| Re:
Longevity |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
05, 2003 08:33 PDT |
Let's not leave it there, but rather, bring this discussion back
to North
America (if not to South Carolina). The Angel Oak, a live oak
near Charleston,
has been estimated by scientists to be between 1,500 to 1,600
years of age (for
interested members, I have a great photo I can send you).
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC
|
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
05, 2003 20:05 PDT |
Thanks
for the great website URL. 1,500 to 1,600 years for a live oak
does
sound a bit much. I am presently working on a Live Oak website
(among other
things), which will feature Antebellum Oaks of the South. What I
have found
during my plantation tours is that it's not uncommon to find a
larger 300 year
old live oak standing near a smaller 600 year old. Why is this?
I don't have
all the answers. Many dates are set by history, cross-reference
and short
cores. Old live oaks can be extremely difficult to date. The
scientists that I
have talked to have said that the Angel Oak consistently dates
between 1,500 &
1,600 years. The only way for each of us to be 100% sure is to
core all the
way through the stem (for ourselves). If one will not accept
another's
estimate, there will soon not be enough xylem left to support
the 170 feet crown. I
can but hope that if a society arises to challenge these
"exaggerated" claims,
that it not be before reliable "less invasive
technology" comes available.
After all, no matter how beneficial we make coring sound, it's
not quite like
using a laser/clinometer to measure height within a foot. With
all the
exaggerated height claims this Group exposes, I can well
understand why we would and
should scrutinize every claim of great age.
RC |
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
paul-@direcway.com |
|
Oct
06, 2003 08:19 PDT |
I visited http://www.angeloaktree.org/history.htm
. So, scientists state that the angel live oak is approximately
1500 years old and that another is about 1400 years old. What
method did they use to arrive at this estimate? I'm assuming
that the center of the oak has long since rotted out and we all
know that ring width extrapolation does not work.
Paul Jost
|
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
06, 2003 09:45 PDT |
Paul,
You should know that "I" do not claim that the Angel
Oak is 1,400 to 1,600
years old, I merely state that scientists have said this. I have
not cored this
tree, nor would I be allowed to (this declining giant is closely
guarded). I
just got off the phone with a highly-respected, former USDAFS
top scientist
(he wished not to be named in our Discussion). He said this was
based upon a
number of Charleston area foresters who cored some of the
largest branches (the
trunk's center is hollow). He said the lasted dating would still
be over
1,000 years of age. I don't have great problems with that
number. A Boone's
Plantation oak, dated almost 700 years of age, is a much smaller
tree. A number
of Live Oaks in the Charleston area were documented of huge size
as much as
300 years ago.
One ENTS member said a 5 to 6 ft dbh live oak was but 200 years.
I don't
doubt this. Most trees, given the ideal environment, will reach
their genetic
zenith. But that age is not necessarily the norm. The live oaks
of famed Oak
Alley Plantation (again, I have great photos of all these
trees), some about 5
to 6 feet dbh, are historically documented almost 400 years.
I concede that, when it comes to great height and age,
"conifers rule". And
that prudent coring has a useful place in arboriculture and
forestry. But,
until some of these claims are successfully challenged, please
allow this ole
eastern country boy the right to dream a little...to
wonder...what if they
"could" be that old? What events have they witnessed
beneath their lofty
boughs...if they could talk, what tales would they tell? How did
this aging giant
survive Hugo (and a hundred other storms) unscathed...survive
man's propensity to
destroy...to core out of curiosity...
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC |
| Re:
Longevity/Excessive incremental boring |
abi-@u.washington.edu |
|
Oct
06, 2003 15:07 PDT |
ENTS,
A few comments on the thread that has developed.
[material deleted]
As for the southern oaks, The lack of tyloses in the live oaks
makes it virtually impossible for trees to reach great ages. It
is simply another case, like in so many other parts of the
world, where size gets equated (maybe over several generations)
with age.
Cheers,
- BVP |
| RE:
Longevity |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
07, 2003 21:18 PDT |
I
have always wondered why someone hasn't cored the base of an
original
branch on the Angel Oak and at at least obtained a reasonable
estimate of
the tree's age. Is the tree protected from such absolutes?
Enough of the
approximations that get bigger or older year after year. Core it
and be done
with it!
Will
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
08, 2003 21:29 PDT |
All,
Until, as Will suggests, a Member is allowed to core a remaining
solid (?)
large branch, we may never get past antedotal Angel Oak trivia.
I'm going to
stand down (for now). We have too many 'useful' threads going
on.
Someone has said that live oaks are classified as white oaks,
another, red.
Though most are likely familar with scientific classifications
of Kingdom,
Division, Class, Order, Family, Genus & Individual, fewer
may be aware of further
subgenera (?) of Erythrobalanus (red or black oak group) and
Leucobalanus
(white oak group). You can further divide red oaks as chestnut
oaks, red oaks &
live or evergreen oaks. Because of the small, hairlike bristle
or prick at
the end of live oak leaves and the dark, rough and fissured
bark, most would
classify live oak (Quercus virginiana) as a red/black oak (I
can't remember if
live oak acorns are hairy (inside) or smooth). But this is no
slam-dunk
classification. Live oaks have been classified as white in the
past; some botanists
still do. Though live oaks have "black" physical
characteristics, they act
awful "white". Live oaks hybridize
exclusively with white oaks and resist oak
wilt more like white. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't red
oaks
(excluding live oaks) exclusive to the New World? Our live oaks
find their
counterparts in Asia, with the Chinese evergreen oak and the
Japanese evergreen oak. But
before I further my case for white oak group classification,
just let me say
that many now are assigning live oaks as their own oak group. I
hope to raise
this question at the Live Oak Conference. Some of you stalwart
botanists
care to add to this thread?
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC |
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
|
Oct
09, 2003 04:17 PDT |
Randy:
I can't add anything to your very interesting classification
discussion, but I do have a question. How heavy is the wood of
dried live oak. I've read that it is the heaviest of the oaks.
Is that true?
Bob |
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
09, 2003 05:46 PDT |
I
have always considered Q. virginiana and its attendant
subspecies/varieties to be white oaks because of the
"sweet" acorn which
like other white oaks ripen in one year. I have also heard them
classed
as red oaks on the basis of the leaf bristles. Perhaps as you
say they
need their own class.
On the longitivity of Live Oaks, here in the south they were
always
considered very longed lived and slow growing. I guess
everything is
relative, however I don't consider them particularly slow
growing
compared to other oaks.
For example in Savannah, there are abundant records on the oaks
growing
on the squares and streets. In 1894 (or thereabouts) they
planted live
oaks in Washington Park and a number of the streets and squares.
Now 110
years later these trees are quite sizable, 3 to 4 foot in
diameter. Also
some of the older colonial era roads on the coast are lined with
massive
live oaks, approaching record size. One could reasonably make
the
assumption that these are no older than the roads, 200 - 270
years. They
line the roads in straight rows. It would be a stretch (to me
anyhow) to
assume that they were already in straight rows prior to the road
being
developed.
Our National Co Champ Live Oak, 35' cbh. exists in Waycross on
the site
of an old farm settlement. This area was historically the
"pine barren
region" that burned regularly and is outside the usual
maritime range of
the live oak. It is not on a site such as too wet or droughty
sands that
would limit the effects of fire. I would really wonder if this
tree
predates European settlement in the area. Perhaps.
|
| Re:
Wood density |
Lee
E. Frelich |
|
Oct
09, 2003 06:02 PDT |
Bob:
USDA miscellaneous Publication No. 46, "Strength of North
American Woods',
lists one live oak species, Canyon live oak from CA as 54 lbs
per cubic
foot when kiln dried. The paper was published
in 1929, but our library
here has all the historical government documents, so I found it
in the stacks.
Other species that approach that are:
flowering dogwood 52 lbs
pignut hickory 51-55
mockernut hickory 53
osage orange 54
serviceberry 52
By comparison with other common woods:
beech 43
American elm 33
Sugar maple 42
bur oak 43
swamp white oak 50
red oak 41-48
tulip tree 27
hemlock 31
white pine 26
Lee
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Robert
Leverett |
|
Oct
09, 2003 06:18 PDT |
Will:
On occasion I read that despite its lack of a
straight trunk, that
the live oak found its way into ship building where curved
shapes were
needed. Was there ever a period of concentrated harvesting of
live oaks
of which you are aware for ship building? Did Native Americans
use live
oak acorns much as more northerly tribes utilized those of
Quercus alba?
I once read of a society in Louisiana whose
members are live oaks
with circumferences of 17 feet or more. Have you heard of that
society?
Interesting idea. It was after reading about this society that I
got the
idea for a club in which the members are white pines 150 feet
tall or
more. It looks like we need to change the criteria some. In the
North,
the criteria would be 150 feet. In the Southeast, it would need
to be
perhaps 165 feet - a 15-foot handicap for Yankeeland. That
should make
all the blue bloods up this way whince a little.
Bob
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
09, 2003 07:30 PDT |
Supposedly the US Navy retained rights to the live oak on
several
coastal islands on the Georgia Coast and the Gulf Coast of
Florida near
Pensacola for ship building. They would use the large curved
branches
for the curved keel and plank the exterior with live oak as it
was so
strong. When they rebuilt the Constitution (Old Ironsides) back
in the
50/60's they used Live Oak that we supplied from St. Simons
Island.
I have always heard that the Indians used the Live Oak acorns to
grind
to a flour like substance.
Here is the link for the Live Oak Society you mentioned;
http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/pages/oak.htm
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
09, 2003 07:43 PDT |
In regards to growth, there is a tree registered in the Live Oak
Society
in 1935 at 25' CBH and remeasured this year at 35'. Ten foot of
circumference, or 1.5' of radial growth in 65 years is not a bad
rate of
growth.
