life of a tree revealed in the rings

Page 3 of 4  
On 01/08/2016 10:56 AM, Electric Comet wrote:

...
Again, show me any reference that refutes the above.
As for common, I'd say sequoia are essentially "a dime a dozen" in their range.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote: ...

And, they're (coastal redwood) the only hexaploid _conifer_, _NOT_ the only hexaploid tree. While most hexaploid plants are grasses, etc., rather than woody plants, there are some deciduous trees which are hexaploid as well.
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Remember there are three species of Redwood. You are taking about the Sequoia sempervirens is the coastal 350 feet + tall. The inland are shorter but have massive trunks - drive through and live in... they are the or giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) 280 feet + with 26 feet diameter trunks and the new one : Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the dawn redwood the shrimp a mere 200 feet.
All have subspecies and are complex in nature. Most people don't acknowledge that Redwood is Structural wood and a hardwood. San Francisco was rebuilt after the great fire in 1907.
I owned a number of acres of species of sempervirens up to 10 years ago. We lived on the property and tended the trees. They are the biggest weed in the world. Weed you say ? The seeds shower like snow after a rain and the cones are about ripe. The trees force the cones open and shower the area. Now you have trees growing in cracks and anything that sits still. Forget gutters - they get filled. AND NO I DIDN'T CUT THEM DOWN. I could have retired there If I cut one every few years or so. I had three, maybe 4 subspecies of Coastals on my place. Some color and some structure of the sub limbs on the long limbs.
I have seed from the Sempervirens I'm going to try to grow in my greenhouse. They don't really need fog, just water. The fog is dropped to the roots off the tree as rain. I have a few Dawn seeds I'll try one at a time...
And the range of the Costals and Giants were to the Mississippi river before the mountains in the western part of the US rose and cut off the water. The giant stones and logs in the petrified forest in Arizona are Sempervirens. They have been around since the Jurassic period.
Currently the range is in France, I got a small grove going there near Bordeaux. And there is a large stand in northern Scotland. The attempt was to spread the species in case of a unique issue in the life of the earth destroyed the stands in California. Chemical or imported bug has shown itself to destroy the Chestnut groves and pine tree (on going). With silicon valley and petrochemical plants in the area anything could happen.
Martin
On 1/8/2016 2:13 PM, dpb wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:59:57 -0600, Martin Eastburn

Huh? Redwood is a conifer, thus a softwood. ...or is there some variety of Redwood that's crossed the line?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Look it up yourself. Redwood is considered both structural for beams and a hard wood. If the wood is old - e.g. sawed months or years ago it is hard to nail through. Not much sap inside so it lasts and lasts.
Being a cone bearing tree doesn't make it a softwood. Just like the mighty oak decays faster than the fast growing popular.
And have you ever built a deck with redwood and one of pine or oak ? pine fails fastest, then the oak then after more time the redwood takes a refinishing and resealing.
I had a back deck that had 6x6 posts that were 22 feet long (tall). The deck attached to the ground floor of the house and the outside on top of these tall posts. After 17 years the posts were good as new and had sharp square corners. Softwood would melt away.
We were getting 60" in low rain years, 30 when it didn't rain and over 100 when it poured. It was a rain forest with moss and fern all over.
http://www.calredwood.org/
Some call it soft because they don't use it. Some call it hard because the experts call it that way. And the lumber stores call it that way. It is a different species than conus or pines. Different rings and structure.
Martin
On 1/10/2016 4:11 PM, krw wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

A hard wood and a hardwood are not the same. Balsa is a hardwood but it is not a hard wood.

Yes, it does.

??? What does decaying have to do with biological taxonomy? And if you know of a source of non-torrefied poplar that holds up to the elements better than white oak then please share it.

So what?

Unless it's redwood.

because

So? It's still a softwood.
You seem to think that "hardwood" vs "softwood" is some kind of value judgment. It isn't.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
does the pore size and shape indicate by cone or not ?
On 1/11/2016 5:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/14/2016 10:51 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Not at all certain what you're asking but if there's a correlation of the size and shape of the cone to the wood characteristics, "not really"; there are different characteristics and the cone styles seem to have evolved relatively independently from the actual wood. Again,
"Non-porous woods (or softwoods, woods without vessels) can exhibit any of these three general patterns. Some softwoods such as Western red-cedar (Thuja plicata), northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis), and species of spruce (Picea) and true fir (Abies) have growth increments that undergo a gradual transition from the thin-walled wide-lumined earlywood cells to the thicker-walled, narrower-lumined latewood cells (Fig. 3–5B). Other woods undergo an abrupt transition from earlywood to latewood, such as southern yellow pine (Pinus), larch (Larix), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), baldcypress (Taxodium disticum), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) (Fig. 3–5C). Because most softwoods are native to the north temperate regions, growth rings are clearly evident."
There's much more at
<http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/specific_pub.php?posting_id 963&header_id=p>
Chapters 2 & 3 early on and if want even more in the botanical vein there are gazillion references within...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/10/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Whether the wood is actually hard or soft, it does not matter to be technically called one or the other. As I believe it has been pointed out it is mostly determined by the leaves and or fruit.
Balsa is considered a hardwood, the wood is not. SYP is considered to be a softwood, the wood is not.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/10/2016 9:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote: ...

Ah, there is confusion. Being a "softwood" doesn't (necessarily) make it a "soft" wood. There's a distinct difference between the two; the former is a noun describing the broad taxonomic classification to which a given species belongs whereas the other is a combination of adjective applied to the noun describing the property of the particular species.
Again I refer you to the FPL tome, this time Chapters 2 and 5--
Classification of primary species by the broad taxonomy to which they belong--
Table 2–1. Major resources of U.S. woods according to region
Western     Northern and Appalachian     Southern
Hardwoods Alder, red         Ash             Ash Ash, Oregon         Aspen             Basswood Aspen             Basswood         Beech Birch, paper         Beech             Butternut Cottonwood         Birch             Cottonwood Maple, bigleaf         Buckeye         Elm Oak, California black    Butternut         Hackberry Oak, Oregon white     Cherry             Hickory Tanoak             Cottonwood         Honeylocust             Elm             Locust, black             Hackberry         Magnolia             Hickory         Maple, soft             Honeylocust         Oak, red and white             Locust, black         Sassafras             Maple, hard         Sweetgum             Maple, soft         Sycamore             Oak, red and white     Tupelo             Sycamore         Walnut             Walnut             Willow             Yellow-poplar         Yellow-poplar
Softwoods Douglas-fir         Cedar, northern white    Baldcypress Fir, western         Fir, balsam         Cedar, Atlantic white Hemlock, western     Hemlock, eastern     Fir, Fraser and mountain         Pine, eastern white     Pine, southern Incense-cedar         Pine, Jack         Redcedar, eastern Larch, western         Pine, red Pine, lodgepole     Redcedar, eastern Pine, ponderosa     Spruce, eastern Pine, sugar         Tamarack Pine, western white Port-Orford-cedar Redcedar, western Redwood Spruce, Engelmann Spruce, Sitka Yellow-cedar
Measured mechanical properties for some selected species for comparison. Note: "Hardness" here is the modified Janka compression test which is measured by the load required to embed a roughly half-inch (0.444") diameter ball to one-half its diameter depth.
Table 5–3b. Strength properties of some commercially important woods grown in the United States
Static bending
                          Modulus                                of          Side Common species     Moisture    Specific    elasticity     hardness names         content        gravity     (xE6lbf in–2) (lbf)
Hardwoods
Ash Black         Green         0.45         1.04          520          12%         0.49         1.60          850 White        Green        0.55        1.44         960         12%        0.60        1.74        1320 Aspen Quaking    Green        0.35        0.86         300         12%        0.38        1.18         350 Beech, American Green         0.56         1.38         859         12%         0.64         1.72        1300 Cherry, black    Green         0.47         1.31         600         12%         0.50         1.49         950 Locust, black         Green         0.66         1.85         1570         12%         0.69         2.05         1700 Yellow-poplar     Green         0.40         1.22          440         12%         0.42         1.58          540
Softwoods Cedar Eastern red     Green         0.44         0.65          650         12%         0.47         0.88          — Western red    Green         0.31         0.94          260         12%         0.32         1.11          350 Douglas-fir Coast         Green         0.45         1.56          500         12%         0.48         1.95          710 Interior South    Green         0.43         1.16          360         12%         0.46         1.49          510 Pine Eastern white    Green         0.34         0.99          290         12%         0.35         1.24          380 Longleaf     Green         0.54         1.59          590         12%         0.59         1.98          870 Ponderosa     Green         0.38         1.00          320         12%         0.40         1.29          460 Redwood Old-growth     Green         0.38         1.18          410         12%         0.40         1.34          480 Young-growth     Green         0.34         0.96          350         12%         0.35         1.10         420
I've picked a few of various well-known and used species from each category with an eye to illustrating characteristics. As can be seen, in general it's certainly true the "hardwoods" are harder than the "softwoods" which is clearly the reason the generic classification came to be. Much like the "annual ring" vis a vis "growth ring" nomenclature, it's common idiomatic and not really entirely accurate but it's so established it's what is used for commercial classification and hence is the convention even amongst research organizations such as US FPL to retain it for that general use.
Interestingly, one can note that while old-growth redwood is a wonderful wood for many of its properties (not the least of which is, of course, that there's so much clear grain owing to the size of the log), it really isn't _that_ hard in comparison with the other structural pines and is in fact quite soft compared to the typical SYP (of which I chose Longleaf as representative of the classification which is again a trade/commercial grading of several closely related species that are essentially indistinguishable, not any single species). In comparison to an Eastern white pine or cedar it is quite a lot harder, yes.
So, upshot is, don't take the designation of redwood as a "softwood" as any denigration of the wood itself; it's merely the classification in which it falls by its taxonomy and commercial classification.
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/11/2016 11:22 AM, dpb wrote:
Try reformatting the tables -- use a fixed font and should be moderately legible now w/o tab spacing--
Table 2–1. Major resources of U.S. woods according to region
Western Northern and Appalachian Southern
Hardwoods Alder, red Ash Ash Ash, Oregon Aspen Basswood Aspen Basswood Beech Birch, paper Beech Butternut Cottonwood Birch Cottonwood Maple, bigleaf Buckeye Elm Oak, California black Butternut Hackberry Oak, Oregon white Cherry Hickory Tanoak Cottonwood Honeylocust Elm Locust, black Hackberry Magnolia Hickory Maple, soft Honeylocust Oak, red and white Locust, black Sassafras Maple, hard Sweetgum Maple, soft Sycamore Oak, red and white Tupelo Sycamore Walnut Walnut Willow Yellow-poplar Yellow-poplar
Softwoods Douglas-fir Cedar, northern white Baldcypress Fir, western Fir, balsam Cedar, Atlantic white Hemlock, western Hemlock, eastern Fir, Fraser and mountain Pine, eastern white Pine, southern Incense-cedar Pine, Jack Redcedar, eastern Larch, western Pine, red Pine, lodgepole Redcedar, eastern Pine, ponderosa Spruce, eastern Pine, sugar Tamarack Pine, western white Port-Orford-cedar Redcedar, western Redwood Spruce, Engelmann Spruce, Sitka Yellow-cedar
Measured mechanical properties for some selected species for comparison. Note: "Hardness" here is the modified Janka compression test which is measured by the load required to embed a roughly half-inch (0.444") diameter ball to one-half its diameter depth.
Table 5–3b. Strength properties of some commercially important woods grown in the United States
Modulus of Common species Moisture Specific Side Elasticity Hardness names content gravity (xE6lbf in–2) (lbf)
Hardwoods Ash Black Green 0.45 1.04 520 12% 0.49 1.60 850 White Green 0.55 1.44 960 12% 0.60 1.74 1320 Aspen Quaking Green 0.35 0.86 300 12% 0.38 1.18 350 Beech, American Green 0.56 1.38 859 12% 0.64 1.72 1300 Cherry, black Green 0.47 1.31 600 12% 0.50 1.49 950 Locust, black Green 0.66 1.85 1570 12% 0.69 2.05 1700 Yellow-poplar Green 0.40 1.22 440 12% 0.42 1.58 540
Softwoods Cedar Eastern red Green 0.44 0.65 650 12% 0.47 0.88 — Western red Green 0.31 0.94 260 12% 0.32 1.11 350 Douglas-fir Coast Green 0.45 1.56 500 12% 0.48 1.95 710 Interior South Green 0.43 1.16 360 12% 0.46 1.49 510 Pine Eastern white Green 0.34 0.99 290 12% 0.35 1.24 380 Longleaf Green 0.54 1.59 590 12% 0.59 1.98 870 Ponderosa Green 0.38 1.00 320 12% 0.40 1.29 460 Redwood Old-growth Green 0.38 1.18 410 12% 0.40 1.34 480 Young-growth Green 0.34 0.96 350 12% 0.35 1.10 420
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/10/2016 10:59 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:

