| Black
Willow Sizes? |
Zachary
Stewart |
| Jun
09, 2007 21:16 PDT |
I recently read a post mentioning black willow ocasionally
reaching
30' in girth, at least historically. Whoa! Does anyone have a
photo
of a large black willow? In my part of Alabama, a black willow
reach-
ing 40' is considered very large, and ones with a trunk much
bigger
than a telephone pole are few and far between, from what I've
seen.
I'd love to see a picture of a large willow, single trunk or
other-
wise!
-Zac |
| Re:
Black Willow Sizes? |
wad-@comcast.net |
| Jun
10, 2007 06:23 PDT |
| Zach,
the Pa. big
tree list has three black willows listed, but no pictures. their
girths are 27.8', 27.3', and 26.9'
Scott
|
| RE:
Mass DCR - Forest Service Adelgid research |
Ray
Weber |
| Jun
10, 2007 07:44 PDT |
Im not sure if this is more of the same logic seen previously in
Mass,
or some new wrinkle.
The managing forester in our area's control method is to harvest
as many of the hemlocks as possible, "while they still have
some value".
This may be another experiment to try to maximize harvesting
while
treating it. Fortunately, its in a remote area thats not used a
lot.
It IS however, near some environmentally sensitive areas. Looks
like
they have taken that into consideration on the map.
Ray
|
| RE:
Black Willow Sizes? |
Zachary
Stewart |
| Jun
10, 2007 12:30 PDT |
Scott,
Those are pretty large for such a brittle species! Changing the
sub-
ject, does anyone know if HWA has reached Alabama, and if so,
are
there any plans to control it?
- Zac
|
| Re:
Black Willow Sizes? |
Beth
Koebel |
| Jun
10, 2007 13:21 PDT |
Zac,
The national champion black willow is 33' dbh (last
measured in 1973) and ith Illinois state champion is
22' dbh.
Beth
|
| RE:
Black Willow Sizes? |
Will
Blozan |
| Jun
10, 2007 13:27 PDT |
Zac,
Most likely they are multi-stemmed clumps. I don't know if HWA
is in AL, but
the disjunct populations of hemlock should be a high priority
for
conservation.
Will
|
| Re:
Black Willow Sizes? |
Edward
Frank |
| Jun
10, 2007 19:56 PDT |
ENTS,
Black willow is one of the species I was thinking about when I
brought up
the idea of a separate listing for multi-trunked trees. Most of
the
specimens that you see have multiple trunks. If this is a common
growth
form, if not the most common growth form, then it seems
reasonable to me
that they should be considered on those terms. I completely
agree that the
single trunked trees and multi-trunked trees should not be
intermixed in
listings and that singles be compared with singles only. I know
everyone
doesn't agree that multi-trunked trees should even be bothered
with to
document them.
http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measure/multitrunked.htm
http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measure/multitrunked2.htm
These two posts contain some discussion of multi-trunked trees
and
philosophy.
Ed Frank
|
|