Amelanchier

You'll need to be familiar with VTA to pass the LANTRA award and although you can undertake some aspects of QTRA without it, you'll need that knowledge to make it worthwhile in an arboricultural sense. I would err in favour of the LANTRA for a starter because its assessed and demonstrates a wider understanding although we're kind of comparing apples with pears...

Not necessarily. Think of it as a rough calculator.

Its not about trust at all. A works spec for a group of trees is a tiny part of the equation - it can be based on many different factors, not just what the contractor sees when he gets on site. Given the title and original query - It's worth noting that whether you agree with the spec or not, deviating from it because you know better puts the focus on your professional opinion. So perhaps you need professional indemnity insurance? My reports state that if works are undertaken that are different from my spec that I haven't agreed in writing - you're on your own. Too little or too much, not my problem anymore. I'm not liable for someone elses judgement. Had a client a while back now instruct a contractor to undertake the high priority works spec from an estate wide hazard assessment. Contractor (who will remain nameless) undertook the works and the climbed inspections. He then decided that two more trees needed to be felled as a result. It was required by the report that the results of the climbed inspections needed to come back to me for consideration before agreeing further works. They didn't. Two Beech were felled. A week or so later, the exposed Pines behind started binning limbs onto the outbuildings below and I recieve a snotty letter. You can guess the rest. :yawn: In the end, I lost the client but I later heard the contractor lost a bit more. His call, not mine. Now I suppose most people on here would have picked up on those Pines but no one was in the position I was in when I was writing a spec after inspecting all the trees / discussing the zoning and usage / replanting options / budget constraints / conservation angles etc. Most times the contractor just hasn't got the same information. And I say this as an ex-contractor who used to laugh at bad specs just as much as the next man!

Oh and just to add, its likely that only the phloem has been damaged, some of the xylem might still be functioning so the foliage may still be recieving water from the roots. However, as the roots metabolise their energy reserves below the wound they won't be getting any back from up top.

Young trees are nearly 100% dynamic mass - i.e., all the tissue either side of the girdling is capable of storing energy. Its just running off that. I know a young Liriodendron near me that suffered a similar fate and looked fine til failing to bud fully in year three. Shame.

Having written reports for a number of contractors over the years, I've found the ones who were certain to do any work specified made the most fuss about the contents of the specifications. I generally favour a light touch and a rigourous re-inspection regime, especially on sites that haven't been touched for years - no point blowing the clients budget for the next 5 years in year 1. That way, more funds are available for replanting. This means (depending on the brief), I generally don't spec anything that isn't essential 'cos even if you give it a low priority, I've found that most clients will aim to complete all tree works out of sheer fear of negligence no matter how well you word the report. So an extra 50cm crown lift over this and pruning that back from the building, balancing that up and formative pruning this etc - forgetaboutit, pick it up next year and get some trees in the ground. As a result, I've had contractors add minor faff works to a Tree Hazard Risk Assessment report in a covering letter or appendix because they considered the recommendations to be too light in terms of generating work from a site/client. Yeah, that probably doesn't look like desperation at all...

I looked at this report recently for other reasons but it does cover some of the right ground. IIRC it doesn't give a carbon volume measurement (i.e., cubic metres etc) however it does give a monetary value which might be of use. I find people tend to grasp financial terms better! Table 18 gives a figure of a non FC broadleaf woodland sequesting £2280 worth of "social carbon" per hectare! I presume that is per annum. carbonseqrep0603.pdf

I got it from my fevered and inebriated mind! I noted the texture of the bark which is consistent with damage from Cryptococcus fagisuga on Beech. However, the resulting lines of symptomatic corky growth are exclusively vertical (normally on the main stem) and when added to the fact that your fruiting bodies were perpendicular (looked to be dangling!) to the host lead me to assume that the bit of tree we were looking had failed. Cryptococcus fagisuga is also noted for being the vector for Nectria coccinea var. faginata in Beech Bark Disease, which can lead to the failure of affected parts. At this point I had another ale and lost all logical progression because I seemed to make the leap to assuming N. coccinea must be the fruiting body - because it too has orange fruiting bodies! Doh. Quite aside from the fact that N. coccinea creates patches of dead bark as part of its life cycle and never produces sporophores such as those, as you have pointed out, Strout's and Winter identify it as something else entirely! I then recalled that I had seen this before, years ago (before phone cameras were little more than camera obscuras) - see below. I remember IDing it satisfactorily then, presumably via Strouts & Winter! Double Doh! It would seem that Beech Bark disease is still a possibility given your subsequent pictures? The dark area i'm not sure about, perhaps a symptomatic lesion? I'm not sure Libertella faginea is the asexual stage of Bulgaria inquinans though! The former seem to fruit on the underside of fallen timber whereas the latter are (from memory) seen on the upperside. If you think of the "holes" you mention above (probably the lenticels?), its not surprising that two organisms use the same exit point - thats where the oxygen is. Interesting though.

