Author Topic: Tallest tree in the world (Read 3556 times)

mike_van · « **on:** September 30, 2006, 07:08:53 am »

This was on Yahoo news this morning - "A redwood tree discovered in a remote California forest has turned out to be the world’s tallest tree, edging out one nearby that had been the titleholder. Prof. Steve Sillett of Humboldt State University said the record-setting tree, named Hyperion, was 379.1 feet tall, bettering the previous record holder, the 370.5-foot-tall Stratosphere Giant. Researchers exploring remote and rugged terrain this summer in the Redwood National and State Parks along California’s northernmost coast also discovered two other redwoods taller than the Stratosphere Giant, suggesting there had been many more massive ancient redwoods in the area, Professor Sillett said."

I can't even imagine a tree this size, someday i'm going to have to see one -

Daren · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2006, 08:14:03 am »

Quote from: mike_van on September 30, 2006, 07:08:53 am

I can't even imagine a tree this size, someday i'm going to have to see one -

That is one of the things on my to do list also.

sawguy21 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2006, 10:16:30 am »

I have seen the redwoods south of Eureka. Humbling to say the least.

Left Coast Chris · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:39:36 am »

We vacation there at least once a year. No mater how many times you see them they still are unbelievable. There are a couple hollowed out to drive your car through.

solodan · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2006, 12:46:32 pm »

They have actually recently found a few taller than the Stratosphere Giant.
One in particular is the Icarus, which has a dead top and is 371.2. Will they find one 400 feet?

The coastal redwoods are a must see, and so are their cousins the Giant Sequoia . Though not as tall as the coastal, but the Sequoias are larger, and they are also still growing rapidly. The only trees older than the Sequoias are the bristlecones, which are just on the other side of the Sierra from the Sequoias.

rebocardo · « **Reply #5 on:** September 30, 2006, 05:09:49 pm »

I bet climbing one of those makes you less concerned about material wealth by the time you get to the top and look out over everything on something older then many nations.

Ianab · « **Reply #6 on:** September 30, 2006, 05:39:52 pm »

They are the tallest LIVING tree, but they have some stiff competition.

The tallest RECORDED tree is 435ft, a Eucalyptus in Aussie. That tree had lost it's top before it was measured too

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/

I haven't seen the original redwood forests, but the young trees that are growing in NZ are pretty impressive already

Cheers

Ian

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:44:04 pm »

Even sitka spruce and coastal Douglas fir ('Oregon Pine' to Aussies

) are pretty impressive trees to. Measured lots of spruce over 220 feet tall, (15-20,000 bd ft trees

) compare that to our white pine in the east that top out around 125 feet or so. 325 foot Douglas Fir have been recorded and the legendary 385 foot one, beleived to be a lumberjacks tale.

Just spend a couple years measuring the heights of those spruce along river bottoms and let me know how your kneck feels.

Tillaway · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2006, 10:32:12 pm »

I had the fortune or misfortune of cruising old growth redwood. I had one on a cruise plot that was 320' to the break... it was broken at about 20" diameter. We had numerous douglas fir near 250' to 280' or so and even the record grand fir a 270'. I cruised an adjacent parcel of second growth redwood that was 80 years old and and about 240' to 260' height for the dominant trees. I would venture a guess and say 150 year old redwood would be the tallest since most shrink from breakage as they age.

low_48 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:37:34 pm »

When I was a farm boy in Central IL I couldn't even figure out were telephone poles came from. I had not seen a tree that was over 10' to the first branch. Not even down by the creek. Funny thing about those cottonwoods. Lots of reading latter I found out where they came from, but didn't see any till 1997. A trip to the College of the Redwoods in Fort Bragg, Ca. became a religious experiece for me. 200' coastal redwoods are such an experience. I took so many pictures that do nothing to describe these beautiful giants, but still bring back such great memories. Mother Nature...... ain't she somethin'.

solodan · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2006, 12:25:27 pm »

Quote from: low_48 on September 30, 2006, 11:37:34 pm

When I was a farm boy in Central IL I couldn't even figure out were telephone poles came from. I had not seen a tree that was over 10' to the first branch.

Funny thing was it was the exact opposite for me. I just assumed all conifers grew huge. I lived in California my whole life and I don't think I ever ventured outside of California till I was 21. That is when I realized how big some of the trees are here.

