treeseer

"Is it just the local soil texture at that site, that's the reason for the compaction Guy?" 2 things--the uphill side had a house ~10' from the trunk, so the surface soil was quite hard. On th edownhill side it got very hard 6"+ down. Tha tmight be due to "plow pan" from farming way back when, but this is not a flat site and near the center of town, so i suspect it's just the local texture. "Has that tree been subject to a historic mulching spec ?" no just lawn...i started caring for it ~8 years ago and recommended mulch so they did a 4' radius, placing it up against the buttress roots a bit too much. The tree kept declining so I called for them to extend the grass-free area 10'. if the tree had better longterm odds i may have called for a bigger area, but the bermudagrass will be a huge weed issue in the mulched area as it is. we radially trenched that area, and blew individual holes beyond that. by angling the tool the fracturing goes way beyond the holes, though. "What's the species?" Q falcata, southern red oak. the red oak subgenus is nominally in 'decline' (a horribly abused term, hence one topic of the upcoming august detective tale) so we have no illusions of miraculous rejuvenation. but the owner is happy to have it done, perhaps partially out of family guilt as his father had the poor thing brutally topped ~20 years ago.

Thanks Paul, the guidance seems to be approximately the same here. "The point about client awareness of ongoing management is that we, as in AAAC, have to give our clients information and advice as to the likely future ramifications of reduction works." Yes when reductions are hard and decay will likely result, that is esp. important. That's a big reason to favor lighter reductions imo. "Ignorance, (the clients'), is no defence, though as professionals we have a duty to keep them informed, so if they decide to do nothing about a tree that has been bolted together and heavily reduced and it subsequently falls to bits, we have done our bit." Right, here the notification is a "should"; i do not know why it's not a "shall"; maybe that is a change worth suggesting to the subgroup, as that standard is up for revision this year. Scheduling Inspections "shall" be the owner's responsibility, of course. "I will say at this point, bolting trees together is by no means a common occurence and is only used in extremis when the client desperately wants to keep a tree." This is really basic tree work, and the liability is easily managed, if the standards are followed. It's lack of gear and esp. lack of familiarity that keeps it from being commonly done. That's why getting to know BMPs is key to being able to manage valuable trees. 'And I'm totally with you on the per tree basis." Yes, it's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking one size of tree care can fit all trees. Gotta keep the thinking cap on.

Impossible to say without a pic and knowing the objective, but if there is 3' unchewed it seems a waste to go to the ground. Cutting back to the first good undamaged node is the most conservative thing to do. Also just because bark is stripped off does not mean that branches are no good--did the rodents gnaw off all the cambium and parenchyma too?

Spent all day yesterday using an Air knife with water, aka Mist Knife, aka Mud Knife. No worries with siloicosis but i was bathed in mud all day. Glorious work--gave up on keeping goggles clean and just used it by feel after a while. my helper's in blue; i'm in the coveralls, drenched in mud and ecstatic with the ability to blast through subsoil that a pick would bounce off of. With water added, some incredibly hard soil was broken through quite readily. At times i t was like visiting a volcano...the earth moved and oozed. Jamming a hole in one place would bring up a geyser a meter or more away. X-HFA SUPERSONIC AIR KNIFE OPERATION.doc MODEL X-HFL FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION.doc

"Are you meaning a rod at the inclusion to hold it together or one placed further up above the fork?" Paul, on this one, I'd look to install it above the fork, at a distance ~1-1.5x the diameter of the leader above the fork, which is the guidance in the standard. "Our experience with rods above the fork is that the fork inclusion may blow apart as the tops of the two stems come together in strong winds." Oh dear, that would be embarrassing. If "...the tree had a split or large amounts of included bark below the junction...then at least one rod below..." (ISA BMP) This fork's not bad enough to warrant the 2nd rod imo. "We have also bolted inclusions together with some degree of success though the client needs to be aware of the ongoing management requirements" True, but this is frequently overstated. Every urban tree has ongoing management requirements. "Periodic inspection" is what you may be referring to, and is the US standard. This can be met in part by the owner sending images of key points, so arborist visits can be several years apart. A new book on oaks says annual looks are required, which is not true. We are dealing with steel that has a long SULE safe useful life expectancy. "... and the need for a crown reduction at the time of bolting." This is on a per-tree basis. The steel is there to sustain and conserve the crown, so contributions are not lost. Light pruning is typically advisable, but heavy >5% reduction is seldom needed ime if the support is designed right. The how-to is in the BMP, only $8 US. Lots of how-not-to in the attached--sadly the TCI archives over 2 years old are no longer freely viewable. TCIA Biomechanics, Science, and Support Standards 2010. pix 2 more.docx

