| Fat
Live Oaks |
tuce-@msn.com |
| Feb
05, 2007 09:12 PST |
Ents,
Hello all,
I've been putting together a list of Live Oaks 20' Cir., or
greater here in Ms. While doing so I discovered
a 35 footer in Biloxi,
so I did some research and found 20, 30' or greater Registered
Live
Oaks! Louisiana Live Oak Society has Listings of 5000 registered
trees.
I also noticed that some of the Live Oaks I've been measuring
are on
this list from 1934, so I can compare the CBH from then to the
present!
This is quite interesting. One Oak for example, in Ocean
Springs, The
Ruskin Oak, measured 17'6" CBH in 1934. It now measures
27'2" CBH. That's
almost a 10' Cbh growth in 73 years! Neil this gives us a good
estimation of growth rates from this time span! There are some
Oaks in
Long Beach on the list with CBH in 1934, I'm going to go measure
them
and get some more comparisons. This is way cool stuff!
Larry
|
| RE:
Live Oaks - back to Larry |
Robert
Leverett |
| Feb
05, 2007 11:27 PST |
Larry,
I had no idea
that there were so many 30-footers out there. Live oaks rule.
Other than
the possibility of larger girth bald cypresses, it sounds like
the live
oak and sycamore are going to be the only real competitors in
the over
30 Club and it sounds like the live oak has the advantage.
We Ents will be talking among ourselves about
our Over 30 Club and
others will assume we are referring to human members. Little
will they
know. ENTS is way cool.
Bob
|
| Re:
Live Oaks |
Jess
Riddle |
| Feb
05, 2007 13:48 PST |
Larry,
One note of caution on the Live Oak Society list, they include
trees
with multiple stems that result from separate sprouts growing
together. Telling individuals with a single pith at ground level
from
fusions can be difficult with live oaks since they typically
branch so
low, but all the ones you've posted photographs of on the web
site
look like legitimate single stem trees to me.
Having a list of measurements from 1934 to update is great. The
growth
of that Ruskin tree is amazing. Could any other factors like
branch
flairs moving down the trunk as they enlarge have influenced the
measurements, or does the tree just have an enormous crown to
suck
down the carbon with? I'm looking forward to hearing what you
find
for the growth of other live oaks. Definitely cool stuff.
Jess
|
| RE:
Live Oaks |
Edward
Frank |
| Feb
05, 2007 16:04 PST |
Larry, ENTS,
These seem like reasonable growth numbers for this particular
tree.
Comparing the two circumferences you get a radius of 2.803 in
1934, and
a radius of 4.325 in 2007. That works out to a change in radius
of
1.525 feet in 73 years or 0.2507 inches per year of radial
growth.
This compares well to the sample Neil Perderson dated for Larry
a few
weeks ago. With a 4' 2" diameter tree being 134 years old.
Which is
0.187 inches radial growth per year on average throughout the
entire
life of the tree. So a growth rate of 1/4" per year for a
larger tree
is entirely reasonable.
Ed Frank
|
| RE:
Live Oaks |
tuce-@msn.com |
| Feb
06, 2007 13:20 PST |
Jess,
The Ruskin Oak does have one main limb 5' Dia. near its base,
and I
reviewed our measuring techniques when a low limb is present so
I got a
accurate CBH. The Friendship Oak, in Long Beach also is listed
in
registry, I'll report on it later as I have also measured it. I
wish
multi trunk trees were in there own class, I've always felt that
they
shouldn't be included in with the single trunk trees. The Ruskin
Oak is
located in an ideal growing environment. The tree has massive
limbs and
a 153' crown. I mentioned this Oak on topica back on Jan 3rd. Ed
has
some photos on our webpage. The more trees I measure the better
and more
accurate I become. The Live Oak Project I'm doing is challenging
but at
the same time fun.
Larry
|
| Re:
Live Oaks |
Edward
Frank |
| Feb
06, 2007 13:30 PST |
|