California Live Oak ? Quercus agrifolia

Depends. Depends on if and or when it died.

If it died 5 yrs after it was referenced, due to all the digging around it.... to install drains etc.....

Or, if it was cut down, and the stump sprouted, and the main old stump partially rotted.

IF it were still alive, AND undisturbed, and it got lots of water....

IF it were still alive, AND got poor water....

So, have you seen any trees that size or bigger that are in the proper vicinity?

I'd consider tying them ALL, in a 75' radius, and then use all the cogo I could, to narrow down the probablities, and then maybe even dig for the stump.... Lots of things happen in 150 yrs.

Blessings!

🙂

N

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_agrifolia

“Coast Live Oak typically has a much-branched trunk and reaches a mature height of 10–25 meters. Some specimens may attain an age exceeding 250 years, with trunk diameters up to three or four meters, such as the magnificent specimens on the Filoli estate in San Mateo County.”

And:

“The trunk, particularly for older individuals, may be highly contorted, massive and gnarled. The crown is broadly rounded and dense, especially when aged 20 to 70 years; in later life the trunk and branches are more well defined and the leaf density lower.”

I have seen one or two Bearing Trees of this vintage and species (I think) down around Copperopolis. There was little if any indication of scaring on the trunk, and one of them was dead and broken off about 4 feet high. I could look down the [rotted] center of it, and actually see (in relief) some of the 1850ish scribing.

Good luck, and be sure to post pictures WHEN you find it.

Loyal

My Audubon guide doesn't give an age range but it says diameter 1 to 3' or more.

Wikipedia says 250 years is possible but I don't know where they get that from. There is a list of links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article that may be useful.

I will try to remember to e-mail you a copy of BLM's PDF file on California bearing trees which has a lot of good information on what you can expect to find. In general it seems like it says that scribes and blazes on Oak trees typically rot fast. Even if you find a blaze the scribing is not likely to be legible but sometimes with extreme care the scribing can be found.

Here's a useful link (includes some of Daryl's pistures too):

http://www.landsurveyor.pro/bearing_trees

Loyal

That's it. I have a PDF of the original at the office.

From Loyal's link:
35

CANYON LIVE OAK (Quercus chrysolepi$)
CALIFORNIA LIVE OAK (Quercus agrifolia)
INTERIOR LIVE OAK (Quercus wislizenii)
BLUE OAK (Quercus douglasii)
Other names: live oak, hollyleaf oak, maul oak, oak

VERY GOOD

These trees are confined to California. All are very similar in appearance and size. The live oaks are evergreen. The blue oak is deciduous, i.e., the leaves fall in winter. The live oaks listed here are only a few of several species found in California. These live oaks are impressive trees up to 4 ft. or more in diameter and live up to 300 years of age. The blue oak is not as large, up to about 24" diameter and a life expectancy of about 250 years. The bark is thick and rough, over a thick sapwood on these trees. Large mature trees are frequently hollow wit Under average to good conditions these trees are fast growing. In poor soil and dry slopes they may be scrubby brush.

Original bearing trees of these species have been found with completely healed blazes, difficult to detect in the rough bark. Trees that were large when marked are usually rotted out and hollow, but reverse scribing is often found in the overgrowth, inside the hollow tree.

Avoid marking large trees of these species. Choose young trees, 10"-12" diameter. Blaze carefully with a narrow blaze to firm wood, smooth at all edges to avoid water or sap accumulation. Paint thoroughly.

> 149 years ago a tree was called out called out as being a 3' live oak marked S.R. 15.
>
> What is a reasonable expectation for the diameter of that tree, or the stump of that tree if recovered today?

What is the setting in which the BT in question would be expected to fall, i.e. on slope, in shallow, sterile soil, or what? The somewhat similar sounding species of Live Oak that was widely used for bearing trees in Central Texas, Quercus virginia has growth rates that typically vary between 14 and 18 years per inch of diameter. These typically grow in relatively shallow soils and only get an annual rainfall of about 31 inches, average.

NOT an oak (picture)

From the link above (not Dave's):

Hmmmmm....

Clearly plenty of variables

Certainly there are plenty of variables. Most likely the tree is gone due to residential development. I do not believe that there are any living trees in my search area that fit the bill as described in the rancho notes.
At the time I was reconning the area, I was mistakenly looking for a post and mound
and a tree was called for at that location. I think I recall seeing a large stump. I am awaiting recent mapping to see if anyone tied the tree and will look again after I have all the records.

Good point Loyal, if the tree was cut down in 1867, the stump, if found, would probsbly be a 38" stump.

I can post the pitcure of SR 11, which id a white oak and not size was given for it in the notes b ut a private 1960's survey calls it's diameter as 36" . it is now well over 5'.

Average annual rainfall for this area is 24". In the days of the orginal GLO surveys the soil was reported as second rate.

google earth 37.84872n,122.04106w, Compare the 1993 photo to the 2009 and it appears the tree is gone

Dane, comparing 6/29/07 to the next year there is a significant difference there. But if there was a large oak cut down, I would be surprised the trunk is not obvious, unless it is on a slope and it completely fell over, and unrooted. Stumps tend to rarely be removed unless someone wants to take the time to clean something up that is in the way or unattractive. That location seems to be in a spot where someone would not care about leaving the stump.

I would think there is a possibility that the tree was cut if its branches were in the way of that driveway.

> google earth 37.84872n,122.04106w, Compare the 1993 photo to the 2009 and it appears the tree is gone

The imagery from 04/01/2007 that Terraserver offers shows a tree standing dead in that position.

The crown has about a 50 ft. diameter in the earlier imagery where the tree appears to be healthy. For a Live Oak in Central Texas, that would be the crown of a 24 in. dia. tree. What sort of a ratio of dbh to crown diameter is typical for the Canyon Oaks?

You mean the 2007 imagery shows a "dead tree" in that location?

2007 vs. 2009 Aerial Images - Tree and No Tree

> You mean the 2007 imagery shows a "dead tree" in that location?

That's the way I interpret the photo. In the oblique I posted above, you can see quite a few bare branches that look dead (assuming that the tree you have in mind was at the lat and long you posted above). In the aerial orthophoto, the entire tree looks dead to me.

04/01/2007 Image

04/01/2009 Image

2007 vs. 2009 Aerial Images - Tree and No Tree

Does not look like he will be burying a chainsaw into those trees. Might have to borrow a coring tool. Recovered a 100 year old bearing tree once. It was called out as a 4" oak.

Found it as a 5" scrub oak and you could barely see the scar. Still alive and healthy. JRL