treeseer

haha when i chose the smiley i only saw the flags not the gun--not my intent! nothing here to blow brains out over but cannot edit; over 10 minutes; o well. I totally accept the graft/weld in limbs and in fact force them through scraping and bolting. but there are times limbs or roots rubbing are good and times when they are unlikely to be good. i think that understanding could be covered more in the article--i'll let you take on that rewrite. It is in the standard--how would you improve that? in my area pinus taeda dependably graft but quercus and acer and magnolia not hardly at all; attached. don't shred that one please; it was an early effort. what established viewpoint are you talking bout? Pruning SGRs (not SCRs) is grrrradually catching on but not routine by any means ime. many or most usa or aus tree guys seem to pay little mind to that part of the tree, nor even use a chisel. so loggit, is that a branch or a root laying there? Dendro 1 Grandiflora.pdf

Tony I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Where is that tilia root grafted to that quercus buttress? If that means increasing stability, I agree. that fine line is negotiated by guidelines and other common sense, hopefully. 1. Had not planned on an updated quite yet. 2. It is not molestation; i ain't no pedophile. 3. Being prudent by following these guidelines:83.6.3 If a root is thicker than 10% of the trunk diameter and girdles less than 10% of the trunk, retention should be considered 83.6.4 Roots that cross other roots outside the buttress area should be retained. 83.6.5 Species ability to graft root tissue to stem tissue shall be considered 83.6.6 Exposure and pruning in spring and early summer should be limited to protected areas such as the north side of the trunk 83.6.7 Pruning cuts should be made back to non-girdling lateral roots where possible 83.6.8 Damage to the trunk and buttress roots shall be avoided Don't these work to avoid your concerns? Yes when these are older and welded, yes. When younger, maybe best to prune for better structure, like branches Please clarify; enlighten me.

A friend related this, which addresses the question in an indirect but entirely valid way: In our area of high and dry Ponderosa forests, one of the uses of dead limbs on these trees is the foundation for the development of reindeer moss. Reindeer moss This lichen is able to live and multiply in areas where ground development is limited by consumption. Taking years to develop into large masses, the now brittle dead wood will snap from wind or snow load. The nutrient rich lichen is then able to be utilized by many ground-based organisms which are "essential" to the forest.

OK, Graham notes that woodpeckers will find other sources, including standing dead trees. I see a lot more woodpeckers on live trees, but am not familiar with GS and GL. "... a long list of species of macrofungi, which start their recycling and pioneer bark and wood decaying activities long before the branches fall off, i.e. there's a complete, partialy tree species specific ecosystem with its own successive order up there, which continues its work once the branches are on the forest floor, which often triggers them to fruit for the first time." I agree that their life cycle comes to fruition, literal or figurative, on the ground. How long, if at all, would these dead branches have to be on the tree to serve their role in this observed order? And are any species reliant on dead branches in living trees for their existence, or do they just use them because they are there? "are you happy to take our word for it that deadbranches are as vital a part of the habitat as just about any other tree part? With all due respect, it seems unscientific to take the word of anyone, no matter how much they are revered, for anything. Any statement that broad and speculative seems to call for some skepticism. Facts are preferable. "If we put a list of JUST the fungi together in order of the diameter of wood they prefer, it would take years if not a lifetime... Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees? "and then you could start on the invertebrates by wood diameter preference... Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees? "and then all the higher organisms that rely if only in part on that wood/fungi/insect relationship and ratio. Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees? Just asking a basic question about basic food chain mathematics

