Largest Tree Ever Recorded

mdvaden

Well-Known Member
Recently, I've been following a growing update at the site of Michael Taylor, about what was at least the second largest tree ever recorded in the last few centuries, if not the second largest.

Crannell Creek Giant coast redwood

He's been assembling reference sources much more complete than some vague mentions that I have read elsewhere.

Total wood volume would have been over 60,000 cubic feet, quite a bit bigger than General Sherman giant sequoia (52,000 cubic feet). A log by log acount published early in the century, showed over 20' diameter at dbh, and a remarkable 15' diameter at 200' high. Total height 308' tall.

Although a larger coast redwood was never photographed, I think Taylor suspects the Lindsey Creek coast redwood existed. It would have been 19' diameter at 130' high, whereas Crannell Creek Giant was 17' diameter at 130' high. Taylor wrote that Lindsey Creek tree was covered in an article, as having "535,000 board feet of merchantable timber", which he said indicates a 90,000 cubic foot coast redwood. That would make the Lindsey Creek redwood virtually twice the size of General Sherman.

I had wondered if an image even existed for these. Apparently at least one large image exists in a museum.

"merchantable timber" is only part of a tree's wood volume. A 90,000 cubic foot coast redwood would have volume of 1,080,000 board feet if wood and bark were dice-up.

Either coast redwood sounds realistic, because presently, only 7 giant sequoia known to exist, are bigger than the largest coast redwood. So giant sequoia are not the largest trees in the world: but only 7 of them, at present.
 
535,0000 board ft in a single tree!! Man, I cut that in somewhere between a month and a half to 2 months depending on the timber when I was logging! And I was the top cutter!
CRAZY!
 

mdvaden

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
535,0000 board ft in a single tree!! Man, I cut that in somewhere between a month and a half to 2 months depending on the timber when I was logging! And I was the top cutter!
CRAZY!


[/ QUOTE ]

I edited an addition close to the time of your post, about "merchantable". That was not the total board feet. Closer to a million.
 

Gerald_Beranek

Active Member
Any clues to their locations, Mario. The stumps, or what's left of them may still be there.

Even with forensic evidence I find it hard to believe the volume of a coast redwood could exceed that of the Sherman tree. The Bull Creek giant has 235,000 bf of wood standing and I really have to say in all my hikes I have seen few that could match it. For years there's been a lot of conjecture about past trees exceeding current title holders but I have my doubts about those claims.

What counts is what's standing. To me. And there is no conjecture or anything else to dispute it.
 

mdvaden

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Any clues to their locations, Mario. The stumps, or what's left of them may still be there.

Even with forensic evidence I find it hard to believe the volume of a coast redwood could exceed that of the Sherman tree. The Bull Creek giant has 235,000 bf of wood standing and I really have to say in all my hikes I have seen few that could match it. For years there's been a lot of conjecture about past trees exceeding current title holders but I have my doubts about those claims.

What counts is what's standing. To me. And there is no conjecture or anything else to dispute it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howdy.

Hows the day going. Here's a link to Taylor's page with his notes. It's the latest entry today at the top of the page.

Taylor's Landmark Tree Latest News Page

If you get on his main page, then follow to either largest or tallest trees, then the species, you can compare size and volume for giant sequoia or coast redwood. Taylor has up to date stats on all of them. Bull Creek Giant is like 9th or 10th down the list. Lost Monarch, the largest of the top 10 coast redwoods, has a bit over 42,000 cubic feet and is not that much smaller than Sherman, and even has a few more inches at DBH than Sherman too. If Lost Monarch is just part of the 5% old growth beasties remaining after selective harvesting, just think what was standing in the other 95%.

It's interesting to compare Taylor's news notes on the Crannell giant, to the volumes of largest coast redwoods on this other page. Because Adventure redwood is bigger than Bull Creek Giant, even though Adventure only has a 16' diameter trunk at DBH.

The Crannell redwood was virtually Adventure's dbh diameter, but up at 200' off the ground. That's a wild hair of a thought.

 

jcarufel

Active Member
I came across this post after we were out in California last week. It was good meeting you out there Gerry!

I was wondering what happened with Taylors website or if it has been moved or something like that? Super interesting stuff guys!

Thanks!
 
Top