Beech with Meripilus Giganteus

[PRob]

Hi All,

A little advice please. I have a beech which is infected by Meripilus Giganteus. The fruiting bodies have appeared in the last 3 years. We have been in the house 20 years and have reduced the crown 3 times to manage its size. Regretfully it was butchered by a brutal topping by the previous owner about 25 years ago and some rot is set in on the stumps at the top of the tree. However it always comes into full leaf as can be seen by the pictures. We have now been advised to remove it entirely by a tree company as it may prove a danger to people on the path and road. How unstable is the tree likely to be, it seems solid as a rock to me?! I have said I would rather not take it down but reduce the crown by about 40% as i have some concerns of causing heave on the foundations of the house. Is this a valid worry or if I plant something as a replacement - perhaps a hornbeam hedge will this counteract any swelling of the soil (we are on clay). General views and opinions welcome as it would be sad to see the tree go! Thank you in advance!

[David Humphries]

Once the tree is dead (via having the crown removed) you will have a lump of dead wood that would start to degrade via decay in a relatively short time frame.

 

The location next to the road for a standing decaying dead weight would be difficult and costly to assess and maintain.

 

Personally wouldn't advise that route.

 

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/picture-forum/55972-sculpture-management.html

 

 

 

.

[skyhuck]

'All' trees are defective in our eyes Dave

 

They are either too decayed, too big, too shady, too messy, too allelopathic, too water demanding, too.........well too tree like

 

Far too much focus still today on negatives associated with trees (predominantly fear based) and not on the benefits they provide us with, like removing and storing carbon, and the filtering out of pollutant particulates like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides & ammonias

 

Providing oxygen

 

Reducing the urban ambient temperature

 

Preventing soil erosion

 

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.........

 

 

I truly believe, that the majority of people in our industry don't have a scooby how they effect these things above on a daily basis by unnecessarily taking out trees that can be managed with their defects for the benefit of us all as a society and not just for the benefit of reducing the personal fear of tree owners.

 

 

 

Taking out big canopy trees and replacing with a puny 6 footer ain't gonna cut the mustard.

 

 

 

.

 

Most of the benefits you list are better provided by young trees with lots of vigour.

 

I've lost count of the number of failed large Beech with Meripilus that I've had to clear from roads and gardens, often with perfect canopies with no dead wood at all.

 

I did one two weeks ago, it was resting on its neighbour, still in full leaf, no die back at all. I dismantled the crown and when I got it of the other tree, the stem crashed to the floor, nothing was holding it up and we have had no significant wind when it failed.

[PRob]

Once the tree is dead (via having the crown removed) you will have a lump of dead wood that would start to degrade via decay in a relatively short time frame.

 

The location next to the road for a standing decaying dead weight would be difficult and costly to assess and maintain.

 

Personally wouldn't advise that route.

 

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/picture-forum/55972-sculpture-management.html[/

 

.

 

Dave, thanks for this simple reply. No totem pole in the garden for me then!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

'All' trees are defective in our eyes Dave

 

I truly believe, that the majority of people in our industry don't have a scooby how they effect these things above on a daily basis by unnecessarily taking out trees that can be managed with their defects for the benefit of us all as a society and not just for the benefit of reducing the personal fear of tree owners.

 

 

 

Taking out big canopy trees and replacing with a puny 6 footer ain't gonna cut the mustard.

 

David, we haven't met and I wouldn't want to cause offence, most of all because I hold your posts in very high regard. I've been pondering your posts No. 24 & 28 (industry wide knee jerk reactions to fruiting bodies and the majority of people don't have a scooby (loose quotes)) and it troubles me. There will be some that don't have the benefit of your knowledge and experience (yet) but I'm not sure those labels ought to be hung around the majority.

 

Purely by chance while looking for something else earlier, I happened across a post entitled "Grifola Frondosa" by David Oakman dated 29 Sep 08 where you posted details of an invasive inspection and proposed a crown reduction. User BatiArb had a very contrary opinion and articulated a counter course of action.

 

That set of discussion threads looks spookily similar (in some regards) to the discussion threads in this post..... Except, you seem to have adopted a diametrically opposed position now, to that which you held then. Now if your knowledge and experience have developed to such a degree over the past decade or so that's brilliant, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow a similar 'development' of knowledge and experience to your industry cohorts rather than assuming they haven't got a scooby?

 

I hope that isn't interpreted as having a dig, it's not meant that way. There is a thirst for knowledge out here and your posts in this forum are held in very high regard (certainly by me.)

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

In fact, I could get quite angry about this, just look at the trees stem diameter , take a moment, look again at the photo, look at its height in relation to its stem ???? the owner responsible for commissioning such restrictive pruning works should be ashamed. That tree should probably be 2 to 3 times the height it is now. Thats not a tpo'd tree nor in a CA, such works would never of been permitted . It did once upon a time have great potential, all I see now is a very low quality tree, with LOW amenity value, representing a unacceptable level of risk.

 

Im actualy quite surprised by this staunch viewpoint Jesse, but it is as with all tree matters a matter of opinion.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Here's yesterdays churchyard failure, not great pics but I was rushing to get back for the roast lamb. Very fortunate this one went inwards not outwards over the road and into the houses. Nothing like the amount of fruiting body as in some of the previous pics which are offered as examples of not necessarily needing removal. Each is an individual case of course, but I wouldn't necessarily see it as an industry wide knee jerk reaction - it's the homeowners choice of course. If I lived there (not wanting to get into the "which came first, the house or the tree" debate) I probably wouldn't want that tree in my small, roadside front garden.

 

that wa sin no way due to meripilus, not one iota, it was infected at the instalment of the curbing, and restricted due to same, the root plate is shear force and restricticted root development to one side and i could give you DOZENS of top consultants that would argue the same.

[David Humphries]

Kevin, no offence taken, I value and respect your comments & appreciate the time you have obviously given to create a balanced and researched post.

 

I suspect like the majority of us, I continue to evolve my knowledge with time and experience.

 

Just for the record, I haven't indicated that this tree in this thread should not be removed. That is a decision for PRob to make based on his interaction here and with the tree company he has engaged. Sometimes the time comes when a tree has to be taken down.

 

I'm merely making a generic (personal) observation here of our industry from a perspective of being a tree management officer who has had the privilege

 

1; to have come from a tools background from the since the early nineties

 

2; to continue to get the opportunity to be sent to regular seminars, conferences, p&d work shops and college to be able to keep abreast of past, current and upcoming developments in the strategic, practical and scientific sides of our industry. (Which I try and share here as much as I can)

 

& 3; (for me perhaps the most significant) being a moderator here at Arbtalk which gives me, based on time served looking at thousands and thousands of posts (since the started AT in 2007) a full and depressing view of the thousands of trees that get removed day in day out before their time with (again in my opinion) the easy option which is removal without informed consideration of the bigger picture of national urban tree cover and the benefits we all get from them.

 

If that frustrates or upsets people, then perhaps I haven't been sharing or communicating what I have learnt enough.

 

Must try harder

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Kevin, no offence taken, I value and respect your comments & appreciate the time you have obviously given to create a balanced and researched post.

 

I suspect like the majority of us, I continue to evolve my knowledge with time and experience.

 

Just for the record, I haven't indicated that this tree in this thread should not be removed. That is a decision for PRob to make based on his interaction here and with the tree company he has engaged. Sometimes the time comes when a tree has to be taken down.

 

I'm merely making a generic (personal) observation here of our industry from a perspective of being a tree management officer who has had the privilege

 

1; to have come from a tools background from the since the early nineties

 

2; to continue to get the opportunity to be sent to regular seminars, conferences, p&d work shops and college to be able to keep abreast of past, current and upcoming developments in the strategic, practical and scientific sides of our industry. (Which I try and share here as much as I can)

 

& 3; (for me perhaps the most significant) being a moderator here at Arbtalk which gives me, based on time served looking at thousands and thousands of posts (since the started AT in 2007) a full and depressing view of the thousands of trees that get removed day in day out before their time with (again in my opinion) the easy option which is removal without informed consideration of the bigger picture of national urban tree cover and the benefits we all get from them.

 

If that frustrates or upsets people, then perhaps I haven't been sharing or communicating what I have learnt enough.

 

Must try harder

 

 

.

 

Fine post Mr umphries, couldnt have said it any better, and probably far less diplomaticaly!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

that wa sin no way due to meripilus, not one iota, it was infected at the instalment of the curbing, and restricted due to same, the root plate is shear force and restricticted root development to one side and i could give you DOZENS of top consultants that would argue the same.

 

A bold (misguided) statement....

 

You may have assumed from pic 1 that it is curbing, but pic 3 should have illustrated that it is, in fact, a granite topped retaining wall installed during the major church refurbishment in the early 1800's. I wonder which came first, the tree or the wall?

 

I initially considered wind loading to be the primary cause of failure, it was only after a little thought and consideration of the broader environmental situation that I concluded it was more likely to be a combination of wind (direction), root decay and restricted root plate development.

 

You can take your dozens of top consultants and pick your best, then ask him / her (based upon the pictures provided) to validate your statement "not one iota." Call me when you're ready......

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

I'm merely making a generic (personal) observation here of our industry from a perspective of being a tree management officer who has had the privilege

 

1; to have come from a tools background from the since the early nineties

 

2; to continue to get the opportunity to be sent to regular seminars, conferences, p&d work shops and college to be able to keep abreast of past, current and upcoming developments in the strategic, practical and scientific sides of our industry. (Which I try and share here as much as I can)

 

& 3; (for me perhaps the most significant) being a moderator here at Arbtalk which gives me, based on time served looking at thousands and thousands of posts (since the start of AT in 2007) a full and depressing view of the thousands of trees that get removed day in day out before their time with (again in my opinion) the easy option which is removal without informed consideration of the bigger picture of national urban tree cover and the benefits we all get from them.

 

 

And all worthy of great respect David. I guess the sad reflection is, it's only those of us that try and do their best that would even have felt a small tinge of discomfort with the broad sweep comments that prickled me a little.