Talk:List of superlative trees

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Forestry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Largest tree?[edit]

Does the Giant Sequoia really hold the title for largest tree according to volume? Wouldn't that belong to one of the giant Indian banyans (which I believe to be some hundreds of feet wide)?

Just wanted to clarify, thanks.Lonious (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petersianthus quadrialatum[edit]

The article for persianthus quadrialatum claims that the tallest-known tree is 318 feet high. While I have not found a citation for that claim, I did find an Australian website that lists this tree species as reaching 87.5 meters, which would qualify for this list. See https://i0.wp.com/tasmaniangeographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/GiantTreeInfoSheets_toshare-2-2.jpeg?fit=1024%2C724&ssl=1 as a citationRyoung122 19:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian record trees destroyed in 2019 Fires[edit]

According to a tree expert who checked to follow up on superlative trees burned in the January-February 2019 fires in Tasmania, several of the record-holding trees collapsed and/or died in the fires, including:

Bigfoot (largest eucalyptus regnans) Rullah Longatyle (largest blue gum) Ryoung122 19:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: here is a reliable website which has an update on the fire damage: https://tasmaniasgianttrees.weebly.com/ Ryoung122 03:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Meranti record[edit]

Greetings,

While I would "love" for the recently-discovered, record-breaking yellow meranti to be 100.8 meters tall, this scientific journal article notes that the Menara tree is growing on a slope and 100.8 meters seems to be measured from the lowest point of the base to the top, with 96.8 meters being the high side. Averaging these would produce an average height of 98.8 meters.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00032/full

Anyone else have an opinion on this? Also, I suggest that we could create an article for this individual tree. Thoughts?Ryoung122 19:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. 100.8m is not even to the lowest part of the bole but to the lowest part of the BUTTRESS. They report height to the lowest part of bole 98.90 m, to the highest base point of bole 96.26 m. So the correct height is 97.58 m as I have written in Shorea faguetiana. Krasanen (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed[edit]

Fgnievinski proposed splitting out the Tallest trees section into its own article. What's the rationale? — hike395 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's important enough. fgnievinski (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: taking a look at WP:Splitting, this can't be a size split (since there is only 7KB of prose in the article, and is a list article also). The page covers more than one topic: tallest, oldest, etc. trees. If you'd like to split out List of tallest trees, we should show notability according to the general notability guideline. Now, tallest tree lists are a well-known concept (as you say). For example, the American Forests NGO has a "register of champion trees" [1]. There are a number of websites that maintain "tallest tree by species" lists: [2], [3], [4]. So, it's probably fine to split.

I would suggest that we follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and keep a short list here, with a longer or more detailed list at List of tallest trees. This would be analogous to List of oldest trees. — hike395 (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I think it would be a good idea to have this as the "home-base" article and then split out more-detailed articles. There are several issues that could be better-covered in a split-out article: A. Tallest individual trees vs Tallest tree species. Right now, this article only includes the "one" tallest tree for each species. I think a lot of readers want to know what the second-tallest redwood is. B. Officialness/correctness of height measurements: we have seen that there is a varying degree of information when it comes to tree height measurement (and also tree size measurement). The nuances of each topic could be better-covered with a separate article that could, for example, include information such as "date of last measure". C. Living vs Historical: Just because a tree dies (for example, El Grande, former largest eucalyptus tree) doesn't mean that the measurements no longer exist. Separate articles should be able to include seperate lists for "all-time" vs "living". Even among the living, heights may increase or decrease or time...the top of the tree may break off or it may be growing higher. Again, more details that are a bit much for a super-article but for an article split, more material can be included. D. Tall-tree ecology: there is a move away from seeing the heights of trees as isolated and, instead, as a measure of forest health. This could be covered better with additional articles.Ryoung122 03:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --- I kept the top 10 of the list here, sending the rest of the list out to the new article. We need to resolve the self-contradiction, however. — hike395 (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Blue Gum now up to 92 meters (302 feet)[edit]

Greetings,

The world's tallest blue gum has been climbed and re-measured, now 92 meteres high (302 feet):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=177&v=hvXjyWJVh1E&feature=emb_title&fbclid=IwAR3Lhqr-D_PHsbPMQCMGucPPCrXIgGkdl7us409aOz1oLsGdCMIjr8dLQNE

