Seeing is believing
Actually, I just got hold of a copy of Humphrey Welsh's 'Manual of Dwarf Conifers'.
Are you sure it wasn't him sitting up there predicting the small-scale future of humanhood?
Thanks for the great pictures.T.

PS That book is worth having. The days of black&white pics.made sure the writer had to speak for him(in this case)self.A bit like radio vs. TV..

Here's a pic of my wife standing by a Redwood.
Avenue of the Giants.

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/1220956371036511179iYxBeP

Here is a link that might be useful: Avenue of the Giants

Fantastic!

Surely you enjoyed your trip. I'm headed down to hike with my brother this weekend. My treks are generally in the north redwoods. I'm in redwood mode tonight, and came across a couple of these older but not stale posts.

Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. Big redwood 20 ton burl, and little bitty man.

{{gwi:591490}}

Same park - little bit smaller coast redwood ...

{{gwi:492500}}

enjoy your photos immensely mdvaden.
Thank You,
Dax

mdvaden, your photos do a wonderful job of conveying how massive these trees are. I hope to get up to see a northern redwood forest someday which I hear, and now definitely see, has larger trees. The undergrowth and undisturbed look are also great. Thanks for sharing.

Revisiting this topic, here's one more in Prairie Creek that's out of the ordinary ...

{{gwi:869773}}

A larger view is on this album slot:

Redwood Photo

: - )

It's remarkable how some of these redwoods grow such odd shaped wood sometimes. Because some of the growth is elongated downward, not just stems upward.

Thanks to all for the pictures. I love these trees. They are sacred.
Gary

mdvaden, good stuff. that albino redwood looks interesting - wonder if it's been propagated?

Have not come across any reference of photo of a grafted albino redwood yet. Eeither posts or photos.

Any I have seen were one of the few in parks. And it looks like one campground near Ferndale, CA, may have one nearby.

Thanks for bringing this back up!

I just returned from a week of camping in northern California.
I stayed at Patrick's Point State Park, and I was sure to visit Fern Canyon.
I wish I could have done more hiking, but I was with others...

Josh

"Thanks for bringing this back up!

I just returned from a week of camping in northern California.
I stayed at Patrick's Point State Park, and I was sure to visit Fern Canyon.
I wish I could have done more hiking, but I was with others...

Josh"

Was down there last weekend myself, and Mon. to Wed. of this week. Almost made it down to Patrick's Point, but spent the time from Redwood National Park on up to Jedediah Smith.

Hiking, bushwhacking, photos, and quite a bit of time getting to know some folks in the area.

Hello, thank you Naturegirl for the photos of the Big Basin redwoods. This is a grove that has fascinated me since I was a young boy when I received a present of a tree book with a photo of the 'Mother of the Forest' in Big Basin under the Coast Redwood section. This grove has remained close to my heart since.

Mario, (I emailed you privately to thank you for your photos but will do so again here) fantastic photos for someone living in Yorkshire, thousands of miles away, to admire these mighty trees in their native habitat.

I would like to ask question about Big Basin, hopefully Spruceman, Mario or someone may have an answer. In the tree book that I mentioned in my paragraph above, the 'Mother of the Forest' is given a height of 100m 329ft. This book dates from around 1980 but the height given today is 100, 329 ft for the 'Mother' tree. Surely this tree must have grown in the intervening 30 years? Does anyone know if the 'Mother of the Forest' has been measured recently by laser rangefinder?

Robert:

I don't know it it has been re-measured. My guess is probably not. Many of the old measurements were not accurate. Measuring with a lazer rangefinder, using a method called sine top, sine bottom, can give more accurate measurements than the old method, often because it avoids errors that happen when the top, or a twig sighted as the top, is not over the base. Of course climbing a tree and doing a tape drop is the most accurate method. Tree measuring methods are discussed in detail at the Eastern Native Tree Society Website, and there is an "affiliate," The Western Native Tree Society.

As for growth in recent years--yes, it could have grown somewhat. With old redwood trees there seems to be no consistency in the rate of growth. I remember reading that the Dyerville Giant, a tree which fell a few years ago, made good growth in the years before it fell. Other large old trees not so much. And it is possible for trees to lose some height from wind damage or dieback. There are a number of people competent to do the Laser rangefinder measurements out there. Maybe some one will do one, if one has not already been done. There would certainly be a lot of interest.

--spruce

"Of course climbing a tree and doing a tape drop is the most accurate method"

I'm not at all convinced about that. Getting a straight line from top to base without having to deviate to pass branches is impossible; the deviations from a true straight line will add at least 2-3% to the real height making the measured height too tall. On a 110m tree, that means adding 2-3 metres more than it should be.

Resin

Resin:

The "Hyperion," the tallest known/measured redwood, at 379.1 feet, was measured this way by Professor Steve Sillett, and the process was filmed by the National Geographic Society. I don't know the technical details for how the supposed accuracy was achieved, but as of now the method of climbing a tree and "dropping" a tape is the accepted "gold standard" for tree height measurements.

Maybe someone more familiar with the intimate details of how care is taken to avoid the problems you cite, can chime in here.

--Spruce

Hello again. I agree with Resins point about measuring these trees, it was a point that I was actually going to make myself. There is a grove of tall Sequioadendron (tall for this country) containing a tallest tree which I would to get an accurate height measurement. I have stood at the base looking up the trunk and imagined someone climbing this tree to tape drop measure it. Branches radiate out from the trunk 360 degrees for half it's height. If someone climbed the tree and held the tape at the very tip of the leading shoot and then maticulously traced the tape in a straight line down the trunk to the ground, they would have to make deviations for branches. They could not continue the straight line through the branches. These deviations would result in inaccuracies in the overall height measurement on the plus side and though maybe relatively small for each individualbranch, would be magnified by the number of branches and very tall height of the tree involved.

I agree with Spruce's comment, it would be very interesting if someone could laser the 'Mother of the Forest' in Big Basin. I get the impression that some of the tall trees in the southern range redwood parks are somewhat overlooked because of the giants in the northern range state parks. In the 1980 photo, the tip of the 'Mother' tree looks healthy with no apparent damage from lightning or flat top from nesting birds. Assuming that the 'Mother' tree still has a healthy leader (no mention of any visible damage on any of the Big Basin websites) there is some potential for growth in the intervening 30 years. The 'Riverside' tree in Humboldt Redwoods grew 1.62 m between fall 2005 and fall 2010. The 'Barricade' tree grew 2.05m between March 2000 and fall 2010. There is the potential for growth for the 'Mother' tree of between 6 and 9 metres. The 'Mother' tree could now be potentially a 350 footer. Even relatively conservatively it could be 340 foot tree.

I've only just seen these pics, fabulous!

One problem with assuming that the "mother tree" is much taller than it was measured to be before, is that the previous measurement may not be accurate. Many of the measurements done by the "tangent" method, have been shown to be grossly inaccurate, more often exaggerating the height that underestimating it. If that measurement was accurate, I would be surprised if it has grown very much. Possible, I suppose, but as far as I know all the 350 footers are in the more northerly groves. There may not be the same potential at Big Basin. But the trees are spectacular, nevertheless.

--Spruce

"Many of the measurements done by the "tangent" method, have been shown to be grossly inaccurate, more often exaggerating the height that underestimating it"

Any idea why? I'm presuming "the tangent method" means clinometer measurements?

Resin

Avenue of the Giants? Prairie Creek? Glad you all enjoy my "Backyard" as much as I do.

Resin and all you tree nuts (like me);

Below is a link to a brief summary of the Eastern Native Tree Society's tree measuring methods. It starts with diameter and crown spread, but keep going and you will find a brief summary of the height measuring techniques.

Briefly, measuring the distance to the base of the trunk of a tree, and then using a clinometer to get an angle to a supposed top and then calculating the height can lead to significant errors. The most common is an exaggeration of height because the sighted top (sometimes the true top, sometimes just a point that seems to be the top from that viewpoint) is at a point closer to the viewer than a point exactly over the base, resulting in a steeper angle reading on the clinometer, causing a final height figure greater than the true height.

The link to the brief summary below will give you an outline, but if you go to the ENTS website, the URL is given at the end of the summary, you can find very full explanations/guidelines for measuring trees. Visit the BBS linked on the right of the website and/or follow one of the other links to tree measurement techniques and tree measurement discussions. I don't think there is anything about tree measurement out there that has not been discussed at one time or another by the members of ENTS.
There are also discussions of recommended equipment, and the strengths and weaknesses of different items. The "sine top, sine base" method is not hard to learn (real expertise takes much practice), and the equipment is not that expensive.

And there is a whole world of tree stuff discussed and linked at the ENTS site. Have fun exploring!

--Spruce

Here is a link that might be useful: ENTS tree measuring guidelines

Interesting read, though they have far worse problems with broad-crowned broadleaf trees, unlike the narrow spire-topped conifers we are dealing with.

Abies grandis, 57m; the sighted top is clearly the true top! But getting a tape drop through all that dense branching would be impossible.

Resin

Hello Spruce, Resin, Humboldt, Larry and all. I was hoping that some 'Humboldtians'?, 'Humboldters'? would appear on this forum. Humboldt, I think it is safe to say that there are a few now on this forum who are envious, green with envy, that you have a backyard like you do. (laughs) I am certainly one of them. I try to console myself with redwood spotting over here but it is a poor substitute to say the least. Could I ask you a few questions?

1, Roughly, which part of Humboldt County do you live in (town, not street and house name)

2, What lies beyond the boundaries of the State Parks? Humboldt Redwoods, what lies beyond the boundary to the west for example? Did the loggers fell the trees right up to the boundary? Were the stumps left so there are now second growth redwood groves or were the stumps cleared as well for pasture? If the stumps were left, what sort of heights have these second growth trees now reached and what trunk diameters? In conclusion, are these scattered redwood State Parks surrounded by vast acreages of second growth redwoods or do they stand as isolated islands of trees?

If I had lived in California I would have done my very best to land a job as a ranger in one of these redwood State Parks, I cannot imagine a better job, it would have been my dream job. I imagine that landing a job as a ranger will now be even more difficult as I was reading that because of the large California deficit, Governer Arnie was threatening to withdraw funding from some of the State Parks. Armstrong Redwoods in Sonomo County was one of them and if I remember correctly, Samuel P Taylor In Marin County was another. I seem to remember the Grizzly Creek park was also mentioned although I cannot be sure now.

I also read that when they were lobbying for Redwood National Park to be enlarged,Ronald Reagan quipped 'when you have seen one redwood you have seen them all'. I liked Ronnie but sacrilage! Mario's photos just show how individual these trees really are with varying trunk patterns, burl growths. From the photos, they seem to have their own individual personalities.

Spruceman, you may be correct but I agree with Resin about the tape drop method. I will have a read through the site that you have recommended. I wish that someone could go and re-measure the 'Mother' tree at Big Basin, I would for onw would love to know how tall it is now.

Resin and others doubting the tape drop method of tree measuring:

I am not an expert on the subject, but those who do the tape drop method find a way to succeed. I could easily imagine that a tree could be done in sections, or some other way could be found to actually measure a tree with a tape. Steve Sillett is a professor at Humboldt State University in CA and has quite a reputation for what he does, part of which includes developing what is accepted as a very, very accurate method of measuring trees. If the simple objection that one can't drop a tape through branches and foliage held any weight, I am not sure how they would have achieved the status/success in tree measuring that they have achieved. I would think someone would have raised this objection before. A number of other people use the tape drop method, but, of course, to do it, one has to climb these trees, which takes another kind of expertise. And usually two people, at least, are required to do the measurement, and I believe, more often a larger team is involved for the tallest redwoods.

Anyway, I will see if I can get some more detailed explanations of the procedure and report back in a few days. I have not heard that the climbers trying to measure a tree have had to admit failure on some trees because of obstructing branches. They do, as far as I know, get the job done when they set out to measure a tree.

Anyway, I will see what I can find out, and report back. I probably should set up a new topic for any information I can get.

--Spruce

Resen and others:

A very, very quick search turned up this, but I will try to find more:

"Climber Deployed Tape Line:

This method is very straightforward, but easier said than done. A climber ascends to the top of the tree and drops a weighted sac that is attached to the end of the tape line. The climber carefully checks to make sure the tape line is free of obstruction from branches and that it drops perfectly straight. A person at the base of the tree helps the climber at the top to pull the weighted end of the tape line straight and taught against a tag which was already placed on the tree. This tag is generally placed at 1m above the tree's average ground level. The tag should always is be surveyed seperately before the tape drop. This is the most accurate of all the methods to measure a tall redwood because the top most leaders of these redwoods are often times not visible from the ground. However, getting permits and actually climbing the tall trees can be quite an involved process. At this point in time, I have yet to see a tree that could not be climbed by Steve Sillett or his colleagues. They have adapted this method for tall redwoods, using a standard 300 ft fiberglass tapeline. For tall redwoods, a team of two climbers is generally needed. After getting to the top, a climber drops a tapeline 70-100 feet down into the canopy. Another climber below pulls the line taught and marks its position on the trunk relative to the topmost leader. A leveling device is used to survey a 2nd level point with a clear view to the ground and a point which is directly above the 1m tag previously place at the base of the tree and then a secondary tape drop to the ground is needed to get the overall height. By using this method you can accurately measure a 360"+ tree with only a 300� tape and by breaking the measurement into 2 parts, you can get unobstructed drops by using over hanging branches. When the topmost leader is too spindly get close to in fear of it snapping off, a telescoping pole is propped up to the highest point of the tree and the end of the pole position is marked. Ideally, a hillside observer or person climbing a nearby tree will be in radio contact with the climber deploying the pole to assist with leveling the position relative to the topmost leader and straight up and down (90�). The pole has a known length, which is added to the initial 70-100 ft measurement. If done carefully, you will get to within a few inches accuracy using this technique. Another advantage to the climber deployed tape drop is that you can measure trees like John Muir and Redwood Creek Giant. These trees cannot be measured by the ground based observer because there aren�t any windows to their tops (or at least not that are within the Impulse� laser�s 1200� range)."

--Spruce

I got this explanation from two people who have done a lot of climbing and "tape drop" tree measuring. These are true experts.

First this:

"1. Many research climbers have been successfully performing tape drops in a variety of tree species with varying crown configuration and density.

2. The close correlation of tape drops and ground based measurements indicates sound methodology.

3. There is always a way to get a clear path to the ground, segmenting works very well. On eastern trees I've measured I've never had to segment except for the very top section where I extend a pole up, then measure all way to the ground from the bottom measurement of the pole. I've always been able to find a straight and clear path for the tape.

