I wanted to share what I have learned about identifying scarlet oak. It is in the red oak group. It can be a good quality tree on a good site, but it tends to grow on the poorer upland sites and can have a good deal of persistent dead limbs on the lower bole.
The key Characteristics:
The bark has very characteristic silver streaks that run vertically up the bole.
The contrast between the silver streaks and the surrounding area is not very great, although the silver streaks are visually very noticeable.
The leaves have very deep sinuses between the lobes. The sinuses extend more than halfway to the midrib of the leaf.
The sun leaves (leaves that grow at the top of the crown in full sun) have sinuses that extend almost all the way to the midrib, leaving just a very narrow waist.
The lobes have distinct bristles. There are fewer bristles on the lobes of the sun leaves versus the shade leaves (leaves that grow lower in the crown that are not subject to full sun).
The shade leaves are larger and the lobes are more bristly.
The leaf petioles are very long (up to 2" to 3").
The acorn is very distinctive with an acorn cup that covers one-half of the nut. the edge of the cup is noticeably fringed.
At the tip of the acorn cup, there are usually several distinctive concentric rings. No other oak has this feature.
Bark with silver streaks:(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/IMG_1591.JPG)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/IMG_1604.JPG)
Leaves:Shade Leaves.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/IMG_1605.JPG)
Sun Leaves.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/IMG_1606.JPG)
Comparison of shade leaves and sun leaves.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/IMG_1607.JPG)
I don't have an acorn pic because the DanG squirrels got them all :D.
Great post, WDH! This is knowledge base material. I had known little or nothing about Scarlet Oaks before visiting at your house. You're a good teacher. :)
Besides presenting good info about a particular tree, you have included some terminology that might not have been familiar to many. I didn't know the indentions along the edge of a leaf were called sinuses. :P I had heard(read) the term "petiole" quite a bit, but wasn't sure what it was. Now, I think I'm understanding that it's the little stem that attaches the leaf to the tree. Maybe I shoulda asked or looked it up, eh? :D :D
I'm thinking my land in SC has a lot of scarlet oak, judging from your excellent description and pics. Is scarlet a faster growing type? The biggest trees on the property (24" DBH) appear to be scarlets. The white oaks and hickories are smaller. The land goes from the top of a hill (1100') to the bottom (about 100' lower). It's a little damper at the bottom of the hill, and the trees look different (I've only been there in the winter so far). Anyone have any idea how old a 24" scarlet oak might be? Just curious...
Scgargoyle,
Your area is perfect for scarlet oak. It is found most predominately in the Piedmont (that area of foothills south of the mountains until it gets really flat). A 24" scarlet is a fine tree and should be 50 -100 years old, depending on the site. Could be even older.
DanG,
Your point about the botanical terminology not being familiar to all is a good one. It is almost like a different language. Rather than have members look up terms in a tree manual, it is better to describe things in more practical terms........I am guilty as charged and will try to amend my ways ;D.
No foul committed and no charges leveled. I was able to tell what the terms meant by matching your text with the pics. :) Using the proper terms is an important ingredient of any lesson. An explanation of them is valuable too, especially if some of your audience is as ignorant as I.
I think we're all guilty of using the specialized jargon of our trade. I like learning those terms and appreciate it when people use them in a context or define them so I understand them when someone uses them later. I do try to define terms at least once in any thread in case there's new folks. We just had "BLO" show up in a wood finishing thread, luckily I already knew they was talking about bovine lip ointment.
Our scarlets are often bell bottomed, I've heard its from chesnut blight.
Good stuff.. just dropping by. ;)
Bell bottomed? What a descriptive term ;D. Those trees must have sprouted in the late 60's and early 70's. I bet none of y'all wore them :D. (I did).
Found:
BELL BOTTOM TROUSERS - Commonly believed that the trousers were introduced in 1817 to permit men to roll them above the knee when washing down the decks, and to make it easier to remove them in a hurry when forced to abandon ship or when washed overboard. The trousers may be used as a life preserver by knotting the legs and swinging them over your head to fill the legs with air.
WDH, I certainly wore them - although I mighta been hatched just a little later than you.
I'll have to remember that I can swing my trousers over my head to create a life preserver. That could come in handy out on the lake. ;D
I came along in the pegged pants era. I do wear bell-bottomed t-shirts, though.
Bell bottomed shirts are the only ones that fit me anymore- somebody musta changed the DanG sizes...
Back on topic- I noticed a number of small to medium trees on my property are somewhat bell-bottomed, and some had sizeable holes in them just above the ground. The trees themselves looked OK other than that. Could that be chestnut blight?
My wife bought me some of them new fangled stylish GAP jeans with the wide boot cut. I call'em my ugly pants and wear them outside to work in the yard. :)
Scgargoyle,
Not likely. Oak has its own blights and cankers. They are probably getting it honest, not from chestnut blight.
Dan has made me get my old dendro book out, DanG, I hate that. I got to thinking about some of the multiple leaf designs in oaks, and need to take the camera with now to get some of the shots of "three in one" trees.
Being in an East Texas bottomland today, I can assure you, TR, that you are exactly right. I had to look up three times at the leaves before I could decide what I was looking at. Surely, walking around those Texas bottomland water oaks (in a circle) while I was looking up in the crown must be what made me dizzy (or was it that the fine Crown Royal you treated me with tonight...........no, it had to be the water oaks :D).
You old coots sure have better eyes than I! Or maybe your oaks are shorter? I have to carry a small pair of binoculars with me to see the leaves on the first branch in most of my oaks clear enough to differentiate the reds.
Old coots?????????? DanG probably resembles that remark :D. (Me too).
I wonder if an 'old coot' is old enough to be called an 'old fart'. :D ;D
I think "old coot" is a step beyond "old fart," just prior to "coffin dodger." :-X
To show how little I know, I didn't realize that a tree had sun leaves and shade leaves. :-\ My National Audubon Society Field Guide didn't mention that little fact. Or maybe I just didn't read carefully enough. :P That explains alot of my confusion sometimes out in the woods.
The amount of sunlight that a leaf is subject to can affect the shape, especially so in certain of the oaks. Kind of strange that it is present in some oaks and not others. Most books do not go into this much detail.
Ever thought about writing a book, WDH? It would be refreshing to find one that has "this much detail", as well as some good quality photos. Most of them just have drawings, or tiny little pictures, with very little info about what distinguishes them from their cousins.
I am not qualified to write a book on the subject :P. However, I agree that the pictures in almost every tree ID book are not a great deal of help since the diversity and variability in many characteristics are not shown in the books. Most of the time there is only one pic, and that is not enough. Probably space limits the authors ability to show a full range of characteristics. Much of what I have learned is from observing many different specimens in the field over and over again, and by teaching to FFA students who are competing in Tree ID contests. The best way to learn something is to teach it ;).
So, what "qualifies" one to write a book? A bunch of letters behind one's name? As long as the information is accurate and helpful...well, I think that's qualification enough. A series of small, specialized books would give you the space to go into proper detail. ;)
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 :)
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Dodgy Loner on April 26, 2007, 01:14:00 PM
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.
Quote from: WDH on April 26, 2007, 10:45:41 PM
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.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/15374/northern-red-oak-lower-bark.jpg)
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.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/15374/scarlet-oak-lower-bark.jpg)
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.
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...
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. :)
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....
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. (https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14181/oak1.jpg)
I'll take a shot, from what I see in that great pic, at northern red oak.
beenthere
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 :).
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
Scarlet.
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!
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.
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
OneWithWood is right, all the northern reds I've seen grow straight up! :D
OWW,
Now that is funny :D. Gives a whole new twist on phototrophism ::).
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'!
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)
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.