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Colby
Rucker |
|
Oct
09, 2003 08:15 PDT |
Bob,
For information on the use of live oak in shipbuilding, I found
an
interesting book at a book sale:
Wood, Virginia Steele 1981. Live Oaking: Southern Timber for
Tall Ships.
Northeastern University Press. 206 pp. 139 drawings and
photographs. Size
ca. 9" x 10". Extensive notes, bibliography and
documentation.
Colby
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
09, 2003 13:43 PDT |
wfell,
I'm doing an excessive webpage on live oaks, but I do not have
any photos of
the co-champion you mentioned. How can I obtain a few for
not-for-profit use?
Also, I have no disagreement with any live oak longivity stats
mentioned
recently. But I think we need to compare apple with oranges. Not
like species,
but like environs. Many species reach record heights and
sometimes girth here
in southern Appalachia (north & east facing slopes and
especially in some
coves (70 to 85 inch annual rainfall; that's near rainforest
amount). Live oaks,
like many species, do grow very quickly in "ideal
environments". But, in less
than ideal, it can and does grow quite slow (and, of course,
let's not leave
out genetic disposition). I believe if one is able to find
stable growth
prior to industrialization, disturbance, ect, then, maybe, a
fair age estimate can
be obtained without drilling to the pith (as one member
mentioned). Although
old growth produces more attractive/stronger/expensive wood, I
see few
instances warranting coring that far in. Concerning one angelic
oak, I have no dogs
in that fight (all queries should be directed to the Mayor of
Charleston).
RC |
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
09, 2003 13:21 PDT |
Bob,
You're question may have already been answered. I believe live
oak (Quercus
virginiana ?) is the heaviest oak in this country, if not the
Planet. There
are a number of sub-species in Texas, Mexico, and along the gulf
coast (maybe
southern coastal California). Some of these sub-species
"may" be heavier, but
it's doubtful, since most of the subspecies are native to arid
climates. I
believe American hornbeam (ironwood) is the East's heaviest
wood, with live oak
a close second. I would imagine flowering dogwood to be not far
behind live
oak. Dogwood is also a tough wood; once used in oxen yokes for
skidding and
plowing.
Randy |
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
09, 2003 14:23 PDT |
Randy;
I'll be glad to forward you some jpgs of our big Live Oak and
also our
state champ Sand Live Oak, geminata. There are several
varieties/subspecies in GA - Sand (geminata), Dwarf (minima),
Maritime
(maritima)
I am well aware of the genetic/site differences that can occur.
I have a
live oak planted 1973 in a yard by a barn with good soil and
moisture
that is over 30 in DBH. My point was not intended to be
scientific
however, merely my opinion based on observations. I would assume
these
large trees that line the old coastal roads and oak allees
around here
would be on a similar site to Johns Island SC where the Angel
Oak is. I
have no way of knowing if they predate the roads (I have never
cored
one), only the general age of the roads.
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
09, 2003 16:50 PDT |
Message
I
have a photo of a large clump of four live oaks in Apopka, Fl.
They
were typically clothed in heavy Spanish moss and epiphytes and
all stems
were 2-2.5 feet in diameter. The spread of the clump was likely
over 100'.
In 1985, when I last saw these trees, I met the man who planted
them, in a
circle. They were less than 40 years old.
Will
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
09, 2003 19:29 PDT |
wfell,
I still don't know your name (or, is that it; w. fell?). Heh,
your
observation sounds acceptable to this arborist. The only fly in
this thread would be
that some of these plantations have 3-century old historical
records that
describe their oaks as the largest in "their day".
Some of these claims are based
on corings; whether legit or no. Some of the
very largest and possibly the
oldest are not even listed on the Live Oak Centurian Registry. I
do have some
photos that will blow holes in Registry. But, like a good wine,
everything in
it's time. Not only the largest in the Nation, but large enough
girthed
trees to make the Registry, though only 1/2 the required age.
Please do forward those images (with captions and credit lines).
I have
reserved a special corner in my Live Oak Gallery just for your
trees. Thanks,
Randy
P.S. I'm no scientist; I work for a living! |
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
10, 2003 06:59 PDT |
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Michael
Davie |
|
Oct
10, 2003 18:36 PDT |
MessageWhere
is that Fairchild oak? I agree, That thing is fantastic. And
those baldcypress are great, too. Are they lone trees leftover
from logging for some reason?
|
| Live
Oak Traits |
Jess
Riddle |
|
Oct
11, 2003 07:39 PDT |
Another exceptional quality of live oak that may have relevance
to the
fast radial growth rates that some of us have observed is the
high crown
to trunk volume ratio. I do not know of another eastern species
that
characteristically is so wide spreading and stout. This
construction
should maximize the photosynthetic area and minimize the surface
area that
new wood is deposited on allowing for rapid radial growth. This
theory
would imply high radial growth rates for other open grown oaks
and
Sycamore, but probably to a lesser extent. These other species
have more
long branches to support higher crowns, so they will have
slightly more
photosynthetic area and significantly more growing surface area.
This is
all just speculation, but seems relevant to our discussions on
age and
size of live oaks.
