Failure of the Anne Frank Tree

[sean freeman]

I saw that it was declared able to withstand 200% at force 11 during winter and 100% during summer (in leaf) i am asuming this is a SIA terminology?

 

I'm sorry I don't know, I never saw the results of the pull test that was carried out in 2008. I would expect that any physical testing would have to emphasize caveats and limitations which for a tree in the condition of this one (even in 2008) there would have been a mountain of.....

 

From my reading of events viewed from Australia the pull test was carried out to dispute the assertion that the tree was unacceptably weakened in 2008, I think the timeline is still on the campaign web site...sadly the reports appear to be no longer available, the website has changed quite a lot.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I would think "transparency" will be much sought after.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Anne Frank Tree falls

 

Trees Institute, one of the most prominent supporters of the preservation project, said it was "unpleasantly surprised" by the news of the tree's fall early Monday afternoon.

 

Watchman: Era end as Anne Frank tree falls - BFn Notes - BibleFocus.net

[sean freeman]

Wow, Biblefocus.net is an unusual site to say the least

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Wow, Biblefocus.net is an unusual site to say the least

 

just opening up some of the perspectives on this case, this one continues to fascinate me. I am very interested in the case, I believe in these events we always have a great deal to learn from them, and not just the tree, but the poeple, the reactions, and the expectations and future implications.

[sean freeman]

Sure no problem...not having a go at you or them just ....well wow...like being back at highschool (went to a Catholic School taught by Nuns and Priests)

 

But I agree there is some relevance in veiwing the breadth of the responses to the loss of such an iconic tree.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

bumped

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

so the demon rears its ugly head once more, it seems it was diagnosed as G.applanatum.

 

I wonder if this was backed up by spores?

 

An expert would certainly have wanted to distinguish between G.applanatum/australe by such a method, given the dramatic consequences of a missed diagnosis with these two.

 

I also wonder, given the clear decay via fruiting bodies and extreme nature of the case if an increment core was taken to further assist in confirming the "inconclusive" picus tests?

[Fungus]

1. so the demon rears its ugly head once more, it seems it was diagnosed as G.applanatum. I wonder if this was backed up by spores? An expert would certainly have wanted to distinguish between G.applanatum/australe by such a method, given the dramatic consequences of a missed diagnosis with these two.

2. I also wonder, given the clear decay via fruiting bodies and extreme nature of the case if an increment core was taken to further assist in confirming the "inconclusive" picus tests?

 

1. No, the diagnosis of the Ganoderma was not done by taking a sample of the reproductive layers and checking the size of the spores with a microscope, which should be standard procedure with G. australe or G. lipsiense on Aesculus (and some other tree species, such as Salix, Populus, Quercus rubra and Acer, i.e. A. saccharinum), but done from photo by a German consultant, erroneously identifying it as G. lipsiense.

2. No increment core was taken to further assist in confirming both inconclusive picus tests or the reliability of the pull test and the "body language" of the about ten big perrenial and about six panic fruiting small, partially sterile brackets was not "read", nor interpreted correctly.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

1. No, the diagnosis of the Ganoderma was not done by taking a sample of the reproductive layers and checking the size of the spores with a microscope, which should be standard procedure with G. australe or G. lipsiense on Aesculus (and some other tree species, such as Salix, Populus, Quercus rubra and Acer, i.e. A. saccharinum), but done from photo by a German consultant, erroneously identifying it as G. lipsiense.

2. No increment core was taken to further assist in confirming both inconclusive picus tests or the reliability of the pull test and the "body language" of the about ten big perrenial and about six panic fruiting small, partially sterile brackets was not "read", nor interpreted correctly.

 

I am shocked by that:thumbdown: