Base decay in eucalyptus

[Arbor Logic]

That being said, I have a serious question. Does the holistic approach of your plant, tree and soil health care company imply and integrate the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems - parasitical, saprotrophic and endo- or ectomycorrhizal micro- and macrofungi included - and their tree species specific soil food webs and the life cycles of indigenous trees in its work on and management of (urban) trees and forests ?

 

Gerrit, I am ever a student, and as stated earlier am in awe of the approach that you and Hamadryad are taking.

I have taken on most of the philosophies from Dr Elaine Ingham and to the best of my ability converted them from an agricultural base and tried to utilise them in an urban system. There are flaws and I have my questions. We in Australia are very behind many of the practices that are being followed and championed by counterparts in the U.S and Europe. Partly this is because of our population and partly because of the system of education. (Arboriculture is not yet a degree in Australia) I have a book written by one of the leading experts in Fungi on wood in S.E QLD (Ian Hood) who freely admits that we don't know much about what we are doing here and don't have the students, funds or researchers to move things along.

There is only 1 commercially available Mycorrhizal innoculation available in Australia and it is not native (Glomous interadices) as an example of what is acheivable.

So to answer your question, my companies approach is to observe and emulate nature and trophic succession in whatever manner we can, to achieve the greatest outcome for the plant, based on my learnings to date of natural holism and the soilfoodweb. I strive to improve this understanding daily.

[Fungus]

1. philosophies from Dr Elaine Ingham and to the best of my ability converted them from an agricultural base and tried to utilise them in an urban system.

2. I have a book written by one of the leading experts in Fungi on wood in S.E QLD (Ian Hood) who freely admits that we don't know much about what we are doing here and don't have the students, funds or researchers to move things along.

 

1. Do you know this in vitro research on the effects of ectomycorrhizal fungi on tree roots and the soil food web ?

2. Is there any cooperation or sharing of knowledge and documentation between Australia and New Zealand ? Do you f.i. consult Clive Shirley's New Zealand Forest Fungi website ?

[Arbor Logic]

Wasn't aware of the study, however have been warned by Dr Ingham of culture and lab studies of mycelial cultures due to limited foods and temperatures. It is very difficult to replicate natural conditions.

Will look into the NZ stuff. That is now where Ian Hood is, although NZ from OZ may as well be Scotland to Morocco in difference.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

hama i agree with this in general, but without in some way quantifying strength loss, and the prognosis for spread, how does one specify the reduction? 10? 20? 30? Or use the dartboard at the pub?

 

i agree this is not worth a L1000 (where is the pound key?) consultation, but some probing at least should give an idea.

 

Also, would removing soil from the wounds really be like sending sandwiches to the sub-saharaan wastelands? This seems necessary for probing for decay, and also for therapeutic effect over time. Job 1 perhaps, as APC mentioned he started that.

 

Who NEEDS to quantify that damage at this stage? if it was me, and I was doing this for one of MY clients i would (assuming as always money is an issue) Take a £250 increment corer and get a SOLID piece of evidence as to the decays nature and extent/depth into scar tissue. I would fractometer test the wood, to see if as suspected, with visual cues like melanine plates in the wood wether Kretzshmaria was the culprit (would be confirming what i already know:001_tt2:)

 

In the meantime i would reccomend a 30% by volume (weight by shortening lever-arm lengths (no thinning whatsoever) to give the tree considerable stability while adaption takes place (if its not K. Deusta, in which case how long do we want to retain it and how much will we be willing to invest in careful managment of a tree colonised by a known and problematic root/butt parasite?

[treeseer]

"Who NEEDS to quantify that damage at this stage?

 

Anyone assessing risk and specifying potential treatments

 

"Take a £250 increment corer and get a SOLID piece of evidence as to the decays nature and extent/depth into scar tissue. I would fractometer test the wood,

 

Increment core is a tool in the bag (my Haglof did not cost that much--what model do you favor?) and may well fit the assignment. Good suggestion. My fractometer is between my thumb and middle finger.

 

"to see if as suspected, with visual cues like melanine plates in the wood wether Kretzshmaria was the culprit (would be confirming what i already know:001_tt2:)

 

Your guess on that may be better educated than mine, but it is still a guess. It is also noted that your guess aka "knowledge" has changed--in Post #2 you said "the fungal agent here is armillaria Sp". Now you have leaped over to another fearsome fungus, to which all economically prudent arborists should react to by downgrading mitigation. What plague will your magic monitor reveal to you next?

 

"In the meantime"

 

There is a saying: "Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice."

There is another saying: "No Rx without an RCX (Root Collar Examination)

 

"i would reccomend a 30% by volume (weight by shortening lever-arm lengths (no thinning whatsoever) to give the tree considerable stability while adaption takes place

 

i agree on no thining, and this level of reduction may well be reasonable. Or 30% may excessively weaken the tree's ability to adapt. Without a view of the crown and the tree's history, it is impossible to say.

 

" (if its not K. Deusta, in which case how long do we want to retain it and how much will we be willing to invest in careful management of a tree colonised by a known and problematic root/butt parasite?

 

Unless your client has stated their preference to invest big money (with the loss of the arboreal asset) now on removal, versus incremental investments in retention, all reasonable options belong on the table.

Curtailing the management options based on a *suspected* parasite's (in this case a shifting lineup of "suspects") with a *suspected* rate of advance, with a *suspected* lack of commensurate tree response, and a *suspected* lack of client resources and interest in retaining the tree, does not sound like an arborist's viewpoint.

It sounds more like University extension pathologists here in the US, who know or care little of fungal strategies from the tree's view, and prescribe removal out of liability concern, fear, and loathing. Or a lopper who is keen to fire up chainsaw and chipper.

 

Perhaps you might consider the tree's potential, along with a suspected parasite's potential.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"Who NEEDS to quantify that damage at this stage?

 

Anyone assessing risk and specifying potential treatments

 

"Take a £250 increment corer and get a SOLID piece of evidence as to the decays nature and extent/depth into scar tissue. I would fractometer test the wood,

 

Increment core is a tool in the bag (my Haglof did not cost that much--what model do you favor?) and may well fit the assignment. Good suggestion. My fractometer is between my thumb and middle finger.

 

"to see if as suspected, with visual cues like melanine plates in the wood wether Kretzshmaria was the culprit (would be confirming what i already know:001_tt2:)

 

Your guess on that may be better educated than mine, but it is still a guess. It is also noted that your guess aka "knowledge" has changed--in Post #2 you said "the fungal agent here is armillaria Sp". Now you have leaped over to another fearsome fungus, to which all economically prudent arborists should react to by downgrading mitigation. What plague will your magic monitor reveal to you next?

 

"In the meantime"

 

There is a saying: "Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice."

There is another saying: "No Rx without an RCX (Root Collar Examination)

 

"i would reccomend a 30% by volume (weight by shortening lever-arm lengths (no thinning whatsoever) to give the tree considerable stability while adaption takes place

 

i agree on no thining, and this level of reduction may well be reasonable. Or 30% may excessively weaken the tree's ability to adapt. Without a view of the crown and the tree's history, it is impossible to say.

 

" (if its not K. Deusta, in which case how long do we want to retain it and how much will we be willing to invest in careful management of a tree colonised by a known and problematic root/butt parasite?

 

Unless your client has stated their preference to invest big money (with the loss of the arboreal asset) now on removal, versus incremental investments in retention, all reasonable options belong on the table.

Curtailing the management options based on a *suspected* parasite's (in this case a shifting lineup of "suspects") with a *suspected* rate of advance, with a *suspected* lack of commensurate tree response, and a *suspected* lack of client resources and interest in retaining the tree, does not sound like an arborist's viewpoint.

It sounds more like University extension pathologists here in the US, who know or care little of fungal strategies from the tree's view, and prescribe removal out of liability concern, fear, and loathing. Or a lopper who is keen to fire up chainsaw and chipper.

 

Perhaps you might consider the tree's potential, along with a suspected parasite's potential.

 

In post two, I had a preliminary scan of the decay, then the thread got serious (based on photos?) so I got serious. My educated guess on this subject is well respected, and your continued dangling of baited hooks is as usefull to constructive discussions as a wet paper bag is to a shopper in a rain storm.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"Who NEEDS to quantify that damage at this stage?

 

Anyone assessing risk and specifying potential treatments

 

"Take a £250 increment corer and get a SOLID piece of evidence as to the decays nature and extent/depth into scar tissue. I would fractometer test the wood,

 

Increment core is a tool in the bag (my Haglof did not cost that much--what model do you favor?) and may well fit the assignment. Good suggestion. My fractometer is between my thumb and middle finger.

 

"to see if as suspected, with visual cues like melanine plates in the wood wether Kretzshmaria was the culprit (would be confirming what i already know:001_tt2:)

 

Your guess on that may be better educated than mine, but it is still a guess. It is also noted that your guess aka "knowledge" has changed--in Post #2 you said "the fungal agent here is armillaria Sp". Now you have leaped over to another fearsome fungus, to which all economically prudent arborists should react to by downgrading mitigation. What plague will your magic monitor reveal to you next?

 

"In the meantime"

 

There is a saying: "Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice."

There is another saying: "No Rx without an RCX (Root Collar Examination)

 

"i would reccomend a 30% by volume (weight by shortening lever-arm lengths (no thinning whatsoever) to give the tree considerable stability while adaption takes place

 

i agree on no thining, and this level of reduction may well be reasonable. Or 30% may excessively weaken the tree's ability to adapt. Without a view of the crown and the tree's history, it is impossible to say.

 

" (if its not K. Deusta, in which case how long do we want to retain it and how much will we be willing to invest in careful management of a tree colonised by a known and problematic root/butt parasite?

 

Unless your client has stated their preference to invest big money (with the loss of the arboreal asset) now on removal, versus incremental investments in retention, all reasonable options belong on the table.

Curtailing the management options based on a *suspected* parasite's (in this case a shifting lineup of "suspects") with a *suspected* rate of advance, with a *suspected* lack of commensurate tree response, and a *suspected* lack of client resources and interest in retaining the tree, does not sound like an arborist's viewpoint.

