Thoughts please on a Beech problem

[detritus21]

Its interesting reading peoples opinions and advice. I've sort advice from other Tree Surgeons/Arborists and a Tree officer at another LA to where this is and have had varying opinions on what should be done. The major issue you have with this tree and others on the site is the targets if potential failure does occur. I feel that as I am aware of the issues I am obliged to do my duty and inform the owner of the trees especially as I am the one who was asked to look. Whether people take my advice or recommendations is another thing and I am fairly confident whatever is decided will be deliberated over and if unhappy will seek further advice. Incidentely I haven't said fell or keep either way as yet. I know there are management strategies including reduction but there are also financial implications from the point of view of the client as well as their own liability issues. Three trees on the site I am definitely recommend to be felled those being the HC, Turkey oak and one of the beech that is host to at least three different fungi and has serious structural issues. The Beech with Merip I'm still deliberating over and will use others opinions not just mine in the process. I haven't ruled out reduction but having been back to day and took a more in depth look there are other structural issues with the beech that could be classed as potential failure points.

[detritus21]

hamadryad is your post saying there is little hope of retention of a tree with Merip? The way I'm reading it is confusing me.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

hamadryad is your post saying there is little hope of retention of a tree with Merip? The way I'm reading it is confusing me.

 

Every case is going to be different, interactions on site can speed up the demise of a old beech with meripilus. One or two fronds coming up close to the trunk are not to scary, but even so, given the size of tree and high targets its not a good prognosis im afraid.

 

reductions are viable if the tree is very healthy and vital, if no crown symptoms are evident this may be very early days and will reduce well.

 

however when die back and the more common chlorosis sets in a reduction just finishes the tree off as opposed to salvaging the situation.

[detritus21]

Thanks for clarifying that one

[RobArb]

Its interesting reading peoples opinions and advice. I've sort advice from other Tree Surgeons/Arborists and a Tree officer at another LA to where this is and have had varying opinions on what should be done. The major issue you have with this tree and others on the site is the targets if potential failure does occur. I feel that as I am aware of the issues I am obliged to do my duty and inform the owner of the trees especially as I am the one who was asked to look. Whether people take my advice or recommendations is another thing and I am fairly confident whatever is decided will be deliberated over and if unhappy will seek further advice. Incidentely I haven't said fell or keep either way as yet. I know there are management strategies including reduction but there are also financial implications from the point of view of the client as well as their own liability issues. Three trees on the site I am definitely recommend to be felled those being the HC, Turkey oak and one of the beech that is host to at least three different fungi and has serious structural issues. The Beech with Merip I'm still deliberating over and will use others opinions not just mine in the process. I haven't ruled out reduction but having been back to day and took a more in depth look there are other structural issues with the beech that could be classed as potential failure points.

 

[Fungus]

1. On what factual evidence is your continuous accusation of mal practice based : Reading the posts in this thread--rigging challenges contemplated before diagnosis is done.

2. getting physical evidence of strength loss is useful. This documents fungal strategies, to go along with the theorizing.

3. Rot results in strength loss, which is the first thing to assess in diagnosing tree stability. Species of fungi helps predict the prognosis of future spread, and the tree response.

4. If you could kindly respond to the tree issues and lay off personal attacks that would be nice ...

 

1. Aha, so that's how you legitimize disqualifying and attacking forum members disagreeing with you on the best possible solution for a tree and its owner.

2. Yes it is, the question however was, how you assess the softrot caused by M. giganteus at the lower side of major tree roots.

3. Brilliant analysis thoroughly taking all that matters into account . Unfortunately oversimplification in diagnosing and assessing an individual tree seldom works.

4. ... says the champion of uncalled for personal attacks on forum members stating an opinion on trees (and not on persons) and slanderous disqualifications behind people's backs. In The Netherlands we have a saying : "Wie kaatst moet de bal verwachten", which is the equivalent of "Those who play at bowles must look out for rubbers".

