Why aren't other trees big like the Redwoods?

[Magnetic]

I've wondered why other trees don't gain the bulk or height of the Sequoia type Redwood trees? If you look at a tree, they have a LOT more vertical growth they could take advantage of, increasing their trunk size to conpensate for the extra height, . . . . but why don't they?

[Crossroads Inc.]

I don't suppose you know about some of the more massive Amazon trees that give Redwoods a run for their money?

[nick012000]

What about the Sequoias?

Also, don't forget that the strength of the tree increases with the square of the increase, but its mass (and therefore weight) will increase with the cube of the increase. Double the size of the tree, you'll quadruple its strength, but increase its weight 8 times.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't suppose you know about some of the more massive Amazon trees that give Redwoods a run for their money?

What about them? The tallest trees recorded in the world are Sequoias and in fact they approach the physical limit for the height of a tree. If you’re talking about volume then rainforest trees can compete but remain inferior, and in terms of canopy area nothing can compare to one Banyan tree in India which in one case covers something like four acres. But this is only possible because the Banyan tree has braches which grow down, and then become new trunks and roots. The record setting example had to be trained to reach its absurd size.

[Magnetic]

I don't suppose you know about some of the more massive Amazon trees that give Redwoods a run for their money?

Yes, the Amazon has big trees too. . . . . but for the most part, . . . trees don't get that massive or tall. I live in the center of the United States, and trees only get to be a certain height and width of trunk. Only the most old trees are noteworthy, but still no where the size of the Redwood Sequoias or (as you point out) the Amazon trees.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I've wondered why other trees don't gain the bulk or height of the Sequoia type Redwood trees? If you look at a tree, they have a LOT more vertical growth they could take advantage of, increasing their trunk size to conpensate for the extra height, . . . . but why don't they?

Because doing so is very expensive. A tree that big needs a lot of water and nutrients to produce all that mass. It also needs a mild climate with relatively little variability so it doesn't have to devote energy and mechanisms to protecting itself from climate swings. That's why you only find big trees like that in places with mild, wet weather. Anywhere else, and the size of a tree becomes restricted by the available resources and climate.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes, the Amazon has big trees too. . . . . but for the most part, . . . trees don't get that massive or tall. I live in the center of the United States, and trees only get to be a certain height and width of trunk. Only the most old trees are noteworthy, but still no where the size of the Redwood Sequoias or (as you point out) the Amazon trees.

Keep in mind that all the trees you've likely encountered are new growth trees. Most of the United State's old growth forests have been cut down and the forests that have replaced them haven't had time to grow as large, since it takes hundreds of years.

Read some of the descriptions the original Europeans wrote about the trees that were here when they first arrived. They were freaking huge. Almost none of them still exist, but they are frankly unbelieveably large. It says something that they used to take pine trees and make ship masts out of them, because they could grow well over a hundred feet tall. That was one of America's big exports in pre-Revolutionary days, because England didn't have the trees that could be used as ship masts anymore due to deforestation.

America was full of huge trees that were on a huge scale. It's kind of a shame so few exist anymore save for the ones that there used for property markers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Keep in mind that all the trees you've likely encountered are new growth trees. Most of the United State's old growth forests have been cut down and the forests that have replaced them haven't had time to grow as large, since it takes hundreds of years.

The United States was totally clear cut from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Old growth forest does not exist (except perhaps for a few tiny pockets) in that entire chunk of the country. Just thinking about how much effort went into cutting down that many trees is a big staggering.

Read some of the descriptions the original Europeans wrote about the trees that were here when they first arrived. They were freaking huge. Almost none of them still exist, but they are frankly unbelieveably large. It says something that they used to take pine trees and make ship masts out of them, because they could grow well over a hundred feet tall. That was one of America's big exports in pre-Revolutionary days, because England didn't have the trees that could be used as ship masts anymore due to deforestation.

Yup, the RN actually sent people out to mark big trees which would make good masts so as to officially reserve them for its own use. It was a major crime in the colonies to cut down a tree so marked for your own purposes.

[Magnetic]

There have been some posts with great information. I understand the reasons better now. Thanks!

[Gil Hamilton]

The United States was totally clear cut from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Old growth forest does not exist (except perhaps for a few tiny pockets) in that entire chunk of the country. Just thinking about how much effort went into cutting down that many trees is a big staggering.

Oh, I know, it's incredible. I've seen old photographs of Pittsburgh, which is now covered in forest, that look like Kansas. The only time you see a tree that isn't second generation or newer are the ones that were used to mark property lines, a few of which still exist. It takes several people holding hands to encircle them.

It is freaking impressive and kind of a shame, if only because second generation hardwood doesn't even come close to the amazing toughness and quality of old growth forest trees. Some of that hardwood were used to pave roads, for pete's sake. Further, it doesn't rot very easily and termites break their teeth on the stuff, so it holds up for centuries.

Yup, the RN actually sent people out to mark big trees which would make good masts so as to officially reserve them for its own use. It was a major crime in the colonies to cut down a tree so marked for your own purposes.

I seem to recall from Early American History Class that there were riots in New England over this practice, because some British officials had somewhat of a tendancy to "overestimate" how many trees they'd need.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ghetto edit: Now that I think about it, wasn't there a law that basically stated that all pine trees in New England over a certain diameter were illegal for colonists to cut down unless they got a certain (expensive) permit from a surveyor saying they were allowed to cut it down, because the big ones were entirely reserved for the Royal Navy to build masts out of?

[LadyTevar]

Yes, the Amazon has big trees too. . . . . but for the most part, . . . trees don't get that massive or tall. I live in the center of the United States, and trees only get to be a certain height and width of trunk. Only the most old trees are noteworthy, but still no where the size of the Redwood Sequoias or (as you point out) the Amazon trees.

Keep in mind that all the trees you've likely encountered are new growth trees. Most of the United State's old growth forests have been cut down and the forests that have replaced them haven't had time to grow as large, since it takes hundreds of years.

Read some of the descriptions the original Europeans wrote about the trees that were here when they first arrived. They were freaking huge. Almost none of them still exist, but they are frankly unbelieveably large. It says something that they used to take pine trees and make ship masts out of them, because they could grow well over a hundred feet tall. That was one of America's big exports in pre-Revolutionary days, because England didn't have the trees that could be used as ship masts anymore due to deforestation.

America was full of huge trees that were on a huge scale. It's kind of a shame so few exist anymore save for the ones that there used for property markers.

In WV there is Cathedral State Forest: the last stand of OldGrowth, unlogged Forest in the State.

I have no words to describe how beautiful it is. They call it Cathedral because you feel like you've stepped inside one, it's simply htat awe-inspiring.

[Quadlok]

I'd like to point out that other species, like the Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock, can also top 100 meters. Redwoods just get more publicity because there are more big ones left and Northern California is a much nicer vacation destination than the Olympic Peninsula, weather wise.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Let's face the facts: Other trees don't get as big because it's depressing not to live in sunny Ca. in the misty forests of the coast looking out over wave lapped beaches....

[Magnetic]

--Let's face the facts: Other trees don't get as big because it's depressing not to live in sunny Ca. in the misty forests of the coast looking out over wave lapped beaches....

I think we may have a winner!!

Midwest trees are depressed because, if it isn't cold in the winter, with ice storms breaking off part of your limbs, . . . . it is lack of rain, . . . or extreme humidity and heat.

Yep, . . . . . they may just be really depressed.