Jess Riddle |
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
11, 2003 13:26 PDT |
It
is a live oak and it is not as large as the Village Sentinel in
Waycross. None the less it is an awesome tree and it is on
public
property for all to view.
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
11, 2003 13:58 PDT |
It
is single stemmed at DBH. There is a large branch that forks off
at
about 8+ feet. Where did it originate? quite possibly below 4.5
feet,
but it is beyond the realm of simple measurement to make that
determination. I feel that it is one tree and it definitely is a
larger
tree with a very symmetrical crown.
Somewhere I have a photo with someone in it to reference size.
Soon as I
find it I will post it. It is hard to judge the relative sizes
without a
common reference.
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
11, 2003 14:17 PDT |
MessageThanks!
I would be very interested in seeing the photo. I recall
visiting a tree somewhere in the Ocala National(?) Forest in
Florida that
took four people to get around with outstretched arms. It was a
forest grown
live oak with a 50' clear trunk that leaned over and split into
a massive
"Y" that continued to twist and turn its way above the
edge of a swamp.
Absolutely massive!
Will
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
|
Oct
11, 2003 14:30 PDT |
The
Fairchild Oak is on state land near the Banana River between
Daytona
and Flagler. It is on what was probably old cow pasture.
There are live oaks in the Altamaha River Bottoms that have 50 -
60 foot
clear trunks. None that I saw near record size, but it did show
that
when grown with competition they can grow upright like other
oaks.
Usually live oak occurs in maritime habitats with little
vertical
competition and plenty of room to spread.
I can't find the other photo on my computer here at the office,
but will
look for it at home and try to post it on Monday or Tuesday.
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
11, 2003 17:07 PDT |
Will,
Will & all,
Please don't exclude me from this discussion and any photos that
may come
from it. Thanks for the great photos, Will F.
The Darlington Oak in the
Charleston area is the current Vice President of the Live Oak
Society, and may be
the Country's largest single-stemmed live oak. There are
actually live oaks on
this plantation that have a larger girth (if you can believe
that!). But they
are smaller when height and crown width are added. Of
the many plantations
I have observed, including those between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, along
the might Mississip' and famed "Oak Alley Plantation",
this may be the largest
group of live oaks on any American plantation, if not
"anywhere"! I have
hundreds of photos that I hope to put out on the upcoming live
oak page. But, to
wet your appetite and spur a little daydreaming until then,
please find
attached on my next posting, the Darlington Oak, with plenty of
people to compare it
to (Will B, it will take more than "4 people" to go
around this oak). I
promise you will be "blown away!" Any not-for-profit
use is given to ENTS members
(please credit: Randy Cyr, greentreedoctor.com). |
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
11, 2003 17:07 PDT |
Will,
Will & all,
Please don't exclude me from this discussion and any photos that
may come
from it. Thanks for the great photos, Will F.
The Darlington Oak in the
Charleston area is the current Vice President of the Live Oak
Society, and may be
the Country's largest single-stemmed live oak. There are
actually live oaks on
this plantation that have a larger girth (if you can believe
that!). But they
are smaller when height and crown width are added. Of
the many plantations
I have observed, including those between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, along
the might Mississip' and famed "Oak Alley Plantation",
this may be the largest
group of live oaks on any American plantation, if not
"anywhere"! I have
hundreds of photos that I hope to put out on the upcoming live
oak page. But, to
wet your appetite and spur a little daydreaming until then,
please find
attached on my next posting, the Darlington Oak, with plenty of
people to compare it
to (Will B, it will take more than "4 people" to go
around this oak). I
promise you will be "blown away!" Any not-for-profit
use is given to ENTS members
(please credit: Randy Cyr, greentreedoctor.com). |
| RE:
Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak) |
Robert
Leverett |
|
Oct
14, 2003 12:04 PDT |
Will:
I second what you have said. My mouth dropped
open. It is evident
that there are some incredible live oaks around. Out of
curiosity, do
you have any idea what the cubic foot volume is of a tree like
that?
Will Blozan and I have typically placed the volumes of the
largest
tuliptrees in the Smokies at 3,000 to 3,500 cubic feet based on
some not
too shabby modeling. But those were straight-boled trees. Is
there any
reason to believe that the sum of the trunk and limb volume of a
forest-grown tree exceeds or lags that of a large spreading open
grown
tree? Any thoughts on that? Anyone else have thoughts about
that?
Bob
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak) |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
14, 2003 14:47 PDT |
I would quess that a huge live oak would scale over 2000ft3,
maybe more like
2200'-2400'. I have no reason to say this but I thought I'd
start there! I
bet they weight more than a big tuliptree!
Will
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak) |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
14, 2003 17:06 PDT |
Will,
After many horizonal climbs, are you up for a
"vertical" climb. I may be
able to get you into some of these live oaks...so you can
measure them and maybe
better estimate board feet (it's been too many decades since I
graded logs for
a lumber co.). Maybe involve the media (these plantations love
publicity).