4. Bear in mind that tape drop measurements are the best and most consistently accurate measurements that tree researchers have been able to devise to date. If at some future time a better method is developed, all the better. For now this is how researchers measure tree height."

--Andrew Joslin

And second:

"I find it interesting that this method would be questioned. I can see the thought process concerning the branches but I think your friend needs to climb a tree. They are mostly open space and the advantage the climber has while in the tree is a great vantage point. I have a really good sense of verticality and can eyeball a path to the ground and then drop the line down. If it is not vertical I simply pick another "hole" to the ground. I guarantee that a research climber will NOT be satisfied with a less than vertical drop and it will be routed appropriately. We ENTS and Sillett types are in the tree for the best possible representation possible. Sloppy work is not our mission.

As for the most accurate method it is probably a tripod mounted high-end Impulse laser on a calm day with a reflector at the base. However, this technique does nothing for in-crown research and measurements which are monumented to a fixed tape referenced to the ground. The method used depends on your goals and budget."

--Will Blozan

I hope these explanations help.

--Spruce

"I find it interesting that this method would be questioned. I can see the thought process concerning the branches but I think your friend needs to climb a tree"

Actually, my questioning arises exactly from climbing trees (Abies spp., to get cones from the top) - it isn't possible to find a clear vertical route, and the ground is never visible vertically below from the top. I've even done line drops (fragile cones tied in a bag, and let down by string so they don't break on hitting the ground); the bag repeatedly deflects off branches, following a zig-zag or spiral route down.

"We ENTS and Sillett types are in the tree for the best possible representation possible. Sloppy work is not our mission"

If that's the case, they definitely need to review their work - measuring and presenting their data in archaic imperialist cr@p is not good representation for this task. That sort of rubbish should be outlawed in scientific data documentation, as well as being hostile to the international community.

Resin

Resin:

Wow! That's a bit harsh. Well, there is a rather large community out these that measures trees this way, and their work is widely accepted. I have done my best to explain, and I think I have done as much as I can. I will leave the topic alone now.

Robert:

I see that no Humboldtians have responded to your recent questions. I visited the redwoods many times, but the most recent time was over 25 years ago.

What surrounds the redwood parks? Well, there are a variety of things--I think each park would be different. But mostly it would be second and third growth stands. In many cases the redwoods were cut right up to the park boundaries. In most of these cases the redwoods have grown up considerably and have developed into nice forest stands. And, in some cases, the parks have expanded to include some of the second growth stands. This is espeically true of the Redwoods National Park and Humboldt Redwoods State Park, but there are a number of others. The Save-The-Redwoods League (my favorite environmental organization) has done much work to buy lands surrounding the redwood groves in the state parks to act as a buffer. They have been very concerned about watershed areas which if denuded of vegetation and/or otherwise abused, the resulting flooding runoff could seriously damage the groves. One of their biggest projects has been to add some very large acerage in the Bull Creek watershed to the Humboldt Redwoods State Park. Of course, there is much they can't do because some of the watersheds that affect streams/rivers that go through the parks are simply too extensive.

In the case of the Pepperwood Grove, a part of Humboldt Redwoods State Park, they bought some adjacent land--between the grove and the river--and planted redwoods. This land had been used as farmland after the giant redwoods were cut.

The Save-The-Redwoods league's work continues. They always need donations, and a very, very high percentage of the funds donated goes directly to support their projects. If you want to help, this organization gives a lot of "bang for the buck," so to speak. You can check them out on the web. If you join you get a regular news letter discussing their projects and progress.

In a few cases, there are towns nestled in the redwoods groves. One of these, the town of Weott, was mostly destroyed by a flood a number of years ago and moved to higher ground.

Anyway, the entire redwood region is beautiful. You should visit.

--Spruce

Robert:

I have some disappointing information for you about "The Mother of the Forest" tree at Big Basin. It has been re-measured, and it is nowhere near as tall as previously reported. The tree has been re-measured twice recently, independently, and the measurements were rather close. It was measured using a laser rangefinder, and the sine top, sine base method. One of the measurers was Michael Taylor, who is widely known as one of the best tree measurers in the world, and who has measured numerous redwoods. He got 287.7.� Will Blozan, also famous for tree measuring, among other tree documentation work, and President of ENTS, measured the tree at 289.� To get this measurement, he searched and found a window for the laser 600 feet away.

I know that is disappointing, not only to you, but also to me. But, as you know, I suspected that the tree had not been correctly measured The tallest redwood south of SF is in Portola State Park, and has been reliably measured at 303.� Big Basin has been recently searched for tall trees using the ENTS preferred tree measuring method/equipment, and there are none there over 300.

One final note about the tape drop method. I should have pointed out that the tape is not necessarily dropped right close to the trunk. The search for an open "window" downward can extend outward away from the trunk until one is found. A level can be used to make sure the tape is fixed at the proper height for the drop.

--Spruce

Robert and folks:

My word processor is not compatable with the text used in the forum. The measurements were 287.7' and 289,' respectively.

--Spruce

Folks:

On the measurements of the "mother" tree, I flipped the measurements--Will Blozan got 287.7, Michael Taylor got 289. Not that it is a big difference, but accuracy is key, even in this regard.

One more note about Michael Taylor's measuring skills. He has done measurements of redwoods using both the tape drop method and the laser rangefinder. His results from each method when measuring the same tree have been as close as one centemeter of each other.

If the guidelines promoted by ENTS, Professor Sillett, Michael Taylor and others are used in the future, the kinds of gross errors made in measuring trees such as "The Mother of the Forest" in Big Basin State Park, will be a thing of the past.

--Spruce

"Resin:

Wow! That's a bit harsh"

Yeah, harsh maybe, but absolutely 100% justified! They have no international or scientific credibility until they measure in the same standard way as everyone else.

Suppose a Chinese researcher sent ENTS some details of Chinese tall trees, with everything cited only in traditional chǐ and bù - would they pay any attention? Yet those measures will be understood by a quarter of the world's population, a lot more than the 5% who use that imperial guff.

Resin

Resin:

There have been times when the way "everyone else" has done something is found not to be the best way. The ways that the researchers at ENTS, along with a large number of other people, have begun to use to measure trees, will soon, if not already, be the standard methods. These methods include the tape drop and the sine top, sine base methods. Resin--trust me--you can bank on it

These methods may be refined to some degree in the future. For one thng, better laser rangefinders will be developed. For another, the potential for the tapes used in the tape drop method to stretch slightly, as with lower quality fiberglass tapes, or to have some heat expansion factors, as with metal tapes, will be more accurately controlled, compnsated for, or eliminated.

Work will continue to improve the methods. But the errors, now are verry, verry small compared to the errors that have been made using the older methods. It would be more proper to say that today if the procedures are done correctly, there are not "errors" as such, but rather there is a "margin of error" built into the equipment and metholodology. In the past, the errors, which have often been as much as 30%, have been true "errors," meaning the methodology was faulty at the outset, and/or the work was very careless.

Just one more note: I have been trained in the sine top, sine base measuring, and I have very good equipment. I manage and do logging/TSI thinning myself on my own timberland. I have measured standing trees, and then carefully measured the same trees after I have felled them. In some cases the top shattters, and measurements on the ground are difficult, if not impossible. But at times the trees have fallen intact, and careful measurements of the trees on the ground has matched very closely the measurements I have made of the standing trees before felling.

I would hope that with further research, you might come to see that these new tree height measring methods are, indeed, an advance over the methods used previously.

ENTS has a number of European members. If you were to join us, I believe you would be a very, very valuable member, and most welcome. We call ourselves the Eastern Native Tree Society, but we are open to members world wide and take a great interest in trees from other parts of the world. We also have an interest, and do measurements of non-native trees here in America, such as Norway Spruce. We recently found a Norway spruce in MA just over 150 feet tall, and still growing fast.

--Spruce

Just a bit of follow up, showing the kinds of discussion we have at ENTS about tree measuring accuracy. This related to the point above about the concern for a tape strecthing, or being affected by temperature, etc.

----------------

"AndrewJoslin � Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:01 pm

Will Blozan wrote:

---

But overall, the lasers are great and the tape drops are used to settle differences of a few tenths of feet, or firmly benchmark the max we can find.

---

This pretty much closes the "to tape or not to tape" question in my mind, it's a limited activity for specific research purposes and conditions (not possible to get a laser sighting on the top).

mdvaden wrote:

---

I found some "non-stretch" fiberglass tapes online, and plenty of websites mentioning thermal expansion of metal tapes, but not one reference to thermal expansion of fiberglass tapes.

---

I use a Keson 200 ft. tape in the east. Here are the manufacturers comments on stretch, thermal effects etc:
http://www.keson.com/products/long_tapes/long_tape_11.htm

To quote from the page:

---

"These fiberglass reinforced tapes are designed to withstand more wear and tear than any other type of fiberglass measuring tape. They contain more than 42,000 fiberglass strands for greater tensile strength and superior accuracy when tension is applied.Temperature correction is not necessary."

---

My tape has "4.5 lb. pressure" printed at the beginning of the scale. When doing a tape drop, the person on the ground applies hand pressure to straighten the tape.

There is probably more variation in determining the average height height of the base measuring point when the tree is on a slope than there is variation due to tape stretch or error in laser measuring technique :-) This is a human process, there are many potential "fail" points in reaching PERFECT accurate measurement before we sweat on fiberglass tape stretch. This is why we peer review, do verifying measurements (more than one person measuring the same tree) etc.

When a person using good measuring technique and skill states a measurement that is what the known measurement is until someone else comes along and either verifies or disproves. If we get within inches of actual height we're doing very well. If we nail it exactly all the better.

-Andrew

-------------------------

I don't mean to belabor this topic, but I thought some of you might find this interesting.

--Spruce

Hello Spruce, Resin et al. Spruce, please call me Rob, Robert is my name (Redwood play on Redford obviously is not my surname) but I seldom use it apart from in officialdom.

Spruce, thanks for enlightening me and answering my questions about the logged areas. I have a book called 'Redwoods, the world's largest trees' Jeremy Joan Hewes which I bought in 1983 which contains photos of the logging plus slash and burn which was carried out right up the boundary of Redwood National Park when they were campaigning for enlargement of it's borders in 1978. I wondered what would happened to these logged areas now, second growth would be about 33 years old now. Some of the areas logged in the 1800's, the second growth redwoods must be pretty tall now, will they eventually be logged again. I have read that the reason that Coast Redwood is not used for lumber in plantations is that the wood of these younger trees does not have the durability of the old growth/virgin wood, it tends to shatter like Sequioadendron. Apparently geneticists were working to try and produce a redwood with better wood quality in the younder trees, GM redwood in other words. Great shame that Redwood is no general real use for lumber, it would have been great to have had vast plantations of Coast Redwood over here instead of Sitka Spruce and the like.

'Mother of the Forest' thanks Spruce for clarifying this situation up, I had thought of emailing the Big Basin park contact itself. What a gross overestimation of height! This is what makes you doubt some of the claims for 425 feet trees from the 1800's and claims like 450 feet for Eucalyptus Regnans in Australia. 287 to 289 feet, this is about the same then as the 285 foot quoted tree at neighbouring Henry Cowell Redwoods. As you say, around 300 feet may be the optimum height for the Coast Redwoods in this area.

The measuring technique scenario has turned into quite a debate. I am going to mediate here. I have been looking and looking at the photos of the Redwoods in Big Basin above and these trees to not appear to have massive branches and the branches appear to be quite widely spaced. You cannot see the top of the trees but from these photos at least on these trees, I think that it would be possible to drop a weighted line down and get a near straight line. I am going to concede the point to you Spruce and Prof Sillett and others. What I am not convinced about is whether this would apply to all trees, particularly densely branched trees like Abies and with trees with massive branches like some specimans of Sequioadendron. The branches on some of the Sequioadendrons are so large that you would have to deviate around some. The tree that I would like measured in my local grove, I have looked directly up the trunk for a direct line passage to the top and I cannot see one, there are branches in every line that you look up at, branches of quite significant diameter even on these relatively slim trees. In short, I think it is going to vary from tree to tree and with the conifer species.

Resin, I agree and disagree with you over imperial and metric. They should supply records with both, metric and feet, as Michael Taylor actually does. There are a great, great many people to whom a height in metres would be meaningless. Tell someone a tree was 100 metres and it would be meaningless, tell them it was 329 feet and that would have context. I know that this is true from my own family and just about everyone I know when I start talking about trees-'the tallest tree in the world is 115 metres' I say, 'how tall is that' is the reply every time. I am 6 foot 2 inches, it will be a cold day in hell before I say 1.88 metres if someone asks me how tall I am. It would be meaningless to a big proportion of people anyway.

Some of you over the pond might be interested at us Brits attempts to console ourselves with redwood trees over here. The link at the bottom, Resin and myself have both supplied locations for trees over. Not in the league of the redwoods in California but quite impressive for over here and for trees of about 150/160 years old at the most.

Here is a link that might be useful: redwood world

Robert:

I have the Hewes book also--it has some nice pictures.

As for the meters/feet issue--I try to remember here to convert and give both when I think there is an audience who usually uses meters, but, alas, I more often forget.

At ENTS, we often use both. We have some popular benchmarks for tall trees--one is 150 feet for trees here in the east. We have lists of 150 footers for both eastern white pine and tuliptree. We have another list, which is more special, for trees 50 meters or more.

It is sad that there has been so much mismeasurement of tree heights out there--and of course, so many entirely unverifiable reports of incredibly tall trees. One thing about the data collected by ENTS is that it is open to anyone who wants to examine it. A great deal of it is of known/named trees, which can be checked. And a good deal of the more general data has GPS coordinates for individual trees, so anyone who wants to check our data and wishes to publish their own measurement methods and data is free to do so. We are very proud of our work, but I should say, I am personally responsible for just about zero.

As for the value/quality of second growth redwood lumber--I am not really sure what the problems are. I know that to be durable, meaning resistant to decay, you have to have the red colored heartwood, and it takes a tree a while to develop a good proportion of that in a log. But it is my understanding that the "redwood" trees that were most prone to shattering, were the so called Sierra redwoods, or giant sequoias. I was under the impression that regular redwood lumber was of a bit higher strength. But perhaps it is not as good, or doesn't meet some of the specifications for home construction that the Pacific Douglas fir, and other species do. Probably the strongest "softwood" for framing houses is the southern Hard pines, such as slash, loblolly, and longleaf. And to be used in more demanding applications, the lumber has to be knot free, and it takes longer for trees to produce clear wood.

