tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post7117699720907403721..comments2023-10-22T03:35:00.814-07:00Comments on Wild Plants Post: Why trees aren’t tallerJMChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06001175696291253716noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post-34834652122499505672019-05-19T04:04:15.382-07:002019-05-19T04:04:15.382-07:00Thanks for posting this info. I just want to let y...Thanks for posting this info. I just want to let you know that I just check out your site and I find it very interesting and informative. I can't wait to read lots of your posts.<br /><a href="https://directory.entireweb.com/listings/technology/www.tksindustrial.com--1557394806/" rel="nofollow">tks oxidizer</a><br />Naveed Mughalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10692198202169963899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post-85790720604183813612011-10-27T13:36:54.842-07:002011-10-27T13:36:54.842-07:00200 meters, makes you wonder...
I think we could h...200 meters, makes you wonder...<br />I think we could have had trees that tall at some point in the prehistoric past.<br /><br />The 2008 study by Domec et al estimated that Douglas fir could grow to between 109 and 138 m, but the maximum upper limit range was 131-145 meters with 95% confidence.<br />I think some Douglas fir of this height existed right up to the historic period--although they were rare. In Feb. 10, 2009, I unearthed a news report from 1897 of a 142 m Douglas fir that was cut down at the Nooksack river, Whatcom County, Washington State. The tree was 480 years old, and 10.5 m circumference at the base, and 67 meters to the first branch. The tally of wood scaled 96,345 market board feet, enough lumber to build 8 two story homes. An old photo of the cross section of this tree exists in the Whatcom museum with a placard listing the dimensions (Seattle Times, Sep 4, 2011):<br /><br />http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/09/04/2016112910.jpg<br /><br />But even if 142 m is hard to believe, there are credible measurements of fir trees 100 to 127 meters in BC, and Washington State. A giant tree near Mineral Lake, Washington, not far from Mt. Ranier was measured by Dr. Richard Edwin McArdle (who later became chief of US Forest Service) in 1924 with abney level at 69 m to a broken top, and 4.7 m diameter at breast height, but he was unable to measure the fallen top as it was overgrown with underbrush at the time. (Carder, Forest Giants pg 3-4). However, earlier in 1905, Joe Westover, a land Land Engineer of the Northern Pacific Railway measured the standing tree at 70 m, and the wind blown broken top he measure on the ground at 51 meters long. Total height of tree was approx. 120 meters. In 1899, only 15 miles from the Mineral Lake, a fallen Douglas fir was measured near the Nisqually river by Edward Tyson Allen, a state forester who was conducting a survey of that region. His tape measurement showed the tree to be 116 meters long, with a broken top-- suggesting the tree may have once stood even taller. I am in the process of contacting the PNW research station in Portland to obtain a copy of this first hand report for my files.<br /><br />In 1902 a Douglas fir was cut down in Lynn Valley, BC with a reported height of 126.5 m and 4.3 m diameter. The tree stood at the present Argyle road, near Hastings creek. After being felled it was measured by Alfred John Nye (who owned the land) at 125 m long, not including the 1.5 m stump. A hand written document from 1912 recounting the dimensions of this tree from Mr. Nye are on file in the library of the late Walter M. Draycott of Lynn Valley. (Carder, pg. 8).<br /><br />There is a great deal of evidence to believe the Eucalyptus Regnans, "Mountain Ash" may also have reached 140 meters and greater in Australia. A reported dated 21st February, 1872 to Clement Hodgkinson, ESQ., ASSISTANT-COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND SURVEY from William Ferguson, Inspector of State Forests, gives the particulars of certain fallen giant Eucalyptus trees in the Watts river valley. <br /><br />Ferguson reports: <br /><br />"Some places, where the trees are fewer and at a lower altitude, the timber is much larger in diameter, averaging from 6 ft. to 10 ft., and frequently trees of 15 ft. in diameter are met with on alluvial flats near the river. These trees average about ten per acre; their size, sometimes, is enormous. Many of the trees that have fallen through decay and by bush fires measure 350 ft. in length, and with girth in proportion. In one instance I measured with the tape line one huge specimen that lay prostrate across a tributary of the Watts, and found it to be 435 ft. from its roots to the top of the trunk. At 5 ft. from the ground it measures 18 ft. in diameter, and at the extreme end where it has broken in its fall, it is 3 ft. in diameter. This tree has been much burnt by fire, and I fully believe that before it fell it must have been more than 500 ft. high. As it now lies it forms a complete bridge across a deep ravine."<br /><br />-- Australia and New Zealand, Volume 2<br /> By Anthony Trollope, 1876. pg 184.Micahnoreply@blogger.com