Some of these oaks may have 10 to 30 branches that start at 3 to
8 feet in
diameter, and may go 40 to 80 feet, before dropping under a foot
(not to mention
an ugly, twisted, gnarled trunk, 8 to 12 feet in diameter).
Please don't let
me "pigeon-hole" you, but it would be interesting if
such a tree could be
measured. I just bought a high-end digital camera, maybe we
could add another
section to the ENTS website?
Randy |
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Fell |
|
Oct
14, 2003 18:42 PDT |
Randy;
I did some checking and the Middleton Oak is the current SC
State Champion Live Oak with a CBH of 30 feet. They are still
using a measurement taken almost 20 years ago. It probably has
added a couple feet since then. The Angel Oak on Johns Island
has a girth of 25 feet.
Will Fell
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
14, 2003 19:32 PDT |
Will,
The Middleton is supposed to be the vice-president of the Live
Oak Society,
which is reserved for our Nation's 2d largest live oak (last I
talked to
Colleen). But there are other oaks on the Middleton Plantation
that appear larger
in girth, but because of smaller, declining crowns, are
considered smaller (I
sent the other Will some photos of these). But
where would Florida's and
Georgia's champions fit in? Also, many of the South's huge live
oaks are not
registered. While oaks barely 3 feet in diameter clutter the
Registry. Some
plantations only register their oldest or largest. Many, like
the Dixie
Plantation on Edisto Island, fade off in obscurity, while their
resident monarchs just
keep on growing...
RC |
| RE:
Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak) |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
15, 2003 04:00 PDT |
Oh,
what the heck, OK, I'll do it...
HELL YEAH!!!
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Willard
Fell |
| Oct
17, 2003 10:10 PDT |
Randy
and others;
I have found the other photo of the Waycross (Village Sentinel)
Live Oak
(CBH 411") with a person in it to reference size. I also
added a photo
of the other national co-champ live oak (CBH 439") in
Louisiana. The
Village Sentinel was originally on GA's big tree list 30 years
ago, but
sometime in the 80's was bumped off by the Lover's Oak which I
also
posted a couple pics of. When I removed the Lovers Oak after
taking over
the big tree list, I received a good bit of flack from the local
tourist
authorities who had capitalized on the trees listing.
I have also stuck a number of misc pics of Live Oaks in a
separate album
called "Live Oaks". There are a few of one of my
favorites in there,
"The Clubhouse Oak" (CBH 22' 2") at the nearby
Georgia State Prison.
Remember Cool Hand Luke and The Longest Yard ;-). You are
welcome to any
you can use. I think the site allows downloads of full size. I
can
provide any of the details should you need them.
http://community.webshots.com/user/will_30458
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
17, 2003 11:55 PDT |
Will:
That's quite a show. From what you and Randy are showing us, I
would
guess that there are more 30-foot or over CBH live oaks than any
other
eastern species. I would assume that bald cypress would be next,
followed by American sycamore. Perhaps these latter should be
reversed.
Any thoughts on the order?
Bob
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Fell |
| Oct
17, 2003 14:46 PDT |
The range of Live Oak is the coast and maybe 50 miles inland
from extreme SE
VA around through Texas. Within it's limited range it probably
reigns
supreme. Accepting the fact that the Baldcypress probably
occupies 2/3 of
the east and Sycamore just about the whole east, I would guess
it to be
about a dead heat between them in overall numbers. I would
probably give
cypress the edge because of all the large relicts on our river
bottoms.
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Oct
17, 2003 16:12 PDT |
Bob,
Will & all,
Three earlier registered live oaks (<A HREF="http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/pages/oak.htm">
http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/pages/oak.htm</A>),
listed as 30+ ft cbh are now deceased;
Locke Beaux (LA) 35' cbh
Arnaud Robert (LA) 35' cbh
Fredrick Point (LA) 32' cbh
Subject site states the following;
"Seven Sisters Oak" is located
in...Louisiana...Estimated by foresters to be
1200 years old, this tree has a girth of over 38 feet...first
vice-president
is "Middleton Oak" in Charleston, South Carolina, with
a girth of 31 feet. The
second vice-president is the "St. John Cathedral Oak"
in Lafayette, Louisiana,
measuring 27 feet. The "Lagarde Oak" in Luling,
Louisiana, is third
vice-president and measures 29 feet. "Martha Washington
Live Oak" in Audubon Park in
New Orleans, Louisiana, is fourth vice-president and measures 28
feet in
girth...to become a member, a live oak must have a girth
(waistline) of eight feet or
greater, with those over 16 feet being classified as
centenarians...Only one
human, according to the by-laws of the Society, is permitted; a
chairman who
is responsible for registering and recording its members.
