Amelanchier

What he said - the cross on the abdomen is the clue.

er yep, leave your copy of bs3998 at home! it was NWT Dave if I remember right - quite a few RDB species including some crane flies and a slug - Mallocolimax? I'm gonna have to look it up now!!

I used to volunteer at Felbrigg when I started in the industry - the guys there have a really good approach, very minimal intervention (in certain places). At times its a little too focused on the habitat for an arb to stand (a few 50% beech reductions here and there) but the invert surveys back up the theory. Nice pics everyone!

Well simply nothing more than rehauling /streamlining the whole thing! Peter Annet gave us a speed briefing at the conference - essentially: The Planning Act 2008 will come into force once new 2010 regulations are finalised which will amend the TCPA 1990 by stripping out all the sections relating to TPOs so that they can be encompassed in the new regs. S201 will be removed - 'cos its pointless and all TPOs will be provisional (just as they are now but without the need to quote s201!) 'Dying' will be removed as an exemption (A certain Mr Mynors was encouraging us all yesterday at Barchams to push to have the word 'nuisance' removed also!) No more Article 5 certs New TPOs will consist of a map and a schedule (no pages of legal waffle). All existing Orders will fall under the new Regs retrospectively (they will all be equal in terms of offences duties etc) A new blue book will be published (so you don't have to have one like mine with bits crossed out and paper stapled in it!) If I've missed anything, I apologise - why is that your days off are you busiest days!

As I've been reminded on another thread about upcoming consultations I'd thought I'd let people know that the DCLG will be issuing a consult on the proposed changes to the TPO regulations. Also the BSI will be looking to put BS5837 through the process too. Oh and the National Tree Safety Group will be releasing their findings soon ('cept I can't remember when some time early 2010 - i'll update when I check my notes).

Thanks for this Andy. It was mentioned at the AA conference but I didn't get a chance to write any of that up yet. I'd suggest that people make their opinions known at this time - there's no point complaining to each other on this forum or down the pub if you can't be arsed to tell the people who run the scheme!

I don't know about that Andrew. We only have to look back through the pic on this thread to see Oak and Plane self graft (or inosculate if we want the botanical term), not typically know for their propensity for limb failure. I see this as an oppourtunistic adaptation that is expressed more in longer lived species by virtue of probability. There is a concept in evolutionary biology - exaptation, used to describe the selection of a side effect of a trait which alters the functions (and usually the expressed form) of that trait. It's a more successful strategy to fuse the tissues together of two competitive branches than to have one 'win' at the expense of the other. Why not keep both if you can? Trees that inosculate easily would also have a structural advantage - increasing their longevity and subsequently their frequency in the population and their reproductive output. I'd agree that we should reconsider the removal of crossing branches. I've never thought it necessary. Let the tree decide what it needs and it will kill off the parts that don't pull their weight by cladoptosis. The same goes for 'duplicated' branches, by the way - whats that about? Isn't all pruning wounding? Perhaps we might even try encouraging inosculation by localised removal of corky phelloderm and the strapping of nearby limbs in place?

Nice post Dean! Don't you just love it when nature reclaims urban hard landscaping. There's an old road near where I used to live that was left as a footpath when it was bypassed - every now and again you can see a cats eye, a white line or a overgrown storm drain. Makes me wonder how long it would take for an abandoned city to succumb to succession? Getting back to your title - I found this reference in Is Phallus impudicus a mycological giant? M. NIKSIC, I. HADZIC and M. GLISIC Mycologist, Volume 18, Part 1 February 2004 "Based on a mathematical model, using numerical analyses it can be concluded that the tender structure of the common stinkhorn, Phallus impudicus, growing out of hard asphalt road is capable of producing the very powerful force of 1.33 kN/m2, which means that three of these mushrooms can lift approximately 400 kg." An engineers nightmare! They only spec a surface to take a load from above not below!

Do you mean the branch/stem canker Pseudomonas syringae pv. fraxini? If so then I can't recall ever seeing an F. ornus with the symptoms, and I don't think it would be transmissible to replanted Fraxinus species anyway.

And my point is that there is no way that you can judge the suitability of the Order from a handful of blurry photos.

It is pertinent - we're agreeing on what constitutes a report in terms of the legal requirement of the 2008 regs. My point is that you don't need a formal report to satisfy the TPO application process, it can be done by a competent contractor. I don't see why a little explanation of the reasoning behind the specification can't be included as part of the contractors price for proposed work. What condition? How have you objectively assessed it from a photo?

Sir, you are too modest! Is that me? Schwarze refers to Trichoderma spp. spore wound paint in his latest book. The idea is to infect the wound with a less damaging decay organism to prevent a worse one infecting it. Bit like a flu jab. I hadn't heard of the foresters doing that - theory would appear sound. Don't harvester heads have a built in urea spray to control Heterobasidion? IMO Armillaria isn't really a problem in woodlands though is it? Its a recycler.

