Every country is proud of its impressive ancient trees, which are unique, of a distinctive form and are found nowhere else. Lithuania is no exception in this regard. Although the country climatic conditions are not the most favourable, some specimens of trees and shrubs achieve results that are no less impressive than those growing elsewhere in Europe. This article presents information about the most impressive trees and shrubs in Lithuania which are protected at the national level. The study was conducted between 2021−2025 in accordance with the requirements of the applicable legal acts and, depending on the ecological characteristics of the species being studied, the research methodology was supplemented with experience from other countries. The study assessed 417 ancient trees and shrubs located throughout Lithuania including those growing in strict reserves. The article analyses the direct impact of human economic activity such as management, visits on the condition, stability and longevity of botanical objects. It identifies the main difficulties and obstacles encountered in Lithuania when managing ancient trees or attempting to legally recognise new ones and draws attention to the work being done to ensure the wellbeing of trees and the strengths and weaknesses of such work in the long term. As the authors are seeking to discover still−unrecognised ancient trees in Lithuania as well as in neighbouring countries, the article mentions six additional ancient trees in the country that meet the criteria for natural monuments in Lithuania but do not yet have protected tree status while being unknown to the general public. Two of these trees are among the ten oldest in Lithuania. The average tree height reaches approximately 22.93 ±0.32 m (from 4.0 m to 47.5 m), while the diameters of ancient trees range from 0.32 m to 3.11 m such as Stelmužė Oak. The average diameter of the evaluated trees reaches 1.42 ±2.49 m, but the majority of trees falls into the 1.51−2.0 m diameter group. The crowns of the ancient trees start on average at a height of 5.11 ±0.19 m above ground level – 4.30 ±0.13 m for deciduous trees and 7.72 ±0.25 m for conifers. Statistical analysis of the data revealed a strong correlation between tree height and crown length (R² =0.774, p<0.05) and between tree height and tree condition. Taller trees are in better condition (R² =–0.712, p<0.05); 83.0% of state−protected natural monuments are affected by rot to a greater or lesser extent while the degree and location of damage vary. The mean score for the condition of the assessed state−protected ancient trees and shrubs was 3.59 ±0.16 points with living specimens 2.63 ±0.13 points for coniferous and 3.77 ±0.08 points for deciduous, with living specimens 3.68 ±0.08 points. The mean score for the condition of all assessed objects was 3.72 ±0.07 points with living specimens 3.43 ±0.07 points.

Anderson, K. (2004). Nature, culture and big old trees. Austin: University of Texas Press, 199 pp.
Andersson, R. and Östlund, L. (2004). Spatial patterns, density changes and implications on biodiversity for old trees in the boreal landscape of northern Sweden. Biological Conservation, 118, 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.020.
Blicharska, M. and Angelstam, P. (2010). Conservation at risk: conflict analysis in the Białowieża Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management, 6, 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2010.520028.
Blicharska, M. and Mikusiński, G. (2014). Incorporating social and cultural significance of large old trees in conservation policy. Conservation Biology, 28, 1558-1567. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12341.
Braškyte·, L. and Prapiestiene·, R. (2018). Gamtos paveldo objektu˛ bu–kle·s vertinimo metodologija [The methodology for evaluation of the state of nature heritage objects]. Geologija. Geografija, 4(3), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.6001/geol-geogr.v4i3.3833.
Braškyte·, L. and Rukas, V. (2020). Gamtos paveldo objektai. Tvarkymas. Vilnius: VSTT, 247 pp.
Buračas, B. (1944). Pagerbtieji medžiai – medžiu˛ kultas Lietuvoje. Mu–su˛ Girios, 1, 78-83.
Carpaneto, G., Mazziotta, A., Coletti, G., Luiselli, L. and Audisio, P. (2010). Conflict between insect conservation and public safety: the case study of a saproxylic beetle (Osmoderma eremita) in urban parks. Journal of Insect Conservation, 14, 555-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9283-5.
Coder, K. (1996). Trees and human kind: cultural and psychological bindings. University of Georgia School of Forest Resources extension publication for 96-046. 11/1996
Dafni, A. (2006). On the typology and the worship status of sacred trees with a special reference to the Middle East. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-26.
Fay, N. and Butler, J. (2017). Management and conservation of ancient and other veteran trees Routledge. In: A. Fini, ed. Routledge Handbook of Urban Forestry (1st edition). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627106.
