North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by Rand » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:12 pm

dantheman9758 wrote:Another great hike today,

*Another pair of giant red oak "twins", this close proximity pair was 17' 8"x123.3' (sine height measured from an adjacent ravine) and 17' 5"x118.5' (quick and dirty from the base of the tree).
Two more of those monsters? Geez. I was impressed enough with the first two. Are the tops intact on them?

User avatar
dantheman9758
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by dantheman9758 » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:26 pm

Randy,

The crowns on both of the 17' trees look undamaged. The 17' pair is rooted into a slope unlike the 18'ers. Actually I think they were sitting on a "leveled" area half way down a slope. Anyways right above them was the 11' 6" Blackgum. Maybe 50 yards north of them is the weathered looking 11' 7" red maple. This nice section of the forest is the same general area I found the 2' 1" Foxgrape vine and the 13' 1" Beech. I've been religiously marking everything with my GPS lol, so I will be returning for pictures and leaf-drop measurements once I'm done exploring. Oh, and I did measured a 15' 1" Oak with a 117' stand under height which wasn't too bad either.

Dan

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by sradivoy » Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:46 am

On the prowl for the legendary Northern "Reed" Oak with measured lasoo firmly at hand. I know you're out there somewhere; I've just picked up your scent. There aint nothin' like wild red Quercus!

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by sradivoy » Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:00 pm

I've found the massive Reed Oak! I don't have any measurements yet, but it would be in addition to the five largest known in the park that I have already visited. Here are some pictures:
Attachments
quercus 010.JPG
quercus 008.JPG
The crown is fully intact, unlike the two largest 18 footers in the park.
The crown is fully intact, unlike the two largest 18 footers in the park.
Yes! He seemed happy to see me.
Yes! He seemed happy to see me.
I must  respect his privacy and not reveal his whereabouts to no one. It's for his own protection.
I must respect his privacy and not reveal his whereabouts to no one. It's for his own protection.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by Don » Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:07 am

Not being there, I wouldn't know for sure, but it looks to me like you may have found twin Reed Oaks...
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by sradivoy » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:44 am

Don wrote:Not being there, I wouldn't know for sure, but it looks to me like you may have found twin Reed Oaks...

Good observation! Because if you were here you would notice that this tree is in the process of being split in two. In any case the tree's "twin-like" aspect is consistent with the theme I was trying to convey in the first place.
Attachments
quercus 009.JPG

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by Don » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:29 pm

Do you have a sense of why it's splitting?
It's my guess that it was two separate stems from the start, they grew into each other, then 'grew around each other'. Often the next stage is them growing apart, in this case it would appear that each major trunk is diverging into separate pools of light, and are trying to maximize photosynthesis opportunities, even if at the expense of the 'union'.
What's your perception?
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by sradivoy » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:30 am

My perception, for what its worth, is that gravity is tearing the tree in half at the weakest link where the two stems once fused together long ago. As the crown increases in size the shear weight will inevitably overcome that which is keeping them together. That's my impression anyway.

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by sradivoy » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:01 pm

There are now three 18 ft plus trees in North Chagrin, at least six greater than 15 ft cbh in the park (if not more). All Northern Red Oaks. The Reed Oak rules with the largest known girth in the park!
Attachments
Lasooed at a whopping 18' 4" (unofficial)
Lasooed at a whopping 18' 4" (unofficial)
big red 003.JPG
big red 002.JPG
massive roots
massive roots

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

Re: North Chagrin Reservation: Cumulative Forest Data

Post by Rand » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:55 pm

Don wrote:Do you have a sense of why it's splitting?
It's my guess that it was two separate stems from the start, they grew into each other, then 'grew around each other'. Often the next stage is them growing apart, in this case it would appear that each major trunk is diverging into separate pools of light, and are trying to maximize photosynthesis opportunities, even if at the expense of the 'union'.
What's your perception?
I don't think it's likely that this tree is a double. In general, eastern trees have problems with narrow angle, 'V-shaped' forks, in particular ones of equal size. What happens is a fold in the cambium layer develops between the two branches, and the part in the very bottom of the 'V' dies from the compression of the branches expanding in diameter on either side. The result is you get two adjoining bark surfaces that press together but never fuse to join the two halves of the fork together. As the tree ages, the chevron of embedded bark gets larger and larger, making up a progressively larger portion of the fork union, making it progressively weaker over time. After several decades the embedded chevron makes a fine cleavage plane that only awaits a high wind or ice storm to start breaking the remaining sound wood.

Heres an example of both halves once the weak union breaks.
break-1.png
break-2.png
It's not uncommon for the split to visibly open, but the two pieces will hang together for a number of years afterwards before the union completely fails. The one in this thread looks like one of the biggest examples of this.

Post Reply

Return to “Ohio”