Amelanchier

Dean. Plants are not botanically named to annoy tree workers. The vast majority of people who refer to plants when communicating with each other need botanical names. We all modify our language and usage depending on who we are talking to. I once had a job at the home of a guy who used to be a plantsman at Kew. When I asked him which Alder was to be thinned he said... "the Alnus subcordata dear boy."

Looks like a soft white rot and a ductile fracture, with a lickle bit of twistyness I would agree that the lesions and the bleeding are unlikely to be related though Armillaria does sometimes produce lesions... However, you'd have noticed the mycelium. Looks like an existing basal bark wound in pic 4? Entry point? indicative of compaction damaged roots also perhaps?? The majority of species will only produce fruiting bodies once the conditions are right, so any of the usual suspects could be to blame... Though I'd lean towards a Gano just for the decay strategy... Is the stump still in situ? You may get some fruiting bodies now that fungi has access to more oxygen... Seal it off in quarantine and watch!!!

I would guess that because the measurement is taken at the base (where even a multistemmed tree usually has one stem/root collar), it's to compensate for the lack of taper.

Its not cheating I'd be worried about... Its Monkeyd! just a suggestion - could everyone post their 3 pics together in one post. Game on. I was just thinking that I should upgrade my torque wrench...

It'd have to be 3 per person max, I'd say... r it could get really silly

Top idea Steve. With a prize?

Fistly, learning the latin or botanical names allows you a greater appreciation for the relations of organisms to each other. Secondly, common names change and vary by region. A 'Plane' is not always a Plane, it maybe a Sycamore. (Our Scottish members will put me right if I have that the right way round!) Botanical names do not have that problem. Forestry types have another set of common names altogether. I had a conversation with a forester today who kept going on about 'greenheart' whatever that is...

I wouldn't have a problem if you said that in a report! If you could back it up with solid reasoning and maybe the odd hand dug trial trench, I'd be fine with a reduced RPA.

Table 2 of the BS indicates its sources... NOTE The 12× multiplier is based on NJUG 10 [9] and published work by Matheny and Clark [10]. where [9] and [10] refer to:- [9] NATIONAL JOINT UTILITIES GROUP (NJUG). Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility services in proximity to trees. Publication number 10. NJUG, April 1995. [10] MATHENY, N. and J. CLARK. Trees and development. A technical guide to preserving trees during land development. 1998. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 184 p.

So it does. I should have looked myself! As for the RPA often being a circle, as its a fictional construct relating to our best guess as to where the roots will be, I don't know if I agree with you there. Certainly for open grown trees, I wouldn't dispute your reasoning. All I see are circles in 5837 reports. Mainly I suspect because they are easy to draw. I would suggest that whilst the root system does not mirror the branch system, it is just as likely to be an asymmetric shape much like most trees above ground. Only issue being, we can't see it! We can make good guesses, and in addition to the above constraints, I would expect roots to avoid standing water, compacted areas, rocky outcrops, bonfire sites, rotovated areas, desicatted soil, contaminated soil, areas under known alleopathic trees, etc. All depending on species and age. How about extending RPAs based on a known limit to soil depth??? I have a report on my desk to go through next week. I haven't even been out on site but the TCP clearly shows a RPA line through the middle of the Norwich Ring Road. So that's already put me in a defensive mode as its unlikely considering the lush verdent surroundings. Software looks like its worth a punt though. First big job would pay for itself.

Its not Tannin. Its Aesculin as noted in the post Andy linked to (that no-one read )

Whilst we're on the topic of RPAs... Anyone alter the shape of their RPAs to accomodate the environment??? I've done it in AutoCAD but its a pain in the arse. Do these programs offer the ability to reshape RPAs? Does my head in when I recieve a Tree Constraints Plan with pretty RPA circles drawn through ring roads, buildings and sheer cliff faces...

It refers to Hoffman, another Taxonomist who I believe determined the "deusta" epithet, meaning "burnt" in greek/latin...

And Hilliers Manual 2007 notes a rare pale yellow leafed variety called A. hippocastanum 'Hampton Court Gold' deriving from a small tree in the Hampton Court wilderness garden... Also there is another yellow rareity named A. hippocastanum 'Honinton Gold' listed in my Collins by Johnson and More 2004...

Although it probably shouldn't be used like that, it probably will. I should point out though that not all councils may be flexible with these regs. There will probably be quite a few councils that will bounce invalid applications straight back to cut down on workloads.