The Registry nows lists the Lagarde as 30' cbh, as well as 10
others as 30ft
cbh or more;
Randall (LA) 35' cbh
Mace-Dominica (LA) 30' cbh
World's Largest Christmas Tree (NC) 35' cbh (highly unlikely)
Lucy Coleman Carnegie (GA) 30' cbh
Lovers (GA) 33' cbh
Capt Young (GA) 30' cbh
Cambrian Center (CA) 34' cbh
The Marvin (LA) 34' cbh
Marvin McGraw Memorial (LA) 31' cbh
Ole Oakie (LA) 32' cbh
Louque's Shady (LA) 33' cbh
You might find absent from this list the oaks Will has
mentioned, as well as
Charleston area live oaks that I have photographed that may well
have larger
girths then the 31' cbh Middleton Oak. Some of these oaks have
not been
remeasured in decades. Dozens that were listed 27 to 29 ft cbh,
if still alive, may
well have grown to 30ft cbh or more. Also, this is a LA Garden
Club, listing
LA trees by over 90%, with but one elderly registrar. There may
well be
dozens 30ft cbh live oaks outside of LA that have not been
registered.
Having observed many Bald Cypress in NC, SC, VA, GA, FL, MS and
LA, I
personally have not seen as many in the 30ft plus class, if
you're measuring on "dry
land" (although, they may well be there). I once spent some
time with 2 LA
foresters observing some of our Country's largest bald cypress
during a record
low Mississippi. Only 1 Bald Cypress could have made this class
(the current
National Champion). Florida probably has the best bid. But most
of the
South's ancient cypresses have been logged and turned into
paper, lumber and mulch.
I once saw a picture of a NC cypress log on a logging truck that
must have
been close to 12 feet in diameter. But that photo is mighty old
and not
representative of current standing "dry" timber. If
one could go back a century,
likely but "one" of the South's thousands of cypress
swamps could blow-away all
live oaks in the Country. Since it may take a bald cypress a
millenium to
reach the girth of a century-old live oak, in light of present
development and the
cypress mulch craze, in regard to great girth, time favors live
oaks (with no
disrespect to Sycamores or other Eastern oaks intended).
RC
|
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
17, 2003 17:47 PDT |
Subject: RE: Live Oak classification
Randy and others;
I have found the other photo of the Waycross (Village Sentinel)
Live Oak
(CBH 411") with a person in it to reference size. I also
added a photo of
the other national co-champ live oak (CBH 439") in
Louisiana. The Village
Sentinel was originally on GA's big tree list 30 years ago, but
sometime in
the 80's was bumped off by the Lover's Oak which I also posted a
couple pics
of. When I removed the Lovers Oak after taking over the big tree
list, I
received a good bit of flack from the local tourist authorities
who had
capitalized on the trees listing.
I have also stuck a number of misc pics of Live Oaks in a
separate album
called "Live Oaks". There are a few of one of my
favorites in there, "The
Clubhouse Oak" (CBH 22' 2") at the nearby Georgia
State Prison. Remember
Cool Hand Luke and The Longest Yard ;-). You are welcome to any
you can use.
I think the site allows downloads of full size. I can provide
any of the
details should you need them.
http://community.webshots.com/user/will_30458
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Fell |
|
Oct
18, 2003 05:51 PDT |
Randy;
That is a problem with this list and even my own Big Tree list.
Out of date and frequently inaccurate measurements. For instance
check the photo I have posted of the Lover's Oak and reconcile
it with the 33 foot measurement quoted. I have also posted a
scan of the seven sisters oak in Lewisburg LA. Check it against
the listed 38 foot measurement. Also the oak in Wilmington NC
(worlds largest Christmas Tree) is a multiple stemmed tree. The
Village Sentinel is also on the live oak society. Its number is
260 something I believe.
My experience with Bald Cypress has been somewhat different than
Randy's. Just about any river in So. Georgia or SE SC harbors a
number of old giant cypress (and Tupelo also) that escaped the
saw because of hollowness or other defect. During the late 19th
century and early 20th century, the rivers and swamps around
here were scoured for old growth "red" cypress. It was
cut with 2-man saws from springboards above the butt swell. It
was felled, allowed to dry till spring high water and floated
down to mill. It is still not that unusual to find large clearly
cut cypress logs that somehow escaped the river run a hundred
years ago, a clear testimate to the decay resistance of the old
tidewater cypress. These sawyers didn't waste their time on
hollow trees or those clearly too big for the head saw. The
ensuing second growth "yellow" cypress lacked the
durability of the old growth and until just the past 10 years or
so and the development of the mulch market, you couldn't give
cypress away. The paper mills won't take it for pulp and with
the exception of a few mills in Florida and SC there was no
demand for logs. Unfortunately that has changed of late. Here
locally an outfit has taken over an old abandoned short-wood
yard. They are buying any cypress logs, including pond cypress,
and putting the roundwood on bolstered flatcars and shipping it
north to Ohio to be chipped for the mulch market. Many a scenic
old millpond has been drained and stripped of it's cypress in
the past few years. They are worse than Sherman and his minions
150 years ago.
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
18, 2003 07:53 PDT |
Re:
Live Oak classification 10/18/2003 8:52:03 AM E
I agree with you, Will. If you noticed, I put "highly
unlikely" after the
Christmas tree.
I had considered putting Wilmington's oak on my upcoming webpage,
but the
photos the park service sent me were very disappointing. It did
not look even 6
feet! It sounds like ENTS needs to become involved in measuring
some of these
purported giants (instead of leaving it to the integrity and
skill of one
elderly lady). Another Charleston oak (I have a photo) has a
bronze plaque
listing it as over 10 feet in diameter. There's a problem with
this. In the
photo, it does not look much over 7 feet! But I have personally
observed many
large-girthed live oaks that are not registered (some owners may
never list their
trees). Also, I believe that rather than 90% of the large live
oaks being
located in LA, the reverse may well be true, that 90% are
outside of LA.
Another thing, one oak is listed as have grown several feet in
30 or 40
years. Though possible, this is unlikely. I have a photo (sent
to the other Will)
that may restore your faith in the Seven Sisters Oak. I did not
measure it.
But I was there and took several photos. It is a very
large-girthed and
spreading, mulit-stemmed live oak.
I would love to see some of these old growth cypress you talk so
fondly
about. I share your grief that the remaining groves are being
turned into mulch.
Cypress mulch is popular because it lasts so long. For that
reason, it is
unsuitable, unless to suppress weeds! Ideal mulch, that really
benefits soils
and plants, is digested by microbes & soil animals 2 inches
per year. These
magnificent monarchs are being ground-up for nothing.
Randy |
| RE:
Live Oak classification |
Will
Blozan |
|
Oct
18, 2003 20:27 PDT |
I
have a really hard time with the Seven Sisters oak being thought
by
foresters (Faux-resters) to be 1200 years old. Have any cores
been taken out
of the individual leads? Regarding the Live Oak Society (maybe
the wrong
title) that lists these trees, I am thinking of planting 40
trees in a 40'
girth circle to create a new President in a few years!
Will
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
19, 2003 11:02 PDT |
All,
I believe if skepticism is the product of a "doubting state
of mind", it can
prove useful, if acted upon. But can prove debilitating, if but
a "doctrine
that says with certainty that certainty of knowledge cannot be
attained."
Until I know for myself or by a known trusted source, I can't
say with any
certainty that someone has either misapplied widely-accepted
science or just plan
fabricated facts. I spent an entire semester learning the
difference between a
fact and an "inference" (a derived conclusion from a
premise). Until I have
contradictory evidence in hand, I can but call highly-irregular
findings into
question. If I am sincere in my passion, I'll look for
opportunity to challenge
these findings. If the other party is sincere in defending their
assertions,
then they will allow their research to come under peer scruntiny.
To do more
than this is to join the ranks of the "thought
police". I know, among the
left, cynicism is a prized virtue. But the word literally means
"to be like a
dog".
ENTS is all about challenging these highly-irregular statistics
(facts
collected and arranged in an orderly way to study). Shall we not
proceed with the
age question as we have with height? Though we like to have it
all nailed-down
and every mystery unearthed, I believe a bit of boyhood
wonderment is a good
thing, if it goads us into digging a little deeper to find the
truth.
RC
P.S. Our "New World" came into existence when someone
not only called into
question the then popular belief that the world was
"flat", but acted upon it.
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics |
Colby
Rucker |
|
Oct
19, 2003 12:38 PDT |
Randy,
Except in the most sheltered artificial environments, skepticism
is what keeps one from getting killed. I care nothing about
thought processes, only staying alive. If you're running a
bulldozer, cutting timber or climbing trees, that's all that
matters.
One has to make decisions, based on one's experience. This
extends to the measuring of trees. We've recognized that there
are ceilings, and that reports that exceed those ceilings,
either individually or collectively, are extremely doubtful, to
put it gently. Published reports of oaks 200 feet tall, or 216
feet broad, can't be taken seriously.
More to the point, statistics regarding live oaks have, over the
years, been so polluted by exaggerated claims of age and girth,
and multiple trunks, that I no longer take any live oaks
seriously. That may be unfair, but it's like some corporation
that makes tools. Once several of their models prove to be junk,
I quit buying all of their products. If presented factually, I
would have welcomed information regarding the Angel Oak, the
Seven Sisters, and the rest. As it is, life is too short to
waste time with consistently unreliable material.
Colby
|
| Re:
Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
|
Oct
19, 2003 15:31 PDT |
Randy:
Your points are well made with respect to tree
age. Before the 627-year old black gum was confirmed in New
Hampshire, most of us would have poohhooed any belief in a 600+
year old black gum. Before Dave Stahle began confirming bald
cypresses over 1,500 years in age, with reasonable projections
to 2,000, none of us purists would have believed those ages
possible. Yes, there should be room for wonderment.
Bob |
| Re:
Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
19, 2003 16:18 PDT |
Re:
Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics 10/19/2003
3:39:20
PM E <A HREF="mailto:col-@toad.net">col-@toad.net<;/A>
...I care nothing about thought processes, only staying alive.
If you're
running a bulldozer, cutting timber or climbing trees, that's
all that matters...