I agree; pics 1 and 2 show no intervention would be reasonable. The facts portrayed illustrate that pruning the Tilia root just past the 3rd downright lateral (center of image) would remove the most severe girdling on the oak, while conserving the Tilia, and training it to develop compatibly with the oak. Keeping soil off that area would discourage infection, and regirdling. Goodness no, an arborist would look for reasonable compromise, not kill-or-live scenarios. Pruning the main root at the right place and time, with other treatments, would of course not kill the little thing. Such a hasty, fatalistic viewpoint does not seem very relevant to arboriculture. Attached is a peer-reviewed chapter on this general issue (from what hama calls a "hardcore ISA man"), just 3 years old. Below is a portion of a proposed standard for managing these situations--note "shall" and "should". Arboricultural thoughts on either would of course be most welcome. 83.6 Root pruning: girdling roots 83.6.1 Roots that contact the trunk or a buttress root should be considered for pruning 83.6.2 Girdling roots should be visible on all sides before pruning is planned 83.6.3 If a root is thicker than 10% of the trunk diameter and girdles less than 10% of the trunk, retention should be considered 83.6.4 Roots that cross other roots outside the buttress area should be retained. 83.6.5 Species ability to graft root tissue to stem tissue shall be considered 83.6.6 Exposure and pruning in spring and early summer should be limited to protected areas such as the north side of the trunk 83.6.7 Pruning cuts should be made back to non-girdling lateral roots where possible 83.6.8 Damage to the trunk and buttress roots shall be avoided 83.6.9 If more than one large girdling root is present, pruning in stages should be considered. 83.6.11 Excavated soil and fine roots should be incorporated into the outer rootzone as soil amendments LBG III Managing Stem-Girdling Roots1.doc.pdf

"Who NEEDS to quantify that damage at this stage? Anyone assessing risk and specifying potential treatments "Take a £250 increment corer and get a SOLID piece of evidence as to the decays nature and extent/depth into scar tissue. I would fractometer test the wood, Increment core is a tool in the bag (my Haglof did not cost that much--what model do you favor?) and may well fit the assignment. Good suggestion. My fractometer is between my thumb and middle finger. "to see if as suspected, with visual cues like melanine plates in the wood wether Kretzshmaria was the culprit (would be confirming what i already know:001_tt2:) Your guess on that may be better educated than mine, but it is still a guess. It is also noted that your guess aka "knowledge" has changed--in Post #2 you said "the fungal agent here is armillaria Sp". Now you have leaped over to another fearsome fungus, to which all economically prudent arborists should react to by downgrading mitigation. What plague will your magic monitor reveal to you next? "In the meantime" There is a saying: "Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice." There is another saying: "No Rx without an RCX (Root Collar Examination) "i would reccomend a 30% by volume (weight by shortening lever-arm lengths (no thinning whatsoever) to give the tree considerable stability while adaption takes place i agree on no thining, and this level of reduction may well be reasonable. Or 30% may excessively weaken the tree's ability to adapt. Without a view of the crown and the tree's history, it is impossible to say. " (if its not K. Deusta, in which case how long do we want to retain it and how much will we be willing to invest in careful management of a tree colonised by a known and problematic root/butt parasite? Unless your client has stated their preference to invest big money (with the loss of the arboreal asset) now on removal, versus incremental investments in retention, all reasonable options belong on the table. Curtailing the management options based on a *suspected* parasite's (in this case a shifting lineup of "suspects") with a *suspected* rate of advance, with a *suspected* lack of commensurate tree response, and a *suspected* lack of client resources and interest in retaining the tree, does not sound like an arborist's viewpoint. It sounds more like University extension pathologists here in the US, who know or care little of fungal strategies from the tree's view, and prescribe removal out of liability concern, fear, and loathing. Or a lopper who is keen to fire up chainsaw and chipper. Perhaps you might consider the tree's potential, along with a suspected parasite's potential.

Gorgeous images, Gerrit--thanks! Not precisely formed knobs, but regularly pruned, solid enough even for hypervigilant tree risk entrepreneurs. Quite a coincidentally concentric curvature then. What sayeth Mr. Loggit?? Root or branch? PS Pruning stem-girdling roots IS good old-fashioned arbing; been done for lo these many decades, youngster.

I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, raptor perches, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates that dead branches in living trees is essential habitat. Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats? What lives IN or feeds ON dead branches in live trees that cannot otherwise survive? Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?

hama i agree with this in general, but without in some way quantifying strength loss, and the prognosis for spread, how does one specify the reduction? 10? 20? 30? Or use the dartboard at the pub? i agree this is not worth a L1000 (where is the pound key?) consultation, but some probing at least should give an idea. Also, would removing soil from the wounds really be like sending sandwiches to the sub-saharaan wastelands? This seems necessary for probing for decay, and also for therapeutic effect over time. Job 1 perhaps, as APC mentioned he started that.