It has always been the duty of the applicant (or their agent) to prove the exemption under DDD. Now the regs simply ask for that proof. When I speak of discretion, I mean exactly this issue. A clearly dead tree is often obvious, and only the most pedantic LPA would want report certifying its death. Its more likely to come into play when Mrs Miggins wants a 30% reduction because the tree moves in the wind...

No. I think on balance, you're probably not being unecessarily sensitive! I think you're right in that there perhaps should be some guidelines for safety factors and tolerances. Is there perhaps an issue with attempting to give instructions or specifications that become over presciptive? Perhaps a seperate document would be needed? I specify bracing here and there on the odd tree but mostly as a precaution to defend the retention of a high value tree. I defer the installation and specification to a specialist contractor who does his thing. Its certainly a bit of a mystical practice...

The total lack of green says genetics to me so I think you have a variagated A. hippocastanum which has reverted more or less totally with a few remnants. Bean 1970 notes that a few variagated varieties were introduced as early as 1775 but are only to be found in old collections... That might descibe your site??? Interesting that it is predated less...

I know, I know...its boring and there's no chippers or cranes involved but if you're a working Arb there's every chance the new regs will affect you. Following on from MonkeyD's post a week or so ago, new Regulations have been made that make the dreaded 1APP form compulsory from the 1st October 2008. That is to say, no more S211 notifications on the back of a fag packet and no more TPO apps on takeaway menus. If it doesn't come in on a 1APP form the the LPA are legally required to deem it invalid. We're not just being awkward, it will be the law. Now, you're probably all aware of that bit... However, within the 1APP is the requirement for justification of proposed works that include health and safety concerns (e.g., the tree is diseased, or fears that parts may break or fall) to include a report by a tree professional explaining those grounds. Similarly, in the case of alleged subsidence damage, a report by an engineer or surveyor, together with one from a tree professional (further details are contained within the application form) should be submitted. Now, just as with a normal planning application, failure to include necessary information will result in the invalidation of applications or notification on the grounds of insufficient information. Basically, if Mrs Miggins wants her TPO tree felled because its knackered and she engages you to make the application, if you don't include evidence supporting the claim that the tree is knackered... the LPA don't even have to go and look at it, you application can be invalidated from the desk! On a more positive note, most councils, and I include the council I work for within that statement, will use these new powers with discretion and common sense. But that may not be all councils...

Great tree. It long been considered that the current UK legislation fails to protect trees such as this one because of those exemptions. Recently, there have been efforts by the Ancient Tree Forum to push for the inclusion of trees as 'green monuments' within the latest review of the heritage bill. If successful, our ancient trees could see the same protection as scheduled ancient monuments... Watch this space.

If those bars on the window are too thick you'll need to dig a tunnel...

Sorry almost forgot. Thats very bad news for your Lime Arob. Particulary intense decay on that host.

The naming of organisms used to be done by anatomical analysis. So organisms that shared similar structures / organs / environments would be grouped together. These days, DNA or RNA analysis allows organisms to be grouped by actual genetic similarity rather than anatomy. Ustulina deusta was reclassified by taxonomists after genetic analysis in a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal, in which it was decided that the fungi belonged in a seperate genus to Ustulina. (incidentally which a previous taxonomist had proposed in 1970!!) However, that doesn't necessarily mean that other taxonomists accept the reclassification... We tend to call multiple names for the same organism Synonyms. So its possible to refer to either Ustulina or Kretszchmaria in common use but in technical use you should refer to the person who named it. Which would be Kretzschmaria deusta (Hoffm.) Martin or Ustulina deusta (Hoffm.) Lind And just in case you want to use some of its other names... (courtesy of wikipedia!) Discosphaera deusta (Hoffm.) Dumort., (1822) Hypoxylon deustum (Hoffm.) Grev., (1828) Hypoxylon magnosporum Lloyd, (1921) Hypoxylon ustulatum Bull., (1791) Nemania deusta (Hoffm.) Gray, (1821) Nemania maxima (Weber) House, (1925) Sphaeria albodeusta Wahlenb., (1826) Sphaeria deusta Hoffm., (1787) Sphaeria maxima Weber, (1778) Sphaeria maxima Bolton, (1788) Sphaeria versipellis Tode, (1791) Stromatosphaeria deusta(Hoffm.) Grev., (1824) Ustulina maxima (Weber) Wettst., (1885) Ustulina vulgaris Tul. & C. Tul., (1863)

Its just a bit too common to get into the Red Data Book of international threatened species. But only just!

Man, Tim that's harsh in the extreme. I'll keep my ears open for you. I suppose said remaining arborist would go the same way if he made a fuss... Definately get that TPO on now mate! Sod em.