Godvod, K. and Bačkaitis, J. (2021). Storiausiu˛ Lietuvos ąžuolu˛ trisdešimtukas. Dešimtmečio senumo ekspedicijos pe·dsakais [Thirty of the thickest Lithuanian oaks: in the footprints of a decade-old expedition]. Kraštovaizdžio architektura – teorijos ir praktikos aspektai, 1(6), 123-135. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/240141.
Green, T. (2002). Arborists should have a central role in educating the public about veteran trees. Arboricultural Journal, 26(3), 239-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2002.9747337
Isokas, G. (1995). Lietuvos gamtos paminklai. Vilnius: Mintis, 454 pp.
Isokas, G. (1997). Ąžuolai – gamtos paminklai. Lietuva – šventu˛ ąžuolu˛ žeme·. Utena, 24-25.
Karazija, S. (2008). Miško ekologija. Vilnius: Enciklopedija, 296 pp.
Le Roux, D.S., Ikin, K., Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D. and Gibbons, P. (2014). The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. Plos One, 9(6), e99403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099403.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Laurance, W.F. and Franklin, J.F. (2012). Global decline in large old trees. Science, 338(6112), 1305-1306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231070.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Laurance, W.F., Franklin, J.F., Likens, G.E., Banks, S.C., et al., 2013. New policies for old trees: averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. Conservation Letters, 7(1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12013.
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (2024). Miško kirtimu˛ taisykle·s. Available from: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.364764/asr [accessed: 12.09.2024].
Nature Conservation Agency Republic of Latvia (2025). Biodiversity. Available from: https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/aizsargajamas-sugas [accessed: 12.10.2025].
Norder, S.J. (2019). Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859): Connecting geodiversity, biodiversity and society. Journal of Biogeography, 46(8), 1627-1630. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26786761.
Piškinaite·-Kazlauskiene·, L. (1995). Bitininkyste· Lietuvoje: (XVI a.-XX a. pirmoji puse·). Vilnius: Mokslo ir Enciklopediju˛ Leidykla, 173 pp.
Ranius, T., Niklasson, M. and Berg, N. (2009). Development of tree hollows in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur). Forest Ecology and Management, 257(1): 303-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.007.
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (1993). Lietuvos Respublikos saugomu˛ teritoriju˛ i˛statymas. Available from: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.FF1083B528B7/EyWGEzNfOz [accessed: 05.06.2025].
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2007). Lietuvos Respublikos Želdynu˛ I˛statymas. Available from: https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.BA283DF0FB41/asr [accessed: 07.06.2021].
State Service for Protected Areas of Lithuania (2021). Cadastre of protected areas of the Republic of Lithuania 2021. Available from: https://stvk.lt/map [accessed: 07.06.2021].
State Service for Protected Areas of Lithuania (2026). Apie gamtos paveldo objektus [About natural heritage sites]. Available from: https://vstt.lrv.lt/lt/saugomu-teritoriju-sistema/gamtos-paveldo-objektai/apie-gamtos-paveldo-objektus/ [accessed: 04.01.2026].
Turner, N.J., Ari, Y., Berkes, F., Davidson-Hunt, I., Ertug, Z.F. and Miller, A. (2009). Cultural management of living trees: an international perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology, 30: 237-270. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-29.2.2.
Vaitkevičius, V. (2016). Baltu˛ šventviečiu˛ atodangos [Outcrops of Baltic sacred sites]. Liaudies Kultu–ra, 4: 33-43.
White, J. (1998). Estimating the age of large & veteran trees in Britain. Forestry Commission Information Note. HMSO. Available from: https://cdn.forestresearch.gov.uk/1998/01/fcin012.pdf [accessed: 16.12.2025].
Zarzyński, P. (2019). Liczba pomników przyrody i drzew pomnikowych w Polsce z podziałem na gatunki drzew na podstawie inwentaryzacji Generalnej Dyrekcji Ochrony Środowiska z lat 2014-2015 [Number of natural monuments and monumental trees in Poland based on the General Directorate for Environmental Protection inventory from the years 2014-2015]. Sylwan, 163(3), 248-257. https://doi.org/10.26202/sylwan.2018142.
Zarzyński, P. and Grzywacz, A. 2019. Kategoryzacja drzew jako pomników przyrody na podstawie ich walorów przyrodniczych, historycznych i społecznych [Designation of trees as the natural monuments based on their natural, historical and social values]. Sylwan, 163(4), 338-347. https://doi.org/10.26202/sylwan.2018143.