Don: Got it--thanks! I should look again at what was said on that topic--I can't remember, even though I read the article.
--Gaines ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gaines- > > If you've not already done so, check out the recent National Geographic with > coverage on redwoods...such points are discussed there! > > -Don > >> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:46:05 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: White pine growth rates--something of interest >> about growth possibilities >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected] >> >> Don: >> >> Now that I could believe--that is just a tad more than 10 feet >> taller than the tallest one standing now. With something like 98% of >> the old growth redwoods cut, it would not seem that likely that what >> is left includes a tree taller than any that was cut down. 400 feet >> might be pushing it a bit, but I wouldn't rule that out either. Maybe >> someone could show on the basis of research that there is a limit >> beyond which a redwood couldn't raise water, even in the best >> conditions. But I am not sure that has yet been done. >> >> --Gaines >> ------------------------------------------ >> On 1/6/10, DON BERTOLETTE <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Gaines- >> > >> > How about 390' redwood in California? >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
