Amelanchier

I would ask for clarification as to why you area being inviting in for interview. A formal interview will be undertaken under caution and probably be recorded - they can be fairly intimidating even if you haven't done anything wrong. Whilst I'd agree that based on your scenario, they may just be after a simple statement of facts, there is the very real possibility that you may need professional legal advice if they decide that you have committed an offence (or if they want you to provide a witness statement). Asking might give you a valuable heads up. You may even be able to ask them to submit written questions to you under caution which can be less stressful than hearing the click of the tape machine starting up...

I would make a nice little sign up saying; "This space is reserved for a tree despite re-occuring vandalism by a hateful vapid fool. The CoL will replant this space every decade in the safe knowledge that one day the vandal will be dead. The landscape will tolerate the minor delay of one worthless lifetime."

I read the summary and the conclusion (if it could be called a conclusion ) and skimmed the rest. Life is too short sometimes... The idea that our knowledge is limited by our anatomy, environment and history is nothing new. Most full time degree courses (well BSc at least) begin with an analysis of epistemology and ontology. Essentially an examination of how we know what we know and the nature (and indeed limits) of our knowledge. The work you have presented doesn't even begin dent that collosal and extensive foundation. Even the idea that everything flows from one form to another is enshrined in the law of the conservation of energy (which cannot be created nor destroyed) and even explicitly stated by Heraclitus two and a half thousand years ago. I think he has dibs. Think a bit wider Tony. Be more... receptive.

Convince me regarding what? The need for 'inclusionality' when explaining the intricacies of ecological systems? No dice I'm afraid. There is a general rule of thumb that I would advise you to apply - colloquially known as Ockhams Razor. Broadly speaking: it is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer. If two theories explain the phenomena equally well - choose the simplest. The extra detail cannot usefully contribute to the explanation. Quite simply, I don't find that 'inclusionality' explains anything that isn't already explained or that it adds anything to my understanding. It is therefore parsimoniously relegated to the bin. Incidentally, I applied the same process (before I knew what it was) to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis (note his use of the tentative) when reading it at school. The concept of holistic feedback within a closed system is useful and informative but not (to my mind) groundbreaking or revolutionary but the premise that the planet acts as an organism bettering its own environment doesn't add anything tangible to the mix. Bin. I would note finally that Butin clearly does not feel the need to justify or support these quoted assertions by adding another layer of overarching theory to his work. He doesn't need to; after all, it is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer...

Incidentally, I was being broadly supportive of your cause. I just hid it well.

Ah, you know what I mean. I only write half this stuff to see if I can...

I don't think the wave metaphor helps. I'm also not keen on the appropriation of Newtonian physics (i.e., the much abused third law of motion - for which I personally blame the Matrix trilogy). Whilst it can be said that there is an opposite force to evolution, namely Hama's old friend entropy, it is certainly not equal. Entropy is inevitable and ultimately irreversible - evolution (a.k.a. self-organisation) isn't. Life is the clear underdog and the wise bookies know it. We should also mind Sean's previous warning in another post to steer clear of teleology; species can't bide their time, they have no goal. That said, I'm sure you were merely illustrating an analogy. Whether a versitile organism can be truly pathogenic depends on the proliferation of its host/s. Typically, although parasites (which incidentally happen to be gloriously elegant arguements for the absence of a benevolent deity) exhibit neccessarily more complicated reproductive systems than their hosts, patterns of their population development are often no more convoluted than the simple staggered curves of a regular predator prey relationship. Even though they obviously refrain the indignity of manually rending their target limb from bloody limb and gorging hungrily on their steaming entrails. As far as the quest for rebranding fungi goes, I would suggest that the terms of 'parasitic' and 'saprotrophic' are no more definate than the terms 'red' and 'green'. Mere human (western?) labels to identify points within a spectrum of activity. At what point does red become orange? Where is the line between benefit and exploitation? I think you're aiming to much criticism at words rather than the concept (those windmills are not giants). Much better that we acknowledge that we can't define such things than we try to sanctify fungi. In any case, I've always preferred ants.

Nah - its just an elegant example of C. P. Snow's Two Cultures. You have journalists with arts educations writing about the work of scientists with science educations and fundamentally misunderstanding/misrepresenting the process. Chinese whispers writ large.

Ho ho ho.

That was the most positive and festive thing I could think of.

Another ludricrously naive chain email bourne of little more than half cut pub banter.

Its always worth taking it further. Pretty much the whole mechanism expects you to if you have a real issue! First step - make an objection within the 28 day window. The LPA are minded to discuss your reasons for doing so before they can make the Order permanent (confirm it). They will often defer the decision to a panel of councillors. Secondly, put an application together to fell the tree supported by the evidence that you have. Logically the LPA will refuse it and you can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. This will save you valuable time in the long run should the TPO be confirmed. With some LPAs you may even get a decision from the application appeal before the TPO objection is heard!

I wasn't indicating that you (or the contractor in the scenario) had done anything stupid, merely outlining the objective position of the law and its precedents. If they've made a written commitment to you as the notifier then I would expect them to fulfil it. I'd suggest that would be a strong part of a reasonable defence of your position. Whether the situation is morally wrong (or out of order) is a different issue - the game is certainly rigged in favour of the LPA. Is it frustrating? Does that advantage get abused? Can the admin errors of a LPA result in serious consequences for the individual? Yes, but you asked! At the risk of outraging you further - I can imagine the contactor in your original scenario being asked before the bench; "So before you put the felling cuts in, why didn't you just call the department to see if there had been any change in the trees protection?". I know the answer ('cos I didn't want to spend a hour of my life on hold or wait for the TO to come back off leave, etc), but it would be a tricky situation to be in and even harder to justify under that pressure. An Order might have been served for a completely seperate reason...

Is this one of those "Doctor, my friend has a strange growth..." situations? Well, the client has alomost certainly committed an offence in allowing the contractor to fell the protected tree. He/she was in possession of all the facts and deliberately or negligently "caused or permitted" the work to continue - not good for him/her. However, not knowing about the TPO is no defence I'm afraid (the law expects a people to check these things for precisely this reason) - therefore it appears an offence has been committed by the contractor also. There's no requirement for the LPA to serve/inform an interested contractor with details of the TPO, whilst you might expect it as good practice the requirements extend only to owners and occupiers. The rest depends on a whole bunch of stuff like the value of the tree, the contractors relationships with the client and the TO, the attitude of the LPA enforcement/legal dept, the money available for representation, willingness of either party to accept cautions or the side of the bed the magistrate got up on.

Radio 4 / Radio 6 (DAB) all day whenever possible. Tend to start with 4 and then switch over to 6 at some point mid morning. Back to 4 for 'PM' then back to 6 before the bloody Archers. Still have a TV but only watch recorded programs/downloads (ssshhh). Watch a fair bit of Iplayer as well.

Reminds me of the thought experiment where; "A and B want to kill C. A poisons C but just before the poison finishes its job, B shoots C in the head. Who has killed C?" Usually assumed to be B because it was his actions that interrupted the causal chain which would have lead to A being the killer. So even if we twist it to be more representative; "A and B plan to rob C of his hard earned savings [energy]. A's strategy is to poison C and take his savings while he can no longer effectively defend himself. Meanwhile B rocks up and promptly shoots the weakened defenseless C in the head, making the theft much easier. Who has killed C?" Answers on a postcard...

Coastal Norfolk wouldn't look the same without it - its an essential component of the character of places like Holkham. Consequently I spec it a fair bit. However, in different ecosystems it can dominate and supress other, rarer, species. Defra had planned to add it (and Turkey Oak) to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - making it an offence to "...cause it to grow in the wild." Which would have been a problem...

You're probably already doing the best thing, reading as many papers written in a formal academic style as you can. The common themes are that they are written in the third person, they avoid unfounded certainties and they use short structural sentences and paragraphs. I find that there is a considerable cross over from a formal tree report style.

You're well positioned for links with a number of Universities, but I guess its all down to the research grant...

Interesting thread Tony (you not me) and much to discuss. I think its generally recognised now that there is a spectrum of saprotrophism/parasitism within fungal/tree relationships but I wonder how confident we can be that a relationship is 'beneficial' to the host? How would you define benefit - increased longevity/reproductive capacity/resistance to other decay organisms? Could you expand on the Ash/Inonotus example?

Are you talking to me or to yourself? Only yanking your chain (as per). As soon as I saw the article I knew what your response would be. Some might say that's why I posted it... Baby steps - much more lab work to be done. As the paper says, the precise mechanism of communication hasn't been identified yet. Besides, it isn't tricky to take lab work out into the field, it happens everyday - the radio told me this morning that a chap has just had some stem cells crammed into his brain. It does however, take time and money. From theory to lab to field to wider application, someone has to pay (in this case the agricultural industry?). Its certainly tricky for us at the end of the chain to see the whole picture and science tends towards achingly slow incrementalism (baby steps). Revolutions are few and far between, much to media disappointment. As for tips - I heard Kuhnian paradigm in the four fifty at Catterick is a sure thing.

Probably. But instead of dropping acid and painting whack pictures someone has actually gone and done some proper research into it. Now its actually factual rather than wishful thinking - I wonder who we have to thank for that eh?

Fungal threads are the internet of the plant world - life - 12 November 2010 - New Scientist Perhaps we should be encouraging interconnectivity of root zones?!? Linking corridors of healthy soil between isolated trees to allow communication? Preventing the severance of existing relationships so that sick trees can help the healthy ones? After all, trees are gregarious by nature... Jumping the gun considerably but maybe this is one for our resident experimenter Mr Humphries?

The extent of actual mechanical damage by Airspade has not been rigorously examined - there are few papers out there that actually look to examine the impact of the procedure. What little there is seems to suggest (unsurprisingly?) that damage is species specific depending on root anantomy. For example; Kosola, K, B. A. A. Workmaster, J. S. Busse and J. H. Gillman. 2007. Sampling damage to tree fine roots: Comparing air excavation and hydropneumatic elutriation. 2007. HortScience 42(3): 728-731. Who find (taken from the abstract with my empahsis); "Root damage was primarily due to loss of root tips. Although species varied in their susceptibility to root damage and whether air excavation caused more damage than elutriation, root diameter was not a good predictor of damage during sampling. Air excavation caused ≈26% greater damage to root samples of river birch and western redcedar than did elutriation. Both sampling methods caused equivalent root damage in all other species. Root anatomy influenced susceptibility to damage during sampling. Epifluorescence microscopy revealed a root hypodermis in all species except Amur corktree and western redcedar. Without the mechanical support of this suberized layer, the cortex of Amur corktree was easily stripped from the stele, leading to extensive damage by both sampling methods." So lay off the airspade decompaction on the Thuja?

Thanks for the reminder Huck! 3. - (6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record— (a)the significant findings of the assessment; and. (b)any group of his employees identified by it as being especially at risk. I don't really want to go over old ground here on a Sunday morning but I've often wondered how you prove you've undertaken and communicated a verbal RA (and prove it covered the right areas)?