National Register of Big Trees (1 Viewer)

[Chosun Juan]

This is a link to the National Register of Big Trees in Australia.
https://www.nationalregisterofbigtrees.com.au/

An invaluable website showing a list with locations of the biggest trees of each species in the country, according to a standardized scoring system taking account of trunk circumference, height, and crown spread.
It is quite something to meet a tree on the list

Does your country have something similar ? :cat:




Chosun :gh:

 

[Nutcracker]

It's useless, as it is based on that stupid 'points' system which over-emphasizes short, broad trees and counts against tall, slenderer trees.

The Tree Register of Britain and Ireland has a database of notable trees in UK & Ireland, but you need to join (££/€€) to get access to all the details.

Monumental Trees is a global (but mainly European) site with huge number (nearly 40,000) of user-submitted trees. A lot of notable trees are in, but a lot are also not in as they haven't been visited by a MT subscriber (free; anyone can join in). There are no criteria for adding a tree there, so a lot of not-very-notable trees have been added too.

 

[Chosun Juan]

It's useless, as it is based on that stupid 'points' system which over-emphasizes short, broad trees and counts against tall, slenderer trees.

The Tree Register of Britain and Ireland has a database of notable trees in UK & Ireland, but you need to join (££/€€) to get access to all the details.

Monumental Trees is a global (but mainly European) site with huge number (nearly 40,000) of user-submitted trees. A lot of notable trees are in, but a lot are also not in as they haven't been visited by a MT subscriber (free; anyone can join in). There are no criteria for adding a tree there, so a lot of not-very-notable trees have been added too.

I don't agree. :cat:
It seems reasonable to me for comparing the relative extraordinariness of various species, and at least it's a consistent system.

Height counts every bit as much as crown spread, and in general trees that reach large circumferences at breast height are usually of a great age in primary old growth forest /woodland.

The formula rules out multistemmed trees, though trees that form large lignotubers or have extreme buttressing (such as Moreton Bay Fig Trees) do have somewhat of a relative advantage, so maybe a fine tune there is in order.

The highest scoring Moreton Bay Fig scores 912 points - but it's a 50m tall tree ! No mean feat !

Every tree that scores over 1000 points here is a tall, ancient Eucalypt. The circumference of some of these grand old elders needs to be experienced to believe. Beyond that they are all living spirits (as my avatar photo shows https://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/592929/ppuser/92780).

The highest scoring tree in this country (at 1125 points) is an ancient Mountain Ash of 21.65m circumference ( 6.9m or 22.6ft diameter) , 77 m tall, and 25 m crown ....... https://www.nationalregisterofbigtrees.com.au/listing_view.php?listing_id=750





Chosun :gh:

 

[Nutcracker]

The problem is the arcane measurement system used gives the girth a 12-fold advantage; that's too high. Obviously girth is of importance: it is a smaller measure in absolute terms than height, yet counts for more as a volume indicator. I'd think if an x10 factor (height in metres, girth in dm) was used, it would give a more realistic 'feel' for the most impressive trees. Or perhaps even better, height in metres multiplied (rather than added) by girth in metres, so as to give some approximation to volume.

With modern laser imaging, it's now possible (though very expensive equipment - not accessible to most people) to get a reasonably accurate measure of the total tree volume (trunk + major branches); that might be the best measure of all.

 

[Chosun Juan]

The problem is the arcane measurement system used gives the girth a 12-fold advantage; that's too high. Obviously girth is of importance: it is a smaller measure in absolute terms than height, yet counts for more as a volume indicator. I'd think if an x10 factor (height in metres, girth in dm) was used, it would give a more realistic 'feel' for the most impressive trees. Or perhaps even better, height in metres multiplied (rather than added) by girth in metres, so as to give some approximation to volume.

With modern laser imaging, it's now possible (though very expensive equipment - not accessible to most people) to get a reasonably accurate measure of the total tree volume (trunk + major branches); that might be the best measure of all.

Yes, I'd agree the proportions could be slightly tweaked also to give an even more reasonable result over a broad range of species and forms.

It is interesting that the "General Sherman" tops the list in America with 1321 points.
https://www.americanforests.org/get...ees/bigtrees-search/bigtrees-advanced-search/

It is recognized as the most voluminous tree in the world, though some of those big ancient Boabs of Africa might knock it off for points - especially with trunks swollen with water at the end of the rainy season .....

All of the various Giants on the different continents are impressive and wonderous :t:




Chosun :gh:

 

[dantheman]

This was in the news here last week -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/penllergaer-enzos-homes-mansion-gardens-17087903

 

[Chosun Juan]

This was in the news here last week -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/penllergaer-enzos-homes-mansion-gardens-17087903

Jeez - reading through and seeing that murder made me want to hurl. That beautiful tree gone - illegally and without remorse - it can't be replaced with a snap of the fingers if at all .......:-C

The size of that stump dwarfed the excavator near it. What a loss.

Unfortunately it reminds me of the forestry idiots who burned our largest (by volume) tree and killed it even though it was meant to be protected - "El Grande" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Grande_(tree)

............... :-C

https://tasmaniantimes.com/2017/06/forestry-tasmanias-destruction-of-el-grande/
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/01/australia.theobserver1

Like the Louve destroying the Mona Lisa ......
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/biggest-tree-killed-20031211-gdwwxm.html





Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Taller than the top of Big Ben ...... Eucalyptus Regnans

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141222-the-worlds-new-tallest-tree

https://www.utas.edu.au/tasmanian-companion/biogs/E000040b.htm

https://tasmaniasgianttrees.weebly.com/florentine-and-upper-derwent.html





Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Hyperion - tallest living tree 115.72m vs Tallest ever measured 132.6m Mountain Ash

https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/coastredwood/tallest_tree_in_the_world/






Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

General Sherman - the largest living thing on earth ....

https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/giantsequoia/biggest_tree_in_the_world/
~1494m3 .... That's 10+ Blue whales ....... :eek!:




Chosun :gh:

 

[Nutcracker]

"El Grande" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Grande_(tree)

Link broken by Birdforum's software cutting the end bracket off - here's the link repaired: El Grande :t:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Link broken by Birdforum's software cutting the end bracket off - here's the link repaired: El Grande :t:

Thanks :t: that's a new one on me ! Had to fix manually.

Opening the link you are confronted by that stark photo (before death) showing how the Forestry Commission clear felled right up to the base of the largest tree in Australia. What sort of brain dead idiot even thought that would be a good idea ! - let alone to set the felled waste on fire !! :storm:

So angry !!! :C




Chosun :gh:

 

[Nutcracker]

Indeed! Giant trees need their whole habitat around them unbroken - the sudden exposure removes the humidity and shelter they need.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Red Tingle