru
Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:23 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Sequoia/Kings Canyon NP- Giant Forest research 2011

There were many fine trees around the lodge- my favorite though was the red fir (Abies magnifica). This species is well named, and when dominant forms one of the most stunning forests. I'll post on the red fir more later but here is a shot of a 186 footer outside the window of my room. This is not a tall tree, just a beauty.
Red fir beauty-small.jpg
by Will Blozan
Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:25 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

New 370' class redwood to report

I was on the phone with Chris Atkins today. He reports the he and Mario Vaden recently re-measured "Orion", coast redwood in Redwood National Park. Using Steve Sillett's ground level tag, this tree is about 370.17 feet - 112.83 meters above the averaged ground level. Orion is a big tree too. It grows on a high perched bench, 1000 ft above Redwood Creek's valley floor. The tree is not growing anywhere near a creek, but there is a small spring that flows through
the center of the bench. A few days later, Chris and Mario re-measured Helios, 2nd tallest known tree. Helios has grown nearly 2 inches each year since it was climbed and measured by Steve Sillett in September 2006. Helios is on pace to hit 380' on or about 2017. Hyperion is on pace to break the 380' barrier about the same time. Hyperion's growth is currenty about 1 inch per year. Chris and Mario also re-measured some tall trees of different species later that day.

Atkins-MD Vaden Tree summary

COAST REDWOOD: Height (ft) Height (m) Dbh (ft) Dbh (m)

Helios 376.18 114.66 16.0
Orion 370.17 112.83 14.1
T7 363.41 110.77
Miller Creek 359.74 109.65
T22 359.25 109.49 12.5
Philip Burton 356.74 108.74
Scar Amber 355.97 108.50
Big Leaner 354.95 108.19
T51 352.52 107.45 16.6
Miller Creek#4 351.04 107.01
Haystack Needle 350.39 106.80
Trifecta 350.39 106.80

SITKA SPRUCE: Height (ft) Height (m) Dbh (ft) Dbh (m)

Raven's Tower 317.19 96.68
Daisy Spruce 315.58 96.19
Salmonberry Spruce 314.37 95.82 8.2

COAST DOUGLAS FIR: Height (ft) Height (m) Dbh (ft) Dbh (m)

Unamed 308.00 93.88 5.5
by M.W.Taylor
Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:55 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Giant Forest tree hunt 5-22-2011


Logistical snafus, weather delays, and climbing restrictions gave me some opportunities to explore parts of Giant Forest in search of superlative trees. Dr. Bob Van Pelt gave me a list of what was considered superlative for several species in the area.

The first area I went to was an area I will call the “Giant Forest Appendix”. It is a narrow strip of sequoia dominated forest that runs down a steep ravine off the main plateau. The ravine gives good shelter and the moisture of the creek, some fire protection. I had spotted some tall-looking sugar pines (Pinus lambertiana) and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) on the drive up the previous week.
According to Bob’s cheat sheet, 250 feet (76.2 m) was notable for a sugar pine. The first tree I measured was close- 245.5’ (74.8 m) on a 65.4" DBH (166.2 cm) trunk. Next to this tree was a fine cedar- and if I could find one over 175’ (53.3 m) I would be in possession of a new Sierra height record. The day was off to a good start as the cedar soared to 178.1’ (54.3 m) on a modest 54" DBH (137.1 cm) trunk.

I continued down the ravine and found more pines in the 220’s then the forest became dry so I drove down the road to Crystal Cave. More 170' (51.8 m) cedars were scattered about as well as numerous more sugar pines in the low 200’s (61 m). As I drove past a small creek, strange foliage caught my eye. It was a small grove of California nutmeg (Torrey californica)- one of which was a new Sierra height record of 71.2’ (21.7 m). In this grove were some pacific dogwoods in bloom (Cornus nutallii).
3-Torreya bark001.jpg
11-Pacific dogwood001.jpg
12-Pacific dogwood bloom001.jpg

I explored many, many flats and slopes along the road but did not get any new records until a small sugar pine dominated ravine. The pines were large and close to 230’ but what caught my eye here was a slender cedar that I shot up into out of the car window. From the car I got over 200’ above eye- a height never thought possible for the species at this latitude. I parked and went to the base to measure diameter and zero the base. A clean shot from the opposite side of the ravine was an astounding 217.7’! Bob says this may be the second tallest ever recorded for the species.
5-record Calocedrus001.jpg
6-18 foot sugar pine001.jpg
As the road entered the drier forests of oak and pine (including some 220’+ ponderosa pine; Pinus ponderosa) I turned back and went back up to the Giant Forest plateau.
4-220' pondie001.jpg
Here I began a search in a sheltered, north facing bowl that showed great promise for tall trees. Earlier in the week Bob had measured a sequoia from the road that exceeded 300’. This was only the third tree known in Giant Forest to exceed 300’. I went way up slope to measure this young, double topped tree and with my Nikon 440 and clinometer got a height of 306.1 feet (93.3 m). Intrigued, Bob came up with his impulse laser and after careful shots got 306.7 feet (93.5 m). Typically Bob and I have such close height numbers- a great endorsement for the techniques we use in ENTS. This is also why the western tree hunters bank on our numbers and don’t question our reports.
1-306.7 foot SEGI001.jpg
Near this tall tree were the crumbled remains of a former giant tree recorded by Wendell D. Flint at over 30,000 cubic feet. It has a teetering single limb system on the edge of a burned out shell of a trunk.
306.7 foot sequoia with crumbling hulk.jpg
2-Former giant001.jpg
I continued upstream from the new tall sequoia to see what else lurked in the bowl. I measured numerous sequoia over 280’- a good sign as this is a significant height for the species. Some of you may recall that 311’ (94.8 m) is the tallest recorded- a tree I climbed in 2009.
While upslope measuring an adjacent tree I spotted a thrifty top arising from a big break on the top of a huge sequoia. I roughed it to over 300’ (91.5 m)! Number four over 300’! I went to the base to find midslope and measure the girth (these tall trees involved a lot of hiking to get the base referenced… and then get back up to a spot to see the tree).
8-303.4' SEGI001.jpg
Holy moly! This was a big tree (19.5’ or 5.95 m at BH)- and I would later learn that it is the largest 300 footer ever discovered. The wood volume of this tree may be close to 30,000 cubic feet. I did the best I could on the base shot since there was still three feet of snow on the north side. My shot from two separate locations yielded the exact same height of 303.4’ (92.5 m). How was this tree not previously discovered? I hope Bob or Steve Sillett can return to this tree and reticle it for volume.
7-303.4' SEGI 5.95m DBH-1001.jpg
303.4 foot sequoia as viewed upslope.jpg
While at the base of the new sequoia find I spotted a Sierra (or California) white fir (Abies lowiana) that looked quite tall. My last trip here set a new height record for this species of 247.7’ (75.5 m). This tree was a tad shorter at 240.1’ (73.2 m). From the sighting position for the fir measurements I spotted a sugar pine that although young, was quite large and arrow straight. It turns out this tree would be the tallest found on this trip and the current park height record of 247.6’ (75.5 m). The fire-scarred base was a respectable 73.7” (187.3 cm) diameter.
10-73.2 m Abielow001.jpg
9-Tall sugar001.jpg
I continued to measure more tall sequoia- one to 290’ but no more over 300’. I returned down the other side of the ravine and the only notable tree was an outstandingly small white fir that although only 52.2” (132.6 cm) in diameter rocketed up to a top 242.8’ (74.0 m) high! What was even crazier was this top was on a reiteration that arose after the main top broke out- indicating it was quite possibly much taller. Bob, Steve and I all believe it is just a matter of time until a 262’ (80 m) fir is found. 80 meters is considered the superlative threshold for the pine family.

For now, Giant Forest has only begun to be surveyed for trees other than sequoia. Bob and Steve are now in possession of high resolution LiDAR data that promise to reveal some exciting stuff. Bob already has several dozen points over 295’ (90 m) to check out- including one hit over 311’ (95 m).

Now, if only I wasn’t so far away…

Will Blozan
by Will Blozan
Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:18 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee


Bob and Monica need their own documentary on the Travel Channel. Now what would the show be called?
by James Parton
Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:29 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Saheda remeasured


Today I tackled the task of re-measuring Saheda, the second tallest tree in New England. Saheda is located in the Elders Grove of MTSF. First a look at the big pine.





Today's mission was almost aborted when I couldn't find a peephole in the dense canopy. However, I persisted and luck eventually was with me. I planted myself in the lone spot where I could see the top and an orange reflective marker that I had put on the truck 6 feet above mid-slope. I would have been totally dead in the water without the Nikon 440. Shooting to the crown, I got multiple laser returns, some of 66.5 and some of 67 yards. I eventually elected to use the average of 66.75 yards at an angle of 43.6 degrees. The distance to the reflective marker was a constant 47.5 yards at -9.3 degrees. So the two components plus the 6.0-foot distance from the marker to mid-slope yields 167.1 feet. I'll take it. The girth is 11.75 feet based on where will placed the pin for 4.5 feet above mid-slope when he last climbed the tree. Saheda is a great tree. Its crown looked healthy from a distance. Long live Saheda. As I get the time, I'll re-measure the tall trees in Mohawk and Monroe in descending order of height.

It had rained in night before and the forest had a fresh look. Saheda is truly one of New England's great trees. Its radial growth is slow. It may never fully reach 12 feet in girth, although I expect it to, but not for another 8 years.

by dbhguru
Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:16 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Why do people print so much incorrect stuff about trees?

