More than 100 m tall cypress in Tibet
I have suspected a long time that all the tallest tree species are in the western North America and in eastern Australia just because trees have been intensively measured in those regions, and that the Himalayas might have an enormous potential for super tall conifers. There is an estimate of 95 metres for
Cupressus cashmeriana in Bhutan by Miehe. As the estimate sounded quite incredible, I wanted to go to measure those
C. cashmeriana stands a few years ago but did not get a permission.
In the recent years the Chinese have started to search and measure trees with modern instruments with imposing results: Pinus bhutanica 77 m, Taiwania 72 m in China and 84 m in Taiwan, Abies chensiensis 83 m. Now they have found a 102.3-metre Cupressus gigantea (= Cupressus torulosa var. gigantea) in Tibet, and Miehe's estimate begins to sound plausible.
See photos, video and description here:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-05-27/102-3-meters-The-tallest-tree-in-Asia-found-in-Xizang-China--1k95F5TYksU/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3uXDrmFI839kK72j7eVBg-f5TpjqqT0r_iR993N5CjoHI9DlHERnNbI14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCU93Rghb-Q
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202305/1291477.shtml
The only thing to suspect is which point at the base they used for measuring the tree. We know that the height of the tallest Shorea ("Menara") was inflated by 3 m by reporting the measurement to the lowest part of the buttress. This could be the case for the cypress, too, as it grows on a steep slope.
Was just going to post about this, but you beat me to it! Very impressive trees indeed. Didier Maerki (Cupressus Conservation Project) thinks Cupressus austrotibetica rather than Cupressus gigantea (and definitely not Cupressus torulosa as given in some of the news reports).
Awesome the tree and the place.
Conifers, quickly this afternoon you went there, to that canyon in Tibet, to see the tree, and you and that Didier verified that the cypress is not torulosa , definitely. Thank you very much, I don't know what would be of us or the Chinese without you and Didier.
Kouta, are you going to upload the tree, or are you waiting for something? It can be put in Tongmai, with approximate location.
Himalayan cypresses are a problem.
We have in MT:
Cupressus cashmeriana (7), Cupressus corneyana (3), Cupressus gigantea (1) and Cupressus torulosa (7).
Himalayan is very big , what can we do with this ?
Hi Ernesto,
First point is that Cupressus torulosa can easily be discounted; it only occurs in the western Himalaya, from the Kali Gandaki (mid-west Nepal) west to Kashmir. The Yarlung Tsangpo gorge is over 1,200 km east of the easternmost locations for C. torulosa. It is also distinct in foliage (example here).
Cupressus gigantea does grow much more close by, but is further to the north, importantly on the dry side of the Himalaya, whereas these trees are in the temperate monsoon rainforest on the south side of the Himalaya crest.
More later on the others, too late in the evening to go into details now!
Well, I wouldn't rule out Cupressus torulosa so quickly. If Chinese scientists say that the tree is Cupressus torulosa, it must be for a reason. I believe that the criteria and measures of its discoverers, by principle have to be respected, especially if they are scientists.
In my opinion, taxonomically speaking, the genus cupressus in Asia is currently chaotic, so we have to accept provisionally what the Chinese say.
Hi Ernesto - it is safe to rule out
Cupressus torulosa. Yes, Asian
Cupressus taxonomy is somewhat 'chaotic', but that is largely due to confusion caused by the incompetence of some prominent European botanists being unable to distinguish
C. gigantea from
C. torulosa and saying (wrongly) that they were the same thing. This is now firmly disproved from genetic data, but old ideas in textbooks don't get removed easily. There are also some problems with cultivated and invasive
Cupressus in parts of Asia, but that is obviously not relevant with these ancient trees. And the Chinese discoverers do say Tibetan Cypress (i.e.,
C. gigantea, not
C. torulosa) as in the
youtube video Kouta posted. The
C. torulosa report is in a secondary news agency report, not by the scientists.
I can put the tree to the MT.
The tree is obviously called C. torulosa, because Tibetan cypress is sometimes considered a variety of C. torulosa, as C. torulosa var. gigantea. In the news agency, they have thought it is enough to give the taxon in species level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupressus_gigantea
It says here that C gigantea and C turolosa are two genetically different species
And here, in " Taxonomy"
http://www.cupressus.net/bulletin.html
we can see the complexity of the genus in the Himalayas, and besides that , hybridizations and subspecies.
To fix some ideas.
Cupressus cashmeriana does not grow wild in Bhutan. The estimate by Miehe is wrong. The discovered tree at 102 m. is a Cupressus austrotibetica and it has nothing to do with either C.torulosa or C.gigantea. To put gigantea as a variety of torulosa shows that Farjon was prejudiced and never saw living material of those two species growing together. All those species have very different distribution ranges which do not overlap. They are all isolated in valleys separated by high mountains.
Thanks!
Is an accurate location for this tree, or at least the group of trees it is in, available?
I added the tree. I put the location along the Yarlung Zangbo River at a tall conifer grove I found, likely cypresses, and wrote that the coordinates are not exact. Take a look to the area with Google and Bing Maps! There are many tall cypress groves. It would be a fantastic area to explore! Unfortunately, the travelling in Tibet needs a special permit.
I think we can safely reject C. torulosa s.str. as it is today considered an western Himalayan species, indeed. Conifers also had a good point that the youtube video says "Tibetan cypress" = C. gigantea. Silba (the author of C. austrotibetica) has a serious credibility problem, so I am convinced we should follow the view of the researchers, who likely wrote the description on youtube until there are more detailed studies from the area.
It's fine like this, you've placed it about 40 kms. south in a straight line, of Tongmai o Tangmai village , which is the last place mentioned in one of the news. I also think that C gigantea is better for now.
As for the measurements, apart ignoring from where on the base they measured it, I see in the large photo that it seems to have a few meters of the upper tip dry, I don't know if that matters.
@ Kouta - thanks! Yes, that looks as good a point as any we'll be able to find; I've not tried bing, but google's satellite views are very dark in the region, making it hard to detect.
It is true that Silba has a "credibility problem", but he did do more serious work on Cupressus than on other genera, and conversely, Farjon's (it was he who treated it within C. torulosa) highly 'lumping' viewpoint has been shown wrong in numerous cases in Cupressus and many other genera. There is also no doubt from both herbarium material and cultivated trees that there is a distinct cypress in this region that is not the same as C. gigantea; Silba does deserve credit for spotting that. It is easy to forget just how dramatic the changes in climate and growing conditions are over surprisingly short distances in this region; the habitat of the new trees is clearly temperate rainforest, while the C. gigantea site is a thousand metres or more higher altitude and a much drier rain-shadow climate. A comparable example would be to equate the new trees with Sequoia sempervirens (tall and relatively slender in a mild wet climate), and C. gigantea with Sequoiadendron giganteum (drier, colder, climate; less tall but stouter trunks).
file:///C:/Users/Usuario/Downloads/Luetal.BiochemGenet2014.pdf
Here a study from ten years ago on the distribution of cupressus in the eastern Himalayas, with a nice map, where Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese.
In the number 24 of the Bulletin of Cupressus Conservation Project,
http://www.cupressus.net/bulletin.html, 31-12-2021,
there is a lot of information about cupressus in the area of Tongmai, and beautiful photos.
Kouta : Seeing how rough the terrain is, I think you've set the location too far from Tongmai.
Kouta , in the video you can see a little road next to the river and then they cross the river on a boat easily. The only road there is the G318, which goes through Polong to Tangmai, it does not enter the gorge to the southeast. The forest is near Polong ( Trulung )and Tangmai. You have placed the tree very far to the south, I think.
Ernesto,
on the youtube film, we can clearly see at the extremity of the gorge the summit of the Namcha Barwa (7782 m) ; it confirms the location in the upper Yarlung Zangpo Canyon.
(the modern bridge that is visible at the beginning and at the end of the film is probably the one of Da'nai village)
(and the summit is the Namcha Barwa-NW)
Reviewing the video and comparing it with Google Earth, at 1 minute 27 seconds, in the drone shot over the forest, the road and the banks of the river appear clearly, and I think I have located the point in Google Earth. I'm going to move the location to that site, if you don't mind Kouta, I think it's the right one. If you don't think so, tell me.
DBZT , That bridge is Tangmai and the view is from the south towards Tangmai and the mountain to the north of Tangmai, 5500 mts. it is not the Namcha Barwa, there is no road there.
I have changed to the new location, see what you think compared to the video.
Ernesto, there is a road along the canyon : it is visible on Google Maps !
And the Tongmai bridge is a hanging one (see photo)...
Sorry Ernesto, the bridge on the film seems to be obviously the Tongmai one.
DBZT, he subido una toma de Google Earth donde se ve bien que la montaña detrás de Tangmai es la del video.
Now there is a big problem : why the youtube cinese film introduces us in error by situating the tree in Yarlung canyon when the true situation is in Parlung canyon ? Is it an erroneous approximation or a fake ??? Where is the tree, in Yarlung canyon, as the TEXT seems to confirm that, or in Parlung canyon, as the PICTURES seems to situate that ? If it is an erroneous approximation of the writer I hope the height of the tree is not of the same ilk !...
Near and west to Tangmai and along the Yigong and Parlung valleys is the core region of the
Cupressus austrotibetica distribution range. This species is quite isolated on the slopes of those
tributaries of the Yarlung Tsangpo. It has nothing to do with
Cupressus gigantea. The county is Bome which is outside the Yarlung Tsangpo Reserve. THis is to demonstrate how reliable some articles are. Why people are relying on news articles without taxonomy scientific contents is beyond my understanding. Common names are no valid scientific names.
Cupressus gigantea common name is Giant Cypress.
I am wondering how many people here saw a Cupressus austrotibetica. If they would have see one, they would know that it is one of the most easy species to distinguish from all other Cupressus species.
DBZT, they speak and write Chinese, I guess Yarlung and Parlung sound almost the same and are the same , like Tangmai and Tongmai.
Sequoia, if you are from the Cupressus Conservation Project, or you master the genus cupressus, it would be very useful for us if you review the cupressus from the Himalayas uploaded in MT, and you can change the species that are wrong, writing in "Edit" the species that you think they are and why.
To change the species completely, you would have to delete the tree and upload them again, which is more complicated, so it is better to leave the rectification written in "Edit".
Even this last tree you can add your opinion about the species by editing it and writing what you want.
Thank you.
Ernesto & DB, you have done good work to clear the location, thanks!
We accept dead tops.
I guess we will soon get more information about this stand. I am almost sure the measurers will write an article to a scientific journal about their study.
Let's remember that the Chinese science has advanced with huge steps and is already in many brances in the same level with the western science.
Sequoia, DO NOT start to change cypress species names!! Ernesto, you should NOT encourage anybody anonymous to do that! We want to name the trees after generally accepted standards. This is not a place for revolutionaries!
Too read such crap tells a lot about the "quality" of this website. I will be blunt.
The Parlung Tsangpo is a tributary of the Yarlung Tsangpo. They are two different rivers, of course.
To name that record tree Cupressus gigantea is the most stupid thing from someone who does not know anything about cypresses, their different distribution areas, their morphologies and molecular analyses. Even when all is written in the Bulletin of the Cupressus Conservation Project with maps and great details.
Now the Chinese (they are much, much better with molecular analyses than the western researchers, but for taxonomy they are unfortunately still a lot behind following blindly some foreign taxonomy) seem to favour Cupressus rushforthii for an unknown and mistaken reason. The locality of this tree will not be disclosed for protection reasons. Rightfully so.
Cupressus austrotibetica is an accepted name here:
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:936130-1
I have no indulgence for people who don't want to make the effort to read freely available scientific articles.
Sorry.
And of course I will change nothing. It is not worth throwing pearls to swines.
Sorry again.
Bonjour,
Dans The Gymnosperm Database (qui assimile C. austrotibetica à C. duclouxiana ou à une sous-espèce de celui-ci), je lis ceci :
''Description : Arbres jusqu'à 25 m de haut et 80 cm de dhp. Couronne conique lorsqu'elle est jeune, arrondie ou largement bombée lorsqu'elle est âgée. Branches minces et horizontales, densément disposées'', etc... Cela ne semble pas correspondre au cyprès de 102 m, bien que certaines photos ou images anciennes font état de grands arbres coniques. L'aire de répartition, par contre, incluant le S.E. du Tibet, correspond bien.
L'aire et l'écologie de C. torulosa, par contre, ne correspondent pas. Donc on peut éliminer.
Quant à C. gigantea, l'aire correspond parfaitement (exclusivement le S.E. du Tibet), ainsi que le port ''irrégulièrement conique'' et la taille (spécimens de + de 50 m déjà répertoriés) ; je cite TGD : ''Distribution et écologie : Au sud-est du Tibet, dans la vallée du fleuve Yarlung Zangbo (Tsangpo) à une altitude de 3 000 à 3 400 m (Farjon 1998 , Fu et al. 1999). Il pousse également dans les vallées des rivières Nyang et Nize (Debreczy et Racz 2011). Voir la section Big Tree pour un lien Google Maps où vous pouvez explorer la répartition des bosquets le long de la vallée''.
Je veux bien que Farjon, TGD et beaucoup d'autres se trompent, et je suis prêt à admettre ton hypothèse, mais une chose m'interroge : en l'absence de vues détaillées des feuilles, des fruits et du reste, comment peux-tu être aussi sûr que l'on a affaire à un C. austrotibetica ?
Le Bulletin du CCP n° 24 est très intéressant concernant C. austrotibetica et le nouveau C. rushfortii. Le premier est dit par Silba atteindre 60 m, et son aire de répartition en 1994 (Trulung, Bome ; Tsangpo Tsangden, Yigung), est exactement celle de l'arbre de 102 m. De plus, Rushforth l'a identifié en 2003 avec C. gigantea au niveau du Parlung Tsangpo (op. cit., p. 56). Quant à C. rushfortii, découvert en 1999, on le trouve exactement dans le même secteur que C. austrotibetica, près de Tangdui. Les photos prises sur place montrent des arbres d'assez grande taille mais moins grands et moins pointus que les C. austrotibetica, qui est l'espèce dominante dans cette vallée.
Le doute n'est donc pas facile à lever entre C. austrotibetica et C. gigantea. Donc je le répète : possèdes-tu des données sur la forme des feuilles et des fruits, et disposes-tu d'analyses palynologiques ?
P.S. : la galerie photo des pages 90 à 100 du Bulletin CCP n° 24, montrant C. austrotibetica, évoque effectivement beaucoup l'arbre de 102 m. On le trouve entre 1600 et 2400 m d'altitude, ce qui correspond à l'arbre géant, situé au niveau et au-dessus du pont de Tangmai, donc entre 2200 et 3000 m). Quant à C. gigantea, qui lui aussi évoque notre arbre géant, il est signalé surtout dans la proche vallée du Yarlung Tsangpo, entre 3000 et 3300 m d'altitude, ainsi qu'en quelques autres sites un peu plus éloignés.