Mr. ArborLogic, I told the poster we could stay on track, so please no more nonsense about microscopes talking. Yes all I used was a hand lens, that's all I had at the time. Cassian has contacted every one within shouting distance and is receiving useful guidance, thanks. 1. By using a microscope capable of determining whether the hyphae behind the melanine layer belong to an Armillaria species or that the black layer is of another (fungal : mostly ascomycete) origin. Yes an acomycete origin seems possible. I hope APC's tree officer will take this step, and others based on the tree and the site, before deciding. 2. No, as opposed to biotrophic parasitic, meaning the parasite dies once the host is killed, necrotrophic or facultative parasitic means the mycelium of the fungus lives on once the host/tree is dead and keeps contributing to the decomposition of the substrate/wood. And yes, almost all pathogens consume dead tissue too and the mycelia of macrofungi do it for the greater part to provide themselves with the sugar polymere cellulose to form chitin (another cellulose based but modified sugar polymere) rich annual or perennial FB's with. Thanks, understood. 3. It goes without saying, that everything is possible, so I stick to concentrating on the information or "facts" provided and data based analysing and pointing in certain directions without being able to diagnose in situ or in vitro myself, because I thought that's what this site is for. Absolutely, sticking to the facts is the way to go. Pointing in one direction or another may also be what the site is for. What I was not sure of was the basis for pointing so strongly and singularly in the one direction of severe decay, based on the information provided. I pointed to others possibilities, just for balance, and to offer options to consider even if that worst-case scenario turns out to be true. No disagreements here, no dramas, mate! Let's see what the officer comes up with.

All that may be possible, but how does one tell that black stuff is not another, less virulent, organism? Does "necrotrophic" Describe a pathogen whose first settling stage (at least) requires a source of nutrients made of necrotic tissues? Don't almost all pathogens consume dead tissues at the start? It may also be possible that the wood inside is undecayed, and that superficial decomposition is by another organism(s), and speculation about necrotrophic parasitic beasts doing massive damage is not borne out by the facts. APC, does this orificer use a tomograph, mallet, drill, ouija board, "gut", or just a look at the target and a squirt of red paint? Even if there is interior decay, subsequent growth on the exterior can compensate for it. And even if there is significant (>2/3?) decay, reduction pruning can increase stability. Not to mention "fixing" soil that hama refers to. Lots of possibilities. Further examination is warranted. Basil Kutz or Louie DeLopur are not yet needed. One opinion.

Thanks much for checking back in. We'll keep things on track from here. Does that mean over 10 cm, or 2 fingers? If so, which two? But seriously that does little to quantify decay. If assessment is the tree officer's job, okay. If by identical you mean with the same positive tree response, that is a good thing for the tree's prognosis. That first wound did not look huge at all, with a solid response, above ground anyway. And what fungal strategy is that view based upon? If just those two wounds, there should indeed be another view. Francis Schwarze shows his classes pictures of much larger trunk wounds and asks about strength loss %. In most cases the answer is 0% or perhaps even a minus % loss due to strong interior codit and wall 4 woundwood development. Tomograph gives very strong confirmation of this. Where the wound contacts the earth that is much more serious, which is why breaking the contact of earth to decay, by a sterile perlite or other barrier and NO foreign products , seems like a reasonable response. Pruning lessens resources for compartmentalization, so the need and the dose need careful consideration. VTA risk assessment looks at strengths And weaknesses. That's one arborist's view. I'm sure others will agree.

Speaking of coronet pruning, a utility company in Australia uses a VTA program that places a value on wildlife habitat. It's company policy to NEVER remove a hollow, for instance--they accept the risk. Compromised trees with basal decay >33% are commonly managed with 10-30% reduction. This is different from the Defect = Hazard = Removal mentality that used to guide utility tree management in the US. I'm wondering what role wildlife habitat has in UK utility tree management--any coronet cuts on trees near wires over there?

Well the insert was actually TO Kane, in a letter to the editor, but when he responded he did not disagree, so all good in that hood too.

That sounds like a very reasonable approach. Risk is determined by frequency of occupancy of potential "targets" As their "natural life cycles" were begun by humans managing to graft tissues, it seems natural for humans to assist those handicapped veterans. Arborists can peacefully manage the branches to decrease both their resource demand and their loading, and manage the roots to increase both their resource supply and their support. No internal combustion machines, no introduction of foreign organisms, just peaceful use of simple hand tools. What could be more natural?