It sounds more like University extension pathologists here in the US, who know or care little of fungal strategies from the tree's view, and prescribe removal out of liability concern, fear, and loathing. Or a lopper who is keen to fire up chainsaw and chipper.

 

Perhaps you might consider the tree's potential, along with a suspected parasite's potential.

 

Being the kind of man that i am, I have finaly found a very posative aspect to your oppositional and quite aggressive style toward my posts.

 

I am very interested in "expert witness" work in years to come and your posts are EXACTLY what I might expect from a cross examination in court, constantly trying to make me look more of an ameteur than an expert witness and trying hard to undermine credibility by evoking an emotional response with very subtle baits.

 

Keep it up Guy, I know you will, and thank you, this training is of great value, if a little less than friendly fire.

 

There is always a positive to every negative force:001_cool:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

 

Yes guy, woundwood is strong, it can and does often re seal the entire open portion of the internal cavity, and often that cavity remains dry and slows any decay within. Compartmentalisation is effective when the decay is part of the tree species specific network of fungi (I. cuticularis in the case here of beech)

 

Had this been colonised by a less species specific pathogen like K. deusta it would be a different story entirely. This relationship Beech/I. cuticularis is invaluable to many higher animals, and makes a fine bat cave indeed.

 

If this tree is not reduced it will WILL fail due to shell mechanics and slenderness, so even if this wound was fresh, and we had no idea of the progression or current depth of the decay we can at the first instance make a correct assumption that the tree may well deal with the loss of the entire heartwood column and adapt, IF we reduced it to give it a chance, a fighting chance.

 

Our gum here in this thread has at the earliest of stages a similar scenario, and reducing now will be prudent, it will give the tree a chance to establish shoots within the inner canopy allowing for further retrenchments if this should be deemed needed by further progression of the decay. and this while the tree is little effected by the dysfunction and showing few crown symptoms?

 

reducing now will set the tree up with a finer framework of foliage that ensures a great deal of photo synthetic area can be retained even if much more aggressive reductions are needed because the fungal pathogen turns out as suspected to be K. deusta.

 

Yes retention of photo synthetic area is essential, and thats why we are at this stage looking for a significant reduction in leverage's ONLY without altering the inner canopy AT ALL (no thinning) This buys a LOT of time and makes expensive quantifying procedures really O.T.T at THIS stage.

 

BASIC VTA, get the hammer out, probe out, use your experience and make a judgement, this is MY judgement, and if you do not agree with it that is O.K with me guy, I am my own man, as indeed you are yours.

[Arbor Logic]

[ATTACH]73781[/ATTACH]

 

Yes guy, woundwood is strong, it can and does often re seal the entire open portion of the internal cavity, and often that cavity remains dry and slows any decay within. Compartmentalisation is effective when the decay is part of the tree species specific network of fungi (I. cuticularis in the case here of beech)

 

Had this been colonised by a less species specific pathogen like K. deusta it would be a different story entirely. This relationship Beech/I. cuticularis is invaluable to many higher animals, and makes a fine bat cave indeed.

 

If this tree is not reduced it will WILL fail due to shell mechanics and slenderness, so even if this wound was fresh, and we had no idea of the progression or current depth of the decay we can at the first instance make a correct assumption that the tree may well deal with the loss of the entire heartwood column and adapt, IF we reduced it to give it a chance, a fighting chance.

 

Our gum here in this thread has at the earliest of stages a similar scenario, and reducing now will be prudent, it will give the tree a chance to establish shoots within the inner canopy allowing for further retrenchments if this should be deemed needed by further progression of the decay. and this while the tree is little effected by the dysfunction and showing few crown symptoms?

 

reducing now will set the tree up with a finer framework of foliage that ensures a great deal of photo synthetic area can be retained even if much more aggressive reductions are needed because the fungal pathogen turns out as suspected to be K. deusta.

 

Yes retention of photo synthetic area is essential, and thats why we are at this stage looking for a significant reduction in leverage's ONLY without altering the inner canopy AT ALL (no thinning) This buys a LOT of time and makes expensive quantifying procedures really O.T.T at THIS stage.

 

BASIC VTA, get the hammer out, probe out, use your experience and make a judgement, this is MY judgement, and if you do not agree with it that is O.K with me guy, I am my own man, as indeed you are yours.

 

Hey Hama, this approach sounds good in theory.....let the guy post a pic of the upper crown and see if you can make the cuts that you talk of on this Euc species.

Not siding with anyone at this point but Eucs are not an Ash or Beech that enable lateral reduction such as you speak.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hey Hama, this approach sounds good in theory.....let the guy post a pic of the upper crown and see if you can make the cuts that you talk of on this Euc species.

Not siding with anyone at this point but Eucs are not an Ash or Beech that enable lateral reduction such as you speak.

 

I would beg to differ, agreed within the temperate u.k Eucs tend to retain much of thier inner canopies due to thier capacity to retain hydration, and that in thier native habitats they lose the inner canopy as a drought survival strategy. but basic tree morphology is branched and it would be highly unlikely that a tree had a form that would limit drop crotch reduction methods.