Fire damaged oak tree

[Fleetwood]

I have a problem with a fire damaged English oak tree. The neighbours shed burned down last month causing one side of the trunk to be blackened, but remarkably no damage to the branches above. It took an hour for the firemen to put it out but the shed was destroyed and the greenhouse exploded, so the fire was pretty intense, but fairly short.

 

The tree is about 60ft tall and the trunk is over two feet wide. The bark is pretty thick and only charred to a max depth of 2-3mm only on the bottom 8-10ft of the trunk. Higher up the tree was shielded from the heat. I know bark is a pretty good insulator but the live cambium is also pretty vulnerable. How can you tell how bad the damage is without waiting for months for the bark to fall off and the leaves to die? I would like to know how tolerant oaks are to fire damage of this sort.

 

The question is whether to fell it now and draw a line under this whole sorry mess or to wait months or years until the extent of the damage is clear, but 1) It may have to be felled anyway with the added costs/difficulty of felling it with a new shed and fence etc underneath. 2) Have the anxiety of living with a big tree that "may fall over" in a few years time and damage the house, for which the insurance company has already said it would not be covered. 3) The likelihood of significant unrecoverable additional costs of tree maintenance for many years to come.

 

There are a couple of pictures here:

oak tree - oaktree's Photos

I hope the link works ok

 

And can anyone send me any articles/papers or web-links on the subject of fire damage to trees that may be useful in this situation?

[redmoosefaction]

I reckon, after looking at the photo, to probably fell it.

 

I think the cambial layer would have been badly damaged as it is only just beneath the bark surface, and in my experience the trees, almost always die. Or in this case would half die.

 

I would usually look at what happens to it over a year or two, but as you said about on going maintenance and having a shed below just increases the cash output.

 

Your choice!

[MikeTM150]

no expert but i'd turn it into firewood and plant a larger sized new one!

[Graham]

There's bound to be some damage in the crown judging from the severity of the fire.

 

If this tree were mine or a clients I would endeavour to retain it.

 

Its appearance is going to change. There's going to be dysfunctional wood in the trunk and possibly the crown. Unless some of the crown is posing an immediate threat to anything I would wait and see the extent of the damage after this season.

 

It can be reduced later and the dead section of the trunk will play host to a multitude of insects etc.

[felixthelogchopper]

Depending on how well you get on with the neighbours responsible, I would suggest asking them to pay for an inspection of the tree by a qualified consultant to ascertain the situation.

[David Humphries]

I can't really make anything out from those particular photographs, but I would offer up that there would be no immeadiate risk of tree or part failure due to fire.

 

The vascular system of the trunk and the affected branches above the heat is what will need to be assessed for dysfunction.

 

Personally I would wait a few weeks to see if the vascular connection from the roots on the side of the fire up through the trunk channels & into the associated branches is still functioning.

 

This will become evident via the soon to be unfurling of the spring leaf flush & then the subsequent maintenance of them.

 

If the foliage on those branches wilt & don't come back during this growing season, then I would assume that the vascular connections are damaged beyond repair.

 

I've had three or four mature trees damaged by fire, (3 Oaks, 1 veteran Wild service) three of these have come through the event. One (Oak) didn't.

 

 

I would hold fire on a decision for a while yet.

 

Keep us updated on the outcome

 

 

.

[likeitorlumpit]

I would ask

How much do the customers want the tree

Then decide

If they love it then it would be worth waiting and reassessing.

If they don't care for it then I suspect they would get someone else to fell it if you wouldn't.

Let's face it- fell now= £4-500 bill depending on who keeps the wood+ distance to road etc etc

Inspect+ wait + reduce with the possibility of a future fell with associated greenhouse/fence under = guess £1000 minimum

Give them the facts and let them decide the way forward-

[sloth]

I have a problem with a fire damaged English oak tree. The neighbours shed burned down last month causing one side of the trunk to be blackened, but remarkably no damage to the branches above. It took an hour for the firemen to put it out but the shed was destroyed and the greenhouse exploded, so the fire was pretty intense, but fairly short.