Part 2: Fungus: "...which mostly is the outcome of our interfering with natural succession within tree species specific ecosystems and soil food webs, we are only beginning to understand." Well this conclusion seems highly speculative, and misanthropic. It seems based on a peculiar view that humans are pathetic meddlers, when viewed through clear lens of the microscope of mycology. I've also gone through some more of the Ingham Soifoodweb Bible with its studies of arid grassland/agricultural ecology. It may be my abysmal ignorance, but i cannot connect all of the conclusions about these relationships and successions and processes based on those studies, with what I see happening in the rootzones of trees. Could there be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology? Could there NOT be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology? Your earlier statements about the ubiquity of grasslands and the ecological importance of extinct predators of grazing creatures seem to indicate a pastoral or parochial view of certain landscapes in your part of the world that may not apply universally. I've seen trees do quite well for decades in lawns and natural areas under the type of human interference that is being decried. Others are not doing well, which is why enabling natural processes by mulching and planting natural associates, and not dosing willy-nilly with fertilizer and irrigation, is being encouraged. What else would you generally recommend to manage these rootzones, for those who lack the resources or the credulity to do full-blown inventories of nematodes and biocides? i am not averse to further investigation. I am looking for more tools to add to my current kit of a pH meter and my hands, eyes, nose, and the $15 test that gives me macros, CEC, and a recommendation to add N. I do not see enough proof of their value to either sell my clients on spending $100's on tests, or apply the results. As you and your choir keep singing, we know very little about the landscape below ground. I agree, but I do not think it presumptuous to try to improve it by mimicking nature. How do we know how much more we need to know, before we should act? Thanks for your time and patience.

I'm still trying to get on the same page here, or at least in the same library: Fungus 1. I already reacted on this poorly documented "research", of which the suggested outcomes have not been aknowledged, nor confirmed by the international mycological society. I thought that was a different study; my apologies; chastisement accepted. This still begs the question of other means of defense or adaptability, besides an ectomycorrhizal sheath. Are all species that lack ectos doomed to die? 2. ...through interference of forest "managers" - elswhere in the progression", but not as "adolescent", half grown or old trees by themselves Well all I know is that I commonly see Pisolithus-type puffball fungi in landscapes where management has been quite passive-- no interference that is evident, in recent history. How they got there I cannot say, but I have observed those spores swirling in the breeze, so I take that as a clue that they are indeed doing it on their own. The trees are not ambulatory Ents--the phenomenon of layering being the exception to that rule--but those spores do appear to be highly motile. "And why is a species with FB's with such distinct and easy recognizable features as P. arhizus listed as very rare and only associated with highly acid soils all over Europe ?" Perhaps because it is. But what has that to do with Ben's field? Maybe that fungus is better adapted to more acid soils, like those of the SE US, so other, perhaps native, symbionts could be introduced. Would that be acceptable application of mycological understanding? 3. Apart from "turfgrass", grass is part of all natural ecosystems and food chains," If this is true, how are there many square miles of forested ecosystems with continuous canopies and no expanses of grass? I've hiked for many hours without seeing more than tufts here and there. Don't forests still exist in europe? " without grasses none of the "grazing" animals could survive and all predators of these animals would die," As I understand natural history, humans have wiped out the big cats in most ecosystems. Unless the predators you speak of are the harvesters of hamburger, homo sapiens not-so-sapiens, you and I have been doing a dandy job of "disrupting the entire food chain and turning our world into chaos." So to return to the original post if we may, what would be wrong with replacing some of the grass in Ben's field with woody associates? Nothing at all, right? "And tree species such as Castanea and Acer associated with endomycorrhizal microfungi, already have developed strategies to keep grasses highly competitive for endomycorrhizae off their tree species specific ecosystem territories." Yes grasses and trees can coexist, I agree. But where trees are desired, they need a little room to get going, that's all I'm saying. "Not as long as we keep uprooting trees grown under artificial conditions in "nurseries" and replant them with damaged roots and mycorrhizae in hostile environments." Well you're preaching to the altarboy now, deacon. Let's hope Ben can find good stock, and make the environment less hostile by "fixing" it, as Tony says, by proper site preparation. this might include replacing some of the grass with native woody and herbaceous species. "Your view on "managing" trees and forests seems to be more associated with short term focussed "gardening" of "nature" by and with all means and at high as possible speed" Oh no, not another lecture on how we should all sit on one little piece of the puzzle...I'm not hasty; I'm still waiting for ideas rather than more of this global criticism of human endeavour. "then with arboriculture based on knowledge of the dynamics of natural tree species specific ecosystems, their soil food webs, including mycorrhizae," O I am with you so far, Gerrit. I read the 1999 Soil Biology Primer early on. I honor and respect microbes in the soil. Good arboriculture provides the conditions for these dynamics to flourish. Ensure adequate organic matter and oxygen and moisture levels, encourage biodiversity above and below ground, okay, that's all good stuff. "and the tree species specific life cycles" Let's try to stay on track here, with the original post, Ben's field (sorry to keep you on the spot here, Ben). We have already addressed the topic of subterranean life cycles with the observations of spores floating about. Tree roots associate with myriad organisms. These life cycles that you speak of, I'll take your word for it that they take place underground as you say, but what is not clear is the suggestion that if these specific cycles do not occur in a specific pattern then all hell breaks loose. That does not fit my observations or understanding of tree growth. 5. You could start with reacting to my earlier post by answering my before asked questions and make that a consistent aspect of your "psychology" Ohhh THAT post. My apologies: I totally missed that, having gotten sidetracked by the sociological lecture on how we should all act more like bugs. I agree that we *all* should not skip relevant inquiries, if we are to retain any credibility here. Let's take a look: Guy, 1. I attended Marx's Dutch seminar on reforestation of coniferous trees on mining rubble with the "help" of Treesaver ®, a very expensive commercial product, of which he refused to "give away" the constituents, which I later "unveiled" publically in a series of articles (in Dutch) on the subject." Okay, the ingredients are on the bags now, last I looked, which has been a while. "In the discussion afterwards he had to admit, that there was no evidence of his product being effective in soils with a pH 3 or higher and/or with other tree species then the species he planted in his field experiment as a result of the spores and hyphae of endo- and ectomycorrhizal fungi he included in the mixture." yes the study i saw in Pathology class reflected those limits. the school is all about Pinus taeda, which limits the institution's effectiveness in my eyes. but they chase the dollar, like everyone seemingly must, to some extent. "For the ingredients of Treesaver and research on its ineffectiveness on the long run, see Mycorrhiza." I'll skip that thread with your permission, out of the interests of time, and because I ceased using it years ago anyway. "And yes, Pisolithus arhizus (= P. tinctorius) also grows in landscapes, but as I said before, (in The Netherlands) very rare, i.e. seldom fruiting and only associating as a pioneer successor with seedlings and young trees of indigenous Betula and Pinus species (see my Dutch website) growing in/on mining rubble hills with a pH 1-2." Well i do not doubt your observations of your homeland, and I beg you to return that curiosity. What looks exactly like P arhizus/tinctorius pops up all over in the piedmont of SE USA, pH 3-6. In lawns, in woodchip mulch; the picture I took was by my pond where forest met mowed area. I don't visit sites with mining rubble much; could be there too. not much mining really. "So how did you determine that P. arhizus actually colonized the roots of older white oaks and that the mycelia in the rotten wood chips belonged to this ectomycorrhizal Gasteromycete and not to one or several of many other possibly present saprotrophic species decomposing and mulching the "raw" material, of which the oaks benefited by mediation of other ectomycorrhizal macrofungi (already) present in the soil ?" That is an excellent question. I saw white and yellow/sulfur strands running through the rotting woodchips. They seemed to originate from the chips themselves, aboveground, but i CONFESS THOSE SKINNY LITTLE BUGGERS ARE HARD TO TRACE, AND i WOULD NOT SWEAR TO A PRECISE AND INFALLIBLE DETERMINATION. darn capslock. of their origin. I have seen similar strands--which resemble pictures of P t/a strands-- in leaf litter that also showed no connection whatever to the earth, if that helps here. The point is, I use naturally occurring native fungus and apply it to the same species, nearby. No matter what species grew into the organic matter, the point is, it GREW there, with no further manipulation. I don't see a problem with that, do you? This talk is not about foreign products anymore; that was ~7 years ago. 2. As thousands of (reviews of) field experiments have shown, short turn positive results have no predictive value for long term results and are almost always followed by detrimental results for the tree on the long run" Let's look at what you said there--"...short term positive results...are almost always followed by detrimental results..." Are you leaving out a phrase about foreign products, or speaking more generally, of natural fluctuations? I'm confused. I'm used to seeing studies with a 3-year window, which has hampered my understanding. But I know that the treated white oak is not showing any detrimental results from my naive manipulation with TreeSaver/native compost application. I'll keep my eye on it, and report decline if seen, and we'll diagnose it at that time, okay? It's in a moss lawn, which indicates acidity, I believe.

sounds like we agree, if introducing more biodiversity by replacing grass with natural associates to trees is part of fixing the system, then voila! Anything else? Too bad that is much harder work than breaking the system, which was evidently done by clearing trees and sowing grass seed. Ben, do you know what was on that site 10-50-100 years ago?

Thanks...What do you think can be done to help them last another 120 years? A building 600 years old; amazing. In the US, 30 can be considered old, and over 50 historic!

Ben, Haley and Haley seem to have found Ectomycorrhizae on walnut and maple in England:Ectomycorrhizal Fungi re walnut, better hope that Thousand Cankers Disease does not cross the ocean! Yes, ectos can be valuable players in tree protection--defensive ends for the Roottip Ramblers, in an American football analogy--but the ability of a pathogen, like the suspected Armillaria in your site, to have its way with any host seems to rely on other factors as well: Vigor and vitality of host Vigor and vitality and amount of pathogen. This could rely in part on Presence of antagonists to the pathogen re this, Pisolithus tinctorius has been identified as a pioneer symbiont, capable of combining with tree roots in highly acid soil, which seems to attest to its power and versatility. But plant succession is not an immutably fixed pattern; plants do not follow in lockstep, but can be introduced elsewhere in the progression. Pisolithus also grows well in established landscapes in NA, so it may also do well in landscapes such as yours, as may other mycorrhizal associates. If a highly active concentration of Armillaria is suspected based on viewing an image, how can it be confirmed? If it is indeed confirmed, then what can be done to prepare the site for successful establishment of trees? Could planting associated woody plants displace some of that (*&^*&$%*&Y turfgrass, and favorably alter the soil biology via allelopathy or other means? Could grinding out coarse woody stumps and roots and inoculating with fungal antagonists make it safer to plant new trees? What else could be done?

Sean, if you are feeling hamstrung, and baffled by the complexity of all these specific interactions and relationships, then how do you prescribe any action for trees? I doubt that Shigo meant that "thinking in tree time" forced us to wait until that dead branch fell off the tree of its own accord before it could inoculate or even mulch the soil, as we stood helplessly by--what page was that on? My goal is to foster a direct and natural connection between trees and associates, but I am not so quick to condemn "those who would seperate out trees from their associates and present what are (IMO) simplified tree 'artifacts' and the subsequent 'solutions'." If it works, great, good for them, they earned their profits. If not, try, try again. If our reach does not exceed our grasp, then what's a heaven for? (Anon.) I don't have all the answers either--I don't claim to have any permanent solutions, let alone correctness, but I'm clear enough about what the questions are to try out some potential answers. And you are right; I am aware enough of my own mortality, perhaps because I have brushed it more than once, and am chronologically much closer to it, to get off my ass and dance a little. If you are indeed "...certain the lack of understanding and acknowledgement of tree time (and what it means for sustainable options in tree management) needs to be addressed by those of us able to commit time and resource to do so.", then please explain that to me, because that rambling is clear as mud. How can we know that inoculating soil with natural organisms is not sustainable, unless we try it? Are we only allowed to try what people driving yellow trucks do? "mans biggest problem is highlighted in your statement, he fears his mortality and shortness of life and makes pressure for speed and urgency and quick gratifications, our work is not our own, each of us must work on one piece of the mighty puzzle and then allow another to continue that piece, we try as a species too hard to complete the image of our world and claim credit as individuals, maybe we need to think like insects more." Yes Tony, of course you are right. We should all wake up like Kafka tomorrow morning and realize our Metamorphoses into cockroaches, because that is our proper state. All else is vain humbuggery, this joining together of puzzle pieces is outlandish individualism. Any one person trying to connect observations of one thing with study of another should have his head chopped off and run away like chicken spraying blood, so we who stay content within our little pieces are not offended by such obsequiousness. The mighty puzzle is beyond our understanding; that much we must understand. We must sip our Soma and strap on our Malthusian belts as we toil in this brave new world. (If you need to preach Huxley go ahead; I'll stay on as HG Wells.) Our work is not our own? Of course not, we all stand on the shoulders of giants--if we manage to get off our knees. Or shall we be satisfied by toiling for Napoleon and Snowball instead? Those Chinese who put 2 and 2 together and developed radial trenching using soil inoculation (btw even a softcore ISA man who reads consumer brochures would be aware of that) should have been squashed like the protestors for democracy, by the same tanks that compacted the soil in the first place. What a concept, people ruling themselves. We try as a species too hard to complete the image of our world. We should scurry around under leaves instead, one step ahead of that cat. yeah, right. You may be a fine arborist, but your sociology needs some work. As for psychology, your complete avoidance of all my responses speaks volumes. Your silence must be assent, thank you! Instead of shooting the messenger, ad hominem, you told him to act more like a bug, ad insectam. How low can you go, protozoa? I hope those horsechestnuts get better care. The op had an open mind; maybe its hinges were not corroded by conformity, or maybe a lack of overanalysis means a lack of paralysis.

"What use are the puff balls, have you studied their predesesors and decided that they are suitable? I mean fungi tend to succeed one another in the environment, one making good for the nest etc. What work have you read that suggests puff balls of a given species are correct for applying to raw chip/mulch?" Pisolithus tinctorius ARE puff balls, dear lad--who you callin' new? Perhaps I have attended different denominations of the Church of Mycology, but that does not mean that I just fell off the truffle truck when I landed in the arbtalk chapel. Plus I'm probably old enough to be yo daddy but no matter. Yes, there are other puff ball fungal species I am sure, and no I did not do sophisticated assays or DNA analyses to determine the precise species. I looked at pictures, and shook some spores onto paper, and carried on. The attached from 3+ years ago has a picture, taken in my yard, that jolly well resembles images of P tinctorius that Marx' colleague showed me in Pathology class 24 years ago, you young pup! It also resembles the ones that Google would have shown you, if you had bothered to look before leaping to attack my modus stumblandi. "Yes unsophisticated but reasonable assumptions, a healthy oak will be healthy for it has all its tree species specific friends about it, so your path is logical. however I think your in danger of running about like a headless chicken clutching at straws of possibilities in the desert of collective knowledge, and I dont like to see wasted time and or resources chasing mirage's. I dont have enough knowledge on the subject of Bio remidiation but i am working on it, i do however have a great deal of common sense." Well then you might show it with some discretion. I've gone from "naive" to a headless chicken chasing mirages wasting time? I don't think so! You will continue to lack knowledge of bioremediation or much of anything arboricultural as long as you remain paralyzed by a lack of precision, or await specific instruction from some narrow list of qualified sources--like a green light from Amsterdam? It does not hurt to stick your neck out a little; no ax will turn you into a headless chicken! "I think here you have misunderstood, I am saying let us not complicate it by manipulating further the BIOLOGICAL content of the Rhizosphere/natural nieghbourhood BEFORE we have good indications that what we are doing is just. There is much money being made and much "fairy dust" being applied within our industry, so many folks jumping on the "innoculation" bandwagon long before its wheels have been secured." So many arbs are so focused on condemning "snake oil" they won't lubricate the wheels of their own wagon of progress with science-based (not necessarily -proven) field trials. It's as if you've gazed upon the Medusa of the fear of ridicule and turned to stone. The study in Tienanmen Square (which led to radial trenching going into ISA lit and further research) was precisely quoted in the story. It was done with chicken dung, dead branches, and sand--a reviewer's input (similar to your skeptical output here) compelled the addition of rotting leaves, which I went along with after some tete a tete. It was a nice touch, but unnecessary. "As for my path, i shall be walking it, as appossed to trying to run" I'm too old to run anymore, but too impatient to walk. I commonsensically hop, not leap, so the next square is visible. More like Bugs Bunny, not the crazy March Hare you make me out to be. Befitting your nationality, you seem to espouse the trepidaceous Peter Rabbit as role model. He fears going back into the garden again, loathing Mrs. MacGregor's mean old cat, or losing his clothing again, or getting switched by Benjamin Bunny's father. Oh my, whatever shall we do? Just funnin with ya Tony, but don't worry, the next shoe will drop. A buckled boot perhaps, no doubt on my head. Dendro 10 Lost Laurels.pdf