True. What do you usually get though Gmann? I'd be happy with... "The mature Beech (T1) leans to the east by approx. 15 degrees, towards the house and has a small Ganoderma spp. fruiting body on the tension side of the lean around a small cavity approx. 200mm diameter between the buttresses. When probed, it became apparent that the cavity extends to 50% of the width of the stem. It is considered that the remaining sound wood is sufficient to support the tree but that the risk of failure at this point could be mitigated by a reduction of the sail area by the removal of the no more than the outermost 2-3m of the canopy back to suitable secondary growth points. Resulting pruning cuts will not exceed 75mm in diameter." Doesn't take very long and as you say, would probably fit on a fag packet. Instead of the usual... "Reduce Beech 25% - Ganoderma at base." (Which normally gets sent back!)

Well yeah. I agree with you there, it wouldn't have been much better typed! "No concerts in the rot zone." I'll never forget that!

Ha! There's an end? Two more PD exams - Business stuff and Woodland Management. I'll take those in December, and cross my fingers. Any resits will have to be in July and then I'll have to wait until September for the abuse day, sorry, management day. If something goes wrong it'll be September 2011! It's kind of modular at the moment but Andy S was suggesting it would brought more in line with current academic structures. It can't get worse.

I might get in about 3-5 hrs a week for PD modules I'm roughly comfortable with. And I haven't done the uncomfortable ones yet - perhaps double? I'm sticking to about 6-8 hrs a week in for the BSc but the structure helps much more - it'll suffer nearer the PD exams. Don't worry too much about the books. The benefits of the Treelife system is the group sessions - you get to swap materials/documents.

Thats what I understand to be the case. I'm not surprised really - in academic terms the course is a dinosaur. The new thing will be modular and let you accrue 'points' which presumably mean prizes.

To get back on the rails - the guidance in the amendments to the blue book is pretty clear on the standard of evidence required... (my emphasis in bold) "6.40B Where the condition of the tree is not severe enough to use the dead, dying and dangerous exemptions written evidence must be provided with the application describing the nature of the problem, its impact and justifying the work proposed.A formal report is not required." I'd suggest the extent/depth of this report should be proportional to the amenity value of the tree. A lot that I see fail to fulfil the complete VTA criteria and resort to making precautionary guesses about the strength of the remaining parts of the tree.

At the risk of fully derailing this thread past TPOs. I once conditioned an AIA/AMS for an extension within the RPA of TPO Sweet Chestnut. I recieved a handwritten, badly spelt, load of waffle, and a indecipherable and inaccurate plan from a tree contactor. When I contacted the applicant to explain why this wasn't good enough - she replied "...but he's only a tree surgeon, what'd you expect." I expect nothing more than the Council's design consultant, highway engineer, building inspector or environmental consultant. I shouldn't be wasting my time trying to decode appalling spelling, trying to second guess jumbled grammer or measuring every tree on site and replotting them in the right places with the correct canopy spread/RPA. So why shouldn't it be typed Huck? Its a professional report!?! For other professionals to read - if we as an industry want to get past the "he's only a tree guy" attitude, we have to beat them at their own game. I read Arb reports done by national consultancies and one-man bands, the content is about the same. The difference is that the larger organisations are usually a little more aware of the policy framework and have a shiny print job. The actual on-the-ground-tree-stuff is the same but I suspect the appearence of the reports, the tangible glossy bound sexing up, gets the bigger clients. It plays the game - it says we're in your league, we're not "only a bunch of tree guys". Or girls.

You cut bits off trees. Why should you be paid whatever you charge? Its easy and my mate can do it for cheaper! You might tell Mrs Miggins that her trees knackered, but can you tell her why, on paper, its knackered in such a way that would satisfy insurers / planning inspectors / the courts???

I wonder how can anyone be sure of the appropriateness of the Order from a couple of photos? I would want to see the context personally, perhaps do strange things like evaluate the public amenity, run a bit of VTA, look at the targets, see what the potential for a replacement is... And Huck - £500 might be a too much in this instance but its unfair to simplify the consulting arbs role to using a pencil. After all, it would be unfair to suggest that all you do is take bits of trees from one place to another...

Lets suppose an Oak in a reasonable garden spot might have a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) of 120 years (a conservative estimate). Given that, on average, people move house 3-4 times per lifetime (owning a property for roughly 15-20 years), our tree might have 6-8 owners over its SULE. If you consider that say 75% of those owners will have a partner thats about 10-14 people involved in its fate. You only need one owner (or their partner) to take a dislike to it for it to be felled before it reaches veteran/final maturity your standards... Also, are you suggesting that the only good trees are old trees?

Yep. An expensive hobby though with a heavy standard going in each time - and one I'd gladly help him enjoy for eternity with a smug grin on my face each time we served the replacement notice.

Oh and I used the verb 'Waltz' to suggest the ease of entering FE rather than to describe the industry.

I have this 'discussion' about Further Education with my older peers. Ultimately their view is that their years of experience at the coalface should count for something - that their time served should be recognised, their achievements in the industry respected. They can never describe it better than that - and its the detail that decides. There is provision in most courses for 'Accreditation of Prior Learning', that is to say, if you can demonstrate you have a up to date comprehensive knowledge of a certain part of the syllabus, then you may not have to be assessed for that module. Therefore Further Education gives you the oppourtunity to demonstrate how your experience aids your learning. If you can explain how it relates to the syllabus. Vague comments about puddings and personal effectiveness don't cut it. I guess its a generational thing.