Bundle 2

Apologies if this has been posted already but I figured it was worth a look. At the risk of coming off like a hippee, it serves to illustrate how emotive these things can be. I for one would like to see that reason is not swept aside amidst HSE concerns or insurers..... Ancient oak to be felled in Somerset despite local campaign | Arboriculture News | Horticulture Week [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3dA4IRcBw]YouTube - The campaign to save the Lucombe Oak at Henhayes Crewkerne[/ame] Old oak still for the chop (From Chard & Ilminster News) Enjoy!

Tony, Gibbon...sorry to be a boar but check this....... " Adventitious roots are the ones that form from shoot tissues, not from another (parent) root. Most commonly, adventitious roots arise out of stems, originating via cell divisions of the stem cortex or less often from axillary buds hidden in the bark....." from here.. Types of Roots I would concur however that the crucial issue here is that the tissue does not differentiate...that is to say that it does not have a blueprint programmed into it that determines exclusively the purpose to which the plant may be able use the result of the cell manufacture....Perhaps this is why we call trees "living" and use terms like "dynamic" to describe a real time element to their life processes.....!

" sure if you can download the stickers aswell..." Ha Ha.... Sorry atree, no offence intended..!

This summarises the report..... Forestry Commission Scotland report highlights importance and potential of sector | Arboriculture News | Horticulture Week I noticed the environment quality, biodiversity and community development..... FCS-Strategy.pdf

Thats fairly comprehensive David....thanx 4 posting; my inquiry tho' was to depose a theory that only the smoooth barked trees produce this kind of rooting...Personally dont think this can be the case however, your photos are further evidence that they most certainly do! The definitions of aerial v adventitious....(?) Root - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Adventitiousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems a bit of an unclear if not academic, scientific differentiation..... ( Havent read this one yet...) Types of Roots

Just download the PDF electronic catalog.....?

Mmmm..Likely to be full I guess....I couldnt get a place to hear him talk last time and yet had to suffer being told by some how it was just the same old stuff they had heard a hundred times etc...If thats so then let someone else get a place....!?

I just came across this. Great if it works . Not too sure what was meant exactly by "infusion technique " although planting wild garlic was one suggestion.... Worth a read anyways....... http://www.jcaac.com/conquer.htm http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=248829

" Dont just think flowers. " The Balsam pops smell pretty good during bud break I reckon.... For reference mate, look up the library for.. What plant Where..by Roy Lancaster

Interesting suggestion ScottF.... http://www.personal.psu.edu/sam21/dogvomit.htm http://www.english-country-garden.com/fungus/fuligo-septica.htm http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dog+vomit+slimemould&btnG=Search&meta= Recently UKTC was host to a thread....Most replies were saying dogs vomit slime mould.... http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/archive/2009/msg01479 It is possible that the Fuligo sepatica is on organic litter or similar in the fork of the beech...or has been suggested , localised dysfunction....!I guess Im saying that the fungi can be quite deceiving in their characteristics and always seem to keep you guessing..... Have you tried asking folk who may have witnessed the limb failure 4 years ago...they might remember some detail of the event as it is the kind of thing people remember for years....The failed limb is long gone I assume but would likely hold the key to your query....(Not much help I guess...sorry mate.)

Oh my God ! Radical....

Hi David, Sorry you had such a shocking experience with excretia 2day mate ...! I reckon I ve seen it on oak also...If you have any pics I would love to see them although they can be a little limited without some annotation sometimes... I have also gotten bogged down in the scientific definitions of aerial vs adventitious but wonder if it isnt splitting hairs to some degree.... Anyhoo, I figured the idea was flawed.... http://s480.photobucket.com/albums/rr170/Bundle2/

Fair enough bro'...actually a quote from a T.O. as he went on to describe the use of area orders.....I apologise if an unfavorable generlisation was the end result . Slap...dunno, dont think the area order is disproportionate but can see that it may be construed as aggressive....

" The point being that if you contact your LATO ......" I couldnt agree more mate...I have come across this exact approach by LA's as I had not notified them of my intentions b4 hand....I believe that the situation may well have not escalated to the the stage reported by the original poster had he taken the precaution out of...lets say...courtesy, to let them know. I was tho' a bit miffed at the attitude of the T.O concerned....I stand by my original interpretation of the legal requirements and dont appreciate being treated like a thick norfolk oik on the end of saw to be patronised blah blah....It is a problem for all concerned as Tony noted earlier and I suppose a part of the reactive nature of arboriculture...too few resources and what there is stretched to the limit.... Dont get me started on how undervalued the whole industry is (incl trees ) ...the figures are quite an eyeopener...cheers

" Does that mean you have in there felling without contacting the TO in question? ..." With no restrictions in place there is no "requirement " to solicit the approval of the tree officer...However, cut over the F.C.'s felling license quota for your quarter and you will be the wrong side of the regs..... As I understand it, if the so called Area Order is wheeled out of the closet and summarily slapped on your clients woodland, the LA are required to inform the owners and all other interested ( affected ) parties...to not do so can render said order "duff"...

Have you tried switching the computer off and then on again.......( Ha Ha Ha ...)

looks like a couple of Ents dancing....

I am repeating a hypothesis that was presented on a another forum ( internet slag I know! ) but it was something along the lines... Observations of aerial rooting over the years has lead to an anecdotal theory that it can be seen, quite commonly. BUT that it seemingly only occurs on smooth barked trees like..eg. Horbeam ( Carpinus spp) Beech ( Fagus spp ).... Anyone else find it on oak for instance....?

You are about the FC pulling rank in effect...it is worth looking into this. The FC are not a problem to deal with ime.. The trouble is that as a woodland manager/contractor, you may not be around to see this directive completed..the client may go with a cheaper contractor, they may move and ownership changes or they may simply decide to sell the timber....a TPO will ensure protection. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/27/hockney-art-seasons-trees) By attaching a management plan the TO will get an understanding of the intentions for the woodland....On this basis there would be no need to object to the order as if reasonable, there will be no reason for works not to be given consent... ( Complain neighbours....PITA but thats life eh!! ) It will most likely be an area order which is the lazy tool for TO to grab land restrictions and such.....( check om this if I were U ) It will be temporary and the LA will want to settle the status more satisfactorily so I would use this opportunity to put up the plan and steer your client in this direction as best you can....The more you protest the less likely they are to see your clients viewpoint imo..?

Tim..."Uniformly" is different from "distribution of energy" and hence the wording was calculated to convey this differentiation....I have accepted that cable has its place and further spoken about species specific etc for precisely this reason.....suggest you read the post a bit more carefully if your intended inference was that I appear not to understand the value of this simple design....I am not against cable for the sake of it; neither am I dead set for cobra systems and the like. There are aspects of each with distinct advantages and perhaps disadvantages.....It is a part of our work to be aware of them and chose an appropriate installation based on this selsctive equation. As it happens, I see installations which are poorly designed and unnecessary all too often....I probably would not want to hang my hat on a static installation anyway...there is too little dynamic potential from the trees point of view in most but the more unusual of circumstances....I wonder as to value of highlighting extreme examples to prove a point mate....Nuff said.....

You are making assumptions that the installation is/will never,( perhaps rarely) to be inspected an/or adjusted...unlikely when your kids are swinging from the hardware...I dont want to start ww3 tom but I believe the extent of damage attributable to invasaive techniques is species specific....and to a large degree the aboricultural industry is in agreement as to the benefits of non invasive methods but that this is not confined to decay/infection court issues. I prefer the techniques of eg Cobra for reasons of mechanical superiority, believing as I do that the stem will be stronger as energy distribution is more effective at the point of attachment...

Oh sorry... i thought you said pre and not post For the sake of argument mate...(the real implications of your last comment escapes my logic for the present ), the notion of protecting a tree with a TPO , whilst it extends to the root zone, as to not do so would render the order ineffectual to all intents and purposes on account of it failing to "protect the tree " is bound as I understand it by a conceptual notion that said protection "will not hinder beyond reasonable, the landowners enjoyment of said property" or words to that effect.......If anybody knows different then speak up...please. §edit... So herein lies the rub...and believe me, its probably not worth the aggro if it gets to this stage mate.......

Pretty much the fact that a TPO is in place, requiring permission is sought re: works that may/will affect the tree over and above the exemptions ( DDD whu ) Oogzy, this will also include foundations/digging/sinking of said structural support ( of treehouse ) within root area of tree to which the order is designated ( ie the oak ) regardless the fact the bole ( trunk ) is outside your boundary but the root zone inside if you take my mean9ng....herein lies the rub.

Out of interest Oogzy, was the treehouse post TPO?

Its not an easy question to answer mate...I would have thought that a tree officer may be able to give you better guidance than me but suffice to say, the regs are in black and white....Personally I dont think it was such a great plan to screw the pole to the trees scaffold branch structure...right there you have a breach of the regs imo... Notwithstanding, as arborists, we will use drilling in a way similar to your method, to effect crown support....Our regs ONLY allow us to drill... If you research the methods of canopy recreation apparatus, you will quickly find it is non-invasive in nature..(ie, no drilling ) At the end of the day it wil depend on the T.O. in question in my experience....I dont want to run them down in any way as they do a worthwhile and undervalued job...but thats a different story. It may be he simply isnt that worried...or maybe he's/she's a real jobsworth and you will get your wrists slapped. I think it is unlikely to adversely affect the TPO with regards the development.