Identifying Scarlet Oak (Quercus coccinea)

[OneWithWood]

Careful, DanG, we don;t want these very informative threads to cease because he is working on his book  ;)

Be patient.  As soon as WDH has completed all the threads for trees he is knowledgable about you can print them off and have one of the best tree id tomes around.  Better yet, get a handheld device and download each thread into it.  That would be a great companion device to take for a walk in the woods  8)

Of course WDH could make a fair amount of coinage by doing the same thing himself.  I would buy one 

[Dodgy Loner]

Hey WDH, excellent and informative thread.  When you get around to writing your book, there's one more thing I've noticed about scarlet oaks that you might want to include.  Since scarlet oaks and northern red oaks often grow on the same site and have bark with silvery, vertical streaks, they are often difficult to separate (especially in the winter).  I've noticed that the streaks of the scarlet oak almost always stop 6-10 feet above the ground; below that the bark is dark and blocky.  The streaks of a northern red oak go almost all the way to the ground (within 1-2 feet).  It's not set in stone, but it works 49 out of 50 times.

[WDH]

Forestry Forum Lesson #1, Dodgy Loner  :

These poor folks (most cannot read, especially the ones from up North) really like pics :D.  It would be a real treat if you could post a couple of pics that illustrate the bark characteristics that you referenced in your post.  There is a good tutorial on how to create a gallery and post pics.  I already know that you will be posting a lot of pics in the future since you are such an invertebrate dendrologist  8).  After my first failed attempt at posting a pic, SwampDonkey assisted me to get the pic posted (these admin types have some value :), he sternly reminded me, "You are going to have to learn how to do this yourself".  And I did (still screw up once and a while though...........).

One more thing.  I am northern red oak challenged down here (not many really typical specimens down this far south), and these people are absolutely nuts about northern red oak.  For some reason they think it is the cat's meow of red oaks ;).  Well, anyway, if you can round up some really typical specimens, get some representative pics of the bark, leaves, and acorns (if you can find any), and initiate a post on identifying northern red oak consistent with the flavor of the previous oak posts, that will keep this poor soul from having to take a northern red oak road trip in a northerly direction.  If I did that, there is a good chance that all the other trees would distract me so that I would not accomplish my mission ;D.

[Dodgy Loner]

Looks like I'll finally have to upload my digital camera software on the computer in my office, seeing as how I don't get internet at my house (apparently they don't run cables as far out as I live).  I should be able to join the rest of society by next week  :D

[Phorester]

Regarding the leaf photos in the ID books not showing several different shapes that occur in a species, you can get around this somewhat by coming at this problem from a different direction:  take several leaves from the tree and compare them to the one ID book photo. 

I always tell people to get several leaves from a tree instead of just one.  That way you have the different leaf shapes to compare.  They're just in your hand instead of in the book.

[Lanier_Lurker]

Hey WDH, excellent and informative thread.  When you get around to writing your book, there's one more thing I've noticed about scarlet oaks that you might want to include.  Since scarlet oaks and northern red oaks often grow on the same site and have bark with silvery, vertical streaks, they are often difficult to separate (especially in the winter).  I've noticed that the streaks of the scarlet oak almost always stop 6-10 feet above the ground; below that the bark is dark and blocky.  The streaks of a northern red oak go almost all the way to the ground (within 1-2 feet).  It's not set in stone, but it works 49 out of 50 times.

Forestry Forum Lesson #1, Dodgy Loner  :

These poor folks (most cannot read, especially the ones from up North) really like pics :D.  It would be a real treat if you could post a couple of pics that illustrate the bark characteristics that you referenced in your post.  There is a good tutorial on how to create a gallery and post pics.  I already know that you will be posting a lot of pics in the future since you are such an invertebrate dendrologist  8).  After my first failed attempt at posting a pic, SwampDonkey assisted me to get the pic posted (these admin types have some value :), he sternly reminded me, "You are going to have to learn how to do this yourself".  And I did (still screw up once and a while though...........).

One more thing.  I am northern red oak challenged down here (not many really typical specimens down this far south), and these people are absolutely nuts about northern red oak.  For some reason they think it is the cat's meow of red oaks ;).  Well, anyway, if you can round up some really typical specimens, get some representative pics of the bark, leaves, and acorns (if you can find any), and initiate a post on identifying northern red oak consistent with the flavor of the previous oak posts, that will keep this poor soul from having to take a northern red oak road trip in a northerly direction.  If I did that, there is a good chance that all the other trees would distract me so that I would not accomplish my mission ;D.

WDH, I think these two photos may illustrate DL's observations.



This first photo is of one of my many northern red oaks. 





The second photo is of my pair of scarlet oaks discussed in another thread in this forum (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=25020.0).  If you look at this other post you will see photos of the upper bark on these two scarlet oaks, which has much more distinct streaks than does this lower bark.

[WDH]

Excellent pics, Lanier_Lurker!  They illustrate Dodgy Loner's point very well.  Another thing that I go on in separating scarlet from northern red is the width of the streaks and the contrast between the streaks and the bark in between the streaks.

The streaks are wider in northern red oak.  I have seen them 3" or wider, although they are not that wide on average.  Also, the color of the bark between the streaks is blacker or darker, creating a visually striking pattern that is evident from quite some distance away. That darker color is evident in you pic.

The streaks in scarlet are narrower and the contrast between the streaks and the bark in between is less conspicuous.  The between-streak bark is usually not black.  Your pics on your post on scarlet illustrate this well.

Now, I have another thing to look at thanks to Mr. Dodgy Loner.  The streaks occur lower down on the bole in northern red. 

With these three characteristics, and even without leaves or acorns (which are different enough to make a positive ID), you should be able to reliably separate the two species on the bark alone.

[scgargoyle]

Well, I've been trying to upload a picture of one of my trees to my gallery for 2 hours now... I give up! It's be faster if I just dig up the DanG tree and haul it to you guys! My various photo software programs won't reduce it w/o the whole picture being like 1/2" square, so I e-mailed it to my son's 'puter (in the next room) and he scaled it down to 28K, but it stills says too many pixels. Aaaarrrgggh! I don't know how you guys do it...

[beenthere]

Really easy.....ONCE ya do it following the Help plan.   
Change the pixel size FIRST....reduce the file size after that.

What are your various software programs available to you?
We'd like to help. It's a "right-of-passage" so to speak for forum members. 

[scgargoyle]

OK- How do I reduce the pixel size? I have PhotoStudio 5. I'm not sure what my son used- he was able to reduce the definition w/o shrinking the pic too much. Maybe we just need to make it smaller? What would be a suggested (pixel) size? 400? 300? I went through this once before w/ Furby coaching me, and managed to get one (crappy) pic into my gallery (that's why I haven't put any more in there). I can also reduce the size in --Photos MUST be in the Forestry Forum gallery!!!!!--, but their 'website' size is too big, and their 'thumbnail' size is too small. Really, I'll just go dig up the tree....

[scgargoyle]

Yeah! I got the pic into my gallery! Now- do you think this is a scarlet oak, or northern red? Shoulda taken the pic further down the trunk. This tree is 24" DBH, if that helps.

[beenthere]

I'll take a shot, from what I see in that great pic, at northern red oak.
beenthere

[WDH]

That is a good pic.  In fact, if you tilt your head 90 degrees down and to the left, you can see it real good ;D.

Beenthere, it might be northern red, it might be scarlet.  I am leaning toward scarlet because the silver streaks seem narrower than broader and contrast is not overly striking. 

Anybody else want to wade in?  Beenthere and I are already out-on-a-limb :D. 

A leaf would tell the rest of the story, but that would require another pic, and after that ordeal, Scgargoyle might really dig that tree up . 

[SwampDonkey]

Well  ;D I'm gonna say something with reasonable certainty here.  ;) That's a mighty fine looking oak tree. I'll let you guys hash over the details.  Was you lying down in a bed of oak leaves when you snapped the pic? :D  ;D

[Phorester]

Scarlet.

[Dodgy Loner]

I would guess scarlet oak, for the reasons WDH listed, but a shot of the lower portion of the trunk would be more helpful.  Those are some excellent pics that Lanier_Lurker posted!

[WDH]

Maybe we can convince Lanier_lurker to be Scgargoyle's picture posting mentor since I bet he has a bunch more pics of trees he wants to post :D.

[OneWithWood]

I am going with scarlet due to the lesser contrast between streaks and bark and the fact that most of the scarlet I have seen tends to have bumps and swells that my reds do not have. 
The scarlet is the only one of the two to grow horizontaly like that one in the pic  :D

[Dodgy Loner]

OneWithWood is right, all the northern reds I've seen grow straight up! :D

[WDH]

OWW,

Now that is funny :D.  Gives a whole new twist on phototrophism :.

[scgargoyle]

That's the only good shot I have of that tree. I was standing, so you're probably seeing from maybe 10' and up. From the leaf pics, I was prepared to call it scarlet, but I'll have to wait for NRO leaf pics to be sure. And with at least 5 varieties of oak on my land, there's no guaranteeing which leaves go with which trees. They seem to be mostly on the top of an 1100' knoll, with other species further down the hill, if that helps. Hopefully, when I go back up there in July, I'll be able to gather more data. It's hard to know what to pay attention to when ya don't know nothin'!

[WDH]

SC,

I am willing to bet that you have more than 5 oak species.  On my property I have:

Southern red oak
Water oak
Black oak
Willow oak
Scarlet oak
White oak
Scarlet oak
Blackjack oak
Durand oak (not rare, but not common either)
Post oak
Cherrybark oak
Northern red oak (a small one)

[Dodgy Loner]

We've got 20 acres and I've only found 6 oaks on it:  water, willow, southern red, cherrybark, white and post oaks.  If we had a little more elevational change, I'd expect to see a couple more.  At our previous home in south Georgia (24 acres), we had water, laurel, running, dwarf, bluejack, blackjack, turkey, southern red, cherrybark, and sand post oak, not to mention a slew of interesting hybrids.