Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Potential ANCIENT tree removal


Ross Smith
 Share

Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name=David Humphries;768340

 

Putting the potential basal issue aside' date=' I believe there would of been scope to manage this tree in this situation by reducing the sail volume and size.

 

.[/quote]

 

Interesting comment, how much of the sail volume and size do you estimate having to remove to achieve this David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats quite understandable, however, during the assessment, if it was found that the residual wall is less than the established amount, a vast portion of the live crown would have to be removed.

It is true that any tree, regardless of the thickness to wall ratio can be retained, unfortunately, if the residual wall gets too thin then what we would be left with after our reduction is nothing more than a pole smothered with epicormic growth, looking more like an over-sized toilet brush as opposed to a tree.

 

The professional tree inspection workbook tells us that if a defect apears to be a cause for concern " it must be measured and the SRENGTH of the remaining part evaluated"

 

I just wondered that before all this information is collected and understood, how could a decision to retain and manage the tree be made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The professional tree inspection workbook tells us that if a defect apears to be a cause for concern " it must be measured and the SRENGTH of the remaining part evaluated"

 

I just wondered that before all this information is collected and understood, how could a decision to retain and manage the tree be made?

 

 

Climbing inspection with access to resistograph and/or hammer/probes, would be my way of evaluating the possibility of retention of a canopy with dysfunction.

 

 

.

59766261ef593_DSCF10251.jpg.5eddf86619d436fe80eca353dba76c0d.jpg

DSCF0926.jpg.12acf3d08c9618e1450554b041243cb4.jpg

DSCF1115.jpg.5fb1d59c2ceabf6d216cbb736a2e24d8.jpg

DSCF1118.jpg.74cee879ff3369a9bed70634c0131eb7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climbing inspection with access to resistograph and/or hammer/probes, would be my way of evaluating the possibility of retention of a canopy with dysfunction.

 

 

.

 

A perfectly acceptable and well recognised approach and the key word "possibility" of retention

 

Please excuse me for being a pedantic b*****d David but these are all relevant

Points when dealing with something of this size in this particular location

 

Kindest Regards

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

Articles

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.