Author Topic: Trees from Cindy's woods #s 10 and 11 (Read 1489 times)

GW · « **on:** July 28, 2007, 11:48:20 pm »

These two trees are located just at the edge of the section that will be cleared for the pond's emergency spillway. I'd like some opinions about whether these trees are interesting enough to save or if it makes more sense to have them cleared with the rest. You might be able to see that a branch from one tree has become fused to the trunk of the other. They would end up being on the edge of the road that will be on top of the dam.

#10:

#11 (with low branch)

Growing under #11, these leaves look the same as 11:

Both:

WDH · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2007, 11:57:58 pm »

GW, the first tree is american beech, Fagus grandifolia. The second is laurel oak, Quercus laurifolia. Both are rather small for their species and are very common. I would say whether you keep them is a question of practicality as they are both young specimens probably about 20 - 25 years old.

Lanier_Lurker · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2007, 07:57:51 am »

Yep, no doubt about the first tree. American beech is difficult to confuse with anything else. WDH, are you sure of your age estimate for the beech? In the first picture you can estimate the diameter to be about 12" (or perhaps more). I thought beech was very slow growing.

As for the oak, the leaves sure look like willow oak to me. Is there some bark characteristic (that a non-forester would not notice

) that caused you to label it laurel oak?

Texas Ranger · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2007, 09:16:09 am »

Almost go with water oak, with the seedling leaf lobes.

Lanier_Lurker · « **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2007, 01:42:37 pm »

Normally I would agree about water oak as the seedlings sometimes have narrow leaves that have not taken on the spatula shape. But that bark does not look like water oak at all. It is too rough.

In fact, the bark does not look much like willow oak either. WDH probably has it nailed correctly.

Lanier_Lurker · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2007, 01:48:39 pm »

Actually, those seedlings may well be a different oak.

GW · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2007, 01:55:20 pm »

LL, if it helps you can see a small branch from that tree in the 2nd photo. It was the only branch within camera range.

WDH · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2007, 05:50:22 pm »

I ignored the seedling photo. Who can say the seedlings are the same tree as the one in the pic? I thought willow oak, but the leaves on the branch on the trunk look a little too fat to be willow oak. Laurel oak will look like willow oak in most respects except the leaves are fatter, not as long and slender, and seem more shiny on top. Also, the petioles will be yellow.

It might be willow oak with fatter willow oak leaves or it might be laurel oak. I think it is one or the other, but I get more laurel oak vibes than willow oak vibes

.

GW · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2007, 06:24:49 pm »

It's just like me to give too much information...

What I'm really curious about is that it appears that the branch from the one tree is fused to the trunk of the other. Has anyone seen that happen with different species?

WDH · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2007, 07:02:22 pm »

Yes, I have seen it before. It is not rare, nor is it common. It is definitely unique.

GW · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2007, 07:05:49 pm »

Thanks WDH, I'll have to nudge the line a foot or two, but I'm going to tag these trees as keepers.

DanG · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2007, 09:37:16 pm »

Easier to keep'em than to put'em back.

Lanier_Lurker · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2007, 08:35:35 am »

The silver streaks and moderately deep furrowing on the bark have me (an amateur for sure) stumped. That looks more like oak bark on upland species found in the middle and upper piedmont like Scarlet or Northern Red oak.

I gotta go with the forester (WDH) on this one. Laurel oak it must be. I'm not sure if I have ever seen a Laurel oak in the wild.

I also agree with TR that those seedlings are most likely Water oak. You can see small lobes on a few of the leaves. The SWGA area is loaded with Water oaks, and if you are in a lower area that is suitable for a pond you quite likely have some.

GW · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2007, 08:54:33 am »

I've just been at several websites comparing Laurel and Willow Oaks. I think I'll just give up for now.

You're right about Water Oaks, we have hundreds of them on the property. They're now the one tree that I can identify pretty regularly just by glancing at the trunk .

DanG · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2007, 10:15:15 am »

There are only 2 kinds of oaks on my place, Laurel and Water oak. From my observations the Water oak seedling's leaves tend to have exaggerated lobes, to the point that they almost look like Red oak. The Laurel oak seedlings have leaves just like the ones in the pic.

WDH · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2007, 11:34:49 am »

Lets get GW to climb the laurel/willow/water oak to get some additional leaves to ponder

.

GW · « **Reply #16 on:** July 30, 2007, 11:38:51 am »

OneWithWood is abusing caffeine today, maybe he'll stop by and fly up there to have a look.

OneWithWood · « **Reply #17 on:** July 30, 2007, 11:42:28 am »

GW · « **Reply #18 on:** July 30, 2007, 11:44:30 am »

OneWithWood! STEP AWAY FROM THE COFFEE POT!

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #19 on:** July 30, 2007, 12:18:39 pm »

I think WDH nailed the oak with the first shot. That dark glossy green color is indicative of an evergreen (which laurel oak is), and the yellow midrib is typical of laurel oak. Laurel oak leaves are generally widest above the middle, while willow oak leaves are widest at or below the middle. I also think that the seedlings are laurel oak, for precisely the same reasons that DanG mentioned.

DanG · « **Reply #20 on:** August 01, 2007, 11:37:28 pm »

Well, this all seemed to be pretty much settled, but I was looking at a little oak sapling and found these leaves. I'm pretty sure this is a little Water oak, but none of the leaves seem typical. It is a young one, and is growing in the shade.

We have these Laurel oakish leaves that are about 5 or 6 inches long. They look a bit like the leaves on the seedling in the original post.

Up at the tip-top of the little tree are these Red oakish leaves that just sprouted out. Notice the Water oakish leaves at the bottom of the pic with the exaggerated lobes.

Now the next pic is of some leaves that just sprouted on a definite Water oak, along with "normal" looking Water oak leaves. These sprouts look just like the ones in the first pic, to me.

The last one was from a larger, more mature tree.

WDH · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2007, 12:07:03 am »

DanG, I think that you have it properly corralled

.

Water oak is a master chameleon, but it aint foolin' DanG

.

WDH · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2007, 12:09:24 am »

BTW, DanG,

You had better quit all this foolin' around and brush up on your scientific names............it is over a thousand miles to Harrison

.

DanG · « **Reply #23 on:** August 02, 2007, 10:02:20 am »

I got a feeling I'm about to get brushed up.

Is "oakish" not a scientific term?

WDH · « **Reply #24 on:** August 02, 2007, 10:24:03 am »

By the time you get there, you will be all hirsuite and subtended. Your trichomes will be standing on end and you might be a little scabrous

.

DanG · « **Reply #25 on:** August 02, 2007, 12:30:20 pm »

I may get brushed up, but don't forget that DL is about to be old-farted on.

Dodgy Loner · « **Reply #26 on:** August 02, 2007, 01:19:58 pm »

Old-farted on? I'm starting to have second thoughts about this driving arrangement

Furby · « **Reply #27 on:** August 02, 2007, 08:32:00 pm »

So are old farts better then new farts

WDH · « **Reply #28 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:01:39 pm »

This is quite a pair, Furby

. Some old and some new

.

News:

Author Topic: Trees from Cindy's woods #s 10 and 11 (Read 1489 times)