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!

[benedmonds]

I would love to see a direct reference to the Lonsdale statement you mention,

 

Page 121 THA and M. By the time that large fruit bodies of M. giganteus appear, especially on F. Sylvatica, it is likely that a high chance of windthrow exists... M. giganteus is one of the most dangerous decay fungi to be found on F. sylvatica.

 

As I said things have moved on, but the tree in the OP is not an amazing specimen and the risk/cost required to retain the tree is probably not worth it IMO.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Page 121 THA and M. By the time that large fruit bodies of M. giganteus appear, especially on F. Sylvatica, it is likely that a high chance of windthrow exists... M. giganteus is one of the most dangerous decay fungi to be found on F. sylvatica.

 

As I said things have moved on, but the tree in the OP is not an amazing specimen and the risk/cost required to retain the tree is probably not worth it IMO.

 

on the contrary, its been canopy managed before, nothing more needed most likely (subject to survey)

[Marula]

It has had multiple crown reductions, its roadside and has M G. Is there really a case to debate whether this should be kept?

[benedmonds]

on the contrary, its been canopy managed before, nothing more needed most likely (subject to survey)

 

Definitely an option, as long as the tree owner is willing to pay regular survey and pruning costs. Another cheaper/lower risk option is to fell and replant.

[PRob]

Just out of interest PRob, where are you in relation to the storm that the UK has just been subjected to?

 

 

.

I am in surrey in Long Ditton just south of Kingston. The house faces SW at the front so the beech gets the brunt of the prevailing winds. We had no damage to it in the storm at the beginning if the week.

[Jesse]

A consultant is just going to cost extra. I know things have moved on a bit since londsdale recommended felling whenever you saw merip on beech, but it is a heavily reduced beech on the roadside, its days are numbered... IMO.

 

You are spot on, I consult for a living , and on this tree and Merip so close to the road its very clear advice I would be giving, section fell and replace with another tree.

[Jesse]

You are spot on, I consult for a living , and on this tree and Merip so close to the road its very clear advice I would be giving, section fell and replace with another tree.

 

And if anyone is going to start screaming at me, think about this, its also previously had no consideration given to its well being , its previously been topped, pruning wounds have probably provided the entry points for the Pathogen, Merip its amenity value is in terms of a Beech tree as it is, is worthless . So thats it, take it down.

[Jesse]

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.

[ChrisG]

Merip G

High risk target area,

Poor management history,

Tree of low value = remove and replace.

 

IMO retention of tree, subsequent surveys, management, risks involved are far to costly and high risk when you could remove and replant with a nicer looking, safe specimen.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I took a call from the Vicar yesterday, mature Beech, roadside raised position, failed. Very fortunately, into church yard not across road and into opposite houses. TPOd as in churchyard, LA survey program. Will take better pics today and post later. Merip on stem, this very recent failure might add current "physical example" to the debate above. Based only on the info / opinions available above, I'm feeling like I'd sit in the "remove" camp.

 

Related, but slightly tangential, a closed churchyard, trees under LA survey program, TPO'd, large tree fails. Who bears responsibility for cost of remedial work: Church council or LA? I have to confirm with LA on Monday but appreciate any input to inform the discussion.