Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Tree Fork Assessment - Dr Duncan Slater


stevelucocq
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

"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

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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 by David Humphries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

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.

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

×
×
  • 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.