Re: Longevity    Greentr-@aol.com
  Oct 05, 2003 08:33 PDT 

Let's not leave it there, but rather, bring this discussion back to North
America (if not to South Carolina). The Angel Oak, a live oak near Charleston,
has been estimated by scientists to be between 1,500 to 1,600 years of age (for
interested members, I have a great photo I can send you).
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC
Re: Longevity/Excessive incremental boring   Greentr-@aol.com
  Oct 05, 2003 20:05 PDT 
Thanks for the great website URL. 1,500 to 1,600 years for a live oak does
sound a bit much. I am presently working on a Live Oak website (among other
things), which will feature Antebellum Oaks of the South. What I have found
during my plantation tours is that it's not uncommon to find a larger 300 year
old live oak standing near a smaller 600 year old. Why is this? I don't have
all the answers. Many dates are set by history, cross-reference and short
cores. Old live oaks can be extremely difficult to date. The scientists that I
have talked to have said that the Angel Oak consistently dates between 1,500 &
1,600 years. The only way for each of us to be 100% sure is to core all the
way through the stem (for ourselves). If one will not accept another's
estimate, there will soon not be enough xylem left to support the 170 feet crown. I
can but hope that if a society arises to challenge these "exaggerated" claims,
that it not be before reliable "less invasive technology" comes available.
After all, no matter how beneficial we make coring sound, it's not quite like
using a laser/clinometer to measure height within a foot. With all the
exaggerated height claims this Group exposes, I can well understand why we would and
should scrutinize every claim of great age.
RC
Re: Longevity/Excessive incremental boring    paul-@direcway.com
   Oct 06, 2003 08:19 PDT 

I visited http://www.angeloaktree.org/history.htm . So, scientists state that the angel live oak is approximately 1500 years old and that another is about 1400 years old. What method did they use to arrive at this estimate? I'm assuming that the center of the oak has long since rotted out and we all know that ring width extrapolation does not work.

Paul Jost
Re: Longevity/Excessive incremental boring    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 06, 2003 09:45 PDT 
Paul,
You should know that "I" do not claim that the Angel Oak is 1,400 to 1,600
years old, I merely state that scientists have said this. I have not cored this
tree, nor would I be allowed to (this declining giant is closely guarded). I
just got off the phone with a highly-respected, former USDAFS top scientist
(he wished not to be named in our Discussion). He said this was based upon a
number of Charleston area foresters who cored some of the largest branches (the
trunk's center is hollow). He said the lasted dating would still be over
1,000 years of age. I don't have great problems with that number. A Boone's
Plantation oak, dated almost 700 years of age, is a much smaller tree. A number
of Live Oaks in the Charleston area were documented of huge size as much as
300 years ago.
One ENTS member said a 5 to 6 ft dbh live oak was but 200 years. I don't
doubt this. Most trees, given the ideal environment, will reach their genetic
zenith. But that age is not necessarily the norm. The live oaks of famed Oak
Alley Plantation (again, I have great photos of all these trees), some about 5
to 6 feet dbh, are historically documented almost 400 years.
I concede that, when it comes to great height and age, "conifers rule". And
that prudent coring has a useful place in arboriculture and forestry. But,
until some of these claims are successfully challenged, please allow this ole
eastern country boy the right to dream a little...to wonder...what if they
"could" be that old? What events have they witnessed beneath their lofty
boughs...if they could talk, what tales would they tell? How did this aging giant
survive Hugo (and a hundred other storms) unscathed...survive man's propensity to
destroy...to core out of curiosity...
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC     
Re: Longevity/Excessive incremental boring    abi-@u.washington.edu
   Oct 06, 2003 15:07 PDT 

ENTS,
A few comments on the thread that has developed.

[material deleted]

As for the southern oaks, The lack of tyloses in the live oaks makes it virtually impossible for trees to reach great ages. It is simply another case, like in so many other parts of the world, where size gets equated (maybe over several generations) with age.

Cheers,
- BVP
RE: Longevity    Will Blozan
   Oct 07, 2003 21:18 PDT 
I have always wondered why someone hasn't cored the base of an original
branch on the Angel Oak and at at least obtained a reasonable estimate of
the tree's age. Is the tree protected from such absolutes? Enough of the
approximations that get bigger or older year after year. Core it and be done
with it!

Will
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 08, 2003 21:29 PDT 
All,
Until, as Will suggests, a Member is allowed to core a remaining solid (?)
large branch, we may never get past antedotal Angel Oak trivia. I'm going to
stand down (for now). We have too many 'useful' threads going on.
Someone has said that live oaks are classified as white oaks, another, red.
Though most are likely familar with scientific classifications of Kingdom,
Division, Class, Order, Family, Genus & Individual, fewer may be aware of further
subgenera (?) of Erythrobalanus (red or black oak group) and Leucobalanus
(white oak group). You can further divide red oaks as chestnut oaks, red oaks &
live or evergreen oaks. Because of the small, hairlike bristle or prick at
the end of live oak leaves and the dark, rough and fissured bark, most would
classify live oak (Quercus virginiana) as a red/black oak (I can't remember if
live oak acorns are hairy (inside) or smooth). But this is no slam-dunk
classification. Live oaks have been classified as white in the past; some botanists
still do. Though live oaks have "black" physical characteristics, they act
awful "white".   Live oaks hybridize exclusively with white oaks and resist oak
wilt more like white. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't red oaks
(excluding live oaks) exclusive to the New World? Our live oaks find their
counterparts in Asia, with the Chinese evergreen oak and the Japanese evergreen oak. But
before I further my case for white oak group classification, just let me say
that many now are assigning live oaks as their own oak group. I hope to raise
this question at the Live Oak Conference. Some of you stalwart botanists
care to add to this thread?   
Randy Cyr
Greenville, SC      
Re: Live Oak classification    dbhg-@comcast.net
   Oct 09, 2003 04:17 PDT 

Randy:

I can't add anything to your very interesting classification discussion, but I do have a question. How heavy is the wood of dried live oak. I've read that it is the heaviest of the oaks. Is that true?

Bob
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 09, 2003 05:46 PDT 
I have always considered Q. virginiana and its attendant
subspecies/varieties to be white oaks because of the "sweet" acorn which
like other white oaks ripen in one year. I have also heard them classed
as red oaks on the basis of the leaf bristles. Perhaps as you say they
need their own class.

On the longitivity of Live Oaks, here in the south they were always
considered very longed lived and slow growing. I guess everything is
relative, however I don't consider them particularly slow growing
compared to other oaks.

For example in Savannah, there are abundant records on the oaks growing
on the squares and streets. In 1894 (or thereabouts) they planted live
oaks in Washington Park and a number of the streets and squares. Now 110
years later these trees are quite sizable, 3 to 4 foot in diameter. Also
some of the older colonial era roads on the coast are lined with massive
live oaks, approaching record size. One could reasonably make the
assumption that these are no older than the roads, 200 - 270 years. They
line the roads in straight rows. It would be a stretch (to me anyhow) to
assume that they were already in straight rows prior to the road being
developed.

Our National Co Champ Live Oak, 35' cbh. exists in Waycross on the site
of an old farm settlement. This area was historically the "pine barren
region" that burned regularly and is outside the usual maritime range of
the live oak. It is not on a site such as too wet or droughty sands that
would limit the effects of fire. I would really wonder if this tree
predates European settlement in the area. Perhaps.
Re: Wood density    Lee E. Frelich
   Oct 09, 2003 06:02 PDT 

Bob:

USDA miscellaneous Publication No. 46, "Strength of North American Woods',
lists one live oak species, Canyon live oak from CA as 54 lbs per cubic
foot when kiln dried.   The paper was published in 1929, but our library
here has all the historical government documents, so I found it in the stacks.

Other species that approach that are:

flowering dogwood 52 lbs
pignut hickory        51-55
mockernut hickory 53
osage orange         54
serviceberry           52


By comparison with other common woods:

beech                   43
American elm        33
Sugar maple         42
bur oak                43
swamp white oak 50
red oak                 41-48
tulip tree               27
hemlock               31
white pine             26

Lee
RE: Live Oak classification    Robert Leverett
   Oct 09, 2003 06:18 PDT 

Will:

   On occasion I read that despite its lack of a straight trunk, that
the live oak found its way into ship building where curved shapes were
needed. Was there ever a period of concentrated harvesting of live oaks
of which you are aware for ship building? Did Native Americans use live
oak acorns much as more northerly tribes utilized those of Quercus alba?


   I once read of a society in Louisiana whose members are live oaks
with circumferences of 17 feet or more. Have you heard of that society?
Interesting idea. It was after reading about this society that I got the
idea for a club in which the members are white pines 150 feet tall or
more. It looks like we need to change the criteria some. In the North,
the criteria would be 150 feet. In the Southeast, it would need to be
perhaps 165 feet - a 15-foot handicap for Yankeeland. That should make
all the blue bloods up this way whince a little.

Bob

RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 09, 2003 07:30 PDT 

Supposedly the US Navy retained rights to the live oak on several
coastal islands on the Georgia Coast and the Gulf Coast of Florida near
Pensacola for ship building. They would use the large curved branches
for the curved keel and plank the exterior with live oak as it was so
strong. When they rebuilt the Constitution (Old Ironsides) back in the
50/60's they used Live Oak that we supplied from St. Simons Island.

I have always heard that the Indians used the Live Oak acorns to grind
to a flour like substance.

Here is the link for the Live Oak Society you mentioned;

http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/pages/oak.htm
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 09, 2003 07:43 PDT 

In regards to growth, there is a tree registered in the Live Oak Society
in 1935 at 25' CBH and remeasured this year at 35'. Ten foot of
circumference, or 1.5' of radial growth in 65 years is not a bad rate of
growth.
Re: Live Oak classification    Colby Rucker
   Oct 09, 2003 08:15 PDT 

Bob,

For information on the use of live oak in shipbuilding, I found an
interesting book at a book sale:

Wood, Virginia Steele 1981. Live Oaking: Southern Timber for Tall Ships.
Northeastern University Press. 206 pp. 139 drawings and photographs. Size
ca. 9" x 10". Extensive notes, bibliography and documentation.