 

The tree is about 60ft tall and the trunk is over two feet wide. The bark is pretty thick and only charred to a max depth of 2-3mm only on the bottom 8-10ft of the trunk. Higher up the tree was shielded from the heat. I know bark is a pretty good insulator but the live cambium is also pretty vulnerable. How can you tell how bad the damage is without waiting for months for the bark to fall off and the leaves to die? I would like to oknow how tolerant oaks are to fire damage of this sort.

 

The question is whether to fell it now and draw a line under this whole sorry mess or to wait months or years until the extent of the damage is clear, but 1) It may have to be felled anyway with the added costs/difficulty of felling it with a new shed and fence etc underneath. 2) Have the anxiety of living with a big tree that "may fall over" in a few years time and damage the house, for which the insurance company has already said it would not be covered. 3) The likelihood of significant unrecoverable additional costs of tree maintenance for many years to come.

 

There are a couple of pictures here:

oak tree - oaktree's Photos

I hope the link works ok

 

And can anyone send me any articles/papers or web-links on the subject of fire damage to trees that may be useful in this situation?

 

Agreed the fire looks to have been intense! There is no real way of knowing what damage has been done until the tree has had time to react to this event, and show through its 'body language' how it is responding to any damage. It doesn't look to be a particularly big or awkward tree to remove, whether there is a new fence or shed underneath it or not. Therefore the costs involved in its removal won't be significantly different either way, so why not try to retain it if you like it? It looks a nice tree, and as said before any dysfunctional/dead wood is great for biodiversity.

It seems an unnecessary shame your insurance company has said it won't be covered. It may be worth asking them if they will cover it following an arboricultural/tree hazard and risk assessment stating whether or not it is actually safe, perhaps highlighting any management options or future concerns. Feel free to contact me for further info if you decide to go down this route. All the best, Kevin

[Jon Hartley]

Agreed the fire looks to have been intense! There is no real way of knowing what damage has been done until the tree has had time to react to this event, and show through its 'body language' how it is responding to any damage. It doesn't look to be a particularly big or awkward tree to remove, whether there is a new fence or shed underneath it or not. Therefore the costs involved in its removal won't be significantly different either way, so why not try to retain it if you like it? It looks a nice tree, and as said before any dysfunctional/dead wood is great for biodiversity.

It seems an unnecessary shame your insurance company has said it won't be covered. It may be worth asking them if they will cover it following an arboricultural/tree hazard and risk assessment stating whether or not it is actually safe, perhaps highlighting any management options or future concerns. Feel free to contact me for further info if you decide to go down this route. All the best, Kevin

 

I agree.

In order to make an informed decision the only real option is to wait and see the extent of damage. Nature is remarkably resilient! I would have thought it was worth finding out if your neighbours insurance company would liable for cost of remedial works/ removal, if it is then I don't see why this couldn't be deferred until such time as any damage to your property (tree) is more quantifiable.

Its worth an ask. Good luck.

[MATTMOSS]

Agreed the fire looks to have been intense! There is no real way of knowing what damage has been done until the tree has had time to react to this event, and show through its 'body language' how it is responding to any damage. It doesn't look to be a particularly big or awkward tree to remove, whether there is a new fence or shed underneath it or not. Therefore the costs involved in its removal won't be significantly different either way, so why not try to retain it if you like it? It looks a nice tree, and as said before any dysfunctional/dead wood is great for biodiversity.

It seems an unnecessary shame your insurance company has said it won't be covered. It may be worth asking them if they will cover it following an arboricultural/tree hazard and risk assessment stating whether or not it is actually safe, perhaps highlighting any management options or future concerns. Feel free to contact me for further info if you decide to go down this route. All the best, Kevin

 

Sound advice!!

[Mark Bolam]

I would see how it fairs this season and try and hang fire with the new shed etc.

Only fair to give it a chance.