Talk:Picea sitchensis

Really the "third tallest"?

The article states as of 2007/03/08 that the Sitka Spruce is the world's third tallest tree, after Coast Red Wood and Coast Douglas Fir. However, a living Eucalyptus regnans have been measured at 97m and a felled tree was meassured at 114.4m, taller than any reliable measurement for Sitka Spruce or Douglas Fir. Grant Gussie 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sitka Spruce is probably the world's fourth or fifth tallest tree. The Noble and Grand firs can also reach 300 feet. Reliably measured Douglas-fir have been measured by foresters at heights of 380 to 393 feet, and lumbermen have claimed heights up to 415 feet. --75.175.79.174 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of living trees, it appears that Picea sitchensis is the third tallest (tied with Eucalyptus regnans). Of species with reliable measurements, the Thorpdale Eucalyptus regnans and the Harmony Falls grove Abies procera are taller than any Picea sitchensis recorded.

• Eucalyptus regnans
  • Unnamed in Styx Big Tree stand, 92 metres (302 ft) [1]
  • Unnamed in Andromeda reserve, 96.5 metres (317 ft) or 97 metres (318 ft) [2][3]
  • Unnamed in Thorpdale, Victoria 115 metres (377 ft) [4] (1880)
• Pseudotsuga menziesii
  • Brummitt Fir, 329 feet (100 m) [5]
  • Mineral Tree, 393 feet (120 m) (not laser-based, 1925)
  • I don't think reliable sources exist to support claims of taller individuals.
• Picea sitchensis
  • Carmanah Giant, 315 feet (96 m)
  • Unnamed in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, 96.7 metres (317 ft) [6]
  • Unnamed in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, 96.4 metres (316 ft)
• Abies procera
  • Unnamed in Harmony Falls grove, 325 feet (99 m) (not laser-based, prior to 1980, destroyed)
  • Unnamed in Goat Marsh Research Natural Area, 89.9 metres (295 ft) [7]
• Abies grandis
  • Unnamed in Redwoods National Park, 260 feet (79 m) (second tallest known)
  • Some up to 300 feet (91 m) (no longer standing)
  • Unnamed in Glacier Peak Wilderness, 81.4 metres (267 ft) [8]
• Van Pelt, Robert (2001). Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast. University of Washington Press. pp. Introduction XVI. ISBN 0295981407. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Informative list of heights!-- and well documented. I do have a special interest in the Pseudotsuga menziesii, however, and would like to clarify that the tree near the tiny town of Mineral, Wa ([9],[10]) had been independently documented by two notable men; Joe Westover, a land engineer from North Pacific Railway who in 1905 estimated the standing height at 230 feet, and measured the downed portion at 168 feet long, and Richard McArdle, (chief of the United States Forestry Service 1952-1962 [11]) who in 1924-25 calculated the height of the tree at 225 feet, and measured the downed top at 160 feet long. (these measurements are very close in agreement given 20 years between the two). (Giant Trees of Western America and the World: Al Carder, pg. 17)

There is also mention from the United States Forest Service, Forest Service Bulletin, 1931, of a report from 1900 that E.T. Allen (Edward Tyson Allen) a Forest Service regional forester (later chief inspector at the Western Forestry and Conservation Association in Portland, Oregon) had measured by steel tape a felled Douglas-fir some 380 feet long near the Nisqually River, WA.

The Brummitt Fir in Coos Co, Oregon is situated on a steep slope and measures 319 feet atop the slope, and 339 feet at the bottom of the slope. Therefore the greatest actual vertical height of the tree is 339 feet, but the average is 329. -- (Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast, Introduction XVI).

As for the reliability of claimed Douglas-fir in excess of 400 feet, skepticism is always warranted. Respected historian Walter MacKay Draycott in his "Early Days in Lynn Valley" 1978 The North Shore Times, Printers and Publishers, pg. 29, tells us that in Lynn Valley, N. Vancouver B.C. a "fir" was Felled in 1902 by the "Tremblay Brothers" at Argyle Rd off Mountain Highway (Centre Rd) on the property of Alfred John Nye. Nye told him that the felled fir tree measured 415 feet high, and was 14 feet 3 inches across the butt, five feet up. The bark was 13.5 inches thick. (Both Nye and Draycott lived contemporaneously in Lynn valley, B.C.) Draycott also tells us of a fir 352 feet tall, and 9 ft 8 inches in diameter felled and cut into 16 logs (16 ft each). He had personally lived among and seen many of the giant trees of greater Vancouver and taken part in removing and cutting a number of giants with his 7-6" saw (pg. 29). --75.175.79.174 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Giant Spruce"

I've only seen the colloquial term "giant spruce" used for Sitka Spruces - is this an identity, or are there other types of spruce that are referred to as "giant spruces"? If not, we may want to add this as a colloquial term. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "giant spruce" used for Sitka Spruce. But to answer your question, I've also never heard the term "giant spruce" applied to any other type of spruce. Dkreisst 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

Even not a part of the English speaking world, I can ensure that anybody in Norway that have a slightest insight into the various problems of coastal forestry in this country know about the plantations of Sitka Spruce. This is as evident for us as Sitka Spruce in New Zealand probably is for the New Zealanders. What regards Sitka Spruce in Iceland have I myself planted several thousands of them (or it´s hybrid with white spruce) there, as well as Sitka Spruce stands are visibly all over the country for those having had the opportunity to visit Iceland. Regarding Sitka Spruce in Denmark could Carl Mar: Møller´s book "Vore skovtræarter og deres dyrkning" (Copenhagen 1965) be a good source.

So I do not understand why a citation is needed for the fact that Sitka Spruce is planted extensively in Iceland, Denmark and Norway, when such a citation seems not necisary for the various other facts revealed in this article.

- Ingvar Åberge, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.111 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I`m not too familiar with Wikipedias verification policy but I guess that even if something is well known in a certain country it may be difficult to know if true or not for others? My family owns some land with a shelter(?) plantation on it. (Norwegian: Leplanting/leplantefelt) There was an official policy on these in the 1950s and 60s, encouraging people and even give money to plant sitka spruce in rows as a protection against the wind. This policy has stopped, as more concerned voices are heard. There are even people advocating cutting down all of the sitka spruce: (Norwegian) [12] Where I live, sitka spruce is beginning to transform the landscape. Places where not a tree grew around WW2 is now covered with sitka.

But still, sitka spruce is listed as "the recommendable species for afforestation of peatland in the coastal areas of West Norway": [13]

Trondos (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE. Some editors add content maliciously that is discovered to be false only after many weeks or months. A citation allows any editor to verify content, not just experts. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

'''This is Useful For Gatewood Elem. In MN For The 4th Grae Project!! From Chrisna Minh A 6th grader From Gatwood Elem Peace''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.255.34 (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional info for the "Uses" section

Hi, I found this page through the page for the Wright Flyer (the Wright brothers' first airplane). It turns out they used Giant Spruce in it's construction (probably because of the high strength to weight ratio mentioned here). I figured it might be an interesting fact to mention in this article. I'd add it myself, but I don't have the time to create an account. 12.32.89.121 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Search Engine Photo

Hi. The search engine photo of the branchlet and cones are not P. sitchensis, but more like P. pungens. It’s confusing.

Thanks. 2600:100F:B104:D9A4:5CDC:5C08:2C84:DC59 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. To what photo(s) are you referring with "search engine photo"? Eric ^talk 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)