Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

1298 to 1302 points ~ Sequoia sempervirens


mdvaden
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just got a confirmation of a 3rd diameter measure for one Coast Redwood we found last year. Height points and circumference points combined are 1283 not counting 1/4 crown spread points. I see two crowns on Google Earth at the coordinates. The scale shows one as 60 to 70 feet wide and the other near 80 feet wide. I can't see what's in the shadows. All that put together, the redwood surpasses the American Forests Sequoia sempervirens 1291 point champion. And isn't very far from General Sherman's 1321 points.

 

This redwood seems to be 1298 to 1302 points. Updates go to the following page:

 

Updates >> Coast Redwood Discovery. Sequoia sempervirens.

 

If a research team goes up there someday, there's a small chance a few feet not visible to Chris's laser may be taller. And more width that can't be seen in the shadows. 1310 points is probably the max, but I think its closer to 1300.

 

Chris Atkins checked height. Michael Taylor checked the dbh. And Ron Hildebrant checked preliminary volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

Almost beyond the imagination, would love to see these giants smeday.

 

I am not familiar with this points system, can you outline how it works please or direct me somewhere that does?

 

In the USA, at least, American Forests has a Big Tree program, and there are state champions and registries, and national too.

 

Every inch of circumference gets a point. Every foot of height gets a point. Then the crown width is measured two directions and averaged. That average crown width is divided by 4. So an 80 ft. wide crown gets 20 points. The 1/4 crown points are added to height points plus circumference points.

 

Its not a volume comparison.

..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost beyond the imagination, would love to see these giants smeday.

 

I am not familiar with this points system, can you outline how it works please or direct me somewhere that does?

 

If the UK does not have a comparable big tree program, do people get more enthusiastic there about which is just taller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a Tree Register. Trees are rated as biggest by height or girth or both, for their species. We have a heirarchiy for each species that goes national champion, regional champoin, notable and then locally notable.

 

I think I just got a new regional champion Ilex last week. A tiddler compared to your trees, but pretty impressive.

 

So can't you guys decide if tallest is best, or fattest, or widest spread?

 

I shoudl add that one of the tree valuation systems here works on the basis of calculating cross sectional area of crown, but the tree gets ore points if it is freestandinfg and therefore visible. It's quality and quantity of visual amenity. Like a big tree is not that impressive unless you can see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the USA, at least, American Forests has a Big Tree program, and there are state champions and registries, and national too.

 

Every inch of circumference gets a point. Every foot of height gets a point. Then the crown width is measured two directions and averaged. That average crown width is divided by 4. So an 80 ft. wide crown gets 20 points. The 1/4 crown points are added to height points plus circumference points.

 

Its not a volume comparison.

..

 

Thanks, I must contemplate this. But imperial? Come on, there's only 2 countries in the world still use imperial. We invented it and we don't even use it.

 

Just teasing, by the way, keep posting please it's enlightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I must contemplate this. But imperial? Come on, there's only 2 countries in the world still use imperial. We invented it and we don't even use it.

 

Just teasing, by the way, keep posting please it's enlightening.

 

I tend to like the ft. aspect better than metric because the ft. increments are smaller and if trees are close, the variance can be stated in greater detail if inches are not mentioned.

 

The metric can have more detail with 100 cm per meter.

 

When it comes to super tall trees though, 370 ft. might sound more enthusiastic since the number is greater than, say, 113 m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the UK does not have a comparable big tree program, do people get more enthusiastic there about which is just taller?

 

I have just read the Measuring Guidelines Handbook for the Big Trees Program. It's a really nicely put together piece of work.

 

The points system seems arbirtrary in the relative importance it attaches to girth, height and spread, but these are the only 3 things you have any chance of recording in a forest, so fair enough. The spread part is very small, compared to the other two factors for tall trees, so it seems to be mostly about big height but fat at the bottom.

 

So I'm guessing that a 370 foot high tree would need to be 24 foot DBH. For us big tree novices, a height to DBH diameter ratio of only about 15 doesn't seem that impressive, but on a Sequoia scale of things it becomes something different that I can't really take in. I think Scotland has Douglas Fir about 210 feet high, barely half the height that you are recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just read the Measuring Guidelines Handbook for the Big Trees Program. It's a really nicely put together piece of work.

 

The points system seems arbirtrary in the relative importance it attaches to girth, height and spread, but these are the only 3 things you have any chance of recording in a forest, so fair enough. The spread part is very small, compared to the other two factors for tall trees, so it seems to be mostly about big height but fat at the bottom.

 

So I'm guessing that a 370 foot high tree would need to be 24 foot DBH. For us big tree novices, a height to DBH diameter ratio of only about 15 doesn't seem that impressive, but on a Sequoia scale of things it becomes something different that I can't really take in. I think Scotland has Douglas Fir about 210 feet high, barely half the height that you are recording.

 

For huge trees, some say volume is the way to really judge big.

 

But there's a limit to how many trees can be climbed and accurately wrapped and calculated. So the point system of height, circumference and spread offers the general populace an avenue to discover and nominate something substantial.

 

The small crown spread points seems okay, because usually a tree with an enormous spread is already going to have a lot of height or trunk size.

 

The tallest hemlock I found has enough points to almost be a co-champion even though it's not very fat. Because it gains so many height points it bridges the gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.