Talk:List of largest giant sequoias/Archive 1

Widest tree?
I'd like to see a citation for the "widest" tree. I question whether it is a baobab; it may be the Montezuma cypress in Monterey, Mexico. Ryoung 122 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Lost Monarch from the Discussion and revising the volume of the General Sherman
1. The Lost Monarch is a not a Giant Sequoia it's a Coast Redwood and is irrelevant to the topic. 2. The Lost Monarch is a two stemmed tree and the measurement cited here at 42,500 cu/ft includes 6,000+ cu/ft of material from Stem #2. 3. Dr. Robert Van Pelt places the Lost Monarch, when measuring a single stem at 34,914 cu/ft which puts it 24th, not 7th, on this list if it were a Giant Sequoia. 4. The 2nd largest Coast Redwood "Melkor" has the same problem. It's measurements include a 2nd Stem. 5. The largest Single Stemmed Coast Redwood comes in at somewhere in the neighborhood of 36,800 cu/ft. which would place that tree at approximately 16th on this list, if it were a sequoia, which it is not.

Lastly, Behold the following comment by Dr. Robert Van Pelt author of "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" as he was addressing the issue of tree species and volume comparisons on a thread at nativetreesociety dot org

"For single stemmed trees the Sequoias have no peer. These are the trees I know of over 10 K cubic feet

Sequoiadendron 55,040 Sequoia 36,890 Agathis 18,250 Thuja 17,650 Eucalyptus 13,300 Pseudotsuga 12,320 Picea 11,920 Taxodium ~10K Adansonia ~10K

I do not think any others would make this list.

In terms of living biomass, remember that a tree like the General Sherman is 99 percent dead. Only the cambium, a very small amount of phloem and xylem, the leaves and fine roots are actually alive.

The Populus tremuloides (and P. tremula in Asia) clones are famous, but most people forget that Sequoia is often clonal - a grove of 7 or 8 giants would have more mass than the 47,000 stems of Utah's 'Pando' clone. Other, less well studied clones could be just as extensive (and ancient). Where I live there is evidence that certain clones of Acer circinatum or Rhododendron macrophyllum are 4-6,000 years old. These clones could now consist of enough stems to warrent inclusion in this list.

In terms of actual living mass, the mycelium of the Armelaria gallica that covers 15 hectares in Upper Michigan will probably beat any of the 'tree' contenders.

How unromantic."

As you can see above, Dr. Van Pelt uses the measurement of 55,040 cu/ft for the General Sherman Tree. It is the same figure cited in his book "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" in which he measures the top 10 trees of all the major Pacific Coast Trees. This is the most up to date consumer book on Tree Volumes in existence. To my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed materials that contradict his measurements. He used a Criterion RD-1000 Laser to measure the volume of the General Sherman, and the other top 10 Giant Sequoia's in which his volumes differ substantially from the pin & transit measurements of prior decades primarily conducted by Flint and Law. Because the Criterion RD-1000 can measure dozens if not hundreds of diameter measurements from various angles even while the laser is impeded by vegetation...the data collected is far more comprehensive than that collected by a transit which is slow and tedious and requires line of sight measurements. Thus the most current accurate measurement of the General Sherman is 55,040. If it has not been revised, or commented upon in the next few weeks, I will make the revisions myself for the top 10 trees. AfterSeven (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Washington Tree - 2nd Largest?
I was checking a ref and this NPS article has Washington Tree 2nd at 47,850 cubic feet in volume whilst this page shows 35,901 cubic feet. What is the discrepancy and should this be fixed? Buzzbo (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Washington Tree lost much of its trunk as a result of a lightning strike/fire in 2003. See the section on Damaging agents. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Methuselah Tree
There's one obvious discrepancy I can find between this list and the one at Sequoiadendron. Here, Methuselah Tree is listed as the 28th largest, whereas in the main article it's at #16. Any ideas? mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not use the Sequoiadendron article as a source for this article. I have seen Methuselah listed as the 24th largest tree on one list from 1996. It is ranked as the 27th largest tree on another list (date unknown). It is ranked as the 30th largest tree on yet another list from 1998. It is ranked as the 28th largest tree in Wendell Flint's authoritative book To Find the Biggest Tree from 2002, as well as on the National Park Service's list from the same year. I have yet to see any credible list that ranks it any higher than 24th, but I will keep searching for the most up-to-date and credible sources to ensure the accuracy of the data presented. Thanks for your help! DiverDave (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I do not have the book with me, I recall reading in Mike Law's comments from the 2002 edition of the book “To Find the Biggest Tree” that the Methuselah Tree volume should be much higher than his and Flint's stated 32,897 cu. ft. volume based on Mike Law's estimate of corrected volume (due to earlier errors in calculation/measurements). Basically, it seems that the 32,897 cu. ft. number has been declared erroneous by one of the people who made that measurement, and that the Methuselah Tree is significantly larger in volume. Someone needs to remeasure the Methuselah Tree to get the correct volume, but we do know that 32,897 cu. ft. is not correct, and that it is apparently significantly lower than the actual volume of the Methuselah Tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgw2010 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)