David, that is a good question, and you anticipated the answer. The A300 does not get that specific in its guidance, so yes it is tree-to-tree. The ISA BMPs call for a rod if there is an open split. In retrospect, adding a brace rod may well have been a better choice. Maybe I'll call the client and let them know there really should be one, and pop it in later this week. I'm okay with the small cable in there now, but after growth resumes, it may not be long before more support is needed. That bark inclusion is bad enough to warrant the rod, "to reduce the risk of two...leaders spreading apart or moving sideways..." (ISA BMP). Again, excellent catch--many thanks!

Beautiful tree! No sign of fungus as stressor; seems to be all due to thigmomorphogenesis; shape changing in response to movement. Nice camera work getting the crown like that.

"I don't believe we have less of a problem, but its not one that I see tackled particularly." You all don't know what you are missing--great fun! But for contractors working by the hour is strongly advised; takes time to do it right. "I guess the tools possibly haven't been at hand for so long here in the UK (airspade etc....)" Yes pricey tools mean marketing means more awareness, but most of this work is done manually--shovel, hose, trowel, hose, then prune. "There is (i believe) a UK standard being currently drafted regarding nursery tree stock, but until that's in place & monitored there will always be defective tree stock going out to both public & private planting schemes." Ours is in place but 3+ years late in the revision and seldom monitored--ANSI Z60--googleable, and i trust the drafting committee has a copy-- states "flare should be at grade and visible" but most nurseries and landscapers skip this detail, leaving this mission to arbs--should they choose to accept it. "Thanks for the links" Thank the ISA, who allowed me to present the work and get it into the proceedings. Popular articles are good and all but they don't carry the weight to get the practice into the standard. The ISA's peer review process was quite exacting, as it needs to be to build credibility.

"Will you be reducing any weight off as well as cabling? I always thought the two went hand in hand?" Ben, yes, US standards call for any pruning to be done prior to cabling. But pruning is not always needed. On this one a little came off the ends, but just to placate the aging and worrisome neighbor. first pic shows excessive reduction by neighbor's hack (who spiked up the tree)--note cambial dieback behind this big cut. Rot of course will follow; bad news for tree and owner. 2nd pic shows sprouts at a node, tree response to that overpruning. Next 3 show tip reduction with pole clip--keeps a full crown whilst lessening strain on the bad fork. Much better for tree and client to reduce this way. Less is more, large cuts are avoided, unless the client's objective is to encourage fungal decay. I seldom get that request--do you?

The crack in the elephant ears is a bit bothersome; especially since a Liquidambar with BIG ears just failed, breaking much of this Q phellos. I had flagged it in my report from a month ago, but they did not call to schedule the prescribed cabling. Given this history and the 2 houses under it, I will be cabling above this fork tomorrow. $80 in materials (which should last at least >30 years), one hour's extra time while I'm up there anyway, finishing the pruning works; very affordable insurance. Cabling is way cheaper and long-lasting that pruning. Also it preserves the asset, instead of cutting much of it off. A no-brainer really.

Beautiful formations; seen that in tropical trees before. no idea of cause. Light behind camera would have been nice.

