how to determine type of tree ?
- Thread starter kwikrp
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
http://botany.suite101.com/article.cfm/identifying_trees_by_their_bark
(broken link removed to http://forestry.about.com/od/treephysiology/ss/part_of_tree_6.htm)
http://www.neonaturalist.com/nature/tree_bark_identification.html
(broken link removed to http://forestry.about.com/od/treephysiology/ss/part_of_tree_6.htm)
http://www.neonaturalist.com/nature/tree_bark_identification.html
I wouldn't count on IDing trees ONLY by bark. When firewood pictures are posted here and identified, I think most of us are looking both at the bark and the wood inside. These two features combined can give reasonable guesses by experienced people, but it takes time to learn, and some pieces of wood can't be identified this way with 100% certainty. If you want to identify whole trees, by far the best way is to buy a real field guide book and use that. There are lots of picture guides to the 'Common Trees of (insert the name of your state here)' either as books or on the internet, but I think it is really a lot better to get a real field guide that give definitive marks to separate the types of trees. I use the 'Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs' or 'Eastern Trees' both by Geoge Petrides. These guides show all of the tree species for the northeastern US, and have keys for the trees. A key is like a set of questions you can go through to idetify a tree, such as 'are the leaves opposite or alternate', 'are the leaves compound or single', etc. and eventually you find the type of tree. It can take a little while to identify a tree the first time, but after that, you know for sure what you're looking at and how to identify it. It doesn't take too long before you know all of the common trees in your area, and then you only occasionally have to use the guide. The problem with picture guides is that you can't really be sure you have the identification right the first time, and they usually don't have a key to let you identify a tree for which you have no idea of the identity. i recommend anyone who wants to know for ure what types of trees are around, buy a field guide, spend 45 minutes learning how to use the guide and identifying a tree, and after that each one tends to get easier and a lot quicker. i think there are problably lots of other good field guides besides the ones I have, but there are also lots of lame photo-based guides that aren't very helpful.
After handling wood for many years you will then begin to id wood much easier. The hard part about id of a tree by the bark is there is so much variance. For example, look at a soft maple. There is a huge difference in the bark from young tree to a more mature tree. Look at a cottonwood and compare the bark towards the top vs the bottom. One could go on with many, many examples but this gives a good idea.
When I worked in the sawmill I got so I could id the wood not even seeing the bark but then it was an every day thing and repeats work. See the same thing over and over or even smell the same thing over and over. One really does the same thing with leaves. Soon you begin to id different trees, maple being one of the simple ones. Even telling the difference between red and white oak is pretty simple once one learns the red oaks have pointed and the whites are rounded.
Personally I've never got much from pictures. Don't know why but it just don't work well for me. Personal experience works best for me.
When I worked in the sawmill I got so I could id the wood not even seeing the bark but then it was an every day thing and repeats work. See the same thing over and over or even smell the same thing over and over. One really does the same thing with leaves. Soon you begin to id different trees, maple being one of the simple ones. Even telling the difference between red and white oak is pretty simple once one learns the red oaks have pointed and the whites are rounded.
Personally I've never got much from pictures. Don't know why but it just don't work well for me. Personal experience works best for me.
I think Dennis is right on. The more you work with wood, the easier you will be able to tell what you are cutting. Basswood still messes me up until I have the tree felled and start bucking it up!
Agree with Dennis 100%. The bark may be a dead giveaway. Most species in my region I get if I can actually touch it, but i.d. has been more important to me as a former bow-maker (any wood burns, but not all bow woods are exactly equal).
Leaves are a much easier indicator.
Leaves are a much easier indicator.
I would start by learning to ID trees by leaves and other diagnostic characteristics including branching patterns, bark, buds, etc. As you get more and more comfortable being able to ID trees with all of those things present, you will start to be able to ID them even without some. Depending on the species, bark alone can range from easy to almost impossible.
Go get a good field guide
I prefer the peterson guides - get eastern trees (if you are in the east)
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-E...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273087251&sr=8-1
some prefer the audobon one because it has pictures instead of drawings
http://www.amazon.com/National-Audu...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273087284&sr=1-4
go to a bookstore and check them both out and get the one you like best and just start walking around the woods and trying to ID things
one hint is that some groups are very hard for species ID like oaks and hickories as there are many species with very little differences - and with oaks, sometimes leaves at the bottom of the tree look different than leaves at the top of the tree, etc. etc. but as you go, you'll get better and better.
Good luck
Go get a good field guide
I prefer the peterson guides - get eastern trees (if you are in the east)
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-E...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273087251&sr=8-1
some prefer the audobon one because it has pictures instead of drawings
http://www.amazon.com/National-Audu...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273087284&sr=1-4
go to a bookstore and check them both out and get the one you like best and just start walking around the woods and trying to ID things
one hint is that some groups are very hard for species ID like oaks and hickories as there are many species with very little differences - and with oaks, sometimes leaves at the bottom of the tree look different than leaves at the top of the tree, etc. etc. but as you go, you'll get better and better.
Good luck
Leaves are easier than bark, unless it's a real distinct type of bark.
For the purposes of this board, if it burns, call it firewood. :D
Matt
For the purposes of this board, if it burns, call it firewood. :D
Matt
I find it's easiest to just post here. especially if you want someone to tell you that it's Ash.
Good luck with that. Most tree ID sites I've found have been from colleges or tree-hugger associations.Shari said:
ikessky said:
Given the popularity of this list why dont we post photos of positively i.d.'d wood here? We would need photos of the end cut, the split and the bark. I already have a nice list of about 8 spieces that I have collected for my personal use. I would post my list here but I'm not sure whom to credit the photos.
Shari
Identifying wood: http://www.amazon.com/Identifying-Wood-R-Bruce-Hoadley/dp/0942391047
![[Hearth.com] how to determine type of tree ?](/talk/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.makezine.com%2Fidentifying-wood.jpg&hash=232f5c56c1978cf1a7adb32b5d3337ca "[Hearth.com] how to determine type of tree ?")
Written by Bruce Hoadley. He taught me to tie flies... never took a wood class with him
Written by Bruce Hoadley. He taught me to tie flies... never took a wood class with him
CarbonNeutral said:
Unless it's hard to split, then it's elm.
I think Sherie's idea is a great one. I'm willing to do the Photoshop work (color correction, sharpening, size standardization, etc.) if no one else steps forward.
We'd all need to try to take better pics that are large in size (pixel-wise) and in sharp focus. Most digital cameras today have a macro setting for closeups. Clear closeups of face and end grain will tell worlds more than bark shots. Not that bark is unimportant, just that there is lots of variation there compared to the wood itself. Except for the obvious ones, bark rends to baffle me, but I can usually ID a wood I know from sharply focused end-grain and split-face photos.
How about posting pictures of known woods (bark and end grain) and seeing who can get them right, fun and games.
Please be sure to include specifically closups of end grain and the split - those would help me the most. I had the option to pick up about 3 cord of free wood the other day but I had a STRONG suspicion it was willow - the end grain was so white/clear with hardly any rings showing so I passed on it. Plus those rounds were so huge (32" +) it simply had to be willow. (Like I don't have enough wood already - which I do. 
)
Shari
)Shari
- Status
