Only a thousand years ....give or take

[Gary Prentice]

On 17/02/2018 at 20:48, eggsarascal said:

Anyway, if any of you lads need any advice on the age of a tree give me a shout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all I'm a qualified drainsman.

You'll be my second port of call 

[eggsarascal]

9 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

You'll be my second port of call 

I saw what you did there.

 

Always here to help, mate.

[Vespasian]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

And another informative link on tree age calculations (Oaks), posted today on UKTC   http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DBA72893-65D2-40FE-812D-BBA54FFF8FAE/0/EstimatingtheAgeofAncientOakscorrected.pdf

 

for anyone who isn't already an expert on the subject 

Tried to get through that, made it most of the way before I gave up...  amounted to, if you don't know the age of a tree, then guess..

 

Always be wary of experts bandying numbers and equations about, it usually means they don't know what they're talking about, and want to make sure you don't know that either..

 

A tree has rings to measure its age, if you can't count the rings then just admit the age of the tree can't be known..  other than its more than two hundred years for instance..

 

As to the girth of an old tree, its just crossed my mind that such is the weight bearing down on the trunk, perhaps its girth has something to do with the weight of the tree pushing down on the trunk, making for an exagerated girth, leading some ill informed experts to think the tree is much older than it is..

 

There you go, not even an expert and able to figure it out all by myself..

 

[Stubby]

8 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

That Stubby smells of Fish?

Surely this should be in the " Codwood " thread ?

[Gary Prentice]

6 hours ago, Vespasian said:

Tried to get through that, made it most of the way before I gave up...  amounted to, if you don't know the age of a tree, then guess..

 

Always be wary of experts bandying numbers and equations about, it usually means they don't know what they're talking about, and want to make sure you don't know that either..

 

A tree has rings to measure its age, if you can't count the rings then just admit the age of the tree can't be known..  other than its more than two hundred years for instance..

 

As to the girth of an old tree, its just crossed my mind that such is the weight bearing down on the trunk, perhaps its girth has something to do with the weight of the tree pushing down on the trunk, making for an exagerated girth, leading some ill informed experts to think the tree is much older than it is..

 

There you go, not even an expert and able to figure it out all by myself..

 

 

 

An interesting hypothesis, if you choose to ignore the mechanical properties of wood and everything we understand about how trees grow.

 

[daltontrees]

7 hours ago, Vespasian said:

Tried to get through that, made it most of the way before I gave up...  amounted to, i

Always be wary of experts bandying numbers and equations about, it usually means they don't know what they're talking about, and want to make sure you don't know that either..

 

A tree has rings to measure its age, if you can't count the rings then just admit the age of the tree can't be known..  other than its more than two hundred years for instance..

 

As to the girth of an old tree, its just crossed my mind that such is the weight bearing down on the trunk, perhaps its girth has something to do with the weight of the tree pushing down on the trunk, making for an exagerated girth, leading some ill informed experts to think the tree is much older than it is..

 

There you go, not even an expert and able to figure it out all by myself..

 

Oh FFS. If you had persevered with the article you would have seen that it proves very strong scientific evidence that you were right in your claim earlier in  this thread that many ancient trees are not as old as people thought they were. And far from saying "if you don't know the age of a tree, then guess.." it tends to say the opposite and provides insight into how existing methods of ageing from girth could be refined and also hints that there are mechanisms and processes in tree physiology that we not only don't understand but didn't even know existed. In this case, the sepeeding up of growth increment in late maturity in Oaks.

 

Those earlier experts weren't ill-informed, they were under-informed. No-one informed them, they did it for the first time, which is pretty impressive. They informed the world and now someone has taken it a stage further and done it better, and  eventually someone will improve on that. That's how science works.

 

Did I just say Vepasian is right? Up to a point, Lord Copper.

[daltontrees]

7 hours ago, Vespasian said:

As to the girth of an old tree, its just crossed my mind that such is the weight bearing down on the trunk, perhaps its girth has something to do with the weight of the tree pushing down on the trunk, making for an exagerated girth, leading some ill informed experts to think the tree is much older than it is..

 

There you go, not even an expert and able to figure it out all by myself..

 

Oh no, I'm about to do it again...

 

I agree that that is possibly a factor. I studied dozens of ancient oaks in Wales a few years ago and one could clearly see groth increments undergoing ... well, there isn't a word for it except in geology ... crenellation that was giving rings a width not attributable to vascular function. Next time I get to study dozens of ancient oaks I will get permission for some biopsies and put the hypothesis to the test.

 

You haven't figured it out, you've gone from amateur theory to self-peer-reviewed proof without scientific rigour. But I think you could be partly right.

[Khriss]

I will add to this weight bearing down as a column , then hydraulic pressure of growth and flows in the vascular tissues...  hmmm ok , more fish anyone ? K

[Vespasian]

8 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

You haven't figured it out, you've gone from amateur theory to self-peer-reviewed proof without scientific rigour. But I think you could be partly right.

Being partly right is good enough for me 

[daltontrees]

20 minutes ago, Khriss said:

I will add to this weight bearing down as a column , then hydraulic pressure of growth and flows in the vascular tissues...  hmmm ok , more fish anyone ? K

It' got to be quite a complex phenomenon. Hollowing of the stem will make the weight pressure on the remaining wood greater per m2, except that the crowns have usually retrenched by then and the whole thing weights afraction of its mature weight. Easy calculation if I could be bothered. But it would be interesting to see if new increments in late mature oak revert to ring porous as young retrenchment growth becomes the only foliage in the crown. Another factor might be the recycling of nutrients as a tree hollows out. For the first 500 years an oak might just be taking from the soil, but of the next 500 (give or take) it has 500 years of steadily decaying wood inside it feeding all those nutrients back into the soil. That's a pretty good pension.