Colby
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 09, 2003 13:43 PDT 
wfell,
I'm doing an excessive webpage on live oaks, but I do not have any photos of
the co-champion you mentioned. How can I obtain a few for not-for-profit use?

Also, I have no disagreement with any live oak longivity stats mentioned
recently. But I think we need to compare apple with oranges. Not like species,
but like environs. Many species reach record heights and sometimes girth here
in southern Appalachia (north & east facing slopes and especially in some
coves (70 to 85 inch annual rainfall; that's near rainforest amount). Live oaks,
like many species, do grow very quickly in "ideal environments". But, in less
than ideal, it can and does grow quite slow (and, of course, let's not leave
out genetic disposition). I believe if one is able to find stable growth
prior to industrialization, disturbance, ect, then, maybe, a fair age estimate can
be obtained without drilling to the pith (as one member mentioned). Although
old growth produces more attractive/stronger/expensive wood, I see few
instances warranting coring that far in. Concerning one angelic oak, I have no dogs
in that fight (all queries should be directed to the Mayor of Charleston).
RC
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 09, 2003 13:21 PDT 
Bob,
You're question may have already been answered. I believe live oak (Quercus
virginiana ?) is the heaviest oak in this country, if not the Planet. There
are a number of sub-species in Texas, Mexico, and along the gulf coast (maybe
southern coastal California). Some of these sub-species "may" be heavier, but
it's doubtful, since most of the subspecies are native to arid climates. I
believe American hornbeam (ironwood) is the East's heaviest wood, with live oak
a close second. I would imagine flowering dogwood to be not far behind live
oak. Dogwood is also a tough wood; once used in oxen yokes for skidding and
plowing.
Randy
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 09, 2003 14:23 PDT 
Randy;

I'll be glad to forward you some jpgs of our big Live Oak and also our
state champ Sand Live Oak, geminata. There are several
varieties/subspecies in GA - Sand (geminata), Dwarf (minima), Maritime
(maritima)

I am well aware of the genetic/site differences that can occur. I have a
live oak planted 1973 in a yard by a barn with good soil and moisture
that is over 30 in DBH. My point was not intended to be scientific
however, merely my opinion based on observations. I would assume these
large trees that line the old coastal roads and oak allees around here
would be on a similar site to Johns Island SC where the Angel Oak is. I
have no way of knowing if they predate the roads (I have never cored
one), only the general age of the roads.
RE: Live Oak classification    Will Blozan
   Oct 09, 2003 16:50 PDT 
Message
I have a photo of a large clump of four live oaks in Apopka, Fl. They
were typically clothed in heavy Spanish moss and epiphytes and all stems
were 2-2.5 feet in diameter. The spread of the clump was likely over 100'.
In 1985, when I last saw these trees, I met the man who planted them, in a
circle. They were less than 40 years old.

Will
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 09, 2003 19:29 PDT 
wfell,
I still don't know your name (or, is that it; w. fell?). Heh, your
observation sounds acceptable to this arborist. The only fly in this thread would be
that some of these plantations have 3-century old historical records that
describe their oaks as the largest in "their day". Some of these claims are based
on corings; whether legit or no.   Some of the very largest and possibly the
oldest are not even listed on the Live Oak Centurian Registry. I do have some
photos that will blow holes in Registry. But, like a good wine, everything in
it's time. Not only the largest in the Nation, but large enough girthed
trees to make the Registry, though only 1/2 the required age.
Please do forward those images (with captions and credit lines). I have
reserved a special corner in my Live Oak Gallery just for your trees. Thanks,
Randy     
P.S. I'm no scientist; I work for a living!
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 10, 2003 06:59 PDT 
Here is a link to some large oak photos I put on Webshots. Go to the big
tree album. You are free to use whatever you want.

Will Fell

http://community.webshots.com/user/will_30458
Re: Live Oak classification    Michael Davie
   Oct 10, 2003 18:36 PDT 
MessageWhere is that Fairchild oak? I agree, That thing is fantastic. And those baldcypress are great, too. Are they lone trees leftover from logging for some reason?
Live Oak Traits    Jess Riddle
   Oct 11, 2003 07:39 PDT 

Another exceptional quality of live oak that may have relevance to the
fast radial growth rates that some of us have observed is the high crown
to trunk volume ratio. I do not know of another eastern species that
characteristically is so wide spreading and stout. This construction
should maximize the photosynthetic area and minimize the surface area that
new wood is deposited on allowing for rapid radial growth. This theory
would imply high radial growth rates for other open grown oaks and
Sycamore, but probably to a lesser extent. These other species have more
long branches to support higher crowns, so they will have slightly more
photosynthetic area and significantly more growing surface area. This is
all just speculation, but seems relevant to our discussions on age and
size of live oaks.

Jess Riddle
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 11, 2003 13:26 PDT 
It is a live oak and it is not as large as the Village Sentinel in
Waycross. None the less it is an awesome tree and it is on public
property for all to view.
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 11, 2003 13:58 PDT 
It is single stemmed at DBH. There is a large branch that forks off at
about 8+ feet. Where did it originate? quite possibly below 4.5 feet,
but it is beyond the realm of simple measurement to make that
determination. I feel that it is one tree and it definitely is a larger
tree with a very symmetrical crown.

Somewhere I have a photo with someone in it to reference size. Soon as I
find it I will post it. It is hard to judge the relative sizes without a
common reference.
RE: Live Oak classification    Will Blozan
   Oct 11, 2003 14:17 PDT 
MessageThanks! I would be very interested in seeing the photo. I recall
visiting a tree somewhere in the Ocala National(?) Forest in Florida that
took four people to get around with outstretched arms. It was a forest grown
live oak with a 50' clear trunk that leaned over and split into a massive
"Y" that continued to twist and turn its way above the edge of a swamp.
Absolutely massive!

Will
RE: Live Oak classification    Willard Fell
   Oct 11, 2003 14:30 PDT 
The Fairchild Oak is on state land near the Banana River between Daytona
and Flagler. It is on what was probably old cow pasture.

There are live oaks in the Altamaha River Bottoms that have 50 - 60 foot
clear trunks. None that I saw near record size, but it did show that
when grown with competition they can grow upright like other oaks.
Usually live oak occurs in maritime habitats with little vertical
competition and plenty of room to spread.

I can't find the other photo on my computer here at the office, but will
look for it at home and try to post it on Monday or Tuesday.
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 11, 2003 17:07 PDT 
Will, Will & all,
Please don't exclude me from this discussion and any photos that may come
from it.   Thanks for the great photos, Will F. The Darlington Oak in the
Charleston area is the current Vice President of the Live Oak Society, and may be
the Country's largest single-stemmed live oak. There are actually live oaks on
this plantation that have a larger girth (if you can believe that!). But they
are smaller when height and crown width are added.   Of the many plantations
I have observed, including those between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, along
the might Mississip' and famed "Oak Alley Plantation", this may be the largest
group of live oaks on any American plantation, if not "anywhere"!   I have
hundreds of photos that I hope to put out on the upcoming live oak page. But, to
wet your appetite and spur a little daydreaming until then, please find
attached on my next posting, the Darlington Oak, with plenty of people to compare it
to (Will B, it will take more than "4 people" to go around this oak). I
promise you will be "blown away!" Any not-for-profit use is given to ENTS members
(please credit: Randy Cyr, greentreedoctor.com).   
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 11, 2003 17:07 PDT 
Will, Will & all,
Please don't exclude me from this discussion and any photos that may come
from it.   Thanks for the great photos, Will F. The Darlington Oak in the
Charleston area is the current Vice President of the Live Oak Society, and may be
the Country's largest single-stemmed live oak. There are actually live oaks on
this plantation that have a larger girth (if you can believe that!). But they
are smaller when height and crown width are added.   Of the many plantations
I have observed, including those between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, along
the might Mississip' and famed "Oak Alley Plantation", this may be the largest
group of live oaks on any American plantation, if not "anywhere"!   I have
hundreds of photos that I hope to put out on the upcoming live oak page. But, to
wet your appetite and spur a little daydreaming until then, please find
attached on my next posting, the Darlington Oak, with plenty of people to compare it
to (Will B, it will take more than "4 people" to go around this oak). I
promise you will be "blown away!" Any not-for-profit use is given to ENTS members
(please credit: Randy Cyr, greentreedoctor.com).   
RE: Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak)    Robert Leverett
   Oct 14, 2003 12:04 PDT 

Will:

   I second what you have said. My mouth dropped open. It is evident
that there are some incredible live oaks around. Out of curiosity, do
you have any idea what the cubic foot volume is of a tree like that?
Will Blozan and I have typically placed the volumes of the largest
tuliptrees in the Smokies at 3,000 to 3,500 cubic feet based on some not
too shabby modeling. But those were straight-boled trees. Is there any
reason to believe that the sum of the trunk and limb volume of a
forest-grown tree exceeds or lags that of a large spreading open grown
tree? Any thoughts on that? Anyone else have thoughts about that?

Bob
RE: Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak)    Will Blozan
   Oct 14, 2003 14:47 PDT 

I would quess that a huge live oak would scale over 2000ft3, maybe more like
2200'-2400'. I have no reason to say this but I thought I'd start there! I
bet they weight more than a big tuliptree!

Will
Re: Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak)    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 14, 2003 17:06 PDT 
Will,
After many horizonal climbs, are you up for a "vertical" climb. I may be
able to get you into some of these live oaks...so you can measure them and maybe
better estimate board feet (it's been too many decades since I graded logs for
a lumber co.). Maybe involve the media (these plantations love publicity).
Some of these oaks may have 10 to 30 branches that start at 3 to 8 feet in
diameter, and may go 40 to 80 feet, before dropping under a foot (not to mention
an ugly, twisted, gnarled trunk, 8 to 12 feet in diameter). Please don't let
me "pigeon-hole" you, but it would be interesting if such a tree could be
measured. I just bought a high-end digital camera, maybe we could add another
section to the ENTS website?
Randy
Re: Live Oak classification    Will Fell
   Oct 14, 2003 18:42 PDT 
Randy;

I did some checking and the Middleton Oak is the current SC State Champion Live Oak with a CBH of 30 feet. They are still using a measurement taken almost 20 years ago. It probably has added a couple feet since then. The Angel Oak on Johns Island has a girth of 25 feet.

Will Fell
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 14, 2003 19:32 PDT 
Will,
The Middleton is supposed to be the vice-president of the Live Oak Society,
which is reserved for our Nation's 2d largest live oak (last I talked to
Colleen). But there are other oaks on the Middleton Plantation that appear larger
in girth, but because of smaller, declining crowns, are considered smaller (I
sent the other Will some photos of these).   But where would Florida's and
Georgia's champions fit in? Also, many of the South's huge live oaks are not
registered. While oaks barely 3 feet in diameter clutter the Registry.   Some
plantations only register their oldest or largest. Many, like the Dixie
Plantation on Edisto Island, fade off in obscurity, while their resident monarchs just
keep on growing...
RC
RE: Live Oak classification (Darlington Oak)    Will Blozan
   Oct 15, 2003 04:00 PDT 
Oh, what the heck, OK, I'll do it...

HELL YEAH!!!
RE: Live Oak classification   Willard Fell
  Oct 17, 2003 10:10 PDT 
Randy and others;

I have found the other photo of the Waycross (Village Sentinel) Live Oak
(CBH 411") with a person in it to reference size. I also added a photo
of the other national co-champ live oak (CBH 439") in Louisiana. The
Village Sentinel was originally on GA's big tree list 30 years ago, but
sometime in the 80's was bumped off by the Lover's Oak which I also
posted a couple pics of. When I removed the Lovers Oak after taking over
the big tree list, I received a good bit of flack from the local tourist
authorities who had capitalized on the trees listing.

I have also stuck a number of misc pics of Live Oaks in a separate album
called "Live Oaks". There are a few of one of my favorites in there,
"The Clubhouse Oak" (CBH 22' 2") at the nearby Georgia State Prison.
Remember Cool Hand Luke and The Longest Yard ;-). You are welcome to any
you can use. I think the site allows downloads of full size. I can
provide any of the details should you need them.

http://community.webshots.com/user/will_30458
RE: Live Oak classification   Robert Leverett
  Oct 17, 2003 11:55 PDT 

Will:

That's quite a show. From what you and Randy are showing us, I would
guess that there are more 30-foot or over CBH live oaks than any other
eastern species. I would assume that bald cypress would be next,
followed by American sycamore. Perhaps these latter should be reversed.
Any thoughts on the order?

Bob
Re: Live Oak classification   Will Fell
  Oct 17, 2003 14:46 PDT 

The range of Live Oak is the coast and maybe 50 miles inland from extreme SE
VA around through Texas. Within it's limited range it probably reigns
supreme. Accepting the fact that the Baldcypress probably occupies 2/3 of
the east and Sycamore just about the whole east, I would guess it to be
about a dead heat between them in overall numbers. I would probably give
cypress the edge because of all the large relicts on our river bottoms.
Re: Live Oak classification   Greentr-@aol.com
  Oct 17, 2003 16:12 PDT 
Bob, Will & all,
Three earlier registered live oaks (<A HREF="http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/pages/oak.htm">
http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/pages/oak.htm</A>), listed as 30+ ft cbh are now deceased;
Locke Beaux (LA) 35' cbh
Arnaud Robert (LA) 35' cbh
Fredrick Point (LA) 32' cbh

Subject site states the following;
"Seven Sisters Oak" is located in...Louisiana...Estimated by foresters to be
1200 years old, this tree has a girth of over 38 feet...first vice-president
is "Middleton Oak" in Charleston, South Carolina, with a girth of 31 feet. The
second vice-president is the "St. John Cathedral Oak" in Lafayette, Louisiana,
measuring 27 feet. The "Lagarde Oak" in Luling, Louisiana, is third
vice-president and measures 29 feet. "Martha Washington Live Oak" in Audubon Park in
New Orleans, Louisiana, is fourth vice-president and measures 28 feet in
girth...to become a member, a live oak must have a girth (waistline) of eight feet or
greater, with those over 16 feet being classified as centenarians...Only one
human, according to the by-laws of the Society, is permitted; a chairman who
is responsible for registering and recording its members.

