Redwood World – Pictures and Locations of Redwoods in the British Isles(redwoodworld.co.uk)
redwoodworld.co.uk
Redwood World – Pictures and Locations of Redwoods in the British Isles
http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/locations.htm
62 comments
>> A fallen redwood sprouted into a whole row of trees
I had no idea they could do that. Amazing!
I had no idea they could do that. Amazing!
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/
https://openspacetrust.org/blog/fairy-rings/
Western redcedar, too. They have a lot in common with their distant northern cousins.
This is actually the primary method of reproduction.
The seeds are basically infertile and will be outcompeted by grass.
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.
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.
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...
> 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...
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
http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/native.htm
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.
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.
“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
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.
>Nothing we do sits outside of that
This is untrue. While it's correct to say that nature is involved in its own destructive churn, human interference in the natural world operates on a much faster timescale, over much greater distances, and with much more consistency. That's why humans are able to cause much more devastating ecological disasters than a natural process would - and why those disasters are qualitatively different from naturally-induced ones, since especially their speed means there is less "bounce back" to a new and equally active equilibrium.
This is untrue. While it's correct to say that nature is involved in its own destructive churn, human interference in the natural world operates on a much faster timescale, over much greater distances, and with much more consistency. That's why humans are able to cause much more devastating ecological disasters than a natural process would - and why those disasters are qualitatively different from naturally-induced ones, since especially their speed means there is less "bounce back" to a new and equally active equilibrium.
Don't you mean the human component of the natural world? I fail to see a single thing humans do as being outside of nature, seeing as how we come from the same system along with the ingredients of all our creations.. That aside, many natural destructive events easily cause vast destruction very quickly. Large asteroid impacts are an obvious example. So too are large volcanic eruptions. Humans have not yet come close to causing the kind of extinctions both of these events have rapidly caused extremely quickly whenever they occur.
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.
> 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.
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.
You can always upload a photo to imgur (https://imgur.com/) and link it here
People over estimate how thick 5' circumference is
You are right it is easy to over estimate. And I was giving numbers my dad gave me so I did doubt it for a moment and had to go check. The main trunk of the tree is actually 6 foot circumference and if you actually measured the very bottom it is bigger. The bottom 18 inches angles outwards at the end making it even bigger. This is a giant tree and it was planted after the house was build and I know the age of the house is only going on 24 years. Maybe I will get a video onto youtube if you guys really like.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
> 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 Hürtgen Forest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest
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 Hürtgen Forest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest
> even in supposedly backward counties such as Essex
I nearly choked on my lunch when I read that! haha
I nearly choked on my lunch when I read that! haha
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.
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.
> the US, where land clearing has only been in practice for a few centuries
What? The natives practiced slash-and-burn.
What? The natives practiced slash-and-burn.
Not to the extent of Europe circa 1492
Almost certainly true, though be aware that the Columbian Exchange resulted in a dramatic reforestation of the Americas as the people that had been keeping the forest in check died off. This is often viewed as the cause of the Little Ice Age.
>"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%.
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%.
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)
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...
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 ;)
I’m not convinced the wind has changed so much ;)
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-...
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-...
I'll add Ramster Gardens to my list of places to go this summer. It looks really nice, thanks for sharing.
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.
Two species from California (Sequoiadendron giganteum & Sequoia sempervirens), one from China (Metasequoia glyptostroboides).
Unfortunately my local redwood isn’t on here, I guess it’s time to submit a picture!
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.
These sort of fan pages were such a part of the old web. It's great to find little pockets of it.
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.
Agreed that it's great to know that special interest sites like this still exist.
I don’t know why, but I love this and was delighted to find our local redwood.
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
"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
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.
[deleted]
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 née 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
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 née 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
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.
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
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.
From the same Wikipedia article
"Claudius Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain (μεγάλη Βρεττανία megale Brettania) and to Ireland as little Britain (μικρὰ Βρεττανία 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
"Claudius Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain (μεγάλη Βρεττανία megale Brettania) and to Ireland as little Britain (μικρὰ Βρεττανία 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
[deleted]
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
Edit: Actually "Anglo-Celtic Isles" works i suppose
Some academics apparently use "Atlantic Archipelago"
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.
If it's any consolation, when someone says "British Isles", that just means Britain to me.
It's synonymous with "England" and "the United Kingdom".
It's synonymous with "England" and "the United Kingdom".
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
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
Some have been known to be.
And people say that the good internet is dead ...
What a great project.
What a great project.
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.
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.
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?
Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?
> typically used in its native range when differentiating with giant redwood
The terms I know as a resident of California are "redwood" and "sequoia" (alternatively, "giant sequoia"). Nothing would be referred to as a "giant redwood".
The terms I know as a resident of California are "redwood" and "sequoia" (alternatively, "giant sequoia"). Nothing would be referred to as a "giant redwood".
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.
A fallen redwood sprouted into a whole row of trees: http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/picturepages/leighton.htm