Colby,
I can only agree that healthy skepticism does our profession
much good. It's
pure cynicism, with the premise of revolving logic, that's an
exercise in
futility. But I believe, with a reasonable degree of certainty,
that the same
"thought-processing" person who so aptly blew Bob's
Peace Park clean out of the
water, could also have written detailed specifications that may
well have
launched his project. I, like Bob, also believe that education
is the long-term
solution (whether his project has a snowball's chance in hell or
no). I am a
bit puzzled why you took it so easy on me. For all the reasons
you hold
contempt for these statistics, we as ENTS members should require
much better
accounting, if not personally become involved in the measuring.
We most likely agree
more than may be safe for you to admit. Whether you're willing
to throw me a
bone or use my babble as cannon wadding, I can but benefit by
this Group's
Discussion, to include one witty, albeit, satirical arborist.
Randy |
| Re:
Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
|
Oct
19, 2003 16:25 PDT |
Colby:
True enough, my friend, but when Randy and Will flash pictures
of absolutely gargantuan live oaks, one can't help but wonder. I
guess the operative requirement is to separate human hyperbole
from the glories of creation and not require the tree to be more
than it is. Perhaps we should marvel over a 30-foot
circumference live oak that can achieve such size in as little
as 250 years instead of requiring it to be over a thousand.
Still, wheh people are enamored of these great trees and see
them with Tolkien mysticism, I can't help but feel sympathy for
folks who dream of tree ages measured in the millennia. They
want their great trees to be permanent. However, when some rich
dude purchases the property on which one of these great trees
grows and proceeds to make money treating the tree like a circus
freak, we should bust the old boy's chops if he makes outlandish
claims.
One thing I do know is that both your and
Randy's inputs have enriched this list enormously. I don't know
what Randy's age is, but maybe we need to create a special class
of ENTS that several of us would head. Something like the
"Sacred Order of Geezer Ents", somewhat equivalent to
that unusual group called the "Royal Order of Odd
Fellows". We're not odd. We're eccentric.
Bob
|
| Re:
Dating Live Oaks/Jekyl Island, SC visit & photos |
Greentr-@aol.com |
|
Oct
26, 2003 18:23 PST |
All,
Because of a previous engagement, I was unable to attend your
conference. I
hope to join you next year. I trust you had a great time. The
Live Oak
conference did not yield many live oak specifics. Dr. McGraw,
UNC, said he did not
"know how old live oaks lived", but thought it was
"500 to 700 years". He
also said "live oaks take 200 years to mature, have 200
good years, take 200
years to die, and after that, stand for another 100 years."
Dr. Ed Gilman, UFL,
also said he did know "how old live oaks lived", but
doubted "that they could
exceed 1,000 years."
Neither Drs' McGraw, Gilman or Gardner addressed the possibility
of purported
claims of the Angel Oak being 1,400 to 1,600 years of age, and
the Seven
Sisters being 1,200. Though a horrific storm took out most of
Savannah's oaks in
1893, some did survive. Some of these survivors are nearing 3
centuries of
age, with a remarkable amount of physical documentation, from
land surveys to
statements made by John Muir. Dr. McGraw said the oldest oak,
with historical
documentation that he knew about, was a fair size oak at Camp
Lejeune, NC, that
was made mention of in a 1604 document (this would seem to be
older that the
conservative estimate of 275 years for live oaks).
Dr. Gardner said that the live oaks of today were the puny ones
of
yesteryear. That before "liveoaking" took out the
ancient forests, the oaks were much
larger. One oak took two '3-man-teams' (one for each side) of
experienced New
England axemen 3 full days to fell. He went on to say that it
took 36 acres
of live oak to build but one ship. Shipbuilding with live oaks
ended around
1850, but not until 200 years of clearing these magnificent
forests.
It would appear, possibly because of urban stresses, that few
live oaks make
it past 300 years of age, as documented/cored by the NAA and/or
the ISA. The
oldest "documented" live oak I have seen was a much
ignored, "smaller" live
oak near the waterfront of Boone's Plantation, Charleston, with
a estimated age
of near 7 centuries.
If you remember, it took the "Jourdan team of 1931" to
cool the fires of
debate concerning the Boole tree and the General Sherman. It may
take some
credible organization, like ENTS, to successfully challenge such
"wildly abnormal"
ages as those attributed to the Angel Oak and the Seven Sisters
(it will take
more than mere skepticism).
On a lighter note, I did find a most interesting site on a 2
mile stretch of
Edison Island, SC, beach. Having traveled up and down this
country, as well
as 30 others, rarely have I found anything "new under the
sun." But this site
is surreal...off the Planet!!! Not like anything I have seen on
the East
coast or elsewhere. Thousands of ancient live oaks have
succumbed to changing
tidal movements, and are scattered across this beach. While some
are bent over
almost touching the ground (yet remaining anchored), other
"live oak inslands"
have been transported across the beach! With
bleached white, weather-twisted
trunks, casting long, dark shadows on the near white sand, I got
some great
shots. You'll have to see this for yourself (or
let me send you some photos).
Or wait for the Live Oak webpage.
Randy |
|