The tallest trees can grow

windthrown

The 379+ foot tree is in fact the tallest currently living tree, and there are some other redwoods that may be taller but the students at Humbolt state have kept them under wraps so that people do not stampede to see them and trample the roots.

HSU Prof Confirms World’s Tallest Tree - Humboldt State Now

I think it was OSU that proved that 426 feet is the tallest a tree can grow, because capillary action/stoma respiration fails over that height. I will start a separate thread on this topic.

Welcome to the site. I lived in Douglas Co. for 4 years amung the tall grand firs, doug firs and big cedars before moving back to the Portland area. We have an impressive stand of 120 foot coastal redwoods in our 'yard' here, along with cedars and doug firs a tad taller than that.

windthrown

From the science magazine, Nature, they indicate that thet tallest that trees can grow is 130 meters, or 426 feet. This pretty much correlates with the measurements of the worlds tallest trees today, and the 'measured and verified' tallest trees felled in the US, Canada and Australia.

Attached Files

leaf size redwoods maximum tree height.pdf (295.6 KB, 2129 views)

windthrown

Interesting site with the tallest measured trees (measured with lasers to within 2 inches of accuracy).

http://tiny.cc/c8cxtLandmark Trees

Eric Frei

OK, regarding that paper and the smaller leaf size higher in the canopy.

So are the leaves at the top of redwoods smaller because they get less water or because the tree wants to maximise photosynthesis as a whole rather than capitalise on a few higher branches? Seems to me these two authors should get together and research it some more.

Here's something dated 2010.

New insight on how trees have evolved to obtain light and photosynthesize at the greatest rate

__________________

arborjockey

I went to the redwoods a couple of times and it seems the big ones are standing isolated and toppless. (isolated not meaning their are no trees around it. just there are no trees around it above 200'.)My ? would be... trees work together as a unit in winds so when the forest was full of giants were the tops blowing out or was there a farest of healthy 400'ers

windthrown

You bring up some interesting points. Generally trees, especially really old ones, have naturally grafted root systems between same species. They are usually not standing alone. This gives them more energy and more strength, as well as better supplies of nutrients and water. When they grow as a stand, they have more strength as a stand, especially to buffet high winds. The stand also has weaknesses and limits. If they are planted too close and not thinned, they will become a stagnant stand. This is a common problem with replanting stands in the PNW, especially machine planted trees. Also they are suseptible to later cutting to smaller and narrow size plots that cannot withstand high winds any more. My father bought property out in Gresham in the early 1970's when it was part of a large forest stand many miles wide and long. They were 2 foot DBH trees, mostly Dougs, about 100+ feet tall. So along came the developers in the late 1980s, and down came the trees. It got to the point that my father's property was the last large plot left, and they lost 5-10 trees every year in wind storms. Without protection of the rest of the stand, stand-grown trees cannot survive. Narrow taper which is great for stand growing and logging is not suited to survival as unique or in low number of trees.

The flip side to that are the wolf trees at my ex's place. She has several Dougs that are massive at the base, maybe 4 foot DBH. But they are stubby trees, and highly tapered. No good for logging, but they are survivors. They withstand high winds just fine. There was one one old Doug that was called the Century Tree at her place that was cut before she bought it, and it was massive. I measured the stump and it was 8 by 6 feet wide a little higher than DBH. On her property there were lots of old growth tree stumps, and they were scattered about. They seem to grow largest in well thinned stands, and a good ways apart. I have also hiked in a lot of old growth stand areas in Oregon, and there are usually clusters of the really tall giants, but they are spread at least 100+ meters apart. Most all species of really tall trees here wind up with broken tops, and that is in fact an indicator of old owth threes. Doug firs, Hemlocks, and redwoods commonly have broken tops from wind damage, lightning strikes, nesting damage, or human damage.

There seems to be some mix of stand and wolf growth that makes for the tallest of trees. Redwoods sucker like mad, so you never see a wolf redwood tree. They are always in groves. The really big ones seem to have clusters of several size trees around them, and they are either grafted or in fact a single tree with clones growing in a cluster. If the main tree dies, a ring of new trees fills in and regrows, and some fall and die and some become massive giants, in pairs or triples or higher numbers. Dougs do not do that. They do not sucker, but they commonly grow in stands. We have a few here on this property that are part of a larger stand about a mile long and a half mile wide. They have grown as a much more open and isolated stand though, so the trees on the edges are stronger and they do not fall in the wind storms. These trees were not planted by any lumber companies, and they were not planted at the same time, so they are more natural in effect. They have the capacity to become true giants, at least some of them do anyway. Others will become disasters for homeowners when they fall over.

arborjockey

Well written What is your recomendation on sepertion between doug fir stands? I heard 15-16'. and your thoughts on tip pruning branchs and crown tip restoration of firs? some of the fir tops as you know tend to not have a dominat top causing the top of the tree not be perfectly strait. Do you reduce it so the tree rejuvenates a strait top for the long run. The tip pruning is in reguard to overextened branchs where raking the bottoms wont releive enough weight

Eric Frei

Whenever there is drought etc the tops of the trees die back too.... furthest from the water canteen I'd suspect and the lower branches get a drink first.

Also lightning, will likely hit taller trees first.

Weather, wind etc, taller tree tops first.

But the thing is the correlation of leaf size to height may not be water related as indicated in the koch PDF.

We all know to get better and larger fruit we thin the fruit, too much fruit can make for smaller fruit.

I do not think they tried thinning the foliage, what if 50% of the foliage was thinned, would the remaining foliage then get larger as it now has access to double the amount of water? what if more is at play here, what if the tree as a whole regulates the foliage size to optimize the entire tree systems dynamics from photosynthesis through to environmental failure like wouldn't larger leaves up higher tend to make for more branch breakages?

I aint sold yet as you can see, could also be that tree height is regulated by genes, splice some big ass bamboo genes into that redwood see what happens. What about vines, what is the longest or tallest vine? Can we train a vine up Empire State Building?

__________________

Lee Pelley

#7
Separation between TREES on douglas fir is 10 feet to start with, followed by a "pre-commercial thinning", so that the final stand of trees wind up 20 feet apart. <<<This is in the Pacific North West.
Space between STANDS of doug. firs here is based on fire concerns. I would choose between sixteen and twenty feet for access as well as keeping the trees far enough apart for water considerations, best growth, etcetera.
In the east, where I haven't been for some decades, thinning is based on this formula: both trees are measured in inches. Then diameters are added together and divided by two. Then one adds six to that formula and converts all numbers to feet (from inches).
So if you have a six inch tree near a twelve inch tree, the space between the two should be fifteen feet. (Frankly, I don't recall the planting formula, but I'd stake a nickel on it being similar.)
NOTE: the amount of water is NOT a factor east of here, as it rains frequently there.
Tree elevation is a factor in keeping tops well-watered. Removal of lower branches assures that water (etcetera) is not "wasted" on non-food-producing branches lower down.
If you wish to increase the number of branches on a tree, for whatever reason, you snip the new growth on the tips of the lower branches.
SYLVAN LEEF Inc.

Lee Pelley

#8
Getting rid of low branches is likely the best idea for keeping treetops alive. Elevation of tree branches keeps fire hazard down and makes a much cleaner log. (As you say, it's like thinning the fruit.)
There is a man (Mark Havel) who lives around Cottage Grove, Oregon, who invented a tree-climbing bicycle to simplify tree elevation. It sounds ridiculous, but works extremely well. (A person doesn't even have to be very physically fit to operate the thing.)
The rule of thumb here (in the PNW) is to leave the tree with a thirty percent top to keep it alive and healthy. At our place, spacing being what it is, we leave all trees with a fifty percent top. I'd like to think we get better growth because of that, but I've not bothered to check.
Either way, the foliage above does NOT get thicker. What tends to happen is that the tree climbs higher, putting out new branches to replace the loss. (A win-win situation.)
Many of your questions seem theoretical, but I'd put money on the tree responding (in growth) more to highly localized conditions, rather than genes.
I've no idea what the longest or tallest vine is, but think you could indeed get one to climb the Empire State Building, IF you kept it fed well enough on the bottom and gave it supports all the way up. SYLVAN LEEF Inc.

