Ancient, veteran or notable?

[Laura 12345]

Good afternoon all,

 

On a relatively recent tree survey, I came across this stunning oak tree. It had a stem diameter of roughly 1700mm (it exceeded my diameter tape of 1600mm) and extensive heart rot, but other than that there were relatively few ancient/veteran characteristic features. There was relatively little deadwood, no fungal fruiting bodies, no basal/limb cavities etc... A tree of this size is obviously incredibly important, exceeds the size of a 'normal' mature oak tree and I am sure it is on the transitory cusp of mature-ancient; however, I am curious as to what you all would categorise the tree as, as, under some source material, it wouldn't be large enough to be ancient, nor have enough features to be veteran? For example, the Ancient Tree Forum states that most ancient oak trees have a girth over 6m. 

 

Would be really interested to hear your thoughts  

Edited November 14, 2022 by Laura 12345

[Sutton]

Will your tree survey commend remedial action given your photos?

For instance, would you suggest a reduction, bracing, props?

 

Photos are poor substitutes for actually seeing it live but may I offer one small thought: If no action is taken then your category profile may jump from late-mature to veteran instead of declining into ancienthood.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

57 minutes ago, Laura 12345 said:

Good afternoon all,

 

On a relatively recent tree survey, I came across this stunning oak tree. It had a stem diameter of roughly 1700mm (it exceeded my diameter tape of 1600mm) and extensive heart rot, but other than that there were relatively few ancient/veteran characteristic features. There was relatively little deadwood, no fungal fruiting bodies, no basal cavitation or cavitation to limbs etc... A tree of this size is obviously incredibly important, exceeds the size of a 'normal' mature oak tree and I am sure it is on the transitory cusp of mature-ancient; however, I am curious as to what you all would categorise the tree as, as, under some source material, it wouldn't be large enough to be ancient, nor have enough features to be veteran? For example, the Ancient Tree Forum states that most ancient oak trees have a girth over 6m. 

 

Would be really interested to hear your thoughts  

“Cavitation” is quite a different phenomenon to what I think you might mean?

 

 

[Laura 12345]

Thanks for the response Sutton. Normally, we would make recommendations for tree work (including the types of suggestion you made), but this tree was located offsite. As a minimum, we will use the veteran tree buffer zone in the Government's standing advice and have no development/level change/ soil stripping in this area!

[Laura 12345]

35 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

“Cavitation” is quite a different phenomenon to what I think you might mean?

 

 

Apologies for the phrasing, I meant cavities and was being lazy in typing it as I did! 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

14 minutes ago, Laura 12345 said:

Apologies for the phrasing, I meant cavities and was being lazy in typing it as I did! 

It was obvious what you really meant but there’s the difference between somebody having to put their own interpretation on what is written as compared to extracting the authors intended meaning. - quite important in report writing 

[openspaceman]

32 minutes ago, Laura 12345 said:

Apologies for the phrasing, I meant cavities and was being lazy in typing it as I did! 

You do have the ability to edit your original post.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Now you've said "etc" ie, et cetera: and other similar things. It is used to avoid giving a complete list.  

 

But actually, a complete observed list is exactly what you should be providing!  No room for interpretation, addition, extraction or extrapolation.

 

(I'm just pulling your leg by the way....)

 

 

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Now you've said "etc" ie, et cetera: and other similar things. It is used to avoid giving a complete list.  

 

But actually, a complete observed list is exactly what you should be providing!  No room for interpretation, addition, extraction or extrapolation.

 

(I'm just pulling your leg by the way....)

 

 

But , watch out for imploding bubbles in your next pint .....🙂

[daltontrees]

4 hours ago, Laura 12345 said:

Good afternoon all,

 

On a relatively recent tree survey, I came across this stunning oak tree. It had a stem diameter of roughly 1700mm (it exceeded my diameter tape of 1600mm) and extensive heart rot, but other than that there were relatively few ancient/veteran characteristic features. There was relatively little deadwood, no fungal fruiting bodies, no basal/limb cavities etc... A tree of this size is obviously incredibly important, exceeds the size of a 'normal' mature oak tree and I am sure it is on the transitory cusp of mature-ancient; however, I am curious as to what you all would categorise the tree as, as, under some source material, it wouldn't be large enough to be ancient, nor have enough features to be veteran? For example, the Ancient Tree Forum states that most ancient oak trees have a girth over 6m. 

 

Would be really interested to hear your thoughts  

 

Well, what definitions of ancient and veteran are you using? According to Ancient Tree Forum this size is just entering the 'ancient' age span. See attached. 'Veteran' is independent of age. Unfortunately there are many disparate definitions, which is really unhelpful. Lonsdale has a 'definition of 'notable' (i.e. it's not a definition, more of a concept).

JM Age table JM version with DBHs.pdf