Beech, Armillaria?

[treeseer]

Gerrit, the standard I apply to written work anywhere is: reliability, and relevance as a guide to treatment. An inventory of fungi in Arkansas does not readily inform tree care across the country or globe--unless I am missing something, again?

As for reliability, documented observations may not be double-blind or controlled, but they do stand for quite a lot! (your cue, hama)

 

2. "Managing forests as you describe is a different scope"

 

{That depends on how you look at a tree. If you consider it to be an isolated solitary organism not in need of a tree species specific ecosystem and soil food web to survive and thrive in an urban or rural environment, then you're right}

 

Now who would say anything like that? Silly talk.

 

If I consider a tree to be necessarily connected to associated organisms and systems, including those found in the soil food web, and being of high enough value to warrant constructive intervention (arboriculture) instead of the cutting and grinding that you prescribed for trees next to farms (forestry), then it is a very different scope, objectives, and specifications.

[Fungus]

1. the standard I apply to written work anywhere is: reliability, and relevance as a guide to treatment. As for reliability, documented observations may not be double-blind or controlled, but they do stand for quite a lot!

2. constructive intervention (arboriculture) instead of the cutting and grinding that you prescribed for trees next to farms (forestry)

 

1. Now who would say anything like that? Silly talk. If the reliability of your documented observations was evaluated by scientific standards, your work would not stand for anything at all. Just consider how often "documented observations" have been proven invalid (overgeneralisation based on (a few) poorly documented and not standardized single case studies) and identifications of pathogens and their supposed effects on trees these obervations were based upon also have been proven wrong.

2. When and where did I prescribe "cutting and grinding for trees next to farms" ? So you're the "meilleur Guy" and I'm the bad guy ? Putting words in my mouth and citing me completely out of context and without understanding the problems we face with nitrification does not compensate for the lack of reliability or relevance and proof of your opinion.

[Mesterh]

If the client doesn't know what they want then you need to guide them,not push, just gently guide them in the direction required. You are the professional, they are the client, they want you around for your advice, at times they will not like it, at times you will be the best thing since sliced bread. I was walking around a clients grounds end of last autumn, saw an ash with Perenniporia fraxinea in quite an advanced state. So I advise the client that it is either removed or cordoned off to prevent harm to children and animals in the park. The cordoning off option was taken, the tree fell over during the winter. My judgement fully vindicated and client thanked me for pointing this out, even though it was beyond my brief that day. Don't be afraid to speak out, how would you feel if you didn't and injury/death followed?

 

I totally agree there, I would hope that all professionals would do the same and inform the client of real potential dangers even if thats not why they ask us to be there in the first place.

 

I just dont like the way some 'professionals' see it as a game of wits and try to outsmart the client at every opportunity, lightening their wallet in the process. BTW I dont see that happening in this thread and believe the OP is acting in the best interests of his client.

[treeseer]

Gerrit, just consider how often "documented observations" have been proven valid.

 

2. When and where did I prescribe "cutting and grinding for trees next to farms" ?

 

2 pages ago: "we have chosen for the proactive strategy of removing an infected lane or roadside tree and both its neighbours to prevent the rhizomorphs from spreading"

I assumed root removal meant grinding stump and roots--i stand corrected if these are mechanically extracted. Also, I reread that they are next to roads, and not always next to farms, but near enough to be affected by nitrification (which is not limited to Europe).

Again, there's nothing wrong with cutting down trees, if they are not worth the expense of otherwise managing their infections.

[Fungus]

"I reread that they are next to roads, and not always next to farms, but near enough to be affected by nitrification.

 

So you're conclusion is based upon the removal of three trees at a roadside and not always, i.e. in reality hardly ever next to farms and you qualify that as forestry instead of arboriculture ?

How near is near enough for trees to be affected by nitrification from extremely overpopulated pig and chicken farms and extremely manured maize fields : one kilometer, five kilometer, fifteen kilometer ? What density of farms and fields is needed ? One per five square kilometer, five per twenty square kilometer ? And nitrification travelling by air or by (surface) water ?

Edited May 4, 2012 by Fungus

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

o.k guy, drying out the wood is going to do what!

 

listen, gas pipes and water pipes, think about it, CODIT, comp of DYSFUNCTION in trees, NOT decay.

 

gas pipes and water pipes.

 

CODIT IS PLUMBING not decay it doesnt work on decay it works on plumbing vascular flow and aeration of the wood in DYSFUNCTION, which cannot be healed or repaired, only sealed over and plumbed over and around.

[treeseer]

"o.k guy, drying out the wood is going to do what!"

 

Tony, drying out the infection is the treatment, not drying out the wood. Oh yes, a fine line in between, and tricky not to cross. But infections can be dried without introducing dysfunction into wood. Lesions sometimes dry up on their own in nature, too. But sometimes they expand.

 

What other treatment would you recommend for bleeding lesions on beech or oak?

 

Gerrit, sorry, different levels of intervention seem to fit different sites and objectives and perceptions of tree value. not sure where we got off to there.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"o.k guy, drying out the wood is going to do what!"

 

Tony, drying out the infection is the treatment, not drying out the wood. Oh yes, a fine line in between, and tricky not to cross. But infections can be dried without introducing dysfunction into wood. Lesions sometimes dry up on their own in nature, too. But sometimes they expand.

 

What other treatment would you recommend for bleeding lesions on beech or oak?

 

Gerrit, sorry, different levels of intervention seem to fit different sites and objectives and perceptions of tree value. not sure where we got off to there.

 

I would focus ALL my time and budget on improving the rhizosphere with particular attention to improving conditions for mycorrhizae. But you wont like that, cos its myco eccentric!

[treeseer]

I would focus ALL my time and budget on improving the rhizosphere with particular attention to improving conditions for mycorrhizae.

Why? I can see the majority of effort going there, but would not put all the eggs in that or any treatment basket.

 

How will more mycrrhizae affect the decay that is advancing into the stem?

Sooner than drying out the infections?