Eric Frei

I am trying to ascertain whether foliage size would change, not foliage density. The paper by Koch suggests trees are limited in height by their ability to pull water, and that foliage higher up gets smaller in size due to water related issues. On the other hand we have a paper that says different. With the Acers both the larger leaf and the smaller leaf was at the same height in the canopy so factors other than water influence foliage size.

__________________

windthrown

I have the optimum tree spacing charts in my silviculture notes which are in storage. No available to me here. There is a spacing scale as to stand height, species and thinning/spacing required. Basically the older they are, the more space they need. Also George Fenn (tree guru in Elkton, OR) has been doing tests planting trees closer (like 5 feet apart), and there is evidence that the trees sence other trees and grow even faster when they are younger. You need more thinning that way though. He also does tissue tests for needed nutrients and fertilizers, and he plants multiple species in stands rather than monoculture to get better results. He has been brining redwoods back to Oregon as well. He also plants according to site characteristics, like planting redwoods with red cedars in soggy areas where Doug firs do not do well. His results were impressive, and he was getting top quality north slope growth results from Doug firs planted in south and level slope conditions. He showed me the comparison of his property trees on his 400 acres on the perimiter planted next to commercial (Roseburg Lumber) trees planted and forgotten. His trees were 3 feet taller and a year younger (they were about 5 feet tall).

Broken tops and central leaders are an interesting topic in stands. Driving around I see a lot of bent top and broken top trees around here, especially in the burbs and by the highways. I would say between 1/3 and 1/2, actually. These are road stands and freeway stands though, and not maintained from what I can see. I see a lot fo stagnant stands along I-5. As for low taper and pushing the crowns up so that happens for the best value lumber, there are several techniques involved. Mainly it is done by thinning and spacing. Pushing the crowns up will naturally cause the lower branches to fall off and less knots to form. The opposite effect of a wolf tree, where the taper is high and the lower branches just get wider.

I was trained by our property forester on the better ways to thin, and how to get better trees from a stand. The most effective way to do that is when you thin. There may be a taller tree that has lost its leader next to a smaller tree that you would typically thin, but the taller tree would be thinned in that case. It also depends on the depth of the leader, and the defect that would be casued. You want to cruise your leaders every year and look at growth. Dougs in particular put up a single lead every year, and you can see the growth in a single year that way. More reain generally means more growth. If you have twin leaders forming on a tree that you want to keep, then cut one off. Forked trees are culls, along with pistol butts and diseased trees. If you thin more often you can get better results in the end.

There are some nice stands out in Banks that I know of, and they are virtually taper free. Great Dougs, high crowns, 28-32 in DBH. But the price has been so low that they have only been falling them for firewood (trees are worth more in Portland for firewood than at the mill lately). There is also a point in which a stand will decline in growth, no matter what you do. My argument with the tree huggers is that at some point the old growth stands go into decline, and into decay. Cutting and replanting would put more boimass on the same amount of land. Also in the state of Oregon, the planted tree areas are getting wider and into areas that Dougs do not do so well. People would do better to plant species suited to those areas. Or plant as George Fenn does, plant multiple species, and use site variation to decide what trees to plant within a specific area.

windthrown

One other factor that is an issue in Oregon with Doug firs is seedling selection. They found after the Tillimook fires that Doug firs sourced from other areas did poorly when planted. Many of these mistake trees are being cut and thinned now, and you can see how bad they are doing. As a result you buy Doug fir trees here by area and elevation for replanting. Again my maps are in storage, but there are a lot of tree zones (30-50 or so in Oregon as I recall). If you plant the wrong seedlings, you will never get the tall low taper trees.

Limbing is not practical on a large scale. We did limited fire limbing to get the limbs above 12 feet or so, especially on grand (piss) firs. It is not commercially viable to limb on large scale though, and especially in areas like the Coast Range that have really steep slopes. I never have seen limbing done widely on a commercial scale. On a limited scale, yes. Generally trees here are re-planted within a year of falling (by law in this state). Then they are left, typically until they become a stagnant stand (far too often). At some point they are thinned, and the cull logs hauled out and sent to the saw or paper mills, or pole/post yards. Sometimes they are left to rot (mainly because of taxes). I have seen some huge areas thinned properly, and as many left to stagnate. 99% of stands are monoculture here, and most are Doug firs. The money trees. Many times alders, maples and madrones will self-sow and be cut with the stands, along with grand firs and cedars. The maples and madrones are left as cull logs. I scavanged many slash piles for them for firewood. Alder and cedar command a premium and they are taken if there are enough of them.

windthrown

I will have to compare leaves from the tops of trees to the bottoms, and needles on the conifers of the tall ones that are felled. I never compared them before. I have noticed differences in tree leaves due to altitude. They also say there are differences in leaves depending on CO2 consentrations. Generally at times when there is more CO2 in the air there are fewer stoma (openings) on plant leaves.

