Bundle 2

Im not sure I follow Andy. I dont agree as I see it but you may have read something else into the thread. The two posts previous to yours were an attempt at humour really. What does seem obvious to me however is that the report will have Steve's name and number on it. Should the client wish to seek clarification with respect issues beyond the report then it would appear plausable that the arborist would be contacted in this regard. Equally obvious however seems the notion that to keep the report simple and not to stir up grey issues such as plasticity and qualified and trained without quantification of any or all of these things serves only to complicate matters beyond comprehension. Hence, and I hope you are not taking offence Steve as your concientious attitude is to be applauded, it has been suggested that rather than complicate things, the arb needs to both recognise when and where their professional opinion is a matter of, well, professionalism and so stand by their appraisal of the remit and its implications and simply say..."Not for this report" ... rather than run the gauntlet of caveat, explanations and other arse covering "poppycock" in the misguided belief that it is helpful or neccessary. It isnt. Thats "pointless" as I see it... Sorry if this seems a tad blunt old chap! Now I must away and watch our beloved leader make a total pratt of himself in the debate...

Presumably then Steve, you have an opinion as to what level and extent the sample needs to cover..ie depth etc....So then, what is a "Trained Professional"? Trained to what degree and in what discipline? Arguably, saying it is beyond the scope of the report may be the realistic option....Im jus'messin' with ya' mate!

I had to look a bit closely at that one...Perhaps it proves the theoretical notion that the FB's are "aerodynamic"...well we know they are...you only got to look at them to know what a good frisbee some of them would make. Less wind resistance equals longevity of host due to not being blown over or some such nonsense. Perhaps the trailer will get rolled and we will witness " geotropic" growth patterns....Two research theses in one.... Great find mate!

Sorry for the confusion.

Its offline til 2011...as is PDip.

Steve...I used to know of an online soil resource...It was posted on this site some time ago- it might pay to make a search. I will check my files as I keep links and data as I come across it. However, I should warn you that you will likely find it to be a little clumsy if you wish to pin it down to a small site. ( you suggest soil import ) \\ Here it is...http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/

Thanks guys...I mean, I tend to share your views and it was precisely because of the way the incident is reported that I wanted to get more info. I agree with both the points you make David and feel that this is the way HortWeek seems to insist on "paying lip service" to matters arboricultural. I would have to assume that the inquest was a little more intelligently and professionally conducted than the rather scant reporting implies...Ho hum. I never seem to learn where this publication is concerned. And it used to be a stalwart of the professional! It is misleading turns of phrase though innit- making professional "Tree Blokes" look a tad dumb....Opps, off me soapbox!

Anyone know anything more about this and wish to comment..? Accidental death verdict for runner killed by falling branch | Arboriculture News | Horticulture Week

Not sure what solution to offer you mate. The issues are obvious I guess. I applaud your not wanting to nail the tree. It will always be a temporary solution but it is this that leads to nailing and screwing which then never gets removed...and ofetn gets further bodged as the fence and tree "outgrow" each other.

Not per tree though. Thats the way the forestry commission cutters had to work of old...dying breed now. Get it stacked, work out volume and % air. Agree weight per volume for species variation...argue lots with the client and agree a price! Good luck....16' could be a pita if you gotta handball the gear onto the floor...Or are you using harvesters? In this part of the world, you cant justify a harvester for less than 1000t.....

"Posative pressure is of no consequence to a well established and fruiting Mycelial mass that is not only well plumbed into the trees system but causing a great deal of dysfunction within its transport network, effectivley "plugging" the vessels of a tree. IMO..." Im not sure that positive pressure would be of "no consequence" as you put it. In fact, it is more likely to be the only mechanism at work if the vascular function is seriously disrupted? This cos transpiration is not a process that can be relied upon resulting from said "disruption" Thats what "dysfunctional " means unless Im missing something here. Dont get me wrong, I too am speculating. Im put in mind of saprophytic species all of a sudden..... BTW, arent the most vessels actually present in coniferous trees ( so softwoods ) This where we find the "pits". The anatomy of softwood is significantly different to broadleaved hardwoods...sorry, stating the obvious but the detail is certainly of significance if speculating ( which is of interest esp on forums ) .... Never seen a gano sweat. Nothing much surprises me about fungi! I should phrase that somehow differently. Nothing but surprises are the norm with fungi...yeah, that's better!! Great image of the robustus btw...quality!

Perhaps the function of the exudate is the physical result of the fruit body as it is "modified" with spore production, well release probably, in mind. I accept that fungi sporrulate using differing mechanisms so should need to ponder this further to be fair. I find the point Hama makes here more readily appealing however and agree with the logic he extends as to the reasons for this characteristic .... Thinking out loud, I find it perfectly feasable that friut bodies should be "influenced" to some degree by the saturation of the cells ( aka turgidity ) This would suggest that the positive hydraulic pressures affected by a trees vascular system could be used to the advantage of the fungi's friut body production. ( I have not stopped to consider other ways in which this could manifest itself but such are the restrictions of "thinking out loud" ) Why then would we not see a variation in the exudates produced from species to species and this is likely effected by fungal species aswell as tree species, and recent climactic events....eg; rainfall. topography soils etc ) Changes in the trees vascular status give rise to the droplets and sap status may well be influencial. So then, it could give rise to the type of exudate you are seeing Hama.

Seems to me that you might benefit from making the calculations more than once. By this I mean, as Im sure you will have been shown during the induction training to the use of QTRA, with different inputs. Try mixing it up so to speak. It will be by seeing the way inputs determine the output value that will throw the most valuable insights to the fore. I would also urge you to consider whether the output seems reasonable at the final analysis. If it seems way off, against your gut feeling, then I would suggest it probably is! Remember, the wheel and initial survey is only an indication of the need to consider the risk in detail, allowing other, perhaps more "pertinent" factors to the fore...I dont know, like management resource pressures , conservation and the like.....Im rambling so Ill shut up! cheers

This is quite good advice Steve , to be fair. It is the aspect most often giving rise to doubts and questions for us newbies to QTRA. I hope I am not telling you anything Mike hasnt or wouldnt i suspect say also. Training is actually only a very limited insight to the system. PoF will take time to see in a "realistically" proportionate value. I would add though that perhaps for many arborists,( and I may well be chastised for taking or vocalising this view, it is my own and not handed down from QTRA I hasten to add ) for many there is no need to understand the mathematics in detail or even to some extent, in principle. This is ever more true I think with the upcoming release of software that can be used with handheld PDA's or toughbooks and the like. My own view is that a better understanding of the maths has gotta help but I studied maths to A'level and thought it was fun! The difficulties can arise when those of us with only a limited grasp of the method try to apply, or miss apply I suppose, theoretically. No amount of reading is gonna sort out fundamental failure to grasp the underlying theory. It may just have the opposite effect. This is a long winded way of saying that Im not convinced that we all need to be mathematicians to use it and reading may infact "undo" the work QTRA put in when training students in it's use. I noticed Mike was quite quick to suppress wrong turns whilst keeping it all as simple as he can. I think the same criticisms and questions come up over and over tbh. If you are looking to read the math, try.... " An introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis" by a Dr Lyman Ott. isbn 0-87872-134-7 Otherwise I am trying to get to reading "Risk" by Dan Gardner and irrationality by Stuart Sutherland. I have no idea what to expect from the last 2 but Ott is heavy dude! I hope it helps.

If you are not already a subscibed member of the QTRA forum, ( this is likely the case as a licensed user ) then I would suggest perhaps you could change your preferences to receive mail as it is generated. There are a number of examples that appear in real time aswell as some discussion around related issues of risk assessment and in particular, the way QTRA is used and thought about by those trained in it's use. But then you knew that didnt you?

"....but its not any worse than anything else man inflicts on trees." Being the cynnical old git I am Andy, I hardly dare to imagine this is anywhere near the truth . Ho hum.

If you click on the original link David you will be able to download the flyer for the event which lists the speakers...Stupid thing is they dont include a start time for the "symposium". Barchams are host to a speaker on the same date with a similar theme (ish) I wondered if I might get thru both doors and make an epic day of it...timing is key however. Roland Ennos, 12th May 2010 | Barcham Trees Website

"....Sneaky little blighters......." Mmmm...all brown and fury but decidedly not cute. A parasite infact! Bee Fly - Bombylius major, species information page

Interesting. Any scientific links atall? I found it dead and clinging to the white door handle of the white conservatory at home. Home is in the city of Norwich. Not a typical habitat from what you indicate Charlieh! Edit..cheers mate, just clocked your edit....

Anyone attending this? I can seem to find a time for the start of this event. I am guessing it must be an all day meeting looking at the line up. What start time is it? MaB Urban Forum

I reckon its a bee....Hairy and stingless which is okay by me given the aggressive look this badboy carries around with him but not one I have ever seen before. Any info?

Whilst this is true....I am personally not a fan of thinning, regardless of species virtually. In fact, pruning needs be considered from the view of habit. Decurrent an excurrent requiring a different approach. Excurrent HOW to Prune Trees, Excurrent Decurrent Decurrent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here are documents for those wishing to read further into tree mechanics, loading and mass damping. ( Its not light reading but stick with it..Ken James has done quite a bit in this field.) Apart from anything else, thinning tends to result in the tree putting down new wood only locally. This results in a loss of taper to limbs and an increased end loading. None of this is condusive of a healthy plant and cannot often be justified imo. The more you understand what you are doing, the better able you are to make the right decision and advise a measured recommendation re: tree management. My advice is DONT DO IT Engineering in Arboriculture.pdf Mass Damping. K.James.pdf Dynamic loading of Trees.pdf

He WAS "trounced" as you put it though mate. For some considerable period his work was left unpublished and unpublishable by the system. The "system" refused to even consider the work. The reason, mostly that it did not have the "package endorsement" of a system slave so to speak. These academics have no shame....Fickle lot. A testament to the mans humility, professional vision and ideology that he did not simply flick two fingers at those wishing then to bestow their awards on him. Cheers Paul!

NJUG Publication10.pdf

What template and or system are you intending using for Tree Risk Assessment...( in addition to VTA......) ? cheers Tim. edit: nevermind...I see you state QTRA..Good for you