Hi DBZT, first: my apologies, if I am misunderstanding what you say; my French is very poor, so I am having to rely on a translating machine. So what I read of your contribution may well be mistranslated.
The translation I am offered says: "As for C. gigantea, the area corresponds perfectly (exclusively the S.E. of Tibet)". If this is an accurate translation, this statement I fear is not correct; 'S. E. Tibet' is a huge area, and because of the extreme high altitudes involved, climatic changes are abrupt, over very short distances and altitudes. The sites are about 80 km apart, but importantly because of the positions of the mountain massifs, Cupressus gigantea is on a relatively dry site (rain shadow of the ridge SW from Namche Barwa summit), while Cupressus austrotibetica is, as the photos clearly show, in rainforest (monsoon track funnelled up the Tsangpo Gorge, with no high ridges to capture the monsoon rain). It is also nearly 900 metres lower altitude, so its temperatures are, on average, roughly 9°C warmer. So the two do not correspond at all in their habitat or climatic conditions.
Further on, I am offered this translation: "but one thing puzzles me: in the absence of detailed views of the leaves, fruits and the rest, how can are you also sure that we are dealing with a C. austrotibetica?". For this, I can understand your scepticism, but two points to mention: (1) Cupressus austrotibetica has, for the entire genus, uniquely slender, thread-like shoots. The very fine structure of the foliage of the 102 metre tree agrees with this. And (2), herbarium specimens from the immediate vicinity - while not from this tree, but from trees likely within direct sight of it - are available for examination, and are of Cupressus austrotibetica. There are no herbarium specimens of Cupressus gigantea (or any other Cupressus species) in this immediate vicinity.
Hope this helps!
OK, it's clear. The altitude seems to be a good indicator. And the evidence of neighboring trees as C. austrotibetica too. However, the aspect of the bark seems much more the one of C. giganta or C. torulosa, than the one of C. austrotibetica / duclouxii. But I could be wrong, so that the 102 m tree is so big that the bark of an ''only'' 35/40 m C. austrotibetica could be different when reaching 100 m...
PS : the best will be now to wait for objective samplings to determine the true species of this 102 m giant.
I have added in Edit of the tree : " Although it has been uploaded as Cupressus gigantea, in the absence of a better description and samples of the tree, the taxonomy of the specimen is not clear. Could be Cupressus austrotibetica or another species or variety of the area."
That was a good solution, Ernesto. I am sure we will hear more about these trees.
Hello everyone, it makes people confused about the species of this giant tree, because the Chinese media has reported its species inaccurately. In fact, Chinese researchers published it as a new species in 2021. You can check out this page:https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77234942-1
Conifers is right,climatic changes are abrupt, over very short distances and altitudes.According to the information I have obtained, C.torulosa is native to the west of the Kali Gandaki River in the Himalayas; C. austrotibetica is mainly distributed in dry-hot valleys in eastern Tibet and western Sichuan; C. gigantea is distributed along the Yarlung Zangbo River and Niyang River at an altitude of 3000m~3500m On dry river beaches, and the number of adults does not exceed 50,000; therefore, these three species can be excluded only from the distribution.
In fact, C.rushforthii is only distributed in the valleys of the Palong Zangbo River and the Yigong Zangbo River at an altitude of 2200m~3000m. The forests in these valleys are temperate rainforests, similar to the forests on the northwest coast of North America.
Yes, but :
1) I do not seize why you exclude C. austrotibetica, whose all scientific publications attribuate the same geographic repartition than the giant tree, and wet and low situations, not dry ones ;
2) C. rushfortii do not reach such a gigantism, and its shape is not columnar.
Remark : Frank Ludlow in 1957 wrote :
''One march beyond Trulung brought us to an encampment opposite the village of Tangme (Tangmai), where the (Po) Yigrong and (Po) Tsangpo meet, and here on a spur overlooking the junction grew specimens of Cupressus torulosa which exceeded in size any tree I have seen in the Himalayas. One trunk we measured was 36 ft in girth at 5 ft from the ground, and we estimated its height at over 200 ft. These monarchs grew sparingly, but such was their magnificence that they were discernible from afar, towering aloft above the heads of all their rivals.''
I thing Ludlow spoke about our 102 m tree. Ludlow calls it a C. torulosa, so for him this giant tree was very similar to this species.
Hi zhichuliao, many thanks for your message! Are you one of the people who measured the tree? Or did you visit the location otherwise?
Regards
Kouta from Germany
Okay, glad to join in the discussion about this giant tree. Regarding the questions:
1) I found few evidence that C. austrotibetica grows in humid low-lying areas, and many articles point out that the height of C. austrotibetica is usually below 20m;
2) C. rushfortii is a newly published species, and the past records are indeed lower than 70m, but it should also be noted that trees of the same species can have huge differences in morphology under different growth environments, especially in a place that climate changes so abrupt.
I searched for more information. In fact, the Beijing News conducted an exclusive interview with expert who participated in the scientific research of the tree.
Here is the interview address: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/s9wFlQdYavF3ZFFXOLyYhw
During the interview, the person in charge of the Xizijiang Ecological Conservation Center gave some information. He and Guo Qinghua's team from Peking University inspected the giant tree.
1) This tree belongs to C. rushforthii, but this new species has not been included in the national plant protection list of China. For better protection, it is disclosed as C. austrotibetica.
2) The expedition team measured a 86m-high C.rushforthii last year and noticed the potential of C.rushforthii in height.
3) After measurement, they found that the diameter of the tree was 293cm, the height from the lowest point to the top of the tree was 104.6m, and the median value was 102.3m.
4) In addition to this tree, they also found 25 large trees over 90m in Tongmai.
In addition, I think the species seen by Professor Frank Ludlow is C. rushfortii, but it is also located in the Pan-Himalayan region, and C. rushfortii was not published at that time, so he thinks it is C. torulosa. However, the distribution of C. rushfortii is very narrow, only located in the valleys of Parlung Tsangpo and Yigong Tsangpo.
Hi Kouta, I'm glad to be joined in discussion with so many people who love trees.
Great to have information directly from China! The article can easily be read with a translator (the best one is likely deepl.com).
I added girth 920 cm (calculated from the diameter) and corrected the measuring date. I also added note "Height to the lowest point of the trunk: 104.6 m. Height to the average ground level: 102.3 m." and a link to the Chinese article.
So I think we should change the species to C. rushforthii. My former suggestion that the species should be called C. gigantea was based on the formerly linked articles, which said it is C. torulosa, which is apparently impossible (but possible if considered C. torulosa var. gigantea).
zhichuliao, if you are aware of other accurate Chinese measurements you are very welcome to add them on this website. Also for lower species, like oaks etc.
Btw, I suppose those Tibetan forests are not very similar with those of the Pacific Northwest of North America. The latter region has relatively dry summers (with wet autumn, winter and spring) whereas SE Tibet likely has a monsoon climate with very heavy precipitation in summer. The photos also show that there is a strong broadleaf component in the forest composition whereas the Pacific NW forests are almost pure coniferous forests, likely results from the mentioned climatic differences.
Kouta
OK, mais nous ne pouvons pas éliminer complètement C. austrotibetica, en attendant de plus précises observations et analyses. La forme, les dimensions, le biotope, la localisation, l'altitude et l'aspect du tronc sont identiques, et il me semble que l'aspect et la couleur claire du feuillage de l'arbre de 102 m, correspondent mieux à austrotibetica qu'à rushforthii, dont le feuillage est plus foncé et moins pleureur.
Kouta, I couldn't agree with you more. In the absence of more information, it is reasonable to designate this species as C. rushforthii.
Btw, I think I may not have expressed well the similarities between the forests of Parlung Tsangpo and Pacific Northwest of North America (the former is relatively humid in summer, while the latter is more humid in winter), they have something in common: year-round high Humidity, low wind speed, tall trees on a genetic level, etc.
In addition, the extremely high proportion of coniferous trees in the forests of the Nearctic may be related to the glacial period—They have high adaptability to the cold. Even in Florida, there are pure coniferous forests of Bald cypress trees. But this rarely occurs in the Palearctic at the same latitude.
I changed the species to C. rushforthii and added in the description a note: "According to Chinese scientists (source), the tree belongs to newly (2021) published species Cupressus rushforthii. It has also been suggested that the tree could rather be Cupressus austrotibetica."
I hope all are happy with this change.
DB, the Chinese scientists, who studied the tree on the spot, say it is C. rushforthii. I suppose they have done precise observations and analysis. It is difficult to make more precise observations and analysis from online photos.
I think that there are big chances that the species limits of the Himalayan cypresses will change in the future when more collections will be made. Thus, C. rushforthii may not be the last word.
zhichuliao, you are right in that the conditions in the past is an important factor determining today's forest composition. Similarly, in Tasmania, for example, with quite similar climate with the Pacific Northwest, there are almost no conifers in the forest composition.
Lie #1:
“Chinese researchers published it as a new species in 2021.”
Cupressus rushforthii was discovered by Keith Rushforth. He is not Chinese.
This new species was described by two authors. None is Chinese.
Lies #2 and #3:
“C. austrotibetica is mainly distributed in dry-hot valleys in eastern Tibet and western Sichuan.”
This species is not distributed in “dry-hot valleys”. Cupressus gigantea is. (If a climate can be described as “hot” at 3000m altitude.)
C. austrotibetica is not present in Sichuan.
Lie #4:
“In fact, C.rushforthii is only distributed in the valleys of the Palong Zangbo River and the Yigong Zangbo River at an altitude of 2200m~3000m.”
C. rushforthii in China is only known currently from two trees close to the road East of Tangmai and close to Tangdui. Apart from those two specimens, the distribution area is unknown. There is no record of this species in the Yigong valley where C. austrotibetica is present.
Lies #5 and #6:
“I found few evidence that C. austrotibetica grows in humid low-lying areas, and many articles point out that the height of C. austrotibetica is usually below 20m;”
There is no reference that C. austrotibetica grows on dry areas. There is no article about C.austrotibetica saying it is "usually below 20".
All witnesses (Bailey, Ludlow, Rushforth, Businsky, etc.) point that C. austrotibetica is a huge tree. Ludlow wrote that he estimated it over 200 feet. And the types of C. austrotibetica chosen by Silba were collected by Ludlow and Bailey. Typical ignorance of the rules of taxonomy.
Lie #7:
“I think the species seen by Professor Frank Ludlow is C. rushfortii”
The types of C. austrotibetica chosen by Silba were collected by Ludlow and Bailey. Typical ignorance of the rules of taxonomy.
Lie #7:
“the distribution of C. rushfortii is very narrow, only located in the valleys of Parlung Tsangpo and Yigong Tsangpo.”
See lie #4.
Lie #8:
“but possible if considered C. torulosa var. gigantea”
This combination by Farjon is invalid. C. torulosa var. majestica Carrière has priority. C. austrotibetica and C. gigantea are two different species with quite distinct separated ranges.
Lie #9:
“In the absence of more information, it is reasonable to designate this species as C. rushforthii.”
There is enough information. All is written in the Bulletin of the Cupressus Conservation Project: diagnoses, range maps, complete list of herbarium specimens, taxonomy, photos of huge trees belonging all to C.austrotibetica. Nobody is free to pick up a name randomly like some are doing here. Every species has a description and is fixed by type(s) in herbaria and localities.
Error #10:
“There is an estimate of 95 metres for Cupressus cashmeriana in Bhutan by Miehe.”
This specimen is not a C. cashmeriana which is not present wild in Bhutan, but a C. tortulosa.
The estimation is erroneous. It is not 95m.
@ Kouta - the problem with listing it as
Cupressus rushforthii is that the describing authors of that species say it is not that, but is
C. austrotibetica . . .
[edit: cross-posted with Sequoia]
Sequoia, thanks for your comment. It is great to have such a lively discussion before getting to the right conclusion, but please focus on the tree itself.
Response 1# You are right, I didn't review the author carefully before.
Response 2#3#5#6# In Chinese, C. austrotibetica is written as "Southtibetan cypress", while C. torulosa is written as "Tibetan cypress", which causes me some confusion. The tree that is distributed in Sichuan and rarely exceeds 20m in height should be C. torulosa (this is controversial), as rushforth says "there is considerable variation in eastern Asian Cupressus, variation that is not encompassed fully by is not encompassed fully by modern taxonomic treatments".
"If a climate can be described as "hot" at 3000m altitude." In some rain shadows in the Hengduan Mountains, river valleys at 3000m altitude are also dry and benefit from plateau effects It can also be very hot during the day. Simple experience does not apply.
Response 4#7# Li Cheng from Xizijiang Ecology Center (one of the people who measured this tree) mentioned that this tree belongs to C. rushforthii, and that 25 other trees over 90m also belong to C. rushforthii. Also Li mentioned on social media that there are many C. rushforthii in the Palungzangbo valley.
Response 9# Yes, "There is enough information written in the Bulletin of the Cupressus Conservation Project: diagnoses, range maps, complete list diagnoses, range maps, complete list of herbarium specimens, taxonomy, photos of huge trees,etc". This is not sufficient reason to map this tree to a particular species, especially if you have not visited it in the field. Before getting more information, it would be more sensible to trust the conclusions of the expedition teams, Xizijiang Ecological Conservation Center, Guo Qinghua of Peking University, Shanshui Conservation Center, they are all very professional organizations.You can check the website of shanshui.
http://www.shanshui.org/
What can be emphasized is what Li said, This tree belongs to C. rushforthii, but this new species has not been included in the national plant protection list of China, while C. austrotibetica is written in it. For better protection, it is disclosed as C. austrotibetica.
Conifers,The characteristics of this tree does not contradict rushforth's description , the paper on this species has not been published and it would be irrational to draw conclusions based on descriptions and online photos alone, we all understand in different growing environments how morphologically diverse the same species, typically Cryptomeria japonica on the rainy Yaku-shima is very different morphologically from their relatives in Honshu.
"this new species has not been included in the national plant protection list of China, while C. austrotibetica is written in it. For better protection, it is disclosed as C. austrotibetica"
You probably mean it is discosed as C. torulosa? In the articles in English, it has described as C. torulosa, like here:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-05-27/102-3-meters-The-tallest-tree-in-Asia-found-in-Xizang-China--1k95F5TYksU/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3uXDrmFI839kK72j7eVBg-f5TpjqqT0r_iR993N5CjoHI9DlHERnNbI14
I have not seen any sources describing it as C. austrotibetica, apart from this thread.
It would be a miracle if the Chinese researchers did not write a scientific paper about the stand. Thus, let's wait in peace for more information.
It is referred to as C. torulosa in CGTN report, but some Chinese media also refer to it as C. austrotibetica, due to the unprofessionalism of the media and the confusion of the related Chinese designations (西藏柏木，which means Tibetan cypress-C. torulosa,。藏南柏木，which means Southern tibetan cypress-C. austrotibetica), some reports are very confusing.
Kouta,you are right.C. rushfortii may not be the final word for it, and now we just have to wait for a more scientific definition from the relevant papers.
The 102 m tree seems to grow in a wet zone, no ?
@DBZT - yes, a temperate rainforest. If you look at a map of the area, you can see the mountain ranges either side of the Tsangpo Gorge funnel the monsoon rain directly to this site, like a concentrated arrow. Yet just short distances away on the other side of the 6,000-7,500 m high ridges, very little rain falls at all. The sharpest climate contrasts of anywhere on the Earth, from the highest mountain ranges on the Earth.
Nearby incredible, truly awesome!
I never had expected such was possible, a true Cypress close to, or even more than 100m in height!
Check this Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/BigTreeSeekers/posts/3526536264330262/
Somebody posts photos of the "102-metre tree" with a climber. However, in the interview the researcher said, the tree was NOT climbed due to conservation issues. Apparently the photos are of another tree in another stand?
That's not the tree. They are climbing on the side of the river where the road goes.
the stand is the same,but climbed by another team, read this:https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1769188093209802415&wfr=spider&for=pc, and according to the image from report, the stand may relocate to 30° 7'10.11"N, 95° 3'13.22"E on the GE，which at left riverbank and acesssble from road
L'écorce est la même, et au vu du feuillage et de l'allure générale je pense qu'il s'agit de la même espèce. On remarque la finesse des branches et de l'extrémité des rameaux. Dommage que les photographes n'aient pas pensé à prendre des photos plus rapprochées du feuillage !...
...mais la photo de la jeune pousse sur le facebook en chinois permet enfin de se faire une idée. Le feuillage très clair et très fin, ainsi que l'aspect de l'écorce me font définitivement penser à C. austrotibetica, et non à C. rushforthii.
They say there may even be taller trees, up to 105 m!
"the stand is the same"
No, the stands are not the same. The one from the video is on the left bank of the Parlung Tsganpo opposite the road, while the 102.3m tree is on the left bank of the Yigong Tsangpo.
All these giant cypresses are Cupressus austrotibetica. Except Conifers and DBZT it looks like nobody read the article:
"Cupressus rushforthii, a new cypress species in Xizang, China, with an introduction on the Chinese cypresses and a survey of C. austrotibetica."
Note: "a survey of C.austrotibetica".
And more lies.
The max temperature for Milin in Summer is below 23°C. It is not very hot, it is not even hot.
"many articles point out that the height of C. austrotibetica is usually below 20m"
Which articles? In Chinese scientific articles I could find only 2 articles mentioning C. austrotibetica. And none says something about its height. Moreover, Silba's diagnosis reads: "Arbor ad 20-60 m. alta" that is usually more than 20 m high.
"C. rushfortii is a newly published species, and the past records are indeed lower than 70m"
The maximum size of C.rushforthii is unknown. There is no "past record" of that species. There is no herbarium sheet of that species in the Chinese harbariums.
"This tree belongs to C. rushforthii, but this new species has not been included in the national plant protection list of China. For better protection, it is disclosed as C. austrotibetica."
Total nonsense. Taxonomy and conservation are two different matters. Taxonomy is not under the influence of conservation while conservation needs taxonomy.
"I think the species seen by Professor Frank Ludlow is C. rushfortii"
A lie and a stupid comment as Ludlow specimens were used as the type and paratype of C.austrotibetica. The second paratype by Bailey is close to the locality of the 102.3m tree.
"In Chinese, C. austrotibetica is written as "Southtibetan cypress", while C. torulosa is written as "Tibetan cypress", which causes me some confusion."
Common names are variable, hence the use of Latin names. You can name it as you want, it has no bearing on the only scientific name which is in Latin. If you have no knowledge on taxonomy, educate yourself first.
The worst thing is that you are doing all to bring the confusion from common names over to the Latin names. Care about your common names as you want, but stay away from the Latin names.
"In some rain shadows in the Hengduan Mountains, river valleys at 3000m altitude are also dry and benefit from plateau effects It can also be very hot during the day. Simple experience does not apply."
Drought and heat are two different things. Meteorological data do apply. The max temperature for Milin in Summer is below 23°C. It is not very hot, it is not even hot.
"Li Cheng from Xizijiang Ecology Center (one of the people who measured this tree) mentioned that this tree belongs to C. rushforthii"
And what is Li Cheng experience with cypress taxonomy? None. No article, nothing. Did he read the original article about C.rushforthii and C.austrotibetica? By giving the wrong Latin name to those giant trees, he will make a fool of himself and only bring more confusion in taxonomy.
The people in charge of conservation should direct their activities to care about Cupressus fallax when already two populations have or will be destroyed by dams. The Parlung and Yigong valleys are under study to analyse if they are fit for dam buildings.
"This is not sufficient reason to map this tree to a particular species, especially if you have not visited it in the field."
The maps are done on the basis of herbarium sheets. How do you know if I did not visit those valleys? You know nothing. Please, have a look at the backcover page of the journal where the article about C.rushforthii is published.
"For better protection, it is disclosed as C. austrotibetica."
Again: conservation has no bearing on taxonomy. About protection: Cupressus gigantea is on the red list. Do you want to know what happened to many of those cypresses when a road was built along the Yarlung Tsangpo valley? Several dams were built along along the Yarlung Tsangpo above the main population of those cypresses. Can you guess what would happen when the river flow will change? Where are the studies on the environmemtal impacts of the dams?
"The characteristics of this tree does not contradict rushforth's description,"
Yes, it does.
"the paper on this species has not been published and it would be irrational to draw conclusions based on descriptions and online photos alone."
This contradicts altogether what you wrote before. And yes, it is possible to id several cypress species on photos only. Obviously you cannot. Especially C.austrotibetica is easy to id for it has a unique foliage.
"It is referred to as C. torulosa in CGTN report, but some Chinese media also refer to it as C. austrotibetica, due to the unprofessionalism of the media and the confusion of the related Chinese designations (西藏柏木，which means Tibetan cypress-C. torulosa,。藏南柏木，which means Southern tibetan cypress-C. austrotibetica), some reports are very confusing."
And you are the one who brings confusion here. Again you are showing that you do not understand taxonomy at all. Once again: taxonomy does not care about common names.
"the taxonomy of the specimen is not clear. Could be Cupressus austrotibetica or another species or variety of the area."
No, it cannot be another species. The taxonomy is very clear, based on herbarium specimens and distribution range and sizes of the cypresses. So far there is no "variety" in the area.
Someone tried to use my pseudo... A new password was sent to me when I did not request one.
No, the stands are not the same. The one from the video is on the left bank of the Parlung Tsganpo opposite the road, while the 102.3m tree is on the left bank of the Yigong Tsangpo.
Correction:
No, the stands are not the same. The one from the video is on the LEFT bank of the Parlung Tsganpo opposite the road, while the 102.3m tree is on the RIGHT bank of the Yigong Tsangpo.
Sequoia, it seems very complicated and difficult identify a species of tree that is ten thousand kms. away, without having samples or good photos of the specimen, whose exact position is unknown. In addition, we do not know well the floristic communities of these valleys nor the species that form them.
Complicated? Difficult? No, it is not. For you it is impossible because you never saw a live Cupressus austrotibetica and a live C. rushforthii. For people who have seen both of them, they are very easy to distinguish.
By the way, it is not any tree, it is a Cypress and I guess some Cypress specialists know what they are talking about.
And the exact locality of this giant Cypress is perfectly known, now.
Sequoia, you should contact the Chinese researchers mentioned in the articles and interview. This is no taxonomical database. In my opinion, we should list the trees under the names given by researchers who found and studied them.
Perhaps you are right that the record tree should be called C. austrotibetica… in YOUR taxonomy. We must keep in mind that the taxonomy of Asian cypresses is anything but fixed. POWO has adopted your concept, but it does not mean that it would be an established taxonomy. The time will show which taxa and species are accepted by the scientific community. I guess there will be fewer species, some of your taxa perhaps considered as var./ssp.
The Chinese researchers had some reason to call the tree C. rushforthii, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly. At the best you would ask them directly. If you are a serious researcher, you should have channels to contact them. So you would also have possibility to influence their very probably incoming scientific paper.
Another thing is how to behave on Internet forums. I don’t think that it is the best way to push your agenda to come on forums insulting others. It also gives a feeling that one is ultimately an amateur, if he behaves aggressively on a hobbyist forum, as it was the only place to express one’s opinion. You should take lessons from your buddy “Conifers”. He also sometimes has different opinions than me and the others but he is always polite.
Btw, the species of the tallest trees in Borneo is a bit questionable, too. The tallest tree Dial & Mifsud measured in 2008 was identified as Shorea faguetiana by their guide, who was the best available person to identify trees. However, one of the best experts of the Asian rainforests, Peter Ashton, identified it later from the material sent to him as Shorea gibbosa. From the moment, all the tallest trees were dubbed as Shorea faguetiana, although Dial’s work showed that numerous trees can reach similar heights. I guess a reason could be that these trees are called “yellow meranti”, but yellow meranti is actually not a species but a species group including numerous species of relatively similar appearance. (Note: Ashton has grumbled on no Internet forum that the species name is wrong! For him it was enough to write it in his monumental book.)
The opinions above are mine and this is not my website. Perhaps Jeroen has an opinion, too.
Juniperus oxycedrus splits
I've updated the specimens here of Juniperus oxycedrus to deal with the splits of Juniperus macrocarpa (Large-fruited Juniper; Mediterranean, strictly coastal, on sand) and Juniperus deltoides (Eastern Prickly Juniper; eastern Mediterranean region) per the Gymnosperm Database; I think I've caught them all, but let me know if I've missed any.
Hi Conifers,
You should ask others before making such edits. In the case of Juniperus macrocarpa, I oppose your edit because it is usually called Juniperus oxycedrus subsp. macrocarpa in Europe, thus resulting in confusions and disputes in the future.
Well, if we are following latest the latest scientific results, what about changing the Sorbus species with hybrid origin to Borkhausenia, Hedlundia, Karpatiosorbus, Majovskya and Normeyera?
Hi Kouta,
Apologies! But I would very strongly support recognition of J. macrocarpa, it is very distinct, in both morphology and ecology as well as genetics. Listing as a separate species also makes it much easier for people to find specimens.
And yes, I would support adoption of the splits in Sorbus (also the genera Aria, Cormus, Torminalis of course). But that will be a much larger task with all the genus transfers!
I doubt it is much easier for people to find specimens if they are listed as J. macrocarpa because people don't know what J. macrocarpa is. Members will also continue to add those trees as J. oxycarpa, so there will potentially be a mess. Keep in your mind that MT is no taxonomical database. Our naming choices should be those that are most used. For the same reason I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce Hedlundia, Borkhausenia etc. Almost nobody knows what they are.
Sorry, I'm not convinced that's true! People will be familiar with the names 'macrocarpa' and 'Juniperus' as applying to a taxon; at what rank they are combined will not affect that so much, unlike the greater visibility on MT at species rank compared to its being hidden as a subspecies (cf. Wim's point in
Discussion 5271). Also, if the subspecies combination is made into a redirect to the species (as has been done with many other names here), then anyone trying to upload as "J. oxycedrus subsp. macrocarpa" will get their specimen automatically directed to the species page. Remember it is also
accepted as a species by Kew POWO (and ditto
J. deltoides), which has often been your baseline in past discussions; familiarity with both at species rank is increasing steadily.
I meant people are not familiar with 'macrocarpa'. They are familiar with 'oxycedrus' (I think all the trees were even here added under J. oxycedrus, until you changed them).
I have never referred to KEW POWO, you have referred to it. I have referred to the Euro+Med and GRIN in the past. However, KEW is also a reliable European source, and as it calls the taxon spp. macrocarpa, I am okay with that, even if I am still thinking it potentially results in confusions.
I have just noticed that KEW POWO also accepts Hedlundia etc...
I have to admit I'm struggling to remember all the Sorbus splits, but sooner or later, we'll have to bite the bullet and add them, or increasingly be seen as out of date. And then there's also Acacia as well... At least with the junipers, it's only a small step, rather than a huge leap.
Conifers , as a new reincarnated Linneo , is dedicated to discovering new species without asking anyone and ignoring, like a good Anglo-Saxon subscribed to "The English Garden", that in the area where J oxicedrus macrocarpa live, there is an indigenous population with numerous universities equipped with Departments of Botany, which they would have occupied of the Juniperus if they had seen it necessary.
So now you know: for new species go to Conifers, or to Kew POWO , and don't waste time.
I propose that instead of Juniperus Macrocarpa, the new species be called Juniperus coniferis , or Juniperus Kewesis, in honor of its discoverer.
Hola Ernesto - not sure what you're trying to say there, apart from complaining about Anglo-Saxon imperialism (which I appreciate is a problem!). Linnaeus was of course, Swedish :-) and I don't claim to be a reincarnation of him, either! Nor is
Juniperus macrocarpa a new species; it was first described, as a species in its own right, in 1816, in Greece (
#2323, here). It was only much later, in 1868, that the Austrian botanist August Neilreich
reduced it to a subspecies of J. oxycedrus, without a great deal of investigation. Now, genetic analysis has shown that the original publication as a species was correct after all, that it should never have been reduced to a subspecies in the first place.
See also here, a research paper by Spanish botanists treating it as a species 👍
"genetic analysis has shown that the original publication as a species was correct"
Could you please name that article?
Hi Kouta - R. P. Adams 2000. Systematics of Juniperus section Juniperus based on leaf essential oils and random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs).
Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 28: 515-528.
Well, Adams found nothing that would REQUIRE the species level, like that another species would be more closely related to J. oxycedrus s.str. According to his analysis, J. oxycedrus s.str. and J. macrocarpa cluster together. Thus, it is the old question of clumping vs. splitting. He has chosen the splitter approach and says J. macrocarpa merits species level. Similarly he has also lifted several other taxa to the species level:
J. communis var. oblonga -> J. oblonga (according to POWO J. communis var. saxatilis)
J. communis var. saxatilis -> J. sibirica (according to POWO J. communis var. saxatilis)
J. oxycedrus subsp. badia -> J. badia (according to POWO J. oxycedrus subsp. badia)
J. taxifolia -> J. taxifolia & J. lutchuensis (according to POWO J. both in J. taxifolia)
There may well be additional subsequent papers (by Adams and/or others) that encouraged recognition of J. macrocarpa, but not the other taxa; I'll take a look and see what I can find.
Conifers, I was just kidding . I think you should have commented on the issue before changing the species. But it doesn't matter, the boundaries between species are blurred.
I sowed and cultivated a J Macrocarpa from a seed collected in the Huelva coast .Although it is the King of the Dunes, it also grows in clay soil. Juniperus are super hardy.
Hola Ernesto - Gracias! 😂
Nice Photo! Do you think this tree may be older than 605 years though?
Thanks!
This tree's measurement at 1.30 does not include the new stems seen in the photo. I remember measuring the main trunk along with the second thickest trunk, where they form the same body. A pity that I did not measure above where it forks, where only the old burned trunk is. I estimate that it would be 11 meters.
Taking into account that a 270-year-old chestnut tree has a circumference of around 4,5 meters, I think this may be more than 600 years old.
You can see these pics:
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/es/esp/galicia/lalin/4611_fragadecatasos/
Could be as old as 800 years, that is the time when the area was definetely repopulated after the southern frontier was secured in the battle of Navas de Tolosa, 1212. Seems possible that the repopulators from the north itroduced the cultivation of this tree, esential in the diet of the average peasant. It's a mere suposition, but to think that this chestnut tree was alive already in the thirteenth century makes you wonder how many people had to pass by its side.
Hi Manuel,
I suppose there were already chestnut trees in this area before the reconquest, since the chestnut tree was supposedly introduced to the peninsula by the Romans, before Christ. Although there are also indications that the chestnut tree is autochthonous in some parts of Spain.
Qué ven mis ojos, españoles comentando en inglés , nivelazo. Pero qué fue del gallego ?
Agree with Alberto,
Castanea sativa is native in parts of Spain (for map of likely native areas, see Fig. 6 in
this article), and will have been introduced elsewhere by the Romans, if not earlier.
The chestnut tree is autochthonous, it is a scientific fact, that it was introduced by the Romans is a mere myth, in fact it was much more widespread naturally than today due to the slow but progressive drying of the climate in the Iberian Peninsula since prehistoric times. A complete and illustrative article on various analyzes of multiple peatlands and archaeological sites in the Autonomous Community of Castile & Leon, where this tree is from (sorry @Conifers, it's in Spanish, but it's very interesting): https://www.paleodiversitas.org/web/CAPITULOS_files/09_CASTILLA_Y_LEON.pdf
What happens is that at the moment I have not seen a single Castanea sativa formation that cannot say: -this is a natural formation-, they all seem to be the fruit of chestnut cultivation. I suspect that in current conditions the role of the chestnut tree is that of a specific companion species, quite the opposite of the role of the oak that tends to dominate and form pure masses. That is why I suspect that this chestnut tree is cultivated, I do not dare to deny that the chestnut tree is not indigenous to the region, and it is possible that it was already cultivated before the Middle Ages, but that mass in which the chestnut is clearly cultivated and not at all a natural formation.
@ roburpetraea - Gracias! Regrettably, my Spanish is nowhere near good enough to read it, though the pollen diagrams are language-independent of course.
As an aside, do you know of any articles about the archaeology / palaeohistory of Pinus pinea, please? This is something I have wanted to find information on for a long time.
I have found these small document (also in Spanish). Is not a big deal, but you might find something interesting:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40836475_Los_pinares_de_pino_pinonero_en_el_sur_peninsular_papel_en_la_dinamica_natural_en_base_a_la_arqueologia_prehistorica_y_protohistorica_Nuevas_interpretaciones
Conifers and Manu, thank you for sharing those articles, they are very interesting.
Manu, I agree with you that the chestnut forest of El Tiemblo is the fruit of a very ancient crop, God knows when the first chestnut trees were there. I wanted to say that the chestnut was probably already harvested in the area long before 1212. As for purely natural and native formations of Castanea sativa I could not tell you but it appears naturalized(?) in many areas of Galicia and Asturias (that I have seen) without going further afield, in the land of my house I have 1 chestnut tree of approximately 10 years that nobody planted, it competes very well with common oak, eucalyptus and maritime pine in humid and not so humid areas.
Ernesto, desde que inventaron Google translate es fácil hablar en inglés jejeje
Regards and saludos!
A ver Alberto, claro que el castaño bravo aparece de forma esporádica en el monte, en Galicia, en Asturias y en el oeste de León y Zamora, lo que quiero decir esque no vemos bosques naturales de castaño, todas las formaciones cerradas de castaño, los soutos, son fruto del cultivo, y en las pocas masas de bosque natural que quedan no lo ves más que de forma esporádica y siempre en los valles cerca de los pueblos y de los campos trabajados, de la civilización. Puede ser que el castaño sea de climas suaves, que sea un arbol que en un orígen crecía de forma natural en el fondo de los valles, no lo se. No digo que no sea autóctono, sólamente que no consigo decifrar el papel que jugaba en los bosques vírgenes, no se si me entiendes, que no veo dónde encaja, como que algo no me cuadra.
@ roburpetraea - Muchas gracias!
Manu, quizás no formó rodales puros nunca, ni en su estado más natural. En España yo veo especies que forman masas más o menos puras y en otras partes de Europa no. En Polonia por ejemplo yo vi que los bosques en un terreno plano y homogéneo son más diversos, en un mismo bosque hay desde coníferas a un montón de especies de frondosas, aquí yo eso no lo veo, exceptuando los hayedos-abetales de los Pirineos o por diferencias en la altitud, riberas de ríos, o por terrenos más cambiantes, etc.. Por poner un ejemplo Muniellos, si te alejas de cursos fluviales solo hay robles y más robles, la mayoría albares. Quiero decir que quizás esos castaños que se ven salpicados por el monte son nativos y no naturalizados, por lo menos en las zonas donde se supone que son autóctonos. No lo se.
Puede que así sea, solo podemos conjeturar.
@Conifers you're welcome! There must be much more elaborate and extensive documents on the subject, the thing is to find them. Pine trees are a controversial matter in Spain, you know, from the 60s to today is discussed their autochthonous character and to what extent their traditional cultivation has modified their natural distribution, their effects on ecosystems, their role in native virgin forests, etc.
Si os interesa, no hace mucho escribí sobre el carácter autóctono de los castaños ibéricos tras unas conversaciones con el investigador José Valentín Roces Díaz, ahora en la Universidad de Swansea (Reino Unido), que ha analizado el tema.
https://arbolesconhistoria.com/2020/09/18/castanos-autoctonos-llegaron-antes-romanos/
Muy interesante Monzon. El articulo incluso habla del castañar en cuestión, en El Tiemblo.
Parece que Galicia la consideran como región nativa del castaño, y me hace pensar que quizás, lo que llaman castaño bravo, mucho mas competente en el monte, de crecimiento rápido y esbelto, más tardío en la producción de fruto, dando unas castañas más pequeñas y amargas, sea sencillamente el castaño autóctono.
Terrific image. I tried to add some volume numbers to this hulk using this image as my main guide. Would have been a monster in the past, what a shame it’s just a relic now but still imposing.
Hola Alberto, buenos dias, excelente trabajo. Yo estuve mirando éste valle y el del Monte la Vara , pero al parecer toda la zona fué explotada para sacar las traviesas del ferrocarril León-Bilbao. Incluso creo recordar que cerca de la carretera del valle de Vilarello quedan restos de casetas y estructuras que usaron para arrastrar los troncos de roble. Esto son los restos.
Sin embargo hay un bosque , O Cotaron , en la ladera norte del Pico do Agulleiro, mirando hacia Piornedo, desde donde se puede acceder, que merecería la pena explorar, pues igual sobrevive allí algo , aunque en Piornedo tienen que saberlo , antes de molestarse en explorar. Lo tengo en la lista.Saludos.
Ya ves, y ahora las traviesas del FFCC León Bilbao las han puesto de hormigón... Tanto destrozo para nada. Y en nada cerrarán la línea.
Por cierto un recorrido precioso, si tienes la oportunidad de hacer aunque se aun tramo merece la pena. Es sin duda el recorrido en tren más bonito de España.
Pues seguro que es así, y tantas otras veces que habrán sacado madera mucho antes que existiera el ferrocarril. Estos montes de virgen no tienen nada pero aún así esconden buenos robles que se libraron de convertirse en traviesas. Yo fui buscando un carballo catalogado por la Xunta pero que no encontré, sin embargo vi este otro en la lejanía.
Alberto, ¿y no has mirado ese monte que se ve al lado sur del Rio de Ortigal? Tiene muy buena pinta, le tengo el ojo echado desde hace años pero no encuentro el momento.
Justo es el Monte da Vara! al sur de río Ortigal y al oeste del Pico Tres Bispos, que separa Galicia con Leon.
Tú dices la ladera norte del valle que forma el Río Ortigal? Ahí estuve buscando el carballo que comentaba antes. Hay ejemplares de buen porte. Quiero volver con el telescopio terrestre y mirar bien, pero tiene que ser en invierno que si no, no se ve nada
Sí, esa me refiero. En el Google Earth parece bastante frondoso, pero no se cómo serán los portes de los árboles, si mereciera la pena ir a explorarlo. A mi me pillará como a 40 minutos del pueblo, subiendo por el puerto de Balouta.
https://www.diariodeleon.es/articulo/cultura/zona-marcada-actividad-compania-maderera-ancares/201108221029001197230.html
Lo raro es que quede algún roble por ahí
Aunque ahora que lo pienso no recuerdo exactamente si fue para la linea Leon Bilbao o para el de Ponferrada a Villablino, o para las dos. En su libro sobre Los Ancares Alvarez Rubio habla de ello.
Que lastima me da leer eso, parece ser que hasta hace poco más de un siglo eran bosques bastante intactos, similares a Muniellos por ejemplo.
Dice que se sacaron 152 traviesas de un solo roble, imaginate el tamaño que tendría ese árbol!
Así es , una barbaridad como esquilmaron los Ancares. Si vas a insistir deberías mirar la ladera norte del Pico Do Agulleiro , como te digo , pues es análoga al bosque de Suarbol donde están los gordos, es el bosque siguiente de norte a sur, similares características, si no los han cortado es posible que quede algo, habría que pregunta antes en el bar de Piornedo.Me he pateado todos los valles de Ancares , por el este y oeste , solo me queda ese bosque. En los dos valles de Burbia , por ejemplo, hay alguno gordito pero nada espectacular, que yo sepa.
A mi de todos modos los árboles gruesos solamente no me atraen mucho, prefiero que no sean tan gordos y sean esbeltos o con copas amplias. Ahí en esa ladera que dice Manu hay robles muy buenos, de 4 o más metros de perímetro y 25 o incluso 30 metros de altura aproximadamente, pero son muy inaccesibles, no hay sendero y la ladera es empinadísima. Yo no me doy la paliza si no tengo claro a donde voy, por eso digo que ir sin prisas, un día claro de invierno a alguna zona alta y explorar con un telescopio. Estoy convencido de que la mayoría de los árboles más impresionantes en el monte están sin descubrir, y no lo saben ni en el bar del pueblo jeje, por los menos en la Cordillera Cantábrica.
Curioso que la noticia nombre Burbia, hasta donde yo se por allí está todo arrasado, no queda ningún bosque explotable.
Si Manu , pero quedan algunos robles medianos, por ejemplo subiendo por el rio Burbia en el bosque de el Reventón entre el Cuiña y la Mostallar. Tembién allí mismo vi la mayor concentración de rebecos que he encontrado nunca, decenas de ellos y no se asustaban mucho. Hace tiempo que no los cazan. En el otro valle, el del Arroyo Vilouso, hay un buen bosque de tejos,grandes mostajos , y es posible que alejado del camino queden algunos robles interesantes.
Gracias Ernesto, es una zona que tengo pendiente de visitar, incluído el Reventón. Respecto a las traviesas supongo que serían para la líne Ponferrada-Villablino, para la de La Robla-Bilbao les pilla más a mano sitios a lo largo del trayecto, y de sobra, sobre todo por la zona del Embalse del Ebro donde hay extensos robledales, algunos atravesados por el trazado justo por el centro, y la vista es impresionante. Uno de estos tramos es el que hay entre Montes Claros y Las Rozas:
Por cierto, me sorprende que te manejes tanto por los Ancares, ¿no te pilla muy lejos de tu zona?
Hola Manu, si , fue para la linea Ponferrada- Villablino en principio, pero en Ponferrada se vendían traviesas al por mayor procedentes de los robles de Ancares, un destrozo que hicieron. Yo estuve viviendo unos años en Ponferrada y luego en Asturias, y ahora que estoy prejubilado sigo frecuentando la cordillera, my favorite place, pues me encanta su naturaleza y me lo conozco prácticamente todo. Hace un mes estuve en Las Ondinas fotografiando osos, lo puedes ver en mi feisbu. Estoy en puertas de escriturar un piso por allí para tener una " base de operaciones ". El problema es que tengo una lesión antigua que no acaba de sanar y no puedo patear mucho tiempo, como antes, sin resentirme, pero hago lo que puedo. Un saludo Manu.
Manu, Beautiful forest photo! Reminds me very much of the similar oak forests we have here in the mountains!
@Bee yes, it's basically a monospecific forest of Quercus petraea with some undergrowth as you can see in the image of Fagus sylvatica and Ilex aquifolium. There is also some Q. robur, but it's anecdotal.
Sadly here this forests are pretty rare, very reduced in extension, while in your area this type of mountain forests are giantic.
Manu,
Thank you for sharing that. The understory is remarkably similar to that of the oak mountain forest here:
They are very common in areas where the forest was primeval white pine and hemlock, as in the mountains above (they are actually dissected plateaus cut into by water and erosion).
Russ A.
So I understand that those oak forests are a result of the degradation of the original pine and hemlock forest... That last photo is amazing!
@roburpetraea,
Thanks! Yes, the majority of the central to south forests in Pennsylvania, as shown in the stunning mountain photo (taken at this location in PA, on Google Maps
, are comprised of many types of Oaks, such as Red, White, Chestnut, etc..., along with (in the less-disturbed and colder areas) Sugar Maples, Black Cherry, Birch, and many others. The forest transforms into a conifer-northern hardwood forest in these mountains, so it is hard to tell whether the forest is oak or maple-hemlock without getting close up (or seeing the understories of both, which can be different).
As you said, those extensive hardwood forests are mainly the result of the logging industry and the lumbering days of the past. The forests on those mountains were once primarily White Pine, Hemlocks, and slower-growing hardwoods such as beech. Black Cherry was quite hard to find in the pre-lumbering days, as it requires lots of light to grow and prosper.
However, although millions of acres were logged, you can actually find quite a few small remnant trees and forests in hard-to-access locations, and in areas that were WAY too steep for loggers to get at.
Coincidentally, lol, as I was looking at this google maps of the vista area of the view shown in that last picture:
I noticed a small old-growth virgin white-pine remnant on the canyon's sides:
You can see some remnant trees on the steepest slopes all along the 300 or 400 meter deep canyon. I really wish I could explore such places, to see what old-growth has survived!
Russ A.
?
