I missed this post somehow. Nice photos, it looks like it was a wonderful experience, gashed hand notwithstanding. I was wondering how hard it would be to tape wrap one of those puppies up in the crown. Man, those trees are freakin' awesome!
On Oct 7, 6:52 am, "Will Blozan" <[email protected]> wrote: > WNTS/ENTS, > > The time had come for the 3-D mapping and volume modeling of the World's > tallest known giant sequoia. Growing just over the ridge from Whitaker > Forest, this tree had been rigged and tape-dropped but the entire mapping > process- including foliar, twig and cone sub-sampling- had not yet been > performed. Two mapping teams were assembled for this project which was > expected to span a full three days. Steve Sillett and Marie Antoine were one > team and Bob Van Pelt and I the other. At 94.8 meters (311') this tree > stands just centimeters taller than another tree in Redwood Canyon. > > Composite stitch of the tallest tree > > Marie and Bob working on a basal tape wrap > > Redwood Canyon in Kings Canyon National Park, where the tree grows, contains > the lion's share of superlative tall sequoias (and areas of high potential > to this day remain unexplored.). Thus it is analogous to Great Smoky > Mountains National Park's Big Fork Ridge, Cataloochee, NC which contains the > vast majority of the tallest known eastern hemlocks. It also contains one of > the true giants mentioned in Bob Van Pelt's superb book, Forest Giants of > the Pacific Coast. The "Hart Tree" grows on a slope of Redwood Canyon and is > among the 20 largest sequoias known. I noted that I was now climbing the > tallest known of the largest western evergreen conifer in a superlative > forest reserve just I had done in the Usis Hemlock in the Tsuga Search > Project in the east. Like Bob, I was among the few climbing the giants east > to west. > > The superlative tree stands in a vegetation plot Bob and his colleagues had > already set up. Captured in this plot as well were several super-tall > sequoias including five others over 91.5 meters (300') tall. Within sight > was another tree 93.0 meters (305') tall. The plot and surrounding forest > was dominated by dense sequoias with white fir and a scattering of sugar > pine. The standing volume was incredible with large trees nearly touching > each other. One section of the plot had nine sequoias forming a tight grove. > You could stand in the center of this grove on a thick bed of needles and be > surrounded by walls of wood. It certainly would be a nice bedroom for a > giant. I shot a video of the grove which I would like to post. > > Dense grove in the plot > > The hike to the tree was rather steep and the dusty trail made for lots of > sneezes. As before, the mosquitoes were hungry and kept us moving briskly. > Wildflowers were in full blast, many of which I recognized to genus. The > assemblage of herbs on the forest floor was oddly familiar to the eastern > forests. The presence of the wildflowers was due to the lack of the grazing > cows seen in Whitaker Forest. I loved the contrast of the lupines, charcoal > and the red bark of the old sequoias. > > Lupines and sequoia > > The massive debris from fallen giants was also a new sight in contrast to > the logged forest of Whitaker. The trail was routed through the debris- as > the debris was too large to cross. > > Bob passing by a fallen giant on the trail > > Bob mentioned that the tallest known white fir at 69.2 meters (227') was > adjacent to the tall sequoia. A tree 70 meters (230') tall was thought to be > possible and thus was the "Holy Grail" number to shoot for. Indeed, the > white firs of Redwood Canyon were incredibly tall. During the hike down I > had a laser on hand to scope the forest for more tall ones. 61 meter (200') > firs were absolutely everywhere and I located several close to 67 meters > (220'). I took note of a shafty tree not far from the plot just up the > canyon. Clumsy shots with the heavy pack indicated a height around 70 > meters. While the ropes and reference tapes were being set for the mapping I > went back to take some detailed measurements. A clear top shot and basal > reference set above the clutter of the 1.28 meter (4.23') diameter trunk > yielded a height of 70.4 meters (231'). SCORE! > > New height record white fir 70.4 meters tall > > We all took turns pulling the 183 meter (600') climbing rope up the tree and > through the pulley. It was stubborn (stuck on a stub) and we thought we may > have to re-rig the tree. It finally came through and Steve ascended first to > anchor and reset the ropes for a dual ascent [one climber on each side- the > pulley and anchor point was 89.2 meters (292') up]. Once anchored, two > climbers could ascend at the same time then transfer to a separate rope once > at the top. Typically the data recorders stayed anchored to the > ascent/descent rope while the measurers traversed the canopy on separate > lines. > > I ascended the opposite side that Steve went up while Marie went up after > Steve. Steve and Marie were to start mapping at the top while Bob and I > taped-wrapped the main stem all the way up to them [at 5 meter (16.4') > intervals]. We would then join them in the canopy mapping and divide the > tree into mapping sections. Free of branches for over 46 m (150') the trunk > was awesomely open and a deep red in the brilliant morning sun. Bob hopped > on the rope Marie had just left and we began to gather diameters from the > ground up (Bob will do a footprint map as well). My rope was set so high and > the trunk so free of branches that I was literally able to swing the entire > circumference of the trunk after anchoring one end of the tape in the soft > bark. Little did I know that this task was so incredibly easy compared with > what was to come. However, on one swing my feet slipped out of the soft bark > and I made the mistake of holding the end of the diameter tape with its claw > hook. As I swung back around the tree the claw hooked deep in my thumb, > ripped out and then sliced through my forefinger. Let's just say the bark > was a bit redder than usual after that. > > My shadow beside the trunk shadow of the tallest tree > > My thumb and finger were wrapped in duct tape which did not help my grip as > we ascended the tree higher and higher. The central trunk was amazingly > slow- tapered and dropped from 3.64 meters (11.9') diameter at 10 meters > (33'- where the trunk became circular) to still over 2.0 meters (6.6') in > diameter at 66.2 meters (217'). As we ascended and entered the lower crown I > discovered that "my" rope had passed through an impassable tangle of > branches originating from an epicormic fan. When Steve reset the rope after > being stuck none of us could see that it had passed through where it did. I > recall this being about 50 meters (165') up. I had to disconnect from the > main rope and use my lanyard to secure to the tree while I wrestled my way > up, around, and over this mess of slippery branches. I was secured to the > tree but was nervous nonetheless since the whole epicormic system could fail > and I would go with it. An unlikely event- but no backup plan since I could > not reconnect to the main rope until after I had passed the tangled mess. I > disconnected reluctantly and grabbed the branches to pull myself around. I > successfully made it over but while I was reattaching to the main line the > branch I was sitting on failed. This was a live 5 inch diameter branch! Man, > these trees are weak! Fortunately (and deliberately) I was straddled over > several such braches and they held. I definitely strained some clenching > muscles I did not know I had! I noted the cracked branch (it had not been > mapped yet) and continued upward. The trunk wraps became more challenging as > I could no longer swing around the trunk and the branches and limbs were > huge. The trunk was still over 2.45 meters (8') thick even though we were > 56.6 meters (186') off the ground. Bob and I tossed the tape to each other > as best we could. > > The main trunk ended at 87.9m (288'). From here and farther below the top > bifurcated again and again into a literal forest of thick stems. Some were > dead, partly dead and two ascended into the highest points of the tree. > Steve was on the highest leader. I ascended the other leader which topped > out at 94.5 meters (310'). I was tied in to the tree at 305'- my personal > highest climb. > > Top bifurcations and reiterations at ~79 meters (260') > > Me in the top. (Actually, this is in a different tree.) Photo courtesy and C > of Steve Sillett. > > Steve and I were the canopy scramblers and carried with us various > instruments. We had lasers for distances, carpenter's tapes for shorter > distances, diameter tapes, compasses, as well as climbing gear; straps, > pulleys, carabineers etc.. Some were duplicated in the event of dropping a > piece of gear. Of course, all were tethered but descending out of the top of > the tree to retrieve a diameter tape was not a reasonable option. Besides, > after falling several hundred feet the tape would have buried itself deep in > the duff layer and would never be found. > > With this gear Steve and I measured the crown of the tree in its entirety. > Every branch and every limb and every trunk was measured and referenced in > three-dimensional space. The point where a branch originated was known; its > height, azimuth and distance from ground zero (the center of the base of the > tree). For each branch we also measured how long it was, the slope and > direction it was growing, the diameter, and the amount of foliage it had. We > also counted cones (live and dead) on a subset of branches. Each live branch > was assessed as to how many foliar units it supported. A foliar unit was a > concise amount of live foliage that can be quantified on a small scale. > Thus, the cumulative assessment of the foliar units on each and every branch > would indicate the amount of foliage on the entire tree. Prior to data > collection we all calibrated since foliar units were not physically measured > but subjectively estimated. Later, a sample of a branch would be excised > from the tree and carried back to camp for detailed sub-sampling. > > The highest point of the tree. Note that it is cracked and leaning to the > right. > > Bob at about 43m (141') with Steve above. Note one of two original branches > above Bob. > > Bob and I started the mapping process methodically from the top down. He ... > > read more » > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