Bob, Larry,

I have always been generally supportive of the American Forests lists as a means to get people out and measuring trees. There should be a column or field on their lists indicating how the height was measured. I am willing to accept poor height measurements if it gets people out and looking at trees - IF there was some way to gauge the accuracy of the height measurement.

My biggest complaint with the listing is the acceptance of trees that are clearly multitrunk specimens as champions on the list. You can see many of the trees submitted are multitrunk trees from the photos they attached. This is something they can fix. The older version of their "How to Measure a Tree" page had a link that dealt better with how to deal with odd low branching trees, etc. It was not adequate as written, but at least it was there. Now that page of further explanations is absent from the website. They need to fix the problem with the inclusion of multitrunk trees. It would not require anybody submitting data buy expensive equipment. It would not hamper the goal of getting people outside and measuring trees. it does not require anything be purchased by anyone - just some reasonable monitoring by the State and National Tree Coordinators. It shows a complete lack of standards to allow this to happen. If they would fix this problem, I would be mostly satisfied.

Ed Frank
by edfrank
Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:33 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Middleton and Angel Oaks

Eli, Brian,

I've seen plaques put up in front of trees engraving their dimensions in stone or metal without so much as a hint that those dimensions were as of a particular point in time and will undoubtedly change. Its hard to understand how a species capable of going to the moon, peering into the structure of matter, decoding Earth mysteries, and cracking the human genetic code can also be so damned dumb.

by dbhguru
Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:17 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Hemlocks Still Abundant Despite Adelgid Infestation

Ed, Robert, Andrew, Steve, et al,

All though I'm reluctant to express my opinion of the article in such crystal clear terms as you have Robert, I'm trying to correlate what I recently saw in the southern Appalachians this past July with the thrust of the article, and that dog don't hunt. I'm not much interested in the hemlock as a shrub. Maybe that is what is being described and foreseen as the future of the species. Seedy regeneration and then dieback repeated ad infinitum. Yuk!

by dbhguru
Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:21 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Big Live Oak of Yesteryear

NTS, Giant Live Oak in St. Martin Parish - biggest oak in captivity - 33 feet 4 inches in circumference, four feet above the ground, on the farm of Mrs. Arnaud Robert, ten miles from Lafayette. Photographed September 28, 1930. Tape measure showing diameter of ten feet 7 inches being held by Miss Jeanne Leblanc and Del Goulas. I'll have to find out if it's still around, I doubt it. You get some Idea of how large the Live Oaks of old would have been. This tree would be in the 300+ year old range and in 1600-1630 not many Europeans were in south Louisiana. Did Indians plant it or was it natural? No records from then! I would love to measure a monster like this! Larry
by Larry Tucei
Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:03 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

3D surface modeling of a giant redwood trunk

I have attached my latest effort to model Drury Tree's bark surface in X,Y,Z cartesian coordinates. This shape table has 2595 points and represents a partial map of the first 30 feet of trunk. You can rotate the overhead 2D and sideview 3D graph of the trunk by using the spinner arrows on the side or finer tuned slider arrows on the top.

As you can see from the overhead view, Drury Tree is enormous ! Looks to be 18ft diameter at 20ft off the ground. This is largest of any known redwood. When I get to 100ft off the ground and about 10,000 data points I will solve for volume using the theory of "homothetic slices" and update the forum with a more complete rotating graph of the massive lower bole of Drury Tree.

I think this tree will easily reach 35,000 cubic feet in trunk volume.

Forest Mapper Drury Tree- Mac.xls

Michael Taylor
American Forests California Big Trees Coordinator

by M.W.Taylor
Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:40 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Maryland Trees

NTS: I just recently entered the data from accumulated trip reports about Maryland Trees into the database that Mitch Galehouse is developing. It did not take as long as I thought. That makes three states with a pretty good accumulation of tree info in the database. There should be a lot more. I encourage NTS people with data filed away to take some inclement weather days this winter to enter what you can. This little project also gave me a chance to reread the reports that Colby Rucker posted. That was worthwhile.
Turner Sharp
by tsharp
Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:58 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Lodging - Redwood Forest?

There is no better season to photograph the redwoods than in the winter. You can look at the link in my signature, then on that page, find the link for photography tips in the redwoods. I just got an email from a man in Germany last year, who confirmed that. He read the page, looked at his photos from a dry season visit and a wet season visit. He said the rainy season photos were the best.

That's a cute house in the photo above, but it's right on Highway 101. The view is so-so. Looks at grass and trees, but it's near Orick. And in that area, I'd prefer a cabin from Redwood Adventures.

Usually, I just take a motel in Hiouchi, or the Curly Redwood Lodge in Crescent City, at $50 to $70 per night. There are beach view motels in Crescent City if you prefer that to mix with your redwood experience.

Trinidad is a cute town. Crescent City has more food and stuff.

I go to the redwoods about every 8 weeks on average. My favorite place to go hiking and exploring.
by mdvaden
Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:04 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic