[HN Gopher] Redwood World - Pictures and Locations of Redwoods i...
___________________________________________________________________
Redwood World - Pictures and Locations of Redwoods in the British
Isles
Author : de_keyboard
Score : 107 points
Date : 2021-08-03 10:13 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.redwoodworld.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.redwoodworld.co.uk)
| 14 wrote:
| This is so cool. My dad planted a giant Redwood here in Canada on
| Vancouver Island about 24 years ago when he built his house.
| People don't believe me when I say the circumference of the base
| of the tree measures over 5 feet but is only that old. His house
| is along side a river with beautiful dark, nutrient rich top soil
| and things seem to grow well in his yard. I wish I new the best
| way to share a photo here later once it gets light out.
| ben_ wrote:
| You can always upload a photo to imgur (https://imgur.com/) and
| link it here
| gccs wrote:
| People over estimate how thick 5' circumference is
| dougSF70 wrote:
| This is great. My dad planted a redwood in plot of land he wanted
| to use to grow vines. It was too step for vines so he planted
| hundreds of trees (Chilean Beech) and a single Wellingtonia.
| holoduke wrote:
| I am always amazed that once the UK including Scotland was
| covered in thick woodlands. The Highlands as we know it are very
| different than the old days. You can stil find remains of trees
| below soil in some areas
| cyberpunk wrote:
| I come from the highlands, the lack of trees is down to the
| wind... I would plant a tree, it would grow up a bit and then
| bam, wind would snap it and kill it...
|
| I'm not convinced the wind has changed so much ;)
| chippy wrote:
| I've heard that the popular idea that the UK was covered in
| dense forest after the ice age until modern times is mostly
| erroneous these days. Even around 4000BC-1000BC humans were up
| there farming and clearing quite quickly.
|
| https://aeon.co/essays/who-chopped-down-britains-ancient-for...
|
| "This understanding has now been shown to be wholly inaccurate.
| Much of England had been cleared as early as 1000 BCE, some two
| millennia beforehand. The Bronze Age saw intensive farming on a
| scale that we are only just beginning to appreciate. As Oliver
| Rackham puts it in The History of the Countryside:
| "It can no longer be maintained, as used to be supposed even 20
| years ago, that Roman Britain was a frontier province, with
| boundless wild woods surrounding occasional precarious
| clearings on the best land. On the contrary, even in supposedly
| backward counties such as Essex, villa abutted on villa for
| mile after mile, and most of the gaps were filled by small
| towns and the lands of British farmsteads."
|
| "
|
| Obviously there as loads more forest than now, but 1000 years
| ago it was about 15% forest, and now it's about 9%
|
| This once popular belief or legend or myth connected to the
| forest myths of germany and Robin Hood and the idea of a
| primeval ancient woodland in the British deep dark past. Maybe
| also connected to a kind of romanticism of a past wild non-
| modern country.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > _even in supposedly backward counties such as Essex_
|
| I nearly choked on my lunch when I read that! haha
| conductr wrote:
| Having no prior indoctrination or opinion I had always just
| assumed it would have coincided with proliferation of
| agricultural. Whoever says the forests disappeared 1000 years
| ago, after agriculture had been in full swing for millennia,
| makes a weak argument without some supporting evidence.
|
| Even in the US, where land clearing has only been in practice
| for a few centuries, we've seen drastic changes to our
| landscape. I'd love to see how things looked before American
| chestnut trees went "extinct" and how people used them in the
| past. Apparently it was quite the resource.
| m-i-l wrote:
| > _" popular idea that the UK was covered in dense forest
| after the ice age until modern times is mostly erroneous
| these days"_
|
| When I was growing up in Scotland, I'm reasonably sure I was
| told that 95% of Scotland was once covered by the Caledonian
| Forest. Certainly that's what I've been telling people since
| then:-) But according to
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Forest it was
| estimated to have covered 15,000km2, whereas Scotland is
| 78,000km2, suggesting it was less than 20%.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| If you look around you'll notice the trees are usually only
| growing on one side of a hill, the wind gets anything else
| before it's strong enough to withstand it (at least on the
| west coast where I'm from)
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > forest myths of germany and Robin Hood
|
| There are dense forests in that region, including some that
| are primeval.
|
| I had the good fortune to grow up next to a national park,
| and can speak un-ironically about tree-hugging.
|
| Battle of Hurtgen Forest
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest
| fredley wrote:
| I'm reading _Wilding_ by Isabella Tree that contests this view
| of the past flora in the British Isles. The impact of megafauna
| on the development of woodland is seemingly not accounted for
| in the accepted view of the historic landscape.
|
| While it's true that if you leave a patch of land to its own
| devices currently, it gradually becomes scrub, then dense
| woodland, it turns out if there are deer and other large
| herbivores about they do quite a good job at reducing tree
| cover and turning the landscape into a variety of other
| ecosystems.
| Zenst wrote:
| It always irked me the lack of tree's in Scotland, but many
| reasons for it - https://treesforlife.org.uk/into-the-
| forest/habitats-and-eco...
| mkl wrote:
| Height leader board, maximum 52.73 metres:
| http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/toptrunks.htm
|
| A fallen redwood sprouted into a whole row of trees:
| http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/picturepages/leighton.htm
| phkahler wrote:
| >> A fallen redwood sprouted into a whole row of trees
|
| I had no idea they could do that. Amazing!
| MuirsGhost wrote:
| Trees are amazing!
|
| > The redwood is one of the few conifers that sprout from the
| stump and roots, and it declares itself willing to begin
| immediately to repair the damage of the lumberman and also
| that of the forest-burner. As soon as a redwood is cut down
| or burned it sends up a crowd of eager, hopeful shoots,
| which, if allowed to grow, would in a few decades attain a
| height of a hundred feet, and the strongest of them would
| finally become giants as great as the original tree.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1897/08/the-
| ame...
| PBnFlash wrote:
| This is actually the primary method of reproduction. The
| seeds are basically infertile and will be outcompeted by
| grass.
| oasisbob wrote:
| The seeds do much better in mineral soil, out of a closed-
| canopy climax forest. It's a matter of environment, not
| seed fertility.
|
| It's very easy to take a drive anywhere in Northern CA and
| find plenty of places where the primary form of
| reproduction is sexual.
| dekhn wrote:
| Where I went to college you couldn't help but step into a
| "fairy ring" made by sprouts from a felled redwood. People
| owuld dress them up like huts and hang out late at night with
| candles and reading poetry.
|
| https://openspacetrust.org/blog/fairy-rings/
| oasisbob wrote:
| Western redcedar, too. They have a lot in common with their
| distant northern cousins.
| scooble wrote:
| I don't know why, but I love this and was delighted to find our
| local redwood.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| And people say that the good internet is dead ...
|
| What a great project.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| Are these trees ever called Canadian Redwoods?
|
| When i was at primary school one of the class days out was to
| Chatelherault park - the picture on the site is still accurate -
| i have no idea why but the redwoods have always been the defining
| thing about the park for me ever since we were told about them
| then.
|
| I've always thought we were told they were canadian redwoods but
| i could easily be wrong. Maybe they said giant redwoods like this
| site.
| oasisbob wrote:
| Coast or coastal redwood is another common name, typically used
| in its native range when differentiating with giant redwood.
| (Sequoiadendron giganteum)
|
| Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?
| TinkersW wrote:
| Probably not, as all redwoods aside from the Dawn(small thing
| from China) are from California, perhaps you misheard
| California as Canada.
| Cerium wrote:
| Or saw "CA" and thought country rather than state.
| cronix wrote:
| The sound of falling Redwood trees is what they used for the
| sound of At-At's walking in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (those
| huge 2 and 4 legged walking machines). Boom, boom, boom. The Ewok
| scenes on forest planet "Endor" were filmed near the area of "The
| Avenue of the Giants" (Redwood forest) in N. California.
| darrenf wrote:
| Fantastic stuff. I walk past the redwoods local to me very
| regularly and often admire them. Last weekend my partner and I
| visited Ramster Gardens and saw these mighty specimens:
| http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/picturepages/chiddingfold.htm
|
| BlueSky provide a National Tree Map[0] - " _a unique,
| comprehensive database of location, height and canopy /crown
| extents for every single tree 3m and above in height._". From
| their data I learned that more than 40% of the borough where I
| live is tree cover.[1] It's hard to describe how much I enjoy
| walking the miles and miles of public footpaths through woodland
| there are on my doorstep.
|
| [0] https://www.bluesky-world.com/ntm
|
| [1] https://www.greatbritishlife.co.uk/homes-and-
| gardens/places-...
| naturalauction wrote:
| Unfortunately my local redwood isn't on here, I guess it's time
| to submit a picture!
| dkarp wrote:
| Submit them and Ron will add them. I've sent him a couple in
| the past and a few weeks later they were added with credits.
|
| These sort of fan pages were such a part of the old web. It's
| great to find little pockets of it.
| m-i-l wrote:
| There's a fairly mature one near where I live in London that
| isn't on the list either. I've submitted it.
|
| Agreed that it's great to know that special interest sites
| like this still exist.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| I appreciate the fact that Redwood World finds it necessary to
| include a page slamming people who believe that you can't enjoy
| trees unless they're locally native.
|
| http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/native.htm
| PMan74 wrote:
| I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not?
|
| > Perhaps the Giant Redwood is an ideal tree to re-introduce as
| we are told that our climate is beginning to return to these
| types of conditions.
|
| One of the justifications for reintroduction of Redwoods is a
| real gem.
| ivanbakel wrote:
| The site could do more to address the concern of meddling in
| ecological systems that humans don't fully understand. There's
| enough evidence in the world of the negative consequences of
| such a hubristic attitude to nature - especially in the UK.
|
| Specimen trees in public areas can be wonderful things, but the
| idea that humans can simply aesthetically rejig the natural
| world whenever it suits them deserves to die.
