Rigidous ulmaris on Beech

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"there is over a third of the trunk is in decay, regardless of the compartmentlisation."

 

Well, a % is affected by fungus; not sure what "in decay" means

 

"If the tree had an resistograpgh done, would you have had it dismantled?"

 

well i'd prefer a tomograph, but either way, probably not. Depends on species, condition, and most importantly owner's objective. the amount of support lost to fungal activity seems well compensated for by wall 4. It's what's outside that counts the most, structurally speaking.

 

"Also could have the tree continued to live if the walls closed over?"

 

by the looks of the closure--vigorous--it surely seems so.

 

" And eventually the side walls would close over where the bracket exists to form a partially hollow trunk?"

 

maybe not hollow at all; if denied oxygen, fungal activity would cease, and the affected wood's degradation would stop at its present state of development.

 

i'm not an expert on these species but that's how it looks from here.

 

A fair assesment, only would add that as the tree ages and lays down ripewood (in beech pink/purple) the fungi will consume the entire volume exosed at the time of wounding, areated from the now dead portions of the root crown

[Scottie]

Tony, would you mind expanding on your last statement please?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony, would you mind expanding on your last statement please?

 

every bit of the butt of this tree that was growing at the time of wounding, the tree withinthe now new tree being layed on above the old compartmentalised section (within its annual rings) will become decayed and hollow with age, probably to a hieght of a few metres, sometimes more

[treeseer]

every bit of the butt of this tree that was growing at the time of wounding, the tree withinthe now new tree being layed on above the old compartmentalised section (within its annual rings) will become decayed and hollow with age, probably to a hieght of a few metres, sometimes more

 

Possibly/Probably so, IF closure is not complete, and only at a pace determined by fungus-tree interaction. Could be verrry slow, see sig line below, could be speedy.

[Gnarlyoak]

Hi guys,

 

Given the level of discussion, thought I'd add a few notes about the particular circumstances of this tree.

 

Firstly, the identification of the funghi. Not from my internal encyleopeadic knowledge, which sadly does'nt exist. I simply compared the pictures I had taken with the photographs in the AA's guide "Funghi on Trees". Rigidoporus ulm. seemed the nearest fit. But I am quite prepared to be wrong (and re-educated), I usually am....

 

To help with the context, I should of course taken a photo before the tree was felled. but, it was my first day back following a 4 mnth lay off after an accident, and all I wanted to do was get back in the harness, get up the tree and smell the exhaust off my MS200.

 

The tree was a Beech, which had grown in the shadow of a large Sycamore. Consequently the tree had a significant lean of approx 50 degs and the stem had grown in an "S" shape due to phototropic response once the crown had left the shadow of the adjacent tree.

 

The tree had a large wound on the underside of the 50 deg. lean, approx 1m above ground level and extended approx 2.5m up the length of the stem. there were two fb's growing from the wound area, 1 just above the base of the wound and the 2nd about 0.5m from the top of the wound. There was some die back through some of the secondary laterals in the uppermost area of the crown. This dieback probably accounted for less than 10% of the total crown area.

 

Some months previously, the large Sycamore that had originally overshadowed this beech was removed because it too had succumbed to some pathogen or other (sorry I don't know what), but it was pretty knackered and had been condemned by the LA TO. Somehow the TO at the time of inspection failed to notice the leaning Beech next door, with the large wound and the fruiting bodies!

 

But why did they have to be removed at all and not just managed? The potential targets and the better safe than sorry attitude that prevails. Directly opposite both trees, is a busy road and a primary school. On the otherside, and directly underneath the trees are two bungalows, part of an elderly persons sheltered housing community. The bases of both these trees were no more than 5m away from the 2 bungalows that were felt to be most at risk should either of these fail, in part or in total. It was assessed that given the risks involved, due to their location and proximity to potential targets, that removal was preferable to any long term ongoing management.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hi guys,

 

Given the level of discussion, thought I'd add a few notes about the particular circumstances of this tree.

 

Firstly, the identification of the funghi. Not from my internal encyleopeadic knowledge, which sadly does'nt exist. I simply compared the pictures I had taken with the photographs in the AA's guide "Funghi on Trees". Rigidoporus ulm. seemed the nearest fit. But I am quite prepared to be wrong (and re-educated), I usually am....

 

To help with the context, I should of course taken a photo before the tree was felled. but, it was my first day back following a 4 mnth lay off after an accident, and all I wanted to do was get back in the harness, get up the tree and smell the exhaust off my MS200.

 

The tree was a Beech, which had grown in the shadow of a large Sycamore. Consequently the tree had a significant lean of approx 50 degs and the stem had grown in an "S" shape due to phototropic response once the crown had left the shadow of the adjacent tree.

 

The tree had a large wound on the underside of the 50 deg. lean, approx 1m above ground level and extended approx 2.5m up the length of the stem. there were two fb's growing from the wound area, 1 just above the base of the wound and the 2nd about 0.5m from the top of the wound. There was some die back through some of the secondary laterals in the uppermost area of the crown. This dieback probably accounted for less than 10% of the total crown area.

 

Some months previously, the large Sycamore that had originally overshadowed this beech was removed because it too had succumbed to some pathogen or other (sorry I don't know what), but it was pretty knackered and had been condemned by the LA TO. Somehow the TO at the time of inspection failed to notice the leaning Beech next door, with the large wound and the fruiting bodies!

 

But why did they have to be removed at all and not just managed? The potential targets and the better safe than sorry attitude that prevails. Directly opposite both trees, is a busy road and a primary school. On the otherside, and directly underneath the trees are two bungalows, part of an elderly persons sheltered housing community. The bases of both these trees were no more than 5m away from the 2 bungalows that were felt to be most at risk should either of these fail, in part or in total. It was assessed that given the risks involved, due to their location and proximity to potential targets, that removal was preferable to any long term ongoing management.

 

At the end of the day somebody has to make a call based on their experience and or best practice in each situation, the decision wasnt yours so dont fret, was probably justified in both cases imo.

 

Bing beech if it was looking like Rigidiporus ulmarius I would suggest that the one this is confused with often Perenniporia fraxinea would have been the culprit as this is relatively common on Fagus whereas I have NEVER (not to say its impossible) seen Rigi on beech.

 

And besides which, the decay looks far more like the intense rot of Ganoderma applanatum to me than any other.

 

Of course this is just MY opinion, the truth may differ somewhat from my assumptions based on images herein:thumbup1: