Bundle 2

Taphrina betulina can be caused by a number of agents infact... Here's an extract from wikipedia... "Witch's broom growths last for many years and can be caused by many different types of organisms, such as fungi, insects, mistletoe, dwarf mistletoes, mites, nematodes, phytoplasmas and viruses.[1] Human activity is sometimes behind the introduction of these organisms;." Witch's broom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only if you get it right! You gonna want to know what right is...right? It is less than a precise science, certainly to make a "generalised " claim that any given percentage reduction of canopy will reduce water uptake for X number of cycles/years,,,whatever. OCA doc says , you are quite right mate, less than year "in most cases " .....So, that's what I mean about gettin' it right. How can you tell? Season will affect SWD As will deciduous v conifer presumably....I aint no expert for damn sure. I guess I could derive ways of plotting SWD and so transpirational uptake(locally ) for a given tree. Thus get a handle on the trees optimum "removal" window...but I got to admit. It seems like a hell of a lot of hassle. Several things strike me as pertinent with respect the rewetting of clays in relation to buildings... Clay is soft..it certainly becomes softer as it is rehydrated.. If a building has accommodated a tree's root system during its growth...it indicates a degree of "flexibilty" within its structure( the building)....Why then are you flagging up heave, even if it did occur, as a problem neccessarily? ( I am aware that much has been built around trees and not the other way round, hence I suppose I favor the.." its not the tree, its your flimsy foundation and engineers failing to think it thru'" argument!!) I think I would be looking to the the building for answers as to feasabilty and need for staged reduction. Foundations are an issue and I mean by the very nature of their engineering. In the same way, the materials used. I know less about buildings than I do about trees, so that should tell you it's a case of the blind leading the blind here mate... Essentially....the science makes sense. ( Yippeeee!! ) The process would be less than straightforward and in any case involved, and ask yourself...can you prove a staged reduction worked jus' cos the building's fine? I dont know. In conclusion I bodge the following ramshackle conclusions It would be influenced by a significant number of variables; some we have noted, and others also. ie... Species Age Class Aspect Drainage Microclimatic factors (aspect +exposure+recent climate variation etc etc...?) Building-age, recent history(incl surrounding area) Engineering design ( foundations, surroundings) Materials used I m certain there may be others.... Here's the sciency bit... I guess I would want to see more than a fair few of these " factors" ticked in order to think that a staged reduction was an appropriate recommendation , if you could get it right anyway. I guess I may be boring ya'..its good to think these things thru even if it is a load of ol' tosh!! I think there are probably few situations wherein heave can be successfully avoided by tree pruning techniques and science.....?

I see the logic of the point you make here.. I have made claims that differ to this and even whilst making them was aware of the a generlisation inplied by giving such an apparently emphatic answer. I would still have thought a more gradual wetting , sorry, rewetting , of clay soils could only really be to the buildings benefit for precisely the reason of how quickly it occurs...? Interesting. Thanks for posting...gonna dig alittle around this one!!

"I really do not see how you think that to be true??" I have been slammed for making sweeping statements that echo the sense conveyed here...I was reminded of the "thriving" industry that manages woodlands purely to produce carbon neutral heating fuel. All the pellet burning and so..I know. I worked the woods for a number of years and I got the bad back and empty bank account to prove it..... "I do agree that there is going to be a very tricky task of balancing timber production (which often the best way to manage a woodland in any case) and amenity use." Tricky. Must that they are managed however. Surely the problems arise when an agency (The F.C in this case ) is required to reinstate an industry to produce timber...The costs would be astronomical. And based on what? An encouraging market forecast? "Take Holden Hill just outside exeter for example , the harvesting of timber has trebled over the last 5 years ...." I hear what youre saying....I just dont think I am convinced that the little ol' isle of GB is gonna take the strain...I perceive too much pressure from development for one thing. I dont know what the answer is. We talked about the "biomass" revolution years ago. The remit currently set the F.C . is another reason to find the reality of a forestry industry, like that of the past, a tad wishful. All the more reason think that the F.C. are quite aware of the need to consult the Arb industry . They and the Arboricultural world would both be foolish not to recognise the need for such a collaboration. Just me twopenth... Edit..Oh and someone asked how are we to achieve this sorely needed introduction? I am still sat here lke a dumb@@@@ with me thumb in my **** wondering what to say....I wish I knew!!

Good post Frimsley....

Yeah..thats my fault Hama. I was being a bit sarcy or cynnical maybe. I think cynnical is a bit strong however. You may have read my comments about the reservations I have as to the way the data was collected for TIT2. L.A 's are are infact a second part of a three point pie, private ownership being the third (F.C,L.A's & Landowners ) The data variation seen over the whole in relation to area distribution of trees is an interesting fact. This was collected via satelite imagery. Im not sure how uptodate this was and I would question the detail...blagh blah...Reckon its pretty dodgy mate. Add to that , to extrapolate an accurate estimation of the actual area "treed" requires good numbers...dodgy in=dodgy out....It makes coming up with the right answer impossible. At least not without actually making and upkeeping a record.

And so it is that you begin to see why the F'C' receives the level of funding that it does... They are the foremost recognised professional"organisation". Not just as seen by govt but I wouldnt mind betting, Jo public also? It makes a considerable amount of sense for the the govt to look to this body ...if only from a "value for money" viewpoint with the issues at hand currently. Certainly from a climate change mitigation point of view, you,d think so. They are custodians to the largest area mass of tree cover. Well, at least they know what they got on the books! It also makes administrative sense for the commission to be required to work outside its remit . Imagine how disorganised it could become with obscure little pressure groups here and there pushing agendas borne of a variety of disciplines. All arguably fall under the the same broad subject...Its not as said, an exercise in academic progress but more a crisis of unity and agreement!! Its hard to get my head around how it is the commission seem so happy to take on a committment falling outside their skillbase. As said, a time for involvement. We have a head start and need to make the most of it in some way>

I think that the relevant point is herein Pat....it eludes to the regrowth after the 1-2 yr cycle. If you reread the thread Im confident that you will find your answer... i guess you could do this even more incrementally if you wanted to. Essentially it depends on the tree species ( ie-how vigorous a species is it? ) Its a good idea. This done to mitigate the occurrence of heave. Do you understand the difference? not being funny....Its a good policy to adopt on clay soils (so called elastic/plastic )

". Pruning the crown is unlikely to cause roots to dieback - the tree has invested energy in creating those roots" I would guess that it may be affected in different ways depending on age class, species and environmental factors. I can perceive of scientific processes that are a part of a trees biology/physiology that would perhaps not make it such a clear cut issue....

In a nutshell....the question is simple enough...Its finding an empirical answer that has so far eluded us. Perhaps its possible to extrapolate from a the theory that trees will maintain a root:shoot ratio? Apparently it is not as simple as this. Arborist News- just got my copy Vol18(No6) Dec 2009 Slightly off topic but exposes the way roots are affected by arboreal practices *(pages 35-39)

Originally posted by Bundle 2 "Not without being able to promote the case for tree management in the same way. Its been vocalised before on here,,are there any figures to show that we are doing a neccessary job, reducing accidents and mitigating risk whilst promoting tree health and sustainability r=etc etc...? " I understand the government in the USA spend an estimated $30 million dollars p.a.( since 1990 ) trying to find the answers to this and other related "green infrastructure " questions..... Im not sure where these numbers are derived. Its an impressive commitment if its right!!?

Im sorry to hear that Andy....Im gonna get all " something will turn up ..." on ya which will just piss you off. Funny thing is, I find myself in an almost identical situation as yourself. Im not convinced that the industry is all that great tho'. Ive had to work long and hard to get anywhere , paying my own way throughout almost without exception. Anyhoo, I dont want to get all resentful and bitter on ya'...Only perhaps that what I have in the past regarded as best practice, is not as commonly adopted protocol as it might at first appear. I piss of the guys whom I want most to get along with and walk headlong into situations about which I look back and think..."How did I not see that coming??" Ho hUm...2010....I wish you well and as b4, it cant get any worse than last years bad fortunes?!!

Well theres a big difference my friend and I cant stand being made to feel dumb especially whan I get talked down to by the consultant type... One thing I did manage to learn from marcus and a maths a'level is how and why statistics are or are not robust enough to withstand scrutiny.... Nuff said. Please check your copy of the document.... Sod it...heres the excerpt... "Within the London metropolitan area, claims against the Borough Councils alone have exceeded £23 million during the period 1988-1992 [20]. Nationally during the same period claims exceeded £1.6 billion [12]." Youre welcome!! Edit2- Heres an excerpt which describes precisely what I thought was the case as I sensed the numbers werent quite right...apologies for the misunderstanding mate! "However, these data have, and continue to be, erroneously cited by building and arboricultural consultants as representative of the whole country, regardless of varying climate and clay type." You get me.....

here an excerpt from the first para...Thanks for the link btw...I will read it. "The existing data do not adequately explain the problem. A review of the situation as related to trees, biology, soil, water relations, and the effects of climate is presented. The published data are shown to be inadequate." "£16 billion"...i think you mean £1.6 billion dont you?

Are you being coy Andy...? I am not familiar with the document but given the climatic history of the 70's and the rise in subsidence claims (in particular from London's housing stock placed on clay soils), it was perhaps a leap of logic to either,( or both ) assume this level of claim across the uk as a whole and so arrive at 16 billion or to have assumed that this estimated figure was infact a projected sum derived from Londons' claims alone. A lack of data is frustrating. edit-Although Im not sure how you explain the steep rise in claims shown in the early nineties...!

Its unrealistic to suppose that what is characteristic of London with respect certainly, to subsidence, should be so childishly extrapolated to include the uk and arrive at £16 billion....i simply dont believe it!! To some extent, I have similar reservations with regards the TIT2. An important document no doubt but if nothing else, it makes clear that there is a considerable "area" variation. Both in terms of tree cover and L.A structure,policy and funding strategies. I agree however that this ought to be reason enough, logically, to inspire a degree of conference. Something that I think Mark Johnston has himself had to highlight.

According to some nursery growers, the yanks are starting to see the results of neglecting root development at the nursery stage...as a result of "container" grown stock that is allowed to get too big fir it's pot!! If you think about it, this could be mechanical failure as a timebomb ..and in amenity planting this could lead to damage, death and loss?

Not without being able to promote the case for tree management in the same way. Its been vocalised before on here,,are there any figures to show that we are doing a neccessary job, reducing accidents and mitigating risk whilst promoting tree health and sustainability r=etc etc...? 'Cos if you read this rather self satisfied tome from a govt commissioned authority, they are doing a good job at congratulating themselves for doin' sweet F.A. Risky business.pdf

"But like Hamadryad has already put, "What do the FC have to gain?" In short, sweet FA! " Perhaps they would stand to lose a considerable amount if the funding was redirected with a more amenity focus. If you were given the x hundred thousand P.A ....what would you do with it? Its all good and well but if you suddenly become the focus of all the attention...you gotta have a strategy up your sleeve. What is highlighted is an apparent inability to agree on what is needed, neccessary and desirable whilst paying an appropriate degree of "realistic" attention ( or something ) to the inherent restrictions placed upon us...? A major failing of this current govt ( IMO ) when they pledge ( & continue to pledge ) unrealistic sums for the next politically expedient wagon or other. Admittedly perhaps my own view but without discourse there can be no union and this is true of everything. In order for there to be agreement there needs to be tolerance and an accommodation of the various agendas across a more general, agreed strategy...? No one thing is better than a.n. other perhaps but that "strategy" implies an emcompassing overview that is realistic , sustainable and flexible.....taking into account all the various forces and prioritising them in the way neccessary. edit- Yeah, and we're just phick innit...!

Contact "Fountains" Disporganised bunch of "left dont know what right is doin'" so and so's....Wasted my time & money (what I dont have )& thats putting it "nice" cos its a forum and not the pub!! But fairly sure they on the look out for UA1/5 holders to work as permissioners for utilitity contracts (EDF & National grid ) Perhaps thru Arbjobs?

Hama...sorry. Yes, I am guilty of not reading your text.... (I use adjustable cambiumsavers for the reason I hate pegs...) SWB....Its a nightmare for sure. There are reasons I wouldnt want to throw in an SRT in the ivy covered tree....You cant see the structural integrity of the anchor point-so use the next tree as an achor point. Ive never liked spikes in ivy....Bloody clumsy and poor/uncertain footholds all the way (ime) A top rope is the easiest way....Even using an achor in the neighbouring tree allows you to spike the ivy covered specimen whilst keeping a significant degree of your own weight on the line and in the harness ( by way of a "lay-back..old scool climbing technique, I hope you understand!). Pole rescue is a technique of its own. Dont you guys use that anymore? I did it quite separate from aerial rescue...Oh thats right...Pole rescue is option @assessors discretion I believe. Edit ( this getting a bit off topic?!!)

The case for a Tree Commission

Put srt in next tree...skin up and swing over..simples!!

That work would be a nightmare with pegs left allover the place...Even the one or two would put a spanner in the works...Thats been my experience. You gotta use spikes. Gaffs are a tool from the armoury. Thet are there to make life easier. Use them...if younknow when & how..Seems reasonable right? Hama "pegs allow for a secondary accses line should someone need to come and get you. in a hurry.." A fair point mate...there is no reason you shouldnt install a rescue line at the beginning of works tho' is there? IF you are "jumping" up a tree after to rescue and freeclimbing on pegs to do it....you are more of a problem than anything else...IMO

I think perhaps some arbs have an "over inflated"opinion of themselves. Im not sure you can neccessarily blame an entire industry for the varied individuals who represent it. We all as people bring something to the "gig" and thankfully its not the same thing as the next person, time and again ( I think that makes sense ) I think perhaps trees are sometimes managed better without the intervention of arbs to be blunt...I wouldnt say it was the overwhelming case however. I am more distressed by poor treework carried out from within the industry than anything else. On balance I would agree with Lee......we have an overall positive influence on trees.... I agree the Forestry Commission are far and away the best sponsored Arboreal organisation here in the U.K I too feel this is an oversight.....I am not certain we can blame ourselves for this however.Governments arent renound for listening to obscure pressure groups. We are the industry that needs to promote a higher and more integrated profile. I am gonna get all negative again... I see the industry as divided in many ways...or perhaps I see a conflict of interests having a negative influence on a more united agenda? Local authority v private sector Sultants v contractor ISA v AA F.C v All things amenity Treehuggers v Capitalists Planners v Aknowledged Arboreal value Happy New Year folks.....No really. It cant be worse than last years fiascos can it?