treeseer

Agreed--ANSI is also clear that other details needed--not a book mind you just numbers. Size of cut is the most important imo. Looks like a lot off that one on the right, but it depends on the objective. How will it look in the summer? The best measure of how much is too much is the tree's response--panic sprouting, or stable regrowth?

" its gone too far, im not asking what do you think, but what do you think? its been in the news." How far is too far to manage by reduction? re I.d., it's considered one of the big bad 3 here in the US. The tough part is, the established way to measure root rot is to drill the root, which makes it weaker. How do you all assess the rot and prescribe the % pruning? Nice job by D. Dowson on that writeup.

Lonnng ears there--what to do?

Not hard, but impossible. Posting pics here is easy when you get the hang of it.

Ah here I think you hit on the question, but I'm not sure this is contrary to darwinianism or the scientific method, properly applied. right to say that we are best served when we pull back and suspend judgment and view things not in black and white. Painting mental pictures with all the colors of the wind, as Pocahontas put it (that'll gag the old-agers!) This is a tenet of Objectivism, btw, as some define it. Miss Rand's version, more than Mr. Polanyi's, I suspect.

That's funny--I'm 61 and feel like a panda sometimes, but still get as high and as wide in a tree as the job requires!

Obvious that a youngster drew up this poll--50+ the last category? I'm 60 + 2 in october, still climb regularly. I'll quit when they pry that cold hard carabiner from my rigor mortis grip!

"What is important is that you can defend your contentions with sound reasoning. After having been through my fair share of appeals (as tree officer and as consultant), I always approach my decision-making with the thought of what a potentially aggressive solicitor or pendantic planning inspector might ask, and how I would justify my reasoning." Yes exactly that, opinions need to be defendable (or defensible ) Write it and cite it and move on; too often this is sweated over way too much. " [reporting verb] tell or order someone to do something, especially in a formal or official way:From the Oxford English Dictionary" That was my point; perhaps a pedantic or semantic one, but imo arb consultants are best used when they have more autonomy. Otherwise it can be a case of the blind leading the sighted, and that can lead to bad places. :thumb down: The "constraints plan" is part of the survey/inventory here; not a bad idea to separate that out, for some jobs. Sounds like it could be overkill for others; I can understand a client getting a bit impatient with the process.

How about UNclear guidance in the BS?? There is clear guidance on needed variance for species and condition in ANSI A300; sorreee...

Clients instruct? Must be a different meaning in the UK; I have not been instructed since elementary school (and it shows). I rather like Steve's approach: "Personally I am very blunt with my clients and tell them how it is going to be rather than what they want it to be" They hired us for our judgment, after all. Will more objectivity be compulsory; still wrapping my head around that one...

By "this one" you mean in Gerrit's picture? Same answer anyway; as before, it depends on the owner's objective. That one seems to be in a place where it is allowed to fall, laissez faire, tres facile. If there were bats in it and the owner wanted to retain habitat, this ANSI A300 person might install a brace, or guys, or tethers, or prune to reduce. Not sure what an ISA person is, or what one would do; as before, it depends on the owner's objective, and on the arboperson. 6.1: "Pruning objectives shall be established prior to beginning any pruning operation." BS has similar wording I hope, lest we all fly blind.

Now, gents, you both know about pruning and support options for urban trees. For the rural trees, nature is more left to take its course. Mitigation is determined by objectives; it depends. And if you are spoiling for a spat based on hypothetical situations, no thanks, no time to take on the tag-team!

Fiskars and WolfGarten both good. Pole pruners essential for a good job on most trees I find.

Gerrit, no such hypothesis was offered. Not enough evidence to go on, because the infection has not been examined. Not with hand lens, or the mighty microscope, or even the unaided eye. Why not remove the dead material and LOOK? Is "barrier" some sort of red flag? If so is there a politically correct synonym, to avoid traipsing in a minefield??

True, risk can increase, depending on the activity of the fungus and the tree. And there are several ways to mitigate that risk.

Yes I think that's accurate. Fungus lessens weight in the crown = less loading = less risk, if the decay pattern allows columns of sound wood to remain. This does not seem to prove the notion that the tree is dependent on the fungus, but it does prove they can coexist in a fairly sustainable fashion, and it calls the term "pathogen" into question.

"blimey are we going for a record of most times the term red listers can be used in a day guy!:lol:" If those species are so critically important to arb then twice in a day is too few! "Im teasing, whats the score for such a term in the oooo rhaaaa state" have not been in that state since I had too much bourbon one night and forget what it was!

