What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

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

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

Post Reply
User avatar
Matt Markworth
Posts: 1302
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:41 pm

What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by Matt Markworth » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:23 pm

All,

Here's a 4'2" x 120.5' pignut hickory that caught my eye at Fort Hill today. I began to wonder if a tree with these dimensions is unusual or not. I generally don't measure trees this skinny, so I'm not really sure. On my way hiking out, I easily noticed a 4'7" x 123' chestnut oak, so maybe these dimensions aren't that unusual after all.

I'm interested if others have measured a 120+ footer with a CBH of 4'2" or less (any species). Might be a good idea for a new club.

4'2'' x 120.5' pignut hickory.jpg
Matt

User avatar
John Harvey
Posts: 748
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:25 pm

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by John Harvey » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:23 pm

Matt,
I wondered something similar when I found an 7'10" cbh 161' Tulip in Delaware. It seemed so much thinner than most of the 160' tulips I had found, most between 10' and 15' CBH. Ill have to pay attention from now on and see if I can find a thinner 120'.
On another note, I believe Michael Taylor discovered several Redwoods over 340' with circumferences around 11'. There is a tree in Founders Grove 11'10" cbh, 350.2' tall and a tree on the Bull Creek Flat 11'2" cbh and 353.4' tall. I cant even imagine a tree that thin being able to stand that tall. We would have to ask him if its a typo but there is a tree named McArthur Creek in Redwood National Park that he had listed under 4' CBH and 344' tall.
John D Harvey (JohnnyDJersey)

East Coast and West Coast Big Tree Hunter

"If you look closely at a tree you'll notice it's knots and dead branches, just like our bodies. What we learn is that beauty and imperfection go together wonderfully." - Matt Fox

User avatar
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by Will Blozan » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:48 pm

Matt,

My last post seems to have not made it to the BBS... Anyway, height to diameter ratios (HDR) are useful to track. American sycamore has the record in my data with a specimen achieving an HDR of 169.8. The tree was 8.1" diameter at 115.3 feet tall.

Will

User avatar
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by Will Blozan » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:59 pm

More sycamore...

17.4" X 156.9'= HDR 108.0
10.7" X 118.4'= HDR 132.9
13.1" X 147.7'= HDR 135.8
11.4" X 144.0'= HDR 151.2

Will

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

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by Rand » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:40 pm

Davey woods has two freakishly tall & skinny trees:

Black Cherry 4' 1.5" x 127.5' HDR = 97.1
Tuliptree 5' 8.5" x 133.8 HDR = 73.6

The black cherry tree at least was trying to weasel up beside a much larger tulip tree.

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

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by edfrank » Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:55 pm

FYI

There were a few posts discussing height/diameter ration on the website. For definition purposes HD ratio is the height of tree in feet divided by cbh diameter in feet - Usually in these discussions only trees greater than 100 feet are being considered, but that is not a requirement for the statistic. The links for those who are interested are halfway down this page. Rand, you probably know this already, but I am posting for the benefit of others who might not have seen them before. The links are halfway down this long page: http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measur ... asure.html.

Will mentions in one post that he has: "I think I have a sycamore at 157:1. It grows near a sweetgum that is 176:1. Also, a tuliptree 166:1. I'll check my records." Most of the examples mentioned are in the 100 foot range, or slightly less.

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
Will Blozan
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by Will Blozan » Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:55 pm

Ed,

My numbers are height (ft) to diameter (ft), not cbh.

Will

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

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by edfrank » Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:09 pm

Will,

I did not notice that in my post. You are correct.

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
tomhoward
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:15 pm

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by tomhoward » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:42 pm

NTS,

Elijah Whitcomb measured a Bitternut Hickory in the Tuliptree Cathedral of Green Lakes State Park, NY to a height of 140.1 ft. and cbh 5 ft. It is the tallest known Hickory of any species in NY State.

Tom Howard

User avatar
John Harvey
Posts: 748
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:25 pm

Re: What's the skinniest known 120 footer?

Post by John Harvey » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:29 pm

I found this douglas fir today.

1.75' DBH X 182' = 104 HDR

This area was clearcut maybe 80 years ago and I'm sure this tree is not the HDR champ back there, it just jumped out to me as it was along the trail.
Attachments
DSC09781.JPG
DSC09788.JPG
John D Harvey (JohnnyDJersey)

East Coast and West Coast Big Tree Hunter

"If you look closely at a tree you'll notice it's knots and dead branches, just like our bodies. What we learn is that beauty and imperfection go together wonderfully." - Matt Fox

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussions”