Yeah, I'm really happy he found this site too.  As soon as I saw those  
tulips in his first post I knew he had something significant, because  
the other hilly sites I've been to in Ohio with 140'+ tulips were all  
significantly younger looking trees.


On Nov 22, 2009, at 10:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> Steve,
>
>       Wild! Sand Run is a very significant site. I am very impressed.  
> Some of us have long thought that Ohio should have some darn good  
> sites. You have proven it. Congratulations.
>
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Galehouse" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:34:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada  
> Eastern
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Sand Run revisited
>
>
>
> Randy, ENTS-
>
> I returned to Sand Run this weekend and remeasured the beech--the  
> best I could get was 132', but I think this figure is accurate. I  
> explored up the ravine where the beech was found(actually hiked a  
> ridge and came down through the narrow valley) and found some more  
> fantastic tulip-trees, the largest was about 200-300 yards up the  
> ravine from the beech. This tree was 14' 6'' CBH. I got a nearly  
> straight up measurement of 52 yards at 85 degrees for 155.4', plus  
> 4' for my eye level measured above grade for 159.4' (!). A nearly  
> 160' height for a Tulip in N Ohio is pretty good, I think. Also  
> found a 134.5' Red Oak.
>
> There is also grove of Tulip-trees at the base of the hills that has  
> many trees in the 8'-10' CBH and 140'-150' range. All the trees in  
> the summary below were found within about a half-mile of each other,  
> and there are many more areas of the park to explore, so I hope to  
> increase the R.I. with more searching. Species present but not  
> measured yet are Hemlock, Basswood, Cucumber-tree, Tupelo, Sugar,  
> Black, and Red Maples and Hackberry, plus others I'm sure. This area  
> is very accessible, on the north end of Akron 30 minutes from the  
> Ohio Turnpike; I would encourage any ENTS types traveling across  
> Ohio consider a visit.
>
> Tuliptree                      159.4    14' 6''    41' 08.030    81'  
> 33.697
> Red Oak                     134.5                41' 08.139    81'  
> 33.647
> American Beech          132                   41' 08.177    81' 33.914
> Walnut                        125
> Black Cherry               125
> Cottonwood                 124
> Bitternut Hickory          123.7
> White Ash                   123
> Sycamore                   121.95
> Slippery Elm               121
>
> R I                             128.95
>
> Black Oak                  117.6
> White Oak                  103
> Butternut                     95
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Randy Brown <[email protected] 
> > wrote:
> All,
>
> I've gone back through my notes on this beech tree.  We shot the tree
> from the point of the view in the picture.  The lower site line was  
> 2˚
> @ 76.5 yards = 8.01'.  Normally you add the lower site line because
> the base of the tree is almost always below your eye point when
> shooting on 'level ground'.  However, as you can see in the picture of
> the tree, the base is actually uphill from the shooter.  The
> foreshortening of the zoom lense of the camera makes this more
> noticeable than it was in person.   I think there is a reasonable
> chance we should be subtracting 8' instead of adding, giving one
> 127.6'.    I think we need to withdraw this number until this tree can
> be remeasured.
>
> Sorry Guys,
>
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Jess Riddle wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Beech rarely dominant sites in the southeast, except at high
> > elevations.  It does occur scattered at multiple sites with 170'
> > tuliptrees, but still struggles to reach 120'.  I've never been to a
> > tall tree site where beech was the second tallest species.
> >
> > It would be great to see some black maple numbers from a fertile  
> site.
> >
> > Jess
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/15/09, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Steve Galehouse <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:32 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Sand Run revisited
> >> To: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> Jess, ENTS-
> >>
> >> I didn't realize the beech was that exceptional---its height must
> >> be due to
> >> its location in the valley and competition with the tuliptrees; I
> >> think
> >> Randy measured the circumference also. I'm no sure how frequent a
> >> tuliptree/beech association is in the south, but tulips are by far
> >> the
> >> predominant tree in this area, followed by beech. The latitude is N
> >> 41' 08.
> >> The aspect of the site was that of a relatively young forest in
> >> vigorous
> >> growth, with most trees having tall, straight, clean boles(see red
> >> oak
> >> photo), with hardly any gnarl factor, other than the 157' tulip in
> >> the
> >> earlier photo. The soils and topography must greatly influence the
> >> growth
> >> potential.
> >>
> >> Other measured trees were a bitternut hickory at 123.7', red oak at
> >> 124.7',
> >> slippery elm at 121', white ash at 123', and sycamore at 121.95'.
> >> As I
> >> mentioned earlier, sugar/black maples were relatively scarce, but
> >> in the
> >> 120' range. The canopy height in a general sense was 120-130'.
> >> Most of the
> >> mature tulips were 130-140'. Other nice trees were black and white
> >> oaks, and
> >> basswood, which I plan to measure later this year, as well as
> >> hemlock which
> >> are in a different area of the park.
> >>
> >>
> >> Attached are a Rucker height index, which will likely increase with
> >> different species, and a few more photos.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tuliptree                    158.1    8'4''    N 41' 08.030    W
> >> 81' 33.697
> >> Bitternut Hickory        123.7
> >> Red Oak                    124.7             N 41' 07.986    W 81'
> >> 33.728
> >> Slippery Elm              121
> >> American Beech         143.6
> >> White Ash                  123
> >> Sycamore                  121.95
> >> Walnut                       106
> >> Butternut                     95
> >> Cottonwood                 124
> >>
> >> R.I. Height                   124.1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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]
> >>
> >
> > --
> > 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]
>
> --
> 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]
>
> -- 
> 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]
> -- 
> 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]

-- 
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]

Reply via email to