BatiArb

I agree that is always going to be the challenge as an independent advisor. However, it does not stop you holding those values and expressing your opinion. You can and I do still offer all the alternatives so the client can make their own informed judgement. Surely the consultant who holds his subject in high regard and values it accordingly will be seen as providing better advice than someone who shows not enthusiasm for the subject or even worse projects a negative opinion. A consultants role is to provide advice on a subject that they have enthusiasm for and knowledge about. Projecting this value to the client increases the importance of the decisions they make, either one way or the other. Again providing them with the information they need to make an informed decision is the value we offer. Education is the key here, and this goes back to Tony's comments as well

I could not agree more. This is something that Cassian Humphries and I are working on. Education is incredibly important. I understand and respect the saying that 'a little bit of knowledge is dangerous' but on the other hand if our clients and the public as a whole have a greater appreciation for trees, how they live, the dynamics of their reactive growth, etc. This can only be a good thing because understanding creates respect. If people generally have a better appreciation of trees this will reduce the fear factor associated with them and this is one of the biggest issues when it comes to attributing value. Increased tree value means increased value for the arboricultural profession - the people who care for these valuable trees......

Well again that all depends on the perceived value of the tree(s) in question. Value is a very subjective thing and influenced by both the arboricultural profession and the wider general populous. Personally I am of the opinion that we are moving into a time when trees will be the focus of far more attention with perceived and appreciated values increasing, however that is another story all together. Having said that though I do think it is important for arborists to persistently promote the value of trees and it is important to maintain a level of service that reflects a high value for trees as an asset that justifies a significant financial investment to ensure their longevity of benefit.

It was not a contradiction just an addition. See below:

Well that is an interesting question. So much would depend on the site in question and on the value of the tree to justify such effort. Also you have to consider whether it would be appropriate to commission and employ all of these survey tools at once or over a period of time. On the right tree you could use all in one go and on one visit and in which case you would save a great deal of expense in duplicating the site time and travel costs. In such a case you would also get a very complete picture of the situation and be able to make a very robust informed decision on its future supported by a comprehensive management plan. Estimated cost between £750.00 - 900.00 +VAT. However, chances are that such a series of surveys would be completed over a period of time from the initial site inspection completing the VTA, taking the acoustic hammer out of the back pocket and producing a recommendation for further investigation using the thermal imaging camera and/or PICUS depending on how much of the tree was giving concern (Thermal Imaging on the whole tree, branch attachment and root system or PICUS just on the trunk). The initial site visit with hammer in back pocket and probably a good billhook in there as well is likely to be £200 +VAT Following up the recommendations of the above with a more detailed inspection TI / PICUS is going to range from £250 - 500.00 +VAT depending on the combination of tools used. Finally depending on the result of the Thermal Imaging / PICUS then you go in with your invasive inspection tools, which will be targeted by the thermograms and tomographs. This would require your third site visit so again price would range from£250 - 500.00 +VAT depending on the combination of tools used. If you use the Thermal Imaging it could well reveal root issues with the tree so it may be prudent to consider undertaking an investigation with an AIR-SPADE to look at root damage and decay issues in more detail. This would need an average of half a day on site with the compressor and spade followed by a photographic report. Range again would be between £250 - 500.00 +VAT depending on the combination of tools used. All a bit broad but then every job would be worked out on a unique set of circumstances so will vary a lot from the above.

It all comes down to how much we VALUE trees....... But as you say we are also dealing with an IDEAL world and the REAL world so yes I do agree that for a good many situations a guided core can be useful. I say that with a healthy respect for your fungal knowledge being the guide. However, there are many arborists who will not have such a great understanding and will need to take more samples. Comes back to the experience, knowledge and understanding of the arborists using the tool. .

I have extracted the following from the thermal imaging thread: I have shown this list now to a number of arborists from different backgrounds and have had no reason to change it.

Yes, but how do you know where to 'pull out the core'? Yes you will be informed by your VTA but how many core samples do you need to take before you get a complete picture of what is going on? What about root issues? What happens if you turn the tree into a pin cushion looking for the decay and then all you find is a small pocket that means you need to nothing more? 6 months is a few days in the life of a tree. Does it really.......? I am NOT convinced and would not go around drilling holes in trees before fully exploiting non-invasive methods. .

Tony, I am not saying it is a totally bad idea. I just do not see the need or the additional value in doing all the fracto stuff. To me it is the last thing you do before felling the tree. The testing is targeted by other survey methods such as PICUS and Thermo and the core samples are taken to do the final checks on the assessment so far. I do not personally think that taking core samples out of healthy trees is justifiable unless associated with a research project. After all you are deliberately injuring the tree(s). I would be interested to know how much information you think you gain when using the fractometre on decaying wood. Do you think it provides you with additional information that would not be provided any other way without drilling? That is information which is truly influential in the decision as to what should be done with the tree. Not simply nice to have detail.

Tony, Please you sound like you are taking offence on behalf of Claus, who I do not believe would be offended by my comments. The point I am trying to make is that the method has limitations. It is reading HISTORIC symptoms which have taken TIME to develop. The method is (like any other) only as good as the knowledge of the Arborist using it, and the quality of the training they have received. I am not in any way saying that the method is flawed and certainly have not wish to de-value it. I do believe however, that Thermal Imaging does offer us a great way of validating VTA and taking the inspection of an important tree onto the next level. It is a natural and important progression.

It all comes down to a healthy respect and understanding for the limitations of the system being used. EVERY methodology, survey technique or system has limitations. No ONE method should be used exclusively. AND of course any method is only as good as the Arborist using it.

I do not believe that there is any comparable method. VTA is THE METHOD ! However, it is only as good as the Arborists who has (or has not) the level of knowledge to use it........

And this in turn can depend on the tree and its species, not to mention the location and method used for taking the core. Really there are so many variables in this that the whole methodology can only offer indicative observations that should only be used as supporting evidence. IMO this is an invasive assessment tool that is a last resort used to back up other non invasive survey tools such as PICUS and Thermal Imaging. The latter can be used to effectively target the point where to take cores. At this point I do not believe that the fractometre is really going to give you much more information. I certainly think that going around taking core samples of healthy trees is inappropriate unless scientifically justified by a research project.

No problem with simple visual tree assessment (VTA) based on an arborists view of the tree through the reading of morphological symptoms within the tree's reactive growth form. It is the TR ratio and 70/30 cut off that has always been the matter of debate for me. Although I also think many of the issue are due to miss use of the criteria, without consideration for the trees structural form. Claus is always at pains to stress that the 30% sound wood boundary is for mature maiden (un-reduced) full grown trees. It is not relevant to trees that have started to retrench or have been reduced by pruning or storm damage. The 30% rule cannot be used in all tree populations either. If it were to be broadly accepted in Australia then most of the mature Eucalyptus trees would be felled. The TR ratio is totally irrelevant for ancient trees where they have retrenched and are re-establishing a new crown form on a hollow trunk. Claus only really deals with structurally sound wood and does not go into the relevance of physiologically functional tissue verses dead but solid wood. He is great at keeping things Stupsy Simple, but sometimes his efforts to make things easy and understandable mean that the reader is encourage to find black and white answers to very grey questions........

This is illegal in the UK and Europe. All bat species are covered by European legislation that is enforced in all member states. Although this does not stop house holders undertaking routine repairs of their roofs under guidance from the relevant statutory nature conservation organisation (SNCO) such as Natural England (NE), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). In England and Wales all bats are protected under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &C) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

Life is the experience of now........ The past has gone and you have no way of changing it. The future is not here so you cannot do anything about it now. It is so easy to loose time and energy worrying about things we cannot control. I know I have lost myself in both at the same time and on different occations. Live each moment and be gratful for all the experiences, without considering them good or bad. .

Yes, I would agree this idea has legs......

All trees over a certain diametre perhaps......? Not allowed to fell without consent........ But with no pruning restrictions as long as the work is completed by a qualified arborists...... what do you think?

I recently received a private message that I thought was worth sharing and discussing further. I would personally consider the majority of decay fungi as primarily saprophytic, with some of them only in specific circumstances turning to a parasitic form. Fungi in trees are simply taking advantage of a situation where there is dry wood to decay in a sheltered enclosed environment, which offers them stability. Some are also capitalising on being in there early with a pioneering colonisation strategy, which enables them to grow with limited competition. The enclosure within the tree offers them a place where there is less competition, because the species we associate with such decay are frequently those that are able to survive in spore form within the living wood. Such species can take advantage of the early colonisation of the wood and frequently their mode of decay is very specialist as a result. I suspect that we do not see Inonotus dryadeus on fallen logs or dead trees more often, because at this stage of the log decay process there is so much competition from other fungi. I think for example that the situation you describe could have occurred because the tree was blown over early (so to speak) and the Inonotus was still growing in the trunk and stump in an unrestricted form without significant competition to limit its spread. Andrew

Good point. Should have clarified, but to be honest am interested in comments on both.

Anyone with any experience of the new IML-RESI ? Would be good to hear some comments on the improvements....

Well now you are asking...... Do you have a list of species you need?

Ben, The following is a section from the e-mail exchange with Jim Mead regarding the demonstration you speak of. Firstly I was disappointed to have such a blindingly obvious tree to look at. However, this has been a bit of a common problem, which is perhaps in some way due to a lack of understanding of where thermal tree assessment truly fit in. The assessment methodology uses observations of effective heat flow through trees to evaluate the proportion of functional wood and using TTMS software processing the reactive growth ability of the tree can be calculated. Where trees have lost over 80% functional wood their ability to maintain a stable temperature will be severely compromised. Such trees will appear distinctly different from others of similar age and maturity so they are quickly spotted within a population survey. The ash tree that we both looked at in the allotments in Enfield was just such a tree, where the internal dysfunction exceeded 80%. This was also in combination with some root issues that compromised the trees functional abilities even further, as a result the tree was in a condition where it could not maintain an even temperature and therefore had very little reactive growth capacity. With consideration to your thoughts about posting a comparison between PICUS and thermal imaging it is my opinion that the two assessment tools are not comparable, because they are looking at different things. It would be a little like expecting to compare and ultrasound scan of a human body with an x-ray (not an ideal comparison but I think it illustrates the point). The two bits of equipment are looking at different things. I believe that we need to consider how we use tree assessment tools and make more comparisons to how modern medical physicians use different scanning devises to assess our physiological condition. It is all about gaining more information about as many different aspects of a body’s function, in order to further inform a management decision about treatment. A physician will progressively ask for more scans to be completed depending on the results of others and how clear the information is. When it comes to the cascade of assessments methods we have for trees I would suggest that the following order should be considered: • Visual Tree Assessment by an Arborist • Acoustic hammer (Elison style) • Thermal Imaging to observe functional heat flow • PICUS / TreeTronic / Radar • Resistograph / DDD / core sampling The above list is ordered with a view to: • Surveyor expertise • Speed of application (therefore cost) • Requirement for visual evidence • Invasiveness of equipment The following paragraphs are from Jim’s response to the above: Please be assured that, I am fully aware of the different applications of the two systems, and I appreciate the scientific implications of Thermal Imaging, and that it has potential as a valuable tool in our industry. I am genuinely keen to see thermal imaging prove its efficacy as a tool for assessing the functional capabilities of trees under stress, and enabling us all to make better judgments on their potential for recovery, and or their response to treatment. The choice of tree was nothing to do with myself and I knew from the outset, that the PICUS would produce results, perhaps more impressive to the lay person on such a subject tree and I am keen to be able to demonstrate to my colleagues and anybody else that's interested, that both systems do have value in Arb, and I agree with your order of application. I would really appreciate being able to use your response, along with your report on the tree in Enfield, as I feel that both, together with my report, would put things in perspective, and may hopefully allow more people to understand the uses of thermal imaging over ultra-sound. I trust the above is sufficient to answer you question. .

Yes, sorry a different wavelength and another vibration .