treeseer

It depends on the objective. If you want to reduce the tree's growth, late summer. If you want to spur regrowth, late winter. If you are not sure why, don't do it at all--or do it at 5:11 p.m.

Day Hah! Voodoo. 1. How much experience do you have with heavily pruned weeping willows with wide open wounds being able to form enough reaction wood in time to keep ever (and already) present spores of white and brown rotters out of the easily invaded and decomposed dead wood ? Not an overwhelming amount. 2. Sure re-pruning can be done per need, but not by order of and financed by the local authorities, for which this is a single time effort to preserve the trees. Short-sighted Cheapskates. 3. I'm not talking about there's only one height of "proper" pollarding, I said, that in this case the pruining should have been localised behind the delaminated and already decayed "hot spots" in the limbs to prevent the need of short term re-pruining and at the same time preserve the tree (and its ecosystem) on the long run. But would that work if it is a "single time effort to preserve the tree"? 4. I couldn't agree more Will you always be that agreeable?

I don't either, with such a small sample. Maybe a case-by-case situation. It depends...

Given that reaction wood can form around defects as Tony describes, and assuming that re-pruning can be done per need, I do not see any cause for certainty that catastrophic breakage WILL occur. Also, it's difficult to understand how one height of pollarding can be "proper" in all cases. But there is a lot I do not understand!

"Where dysfunction/wounds/decay exist i ALWAYS leave as much growth developing at the point nearest the wound and as long as possible. Why? because A) it makes resource allocation transport distances far less which in an old tree that may be moving to a sensecent state can be a major player. B) because if growth is allowed to lengthen it will also thicken and result in larger shell walls at the area of worst mechanical stress." Sounds like Botany 102; makes perfect sense to me. Sounds like Ecology 102. Absolutely. Catastrophic damage may occur, but is highly unlikely if the tree is maintained over time.

Staghorn is a kind of fern. Lecturers get confused, too....

Beauteous tree indeed. Can't see the crack, and haven't a clue why the tree has such a narrow waist.

Scott, not to say that theory isn't true, but I'm wondering... How could there be fire damage where there is a stone wall? Did the bark sound hollow when tapped with a hammer? Did you try removing dead bark to see what was inside? Did the tomograph indicate any irregularities at the surface? Based on experience dealing with dozens of these types of infections in North America, the cambium inside the recessed area will be infected or dead, and there will be no rhizomorphs or other evidence of a macrofungus. One treatment that seems to work over here is to remove dead material, nourish the surrounding roots, and look for callus swelling at the margin and closure over time. Whatever the pathogen (if there is dead tissue), if there's a more reasonable protocol i'm all ears. The good news is, if the wood is not decayed, risk is low.

Why? How?

first the present, next the future. chronological and epistemological order, but it's all important to know. i've only seen the arbotom demo'd, but i'm planning to rent it soon and get a training next month. i don't know enough at this point to offer a comparison, sorry.

Whose decision is it then? Der Kaiser's?

1. On what factual evidence is your continuous accusation of mal practice by European arborists, tree workers and tree technicians based ? Reading the posts in this thread--rigging challenges contemplated before diagnosis is done. No dis to Europeans--it's everywhere. 2. So that's how one assesses the softrot caused by M. giganteus at the lower side of major tree roots making beeches and some other tree species - you know for sure - extremely vulnerable of windthrow? Yes, getting physical evidence of strength loss is useful. This documents fungal strategies, to go along with the theorizing. 3. How about your total lack of knowledge of or expertise on tree species specific interactions between biotrophic or necrotrophic parasitic wood degrading macrofungi and trees ? And how do you assess the different types of woodrot with your hands ? Now there's a true "professional" bandying "b......t" THEORIES on how tree assessment should be done. Not total, thank you. Rot results in strength loss, which is the first thing to assess in diagnosing tree stability. Species of fungi helps predict the prognosis of future spread, and the tree response. Any second opinion from anyone not selling removals would be a good start. If you could kindly respond to the tree issues and lay off personal attacks that would be nice thank you.

Then all the easier to see it from all angles, and probe to ascertain living or dead tissues, thereby confirming necrosis, or not. Physical facts, microscopically derived or otherwise, are useful to scientifically confirm opinion based on external sight.

Still waiting for your vision to get beyond the mycological aspect, and hypothesizing fungal attack in lieu of evidence.

All these kill tissue, which would result in a hollow sound. Note that removal of dead tissue, which would produce visual evidence of all these, should also be done. Re the quickest route, lightning often spirals, when the grain does.

A climber assessing it can indeed see it from all angles, and probe to ascertain living or dead tissues, thereby confirming necrosis, or not. When I see a structure like that next time, I'll look into it--thanks!--so I can *know* what it is.

And again, you're very welcome, kind sir! Those factors did seem to play a part, but that could be confirmed by an aerial assessment. The failure could have been prevented by pruning or support, but that is the owner's decision. O and I hope you do not stop making armchair analyses and theorizing here, on trees you did not personally assess.

"Because our industry cares for trees and manages them according to their situation," We manage them according to client decisions. If we volunteer to make decisions, we take on liability, without being paid! Supply info; leave the risk with the owner. " if I am brought in to advise on a tree, I would recommend my opinion on the situation" How can we decide what others should do--are we aware of their budget, risk tolerance, and all the target ratings? To avoid risk to your business, tell them what they CAN do, not what they SHOULD do. " knowledge of tree/fungi interactions and having a good understanding gives good reason to have the flash tools as more of a last resort!" This knowledge is very important, but is it really what it is ALL about? Mallets and probes and measuring tapes don't "flash" that much. It should be up to the owner whether or not to use tomography or drilling. The arborist's opinion on probable interactions, given tree and site conditions, is useful. Measuring over time can confirm those opinions, or inform their change. What is the owner's objective? What treatments can achieve that objective? Many beeches with Merip have been retained in public areas, responsibly imo. I pruned a Liriodendron with M.g.; was 113', now 97, with wounds closing. Owners approved the treatments, and the residual risk. Not much beech here; sorry.

Good idea to assess any lesions, in the course of removing dead loose tissue. Sounding with a mallet can indicate inner conditions. Finding the ends of the cracks can help find the cause.

Happy to share theories, my friend! Those fuzzy little rootlets definitely needed some help in forcing that fork apart! Even if wind and rain loading was shared by neighbors, that beech had its share.

Maybe so, maybe not, pics do not tell for sure. Trunks twisting in wind is another theory.

True, plus the view of the "canker" from here does not show definite signs of being dead tissue. That growth might be called a burl. I agree with hama about juvenility being a common factor in holding onto dead foliage. And thanks to GK for the gorgeous images of trees adapting. as they do so well..

Thank you, sir. It's good to see some awareness of risk management beyond the "Bad" Decay + Target = Fell process expressed here. Also to consider are: 1. Pruning options. All of them! 2. Root care options 3. Soil fixing options 4. Support options It's disconcerting to hear this Fell/Leave dichotomy from the land of Conservation Arboriculture, as if trees were only black and white, instead of shades of gray and brown as they are. "I don't know how exactly investigations on the underside of roots are undertaken or how easily the findings are assessed?" Treecreeper, roots can be assessed by sounding with a mallet, and probing diagonally to see how thick the woody supporting roots are. They can also be drilled to see how thick their wood is. It does not seem scientific to pose the possibility of extensive lower decay, instead of advising the assessors to use their hands on the tree and learn facts from them instead of bandying theories about based on *possible* growth of decay fungi. "It is not a responsibility I would relish but I think I would recommend..." Why should arborists feel compelled to recommend anything? These are not their trees; they belong to someone else, and so do those decisions, and the liability. Arborists are best off getting paid to assess objectively, then list management options. If we as contractors venture to offer free opinions, all the while with chainsaws at the ready, the owner(s) should dam well get a paid, objective, second opinion. imo:001_smile:

Vectors aka stressors involved in codom tearouts often include wind and rain, not to mention a lack of supplemental support aka a cable. Expanding rootlets in that pic do look pretty muscular; a probable factor.

right then; all of the above!