damage to tree roots

[James]

Hamadryad,

 

I agree about the decay issue, but do you know of any research to back this up?

 

After all, there are many arbs who believe that root decay does not necessarily lead to failure.

[James]

Bundle 2,

 

Thanks, these are great. The paper on planting depths was not really what I was looking for, but the Hamilton and the Perry papers are very interesting.

 

Did you notice that Perry and Hamilton seem to diagree on the significance of root damage?

[Amelanchier]

This is one of those industry taboos. There is no logical reason to suspect that roots are any worse at dealing with damage than the above ground parts of trees.

 

Problem is we cant see roots so people undertaking excavations are pruning blind. Hence the precautionary principle and the panic regarding developers. Trouble is trees / habitats / ecosystems are more resiliant that we care to admit for fear that more damge will be done.

 

I tell people excavation root damage is like a car crash - you can survive it, but its better to avoid it.

[James]

Tony, you are of course correct.

 

The precautionary approach is used when there is a lack of knowledge or where there is high uncertainty or risk. So, without proper research we are forced to use the precautionary approach in all sorts of areas of arb. I think this is sometimes unfortunately seen as guessing by non arbs.

 

That's why I'm so keen on finding proper research - it cuts down on the guessing.

 

Does seem a bit odd though that the few existing research based papers (as opposed to opinions and literature reviews) seem to suggest trees can take considerably more direct damage and disturbance than the the current british standards allow for.

 

I wonder why that is?

[Amelanchier]

Perhaps the research is particularly difficult to do? You'd need a range of species, ages and vitality and a good decade or so to examine the long term effects...

 

Maybe you can't find the research because it ain't there?

 

I don't think its that odd that the evidence you indicates that trees are more resilient than the guidance makes out - they probably are! Same goes with ecosystems, 20 years after the Exxon Valdez, life on Prince William Sound is pretty much back to normal. The area around the Chernobyl reactor that went pop in 1986 is now a national wildlife sanctuary.

[James]

"Maybe you can't find the research because it ain't there?"

 

Unfortunately I think you're right - there doesn't seem to be a coherant body of research into this.

 

Still, there are some tantalising bits and pieces.

 

Thanks to all who replied, I got some good papers to add to the library.