Air brick + suspended floor + floor vent = Top draw Victorian design.

Its big. Good PPE. Good grip. Superior design?

With regard to work positioning/tearing/kickback - I kinda think we should expect the climber/contracter to quote accordingly. Which is why its essential to spec precisely! The benefit of a tight spec is that the client won't have to pay for a bart simpson. If the spec is tied into a planning/top condition then the works can be enforced, but only if the detail supports it. Speccing experience is hard to qualify - when are you experienced???

Nectria coccinea var. faginata most likely colonised by Cryptococcus fagisuga; subsequently triggered to fruit by local cavitation and displaying gravitropism.

's cool. I speak fluent drunk... I want to make some sense but I just got back from the pub: I think we have all been cooped up too long with the snow and all. Respect to Hamadryad. Anyone else got any pics they want to post?

Just a thought based on another current thread. Anyone produced a detailed specification for coronet cuts? I wonder if its possible? Perhaps As part of the specified reduction, all branches over 150mm should be cut using the coronet technique. This will involve the creation of stubs before the normal target pruning points at approx three to five times their basal diameter. Subsequently, one or more long angled cuts will be used to achieve a fracture profile that will extend for a minimum of two thirds of the length of the stub. In order to enhance the formation of adventitious buds, the profile must then be cut so as to include jagged ends providing a large surface area of wounded tissue. In achieving this the smaller the cuts, the less frequently it will be used to ensure an aesthetic balance. Natural fracture pruning is a bit harder I think. Some trees you want to reduce severely but in an 'natural' way - but without comprimising brach protection zones. Ones that aren't so valuable/visible you can let them tear/break anywhere. Anyway, I'm interested in whether the 'art' could be specified to the point where it can be understood and implemented by an average arb ('cos we all know dumbass space cadets that can get any spec wrong regardless of simplicity). I'm also trying to spec out the Bart Simpson/meat tenderiser cut. So add, subtract, rewrite, dismiss, mock, derail, rerail etc.

Quite. If your the relevant manager at Reading Council who's probably read all the guidance from the DCLG like Trees In Towns 2 and the England Strategy for Trees, Woodlands and Forests emphasising the benefits of writing a tree strategy you might well think "why did I bother" when the media and commentators slate you for your efforts. No - management: "Aren't the council useless..." Reactive management: "They're just fire fighting, no organisation..." Proactive managament & Tree Strategy: "They're gonna fell loads of trees... possibly" No wonder LPAs don't bother - one slatings the same as another so you might as well take the easy one.

Invest in the warm gear - don't scrimp on your comfort. Also warm legs = warm feet. A kick ass set of helly hanson pro-wool or merino longjohns and you're winning (at being warm, not at being cool). You loose heat at you knees 'cos your central heating - blood vessels - have to travel close to the surface over the bone. Add the proper socks, and take a change of boots with you, (leave some walking boots in the truck for the clear up) and your winning. Remember, insulation works both ways - warm your feet up when you have a break by taking your boots/socks off. Its a faff - but it beats being macho or putting up with it.

Draft tree strategy! Most strategies will propose the aim of undertaking an assessment and survey of the existing stock and proposing future management options. Sounds to me like this is the first time its being done - proactive & best practice right? The removals are estimated at this stage, because they haven't done the survey - becuase the committee hasn't agreed the strategy document yet! Damned if they do and damned if they don't IMO.

