Repeated root investigations

[Mark T]

Really interesting threads recently guys, particularly the Meripilus one... it finally prompted me to register and contribute rather than just having a crafty butchers evey now and again... so here's my first post...

 

Andrew, it has been fascinating to read your comments about root investigations using the Airspade and Airknife... I agree entirely that we, as arboriculturalists, do need to focus more on activity and relationships below ground. I would like to ask though, how damaging you would deem repeat (say annual) Airspade/knife assisted assessments to be? I imagine that most trees are well placed to cope with small scale fiberous root loss as a one-off but repeated loss and on the same roots? Over to you...

 

Regards all,

 

Mark

[Steve Bullman]

welcome Mark, about time mate!

[Bundle 2]

Good question Mark...I'm glad someone has pointed this out...There has been some discussion about this issue on UKTC also where the notion of nptc style training was floated if thats the right turn of phrase. Clearly , it would have to be established whether and how damage may occur and such but not what i wanted to say here.

I'm glad you have asked this question re repeated investigations...There was recently a post about a beech which it seems has been dug up more times than you can count...surprise surprise, the root/fungi lifecycle is now quite different ...So indeed, do we really know what effect such repeated investigations are responsible for??

[christreeroot]

In short carrying out airspade investigations annually can cause prolonged damage but it usually prolongsthe trees life......

 

We carry out alot of airspade work and although the damage that is caused is not great an anual investigation on a given area of roots is not going to be beneficial healthwise. You have to also consider that the tree needing this level of investigation is already going to be suffering from disease/damage.

 

But.......

 

You can also argue that if we didnt carry out such investigations then the tree would most likely be felled as when we are called in to investigate a tree like this it is to save it not condem it. So if you look at it from that view then what does it matter if you are causing damage because the actual investigation is hopefully prolonging tree life.

 

Hope that makes sense as i am in a bit of a rush.

 

Also remember that if airspading is carried out correctly it causes alot less damage than if somebody with little experience may cause, i see it as a bit of an art that takes time to perfect, one of the main things i have noticed that causes the most damage is individuals rushing...

[christreeroot]

Good question Mark...I'm glad someone has pointed this out...There has been some discussion about this issue on UKTC also where the notion of nptc style training was floated if thats the right turn of phrase. Clearly , it would have to be established whether and how damage may occur and such but not what i wanted to say here.

I'm glad you have asked this question re repeated investigations...There was recently a post about a beech which it seems has been dug up more times than you can count...surprise surprise, the root/fungi lifecycle is now quite different ...So indeed, do we really know what effect such repeated investigations are responsible for??

 

With the comment about a training standard, yes it would be good but i dont think NPTC could carry this out as its not just about operating a machine etc, there is so much more that must be considered and taught - all the biology thats involved etc.... plus all the the other little bits etc...... ermmmmm dificult one that

[skyhuck]

 

You can also argue that if we didnt carry out such investigations then the tree would most likely be felled as when we are called in to investigate a tree like this it is to save it not condem it. So if you look at it from that view then what does it matter if you are causing damage because the actual investigation is hopefully prolonging tree life.

 

Hope that makes sense as i am in a bit of a rush.

 

 

Very good point!! makes perfect sense.

[Lee Winger]

I would like to ask though, how damaging you would deem repeat (say annual) Air spade/knife assisted assessments to be? I imagine that most trees are well placed to cope with small scale fibrous root loss as a one-off but repeated loss and on the same roots? Over to you...

 

Regards all,

 

Mark

 

 

Annual assessments! I've never heard of anyone undertaking inspections that regularly, and to be honest if they were carrying out annual inspections I'd be doubting there competence!

 

Damage! Air-spades , Soil-picks, Air-knives IMO cause very little damage to fibrous roots, other than exposing roots and the roots becoming dehydrated if left uncovered for any amount of time, this kind of damage is down to operator incompetence, not the air-spade!

 

Ha as for NPTC jumping on the bandwagon, if I'm ever asked to produce an NPTC cert for Air-spading , I'll give the person concerned a dose of Air-spade where the sun doesn't shine!

[Rebecca Harrison]

I'm glad you have asked this question re repeated investigations...There was recently a post about a beech which it seems has been dug up more times than you can count...surprise surprise, the root/fungi lifecycle is now quite different ...So indeed, do we really know what effect such repeated investigations are responsible for??

 

Not sure but if this quote is referring to the thread which i contributed to with records of a Beech with Meripilus going back 10 years or so, then the assumption that the tree had been 'dug up more times than you can count' is wrong ...it had only had one section of the root plate air spaded once only .... just to put the record straight.

[David Humphries]

Beech with Meripilus giganteus colonisation (different tree as posted in earlier thread)

 

The following images are from September 2015 when we took the opportunity to uncover a portion of the root flare to assess the dysfunction and decay associated with the fruitbodies.

last image is an indication of the general condition of the canopy at that time.

 

 

 

 

 

With a nod to the original purpose of this thread I've resurrected it as we had the chance to reassess the dysfunction again 2 years on.

 

Again there appears to be little decay in the same area and the canopy density hasn't changed much. 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't appear that the initial airspade inspection caused any significant damage.

 

 

 

.