General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not the ..

General discussions of forests and trees that do not focus on a specific species or specific location.

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdvaden » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:25 am

Rand wrote:
This is why I think it is important to carefully examine the branching structure of the crown of the tree. If the Sherman is the result of the fusion of two co-equal trees, than the branching pattern from both parent stems should still be visible,
That' doesn't sound reliable.

At 1000 yrs. to 2000 yrs. there's little branching "pattern" to speak of other than maybe on reiterations that are 50 yrs. old or something similar. Even on 100 yr. old trees of redwood and other species, I find so much change and breakage happening, that pattern fades. When I think of pattern, I think of the whorls of new growth being predictable in the first new growth of a pine, etc., or Douglas fir. Even by 80 years, I find Doug firs that had already broken tops that divided, grew and begin to either break apart or press tight together.

That's why I find the simplicity of the tree's own witness though shapes and lines a better language it can communicate with. Related, I find an obvious easy to find tree like Boy Scout redwood contrary to what you said. It's a twin stem half way through the process of concealing it's double stem. At the moment, it parts overhead making it's origin easy to figure out. But in another 500 years, the gap can close. But relating to your speculation, the lower and mid part of that tree have virtually no limbs or closed-over branch wounds to show anything pertinent about branch "pattern" related to origin of form.

Speculating about branch marks far overhead could be futile, because it could be from a double stem origin, or breakage overhead with twin, or more reiterations. That's why I prefer to look for shapes and inclusion revealed by the tree starting near ground level as much as possible. And especially when it's on both sides, and continues up the tree quite a ways.

Going the opposite, looking for something overhead that only makes it half way down, never goes farther than a nothing-burger if the base lacks the evidence.
Attachments
Boy_1400mdv.jpg
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

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

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by Rand » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:06 pm

I schlepped some pictures off google for some points of comparison:
(click the links for high res versions from the original source)

First a clear double:
S-double.png
http://ru.permaculture.wikia.com/wiki/С ... гигантский
(the bbs doesn't like the foreign characters, just copy and paste into a new window)

Boyscout tree:
boyscout tree.png
http://www.modernboardshop.com/a-few-rocks-and-trees/

Now compare this to a profile view of the Sherman tree:
Sherman-profile.png
https://mowryjournal.com/2016/04/22/cal ... l-sherman/

You'll notice how the doubles subtly lean away from each other, while with the Sherman tree the profile of the trunk smoothly tapers up to a single point in the candelabra top. This is not consistent with a coequally, double-trunked tree, where you would expect two distinct tops, or at least a distinct irregularity in the trunk profile where one leader got overtopped.

To be conclusive either way, you'd need to examine the trunk profile from two views 90˚ apart. If the profiles from both directions, taper symmetrically to a single point, like the photo I posted, and the cross-section of the trunk high in the tree looks more round than oval, it is unlikely your hypothesis is true. For the simple fact that most sequoias aren't doubles.

As an aside, there is also the major reiteration on the side, but this view makes it look like a major limb, not an ingrown trunk:
Sherman reit-2.png
https://ronreznick.photoshelter.com/ima ... EgnqAb.Xn8

User avatar
gnmcmartin
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by gnmcmartin » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:26 pm

Rand:

Thanks for taking the time to explain this carefully as you do.

--Gaines

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdvaden » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:29 pm

Rand wrote:

You'll notice how the (THOSE / "mdv") doubles subtly lean away from each other, while with the Sherman tree the profile of the trunk smoothly tapers up to a single point in the candelabra top. This is not consistent with a coequally, double-trunked tree, where you would expect two distinct tops, or at least a distinct irregularity in the trunk profile where one leader got overtopped.

To be conclusive either way, you'd need to examine the trunk profile from two views 90˚ apart. If the profiles from both directions, taper symmetrically to a single point, like the photo I posted, and the cross-section of the trunk high in the tree looks more round than oval, it is unlikely your hypothesis is true.
Rather than falling into that conclusion, I found one of several photos that simplifies the fact that fused trees can be fairly straight. I bolded the "the" to mark the part where you tried to fit that into one side of black or white. Anyhow, the tree below identified with arrows, has about 4 stems that are almost growing STRAIGHT AS AN ARROW. When opposing stems have other trees around, the extra shade can prevent cells in the midst from elongation and causing the lean you were talking about. Lean is possible. But lack of lean is also possible. Examples like what I posted are all over the forest. So when you wrote "you would expect" ... it would be more more accurate to say "I would expect".

It's also worth noting, that for photos like the one below, I leveled my camera and lens to eliminate distortion that wasn't present.
gnmcmartin wrote:Rand:

Thanks for taking the time to explain this carefully as you do.

--Gaines
Gaines .. this post will help show the difference between the real possibilities of the forest vs. "schlepped" photos from the internet. The example I posted is one of countless examples that don't conform with how Rand tried to pigeon-hole everything into merely one idea about growth. When redwoods in nature can clearly show the opposite to what Rand wrote, one of the first questions worth asking, is how is something like that missed?

Cheers, MDv
Attachments
Fused_LR.jpg
Last edited by mdvaden on Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdvaden » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:10 pm

gnmcmartin wrote:Rand:

Thanks for taking the time to explain this carefully as you do.