Edited November 9, 2011 by Fungus

[Treecreeper1961]

Thank you, sir. It's good to see some awareness of risk management beyond the "Bad" Decay + Target = Fell process expressed here. Also to consider are:

 

1. Pruning options. All of them!

 

2. Root care options

 

3. Soil fixing options

 

4. Support options

 

It's disconcerting to hear this Fell/Leave dichotomy from the land of Conservation Arboriculture, as if trees were only black and white, instead of shades of gray and brown as they are.

 

"I don't know how exactly investigations on the underside of roots are undertaken or how easily the findings are assessed?"

 

Treecreeper, roots can be assessed by sounding with a mallet, and probing diagonally to see how thick the woody supporting roots are. They can also be drilled to see how thick their wood is. It does not seem scientific to pose the possibility of extensive lower decay, instead of advising the assessors to use their hands on the tree and learn facts from them instead of bandying theories about based on *possible* growth of decay fungi.

 

"It is not a responsibility I would relish but I think I would recommend..."

 

Why should arborists feel compelled to recommend anything? These are not their trees; they belong to someone else, and so do those decisions, and the liability. Arborists are best off getting paid to assess objectively, then list management options. If we as contractors venture to offer free opinions, all the while with chainsaws at the ready, the owner(s) should dam well get a paid, objective, second opinion.

 

imo:001_smile:

Hi treeseer,

Thanks for commenting on some of my comments. As a new member of the forum it creates a real feeling of inclusion when posts receive direct comment.

I wish I was experienced and educated sufficiently to give a different opinion on management of the merip. beech with confidence. Part of me agrees with what you are saying. Knee jerk reactions to fungal infections are something education will hopefully reduce within the industry.

I remember a beech tree I dismantled about twelve years ago. At the time it was the biggest and finest tree I had worked on. An independent consultant had inspected the tree for a housing association. He had identified a fungal fruiting body, I don't know which it was, and recommended the tree to be removed. At the time I didn't consider the rights or wrongs of it. A local resident expressed her sadness and anger at what we were doing. I blindly continued with my work like a good little boy. I enjoyed the job and still remember it from time to time.

As we reduced the great body of the tree there was no sign of decay until we were cutting the last meter of the base, where there appeared a small column of decay, no more than three or four inches in diameter.

This suggests to me that the removal may have been premature,even considering there may have been more extensive decay within the roots.

I feel you may be right. The client should be presented the options for management. It would, however, be extremely difficult for someone less informed in the physiology of trees to make a judgement that they can feel confident in without some guidance, I feel. Many clients would turn around and say' your the expert, you tell me'.

It is all well and good championing the conservation of trees but it is a percentage game. The target, the value, the tree trouble, the cost, the level of expertise. If it was up to my strong environmental, green conscience all trees would be allowed to live a natural life and die a natural death. Unfortunately I suffer from fear. Fear that a tree may fall over and a rush hour jam of cars may cushion it's fall. This is not an irrational fear, in my opinion and opinions are what it's all about. The Anne Frank Tree is an interesting case to consider. Several highly polished opinions that may not quite be so confident now.

Perhaps if further investigation of the tree reveals limited decay, a crown reduction would be sufficient to reduce the sail area and sooth concerns, whilst maintaining the undoubted value the tree posses.

(I say again, I don't know how accurately the decay to the underside of main anchoring roots can be assessed. I would be very interested if anyone can direct me to any information or test cases on the subject.)

The down side of this is several fold. Further decay from the pruning wounds. Accelerated decay of the current fungi inhabiting the tree due to the associated stresses of pruning. The costs of the investigation and subsequent reduction. The commitment to a continued programme of maintenance.

The more I learn the more I realize there are no easy answers, and the more courage and conviction is required to give ones opinion.

My conclusion is, you are right, the tree deserves further investigation. So get yourself over here and start excavating around all those big roots with a small pick and brush, I'll come and have a look.

Yours sincerely,

Ben