Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Rand
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by Rand » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:26 pm

And another photo-Rand about 65' up a 96' dawn redwood, in an area of Everett Woods that was once a country home:
Of course Steve waited until I was ~85' up before casually mentioning that dawn redwood has some of the brittlest wood known. At which point I took a hard look at the sub-broomstick sized branches I was holding onto, and decided it was time to come down. Kinda of a pitty because I didn't get high enough to look down on the canopy of the surrounding forest.

User avatar
AndrewJoslin
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by AndrewJoslin » Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:01 pm

Rand wrote:Of course Steve waited until I was ~85' up before casually mentioning that dawn redwood has some of the brittlest wood known. At which point I took a hard look at the sub-broomstick sized branches I was holding onto, and decided it was time to come down. Kinda of a pitty because I didn't get high enough to look down on the canopy of the surrounding forest.
At that point hands around the trunk, feet right at the branch/trunk union. Know what you mean though, I've scampered up a couple of those and they get super skinny in the upper parts. Need to get one the Ohio tree climbers (Duane Hook, Tom Robison) to put you in a climbing harness and on rope so you can get the canopy view from some of your finds!
-AJ

User avatar
sradivoy
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by sradivoy » Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:20 pm

I recently visited this tall sycamore and I couldn't help notice that it occupies a miniaturized floodplain at the bottom of a ravine setting. That flat silty soil is not much different from the floodplain you see on the banks and bends of major rivers. The difference is that it is extremely well protected on all sides by steep slopes and it its competing vigorously for light with other tall trees. Although I got a more conservative estimate for this tree's height ( I'm still practicing on trees with known heights, the more recent the better) I was still very much impressed by this tree's youthful vigor and optimal growing conditions. I also see this tree going much higher.
Attachments
DSCN2482.JPG
DSCN2486.JPG

User avatar
Steve Galehouse
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:50 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by Steve Galehouse » Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:33 pm

Stefan-

What height did you get for this tree? It is in an unusual location, competing for height with surrounding tulips. I thought it was interesting no other sycamores are in the immediate area.

Steve
every plant is native somewhere

User avatar
sradivoy
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by sradivoy » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:09 pm

Steve,

Like two dogs marking the same tree, I figured it wouldn't take long for you to chime in. The single height measurement that I was able to obtain was 147' which is slightly higher than your initial measurement of 144' from a different thread: http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 2140#p8133
This corresponds nicely with the LiDar hit 146.5' which if I'm not mistaken is the same tree (or is it the neighboring tulip?) But this is based off of 2008 LiDar data. I think it has grown at least three feet since then, or perhaps even more. I give this tree a rough estimate of 150 to 155 at this time. There are so many leaders to choose from, and it was difficult for me to get a clean shot of the base and top from a single vantage point because of the steep terrain. (I'm surprised I didn't wipe out. Ski poles come in handy.) This tree occupies a better location than the surrounding tulips. Talk about a sweet spot! Virtually all the moisture upstream funnels into it. The tulips only get a fraction of it. This is one lonely sycamore surrounded by many tulips. I find this species almost invariably in a floodplain in one form or another. There are exceptions, however, including one in Bedford that is half way up a steep slope just beneath a rocky cliff. This impressive youngster can be found near the train tracks near the tunnel on the north side of the creek. Good to hear from you.

Stefan

User avatar
Steve Galehouse
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:50 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by Steve Galehouse » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:33 pm

Stefan-

I think the spot Rand and I got the 154.5' height was up the ravine 200-250' and slightly south of it's channel.

Steve
every plant is native somewhere

User avatar
Rand
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by Rand » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:11 pm

Steve Galehouse wrote:Stefan-

I think the spot Rand and I got the 154.5' height was up the ravine 200-250' and slightly south of it's channel.

Steve
Yeah, I remember shooting it from quite a distance away, too; and having to fuss with it a little while to sort through the tops.


John,

I think the lesson here is always try to get uphill of a tree when shooting it's heights, as this vantage point gives you the best view of the leaders(s).

However, on flat ground, If you back up far enough, the twigs that look like they are poking up above the rest, usually aren't, and you end up hitting lower, peripheral limbs, instead of the leaders. Just imagine a friend throwing a big beachball up in the air and thinking you can see the very top of the ball if you can just back up far enough (of course you can't). Instead, the best vantage point is often up close to the tree, and then shooting up through the open interior of the crown. Try to follow the tree's growth form from the ground up and visualize which limb looks like it's the nearest to pointing straight up. It's often ambiguous on old trees so don't be afraid to shoot multiple leaders. For example, in Congaree the trees are so big, tall, and spreading that we had three guys, each shooting a different side of the tree, and it was a crapshoot who came up with the highest number.

User avatar
sradivoy
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by sradivoy » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:38 am

If I'm not mistaken the LiDar data for this tree is 144.34 and not the 146.5 that I indicated earlier. There's a 10 foot descrepency between this and your actual figure of 154.5 taken within the span of just a few years (from the 2007 LiDar data to your 2011 measurement). I guess I'm having a hard time grappling with that kind of growth rate within such a short time frame. My guesstimate would be something like a three to five foot difference in growth from the time I measured it in late 2014. No disrespect, but I think I'll stand by my personal height measurement of 147' for the time being . I would much rather err on the conservative side on such an important tree. It's much more pleasant to bump it up than to bump it down.

User avatar
Steve Galehouse
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:50 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by Steve Galehouse » Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:09 pm

Stefan, NTS-

I agree the LiDAR hit for this tree is 144.34', and that it would be unlikely for it to increase 10' in four years, but that is with the assumption the 144.34' hit was the tallest part of the tree. I think Ohio LiDAR data is based on a 2 meter grid, so whatever the value is might not represent actual height, just some spot in the crown of the tree. Below is a detail from Bing Maps showing how 'emergent' this sycamore is.
Everett sycamore.jpg
Steve
every plant is native somewhere

User avatar
sradivoy
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Everett Woods-154.5' sycamore, Ohio ht. record

Post by sradivoy » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:52 am

Steve,

What's the point of even using Lidar data if it's so wildly inaccurate in determining tree heights? This is the first time you've questioned it's accuracy. You've cited numerous examples over the years on how accurate Lidar data is in comparison to actual rangefinder/ climometer readings with other trees, and now, all of a sudden, you're telling me it can be off by a factor of two meters. I've been a firm believer in LiDar data because of you. If I had known what you're telling me now, I wouldn't even have bothered learning the Fusion system.

Stefan

Post Reply

Return to “Ohio”