This is the same tree already listed. However, it is 7 years later, and now taller.Ryoung122 06:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change in inclusion criteria: "reliably measured" instead of "living"[edit]

Big trees are old trees; old trees die (sorry to say). If we keep using "living" as an essential criterion for inclusion in these lists, it will be harder to keep the lists up to date. Also, the death of a large tree isn't always covered by news, or documented by science, with the same consistency as the discovery of a large tree is. We really don't know if all of these trees are still alive. So, what if we use reliable measurement as the criterion for inclusion instead, regardless of the tree's current existential status? That would still exclude sensational and poorly sourced claims of exceptional height/girth/volume/whatever, and keep the list useful and informative while reducing the maintenance burden. Thoughts? J-Mo 22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, tree death often changes the volume of the tree (e.g., The Senator, Washington tree, Sunland Baobab). The reliable measurement may simply be incorrect either due to the death of the tree, or shortly after. — hike395 (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: true, but I'm mostly talking about retaining trees on the list after they die if they were the largest reliably-measured specimens when they were living, and if no currently-living specimen exceeds their greatest attained dimensions. For example, the Quinault Lake Cedar is still on the "Stoutest" list even though it died in 2016 (and fortunately in this case there is good documentation of its death). I don't think there are any living redcedars that are as "stout" as this one was, so it makes sense in my view to keep it on the list—and to apply this same standard to other trees that are currently on the list, when they die. Cheers, J-Mo 22:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtmorgan: I see your point. Would we keep the "peak" measurement while the tree was still alive? Or the last measurement? E.g., should we list the Washington tree as second-largest before it fell over? I worry that readers might be misled by out-of-date peak measurements. OTOH, List of oldest trees makes it clear that many of the trees listed are dead (and are not getting any older). Maybe this is more of a problem for "largest", because trees can shrink before they die. — hike395 (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: I think focusing on the peak measurement makes most sense. If a big tree loses its top or something, and there's a good source for that (with or without a new measurement), we can note that. But as I see it the purpose of the article is to document the greatest reliably-measured dimensions ever attained for a species, so making the peak measurement the canonical one makes sense to me. And, as I noted before, it would reduce the maintenance burden on us, since we would only ever need to update the list if a new tree is discovered which exceeds the "peak" measurement of the current champion. J-Mo 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overstated measurements, exception.
Although currently, the tallest trees are well measured, and thus reliable in measurement, it should be stated, that despite older estimates on tree sizes, these may yet be true, even taking not so reliable measurements into account, and that some of those trees may have been logged since then. Specially during the US' early expansion phase, when wood was in such high demand, some trees may have existed which we're both higher and older, by far. The only limitation to a tree's height is it's ability to grow further, and that can only be established upon it's natural death's ending, if and when such an ending is true natural, excluding external damages. It could be that especially redwoods, can become much taller.

Overstated/variation in measurements, girth, exception.
Since a tree is one big osmosis factory, the girth can also vary because of the availability of water, since measuring after rainfall, will greatly increase the osmosis, and thus vary the girth. The osmotic pressure to reach 100 meters up would have to be near 10 bars at ground level, for water to reach that high. I'm not saying that this can vary up to the amount that these measurement are 'off' but to a certain degree it would always be, at any given time, because of this. A tree with a trunk of 14 meters, side to side, would definitely show signs of increased girth after rainfall.

Dead trees[edit]

Why are they still on these lists??? 184.147.89.192 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One example: the information is useful for gauging what a particular species is capable of. Facial (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of T. mucronatum in list of largest trees[edit]

Several websites estimate the Arbol del Tule, including the concrete plaque in front of the tree itself, as containing 700-800 cubic meters (24000 - 28000 cubic feet) of volume, presumably a bole calculation. This would give it a third rank amongst the list of largest trees by volume. If there are no objections, I will proceed to add this entry. Facial (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of biblical references[edit]

It’s unclear why references to biblical figures are used when discussing the suspected age of Olive trees in the Oldest Tree section 90.247.193.239 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]