Talk:List of largest giant sequoias: Difference between revisions
AfterSeven (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
I'd like to see a citation for the "widest" tree. I question whether it is a baobab; it may be the Montezuma cypress in Monterey, Mexico.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
I'd like to see a citation for the "widest" tree. I question whether it is a baobab; it may be the Montezuma cypress in Monterey, Mexico.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Removing the Lost Monarch from the Discussion and revising the volume of the General Sherman == |
|||
1. The Lost Monarch is a not a Giant Sequoia it's a Coast Redwood and is irrelevant to the topic. |
|||
2. The Lost Monarch is a two stemmed tree and the measurement cited here at 42,500 cu/ft includes 6,000+ cu/ft of material from Stem #2. |
|||
3. Dr. Robert Van Pelt places the Lost Monarch, when measuring a single stem at 34,914 cu/ft which puts it 24th, not 7th, on this list if it were a Giant Sequoia. |
|||
4. The 2nd largest Coast Redwood "Melkor" has the same problem. It's measurements include a 2nd Stem. |
|||
5. The largest Single Stemmed Coast Redwood comes in at somewhere in the neighborhood of 36,800 cu/ft. which would place that tree at approximately 16th on this list, if it were a sequoia, which it is not. |
|||
Lastly, |
|||
Behold the following comment by Dr. Robert Van Pelt author of "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" as he was addressing the issue of tree species and volume comparisons on a thread at nativetreesociety dot org |
|||
"For single stemmed trees the Sequoias have no peer. These are the trees I know of over 10 K cubic feet |
|||
Sequoiadendron 55,040 |
|||
Sequoia 36,890 |
|||
Agathis 18,250 |
|||
Thuja 17,650 |
|||
Eucalyptus 13,300 |
|||
Pseudotsuga 12,320 |
|||
Picea 11,920 |
|||
Taxodium ~10K |
|||
Adansonia ~10K |
|||
I do not think any others would make this list. |
|||
In terms of living biomass, remember that a tree like the General Sherman is 99 percent dead. Only the cambium, a very small amount of phloem and xylem, the leaves and fine roots are actually alive. |
|||
The Populus tremuloides (and P. tremula in Asia) clones are famous, but most people forget that Sequoia is often clonal - a grove of 7 or 8 giants would have more mass than the 47,000 stems of Utah's 'Pando' clone. Other, less well studied clones could be just as extensive (and ancient). Where I live there is evidence that certain clones of Acer circinatum or Rhododendron macrophyllum are 4-6,000 years old. These clones could now consist of enough stems to warrent inclusion in this list. |
|||
In terms of actual living mass, the mycelium of the Armelaria gallica that covers 15 hectares in Upper Michigan will probably beat any of the 'tree' contenders. |
|||
How unromantic." |
|||
As you can see above, Dr. Van Pelt uses the measurement of 55,040 cu/ft for the General Sherman Tree. It is the same figure cited in his book "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" in which he measures the top 10 trees of all the major Pacific Coast Trees. This is the most up to date consumer book on Tree Volumes in existence. To my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed materials that contradict his measurements. He used a Criterion RD-1000 Laser to measure the volume of the General Sherman, and the other top 10 Giant Sequoia's in which his volumes differ substantially from the pin & transit measurements of prior decades primarily conducted by Flint and Law. Because the Criterion RD-1000 can measure dozens if not hundreds of diameter measurements from various angles even while the laser is impeded by vegetation...the data collected is far more comprehensive than that collected by a transit which is slow and tedious and requires line of sight measurements. Thus the most current accurate measurement of the General Sherman is 55,040. If it has not been revised, or commented upon in the next few weeks, I will make the revisions myself for the top 10 trees. [[User:AfterSeven|AfterSeven]] ([[User talk:AfterSeven|talk]]) 09:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:28, 30 April 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of largest giant sequoias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
1 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from List of largest giant sequoias appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 August 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Methuselah Tree
There's one obvious discrepancy I can find between this list and the one at Sequoiadendron. Here, Methuselah Tree is listed as the 28th largest, whereas in the main article it's at #16. Any ideas? mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did not use the Sequoiadendron article as a source for this article. I have seen Methuselah listed as the 24th largest tree on one list from 1996. It is ranked as the 27th largest tree on another list (date unknown). It is ranked as the 30th largest tree on yet another list from 1998. It is ranked as the 28th largest tree in Wendell Flint's authoritative book To Find the Biggest Tree from 2002, as well as on the National Park Service's list from the same year. I have yet to see any credible list that ranks it any higher than 24th, but I will keep searching for the most up-to-date and credible sources to ensure the accuracy of the data presented. Thanks for your help! DiverDave (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Widest tree?
