Optimal climbing trees and habitat

There are two questions folded into this discussion. What is an optimal climbing tree? The second question is what type of landscape and/or ecosystem is likely to support these trees?

For the purposes of the discussion I'm describing an optimal climbing tree as one with significant height for the species and canopy or branch structure for roughly 55% or more of the height of the tree. The idea being that you have some more climbing to do once you're in the canopy.

For my area in eastern Massachusetts (northeast U.S. temperate zone) the predominant species are deciduous hardwoods. In the forest they grow tall but the first branches are often at 45+ feet. If the tree is not over 65 ft. the canopy structure will be somewhat limited. These trees are challenging and fun to climb. This type of tree needs be the larger of its kind to have enough vertical canopy to make it a great climbing tree.

Wolf trees can be found in open fields or in second growth forest. These are trees that grew in the open without competition from other trees. If the field or pasture remains cleared for the life of a hardwood tree the canopy tends to extend horizontally as much as it grows vertically. These trees have interesting canopy structure but not much for vertical climbing.

If the wolf tree has been surrounded by second growth forest interesting things happen. The tree will have extended canopy structure through the height of the tree and it will grow very tall as it out competes the incoming secondary growth. This type of tree can be an excellent climbing tree. Surrounded wolf trees will often hold large dead limbs in the lower and middle part of the tree.

And lastly, the optimal tree types I've been scouting lately and perhaps the best... These are trees found where woods meet the edges of rivers. The tree has the height expected in a mature forest but has extended canopy structure vertically because of available light from the open river bed.

What other habitat/landscape factors make the trees that we love to climb?
-moss

Interesting question. I would think a Guancaste would suffer from being fairly short - but incredible climbing potential.

Ceibas are great - they go up forever (like 150 feet) and then at times have a 200 foot canopy. The only issue is that you have to be careful on small limbs, ceibas are soft wood.

Almendros would be great - but you might be attacked by a Great Green Macaw.

River trees sound pretty good - that way if you fall, you *might* land in the water!

How about ridge trees? They offer a panoramic view, but are often not the tallest trees becasue of prevailing winds. They do offer a better sound factor with wind whistling through, being hit more directly by wind. Movement woudl fall into this factor as well, if you like that kind of thing. Tree surfing, to use tree climbing language.

I tend to look for hardwoods on the edge of the forest...this is usually on the side of a meadow or, as has been stated, a river/creek.

I know of MANY great oaks and maples that grew in WI in the middle of corn fields with no surrounding competition. I like the spreading canopy.

In Los Angeles, I have to go to canyons (where the soil has more moisture) to find decent trees. The canyon walls provide the added benefit of being quieter...can't hear traffic...it gives the false sense of being "out" in nature, even though there are freeways only a mile away.

love
nick

I seem to look for trees with views. On the Chippewa NF, that usually means canopy-emergent white and red pines. Whites are a bit easier to climb - since they are more shade tolerant, they keep branches lower down on the trunk than reds. Whites also live longer on average. Big white pines are scattered around all over the place in the forests of the northeast. Somebody who likes jungle gym climbing (lots of ways to move in all 3 dimensions - sounds like most of you guys) would probably be bored. But the views are nice, and eagles like big pine trees too. Also, a good canopy emergent pine is great surfing on a windy day.

I should expand my horizons into the spreading crowns more. Around here that'll be open-grown bur oaks, and anything big near a lake.

I always start scouting in my office, in front of a topo map of the general area I want to climb in. I have found that the best, have a great full day of climbing trees, are in the bottom of valleys, particularly in finger valleys, box end. You can usually find at least seasonal running water in these areas, and my theory is that the larger number of trees is due to the forest traffic congestion. Where you have a valley the animals naturally move towards it in travel, at least in my experience, and therefore you have more seed, uh, deposits; which when added with water, you get trees!

I like to start my explorations in a couple of valleys, and also map a route to the nearby ridge line. I've found that I like camp sites on a ridge. The winds are better, the views are better, and there is typically less undergrowth, allowing for cook sites, and a place to pitch the tent, in case a sudden downpour soaks my hammock!

As far as the best tree, I'd say there are a lot of features to look for. First, architecture plays a huge part, Lots of limbs are great, but if they all run near vertical off the bole, then you are gonna not have a lot of options for movement, and most likely at some point you will be rescuing trapped gear. Second, views are important, this can be ridge lines, distant or nearby water, valleys, or even the possibility for wildlife encounters. Third a great tree takes some doing to get to. This for me is most important. I find that a 2 mile hike, a decent paddle, or just a short bushwacking expedition does wonders to take the edge off of my ever present wanderlust.

That at least is my "how to find a great tree" manifesto.

Climb Safe!
Icabod