New 100m tree species confirmed !

[M.W.Taylor]

I have been working on a pet project with Steve Sillett to identify the tallest non redwood tree species in the Redwood National and State Parks jurisdiction. Earlier this week Steve, Tressa Gibbard (from the Sugar Pine Foundation) and myself measured a sitka spruce that cracks the elusive 100m mark. Until recently, there were only 3 tree species other than redwood believed to approach or surpass the 100m mark. Now there are 4.

1) Douglas fir. Brummitt Fir. 99.7m to dead top. Was 100.28m from 1988 tape drop measurement to a live top.

2) Eucalyptus regnans. Centurion. 99.82m+ S. Sillett Tape Drop, 2014. Recent fires burned the organic matter at the base and lowered the ground level at trunk a bit. The top lost a large side leader so it no longer sags as much. The top itself has been growing very slowly. Recent independent laser rangefinder measurements by different surveyors of Centurion put its current height at ~100.25m but these were taken with the Trupulse 200 standard which is accurate to about .25m (unless you find the switch point and take averages in which case you could get much greater accuracy).

3) Shorea faguetiana. Menara. 99m+. From the field report issued by the survey team describe it is 97.58m to bole height above it's root flare averaged from high and low side. The tree's top is 100.8m above the lowest point of root flare. Height above average ground level has not been determined as far as I know but I can say judging by photographs of the tree's base it, the top appears to be at least 99m above the averaged ground level. See report here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00032/full

4) Sitka Spruce. 100.2m - (Sillett-Taylor June 2021 survey).

The chart by Steve Sillett below sums up our recent measurements using tripod mounted Trupulse 200x with prism pole and remote trigger.

[dbhguru]

Michael,

Congratulations! The number of measurements taken is mind boggling. The amount of work behind those statistics, I can’t imagine.

Bob

[BeeEnvironment2020]

Michael,

Congrats! What was the previous tallest-known Sitka? This discovery is amazing! I just added the tree to Monumental Trees in your name (https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/usa/california/delnortecounty/4462_redwoodnationalpark/52922/)

[M.W.Taylor]

Michael,

Congratulations! The number of measurements taken is mind boggling. The amount of work behind those statistics, I can’t imagine.

Bob

Bob, The charts are the default output from allomeric equations Steve Sillett has published. Each tree has its own equation. The parameters on the input side are crown width in the N,S,E,W direction, height above average ground, dbh, diameter above root flare.....and the height of the first occurrence of crown which is represented by a branch or branch group that wraps 1/3 around the trunk or more. The equations are for conforming models of complete conifer trees that don't have bad crown damage or snapped boles. I'll get the address link if you are interested. Not all tree species have been modeled yet of course. Michael

[M.W.Taylor]

Michael,

Congrats! What was the previous tallest-known Sitka? This discovery is amazing! I just added the tree to Monumental Trees in your name (https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/usa/california/delnortecounty/4462_redwoodnationalpark/52922/)

Thanks ! Please mention to the website operator that I measured Brummit in 2011 at 99.7m with Impulse 200LR and multi-point prism pole survey to the average ground level at base (not a Nikon550 2 point measurement as stated on the website). Ascending the Giants climbed the tree the next year and got 99.7m with direct tape drop to the averaged ground level at the base. So that 99.7m is settled as far as I am concerned and the Brummit is not growing anymore. If anything, the top has lost a little since then. As to whether another douglas fir somewhere in Oregon is over 100m now remains to be seen.

[M.W.Taylor]

Michael,

Congrats! What was the previous tallest-known Sitka? This discovery is amazing! I just added the tree to Monumental Trees in your name (https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/usa/california/delnortecounty/4462_redwoodnationalpark/52922/)

Raven's Tower at ~96m after recent top breakage. It was about 97.6m in 2010

[dbhguru]

Michael,

Yes, I'd love the link. Thanks. I have a goal of trying to raise the awareness of forest biometrician acquaintances and friends here in New England on the incredible work that you all do out there. Back here they get wrapped up in managed forests with relatively young trees and tend to see species growth capabilities through their limited experience.

Bob

[BeeEnvironment2020]

Michael,

Congrats! What was the previous tallest-known Sitka? This discovery is amazing! I just added the tree to Monumental Trees in your name (https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/usa/california/delnortecounty/4462_redwoodnationalpark/52922/)

Thanks ! Please mention to the website operator that I measured Brummit in 2011 at 99.7m with Impulse 200LR and multi-point prism pole survey to the average ground level at base (not a Nikon550 2 point measurement as stated on the website). Ascending the Giants climbed the tree the next year and got 99.7m with direct tape drop to the averaged ground level at the base. So that 99.7m is settled as far as I am concerned and the Brummit is not growing anymore. If anything, the top has lost a little since then. As to whether another douglas fir somewhere in Oregon is over 100m now remains to be seen.

I will try to get in contact with Tim for the Monumental Trees listing. I dont know if there is a possibility to change "Laser with 2-point" to the measurement method you used. Maybe I will put down your exact method in the tree-description info instead??

Thanks also for letting me know about the previous tallest-Sitka. I thought it was only 84 meters as said on Monumental trees, but now it makes more sense.

Also, one quick question: Is it alright if I post that photo of the 100.2 meter tree onto monumental trees in your name??? A lot of users were very interested in its possible form and shape.

[M.W.Taylor]

Also, one quick question: Is it alright if I post that photo of the 100.2 meter tree onto monumental trees in your name??? A lot of users were very interested in its possible form and shape.
[/quote]


Feel free to email the pictures with the watermark inserted to the monumental trees people. I posted the watermarked version here.

[BeeEnvironment2020]

Thanks very much! I just posted it on the Monumental Trees forum. Here is the link: https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/photos/126883/

There is a problem with Monumental Trees however. When I start uploading the photo, monumental trees gives me a option to add a photo that was photographed by someone else, like this photo. However, after I upload, the photo says that I, BeeEnvironment, is the photographer, not you/Steve. I tried deleting and reposting a few times, and it still does not work. I will contact Tim about this issue. In the meantime I put this down:

"PLEASE NOTE: This photo is not by me. For some reason Monumental Trees is not letting me post it in the name of Michael Taylor and Steve Sillett. They are the copyright and photo holders for the tree.
This is the photo of the 100.2 meter Sitka Spruce, by Michael Taylor and Steve Sillett, copyrighted 2021 and used by permission."

Because this photo is your's and Steve's, is this alright???

Thanks,
BeeE