Tree Fork Assessment - Dr Duncan Slater

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Ahh...thanks for explaining that guys. I had mistakenly thought that the hypothesis was that the presence of crossing and rubbing limbs was necessary for the formation of codominant forks and not just that their presence results in a weaker fork. Hmm nothing there that will change any actions/recommendations I currently take/make.

[Lancstree]

It's got me thinking about something else. If you have two large trees growing side by side with some natural bracing between them, what does this mean for root formation and therefore stability if one tree was removed?

[Gary Prentice]

Trees put on supportative growth where it's needed ( I believe that the actual gene in plants for this has been identified now), so a high(er) probability that it falls over.

 

Mattheck highlighted this a number of years ago with, I think, a drawing with a wall or a pile of sand.

[David Humphries]

"Bark inclusion failure with evidence of natural bracing"

 

This below has been published by Duncan a couple of days ago (post recent seminars) and includes images of a failed bark included junction that he saw earlier this week, in a Norway maple.

 

He does appear to suggest in the first paragraph that "natural braces in trees ...........cause the formation of bark-included junctions"

 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bark-inclusion-failure-evidence-natural-bracing-duncan-slater?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-network_publishes-69-null&midToken=AQHVWCyiSSmb5w&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=1cPIbVW3BXHTo1

 

 

Not entirely sure if the link will work for people not signed on to LinkedIn

 

 

 

.

[sean]

"Bark inclusion failure with evidence of natural bracing"

 

This below has been published by Duncan a couple of days ago (post recent seminars) and includes images of a failed bark included junction that he saw earlier this week, in a Norway maple.

 

He does appear to suggest in the first paragraph that "natural braces in trees ...........cause the formation of bark-included junctions"

 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bark-inclusion-failure-evidence-natural-bracing-duncan-slater?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-network_publishes-69-null&midToken=AQHVWCyiSSmb5w&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=1cPIbVW3BXHTo1

 

 

Not entirely sure if the link will work for people not signed on to LinkedIn

 

 

 

.

 

It works and is very interesting. Thanks

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Thanks David.

[scotspine1]

"Bark inclusion failure with evidence of natural bracing"

 

This below has been published by Duncan a couple of days ago (post recent seminars) and includes images of a failed bark included junction that he saw earlier this week, in a Norway maple.

 

He does appear to suggest in the first paragraph that "natural braces in trees ...........cause the formation of bark-included junctions"

 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bark-inclusion-failure-evidence-natural-bracing-duncan-slater?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-network_publishes-69-null&midToken=AQHVWCyiSSmb5w&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=1cPIbVW3BXHTo1

 

 

Not entirely sure if the link will work for people not signed on to LinkedIn

 

 

The problem with his theory is that we've all seen huge included bark unions on mature Beech with no crossing or rubbing branches above the union between the two stems at all. So with this in mind....if you follow Duncan's theory to it's logical conclusion it means at some point in the very early stages of the Beech tree's life the 'natural brace' he talks of will have formed......then it will have created the included bark union, then the two branches that created the 'natural brace' will have died..... yet we see the remaining included bark union created by the 'natural brace' has not failed? so when we look at the mature Beech in question with it's huge included bark union and see there are absolutely no crossing or rubbing branches visible above the union between the two stems we have to ask ourselves - is his theory correct?

 

One thing I have observed in trees is hazard beam or shear failures along branches with a normal U shaped union where they meet the trunk but I've never seen a hazard beam on a branch or stem that has an included bark union because in most cases the high winds will cause it to fail at the fork due to it's comparative structural weakness.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 8, 2016 by David Humphries

[treeseer]

A classic case of confusing, or at least conflating, correlation and causation.

 

Also when 'natural bracing' is defined as everything from grafting, inoculation, constant contact, or occasional contact, the theory gets a little fuzzy to my eyes.

 

But I do enjoy having those eyes guided to these tree phenomena.

[Darrin Turnbull]

Haven’t read everything.

but maybe Beech are the exception.

they don’t have the dead bark that most trees have

only sometimes at the bottom trunk.