Anyway, second growth redwood trees are sought after, cut, and used for somethings. A few years ago there was a big controversy about saving some beautiful second growth redwoods along state highway 128 along the Navarro river in northern CA. These trees were (are) known as the "redwood tunnel to the sea." Loggers were eager to cut these trees, and a big effort--successful ultimately--was made to save them. But the second growth trees away from the road and the river were cut.

As for redwoods and giant sequoias in Europe: these are already very impressive, and who knows how large they may ultimately get. I would not be sure that they may not in a thousand years or so rival the CA redwoods. Many years ago I visited the arboretum at Benmore in Scotland, and saw the giant sequoia allee there. Quite something, and the trees are larger by some decent amount now.

--Spruce

Hi Spruce,

"There have been times when the way "everyone else" has done something is found not to be the best way. The ways that the researchers at ENTS, along with a large number of other people, have begun to use to measure trees, will soon, if not already, be the standard methods. These methods include the tape drop and the sine top, sine base methods. Resin--trust me--you can bank on it "

It was specifically the metric / imperial matter I was referring to, not use of tape drops, etc., in my "harsh maybe, but absolutely 100% justified" comments. But I do mean it seriously, they should only publish details either metric alone, or metric first with imperial in brackets after if thought absolutely necessary. No other scientific work is ever published using solely imperial stuff, it quite simply isn't acceptable.

Resin

"As for the value/quality of second growth redwood lumber--I am not really sure what the problems are. I know that to be durable, meaning resistant to decay, you have to have the red colored heartwood, and it takes a tree a while to develop a good proportion of that in a log. But it is my understanding that the "redwood" trees that were most prone to shattering, were the so called Sierra redwoods, or giant sequoias"

Yep, the big old Sequoiadendrons have very brittle wood, when they cut them in the 1850s, they usually shattered on hitting the ground. But apparently some recent tests showed that from young trees, it is just as strong as Sequoia sempervirens wood, so much so that there is now getting to be some serious interest in its use in forestry plantations (sorry, I can't remember where I read this!), because it produces so much more wood per hectare than anything else.

"As for redwoods and giant sequoias in Europe ..."

There's some pics (both Sequoiadendron and Sequoia sempervirens) on the thread "Sequoiadendrum giganteum in North-Europe", in case you've not seen it

Resin

Resin:

Sorry I misunderstood. Yeah, we are behind things here, but conversions are easy to do. We had an attempt to switch to metric a few years ago, but it died. I really don't know the history/reasons why we over here never switched. A lot of inertia involved. I won't go into specifics, but we have some inertia on some other things also. Hah!!

Actually when I think of tree heights, I sometimes think in metric, as do other ENTS members. I do agree with you on this. Whenever I buy a tool set these days, it seems I have twice as many wrenches, etc. as I should need--one half comes in metric, the other in inches (whatever the general term for it is). It is a nuisance. Sometimes the confusion between the two in some applications causes serious errors/problems.

--Spruce

Rob- I have lived in McKinleyville/ Arcata for 7 years now. Both are small towns. Arcata is more of a College town I would say with more going on. I work in Eureka so I'm all over. Just got back from Titlow Hill about 30 miles inland up the 299. Let the kids play in the snow for a few hours. As for the rest of your question... To the West is the Pacific Ocean. It's beautiful. I've lived next to it my whole life (Grew up surfing Huntington Beach in Orange County). As for the rest of your questions- I don't see too many stumps while in the forest except in Arcata community forest. Second growth is pretty large. I bought 2.42 acres a little bit ago and I have 50/ 60 foot trees easily. Some are Redwoods, Oaks, Firs. My friend raises and sells trees by the thousands so this year I'll be planting a tree every several feet along my property line instead of building a fence. Ha ha. What else did you want to know??? The fishing is amazing, hunting as well, hiking, rivers, lakes, vineyards, orchards, snow, and people seem to be a little more open minded about things like composting, rainwater collection, humanure, solar power, etc.

Hey, Humboldt!
I was born in Mad River Hospital, and lived off of Fieldbrook Road when I was young.
I remember the area fondly - massive Redwood stumps with huckleberry growing up the sides.
It's still my favorite place to vacation during the Summer...camping at Patrick's Point,
hiking Fern Canyon, deep-sea fishing out of Trinidad.....

Josh

i live right next to Mad River Hospital and Pacific Union. My Great Grandparent's were from here, so my Dad took us up here often on vacations. When I got married I took my wife to Patrick's Point. She said, "Let's move here." The rest is history. Now that think about it there are many massive stumps, depending on where you are. Guess I've been going inland to Shasta Trinity National Forest for too long. There are some there, but not many. Funny you mention Fieldbrook Road. I was just there yesterday looking at the trees I want to plant at my property. Got bit in the ass by a pit bull. Still hurts right now. LMAO

Small world... ;-)

Josh

Hello Humboldt, what a great place to live for a redwood enthusiast! I live near York and Rievaulx, Byland, Fountains Abbeys in North Yorkshire and I have American history loving friends (and one from Australia) who are always telling me how lucky I am to live near these places. It is swings and roundabouts. Do you every venture up Fieldbrook way at all? Are there second growth redwood groves up there now? I am intrigued that the Lindsey Creek tree's stump just may still be visible although I suspect that it will be obscured if the stump was allowed to re-sprout. I was actually asking what was outside the boundary of Humboldt Redwoods, directly to the west of it's boundary rather than the Pacific thirty miles to the west. Spruceman has answered my question on this. I have Jeremy Joan Hewe's book and it has photos (p166)of Redwood Creek with the narrow band of unlogged virgin trees and the second growth surrounding after logging so I had an idea for this area. I wondered if it was the same around Humboldt redwoods. The devastation caused by the loggers around Redwood National Park is fully apparent from the photos on pages 162/163 and the Bull Creek logger devastation is apparent from photos on p184.

Greenman, do you still live in the Arcata area?

Spruceman, I still find the discrepancy between the given height of the 'Mother of the Forest' in every source that I can find, 329 feet, and the recent measurements as amazing!? How could such a big discrepancy have occured, five feet yes but forty feet? The official Big Basin sites even give 329 feet? Who measured the tree at 329 feet, how was it measured and when? Any idea? I feel like emailing the officials at Big Basin State Park to pull them up on this?

Hey, Robert!
I don't live in Humboldt anymore...I just visit during Summer vacation.
I now live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, near Auburn,
in the heart of Gold Country. Summers are very hot here, and the coastal
fog and the ferny Redwood forests are a welcome respite.

Josh

Robert:

The narrow strip on unlogged trees along Redwood creek was left to provide access to what were then thought to be the tallest trees in the world. A big section of logged over land surrounding the "worm" was added to the park with the park expansion bill. I was one of two lobbyists for the Sierra club working to make sure our Senators and Congressmen had the right information and would support the bill. It is a shame that that land, and even more, was not included in the original park, which really did not preserve that much additional old growth redwood forest.

By this time much of the Bull creek watershed has recovered somewhat--the cutting there was done close to 60 years ago.

As for the incorrect measurement of the "Mother of the Forest Tree": As a percent of the total height, the amount of error is not that uncommon. The most frequent error, is what I noted in my discussion above--the top of the tree, or a point sighted as the top, was closer to the observer than a point directly above the base of the tree. So, when the angle for computing the height was read, the clinometer gave an angle steeper than the true angle would be. The problem occurs because the measurement to the base of the tree was made separately from the measurement of the angle. For these calculations, whether for the ENTS method, or the previous method, a right triangle is assumed, but unless the top sighted is directly over the base, no right triangle actually exists for the calculations, leading to distorted results. The ENTS method assumes TWO right triangles, and measures two distances and two angles, and then combines. So whether the tree leans, or whether the top is directly over the base, is not an issue.

But this method, using the convenience of the laser rangefinder, is, after all, much easier and faster. The difficulty is finding a good window to the top, and judging what the true top is, especially when sightlines are difficult and the crown of the tree is broad and/or complex. When no good window can be found--if the tree is very special--it will be climbed, and a tape dropped. Now this is really difficult and takes both climbing AND measuring expertise. And one or two additional people.

With the ENTS "sine top, sine base," the angle and the height are measured on the same sight line. The assumed right triangle always--and of necessity--always exists for the calculations. If an error occurs, it is usually to underestimate the height. This would happen when something other than the true top is sighted. The ENTS method will give a true height of whatever twig is sighted, whether the top or not. Note that Will Blozan, when he measured the tree, moved 600 feet away to ensure that from his angle--from far away--he could sight the true top. And, because the distance and angle are measured along the same line and from the same point, the issue of whether the top is perfectly over the base is not an issue. The base is measured the same way as the top, and the height added or subtracted, as the case may be.

What may have happened with the "Mother" tree, is either someone did not have enough patience to try to find a visual "window" for sighting the true top of the tree.--so if he stood too close to the tree, allowing him to sight some twig that was more to the side of the crown towards himself rather than at the absolute top, and that twig were a relatively small distance closer to the observer than the base of the tree, whether it were the true top or not, a large overestimation of the height could occur. Or, if the true top was sighted, but that top were closer to the observer than a point directly over the base, that would lead to the same kind of error. Of course, errors could occur in measuring the distance to the trunk, even it the top were directly over the base.

Of course, people using the ENTS method can make errors, but any error will not occur simply because it is built into the methodology, as has been the case with the method commonly applied previously.

Want to have some fun: get some equipment and start measuring. The now discontinued Nikon 440 rangefinder is perhaps the most preferred rangefinder because it has a narrow laser beam that can pass through narrow openings without giving a false echo from surrounding clutter. Used ones usually available on e-bay, often for between $100 and $150. I also use a basic Suunto clinometer and $13 scientific calculator. If I can sight the top and the base without too much searching, I can get readings, punch in the numbers and get a tree height in maybe as little as two minutes.

--Spruce