--Gaines
It's worth noting how quickly one photo showed the complete opposite of Rand's reply. And there's countless examples to the contrary in the redwood forest. I've photographed more. But there are plenty in view of the roads and trails. So leads me to question the basis for the reply, when nature offers witness otherwise. It may boil down to not understanding cell division or elongation in trees. And how it can vary.

Opposing trunks can lean, just like the edge trunks of a grove. But when there are other surrounding trunks, the amount of light is more even on all sides, eliminating lean and bend. With equal light or shade on both sides, cells all around the trunk can divide and elongate more evenly.

I grow plants in my office, and they lean toward the window because the shade side elongates. If I add a grow light on the interior side, those house plants would grow more straight due to extra light. Similar can happen by shading all sides equally.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
mdavie
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:51 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdavie » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:14 pm

Mario, what does the crown of that tree with the arrows look like?

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdvaden » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:20 pm

mdavie wrote:Mario, what does the crown of that tree with the arrows look like?


Sort of average scraggly. A mix of branches and epicormic sprouts like most of the others around it. Nothing particularly unusual.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdvaden » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:42 pm

Here's two more redwoods.

The multi-trunk cluster spreads. That's similar to what Rand "schlepped" like the Boyscout tree. That's one of the possibilities in the redwood forest. This other image here is from Prairie Creek. Rather than bending outward like Rand was focused on, notice how the sides are almost parallel. In fact, the sides of the group (pair) actually taper inward slightly. My camera and lens were level. That's why all the excess foreground. So the trunks are not exaggerated or diminished. These trunks should be around 700 years old.

I think there used to be more trees around it. Either way, these are remarkably straight. in 700 more years, the sides will still look mostly parallel and the included bark in the midst will become more obscure as the two masses start blending into the look of a single.
Attachments
Fairy_Print_Sample.jpg
Fused_LR2.jpg
Last edited by mdvaden on Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

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

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by Rand » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:44 pm

Your redwood photo does not show how the noted features extend from the ground up into the crown, which is the point I was trying to make. A true double-trunk tree should show growth differences from a single trunked tree from the ground to the top of the crown. With your presented photo, I'd bet that if you could see into the crown, you've see an abrupt transition from a columnar mass of fused wood to individual, co-dominant leaders, not the smooth tapered transition I showed with my photo of the Sherman tree. Granted, this is going to be difficult to see with such a large tree as the Sherman, enclosed by a stand of smaller trees as it is, and particularly difficult in the redwoods which grow so tall and dense, but I maintain it's a test that needs to be done to make your opinion definitive.

You've haven't shown any of this with your photographs of the Sherman tree, and somehow don't think you should have to, to have your opinion accepted by others as definitive.

Look Mario, I'm not just trying to be a dick. Bob & Don went to a lot of effort to put AF champion tree measuring on a more scientifically sound footing (take a look at the logo at the top left corner of this web page). This includes separating trees into a single and double-trunked specimens for scoring purposes.

An unpleasant part of science is peer review. This is a critical part of science because of the limits of human perception. It is impossible to truly perceive everything we see, and so we filter it based on the subconscious preconceptions based on our past experience. Then we derive patterns from this necessarilly limited data set, and if we are lucky, it's the data that matters. Per review is necessary because someone else will have different experiences and preconceptions, and can/will derive different hypothesis and conclusions from it. Per review lets us make a common pool of evidence, experience, and opinion, let's all concerned parties critically review it, and come to a concensus. Yes, it is unpleasant to have your professional opinion questioned and critically scrutinized, but if we don't do it, someone else from the outside will - especially for 'The Largest Tree on Earth' - and they will be worlds more unpleasant than I am being.

You made a definitive statement in bold capital letters, on a message board that is in a large part scientific, but you have not met the standards of scientific proof with your presented evidence, and I am definitively saying you need to. What I am not saying is that I definitively know that your judgement is automatically wrong, just because I can see an alternate hypothesis based on a few pictures.

This isn't about dick waving between you and me, I'm arguing for the scientific credibility of ENTS.

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:30 pm

Re: General Sherman is NOT single stem origin. Hence, not th

Post by mdvaden » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:49 pm

Rand wrote:Your redwood photo does not show how the noted features extend from the ground up into the crown, which is the point I was trying to make. A true double-trunk tree should show growth differences from a single trunked tree from the ground to the top of the crown. With your presented photo, I'd bet that if you could see into the crown, you've see an abrupt transition from a columnar mass of fused wood to individual, co-dominant leaders,.
I was basically showing enough to convey that what you wrote was not accurate to the extent you were claiming. There's no need to show every scrap of crown. I was just reviewing some stuff you mentioned and covered enough to relay that coast redwood and giant sequoa's form are not constrained to the limits you suggested.

To put this in a nutshell, this statement you wrote isn't applicable ...
This is not consistent with a coequally, double-trunked tree, where you would expect two distinct tops, or at least a distinct irregularity in the trunk profile where one leader got overtopped.
In the coast redwoods and sequoias of great age, much overhead is inconsistent due to the number of centuries that can alter development.
Last edited by mdvaden on Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
M. D. Vaden of Oregon = http://www.mdvaden.com

200 Pages - Coast Redwoods - http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Portraits & Weddings - http://www.vadenphotography.com

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussions”