|
Oak -
Hello
My name is Anders Often and I am a Norwegian botanist interested in big trees - which we actually do not have very many types in Norway compared to USA. But there is at least some big Quercus robur-trees.
If i could bother tree-experts to help me to "explain" a strange oak growing near where I live I would be very glad.
The tree on the picture is growing close to the small city called Dröbak, approximately 40 km south of Oslo. The total circumference at the lowest part of the stem is 9,60 m. There are 7-9 big stems from one common base (30-60 cm high). The question is? How shall such a tree be interpreted? There is surely one individual and I think there been one big trunk - lets say 100 years ago - that has fallen and new shoots at the based has formed the present ring of 7-9 stems (each 1,5 to 2,0 m in circumference) Does that makes sense?
Oaks in Norway very seldom reaches a circumference more than 6 m, and this is the single oak like this (I know from the whole of Norway. Are this strange type a old oak scattered in USA?
Anders Often
NB! the mail is sen't from my private home. I am working as at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) My name is Anders Often and I am a Norwegian botanist working in the Naowegain
| Norway
Oak Tree |
Edward
Frank |
| Mar
20, 2007 06:20 PST |
Hello,
I am not sure who might have responded to your question
about the large oak tree you found near Dröbak. Your
suggested explanation was: "There is surely one
individual and I think there been one big trunk - lets say
100 years ago - that has fallen and new shoots at the
based has formed the present ring of 7-9 stems (each 1,5
to 2,0 m in circumference)"
The general consensus of people here is that the tree in
the photograph developed as you suggested, although the
loss of the initial single trunk may not have been very
long ago. It looks from the image that portions of the
original trunk are still present. The wood would decay
relatively rapidly suggesting the loss of this tree was
more recent. The surrounding tree stems could have grown
as large as they are within a period of 30 to 50 years or
even less. In this tree the trunk likely was broken off at
a few meters above ground level while the root system and
stump were left intact.
This form is called a coppice. They can for through
natural processes or as a result of timbering operations.
Some species are more likely to form coppices than others.
In this country two types that commonly form coppices are
Silver Maple and members of the Willow family. Other
species will also form coppices to a lesser degree. The
example you have photographed is unusual, but unexpected.
What I mean by that is that there is a spectrum of forms a
tree or tree cluster formed by roots sprouts can take. The
most common are single stemmed trees or double stemmed
trees. After the parent tree is cut or
broken-off the base and the roots of the tree are still
alive. Many sprouts will form from the roots of the tree
or from the trunk itself. In most cases these are not all
in an ideal position to grow well and some die shortly
after sprouting. Others in better positions compete with
each other. The result is that in most cases only one or
two stems survive. There are some examples that have
larger numbers of stems. Since they all started growing at
the same time, and are attached to the same root system,
and have the same environmental conditions, those stems
that survive tend to be very similar in size. This tree is
at the of the spectrum in which a number of stems evenly
spaced around the broken trunk all survived and all grew
to similar size over time.
Oaks like this are not common in the United States. I am
sure there are scattered examples, but I can think of none
I have seen myself. We are interested in
learning about trees in other areas of the world and would
like to have people from other areas join our group and
participate in our discussions. If you are interested, I
would encourage you and others with similar interests to
join ENTS.
Sincerely,
Edward Frank |
Hello Edward
Thank you very much for help and your explanation
and comments. I will just give some small additions, and send an
other picture of the centre of the tree with a person inside just
to get the right impression of the size of the tree -
and some small additional information.
The first picture gave some way a not
complete and good impression. The rotten stump, visible
in the background is surely not remnants of the original
trunk, but one of the new stems that is rotten (the only partly
rotten one of the 10 new stems).
After I send the first mail I was
lucky because the next time I had driven down to Dröbak to
admire the tree (actually called the Sogsti-oak) a person
came by and told me that on a farm approximately 1,5 km south of
the oak there lived a very old man that possible knew something
about the history of this special oak. And certainly it did!! His
name is Reidar Faeste and he is 97 years old and
fully in good health (and even interested in old trees - he
had partly been a gardener as profession).
Reidar told that the original oak
was cut down a few years before 1916 - he could not tell exactly
the year; Reidar was born in 1910 and he could not
clearly remember the original tree. But the
original tree was big and it was hollow and it was possible
to creep into it; and children had some sort of a small
hut inside (Reidar was told so by his father and mother - his
memory of the this was vague). This original trunk was
nearly dead when it was cut down - approximately 1914+/- -
and the reason was that people was afraid that the rotten trunk could
fall down and hurt someone.
At that time there was already a
ring of new trunks around the dying original tree. Then twelve
years later in 1928 the coppice-oak was protected by law by
the Norwegian government.
So this is the history of
the tree as it seems to be based on the information so far.
There should be some information in some kind of official papers
in connection with the official protection by law of the tree in
1928, but so fare no one in the State department have managed to
find any documents on that protection - but there certainly is
some kind of description (perhaps just a small note) somewhere preceding the
official protection. I think it is in the National
Library in Oslo that has the responsibility for taking care
of such old state documents, but I have so fare not had time
to start to dig. The responsibility for such affairs have changed
several times in Norway and the department now is from 1970 and
the persons working there is in general not interested on
what happened before 1970.
My main problem with the oak is to
understand that the coppice was so special that is was worth to be
protected by law as early as in 1928. This was just in
the start of nature protection i Norway and this effort certainly
started with some mountain areas, some huge waterfalls and single,
large and old trees.
If I had to guess each
of the stems at the present day Sogsti-oak is not
very much more than 100 to 150 years old. 80 years ago when
the tree was protected, to my guess they could not have been
that impressive that they was worth to protect. The other trees
that was protected in 1928 was the most impressive singelstemmed
old oaks found in Norway anywhere at that time, and
certainly there were some quite impressive trees.
I think there can be two explanations
for this somewhat queer protection of the Sogsti-oak:
(1) The present day stems of the
Sogsti-oak is older than they look and have actually been growing
very slowly the last 80 years. Perhaps the stems could be
dated by counting growth rings?
(2) There is something wrong in the
history as I have get it. Perhaps Reidar Fæste is remembering wrong
and the original trunk had not fallen at the year 1928 when the
tree was protected by law.
Well,.... ...sorry bothering you with
all this stuff about noe single Norwegian tree - actually not
very impressive compared with what you have of old, immense
and really gigantic trees on the east coast of the States but
trees you know......so what I hope to find is (1) Either a picture
of the tree taken sometimes in the period between 1910
and 1920, or (2) An official document explaining the reason
why the tree was protected by law in the year 1928. There is
certainly some kind of fascinating to try to dig out this -
although not very old "tree-history" - and
certainly interesting to see how difficult to can be to get information
even this is a tree protected by law.
Sincerely,
Anders Often
| 
