Seriously, "tree of the year" is conceptually nonsensical.

Unless, once a tree wins, it's disqualified for the next half-century?

But then you're basically making a ranked list of the top 50 trees and then approximately repeating it.

I dunno. Maybe restrict it to one of thirty or forty subcategories of trees each year?

Are you sure you're getting that right? I think the sentence means Poland has won four times in a row, not this specific tree. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Tree_of_the_Year#Winn...

lol. This is a really lovely contest, but with the near-glacial pace of tree growth, I'd hope they'd mix up the criteria just enough every year to keep it interesting to us fast-moving humans.