treeseer

References from Sinclair; going waaay beyond FC if you have time to e-dig...attached is all the 332 pages of references from the whole book, arranged by topic. Root rots and feeder root necroses: Root and crown rot of Port Orford cedar Hansen, E. M., Goheen, D. J., Jules, E. S., and Ullian, B. 2000. Managing Port-Orford-cedar and the introduced pathogen Phytophthora lateralis. Plant Dis. 84:4–14. Hansen, E. M., and Hamm, P. B. 1996. Survival of Phytophthora lateralis in infected roots of Port Orford cedar. Plant Dis. 80:1075–1078. Hansen, E. M., and Sutton, W., eds. 2000. Phytophthora diseases of forest trees. Ore. State Univ., Corvallis. 152 pp. Murray, M. S., and Hansen, E. M. 1997. Susceptibility of Pacific yew to Phytophthora lateralis. Plant Dis. 81:1400–1404. Ostrofsky, W. D., Pratt, R. G., and Roth, L. F. 1977. Detection of Phytophthora lateralis in soil organic matter and factors that affect its survival. Phytopathology 67:79–84. Roth, L. F., Harvey, R. D. Jr., and Kliejunas, J. T. 1987. Port-Orford-cedar root disease. USDA For. Serv. Pac. Northwest Reg. R6 FPM PR 010 91. Internet pub. Trione, E. J. 1959. The pathology of Phytophthora lateralis on native Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. Phytopathology 49:306–310. Tucker, C. M., and Milbrath, J. A. 1942. Root rot of Chamaecyparis caused by a species of Phytophthora. Mycologia 34:94–103. Winton, L. M., and Hansen, E. M. 2001. Molecular diagnosis of Phytophthora lateralis in trees, water, and foliage baits using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. For. Pathol. 31:275–283. Disease References Sinclair 2005.doc

That AOD paper is, with all due respect, bollocks. The only treatment suggested is felling!

Hard to condemn a tree based on 3 pics. All trees are going to die, and any canker that bleeds is 'bleeding canker'. Pic 3 shows ooze from what look like discrete hole of a possibly entomological origin, while the first 2 look soil-reelated. In any case the best thing to do is trace the dead tissue away at the lesions and send closeup pics.

Me too! Lots to keep up with. Too often we wait for some kind of 'Word' of approval to try new practices, whilst the trees scream in pain. Maybe different in UK< but...If it ain't wrong, why worry about who considers it right? You'll enjoy Sinclair; very lucid writing.

The text that you await is as mainstream and as dependable as they come, and the recommendation to use heat is right out there; no need to read between the lines. In contrast, see page 8 here TCI Magazine September 2013 Dr. Hudler is on the same campus as Sinclair, yet diddles on with DNA analysis while ignoring the Diseases text. Arborists get next to no guidance re treatment, unless they comb the texts. So much for outreach from the ivory tower...Piling it high and Deep, and in all the wrong places. Also, I understand that Percival fellow in your merry land is trialing heat usage on Pseudomonas cankers in Aesculus.

"are you quoting from Sinclairs 'Diseases of Trees and Shrubs'? I'm still waiting for it to arrive." Yes, you will find it quite useful; #1 tool for diagnostics imo. "You've alluded to heating dead tissues in other posts and I've seen one or two youtube videos where you advocate it. I don't believe that I've read this anywhere else, in the mainstream literature." It's a common practice in the orchards and in horticulture. The only momentum that counts is callus growth. Our arb lit is relatively narrow, so our mainstream is a rivulet in the big picture.

The below was composed when the Tree Health Care forum here was a tad more...fungicentric, so it attempted to draw the proper lines. Stiull struggling to follow them. Easier said than done, as with most work!

Unless treatments are done by arborists unhindered by "kill all the hosts and then the problem is solved" approach by government agencies that follow the fire-fighting model. This approach tried and failed with Emerald Ash Borer in the US, and set back field research for years. Treatments from the textbook Diseases of Trees and Shrubs, p. 356-366: In the soil, increase aeration, drainage, calcium, and microbial activity. On the tree, prune out dead tissue and heat infected areas. This is not rocket surgery, with no bogeyman of chemical usage involved. re that aversion, it seems a curious for an agency to shrink from soil drenches, citing general environmental concerns, whilst advocating, even mandating, the removal of perfectly functional trees that are temporarily colonised. Where's the calculation of the environmental damage caused by the loss of the tree? Not to mention the oil and smoke spewed by the machines, and the soil disturbance needed to get the job done. How's all that compare with dilute fungistats?

Other options would be to prune back to a point other than 8', right? Answer depends on condition of interior wood (find by probing) and other tree parts, and the owner's risk tolerance. Fruiting bodies tell us very little re risk.

Yes recycling deadwood in situ does keep those systems cycling. And thanks for that 3rd pic above; gorgeous golden gleaming, lovely

Yes, aka root damage. Find the flare.

At Biomechanics Week 2010 there were 2 plane trees of the same origin and size and age. One had an open pruning wound with a lot of rot but also with woundwood, but not as much as that beech of yours! Both planes were pulled over. The one with the wound held fast until roots failed. The "defect-free" stem broke in half. As a profession, we are poor at assessing weaknesses in trees. We should be assessing strengths instead.

Beautiful indeed; would be tempted to tickle a few ends in to prevent more tear-outs if that were doable. Great shots from the bottom inside up, and of the boy so tuned in to that heritage. I especially like the multitasking branches laying on the ground across the path; bordering and seating for people, and nourishing for tree.

Sprouts do not look freakish from here. And Tony yes if you raise the question then perhaps answering it would be kind. The tree in your pic looks what could be termed a midstem bottle-butt, rather intriguing from here....

This variant of slime flux is termed 'frothy flux' in the US. Different in host range, location in tree, and treatment protocols. Attached from 2004; since then cauterisation with blowtorch on active spots has been added to the treatments, and drench w minerals such as phosphite, and more aggressive soil works per need.Ooze in the News from TCI Magazine 09-04.pdf

That kind of dosing without overall aeration does seem to invite burn. Standard says fert or amendment SHALL be incorporated Uniformly, not 6' apart.

Sorry mate crazy rumor that----this is the land of the free for the most part; anyone can do anything, without a ticket: for chainsaw or diagnosis or pruning or risk assessment. for better or for worse we do not embrace regulation; if an NPTC was proposed, it would be mightily fought by most.

Tony, not sure what this refers to. GDD refers to phenology and predicting: http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/Web/049DegreeDays.pdf Your mate from from oz may have had something upside down under. Or the phone connection was glitchy?

If a tree has a fungi, like I. dryadeus, does that justify major soil works? Depends on the objective; if owner thinks long term and budget is there why not? Does I.dryadeus equal poor conditions and ill health? Who knows what tomorrow might bring? (Winwood/Mason) Or is it just a recycling heart rotter, that is part and parcel of the Oak as an Eco system in its own right, which just happens to be capable of causing 1 or two in a thousand to fail in difficult circumstances?" If that could change to 1 or 2 in a million, may be worth it. Depends on the objective. Happy to let recycling and tsse happen; just would rather let the tree retain the asset that it is.

A very little bit actually. The Central Park folks do quality work and defend it well. I do not believe they will be scared into an overly defensive posture. As for the park in Queens I cannot say.

David, I wish i could say. I have a mate on staff there and hope to connect with them by autumn. No idea where they are getting advice from but your fears are real; many consultants here use the TRAQ form on a witch hunt for defects instead of giving the tree a say in the matter by assessing strengths and weaknesses together.

Nicely done; SOP to check the TIP tie-in point with a bounce and/or pull test, along with the visual with binocs and naked eye. The decision to trim frayed fibers and leave stub seems quite sensible...if there's a way to find indication of a node.bud location then all the better. BTW just because one portion of the tree failed does not automatically kick the (this) climber into high alert; just a bit of extra caution. IMHO that is...if something looks sketchy then just hook up a 2nd TIP eh?

Looks like it was a sprawling crown, very lopsided. This illuminates the need to identify overextended branches and asymmetric crowns as action items, instead of focusing on holes and shell wall thickness and other bugaboos.

If the mycelia have diagnostic value, perhaps examining inside the dead bark might be better done than not. Ganoderma sp. here look like those.

Sean, it looks like those roots were once covered, then soil was removed/eroded away. Unless they just jumped out of the ground, gasping? Stranger things have happened. With those nice-looking buttress roots, can't find fault with planting depth. Compaction, yes, no doubt. One spec might be to lop sgrs, aerate 1'+ deep, out to 1' beyond the exposed root farthest from the trunk. then mulch out to protect those roots from mower and strimmer. if herbicide is not popular, then grass can be grubbed out and the area covered with cardboard. Worms love cardboard.