The Portal is a bit too complicated I'll agree but the form is simple enough for 90% of joe public - it should be a breeze for a profession tree worker. but 2 maps? What are you applying for? You need all the info because of the amended appeals procedure - you can't add anything after the application. Therefore you need to include it in the app. If you thik you have provided sufficient info to determine the application and the LPA disagrees, you can wait the 8 weeks out and appeal for non-determination... But it isn't a just a tree - its a Protected tree. Rightly or wrongly, it has a special status. Hence the paperwork. Maybe the branch shouldn't come off! I don't think it does. IME most people deal with it without any hassle. Over an average 6 month period with approx 150 S211 notifications/TPO apps I think I sent about 25 invalid apps back, at least 10 of those went back to contractors. Some of those even went back to the same contractors, a few times.

Best plan. You won't necessarily get to find out what's covered (the LPA may simply consent to all works) but you'll definatley know what consent you have. Also if you disagree with the decision, you can appeal it (although I guess it might not be in the inspector remit to judge the extent of the order - i'd have to check).

I was unclear in my previous post - the black box I was alluding to was the bit in between obtaining the thermal image and drawing the conclusion (as indicated in part by arb culture above). Which thankfully you have clarified in your subsequent responses. I still have some issues but I think on balance - I will await these future publications. Thank you for the offer of the loan, I may take you up one that when the tax/report/coursework backlog dies down! I wonder if you could post your Turin paper?

I appreciate that - but can you see how the presentation and marketing of the product has overtaken the literature? To the point where the publications are being produced after the fact?! I have attached an article by AC which is representative of how many in the industry first came to learn of the technology. I quote [my emphasis in bold]: "Back in the dark ages of human medicine, doctors amputated limbs without pain relief and treated people using leaches [sic]". "The parallels to medical research and development are numerous, with both accompanied by their fair share of scepticism, frequently fuelled by those who have a vested interest in techniques and technologies that are about to be superseded." "However, for those prepared to embrace new ideas there is the opportunity to explore..." And I'm well aware that this is a frequently used method to elevate a USP but I consider it has compounded the scepticism felt by many. When will this be out? I still maintain that the claims made in the past (how long has this been around on market - 2/3 years?) overreached the available research. I'm sure the citations are impeccable - people just want a peek in the box to see how it all works. At the moment its very 'Paul Daniels'. ThermalRevolution.pdf

You could write a review for the 'talk...

So you can load two (three?) anchors evenly? I saw those on Nod's stand at the trade fair - never remembered to ask...

Now how hard was that? As a result I found this paper (attached) via google by MBT. Which lists more, and one would suspect comprehensive, citations to support TI. Why not just post this and be done with it Marcus? In examinining it we can see that the above sources with the exception of Catena 2007 (or 2008 if you look at the actual journal!) None actually contain reference to the applications of TI in examining trees - they support the theory, but the sole author of supporting research on application is Catena. Now on further examination, it becomes apparent why - the claims of TI/TTMS is based upon original as yet unpublished research by MBT. The penny drops! Yet there is no problem with this IMO in terms of intellectual honesty (someone has to be first) and I wonder why it hasn't been simply stated before? Time after time - when pushed, the response to requests for evidence has been that the literature supports the application and utility of the technique. It doesn't at the moment. I suggest that my orginal charge still stands - that the claims overreach the current research and have done for some time now! The key to me seems to be the replication of results. I look forward to the publication of the data because despite my criticism I can see the future application being valuable. I think the thing that put people on the defensive from the first instance was the language used in the marketing, 'dark ages' / 'doctors with leeches' etc. Basically, "Our tech is cutting edge and if you don't agree, you don't understand - ergo; you are less capable than our users who are enlightened souls doing proper tree management." We do understand and we are still sceptical. Thermal Imaging of Trees[1].pdf

Er. 'scuse me guys. Can you see my posts? Shall I do them in False Thermo Colours for you? I have asked for references/citations for supporting publications twice now. So has another member. MBT, you've mentioned that Giorgio's work is 3 years old - where can I find the most recent work? Or is it the case that that 2008 citation is still the most recent?If that is the case, then I suggest that the claims of TI are not currently supported by the literature.If not then please furnish us with the citations! Chapter and verse. We're big enough to handle it.I find it amazing that it has been suggested by AC that we go and review the past 90 years of research ourselves - why on earth should we?You make the claim, you support it!So please, stop repeating the beginning of the story (how the theory works) and the end (lots of people use it) - give us access to the reams and reams of evidence which you say is out there.