How old is this tree?

[b1rdman]

I picked up the kids from day camp last night and saw that they have one monster of a tree there. How many years do you think this tree has seen?

I'm going to bring a tape to measure it next time I go but i figure it's 5 1/2 to 6 ft DBH.

 

[b1rdman]

another pic

Sorry I cut off the top, I'm a lousy photographer.

 

[whitenack]

I'd say she is 6 or 7 years old. Hard to tell, her back is turned.

:hmm3grin2orange:

Oh, the tree? I think it would be better to ask how many centuries old it is.

By the way, where's the flair?

 

[smokechase II]

tree age

What species and what is the average rainfall for that area?

I suspect that it is 200+.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

A White Oak In NH, I'd guess 1 year per inch of circumference.

 

[Sprig]

Hard ta tell w/o decent pics but if it is an oak in dry conditions it could be 300+yrs, in wet, well I think 100-150yrs, conditions make a lot of difference. I mean, reality here, I have trees around here that are huge but young, second growth (3rd?) that are 3+ft chest height after 30-50yrs growth, a banzia (sp) spruce 15yrs old, my christmas tree, in a pot that is 2" diam. at the butt and 2 & 1/2' high, depends on its living conditions imho. I've milled mutants 1ft diam. that were over 100yrs old. Really a hard call w/o decent info, but nice ta see it around it sounds beautiful.

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[CaseyForrest]

Weve got a Pin Oak about that size just outside the landfill. Perfect symetry on the head too.

 

[ray benson]

Awesome tree - beautiful shape. Probably well over 200 years old.

 

[Tio]

Appears to be a white oak.

Hard to tell on the age because of many different reasons.

It is quite likely that it was around for the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Most probable that it was around for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Most definitely it was around for the historic flight of Orville and Wilbur.

 

[b1rdman]

A White Oak In NH, I'd guess 1 year per inch of circumference.

Yes, a white oak and in NH. Also, it's not in a wet area.

 

[trees4est]

It really is hard to judge tree age by sight, unless you really count lots of rings on removals, or pull lots of cores, and get a feel for it. It's still guesswork. I had to remove a white oak two weeks ago, six inches dbh, about 170 years old. I've seen white oaks 14 inches that were nearly 400 years old, and six feet diameter that were 120 years.
But, as a wild guess from how it looks and for your latitude, that's probably getting 250+? Hopefully it won't have to be cut down anytime soon, and we won't know. Thanks for sharing the photos.

 

[b1rdman]

I caught the owner of the tree today as I picked up the kids from camp. He had the state forester there last year and he said 200+ based on his visual inspection. They're looking to do a core sample sometime soon so they have hard numbers.

 

[Treeman67]

i agree with smokechase II, but maybe close by 250 yrs old..we had largest black oak here in oregon which is 350+ yr old near by Ashland , Or . on private property doing mistloes and deadwood pruning removal ,2 and half days with 2 climber and one groundie. if i remembered right it was top 11th largest black oak in nation.
Treeman67

 

[treeseer]

"They're looking to do a core sample sometime soon so they have hard numbers."

1. If you've counted rings, you know that those numbers are not all that hard. Several ways to make a mistake--counting sapwood rings, missing very small rings, etc. Stats like this--"I had to remove a white oak two weeks ago, six inches dbh, about 170 years old. I've seen white oaks 14 inches that were nearly 400 years old...." make me wonder.

Yeah maybe growth is slow in the mountains, but what kind of magnification do you use to count 170 rings in a 3 inch space? Or 400 rings in a 7 inch space?

2. Would the number--as hard or soft as it may be--be worth the wounding? If they respect and value the tree, why would they wound it to the core?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I don't like the idea of drilling into the trunk either.
Chances are you'll hit areas of decay in the core, where you can't count rings. Then what do you do, take more cores?
When a hole is drilled into a tree, it reacts by setting up barriers all around the injury. These barriers are both chemical and physical and help prevent decay from spreading through the wood. These barriers are called CODIT, and are not 100% effective. Several factors combine to determine how effective a particular tree's CODIT is. Some of the important things are tree species, maturity, and health.
One rarely considered factor is repeated injury. If the wall of a previous injury is broken a second time, there is no signal to the tree to re-initiate CODIT. The existing decay can now move from the old injury, through the new injury, and throughout the tree.
White Oak is one of the more decay resistant woods, and core samples are usually small in diameter, but they do go deep, and into the area of the tree you don't want decay (the trunk).
A good local arborist, with a bit of removal experience, could likely give you a good estimate of the tree's age with just a look.

 

[Sprig]

2. Would the number--as hard or soft as it may be--be worth the wounding? If they respect and value the tree, why would they wound it to the core?

I have to agree just on principal. Probably easier/cheaper to search the local archive for some old photos etc., might be interesting detective work, and the tree would surely thank you for it. Maybe talk to some of the local oldtimers as well and see what is remembered, ya never know, that could be interesting too!

 

[B-Edwards]

250 to 300 ,,,,but what they said.

 

[trees4est]

"They're looking to do a core sample sometime soon so they have hard numbers."

1. If you've counted rings, you know that those numbers are not all that hard. Several ways to make a mistake--counting sapwood rings, missing very small rings, etc. Stats like this--"I had to remove a white oak two weeks ago, six inches dbh, about 170 years old. I've seen white oaks 14 inches that were nearly 400 years old...." make me wonder.

Yeah maybe growth is slow in the mountains, but what kind of magnification do you use to count 170 rings in a 3 inch space? Or 400 rings in a 7 inch space?

2. Would the number--as hard or soft as it may be--be worth the wounding? If they respect and value the tree, why would they wound it to the core?

I don't know why people would pull a core for any reason other than research or inspection. Just to find out how old a tree is at a golf course doesn't seem like a good idea unless that information is being gathered for some dendrochronology being done in the area.
So, I'm not trying to throw out numbers that are crossdated, though I do have multiple cookies from a few sites that I could try to crossdate, I guess...do I need to? This is not exactly a peer-reviewed journal here, and this stuff is more for my curiosity. I'm talking general ring counts, it's tedious but really interesting to count rings. These numbers are not exact, in that there well could be false rings or missing rings, but they're in the ballpark. I usually count a few times from different positions if I can, and often count multiple stumps from a site, if they're there. You don't need a microscope, but a macroscope is handy sometimes. But certainly don't take what I said as gospel (and I wouldn't expect it!).
I was just pointing out that it's hard to look at at tree and guess how old it is, looks can be deceiving, etc, but most of the non-homeowners here would know that. I put out a guess, anyway, though it sure could be way off.

 

[BlueSquirrell]

core samples

Taking a core sample to find out the age of the tree is a stupid idea, just enjoy the tree - its a nice, mature Oak, in a nice setting. Why potentially reduce its life expectancy to find out how long its been there. One thing for sure - its older than any of us!