Does this mean that UK has less of the problem, or deals with it less? I do hope your nurseries churn out less crap than ours. Attached is some of these dealings; soon to be in the ANSI Standard. The author's a loony but many in the US do the same basic steps. first is the pop piece; 2nd peer reviewed for ISA. LBG III Managing Stem-Girdling Roots1.doc.pdf Root Pruning TCI.pdf

I agree with Steve, Gerrit, we need to be strong! Steve cut another thread that got too emotional, yet allows ad hominem chitchat below arbtalk standards here. His sandbox, his call, (we all do like your pictures) but there are limits to how low civilized chat can go, on this end of the chat. "I have ended reacting to any of your posts on this forum, nor to enlighten you... on the subject of mycology or forest ecology." That resolution did not last 3 days. Instead, the stated expertise greatly expanded, boldly going where no forest ecologist has gone before--now into urban arboriculture. 15,000 trees? If I've assessed an average of one a day I can top that (and I think I have but who gives a hoot). Numbers do not tell the story. And preemptive felling in the face of an opportunistic pathogen is not only daft, it's endarkenment! So you took some walks with the Man in Black, impressive name to drop. I could drop a dozen or two, but 1 that's one of those limits, 2 Name dropping is another side of the ad hominem fallacy, and 3 names do not tell the story. 4 Unnamed gossips also do not tell the story either. Speaking of names, Olaf Ribeiro, who I believe has spoken in England before, and wrote a book on Phytophthora, has found that ArborFos shows good efficacy against Armillaria, and hears that others are also getting good results with ArborFos against Armillaria." Granted, these results are likely aided/caused? by exposure and exclusion. This is just another example of treatment by those 1,000's of arborists willing to treat. Preemptive felling of uninfected trees remains undefendable...unless some of that German research confirms otherwise. Please cite or link any meaningful studies that meet the topic--ich sprechen genucht to get some of the gist, and mein deutsche freunden could confirm. Please no more mere inventories by foresters, unless there is a real connection. Weak or irrelevant citations can be worse than none at all. Quantity is not quality. Piling it high and Deep and personal is not being mentally strong--sticking to the facts, is. I am not downplaying the nitrification issue--it is real over here too. Pork producers pollute water, and air, and get away with it. But there's no preemptive felling of uninfected oaks and beeches here.

1. Can possibly/probably grown in the highlands of Scotland you'll need other help there--nice, alec! It's great to see agreement on the effect of heartrot--might increase risk, might mitigate it! Rot is literally a result of fungal activity--right? Whether or not that could be called a disease or "attack" depends, though I agree, often not. Heartwood may not be as active as sapwood, but there is activity in there, I believe. 2. Grow closely alongside one another they could in the US, though they do prefer different soils and climate. searched but could not find hackbush, except a bush that is hacked. (?) 3. Would suffer from heartwood and, in one case, heart-rot. Heartwood, "Wood that is altered (inward) from sapwood and provides chemical defense..." does not cause suffering that i have seen. I've never seen heartwood in holly, for example. Sounds like a fun project!

It seems like that sentence, no matter the context, is undefendable, and careless at best. Trusting that Dom quoted accurately of course. Without conditionals or qualifiers, it seems false in any context. Unless I am missing something?

Yes, periodic inspections are called for. I'll invite them to email me a picture once a year, and propose on the invoice to return in 3 years for an aerial inspection, when pruning needs will also be assessed. The tree's bad off from the neighbor sending a hack to spike and whack on north side, then the elephant-eared gum crushed the east side. So some further restoration will be needed sooner than the typical 5-year cycle for this age and species. Owner's responsibility to schedule; if the house changes hands hopefully the new owner will follow through. It's their call, as always. These are the cat's whiskers--if they are not sold over there they ought to be: Tree Stuff - Wedge Grip Dead End

that's why... I will be cabling above this fork tomorrow. $80 in materials (which should last at least >30 years), one hour's extra time while I'm up there anyway, finishing the pruning works; very affordable insurance.

Subtle but significant today were these orangeish bands of adaptive growth. Neighbor is pressuring owner to fell, claiming hazard but actually just getting old and paranoid. Aerial assessment showed these orangeish bands of recent reinforcement, demonstrating the tree's healthy response to movement. So pruning alone and brief report with pics and interpretation ought to allay concerns. Except--the crack in the elephant ears is a bit bothersome; especially since a Liquidamabar with BIG ears just failed, breaking much of this Q phellos. I had flagged it in my report from a month ago, but they did not call to schedule the prescribed cabling. Given this history and the 2 houses under it, I will be cabling above this fork tomorrow. $80 in materials (which should last at least >30 years), one hour's extra time while I'm up there anyway, finishing the pruning works; very affordable insurance.

I'll look for the TSSE opus when it comes out in English--always happy to examine more of the context around urban trees. o and that Website link was way outdated--thanks for letting me know it was still out there. Historic Tree Care | We are dedicated to the preservation of valuable veteran trees. By working from roots to shoots, our goal is to revive historic trees and prepare them for the future. With this reply and after reviewing your obvious lack of expertise on, or even any interest whatsoever in the *arboricultural* aspects of urban ecology, I give up as well. At this point we sadly must agree to disagree. Forest ecologist and arborist differences in viewpoint are inevitable, more so when both are so passionate about their fields, both with religion in their mission statements, that they cannot look dispassionately at any other. Nothing personal about it.

Ad 4. Who says I've ever condemned a tree on the presence of nearby rhizomorphs or on the mere presence of rhizomorphs alone ? Speaking of jumping to conclusions ! maybe i misunderstood this "In The Netherlands and the western parts of Germany this far we've seen several hundreds of beeches and/or oaks in lanes, alongside local roads, on estates and at the edges of beech and oak woods of which the root systems have been infected and colonized by rhizomorphs. I have monitored an infected oak wood for eight years during which the presence of rhizomorphs on the roots of the trees increased from 40 % to 90 % because of extreme nitrification (manure). And because of that we have chosen for the proactive strategy of removing an infected lane or roadside tree ***and both its neighbours ** to prevent the rhizomorphs from spreading." If this is not happening as it reads, that would be great! Ad 7. The question is not whether I can prove it wrong, it's whether you can prove it right. Beg to differ. If it cannot be proven wrong, and the alternatives are not proven better, then trying any method seems preferable to losing the resource. Unless the resource of interest is the fungus, and the tree is just a minor element. Owner/manager decision. It's difficult to understand the above strategy of proactively felling the neighbours of infected trees. Can this actually taking place and sanctioned by any part of academia? Where is the proof that preemptive felling will effectively prevent transmission to the next tree? If criteria for potential usefulness of other treatments are set by a demand for proof-in-advance, there's no rapprochement possible. At this point we sadly must agree to disagree. Forest ecologist and arborist differences also, inevitable, nothing personal about it.

The heartwood process is viewed with horror by some engineer wannabees who treat the tree like a pipe (tho it is not), and drill it to see how hollow, and practice numerology to see how scary it is. The calmer view is; heartrot is Nature's weight-loss regimen. It increases flexibility and durability, sustainability and survival. Buttrot's a similar but slightly sadder story.

Dom, unfortunate that the spec was not written clearly enough for the arborist to follow. If the wording was clear about "lift to 5m" then no cuts would be made above that point...unless there was other wording somewhere heeded about removal cuts being better than reduction cuts, go to the collar when you can, etc etc perhaps? That tripe leaks into boilerplate templates here too--codswallop. Beech are intolerant of any work.[/i]" is indeed a reckless phrase--incorrect, flawed, shoddy, and all that. But let's look at the cultural context this attitude comes from. "Tree management intervention" is viewed with suspicion, somewhat scorned, something to be avoided. "Maiden" trees are revered like Santa Maria, their imaginary hymens guarded by the Gawains and Galahads of the arb consultant world. Shiny-pants consultants stand strong against the slings and arrows and saws brandished by the great unwashed, heathen tree cutters. Add to that the hypothetical gyrations that are spun into the defensibility of proactive felling in the face of a weak and treatable parasite, DAFT though that may be. On a par with the smoke and mirrors, and banana peels and marbles cast before experts as they march toward desperate lawyers/barristers. They know their case is weak, hence the proactive attempt to fell the expert by contorting their record and their report. With that context, it's no surprise that your client is now annoyed and believes the application won't be accepted. depends on the juice that exaggerating arb's got, the finesse of the other side, the known and unknown facts of the case, and the whistling winds of politics. It's a madhouse out there! But The Arborist formerly known as hamadryad brought in some sanity--excellent post!

"Sycamore-reduction ?? not what i would recommend. Why not? " How will you measure the amount of pull and how many people will pull the tree? No numerical measurement--2 people should be enough. "or do you just increase the number of people pulling/shaking shaking would be silly--no coconuts up there. :001_rolleyes: " the tree as part of the test and if you run out of staff do you ask the client to get on the end of the rope?, that way if the tree fails you can blame the client. What if it fails the pull test and a branch lands on your head or worse still the client or his property? EVEN WORSE- lets say it does not completely fail but it makes the unnerving ' CREEK' followed by a' CRACK' and stays there. Do you then just suggest he gets someone else to look at it, or do you send a member of staff up the tree to dismantle and rig it down or do you climb it and rig it down?" Well then you pull the rope through--you did not pull a knot up there did you? I did not think that needed explanation--both ends on the ground of course... That's not a dig; that is 6 digs, based on a very sketchy scenario. Unless your staff is all gorillas they could not break those ribs of woundwood. Fella named Detter from Germany showed me this basic pull test; no dynamometers involved. Climbing up there and checking the area out is best of course; simples. "Good management of trees is not just about seeing how long you can leave a tree standing just because it pleases the client,or that you love trees more than your wife, Hm where do you get your information? "you should also take into account the safety of a climber and not leave it to the last minute of a trees life at the point when failure is immanent. By what objective factor does this assessment come from? Behind on payments to make on your chipper? "Rigging down a stem decayed tree where the climber has to work above the area of decay requires a great deal of skill. Pruning that stem would be done from tying in to the adjacent stem. If no other stem is available (hypothetically) then pole tools are an option, attached. Very low risk operation. "Not all sites can accommodate a cherry picker. Ah those are bigger payments; understood. "The safety of a climber comes first with me, then the client, then his property, then me last. I always climb and rig down the dodgy trees as its a big ask which i don't like to put on my staff. Just my opinion and i'm not having a dig treeseer. Oh no of course not. You're just exaggerating risk to justify removal, that's okay, we all gotta eat. Dodgy indeed. Good management of trees is not based on arborphobia--or is it called dendrophobia over there? PolePruning_2008_06-1.pdf

And when they do, they cite "obvious defects", which are too often not looked at sufficiently to determine whether or how much they affect risk. aka snap judgments. James, the term is bothersome because it is too often used in this manner. 6 years ago I wrote the attached, but have seen risk assessment remain a defect = hazard = removal game all too often. The ISA Risk BMP is only $15--is it sold in the UK at all? It's still too defect-driven for my tastes, but recognizes adaptive growth, mitigation, and other essential considerations. hama, I hope I'm not one of those 1% blighters. I try to avoid snide comments; it's easy to hear something bad if you are listening for it, you know? As far as detract from the threads, I hope to add to them, often missing the mark perhaps but no harm in trying. In this thread you might note I am agreeing with you most strongly! As far as "wind up", not sure you mean finish, or start a clock, or wind YOU up, which seems like coals to newcastle, as they said. it's easy to hear something bad if you are listening for it, you know? Mitigation or Death.pdf ISA CEU Basic Tree Risk Assessment complete.pdf

"A reduction will not resolve the problem ,extensive die back will occur next year," How certain a prediction is this? "that is IF it even comes back into leaf again , it is widespread and common with Cherry." I thought the question is about this tree, not how widespread or common the suspected pest is. Recovery relies a bit on stored resources--how plump are the twigs? Could do a quick starch test. If the owner is keen on keeping it, why not try? Clip just the worst of the dying and weak branches--reduction overall might be too hard on it. And for heavens sake get the owner to let you improve the rooting environment--with all those other plants, that would be money well spent even if the cherry does not make it. Starting by lifting those pavers and amending the soil, then relaying them--that would make a big difference in an hour or so. P syringae common here too but seldom fatal in 3 years. All I am saying, is give the tree a chance!