There is a lot swirling in that vortex, so you never know...could also be that nameless arb was *lessening* habitat for beings in nothingness by lessening the hollowing that would have sped, had it been a "collar cut". Of course the stub itself is now habitat; an inventory of it might show that it teems with red-listers!

Paul, it depends on the demands. Mainly I had in mind the biological/hydraulic demands, hence the caveat and caution. 9% max. live crown off is a common spec, and I have written 4% too. Reduction is more often targeted to improve symmetry/balance/alignment with structural roots than overall. Crown cleaning is typically done in advance as well.

It's yourself that may need backing up here! "often these bleeds come at an early stage and one may have to wait for mycelial sheets to form and voids in the bark before rhizos. Much less bleeds wil be evident by that stage." So then there is no proof of the armillaria hypothesis? "without breaking barriers"? STOP IT! Get your hands on the tree and look inside. START IT! Bleeding lesions can be caused by many pathogens. Without evidence, the Arm hypothesis carries little weight; it hasn't a Leg to stand on arararar.

Yes that one seems to be doing well. It's hard to say exactly when that cord should be cut--I've tethered them when risk was an issue but the biology seemed to counsel waiting. One downside to waiting on most trees is getting more rot in the trunk, but premature removal may also cause that. also I'm wondering why that apprentice left the stub...?

"1. If the RPA of a tree inhibits a development the options are: a)no development b)remove tree c)engineering solutions d)depending on the value of the tree and it's location, breach the RPA and hope it survives?????(This is ill advised of course, but in some circumstances better than removal?)" Other options include helping the tree survive some breaches and intrusions e) Enlarge the RPA beyond that circle, where conditions favor. f) Improve rooting conditions in the RPA--aerate, inoculate, fertilise, mulch... g) Reduce tree to reduce demands on roots (yes obviously this can be overdone and backfire, so it is at the bottom of the list) "2. The BS5837 indicates it is acceptable to undertake certain work within an RPA, such as hand digging, thrust boring, pile foundations and radial trenching. These would inevitably lead to a limited loss of rooting environment an damage to some roots. In a similar context, could removal of a shallow layer of soil(250m) within the outer area of an RPA be an acceptable intrusion." NO excavation, on most sites: as Paul notes, find another way. Grading down is not in the same context as specified vertical intrusions. Have you done a soil survey with long probes, to see where the roots are? If they run deep on that site, that would be a factor in the decision to allow excavation--of soil, not roots. "Assuming the roots are mainly within the top 600mm of soil horizon removing 250mm of soil, pruning any damaged/exposed roots, replacing 250mm of soil with cellular material and clean granular infill, area of RPA impinged upon 2m of 4.5m radius." That's a huge impingement (?) "3. Does the species and height of trees allow for reduced RPAs ( if compromise is needed)? For example, a mature Hawthorn may command a fairly large RPA. I think they are worthy of as much protection as any other tree but in reality the mechanical implications of lost roots are not as severe compared to loftier species." Yes, of course. If BS5837 does not have an adjustment for species and condition it is far too rigid. Our scale slides down to .5 for tolerant species, and up to 1.5 for old vets. I like working with infill development, because I do not like urban sprawl.

"Is this your work ? I'll take the blame for it. "Did you offer to the client as a way to stabilise an already drooping branch or just as an experiment for interest?" Pro bono work on a public tree, and the limb did not really need stabilizing, so it's an experiment, for personal interest at first. Now that it has succeeded, it's grist for the publishing mill. The case of the Walking Matilda, set in oz, perhaps. Also will share with the U folk fwiw. Layering is an old-school propagation method for fruit like citrus etc. but never heard of it with oak. One unwelcome result: when the layered progeny takes off on its own, the parent branch tends to wither and shed, like an unneeded umbilical cord. .

Absolutely, that would retain wildlife value, so nature could do more of her thangs, and the tree last longer. why why why? 1 Because it is there. 2 Retaining the tree may also retain the kind of habitat that serves the kind of wildlife that the owner is interested in. Saproxylic red-listers and all that.

In the US we have NASCAR where they whip around a tiny track. I went to one and got dizzy watching but was struck by the courage and tenacity needed to round those corners, to time a passing maneuver for the victory. Driver works in concert with machine (and the men that make the machine work as it does), and wind, centrifugal force, light, thrust, pure physics. Paeans aside, maybe a .1% improvement in image transmission is not worth the loss of assets that would benefit us and our kids the rest of our days. Where are those TPOs when we need them? Is there an arborist on the committees planning these works? Or at least a resident who can see beyond the Games' impact? And is the "exotics out!" card being played out of hand?