I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.
As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.
The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?

Rupert wrote:

I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.
As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.
The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?

Each ring is a year. The closer the rings the slower the tree has grown.

The message
from "Rupert" contains these words:

I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.

No. Only the age of the branch.

That being said, you can safely assume that the tree is older than the
branch...

As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring
rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate
answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.

It depends on so many things, location and altitude, drainage, aspect,
fertility of the soil, genetic make-up of the tree.

So, not really.

The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?

Get some slim glass nails over 2½ feet long and hammer them into the
tree with a rubber mallet.

Shine a torch into the shaft of the nail and count the rings?

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

In message , Rupert
writes
I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.
As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.
The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?


You can count rings on the branch, which will give you a minimum age for
the tree.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:
Get some slim glass nails over 2½ feet long and hammer them into the
tree with a rubber mallet.
Shine a torch into the shaft of the nail and count the rings?

Just ask the bloody neighbours!!

"Rusty Hinge 2" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "Rupert" contains these words:

I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.

No. Only the age of the branch.

That being said, you can safely assume that the tree is older than the
branch...

As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring
rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate
answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.

It depends on so many things, location and altitude, drainage, aspect,
fertility of the soil, genetic make-up of the tree.

So, not really.

The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the
ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?

Get some slim glass nails over 2½ feet long and hammer them into the
tree with a rubber mallet.

Shine a torch into the shaft of the nail and count the rings?

How much bigger than 2.5 feet ? Every inch counts. Wouldn't it be better to
get a 5 foot glass nail and go right through the tree :-)


--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb 2006 09:54:04 -0800, "La Puce" wrote:


Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:
Get some slim glass nails over 2½ feet long and hammer them into the
tree with a rubber mallet.
Shine a torch into the shaft of the nail and count the rings?

Just ask the bloody neighbours!!

LOL

http://www.iit.edu/~smile/cb0598.htm
"The age of the tree can be approximated by using the measuring tape
to obtain the girth of the trunk at a point five feet above the base
of the tree. This number is basically the age of the tree but bear in
mind that this method does not work on saplings. Where possible the
use of the tree-ring method on a cut tree could provide verification
for the accuracy of this activity"

"But ageing by ring counts often means felling the tree. Foresters do
use increment borers to take a core sample about the width of a pencil
from the outside to the centre of a living tree - that core or plug is
then carefully extracted and the annual rings counted. The hole is
then plugged again.



http://www.rfs.org.uk/thirdlevel.asp...SecondLevel=66

"You can also get a pretty good idea of a tree's age from the girth of
its trunk - how fat it is. Trees will grow at different rates
depending on how good soil, shelter or climate are and if they enjoy
space to grow freely or are hemmed in by neighbours. Trees grow faster
when young and slow down in later life. Some species of tree are
inherently fast growing.

But as a good guide, broad leaved trees like oak, ash, beech and
sycamore in UK woodlands put on about 1.5 to 2cm in circumference or
girth per year. In open conditions, like parkland, the growth rate
will be nearer 2.5cm annually. So by measuring the trunk circumference
and dividing by 1.5, 2 or 2.5, you can make an informed guesstimate of
age.

This is Mitchell's Rule, named after the late world famous UK tree
expert, Alan Mitchell."
--
Martin

Thanks that's what I wanted. I still might try the glass nail method.

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.
As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring
rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate
answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.
The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the
ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The branch will have been growing in the same conditions as the bole
and the average number of rings per inch, from the branch, mutiplied by 30
[the radius of the tree in inches] will give a reasoned age.
Best Wishes Brian.

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On 5 Feb 2006 09:54:04 -0800, "La Puce" wrote:

Just ask the bloody neighbours!!

LOL

One does, indeed, wonder as to the sort of neighbours that La Puce
has.

My mother had some beeches of that size cut down, as they were
getting dangerous, and they were known to be 200 years old.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Martin wrote:
On 5 Feb 2006 09:54:04 -0800, "La Puce" wrote:

Just ask the bloody neighbours!!

LOL

One does, indeed, wonder as to the sort of neighbours that La Puce
has.

My mother had some beeches of that size cut down, as they were
getting dangerous, and they were known to be 200 years old.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Thanks that seems to fit with other data.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

LOL
One does, indeed, wonder as to the sort of neighbours that La Puce
has.

All sorts really.

Rupert said his neighbours were throwing guesses at the age of the
tree. I would listen to my neighbours for one is 81 years old and he
has lived in my street all his life, the others opposite have been
there 43 years. So yes, I'd ask my neighbours if they know or remember
when the tree was 1. planted, 2. there when they first moved in, 3. if
perhaps one knows how to give the age of the tree by looking at the
branche, 4. I'd get a map of the local area to see which trees were
planted where and when and finally, trees grow slowly or quicker
depending of climate.

"Brian" --- 'flayb' to respond wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
I have a big beech tree which will require one very large branch to be
removed from the upper part of the tree. Can I glean any information from
the removed branch as to an approximate age of this tree.
As an alternative is there anywhere that gives approximate growth ring
rates
for beech . I know this method would not give a particularly accurate
answer
but it would be better than all the wild guesses made by the local
neighbours.
The circumference of the tree is 16 feet (taken at 4.5feet from the
ground).
Any scientific methods or even guesses please?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The branch will have been growing in the same conditions as the bole
and the average number of rings per inch, from the branch, mutiplied by 30
[the radius of the tree in inches] will give a reasoned age.
Best Wishes Brian.



Thanks Brian. I will be fascinated to see how this formula and some of the
others work when the branch is finally taken down.

In article .com,
La Puce wrote:

LOL
One does, indeed, wonder as to the sort of neighbours that La Puce
has.

All sorts really.

Rupert said his neighbours were throwing guesses at the age of the
tree. I would listen to my neighbours for one is 81 years old and he
has lived in my street all his life, the others opposite have been
there 43 years. So yes, I'd ask my neighbours if they know or remember
when the tree was 1. planted, 2. there when they first moved in, ...

Well, I suppose that you might not be aware that no tree growing in
the UK of 16' in diameter 4+' up will be less than about 200 years
old, but it is so. I thought that it was common knowledge.

4. I'd get a map of the local area to see which trees were
planted where and when ...

You might have more difficulty getting hold of a reliable, detailed
late 18th century map than you seem to think.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Rupert" contains these words:

How much bigger than 2.5 feet ? Every inch counts. Wouldn't it be better to
get a 5 foot glass nail and go right through the tree :-)


No, you would never know where to stop counting, unless the rings are
handily numbered, which I doubt.

You have to assume that the centre of the rings is the centre of the
tree (which it almost certainly won't be) and be very careful to aim the
nail at where you believe the centre to be.

Of course, the latest ones have a 'nail' with a sheathed and bundled
fibre-optic construction, with the ends turned through 90°, and a screen
to view the image, and the point of the 'nail' is guided by a GPS
system, and a rubber hydraulic ram is employed instead of the old
Forester's Glass Nail Mallet.

You can still pick the old ones up at country auctions, but like the
Skyhook, they are fast disappearing, to reappear screwed to the fake
beams in theme pubs.

Why, only last week at The Scrobbler's Apprentice they were using a
job-lot of No3 spirit level bubbles in some cocktail or other. Entre
deux Lunes, I think they called it.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Well, I suppose that you might not be aware that no tree growing in
the UK of 16' in diameter 4+' up will be less than about 200 years
old, but it is so. I thought that it was common knowledge.

I meant 16' in circumference, of course. I believe that there are
none 16' in diameter that are not seriously hollow, and they are
all close to or over a millennium old.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.