daltontrees

I specialise in High Hedges cases. If you PM me the address I may be able to give you a free opinion. There have been about 60 appeals in Scotland so far, I am seeing COuncils getting cases wrong quite regularly, although some Councils are better than others and are dealing with cases very professionally. I haven't had any cases in Renfrewshire so I don't know what the Council is like there.

Sure as heck not the first hedge rage case. I had one of the first cases in Scotland last year where the shaded party couldn't even wait for the high hedge application to the Council to be decided, and (allegedly) cut the hedge down while its owner was away on holiday.

I am leaning towards a hybrid of the two models that overcomes my problem with the Shigo model but looks more realistic than the Mattheck one. I have so many things on just now that I haven't the time to get the microtome out and make some thin sections. Spring would be best anyway, to try and catch a few growing sections.

First one is Shigo model, relies on alternating growth of branch and stem wood, overlaying. Second is Mattheck as used in the video, relies only on branch wood having direct cambial connection to stem face. I can't get the first to work in my mind.

This is haunting me. See attached.

Your explanation is clear. I need to consider whether I agree with it. What holds me back immediately is that stem xylem is necessary (particularly in ringoorous trees) very early in the growing season for the water and nutrient supply for branch development.

Ahhh the penny has just dropped. You are in fact that KT Smith! If you look back at around posting 15 in this thread you can see I posted your paper. I havppen to agree with you etirely about the fallacy of codominant stem unions just being very steep branch unions. That alone was enough for me largely to dismiss the Slater work. I also comemnted recently on someone's request for a definition of meristem. It reminded me that ny model or theory for branch attachment has to recogniuse some very simple basic truths oabout cell division and differentiation. I believe that once elongation of primary meristem has taken place (elongation and lateral deviation, the source of all branches), the residual meristem activity then creates specialisms in the function of the cells to create vascular paths adn thereafter secondary meristem is repsonsible for putward growth and all future annual inctements; seeing it in these stages underlines the fundamental difference between steep branch unions and codominant forks. They can never be the same in terms of attachment or connections (in the Shigo sense of the word). But it also creates a problem for the Shigo model that just doesn't go away. The Shigo model is an unresolveable topology problem. The upward vascular connection from the stem to the branches cannot put on tissue next year. Once created it is overlain entirely by stenm vascular tissue. The annual increment next year cannot arise from the outer face of the branch-in-stem tissue because, even if there were meristematic cambium cells present they would not be able to expand and they would be crushed against the inner face of last year's stem wood. And so the only resolution to the topological problem is for the branch-in-stem wood to have externally connected cambium. Running parallel to the stem cambium until it flows under, around and over the bark collar. Ths could accommodacte all the apparent attributes of the Shigo model including the overlapping appearance, dye testing, branch collar regeneration, as long as the usual transverse flow properties of wood are accepted as being present in unions just as they are in any other adjacent wood cells.

Names! Names!

It could hardly have been said better.

Unless the M fungi derive xygen from tree roots as part of the symbiosis? If they can allow larger molecules like C6H12O6 across their cell walls they can surely admit tiny O2? Will look this up when I get a chance, hut don't let it stop someone stopping me or doing it for me. especially if they know the answer.

Blimey, and I thought I was being pessimistic...

A sound strategy. Just meant a height reduction as an alternative to removal. If it can't hit the target it's not a risk.

Having pondered this for a good while, I think the strategy is to invite sparpophytic fungi into teh rooting zone so tha tthey will not only colonises the ground-contact deadwood but will also put out rhizomes and hyphae into the shallow surface layer arund the deadwood. In so doing they may prevent a barrier to progress of Armillaria by creating a strip of soil exhausted of the material Armillaria would feed on and releasing less complex mineral nutrients that would contribute to the health of any tree roots so that they can fight off infection. Perhaps mycorrhyzal fungi (of the ectotrophic type), in creating a sheath around the smaller roots also create a physical and chemical barrier, if not an allelopathic one that creates a degree of resistance for the tree. I am now out of my depth. I don't know if ectotrophic mycorrrhyzal fungi (which are benefitting from a symbiotic relationship with the tree) would be helped by deadwood. But I suppose allelopathy could be a trait of saprophytic deadwood feeders too, and if so the shallow soils in the deadwood zone would become a chemical barrier to Armillaria. In effect this is like the proven strategy for prevention of Heterobasidion spread in clearfelled forestry. The stump surface layer is killed (H.a. can only colonise living wood) and Pseudotrametes gibbosa is applied to degrade the stumps but also usefully to 'see off' the Heterobasidion. Don't quote me anyone, I am speculating somewhat.

Oooerr, on the way through to the kitchen I just had a blinding revelation about branch attachment, but then I poured a glass of Pinot Gris and it faded. Something to do with what I researched for a recent question on Arbtalk about meristems, that now seems in the back of my mind to support Shigo's empirical findings. Brought on by IanW's pictures. If it comes back to me in the morning I will share it here. It, anything, has got to be better than doing my tax return. Happy birthday post, by the way.

If the poplace doesn't express a strong interest in keeping trees, then neither the legislation nor the Council decisions abut tree retention wlll change. I don't feel bad about doing BS5837 surveys, if anything I do all I can to be objective rather than try and play any games to redress the balance. That has only ever seemed like trying to slow down a speeding bus by sticking your arms out the window. All you do is draw attention to yourself or get your arms ripped off. The point is the laws are there already (if a little weak) but there is no will to do anything much meaningful with them. We're all going to hell in a hand cart anyway...

In terms of risk assessment, that's high target presence, high severity of harm. Definitely merits more detailed investigation of any elevated likelihood of failure. Buried butt and rootplate won't do the tree any good in long term. I'd be looking to test with mallet, and also watch it for rocking on a windy day. If any doubt, maybe reduce to 29 feet?

It's more likely that something else is doing the killing and that black stuff is just feeding on dead bark and wood. Picture too distant and fuzzy to say any more than that.

I have had this list for a while guernsey honey fungus.pdf

Yeah, just found my old 2005 BS during clearout just now. It seemed to allow a 20% offset if if it was deemed tha tthe tree could tolerate it. As such the offsetting was a decision to accommodate design, not to reflect tree troot morphology. No wonder it was abused and had to be changed! Hope the OP has got it now. The 20% discretion no longer exists. Offsetting needs to be justified, and work in the resultant RPA has to be approved separately to production of TCP. The fundamental test seems to be "the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the tree’s viability" (citing BS5837:2102 section 3.7). I don't see how any LPA could reasonably refuse minor encroachments if that test is satisfied.

I think a simple way of understanding RPAs is that the only one that can cause the RPA to deviate from circular is the tree. Encroaching on the natural extent of the RPA is a different matter that must be justified. An RPA modified in this way is strictly speaking not called an RPA in the British Standard. Unfortunately no alternative name is given. What should happen is for the natural RPA to be split into (i) parts not to be touched (these go into the Construction Exclusion Zone), (ii) parts identified as compensation for unavoidable encroachment into the natural RPA (these too go into the CEZ) and (iii) parts of the natural RPA unavoidably affected temporarily or permanently by construction and development. The last group are then addressed in the AIA and AMS in terms of what disruption there is and what needs to be done about it. Wasn't the 10% discretonary offset a feature of BS5837:2005 which no longer exists and is now 2012?

I can only hope that all the usual 'fell it' comments are jokes. Not much help to you anyway. Based on 2 photographs and the mention of a road, I can't see how anyone could reach that conclusion anyway unless they think it's cute to kill trees, and put customers to expense, unnecessarily. As ever, tree defects are meaningless unless the consequences of tree failure are unacceptable. A minor defect in a tree beside a motorway may be significant but a massive cavity beside a farm track may not be. Fill? I'd bet that embankment has been in that form since before the tree. Lean - trivial for Scots Pine. Lack of buttressing - straight up and down on the compresson side is usually as much as is needed on a slope. Dead branches - more normal than abnormal low down on a scots pine. Damage to bark - can't see it clearly on photos but there looks to be no signs of buckling or exposed wood. A vehicle could have reversed into it. Gold paint - no idea, but as mentioned by someone coud be lichen. Slight possibility of it being the remains of the point of attachment of a fungus. The only one I can imagine it being would be Phaeolus schweinitzii. Sounding with mallet would show this up or any other significant internal rot. Look also for recently shed fruiting bodies. I found a few last week at the base of a pine, so the frost hasn't detroyed them quite yet. Vitality - can't tell from photos. Leverage and wind loading - can't tell from photos. Foliage diseases - always worth a look on pine for Dithostroma. Shot holes - I can't see them. Tomicus piniperda is rarely fatal, but the best evidence is not in the stem but in the crown and by finding hollowed broken young shoots on the ground. So the question I would ask is "why fell?" If it's because defects are confirmed and the prevailing weather would take it towards a valuable target like an occupied building, you're back to finding a good reason not to fell. Otherwise, what direction would failure take it, what will get hit and is it likely that anyone or anything will be there when it happens? If this is low value or a very occasional presence, there isn't much reason to fell. In law, anyway. If the reason to fell is to separate the customer from his money, well you wouldn't have needed Arbtalk for help in that sort of decision.

As kjmbe has identified, para 4.6.2 seems the relevant one. The key is that anything other than a circular RPA has to be justified on the basis tha the roots are offset. There is no basis for moving the RPA sideways if the rooting is in fact circular. BUt that's only what BS5837 says the constraints are. If someone suitably qualified/experienced can make a case for offset to the planners on the basis that adequate rooting is remaining to ensure the ongoing vitailty of the tree, thsen this should be done after and separately from the survey and rpa calculation. So, don't try to pretend an offset is a genuine RPA. Better to say it's not, but then go on to justify why it's enough rooting volume to ensure ongoing vitaility.

Just read it, pretty interesting challenge to the simple assumption that bud-burst pruning is disastrous for trees. Pesonally I prefer summer pruning of Prunus avium to winter pruning, because it seems to be the only way of gettign a decent gum defence reaction before the air starts swirling with silver leaf spores in the autumn. Winter pruning of P.a. seems just to leave dry exposed cuts right through the year. It's one of the only genus that I still use wound paint on. As the article says "It is hoped that the evidence presented in this short commentary will be useful for informing revisions in arboricultural curricula, act as a reminder that generic models should be evaluated before they are applied, and contribute toward the general discussion on the optimal timing of arboricultural operations." It has certainy done that here.

Fascinating indeed. I suppose we should consider walls 1, 2 and 3 of codit separately relative to the rate of spread of fungi. Any hypha that can move directly up and down vessels uninhibited by tyloses will make rapid progress, perhaps measurable in centimetres a year. However, fungi travelling across dense annual rings will eb slowed considerably an might be doing well to achieve a rings a year because there are few voids to use as highways. Ditto transverse spread through and around rays. Very slow I would expect. If all that is correct, dormancy is not an issue except in wall 1 directions. And that sneaky King Kretsch can munch its way through s2 layers without oxygen, any time and any place. I bet dormancy doesn't affect it too much, unless it derives oxygen from host cells during active tree metabolism. Yet another thing I don't really know about trees...

Wow, at 1.5 metres diameter this tree would be officially classified as 'Ancient'. As such its chances of recovering from a big stem wound are somewhere between zero and zilch. I can hear the Inonotus hispidus banging its cutlery on the table already! Take alittle off and revisit ina few years. It's a lot harder to put wood back on than take it off.