An interesting paper just come out, summary here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729004.800-why-trees-cant-grow-taller-than-100-metres.html
The last sentence: Code: Which could explain why California's tallest redwoods max out at 115.6 m. I think that statement does not follow from what the article says.
Yes, it is a bit odd, as the article is only concerned with broadleaf trees. A bit of bad journalism on the part of New Scientist, perhaps. More significantly though, a 100m max for broadleaves does perhaps show up the unreliability of the old claims of much taller Eucalypts in the 19th century in Australia.