Eric Frei

But we already know from the Koch paper there's a difference in size, what we dont know (if we remove the water issue) is why?

__________________

windthrown

Well, if it is accurate science, it can be retested and proven again by observation. One would think that larger leaves in top would block photosynthesis below. But there may be some other limiting factor or factors, such as gravity.

arborjockey

And what about in the urban enviroment. My mentour tends to lean toward always leaving the bottom branchs in tact due to evaperation. Firs like moist conditions but not soggy feet. Tough to need both. You PNW boys head down t your local barnes n Noble and pick up "trees of the N.W." Its a semi new release, all gold book and a good read. Their is a descent section on firs.

windthrown

Urban environment? I avoid that. Portland has so many regs on trees I do not know what you can do with them there any more. Same with Oswego and Tualatin. "Tree Cities." In those towns trees seem to have the same rights as the illegal Mexicans; once they are here, you cannot cut them down if they are over 5 feet tall without a city permit, arborist report, and neighborhood street signage and notices. The only species specifically exempted is Laurel. Street trees cannot be pruned w/o a permit either. Out here in the county? Heck, I would deck these redwoods we have and make about 10 grand off of the timber. No permit required. I advised the owner here to drop one 140 foot Doug in back because it is leaning. It could take out a neighbor's house. He shrugged it off. It is over 200 feet from the house here, so I shrugged it off too.

Fact is that some of the groves out here and in the burbs and in Portland are getting pretty tall. Like between 140 and 160 feet tall. It has been almost 50 years now after the Columbus Day Storm completely flattened this area. One has to wonder what effects pavement, lawns and house foundations and the like have on the root systems of grafted root fir stands. I used my Woodsman stick to measure the taller trees in back here today, and they are between 130 and 140 feet tall. My stick only goes up to 140 feet. I guessed before that they were 120. The redwoods are 120 feet tall, with multiple trunks from where they were topped about 50 years ago. Maybe the Columbus storm took them out then? One trunk fell on this house about 5 years ago and wreaked the roof on half the house. Having the two tallest species of trees on this lot is a hazard in my view. But it is not my house...

These are 125-140 foot tall Dougs in the background in our back yard here:

They can easilly get twice as tall as this. This stand is about a mile long and a quarter mile wide. The pollarded trees to the right are apples, and about 15 feet high. The white trees in the center are wild cherry, and they are about 60 feet tall.

arborjockey

My boss lives in Tiguard (where my dads family had a farm for years) He recently tore out his driveway to save his big fir in the front yard. 160' Dozer Big butted tree. Most people wont put in the sacrifice he does for his persoonel trees. You know what we do in burbs. Yeah you cant legally remove the tree but you can thin it out. 25% living tissue hey maybe 30
YEAH RIGHT! PEOPLES LIVES ARE INVOLVED WE PRUNE THE TREE DOWN IN 1/2 AND IF THATS NOT ENOUGH 10' FOOT OFF THE GROUND. Bring on your consulting city arborist and we will find 10 specialist that will overide his OPINION. My boss has pictures of trees in Japan that had been topped 100 years ago and are still growing beautiful. Everybody wants to save a tree tell it falls through there house. Theres a new enviromental study that came out that said that large trees over 50 years old, pass there aggresive growing years, in actuality are harder on the enviromet standing then removed. They produce hardly any oxygen and when they fall and rot they produce????crap methane i assume. it was a short acticle in a loud office. What the point was is to cut em down and replant young trees that reduce carbon D. and crank out oxygen. Im not here to just cut down the big ones for glory but the old saying. "Right tree wrong spot." Maybe the librals will let us do some much needed big take downs WAHOO.