yes it does. Just like balsa is considered a hardwood. Technically speaking, deciduous = hardwood, conifer=softwood. That has nothing to do with it's actual hardness since balsa is one of the softest woods.
Just like the

--
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The technical difference isn't whether, or not, it drops leaves (deciduous). Many conifers drop leaves every year. The delineation is made based on the seeds. If the seeds are contained in the ovary, it's a hardwood. If the seeds are external, on the leaves (cones included), it's a softwood.
There are a lot of weird varieties of plants around and I didn't know if there were an exception to the soft/hardwood thing in Redwoods.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/08/2016 1:49 PM, dpb wrote:

Or, more specifically, even a single paper that supports the claim of "decades" (I'd even take several years) between growth rings of any tree in any temperate climate.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

From what I understand (probably from reading Hasluck's thick compilation), even a single growth ring has a spring part and a winter part. It's difficult to argue with that. Maybe the dispute here has to go with what one calls a "growth ring". I believe I would say that the trunk of a tree has growth rings even if they are invisible to the naked eye. In fact, I would define them in terms of annual seasons.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2016 7:17 AM, Bill wrote:

...
The dispute here is that I don't believe the claim that a single growth ring can take "decades" to form is based on anything but I'd be most interested to see how that could be if it were indeed, really so.
As noted in all recent literature, the term "annual rings" is considered to be less than accurate owing to its reliance on temperate zone with regular seasons to be so; the tropics of course being the extreme the other direction. I was simply noting that owing to aberrations in normal weather it's possible for there to be the occasional extra or even a missed growth cycle in a given year even in normally very regular seasonal areas and one could postulate severe climatic events that could cause, perhaps, even more than a single year duration of such albeit more and more unlikely as the time frame expands. To think there would be such that lasted for a ten year span is simply expecting too much; or if so, as noted above I'd surely like to see the specimen in which it was found.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd say growing seasons is the soft more alive ring area and the hard ring is the winter very slow growing.
The Redwoods would grow a foot or more on every rain or heavy fog. After a fair rain, you could stand outside and hear the wood swell.
We had one near the house that was maybe a 30" sapling (diameter) and as it grew upward the trunk rotated. The lower limbs were trimmed off the deck only to have new ones sweep inward towards the house. Not all did that and I think the wood might be beautiful if cut, but have no idea on strength with twisted grain.
Martin
On 1/9/2016 9:18 AM, dpb wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:49:53 -0600

people like to believe what they want i would not play the spoiler

sure thing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2016 10:01 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

...
Pshaw! You made the claim, show the basis in the research, otherwise admit you're just "making it up".
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/10/2016 9:45 AM, dpb wrote:

He does not seem to be capable of communicating whether it be from lack of education or just being lazy. I seriously doubt he could find the information you are asking him to produce, again for the above reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.