| ben_w wrote:
| "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
| unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
| himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable
| man." - George Bernard Shaw
| helloworld11 wrote:
| Sure we can. Nature already does it endlessly. Your claim
| presupposes idea that there's some sort of conscious natural
| order that's ideally aligned, and that we humans only muck it
| up with ignorance. The reality (unless ever proven otherwise)
| is that nature's own balanced world is nothing more than the
| transient product of constant and highly random destructive
| processes finally settling into something stable at times.
| Nothing we do sits outside of that and nature itself has
| brought far more equilibrium-destroying events to bear upon
| itself than we have.
| ddoran wrote:
| I wish the English (and others following their lead) would stop
| using the phrase "British Isles" to include Ireland. Many Irish
| people find it highly offensive; at best it is simply inaccurate.
|
| "In Ireland, the term "British Isles" is controversial, and there
| are objections to its usage. The Government of Ireland does not
| officially recognize the term, and its embassy in London
| discourages its use. Britain and Ireland is used as an
| alternative description" [1]
|
| Ireland has not been a British Isle in more than a hundred years
| when 84% of the island re-gained its independence.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles
| mutatio wrote:
| Why would I stop using it, it merely describes the group of
| islands. Geographic ignorance or a chip on your shoulder aren't
| great motivators for me to stop. Sums up the state of affairs
| when a perma-offended post like this is the top comment of a
| really interesting post.
| pacaro wrote:
| Names are funny things, the name in question has been used for
| the entire archipelago, in one form or another, for thousands
| of years. Maybe part of the problem is the casual use of
| Britain to mean "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
| Northern Ireland", it doesn't help that most people who live in
| Great Britain don't realize that the "Great" just refers to it
| being the largest island in the archipelago.
|
| Personally I think that the UK should be separated back into
| England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Berwick-upon-
| Tweed. They can then individually decide whether to beg to be
| allowed back into the EU. The Windsor nee Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
| clan should become private citizens like anyone else (if any
| country will have them)
|
| On a more serious note, I feel that a lot of problems would be
| resolved by dividing much of Europe into smaller polities
| [deleted]
| conanite wrote:
| I suspect the "great" Britain distinguishes it from the other
| Britain which is a nearby French province, ie "Grande
| Bretagne" vs "Bretagne". Ireland is still not British! The
| "British Isles" was a useful term for a dominant power while
| it lasted.
| pacaro wrote:
| No. It was simply the descriptor applied to the largest
| island in the archipelago. The cultural layer followed,
| sadly England in particular and the UK in general have done
| little or nothing to address colonial and imperial legacy
| mutatio wrote:
| No he's right, it has been used historically to
| distinguish it from Brittany. What on earth are you
| talking about regarding imperial legacy? It might be used
| in a sense to project national potency, but the naming
| never derived from any imperial motive. It seems to me
| along with your earlier comment, that you're fixated on
| self flagellation and a conclusion that just doesn't
| exist regarding the naming.
| pacaro wrote:
| From the same Wikipedia article
|
| "Claudius Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great
| Britain (megale Brettania megale Brettania) and to
| Ireland as little Britain (mikra Brettania mikra
| Brettania) in his work Almagest (147-148 AD)"
|
| I feel that the reference to English and UK colonial and
| imperial legacy is more a recognition that the term has
| in the present day become controversial, and, to some,
| offensive for a number of reasons which include: a
| history of oppression and/dominance, both within the
| archipelago and beyond; a jingoistic element within the
| UK population that considers that to be a good thing; the
| conflation of the various meanings of _great_
|
| Those things are distinct from where the name came from
| [?]2,000 years ago, but speak directly to why it might be
| offensive today
| dboreham wrote:
| As a Scot I get your point, although to be honest I don't
| recall much need to refer to "British Isles". Wikipedia
| suggests "Britain and Ireland" or "Atlantic Archipelago" as
| alternatives.
|
| In the US, where I live now, we have "North America" to refer
| to Canada, USA, Mexico. Makes me wonder if Canadians are
| offended by that..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles
| wheybags wrote:
| Also, they're missing the one in the botanic gardens in Dublin,
| the only one I know of :p "British Isles" doesn't bother me, I
| guess it is a bit confusing for people who don't really know
| what it means though.
| werds wrote:
| The problem is that nobody has come up with a snappy enough
| alternative yet. The Good Friday Agreement uses "these
| islands", I think people find "Britain and Ireland" to be too
| long winded, what does that leave us with?
|
| Edit: Actually "Anglo-Celtic Isles" works i suppose
| pacaro wrote:
| Some academics apparently use "Atlantic Archipelago"
| [deleted]
| peanut_worm wrote:
| Apparently a lot of these were brought over during the victorian
| period from America, so they're the same species as the redwoods
| in california.
| calibas wrote:
| Two species from California (Sequoiadendron giganteum & Sequoia
| sempervirens), one from China (Metasequoia glyptostroboides).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-05 23:02 UTC)