Any idea how many decades ago those were grafted? Trees' responses around graft unions are fascinating!

Gerrit, that link was read as "http:" only; likely due to my weak connection here (and yes you can infer a double meaning there if you like!) i'm familiar with Marx' earlier work with P tictorius on trees in mining rubble, but it also grows in landscapes, so it may also be symbiotic there as well. studies on ineffective packaged products seem to point more to their shelf life than viability when fresh, but they are expensive. nowadays i just break apart puffballs and shake spores into woodchip piles near certain species and let it all rot, so white oak mycrrhizae can be applied to white oak trees, etc. Horribly unsophisticated, and scientific only on the most rudimentary level so i make no claim of being a scientist! if there is a simple way of doing a more precise job i would be glad to hear of it, but treating a sick oak with living soil taken from a healthy oak seems to make sense. Also the effectiveness was confirmed by experiments done by Fini and Ferrini and presented in 2010's ISA conference. It's on the cd at home; not yet published though their work on mulching with compost has: Article Request Page hama: "Why complicate a simple method? the removal of rhizos and a perlite sand mix is enough messing around, and will tip the blance back in the trees favour. we try to make it all so complicated, let nature do the work, just help the environment along and it will be fine." I agree that complication for complication's sake should be avoided. The work cited was done years ago, so it's more like a complex method was simplified, but for instance: Percival has done outstanding work showing that rosaceous mulch such as hawthorn has fungistatic, if not fungicidal effects, so why should arborists not apply that as well, or even some of the other options listed here? http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=2930&Type=2 (uh oh, there's that wound treatment bugaboo again--please refer disparaging comments to the author; don't shoot the messenger! Isolating one treatment may be important in research so its effect can be proven, but in the field the goal is not verifiable data but healthy trees. Helping the environment along with more than one treatment seems to result in higher probability that nature will succeed and the balance will tip and the trees will benefit. Our job seems to be to apply all the information available in a reasonable way, and not just copy individual and untrialed approaches like the sand/perlite work, in lieu of all else. That's just one view, from the same path as you, shoobeedoobeedoo.

Totally agree with this; variations have been done with success in the past. Attached yellow triangle area had bootlaces and mycelial sheath 4 years before the pic, following damage from sidewalk construction. After removing badly infected, but leaving slightly affected, tissue, the area was sprayed with i believe 10% bleach (have also used hydrogen peroxide for the purpose) and left open. Soil was removed from all around the base of the tree, using shovel and trowel and hose, those being pre-supersonic air days, and replaced with 50% expanded aggregate--"stalite", and 50% soil inoculated with a packaged product aka "Tree Saver" and compost from the woodchip pile full of Pisolithus strands. Being a little less ignorant of these matters now, I might go with a more sterile approach, but i still believe that introducing antagonists to the bad guys makes sense. Revisited the tree this past summer. Sounding the trunk and inspecting bark and soil revealed no signs of infection, next pic, behind the dam fern planted despite the "6" clearance" rule. crown of that q alba follows. other published work from california showed success with a more aggressive bark removal approach, excising every visible hypha. Many ways it seems to skin the fungal cat, or at least sheath its fangs for a time. re the horsechestnuts, sorry canker has been an issue. Have you tried excising and cauterizing the lesions with a blowtorch? Works sometimes with beech and oak here. We have few horsechestnuts, but this is also now being trialed at bartlett as well. like sealing huge wounds, little to lose--that was just an analogy tony; let's not scare off any more posters! wonder where poor APC is off to now...