Tom · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2006, 01:02:53 pm »

Talking about being opposite

I grew up around pines in florida and big pines and cypress in Georgia. When I went to Minnihaha to visit Mom at my little brother's house, I drove from the 20th anniversary of Wood Mizer in Indianapolis, Ind. to Des Moine, Iowa and then North toward Rochester Minn.

There were two things that astounded me about that trip. One was, there is a Milledgeville, Indiana. I thought Milledgeville, Georgia was the only one. It was the capitol of Georgia during the Great Conflagration and I went to school there too. What a surprise to drive through one in Indiana.

The other thing was almost as startling. "My God!! They've got no trees", I thought as I drove through mile after mile after mile after mile.... of open corn fields.

Phorester · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2006, 01:22:53 pm »

So, Tom, what's the tallest corn stalk on record?

Just think, most of those tall trees will be even taller next year.

timberjack240 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2006, 03:06:44 pm »

see one... heck i wanna cut one

.......man wooood the splinters ever fly when it hit the ground

sawguy21 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2006, 03:12:25 pm »

From a cornstalk

Tom · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2006, 05:41:10 pm »

A dogged cornstalk has another completely different conotation to me than one put on a sawmill.

leweee · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2006, 10:32:22 am »

Corn is one of the tallist members of the grass family

Also produces the most tonnage/acre of any grain crop in North America.

Timburr · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2006, 06:37:20 pm »

Nay. I'm going to burst your corn bubble

Have you considered bamboo as a grass?

The Daddy of them all is dendrocalamus giganteus which grows an impressive 1 metre a day

reaching a possible terminal height of 39m (128' to you imperialists) in just 1 month.
They reckon SOME can even see it growing

Don P · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2006, 07:23:17 pm »

There was a piece on NPR some months ago about the theoretical limits of tree height. I think it had to do with how tall a water column could be without breaking surface tension

. I remember those trees were mighty close to as tall as they figured they could be.

rebocardo · « **Reply #19 on:** October 05, 2006, 09:29:26 pm »

I had a property where a bright person planted bamboo as a fence. Not only did it kill and over grow just about everything, I swear it did grow a foot a day until it reached about eight feet when it slowed down. Round up and other things did nothing to it. I would count it as one of the fastest growing grasses.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #20 on:** October 06, 2006, 05:49:21 am »

Some people have planted an invasive variety of bamboo around here to. It grows up to 8 feet in a summer and dies down in winter. You can't kill the stuff either. I had a tiny bit of it, one stalk, and I keep pulling and digging it and it keeps coming.

Don P · « **Reply #21 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:59:01 am »

I've tried in the past several times to remove bamboo from someone's property. Its about as easy as removing kudzu. We have a friend that wanted a bamboo privacy screen a few years ago. Several of us tried to dissuade her, some of us were rather pointed

. "Oh no, this is non invasive bamboo". This summer it escaped and I saw the backhoe up there installing steel sheet trying to contain it

.

Tom · « **Reply #22 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:18:27 am »

It sure makes a good fishing pole.

Ron

PineNut · « **Reply #23 on:** October 06, 2006, 08:20:18 pm »

I have had some success in controlling some of the smaller bamboo (10-15 ft high and 1 to 1.5 inches in diameter.) It is very labor intensive but I cut the bamboo off near the ground and then treat the cut ends with UNDILUTED week killer. I have used 2-4-D but would also consider using Roundup. You will probably have to repeat the process a few times.

Ed_K · « **Reply #24 on:** October 07, 2006, 09:57:56 am »

I use roundup mixed with diesel, 50/50 mix. I check once a week during late spring to middle summer. And paint it on the leaves when I see some coming up. After 2 summers its pretty well gone.

Dan_Shade · « **Reply #25 on:** October 07, 2006, 10:15:25 am »

you guys need pandas to control the bamboo!

farmerdoug · « **Reply #26 on:** January 02, 2007, 06:16:45 pm »

SD, I think what you are refering to in northern bamboo. We have it around the house also. It was planted before we moved here. It stays around the house because of the mower. I discovered that 2-4-D will knock it down but it seems to come back just as strong in a couple of years.

Farmerdoug

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #27 on:** January 02, 2007, 06:21:36 pm »

What has always amazed me about the tallest tree thing, is why isn't the tallest trees in the tropics where there are green house like conditions and no severe cold.

TexasTimbers · « **Reply #28 on:** January 02, 2007, 06:30:48 pm »

Genes. Redwoods have great genes.