The Registry nows lists the Lagarde as 30' cbh, as well as 10 others as 30ft
cbh or more;
Randall (LA) 35' cbh
Mace-Dominica (LA) 30' cbh
World's Largest Christmas Tree (NC) 35' cbh (highly unlikely)
Lucy Coleman Carnegie (GA) 30' cbh
Lovers (GA) 33' cbh
Capt Young (GA) 30' cbh
Cambrian Center (CA) 34' cbh
The Marvin (LA) 34' cbh
Marvin McGraw Memorial (LA) 31' cbh
Ole Oakie (LA) 32' cbh
Louque's Shady (LA) 33' cbh

You might find absent from this list the oaks Will has mentioned, as well as
Charleston area live oaks that I have photographed that may well have larger
girths then the 31' cbh Middleton Oak. Some of these oaks have not been
remeasured in decades. Dozens that were listed 27 to 29 ft cbh, if still alive, may
well have grown to 30ft cbh or more. Also, this is a LA Garden Club, listing
LA trees by over 90%, with but one elderly registrar. There may well be
dozens 30ft cbh live oaks outside of LA that have not been registered.
Having observed many Bald Cypress in NC, SC, VA, GA, FL, MS and LA, I
personally have not seen as many in the 30ft plus class, if you're measuring on "dry
land" (although, they may well be there). I once spent some time with 2 LA
foresters observing some of our Country's largest bald cypress during a record
low Mississippi. Only 1 Bald Cypress could have made this class (the current
National Champion). Florida probably has the best bid. But most of the
South's ancient cypresses have been logged and turned into paper, lumber and mulch.
I once saw a picture of a NC cypress log on a logging truck that must have
been close to 12 feet in diameter. But that photo is mighty old and not
representative of current standing "dry" timber. If one could go back a century,
likely but "one" of the South's thousands of cypress swamps could blow-away all
live oaks in the Country. Since it may take a bald cypress a millenium to
reach the girth of a century-old live oak, in light of present development and the
cypress mulch craze, in regard to great girth, time favors live oaks (with no
disrespect to Sycamores or other Eastern oaks intended).
RC
RE: Live Oak classification    Will Blozan
   Oct 17, 2003 17:47 PDT 

Subject: RE: Live Oak classification


Randy and others;

I have found the other photo of the Waycross (Village Sentinel) Live Oak
(CBH 411") with a person in it to reference size. I also added a photo of
the other national co-champ live oak (CBH 439") in Louisiana. The Village
Sentinel was originally on GA's big tree list 30 years ago, but sometime in
the 80's was bumped off by the Lover's Oak which I also posted a couple pics
of. When I removed the Lovers Oak after taking over the big tree list, I
received a good bit of flack from the local tourist authorities who had
capitalized on the trees listing.

I have also stuck a number of misc pics of Live Oaks in a separate album
called "Live Oaks". There are a few of one of my favorites in there, "The
Clubhouse Oak" (CBH 22' 2") at the nearby Georgia State Prison. Remember
Cool Hand Luke and The Longest Yard ;-). You are welcome to any you can use.
I think the site allows downloads of full size. I can provide any of the
details should you need them.

http://community.webshots.com/user/will_30458
Re: Live Oak classification    Will Fell
   Oct 18, 2003 05:51 PDT 
Randy;

That is a problem with this list and even my own Big Tree list. Out of date and frequently inaccurate measurements. For instance check the photo I have posted of the Lover's Oak and reconcile it with the 33 foot measurement quoted. I have also posted a scan of the seven sisters oak in Lewisburg LA. Check it against the listed 38 foot measurement. Also the oak in Wilmington NC (worlds largest Christmas Tree) is a multiple stemmed tree. The Village Sentinel is also on the live oak society. Its number is 260 something I believe.

My experience with Bald Cypress has been somewhat different than Randy's. Just about any river in So. Georgia or SE SC harbors a number of old giant cypress (and Tupelo also) that escaped the saw because of hollowness or other defect. During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the rivers and swamps around here were scoured for old growth "red" cypress. It was cut with 2-man saws from springboards above the butt swell. It was felled, allowed to dry till spring high water and floated down to mill. It is still not that unusual to find large clearly cut cypress logs that somehow escaped the river run a hundred years ago, a clear testimate to the decay resistance of the old tidewater cypress. These sawyers didn't waste their time on hollow trees or those clearly too big for the head saw. The ensuing second growth "yellow" cypress lacked the durability of the old growth and until just the past 10 years or so and the development of the mulch market, you couldn't give cypress away. The paper mills won't take it for pulp and with the exception of a few mills in Florida and SC there was no demand for logs. Unfortunately that has changed of late. Here locally an outfit has taken over an old abandoned short-wood yard. They are buying any cypress logs, including pond cypress, and putting the roundwood on bolstered flatcars and shipping it north to Ohio to be chipped for the mulch market. Many a scenic old millpond has been drained and stripped of it's cypress in the past few years. They are worse than Sherman and his minions 150 years ago.
Re: Live Oak classification    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 18, 2003 07:53 PDT 
Re: Live Oak classification 10/18/2003 8:52:03 AM E 

I agree with you, Will. If you noticed, I put "highly unlikely" after the
Christmas tree.
I had considered putting Wilmington's oak on my upcoming webpage, but the
photos the park service sent me were very disappointing. It did not look even 6
feet! It sounds like ENTS needs to become involved in measuring some of these
purported giants (instead of leaving it to the integrity and skill of one
elderly lady). Another Charleston oak (I have a photo) has a bronze plaque
listing it as over 10 feet in diameter. There's a problem with this. In the
photo, it does not look much over 7 feet! But I have personally observed many
large-girthed live oaks that are not registered (some owners may never list their
trees). Also, I believe that rather than 90% of the large live oaks being
located in LA, the reverse may well be true, that 90% are outside of LA.
Another thing, one oak is listed as have grown several feet in 30 or 40
years. Though possible, this is unlikely. I have a photo (sent to the other Will)
that may restore your faith in the Seven Sisters Oak. I did not measure it.
But I was there and took several photos. It is a very large-girthed and
spreading, mulit-stemmed live oak.
I would love to see some of these old growth cypress you talk so fondly
about. I share your grief that the remaining groves are being turned into mulch.
Cypress mulch is popular because it lasts so long. For that reason, it is
unsuitable, unless to suppress weeds! Ideal mulch, that really benefits soils
and plants, is digested by microbes & soil animals 2 inches per year. These
magnificent monarchs are being ground-up for nothing.
Randy
RE: Live Oak classification    Will Blozan
   Oct 18, 2003 20:27 PDT 
I have a really hard time with the Seven Sisters oak being thought by
foresters (Faux-resters) to be 1200 years old. Have any cores been taken out
of the individual leads? Regarding the Live Oak Society (maybe the wrong
title) that lists these trees, I am thinking of planting 40 trees in a 40'
girth circle to create a new President in a few years!

Will
Re: Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 19, 2003 11:02 PDT 
All,
I believe if skepticism is the product of a "doubting state of mind", it can
prove useful, if acted upon. But can prove debilitating, if but a "doctrine
that says with certainty that certainty of knowledge cannot be attained."
Until I know for myself or by a known trusted source, I can't say with any
certainty that someone has either misapplied widely-accepted science or just plan
fabricated facts. I spent an entire semester learning the difference between a
fact and an "inference" (a derived conclusion from a premise). Until I have
contradictory evidence in hand, I can but call highly-irregular findings into
question. If I am sincere in my passion, I'll look for opportunity to challenge
these findings. If the other party is sincere in defending their assertions,
then they will allow their research to come under peer scruntiny. To do more
than this is to join the ranks of the "thought police". I know, among the
left, cynicism is a prized virtue. But the word literally means "to be like a
dog".
ENTS is all about challenging these highly-irregular statistics (facts
collected and arranged in an orderly way to study). Shall we not proceed with the
age question as we have with height? Though we like to have it all nailed-down
and every mystery unearthed, I believe a bit of boyhood wonderment is a good
thing, if it goads us into digging a little deeper to find the truth.   
RC
P.S. Our "New World" came into existence when someone not only called into
question the then popular belief that the world was "flat", but acted upon it.   
Re: Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics    Colby Rucker
   Oct 19, 2003 12:38 PDT 
Randy,

Except in the most sheltered artificial environments, skepticism is what keeps one from getting killed. I care nothing about thought processes, only staying alive. If you're running a bulldozer, cutting timber or climbing trees, that's all that matters.

One has to make decisions, based on one's experience. This extends to the measuring of trees. We've recognized that there are ceilings, and that reports that exceed those ceilings, either individually or collectively, are extremely doubtful, to put it gently. Published reports of oaks 200 feet tall, or 216 feet broad, can't be taken seriously.

More to the point, statistics regarding live oaks have, over the years, been so polluted by exaggerated claims of age and girth, and multiple trunks, that I no longer take any live oaks seriously. That may be unfair, but it's like some corporation that makes tools. Once several of their models prove to be junk, I quit buying all of their products. If presented factually, I would have welcomed information regarding the Angel Oak, the Seven Sisters, and the rest. As it is, life is too short to waste time with consistently unreliable material.

Colby
Re: Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics    dbhg-@comcast.net
   Oct 19, 2003 15:31 PDT 

Randy:

   Your points are well made with respect to tree age. Before the 627-year old black gum was confirmed in New Hampshire, most of us would have poohhooed any belief in a 600+ year old black gum. Before Dave Stahle began confirming bald cypresses over 1,500 years in age, with reasonable projections to 2,000, none of us purists would have believed those ages possible. Yes, there should be room for wonderment.

Bob
Re: Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 19, 2003 16:18 PDT 
Re: Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics 10/19/2003 3:39:20
PM E <A HREF="mailto:col-@toad.net">col-@toad.net<;/A>   
...I care nothing about thought processes, only staying alive.  If you're
running a bulldozer, cutting timber or climbing trees, that's all that matters...

Colby,
I can only agree that healthy skepticism does our profession much good. It's
pure cynicism, with the premise of revolving logic, that's an exercise in
futility. But I believe, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the same
"thought-processing" person who so aptly blew Bob's Peace Park clean out of the
water, could also have written detailed specifications that may well have
launched his project. I, like Bob, also believe that education is the long-term
solution (whether his project has a snowball's chance in hell or no). I am a
bit puzzled why you took it so easy on me. For all the reasons you hold
contempt for these statistics, we as ENTS members should require much better
accounting, if not personally become involved in the measuring. We most likely agree
more than may be safe for you to admit. Whether you're willing to throw me a
bone or use my babble as cannon wadding, I can but benefit by this Group's
Discussion, to include one witty, albeit, satirical arborist.
Randy             
Re: Live Oak classification; highly-irregular statistics    dbhg-@comcast.net
   Oct 19, 2003 16:25 PDT 

Colby:

True enough, my friend, but when Randy and Will flash pictures of absolutely gargantuan live oaks, one can't help but wonder. I guess the operative requirement is to separate human hyperbole from the glories of creation and not require the tree to be more than it is. Perhaps we should marvel over a 30-foot circumference live oak that can achieve such size in as little as 250 years instead of requiring it to be over a thousand. Still, wheh people are enamored of these great trees and see them with Tolkien mysticism, I can't help but feel sympathy for folks who dream of tree ages measured in the millennia. They want their great trees to be permanent. However, when some rich dude purchases the property on which one of these great trees grows and proceeds to make money treating the tree like a circus freak, we should bust the old boy's chops if he makes outlandish claims.

   One thing I do know is that both your and Randy's inputs have enriched this list enormously. I don't know what Randy's age is, but maybe we need to create a special class of ENTS that several of us would head. Something like the "Sacred Order of Geezer Ents", somewhat equivalent to that unusual group called the "Royal Order of Odd Fellows". We're not odd. We're eccentric.

Bob
Re: Dating Live Oaks/Jekyl Island, SC visit & photos    Greentr-@aol.com
   Oct 26, 2003 18:23 PST 
All,
Because of a previous engagement, I was unable to attend your conference. I
hope to join you next year. I trust you had a great time. The Live Oak
conference did not yield many live oak specifics. Dr. McGraw, UNC, said he did not
"know how old live oaks lived", but thought it was "500 to 700 years".   He
also said "live oaks take 200 years to mature, have 200 good years, take 200
years to die, and after that, stand for another 100 years." Dr. Ed Gilman, UFL,
also said he did know "how old live oaks lived", but doubted "that they could
exceed 1,000 years."

Neither Drs' McGraw, Gilman or Gardner addressed the possibility of purported
claims of the Angel Oak being 1,400 to 1,600 years of age, and the Seven
Sisters being 1,200. Though a horrific storm took out most of Savannah's oaks in
1893, some did survive. Some of these survivors are nearing 3 centuries of
age, with a remarkable amount of physical documentation, from land surveys to
statements made by John Muir. Dr. McGraw said the oldest oak, with historical
documentation that he knew about, was a fair size oak at Camp Lejeune, NC, that
was made mention of in a 1604 document (this would seem to be older that the
conservative estimate of 275 years for live oaks).

Dr. Gardner said that the live oaks of today were the puny ones of
yesteryear. That before "liveoaking" took out the ancient forests, the oaks were much
larger. One oak took two '3-man-teams' (one for each side) of experienced New
England axemen 3 full days to fell. He went on to say that it took 36 acres
of live oak to build but one ship. Shipbuilding with live oaks ended around
1850, but not until 200 years of clearing these magnificent forests.

It would appear, possibly because of urban stresses, that few live oaks make
it past 300 years of age, as documented/cored by the NAA and/or the ISA. The
oldest "documented" live oak I have seen was a much ignored, "smaller" live
oak near the waterfront of Boone's Plantation, Charleston, with a estimated age
of near 7 centuries.

If you remember, it took the "Jourdan team of 1931" to cool the fires of
debate concerning the Boole tree and the General Sherman. It may take some
credible organization, like ENTS, to successfully challenge such "wildly abnormal"
ages as those attributed to the Angel Oak and the Seven Sisters (it will take
more than mere skepticism).

On a lighter note, I did find a most interesting site on a 2 mile stretch of
Edison Island, SC, beach. Having traveled up and down this country, as well
as 30 others, rarely have I found anything "new under the sun." But this site
is surreal...off the Planet!!! Not like anything I have seen on the East
coast or elsewhere. Thousands of ancient live oaks have succumbed to changing
tidal movements, and are scattered across this beach. While some are bent over
almost touching the ground (yet remaining anchored), other "live oak inslands"
have been transported across the beach!   With bleached white, weather-twisted
trunks, casting long, dark shadows on the near white sand, I got some great
shots.   You'll have to see this for yourself (or let me send you some photos).
Or wait for the Live Oak webpage.
Randy      
Live Oak Volume  

Live Oak Volume Discussion