Hi, can anyone identify these trees; not in leaf yet. Most are the same although there are two different to the right, and there is at least one Silver Birch in the wood.
I think most are ash (or maple), the two on the right with smoother trunks probably beech.
Teasing question... I guess you are going to give us the answers later in the year when they have leafed-out!?
Thanks for your reply Mike.
Of course I will supply pictures of the leaves as soon as they appear.
The site is a small wooded area about 1.3 acres in size and is only about 200 metres from my house. We take the dogs there most days.
It came up for sale a month ago and was part of a small field left over when the bypass was built a few decades ago. It was owned my Highways and we assume that they didn't want the bother of managing it, due to the austerity measures.
I contacted a developer friend who is very 'green' minded and he managed to purchase it; it is very close to another of his delelopments (a small eco office site). I was worried that if someone else managed to get it that it would be grubbed up. It's a small haven for wildlife and out here in the Cambridgeshire fens we have very few trees.
A couple of pics for you Mike; the promenent species I think is Field Maple but the leaves are not exactly the same as the dried specimen; perhaps it's because they are young. This has just started to leaf. The second dried specimen looks rather like an Oak but no Oak trees in leaf at the moment. I did have an Oak sapling that I grew in the garden in a pot from an acorn and did plant this somewhere in the wood a decade or more ago so perhaps this is from that tree which must have survived. An interesting observation... looking at pics of Field Maples where they are on their own in plenty of space they seem to grow quite wide whereas in this wood where they are jostling for space they grow very slender and tall. Can't wait to see them all in leaf; although small the little wood it a very tranquil place.
The green leaves are Crataegus monogyna the common hawthorn.
(For comparison of C. monogyna and C. laevigata, see http://www.commanster.eu/commanster/Plants/Trees/Rosaceae.html).
The old maple could be one of several, including Acer pseudoplatanum and A. cappadocicum, as well as A. campestre.
The other old leaf: yes, you're right - it is an oak. But I won't say which (yet), so you have something to follow-up. There are clues, especially near the base...
You say the little wood is a tranquil place. One day the weather will warm up. Then it sounds just the place to be, lying on your back in a quietly receptive mood, looking up at the blue sky and its gentle white clouds through the twiggy canopy as it starts to close-over with that wonderful fresh green of newly unfurling leaves. I can imagine the first chiff-chaff singing high in the branches, keeping you company. Where I grew up on the North Downs, there would be a few such days most years. I would treasure the moments, as I sat at the end of our garden, near the Newton Wonder apple that grandad planted for me when I was an infant, 'my' chiff chaff singing in the Norway maple I planted when I was five, and maybe a brimstone butterfly adding a further touch of colour. Finding joy and beauty in simple things is priceless. I hope you continue to enjoy and appreciate your little wood.
Thanks for all that excellent info Mike.
There would appear to be a lot more species of tree in that wood than first thought. I will get some more pics in a week or two when hopefully most of the trees will be in leaf.
I guess they are like my garden plants, about a month behind due to the horrid cold weather we have had.
I will also try and locate the Oak and get some pics of the base so that we can identify that species.
Like you, I too appreciate the wonders of nature and often just sit on my garden bench taking it all in.
Hi; I haven't forgotten you all, just that the whole site got overgrown with bracken, etc. which covered the paths and made it very hard to get through. Luckily the young lads who play in there managed to reinstate the paths so we have been able to take the dogs through again.
One piece of very good news is that the developer who is building eco-friendly small offices on the adjacent land has said that he is going to leave it as it is for the dog walkers and children to play in as it makes a good backdrop for his office site. The lads around 10-12 years who play there are very interested in keeping it nice too so they will keep the paths clear so that they can ride their bikes around them.
There was, apart from the bracken, another ground cover plant (pictured) which is quite abundant in the wood. I believe I have identified it as Lamium Galeobdelum; please corerct me if I'm wrong. Now that we have access to the paths again I will get some pics of the other tree leaves; they have all been very late coming into leaf this year due to the horrid weather we have been having.
Actually, variegated foliage is not that uncommon in wild plants.
If you search for plants with the specific- or subspecific epithet 'maculata', you should find quite a lot.
In common parlance, you'll be familiar with 'immaculate' meaning spotless; 'maculate', by corollary, means spotted.
The spotting can relate to bark or flowers, not just leaves; and it can be dark or reddish, not just pale.
You'll be seeing variegation all over the place now!
Hi Mike, just been down the wood again with the dog and retrieved some leaves.
One on the left is from a Silver Birch (easy to recognise by the trunk). The middle one is an Oak (not sure exactly which kind?). The one on the right I got from a tree some distance away from the wood but there are a couple in there the same; I assume it's an Ash?
The oak leaf is different from the old one you posted a photo of on 21apr13 (above).
They are two of the most common species of Quercus in the UK (and neither is Turkey oak).
Can you ID them yet?
Look at the base of the leaves, specifically where the blade meets the leaf stem...
These will help
Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) - confirmed.
Birch - (Betula pendula) - probably; check it is not B. pubescens.
Thanks for the links Mike.