Kcwoodbutcher · « **Reply #29 on:** January 02, 2007, 07:57:54 pm »

I believe most of the trees in the tropics are shallow rooted, basically because they don't need a deep root system to get water. This would hinder very tall growth as they may easily fall in a strong wind. I received the book "High Climbers and Timber Fallers" from Bailey's as a Christmas present. It's probably as close as I'll ever get to the real thing, but the size of those redwoods and what those guys do to get them down is incredible

Ianab · « **Reply #30 on:** January 02, 2007, 08:01:48 pm »

Quote

What has always amazed me about the tallest tree thing, is why isn't the tallest trees in the tropics where there are green house like conditions and no severe cold.

In the tropics EVERYTHING grows fast, incuding the termites and the fungus, so trees just dont live very long. The mild climates like Pacific NW, NZ, South Australia seems to let those big trees grow for hundreds of years and get some decent size on them. No extremes of hot, cold or dry to stress the trees etc.

Cheers

Ian

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #31 on:** January 02, 2007, 08:09:01 pm »

Concerning the reply about "Water Column", Where is the water pump located on these tall trees

It is a known fact that you can not use a pump to "Pull" water over 23' , elevation, from it's source. It takes a decent sized pump to "push" water over 150'. HOW does this water move

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #32 on:** January 02, 2007, 08:41:54 pm »

Sure, if you're pulling through a tube your 23' might be the limitation. However, on plants, you are moving from cell to cell. Process of osmosis going from that of a greater concentration to that of a lesser concentration. Those cells aren't 23' long, so the height you're lifting is more like lifting with a series of buckets instead of through a tube.

Kcwoodbutcher · « **Reply #33 on:** January 02, 2007, 10:57:53 pm »

I may me wrong but I think it's like 32 ft. At that height the vacuum at the head of the tube would boil the water. In the real world this limitation is always lower. This is why primitive plants such as ferns and horsetails cannot attain heights greater than this. The water in these plants is fed up the stem simply by capillary action. While osmosis plays an important role in the transport of water in large trees, active transport (think chemical reaction) allows these trees to transport the water and nutrients to the great heights of the large trees.

Ironwood · « **Reply #34 on:** January 02, 2007, 11:12:52 pm »

Been to Humbolt, the trees get moisture from the coastal fog that lingers high in there canopies. A MUST SEE is the flood footage of the 1964 flood that is in Sciotia the old PALCO lumber town. DON"T miss this if you are in the Eureka/ Humbolt area. Some of the camping areas allow you to camp right among the giants. We had a hollow trunk that the kids climbed into to play. The trunk was 10 feet or so high, and a perimeter "fence like" raised portion to keep to kiddies from falling out. It was really neat.

Reid

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #35 on:** January 03, 2007, 07:48:19 am »

I really do understand how the water moves in the plants.

Just making a point as how much and how fast, as evidenced in Sap runs, like Maples and other tappable trees.

Dat's a LOTTA water.

WDH · « **Reply #36 on:** January 03, 2007, 10:06:01 am »

Quote from: SwampDonkey on January 02, 2007, 06:21:36 pm

What has always amazed me about the tallest tree thing, is why isn't the tallest trees in the tropics where there are green house like conditions and no severe cold.

Intriguing question. I remember a wood tech professor asking the question, "Why are there no hardwoods at the timberline in high elevations?". It seems that the tracheids that make up the conifer wood and transport the water are closed at both ends with little valves called "bordered pits" between the cells. That way, if an embolism in one cell occurs (from freezing, etc), the bordered pits close off and isolate the cell with the embolism and protect the water column from breaking. The vascular elements in hardwoods that make up the water conducting cells have open ends, like sections of sewer pipe. If an embolism occurs in one cell, that cell cannot be isolated, and the entire water column breaks.

I suspect that is why most of the tallest trees are conifers and not hardwood. Think of the tension on the water column as a tree grows ever higher and higher. The probablility of the water column breaking, thereby limiting growth, would be greater in hardwood than conifer because of the type of cells that make up the water transporting xylem.

Probably wrong, but Swamp's question begs an answer.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #37 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:51:13 am »

FD, the water column going up is a lot bigger than that coming down as sap. Excess water is transpired through leaves and what ever is needed to transport food is sent down the pipes, just under the bark, toward the roots.

WDH, sounds like a good answer to me.

News:

Author Topic: Tallest tree in the world (Read 3556 times)