Black Willow Sizes?   Zachary Stewart
  Jun 09, 2007 21:16 PDT 

I recently read a post mentioning black willow ocasionally reaching
30' in girth, at least historically. Whoa! Does anyone have a photo
of a large black willow? In my part of Alabama, a black willow reach-
ing 40' is considered very large, and ones with a trunk much bigger
than a telephone pole are few and far between, from what I've seen.
I'd love to see a picture of a large willow, single trunk or other-

Re: Black Willow Sizes?
  Jun 10, 2007 06:23 PDT 

the Pa. big tree list has three black willows listed, but no pictures. their girths are 27.8', 27.3', and 26.9'   


RE: Mass DCR - Forest Service Adelgid research   Ray Weber
  Jun 10, 2007 07:44 PDT 

Im not sure if this is more of the same logic seen previously in Mass,
or some new wrinkle.

The managing forester in our area's control method is to harvest
as many of the hemlocks as possible, "while they still have some value".

This may be another experiment to try to maximize harvesting while
treating it. Fortunately, its in a remote area thats not used a lot.
It IS however, near some environmentally sensitive areas. Looks like
they have taken that into consideration on the map.

RE: Black Willow Sizes?   Zachary Stewart
  Jun 10, 2007 12:30 PDT 

Those are pretty large for such a brittle species! Changing the sub-
ject, does anyone know if HWA has reached Alabama, and if so, are
there any plans to control it?
- Zac
Re: Black Willow Sizes?   Beth Koebel
  Jun 10, 2007 13:21 PDT 


The national champion black willow is 33' dbh (last
measured in 1973) and ith Illinois state champion is
22' dbh.

RE: Black Willow Sizes?   Will Blozan
  Jun 10, 2007 13:27 PDT 


Most likely they are multi-stemmed clumps. I don't know if HWA is in AL, but
the disjunct populations of hemlock should be a high priority for

Re: Black Willow Sizes?   Edward Frank
  Jun 10, 2007 19:56 PDT 


Black willow is one of the species I was thinking about when I brought up
the idea of a separate listing for multi-trunked trees. Most of the
specimens that you see have multiple trunks. If this is a common growth
form, if not the most common growth form, then it seems reasonable to me
that they should be considered on those terms. I completely agree that the
single trunked trees and multi-trunked trees should not be intermixed in
listings and that singles be compared with singles only. I know everyone
doesn't agree that multi-trunked trees should even be bothered with to
document them.

These two posts contain some discussion of multi-trunked trees and

Ed Frank