Live Oak growth rates

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

Post Reply
User avatar
Larry Tucei
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:44 am

Live Oak growth rates

Post by Larry Tucei » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:53 pm

ENTS, In doing some research lately on the Rusink Oak, a beautiful tree growing in Ocean Springs, Ms. I found a measurement taken in 1939, also a photograph. The trunk then measured 17', I went back to the tree and measured it last week to 22'. The tree has a limb growing low off the trunk, but when the tree was younger the lower limb wasn't as large and low to the ground as it is now. This limb now is at the 4.5' from ground so if you measure the trunk with the limb in the way it is 27' 2". You have to measure it lower at around 3' from ground. Many Live Oaks have this problem so you measure under the limb or limbs to get better measurement as we all know. When I first started measuring Live Oaks it was difficult at times to meaured them. I tried to use the CBH standard but I began to relize that under the limb or limbs is more correct. Also muti-trunked trees are difficult. I have been going back over my listing and correcting errors. The growth rates for the Ruskin Oak are Cir/3.14= dia/2=rad. x 12/years= avg growth rate per year. I get .583" of growth in the 71 year period, that's fast. It is cool to see photos of trees from such time spans. Two photos one in 06 and one in 39.Ed, Bob, correct me if I'm wrong with this formula. Larry
Attachments
2006
2006
Ruskin Oak 1939
Ruskin Oak 1939

User avatar
edfrank
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Live Oak growth rates

Post by edfrank » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:20 pm

Larry,
The growth rates for the Ruskin Oak are Cir/3.14= dia/2=rad. x 12/years= avg growth rate per year. I get .583" of growth in the 71 year period, that's fast.
Your formula is correct and the rates are correct. You could have specified in the formula itself the circumference is in feet, and the growth rate per year is in inches. Then 0.583" of radial growth per year for the last 71 years is the growth rate. But these value are implied in the write up so readers still understand what you are saying.

Ed
"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

User avatar
Josh Kelly
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Live Oak growth rates

Post by Josh Kelly » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:44 pm

Great historical information and one heck-of-a growth rate!

Josh

User avatar
edfrank
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Live Oak growth rates

Post by edfrank » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:15 pm

Larry,

Great job in finding the older photo and measurement data. Yes measuring under the limbs is the right way to go in measuring trees with low massive limbs. If not made at 4.5 feet the height should be noted, or at least the fact it was below the large limb noted. Another noticeably different in the images is the large amount of hanging moss in the earlier photo compared to the present day photo. Why is this do you think?

Ed
"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

User avatar
Larry Tucei
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Live Oak growth rates

Post by Larry Tucei » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:06 am

Ed, Josh, Thanks. I think some of the problem is pollution. Chemicals in the atmosphere, air traffic exhaust raining down, and our coal fired power plant, etc. Plus all of the auto exhaust. Plus it was harvested by the tons in the early 1900's. Larry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_moss

Post Reply

Return to “Mississippi”