Taxodium distichum pictures taken by me in San Marcos, Texas summer 2007 except the ones showing "knees" which were taken in San Antonio, Texas.
Here are some more pictures of one of my favorites. These were taken June 2008, central Texas on the Guadalupe river bank. The water is often much higher than it is now and, as you can tell, beats up the trees somewhat. It's made the last picture look like an ancient alpine conifer. Anyone want to guess how old the large trunk tree is? Also, is "infloresences" the right term for the male 'flowers'? Look for some more trans-pecos conifers next month....
So how come there are no "knees" visible in any of the photos ? ....and if one wanted to encourage knee development in cultivated Baldcypress, what would be the optimum conditions ? Thnx Jaro
My guess is that standing water / pond / swamp conditions more likely to result in knees forming. I say that just because trees on river banks dont have them very often (in my observation) but trees in swampy conidtions get them at a fairly young age. Maybe the running water has more oxygen, or maybe the trees on the river bank need to grow sprawling roots as not to be knocked over by the rushing water. Id like to know what the experts thought about the age of the big tree. I have no idea 500 years 600? My backpack is there for scale and its a good size pack...
Sorry, I'd doubt it is anywhere near that old. There's much bigger ones in cultivation in Europe, and it hasn't been in cultivation much more than 300 years. I'd guess yours needn't be more than 200, and could even be quite a bit less than that. Compare this one in a park in Belgium: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Harveng_AR1bJPG.jpg
Small wild conifers can be old, and big ones surprisingly young. Comparison with similar nearby specimens of known age can be used to estimate ages of others, but strictly speaking you have to core them and count their rings to be certain. I've worked in a Pacific silver fir forest where many of the "seedlings" several feet high were as old as the full-sized ones towering overhead, the heavily shaded top growth of little ones almost glacially slow. Coast redwoods may also persist for very long periods as dwarfed trees in the shade of the forest, waiting for a gap in the canopy to enable them to get enough light to grow large.
I guessed such a large figure in part because here oak trees one third that size are described as being several hundred years old. But I guess that's an apples an oranges comparison. RE: Small wild conifers can be old, and big ones surprisingly young I know that's true and relevant to this discussion. The first set of photos in San Marcos had some trees that I would think would be relatively young for their size, they still have all of their lower limbs and that should help produce heftier trunks, The Spring Branch trees (second set) have their lower limbs knocked off, flooded etc. And no doubt the wild trees have seen profound droughts where the river was almost dry. My point being, similarly sized trees at these different locations could vary greatly in age. conifers.org has a photo of a purportedly 1140 year old taxodium that doesn't look much more than twice the size of the one above, if that.....
Re: Taxodium distichum - weeping cultivar I'm being bolder than usual thinking I have correctly identified this as a weeping Taxodium distichum in a private garden in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver. I originally thought it was a weeping Dawn Redwood, but the soft bright green needles are not opposite and seem to fit Wikipedia's description of the Bald Cypress needle arrangement as being "spirally arranged on the stem but twisted at the base to lie in two horizontal ranks". The needles are slightly longer than a ladybug. I see that there are such things as weeping cultivars of this species; I've found the names 'Cascade Falls' and 'Falling Waters'.
Those are knees in the last photo in the first posting. Here are what I think are knees and not just roots poking up on a bald cypress in a private garden in Vancouver. The tree is growing near a pond in the garden and the area around it is wet - you can see the water in the third photo.
Here are some trees from VanDusen Botanical Garden. You can see the knees in the second photo. In this photo from a group of these trees in Stanley Park, one is still completely green, while the one next to it has quite a bit of fall colour. I think I remember reading recently that these tend to be strong trees with straight trunks, so I was amused to notice the trunk shape of the one on the left. I can't find the reference now, so maybe I made that up, but I don't think so. In looking for it, I came across a reference that has at least three words I don't understand in every single line. Even botanists don't have to write like that.
Likely related to the lower summer temperatures in Vancouver compared to what it gets in the wild. This results in the wood not being fully mature and strong by the time the winter snow load arrives, so the stem gets bent. I've seen this a lot in Britain (even cooler summers) with continental climate species adapted to hot summers.
