Oak SGRs + Hollow + Kd + Wound spread + Crack = Remove

[Fungus]

1. A very superficial outside in saprotrophic pioneer white rotter such as a Stereum species (© G.J. Keizer ?) indicating ... the spread of decay and the spreading towards a similar "hot spot" node on a branch ... destabilizing branches of a tree ?

 

the suspected stereum would indicate that decay is spreading yes.

 

"And how did you assess a recent pruining wound being "attacked" by the same fungus if you didn't identify any of the fungi in the first place ?"

 

It looks the same. Precision is nice, but general accuracy often works.

 

What Polyporus species is parasitic and grows in/on Quercus phellos and with what effects ?

 

I don't know that, but I do know that all those fb's are not good for stability.

Precision is nice, but 1-7 met the assignment. In total, they point to interior decay and poor condition, beyond any mitigation. Removal should be strongly considered.

 

2. IME, a valid and reliable tomograph reading can be done by someone who has personally (visually and by sounding) assessed the tree before tomographing it. It is desirable but not necessary--or always possible!-- to identify the wood degrading macrofungi and the type(s) of woodrot correctly,or to have experience with the tree species specific interaction of the fungi with the tree species, or to have often seen the damage done to the tree after it had been felled.

Periodic readings indicate decay progression, and contribute to competent assessments. Some decay fungi cannot be identified, some folks don't get a chance to do a lot of autopsies, so how can all that be *necessary* ?? Arboriculture works better with mycology, but it is not always impossible without mycological precision.

 

1. It's not evidence of the spreading of the decay, it's the spreading of the killing of cambium and shedding of bark by an unidentified parasite/pathogen followed by a superficial wood decayer that is assessed.

Assumptions, speculations, jumping to conclusions without assessment of the types of wood rot and identification of the fungi ("It looks the same ... I don't know that, but I do know that all those fb's are not good for stability"), not much to base a valid diagnosis on.

2. See my post.

[treeseer]

1. It's not evidence of the spreading of the decay, it's the spreading of the killing of cambium and shedding of bark by an unidentified parasite/pathogen followed by a superficial wood decayer that is assessed.

 

We agree--admit it! A spreading saprophyte is evidence of dead tissue underneath. Identifying that pathogen would waste time--the tree is fecked.

 

"Assumptions, speculations, jumping to conclusions without assessment of the types of wood rot and identification of the fungi ("It looks the same ... I don't know that, but I do know that all those fb's are not good for stability"), not much to base a valid diagnosis on."

 

It might be fun, but client's money would be wasted on all that. On other trees, species ID is critical, NOT every tree. Give it a rest!

 

IME, a valid and reliable tomograph reading can be done by someone who has personally (visually and by sounding) assessed the tree before tomographing it. It is desirable but not necessary--or always possible!-- to identify the wood degrading macrofungi and the type(s) of woodrot correctly,or to have experience with the tree species specific interaction of the fungi with the tree species, or to have often seen the damage done to the tree after it had been felled.

Periodic readings indicate decay progression, and contribute to competent assessments. Some decay fungi cannot be identified, some folks don't get a chance to do a lot of autopsies, so how can all that be *necessary* ?? Arboriculture works better with mycology, but it is not always impossible without mycological precision.

[Fungus]

1. We agree--admit it!

2. Identifying that pathogen would waste time--the tree is fecked.

3. Give it a rest!

4. IME, a valid ... Arboriculture works better with mycology, but it is not always impossible without mycological precision.

 

1. No, we don't, but it's quite obvious why you think we do and/or need us to.

2. Why post your snappy formulated hypothesis if you're not interested in a critical review by professionals and wanted to fell the tree regardless of any comment on your "diagnosis" in the first place ?

3. I will from now on, realising there's nothing to be gained for any of us in investing in "enlightening" you in the field of forest ecology, soil food webs, mycology and tree species specific ecosystems.

4. Why repeat all of this without answering my question concerning the last sentence ?