I'd like to see a citation for the "widest" tree. I question whether it is a baobab; it may be the Montezuma cypress in Monterey, Mexico.Ryoung122 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Removing the Lost Monarch from the Discussion and revising the volume of the General Sherman
1. The Lost Monarch is a not a Giant Sequoia it's a Coast Redwood and is irrelevant to the topic. 2. The Lost Monarch is a two stemmed tree and the measurement cited here at 42,500 cu/ft includes 6,000+ cu/ft of material from Stem #2. 3. Dr. Robert Van Pelt places the Lost Monarch, when measuring a single stem at 34,914 cu/ft which puts it 24th, not 7th, on this list if it were a Giant Sequoia. 4. The 2nd largest Coast Redwood "Melkor" has the same problem. It's measurements include a 2nd Stem. 5. The largest Single Stemmed Coast Redwood comes in at somewhere in the neighborhood of 36,800 cu/ft. which would place that tree at approximately 16th on this list, if it were a sequoia, which it is not.
Lastly, Behold the following comment by Dr. Robert Van Pelt author of "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" as he was addressing the issue of tree species and volume comparisons on a thread at nativetreesociety dot org
"For single stemmed trees the Sequoias have no peer. These are the trees I know of over 10 K cubic feet
Sequoiadendron 55,040 Sequoia 36,890 Agathis 18,250 Thuja 17,650 Eucalyptus 13,300 Pseudotsuga 12,320 Picea 11,920 Taxodium ~10K Adansonia ~10K
I do not think any others would make this list.
In terms of living biomass, remember that a tree like the General Sherman is 99 percent dead. Only the cambium, a very small amount of phloem and xylem, the leaves and fine roots are actually alive.
The Populus tremuloides (and P. tremula in Asia) clones are famous, but most people forget that Sequoia is often clonal - a grove of 7 or 8 giants would have more mass than the 47,000 stems of Utah's 'Pando' clone. Other, less well studied clones could be just as extensive (and ancient). Where I live there is evidence that certain clones of Acer circinatum or Rhododendron macrophyllum are 4-6,000 years old. These clones could now consist of enough stems to warrent inclusion in this list.
In terms of actual living mass, the mycelium of the Armelaria gallica that covers 15 hectares in Upper Michigan will probably beat any of the 'tree' contenders.
How unromantic."
As you can see above, Dr. Van Pelt uses the measurement of 55,040 cu/ft for the General Sherman Tree. It is the same figure cited in his book "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" in which he measures the top 10 trees of all the major Pacific Coast Trees. This is the most up to date consumer book on Tree Volumes in existence. To my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed materials that contradict his measurements. He used a Criterion RD-1000 Laser to measure the volume of the General Sherman, and the other top 10 Giant Sequoia's in which his volumes differ substantially from the pin & transit measurements of prior decades primarily conducted by Flint and Law. Because the Criterion RD-1000 can measure dozens if not hundreds of diameter measurements from various angles even while the laser is impeded by vegetation...the data collected is far more comprehensive than that collected by a transit which is slow and tedious and requires line of sight measurements. Thus the most current accurate measurement of the General Sherman is 55,040. If it has not been revised, or commented upon in the next few weeks, I will make the revisions myself for the top 10 trees. AfterSeven (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- List-Class California articles
- Mid-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- List-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- List-Class Forestry articles
- High-importance Forestry articles
- List-Class plant articles
- High-importance plant articles
- WikiProject Plants articles
- List-Class Protected areas articles
- High-importance Protected areas articles
- Articles of WikiProject Protected areas
- Wikipedia Did you know articles