Emeritus Champion

[DanG]

I was in Chattahoochee the other day visiting with a friend. As we sat on his front porch, I mentioned what a stout Red Oak that was in the corner of "his yard.  "That's a Cherry Oak", says he.  " ??? ", I thought. "Oh, you mean Cherrybark?"  "Well the Foresters call it a Cherry Oak when they come by and measure it every year" he declared.  The only reason I could think of that they were measuring it annually is that it must be a champion tree, so I dug out the list of Florida Champions via Google, and it is sure enough an Emeritus Champion Cherrybark Oak.  I assume that means it was recorded as Champ until a slightly larger one was discovered in the next county over.  Anyway, I found that interesting and thought some of you might, as well.  ;)

Here's a pic I captured from Google Earth Street View:

[mesquite buckeye]

Dang nice tree. ;D 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

[thecfarm]

Champion Trees are always special. I read in the paper this area is looking for Champion trees.

[SwampDonkey]

That's a nice oak.  8)

Not much chance up here for a champion tree as most woodlots and public land get the saw very frequently. A few old non marketable ones they left behind I suppose. All the woodlots around my area have been cut over in the last 30 years, so small second growth is what you see mostly.

[WDH]

I found a Georgia State Champion Shumard Oak in Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area a few weeks ago.  50" in diameter and 150' tall.  Forest tree growing in the bottomnland. 



 



 

Also found a new champion persimmon, but I have not officially measured it yet.

[Dodgy Loner]

Whoah. Nice oaks! Those open-grown cherrybarks can be impressive. Magicman has one on his place that is probably 7' in diameter. But there is really something special about those big forest grown oaks. Maybe it's that I'm picturing how much clear lumber is in them :D Not that I would ever want to cut it down

[DanG]

I think we all look at trees that way, Dodgy.  When I look at a little pine sapling, I think to myself, "I could get 2 firring strips out of that!"   :D :D

[mesquite buckeye]

WDH, Your tree doesn't look all that old. Just big. That one would make a lot of perfect toothpicks. ;D

[WDH]

I am guessing maybe 80 to 100 years old. 

[mesquite buckeye]

That would make it one very fast growing tree. I would think this one might be a good seed source tree for improvement selection. ;D

[WDH]

They can grow real fast down here on a good site. 

[SwampDonkey]

I saw a huge sugar maple on a site last fall. I was thinning in under it. It wouldn't be 50", but it was sure high 40" 's. Not 150 feet though, maybe 75'. The harvest crew left it, too big for the machines to handle. It was at least 300 years old. The site was hardwood, but not exceptional ground.

[Al_Smith]

I'm not certain of the criteria for a champion tree .From what I see an old hollow oak with a big canopy can often qualify.Fact on another forum one was posted that looked like a good stiff wind would blow it over .

Conversely in a woods setting perhaps you might get a 4 foot diameter oak a hundred plus feet tall and straight as an arrow and solid as a rock  but evidently these are of little importance to the people who dub the champions .I don't get it . ???

[DanG]

There is a formula to determine how many points a tree scores, Al. It is based on height, spread and diameter.  Nobody "decides" which is champion.  It is what it is.

[Al_Smith]

That part I had heard .It seems to me though most are old trees that had grown in relatively open areas that had all the sunshine it could spread canopy to absorb .Might be 200-250 years old and cover an area the size of an urban building lot .Nice shade but worthless for lumber.

Same tree in the woods might be 3 feet at breast heigth and 65 feet to the first limb .Top out at over 100-120  with 20 foot of usable lumber log above the crotch .Then again I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder . ;D

[Dodgy Loner]

The formula used by the National Register of Big Trees and most state champion tree registries is 1 pt. per inch of circumference + 1 pt. per foot of height + ¼ pt. per foot of average crown spread. It is supposed to give a rough approximation of the total tree volume, but in reality, the formula is biased towards short, fat, open-grown trees.

The National Registry of Big Trees makes allowances for actual volume to be used instead of the number provided by the formula, which is why the General Sherman sequoia is the national champion instead of the General Grant. The General Grant has a fatter butt, and therefore a larger "big tree number", but it also tapers more quickly. The General Sherman was proven to have a larger volume, so it is the current champion. This exception to the rule is only used for exceptional specimens (like the sequoias).

Bottom line: the champion tree registries are more concerned with total tree volume than with how pretty a tree is or how much lumber is in it.

[Al_Smith]

I don't disagree that some of those magnificently canopied old oaks aren't a wonder to behold .

What I guess bothers me is several that for all intents look so rotten I'd be leary of living in a house next to them .The damage a big fat tree can do to a house is unreal .On the other hand I've seen some big ones lay over and never break a shingle on the roof .How I have no idea .

[mesquite buckeye]

In the Big Tree system, multitrunked trees are also penalized. They only allow the measurement of one trunk for circumference. We have seen really big desert trees that fork at ground level that are beat out by smaller trees with a single trunk. We talked about changing the formula to allow a calculation of what would be the combined trunk at dbh based upon total area, then calculating what the circumference of that area would be if it were 1 trunk. Nobody was interested.

[Thehardway]

Until I read this post, I had no idea there was a champion tree register.  Come to find out, Virginia actually ranks fourth.  Funny though that the registry says there is no entry for Eastern White Oak.  There are numerous large White Oaks so why no nominees?  Could I nominate some? 

It seems fairly easy to measure the diameter of a tree but exactly how do you measure the height and the average crown?

[mesquite buckeye]

Measure the circumference in inches, measure height by measuring a known distance from the trunk and the angle to the tree crown, then do the trigonometry, measure average crown width with a tape from one side where the edge of the crown is straight up, past the trunk to the other side straight up. Then measure the crown spread at 90° to the first one in the same way, then average the two. Not that tough, just takes the time, a way to measure the angle and a tape measure. Also helps if you have some kind of level if the ground is not level.

[Al_Smith]

It's relatively easy to measure height with a surveyers transit and trigonometry.All you need is one side and the angle .Of course a good laser range finder just spits out the measurement with a press of the button .

[SwampDonkey]

Use a carpenter's square with a level bubble, look along the 45 until you just see the tip of the tree as you walk backwards. Tan of 45 is 1, so measure from your standing position to the trunk and add height from ground to eye level. Do it on the level. Iif not, on the same contour across slope. Don't even need to calculate anything, just read the tape. Well, I suppose add the eye level height is a calculation. ;) :D









Doesn't need to be in the middle of winter. :D

[Al_Smith]

Swampish,good on you I've used the same method .Pretty darn accurate too .

[WDH]

Clinometers are instruments that Foresters use to measure height, at least in the South  . 

[mesquite buckeye]

Way to go, SD, giving away the easy way. :(