Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

#21)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby M.W.Taylor » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:05 am

Zane, that would imply 300'+ is a possibility ?
User avatar
M.W.Taylor
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Northern California
Has Liked: 34 times
Has Been Liked: 322 times
Print view this post

#22)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby yofoghorn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:09 pm

The two tallest trees in Big Basin (see original post) have been remeasured after 5 years since their initial measurement. The tallest is 330.38' and the second tallest is 327.86'. Five years ago, these trees measured 328.12' and 325.36'. So they've both grown vertically around 6 inches each year. It will be interesting to see what the next 5 years brings.
Zane J. Moore
Plant Biology PhD Student
University of California, Davis

For this message the author yofoghorn has received Likes :
Will Blozan
User avatar
yofoghorn
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Has Liked: 30 times
Has Been Liked: 110 times
Print view this post

#23)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby Bob4st » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:32 pm

I'm curious if the added growth seen over the past 5 years despite drought conditions will be significantly exceeded as a result of the increase in precipitation CA has experienced more recently... During a trip to Mt. Lassen National Park 4 weeks ago, we were unable to use the portion of Lassen Volcanic Park Highway which approaches to summit until it opened August 3rd... This was the latest opening date recorded as a result of approximately 30 feet of snow accumulation and debris which required removal before vehicles could enter the area... The increase in water was notable throughout the area by the amount of healthy green meadows, wildflowers, etc...  That said, it would be nice to see those trees achieve vertical growth rates around 12+ inches...
The tree the tempest with a crash of wood Throws down in front of us is not to bar Our passage to our journey's end for good, But just to ask us who we think we are. (R. Frost)
User avatar
Bob4st
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:40 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York
Has Liked: 0 times
Has Been Liked: 0 times
Print view this post

#24)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby M.W.Taylor » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:55 pm

yofoghorn wrote:The two tallest trees in Big Basin (see original post) have been remeasured after 5 years since their initial measurement. The tallest is 330.38' and the second tallest is 327.86'. Five years ago, these trees measured 328.12' and 325.36'. So they've both grown vertically around 6 inches each year. It will be interesting to see what the next 5 years brings.


It should be noted that Zane recently found two redwoods over 350' tall south of San Francisco !

For this message the author M.W.Taylor has received Likes :
Will Blozan
User avatar
M.W.Taylor
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Northern California
Has Liked: 34 times
Has Been Liked: 322 times
Print view this post

#25)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby M.W.Taylor » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:03 am

Bob4st wrote:I'm curious if the added growth seen over the past 5 years despite drought conditions will be significantly exceeded as a result of the increase in precipitation CA has experienced more recently... During a trip to Mt. Lassen National Park 4 weeks ago, we were unable to use the portion of Lassen Volcanic Park Highway which approaches to summit until it opened August 3rd... This was the latest opening date recorded as a result of approximately 30 feet of snow accumulation and debris which required removal before vehicles could enter the area... The increase in water was notable throughout the area by the amount of healthy green meadows, wildflowers, etc...  That said, it would be nice to see those trees achieve vertical growth rates around 12+ inches...



12+inches per year has been recorded in old growth redwoods in a good year. It is possible but generally not sustainable. If the tops grow too fast they will not have a good supporting base and will be prone to breakage.
User avatar
M.W.Taylor
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Northern California
Has Liked: 34 times
Has Been Liked: 322 times
Print view this post

#26)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby yofoghorn » Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:00 am

The top of the tallest of these two trees has maybe 5-6" leader atop a pom-pom. It's really really growing vigorously just this year. For the first time since its discovery, the tip top is FINALLY visible past a branch that was obstructing the view. Two years ago, I got an accurate height on the shorter tree. In two years, it went from 326.11' to 327.86'. Not bad. And this is with tripods and a marker at the window to reduce all possible error.

In another grove in the Santa Cruz Mountains, we know that a 333.3' tree was this height about 10 years ago. These two trees have been growing steadily in Big Basin and are about 10 years behind in vertical growth from a nearby tall tree.
Zane J. Moore
Plant Biology PhD Student
University of California, Davis
User avatar
yofoghorn
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Has Liked: 30 times
Has Been Liked: 110 times
Print view this post

#27)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby Bob4st » Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:06 pm

G-evening Yofoghorn...
I don't understand what you mean by "a marker at the window"... Would you please explain that?  Is that a prior data mid-point placed within/upon a structure during a previous measuring event?  I'm rather new to these remarkably accurate measurements to within hundredths of a foot...
Thanks,
Bob
The tree the tempest with a crash of wood Throws down in front of us is not to bar Our passage to our journey's end for good, But just to ask us who we think we are. (R. Frost)
User avatar
Bob4st
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:40 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York
Has Liked: 0 times
Has Been Liked: 0 times
Print view this post

#28)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby mdvaden » Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:28 pm

Bob4st wrote:G-evening Yofoghorn...
I don't understand what you mean by "a marker at the window"... Would you please explain that?  Is that a prior data mid-point placed within/upon a structure during a previous measuring event?  I'm rather new to these remarkably accurate measurements to within hundredths of a foot...
Thanks,
Bob


It probably should be explained in his own words.

But a "window" is the place someone can stand and see a gap in the canopy through which they can both see the top and be able to shoot a laser beam through without twigs or foliage blocking. Some people add a tag very close to the same location to mark the area, but the tag is also measured in relation to how far the top is above the tag. In the future, someone can set the laser there and measure the tree top and then measure the tag and know if the tree grew or lost height in relation to the tag.

What I can't tell is if he means a marker was placed to mark exactly where the tripod was set.

As far are "remove all possible error" ... that's almost not possible. Every time a tree is measured and remeasured, there are several ways possible error can happen. And multiple measures are generally a good idea. If a location is accurately tagged, someone could misread a digit on the laser. They could accidentally swap vertical distance with horizontal distance if the two readings happened to be very similar.

But you can tell Zane is at least using extra options at his disposal to increase accuracy, and his measuring is usually really darn good.
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: 769
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Oregon
Has Liked: 8 times
Has Been Liked: 224 times
Print view this post

#29)  Re: Tallest Tree South Of SF Bay Confirmed

Postby yofoghorn » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:10 am

Mario pretty much covered it. I have a little tag on a nearby tree to *reduce* (not remove, Mario, because yeah, that's not possible to remove all error) error. Each tripod measurement adds error, so if we can get the number of tripod setups very low and we keep track with a tag up at the window, that enables faster and more accurate remeasuring.

It not only saves time but does, in the long run, mean more accurate tracking of the tree's top as it grows through space. I'm less interested if my initial measurement was a few inches off, but I want my subsequent measurements of the top and its growth to be exact. That's more important anyway, especially since in many trees (these included) ground level can be a bit subjective and there is not an obvious *exact* point where the tree's ground levels are average.

A tag might be a nail or something with a single point. I would not tag or mark where my tripod setup is because its not as exact as a single point to measure to.

Please let me know if you have any more questions. I (clearly) do not check this page all that often, so I will answer but it may be a bit slow.
Zane J. Moore
Plant Biology PhD Student
University of California, Davis

For this message the author yofoghorn has received Likes :
Will Blozan
User avatar
yofoghorn
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Has Liked: 30 times
Has Been Liked: 110 times
Print view this post

Previous

Return to California

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron