Big
butternut and box-elder, Ashville, NC
Will
Blozan Images 3 |
Will
Blozan |
Oct
19, 2003 17:37 PDT |
Box-elder: 15'5" x 55.5' x 90'
|
Butternut: 15'10" x 55.5' x 87'
|
![box_elder2r.jpg (124065 bytes)](box_elder2r_small.jpg)
Box-elder: 15'5" x 55.5' x 90'
|
|
October
19, 2003
I have posted some shots of a huge butternut and box-elder I
measured this
weekend at the attached link. I think both may be NC State
Champions. Both
are doubles but have high fusion and are likely more
"legitimate" than the
current champion trees. I hate to sound so negative but if a
multi-stemmed
clump of (any tree) measured at ground level and called one tree
can make it
on the list, I'll nominate awesome trees such as these any day!
Big Tree Points:
Butternut: 15'10" x 55.5' x 87'= 268pts
[Current NC Champ 295pts (Height is
likely 30-40'
off)]
Box-elder: 15'5" x 55.5' x 90'= 264pts
[Current NC Champ 254pts]
BTW, The cute model in the photos is my
daugther, Cora ;)
|
Re:
Big butternut and box-elder |
Colby
Rucker |
Oct
19, 2003 18:17 PDT |
Will,
Nice daughter, nice photo, nice trees.
I share your continuing concerns about bogus champions, but
realistically, I
think trunks like the butternut and boxelder will always be
accepted. Both
pass the slice test, and aren't obvious coppices. The one
adjustment that
we can call for is using the Rule of 73 for low-waisted trees.
If the 15'
10" butternut was measured at 24" up, we should
multiply 190 inches by 85
percent (73 + 12) and convert to a calculated cbh of 161.5, or
13' 5.5".
It will take time to get such changes at the state level, but
we're making
progress at American Forests.
Colby
|
Re:
Big butternut and box-elder |
Will
Fell |
Oct
19, 2003 19:08 PDT |
Will;
Again some great shots of some great trees and thanks for
posting.
I am glad that Colby commented on the measurements as he was
much more
precise than me.
I see your reference to the trees being "twins". As
Colby stated, the
generally accepted scoring procedure set by the AFA and adopted
by the
states, is if it forks above 4.5 feet then accept the
measurement at the
narrowest point below. Short of taking some sort of DNA (or
whatever trees
have) test, common sense would have me at least to believe that
these were
one tree. As such I believe the measurements as given are valid.
I think
where the problem is, is in stems that are obviously separated
(the Lovers
Oak being an extreme example). I have visited the Lovers Oak and
it is in no
way even close to Championship size. I hesitate to offer the
same indictment
on the Seven Sisters Oak, as all I have seen is photos, but it
appears to
have similar characteristics. Even as such I still believe they
(Lovers Oak)
were a single oak, probably damaged at ground level or coppiced
as Colby
states.
|
RE:
Big butternut and box-elder |
Will
Blozan |
Oct
20, 2003 15:56 PDT |
I believe both the butternut and boxelder are the same tree, just
fusions of
two stems (twins). The resulting massive trunks are the result
of two
separate (but genetically identical) photosynthetic efforts, not
a single
"stem". I know, I am a purist, but would still
nominate them to a champ tree
list solely for their "awesome-nicity".
Will
|
|