The Oak is difficult; in one link I would call it Pedunculate and the other would indicate Sessile Oak; so still not that sure.
The Birch I think is Silver (Pendula).
Will have a look out for further species when I next go down there.
Most of the trees are tall and thin, probably due to being so close together and the Ash has no leaves to the bottom half; they are all to the top of the tree probably due to lack of light.
Well done. The new oak leaves are sessile oak; the old one is pedunculate oak.
However, you are right to have a bit of a quandary. The stem on the latter is a bit longer than normal and the auricles ('ears') are not well developed, so one might argue it represents the hybrid, Q. x rosacea (http://www.british-trees.com/treeguide/oaks/nbnsys0000003847).
Sometimes you can resolve such issues with further observation, but sometimes you just don't know for sure.
FYI, these might be helpful for future tree IDs:
Thanks for the reply and links Mike; as you say it could be a hybrid as both varieties seem to be in the wood. We may never know.
The Sessile Oak was near the entrance and the old leaf from the Pedunculate one was from the other end of the wood; I'll try and locate it next time I go down there. So much to learn about trees.
Hi Mike; been down to the wood again and this is the one at the other end of the wood (furthest from the entrance).
This is the leaf, Sessile I would think because of the long leaf stem but it's also starting to form the Pedunculate configuration a bit. Perhaps a slight hybrid? Excuse the tops being missing.
Those are good sessile oak leaves.
You might consider starting a herbarium (pressed leaves, primarily) to help record the trees/shrubs in your wood. Photos and herbarium specimens are complementary, in that, for instance, photos record colour (fades in specimens) but specimens retain some other details, such as the shape of microscopic hairs.
Just a thought.
Clare gives a useful little table comparing key features of these two oaks
She also makes some useful comments about the hybrid Quercus x rosacea.
Thanks for the links Mike; I may follow the Herborarium route to go with the pictures I'm taking.
A few pictures taken this afternoon. As you can see the trees have been planted a bit close together in places resulting in their long thin appearance. One specimen is the thinnest Oak I've ever seen, it must be 35-40ft tall with a spread of just 3ft at most. Once again probably due to being too densely planted.
Could do with a bit more info (preferably photos):
- shoots showing buds
- remant fruit/seeds (previous years) from the ground below the tree
- single/multi-stemmed and throwing up suckers or not
You may be able to make some progress with ID by using the NHM's key
Otherwise, we'll have to wait until you can photo this year's flowers and/or fruit/seeds.
I am pretty sure it is Prunus avium (gean / mazzard / other names but not bird cherry despite the 'avium' epithet; bird cherry is a different species). The bark, branching and general habit are all right, as are most of the details of the leaf you showed yesterday.
I am not 100% sure because the first leaf you showed shows no sign of the pair of glands typical of cherries (and other Prunus). Looking for the glands on your other photos, I find the resolution insufficient... It may be that the glands are there but not discernible due to resolution. And in your first photo, they may have been further down the petiole.
But also, I am finding images of Prunus avium leaves without glands (or with minute glands), eg. http://www.alpine-plants-jp.com/himitunohanazono/seiyoumizakura_satounisiki_himitu_1.htm
That proves that the glands are a variable character, which allows your specimen to be Prunus avium. And with your photos, we may simply not be seeing the glands.
So I am fairly happy with Prunus avium as the ID to species level.
Of course, it could be a cultivar of that species rather than the true, wild, plant. That would allow for more variation, too.
One of the photos here shows the glands very well - http://woodyplants.wikidot.com/prunus-avium.
Thanks for the identification Mike; I will have a closer look at the tree next time I go into the wood.
Are the glads you mention likely to be visible at this time in it's yearly cycle?
I suspect the time of year does not have a big influence on the size/presence of the glands.
'There are a number of factors which influence gland develop-
ment. In general it may be stated that those conditions which
produce vigorous vegetative growth favor gland development,
since on old trees or on trees subjected to unfavorable growth
conditions, the petiolar glands become much reduced, some-
times even disappearing,' [my emboldening]
Extract from 'Petiolar Glands in the Plum (I)'
by M. J. Dorsey and Freeman Weiss,
Botanical Gazette, Vol.69,
(The article includes other Prunus such as cherries, not just plums, in its considerations.)
Thanks Mike. I think you are right about it being one of the cherries, but not sure whether Prunus Avium or Prunus Padus (Bird Cherry) as the latter does not appear to have the glands on several pictures I've seen. I had a look at the tree today and very high up in the branches I could see what looked like shrivelled friut in small bunches. Not easy to photograph, may try with DSLR and zoom lens.
I've now found yet another tree in the wood which I am trying to identify. The largest leaf at the tip is 60mm x 35mm and the leaves on the branches all come in 5's. Pics below, including bark.
That is elder, Sambucus nigra
The fruits make delicious jam. Yes, I know you can make jelly, but I made jam with the berries once and it was superb!
It roots very freely in water (should you want to propagate some).
Thanks for the clarification Mike; yes that must have been Ground Elder we had in the garden.
I guess we'll have to wait till the berries ripen to comfirm the Cherry tree; I believe the berries are black on the Bird Cherry one.