arborjet tree injection systems

[combined tree services]

utilities are looking at the potential benefits of pbz, pacrobutizol, growth retardent, but its very early days, many loop holes to go through.

 

Hama if i remember correctly, jonathon cocking has been running a similiar injection system for cameraria and pseudomonas up north somewhere, havnt got his details to hand

 

Is PBZ something that you feel will take off ? what are the realistic effects on the trees health ? will this slow down the trees ability to compartmentalise and produce reaction growth ?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

tree retardants are not a good thin IMO, but then we are talking utilities!

[combined tree services]

tree retardants are not a good thin IMO, but then we are talking utilities!

 

 

True but lets be honest - to some extent a badly cut tree can recover when left alone but when a badly cut trees in then injected with a chemicle to slow its growth down im pretty sure it will not recover at all .

 

Hamma in your experience would you say that this will leave trees being more suseptable to fungal disease and other such pathogens ?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

True but lets be honest - to some extent a badly cut tree can recover when left alone but when a badly cut trees in then injected with a chemicle to slow its growth down im pretty sure it will not recover at all .

 

Hamma in your experience would you say that this will leave trees being more suseptable to fungal disease and other such pathogens ?

 

common sense is it not? for you to ask that question i doubt you need the answer really.

 

but lets just say I wont be condoning it reccomending it, specing it, and any evidence to suggest my gut instinct is right will be broadcasted LOUDLY:thumbup:

[jaime bray]

In a conversation, with the man carrying out the research, I asked him if it will be on the agenda to assess the use of growth retardents, to further mitigate the effects of heavy pruning work as a means of subsidence mitigation.

 

As it is now considered that with a 70-90-% canopy cover reduction, the reduction of water uptake by the tree will only be mitigated for the next years annual growth, at which point the tree will begin to photosynthesise at an increased rate of growth as we all know. But with growth retardents applied it may enable the practitioner to further survey the property after the pruning, before the final decision of felling; A significantly poor aesthetical tree, is taken. Although this may lead to conflicting data from any building monitoring, it may still enable a tree to be retained.

 

If we look at the fact though, that trees continue to function and provide the benefits they can, regardless of the aesthetic value it may, may not contribute, then to what extent does a trees nice crown shape actually offer to the eco-system service benefits, and does the fact that a tree has been severly pruned matter if it still provides a contribution to the urban ecology.

 

A trees ability to contribute to the environment should not be dismissed, just because its been hacked about, and if the hacking about can be kept to a controlled rate of re-growth then it shouldnt be dismissed until we kow the results of any research. I believe it may be the thinking that the application of pbz, will reduce the branch growth as opposed to the actual production of phtosynthetic material, which may enable the tree to still provide energy resources, thus enabling the tree to continue functioning as close to 'normal' as possible, and sustain tree health.

 

Im sure that we will hear of its pros and cons soon.

[William]

im looking at injecting harmless compounds mostly, allicin and sugar sucrose/frutose.

 

It won't matter in the eyes of the CRD. Any substance deemed to be used as a pesticide requires certain reassurances and permission on usage.

[jaime bray]

Hama, is ti 30g in 1l or 5l. i thought was 5l

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

In a conversation, with the man carrying out the research, I asked him if it will be on the agenda to assess the use of growth retardents, to further mitigate the effects of heavy pruning work as a means of subsidence mitigation.

 

As it is now considered that with a 70-90-% canopy cover reduction, the reduction of water uptake by the tree will only be mitigated for the next years annual growth, at which point the tree will begin to photosynthesise at an increased rate of growth as we all know. But with growth retardents applied it may enable the practitioner to further survey the property after the pruning, before the final decision of felling; A significantly poor aesthetical tree, is taken. Although this may lead to conflicting data from any building monitoring, it may still enable a tree to be retained.

 

If we look at the fact though, that trees continue to function and provide the benefits they can, regardless of the aesthetic value it may, may not contribute, then to what extent does a trees nice crown shape actually offer to the eco-system service benefits, and does the fact that a tree has been severly pruned matter if it still provides a contribution to the urban ecology.

 

A trees ability to contribute to the environment should not be dismissed, just because its been hacked about, and if the hacking about can be kept to a controlled rate of re-growth then it shouldnt be dismissed until we kow the results of any research. I believe it may be the thinking that the application of pbz, will reduce the branch growth as opposed to the actual production of phtosynthetic material, which may enable the tree to still provide energy resources, thus enabling the tree to continue functioning as close to 'normal' as possible, and sustain tree health.

 

Im sure that we will hear of its pros and cons soon.

 

This subsidence research area is all going in the WRONG directions, we should be using known data on tree water uptakes (which massively reduce in hot temps due to stomata closures) and irrigating the trees and using soil amendments to reduce drying of soils in urban contexts (tarmacadam etc)

 

reducing every 3-5 years will stress oaks to the point of death (oaks the most commonly blamed tree)

[jaime bray]

If a property is underpinned correctly then the tree need not be removed, Im lead to beleive. so there shouldnt be the need for repeat pruning, if the tree is found to be non-contributory to the initial subsidence, i guess it all enables the practising con to have more tools at their disposal. sectorThis is in relation to the whole it could be the tree mentality that may be prevalent in that

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

If a property is underpinned correctly then the tree need not be removed, Im lead to beleive. so there shouldnt be the need for repeat pruning, if the tree is found to be non-contributory to the initial subsidence, i guess it all enables the practising con to have more tools at their disposal.

 

I cant go into too much detail but lets just say that this area of consulting/research/practice is not exactly "perfect" that also, switching mortgage lender may see you surprisingly not being forced to reduce fell the tree.

 

and all this is going to continue because builders refuse to adopt the recommended pile and beam style foundation and stick with the ecologicaly disastrous trench fill foundation approach:thumbdown: