Amelanchier

Why would it be unsafe to use in a work environment but then good to go in an emergency? Someones having a laugh mate!

Great shot! Heres a duff phone cam shot of the instar stage I saved from the chipper many moons ago. See the spots? He's been eating willow not pop!

And 6 months after publication, neither will yours be... Given the increasing availability of mobile internet - an ever updating modern reference system will be web based. Not in a wipe clean ring binder. Indeed, Web 2.0 functionality allows you to post you images (regardless of condition etc) and have feedback and explore significance directly. Perhaps something like Arbtalk? Nope, that's because those lists change. Not too many significant decay fungi in those list last time I checked... And how on earth would you suggest readers assess the mycorrhizae associations from fruiting bodies - or lack of them? Esp. in a group of trees?

Brave? I hadn't forgotton that I said I would find out whether this can/should be done with QTRA. I suspect the paradox results from scaling up cumulative risks with a theoretical constant target - something that doesn't reflect reality. Once you've calculated a sites target rating, any combination of the other factors that falls under the threshold are acceptable. Once you drop the premise of a constant target, all kinds of things are acceptable! So the answer is - you just don't need to add the risks together because once you've passed the threshold you act to bring the risk down.

I don't think there is a massive void in the market Tony. There are just a handful of genera that are actually significant on trees in the UK - and they are well catered for in the literature.

Or the dead ones - Nevergreens.

I'd say uncommon round here but not rare. Check the pics of the basal holes. Hornet Moth Sesia apiformis - UKMoths

Laothoe populi Sesia apiformis

Forgot what I meant to post! - It won't be Poplar Hawk Moth (Laothoe populi) as their lifecycle occurs on the foliage and in the soil, not in the timber. What you probably have is Hornet Moth aka Hornet Clearwing (Sesia apiformis).

I'm no expert either, but I'm inclined to agree. Brown tailed moth (Euproctis chrysorrhoea) tends to prefer hawthorn round these parts so on the balance of probability I'd go with your orignal diagnosis Matty. Ever seen one up close? Fantastic looking things.

Aaahhh - the all encompassing glory of vagueness. TPO surveys ruined my ident skills... T1 Oak T2 Pine T3 Tree T4 Not a Tree T5 Hedge T6 Badger T7 Pub

Like those above, I can't see anything to mark it out from Populus x canadensis.

Greetings Giorgio, I guess that was me? Yet it was the 2008 article I referred to... My point was to highlight the disparity between the published literature and the pre-existing claims. I'm well aware that research is often ahead of the literature - this is to be expected. The problem arises when the pubicity and hype bypasses the review and scrutiny.

Thank you for posting Marcus. It appears we asked and you have given - commendable. I haven't had time to have a detailed look so wouldn't want to misrepresent my responses.

Is it not self evident that you should have that capability before lighting the fire?!? Otherwise your getting pretty close to my new offence of "Arson by moronic negligence"! Incidentally, Mynors notes that criminal damage to trees by fire is Arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and as such carries a possible life sentence...

Insulation tape and a normal knife! The hot knife/heat seal method is fine for short cordage but can keep the milk in a longer line. Insulation tape doesn't grab the core so it all just falls off the end.

Odd. TPO conditions have to meet the same tests as planning conditions i.e., necessary relevant enforceable precise reasonable IMO a condition stating "no burning of arisings on site" would only be necessary if there was a risk of damaging the tree from a fire. This would only be relevant to pre 1975 Orders as there is the offence of causing wilful damage in subsequent legislation which makes the condition redundant. (Theres no need to condition the law - its the law!) So it might be argued that if you breached such a condition (and caused damage), the works you have undertaken will be not have been consented to, thereby creating a proxy wilful damage offence?!? Anyway, whats this "controlled burn" stuff about. Is it necessary to distinguish from any uncontrolled burns you might have on site?!?!

I'd go so far as to suggest that everything is a result of a sequence of events. There's even a flash term for it - causation. Hmmm perhaps. I wish you luck with your research but I can't help thinking you're solving a problem that doesn't exist...

How many people really end up with a double spliced rope and a baggy milky middle and continue to climb on it? And of that tiny and frankly odd minority, how many people descend all the way to the end of that rope, smacking all that milk up to the crossover of their other splice - and then manage to use the other end in such a way as to leave that milk there before loading it?!?

The Jane lanyard is by Petzl - I 'm not sure how dynamic it is but it is intended to be used with a shock absorber so perhaps not much...

This is of course presuming conventional textile bracing cordage without shockabsorbers. Stick some stretch in the system and it might be a runner... Edit: Nah changed my mind, - even with shockabsorbers to reduce peak loads and an average 10% cordage stretch, it's still a bad idea.

Yep. The closer the two attachment points on the target limb the less of a moment is generated around the pivot for a given force. However, is this a good way for a limb to be moving? I don't think so. With a well spread out system (which I presume was the intention) the forces generated at point C could lead to failure. Which, I'd suggest, is not the point of bracing the tree...

As below Where does the extra rope come from to allow movement?

We've seen these before somewhere on a thread by Bundle2. I appreciate the design aims but doubt the Y and Z rig systems are effective. The Y seems intended to distribute the energy created by the roll of the limb? You could achieve this with less equipment by bracing before the union... I can't see the Z rig functioning at all. It creates a pivot central to the sytem which acts on the limbs between points A & C (or B & D), problem is - the limb is attached to the tree and can't rotate around that axis. Pointless IMO.

I don't see why anyone should be writing a spec that just includes a percentage without explaining it. It takes seconds to describe works accurately - I suspect people either; can't be bothered, don't know what they're doing or expect to get the work, Honestly, if you're going to use a percentage - state what it's a percentage of! Otherwise you might as well say "cut off not too much and not too little." I use the metres from the outer limit of the crown method and often specify a maximum cut diameter as well. Of course, I'm not going to climb the tree with a set of callipers but it communicates my expectations. Everyone can be on the same page. I've often thought we should spec what's going to be left of the tree rather than whats coming off. The cut diameter is part of that but maybe something like; Undertake a crown reduction by the removal of no more than 2m of the outermost canopy back to suitable secondary growth points, leaving minimum crown dimensions of 8m radial spread and 18m overall height at any one point. Resulting pruning cuts must not exceed 150mm in diameter. That took 20 odd seconds to write, its not hard. Just a tiny bit more effort (more so on large numbers of trees!) I know people like a flexible spec so they can make their own judgements when climbing and react to the pruning points - fair enough, there is room for leeway but it fundamentally ties down what the hell is going to happen to the tree.