daltontrees

Surely you mean a half litre? Only joking. I get really cheesed off with people destroying the language by making up words, and with other people using words they don't know the meaning of because it makes then sound smarter than they are. All words in professional usage ought to be defined, I think. Just heard a football commentator on the radio talking about a team delivering the 'coo de gra' presumably mixing up the pronunciations of coup de grace (pronounced coo de grass) and foie gras (pronounced foy gra). In the end he just sounded like an imbecile. Not life-threatening or even that important but if he had just said 'killer blow' he would have got away with it.

I rather hope you do the decent thing and ignore them?

Please do.

Emm, Scotland, actually. We speak english up here too. What a great exam question it would be to have "All wood is reaction wood. Discuss." But if you accept the analysis in my research here, based as the conclusion is on Lonsdale's work (now there's a man whose command of the english language delights), the answer to the question has to be 'No, it isn't.' But if you wanted to say "All wood is interaction wood", I'd have to agree.

Thanks for that, I love it when people take the time to conduct properly controlled experiments and present the findings in good clean english. The article provides these useful snippets. "Jaffe (1973, 1980) used the term “thigmomorphogenesis” to describe the physiological, biochemical and morphological responses of plants to wind and other mechanical perturbations. Thigmomorphogenesis can prevent stem failure caused by wind loading, by reducing drag or increasing mechanical strength. "Plant responses to wind have been characterized extensively in gymnosperms, and to a lesser extent in woody angiosperms. In gymnosperms, morphological responses to [mechanical peturbations] include formation of an elliptically shaped stem cross section, with the long axis in the direction of flexure, and decreased stem height..." For those who don't want to read the article, the summary is that the stems of Poplar that had been bent repeatedly became more flexible and developed an elliptical cross-section. It's a pity that no observations were made about how the trees adapted the quality of wood (i.e. whether by increasing cell density or changing proportions of lignin or cellulose. Also the stems weren't left to mature and turn their new growth into wood.

Your attachment seems to be the visual part (a MS Powerpoint presentation) of a lecture and containing no defintions. It is not as far as I can tell a scientific article. Are you referring to some supporting article and if so can you provide the citation please?

NB if you go for this option, to download data youy need Active Sync which only works with Windows XP or earlier. I had to buy an ancient laptop just to get my Dell Axim data off.

Pending any new definitions from Sloth's Shigo dictionary, attached is a draft, it is too big to put up as a post so I am having to attach it as a pdf. Any comments welcome. Final version will probably end up on my website, with asssistance acknowledged. Do you think it needs some illustrations? Here's the summary for those that can't be bothered reading it (it was hard work writing, I imagine it will be a hard read). Reactive wood. There's no such term in reputable use. It means nothing and may just be the bastard child of REACTion wood and adaptIVE growth. Reaction wood. Paraphrasing the best source on this "Wood forming in place of normal wood as a result of the response of the (auxing regulated) cambial cells to gravity" Adaptive growth - NB this is a process, not a kind of wood. "The process whereby wood formation is influenced both in quantity and quality by the action of gravitational force and mechanical stresses on the cambial zone". So, adaptive growth can result in reaction wood, but as the adaptation is due to other non-gravity related mechanical stresses it is probably best to avoid the term 'reaction wood'. Here's how I'm going to remember which is which. AG stands for Adaptive Growth but it also stands for ... And Gravity, reminding me that gravity is just one of the things that influences the formation of reaction wood. That means reaction wood relates only to combatting gravitational forces. Let's say RW stands for Reaction Wood but also for Resisting Weight. Am off to lie down now... My website (currently under a lot of change) by the way is jamtrees.co.uk reaction wood.pdf

Oh man it wouldn't be ickle at all. I've just been pondering what such a Standard would include and it's a massive subject covering amenity value, amenity valuation, common and statutory law of nuisance/trespass/encroachment (plus high hedges), risk and hazard assessment, beneficial and negative effects of trees and a bit more. Besides, if you buy a house with a neighbour, there could be no tree there when you buy. There could be a small one. Bu that tree could grow faster than expected or wanted. Its benefits when small could have contributed to the choice of house. Or rthe choice of house was decided by the house's other benefits adn the tree had been seena s only a minor drawback when small. That could change. A garden chosen for children's play could in 20 years time be a garden for growing flowers iand vegetables and it's light requirements have changed simply due to the normal cycle of settling down, having kids, seeing them leave home, retiring, taking up gardening and so on. Then again you could buy a house with no neighbouring trees then the neighbour could quite lawfully plant fast-growing trees that you hate. So the advicwe probabaly boils down to - don't buy a house which has any space within any of the neighbouring gardens where a tree could be planted or an existing one could grow if you don't want your garden and/or building daylight to change within your lifespan or that of your successors. In other words, no houses would ever be sold again. OK I am being slightly obtuse for effect, but there is I hope a valid point in there. Personally I think that if you buy a house next door to a 300 year old oak you shouldn't grumble in 2 years time when it's 320 and eventually bothers you. But if there are overhanging branches you could buy it knowing that the law is on your side if you ever get fed up with the overhanging branches.

Please do! The terms Reaction Wood and Adaptive Growth are not used in hte text of the book itself but they may be in the dictionary. They are used in 'Modern Arboriculture' though, so I don't want to assume that Shigo wasn't au fait with them.

Is there anyone out there with a copy of the Dictionary that was published alongside Shigo's New Tree Biology that could help out by looking up a few definitions for me? I have what I need form the other authoritative texts. The key ones are - Adaptive Growth Reaction Wood Compression Wood Tension Wood Any help appreciated, thanks. It would even help me to know if Shigo does not have definitions.

Please!?! OP has presumably run off screaming wishing his original question, which hasn't really even been answered by consensus, had never been put. Quoting Mynors "It should not be forgotten tha tthe owner of the tree owns overhanging branches, both before and after they have been severed from the remainder... Once a branch has been severed, therefore, it should be offered back to its owner, and only disposed of with the owner's consent." It seems clear enough to me that since it is not an offence to allow a branch to encroach (many many people tolerate and even enjoy this sort of encroachment), the owner may be content too to own a living branch but not wish to own a dead one, hence the duty of the abater to offer and then only dispose with the owner's consent. The branches may still belong to the tree owner, but he would not be faced with disposal costs if the branches had been left to grow. Since encroachment is tolerated more often than not as an ordinary, natural facet of life, it is on balance fair that the abater should dispose if allowed to by the owner. The arborist is just the agent of the abater. His duties to chip, dump, transport etc are a secondary issue. Let's not get the two mixed up. Also it is I find very wise not to mix up everyday pragmatics like resolving disputes amicably with the legal position if it all goes horribly wrong. If it goes wrong the law will decide who is right based on the assumption of two hypothetical reasonable people. It follows that if a pragmatic non-confrontational person wants some light into their garden the arborist should be able to advise them of their rights and then exercise a different skill by suggesting or brokering a compromise solution. A few people on Arbtalk are making the mistake of assuming that because most situations are resolved without a fight on the day that the law is too strict, too old or just wrong. It's not. It's there as a fallback and a framework for reasonable behaviour and compromise. As I said about 10 pages back, this subject never gets resolved. Not for want of the clear and settled correct answers being readily available but because of confusion and possibly more than a little stubbornness amongst individuals who are prepared to state that they know the law better than the law does. It does our industry and our customers no favours.

No. If the neighbour has explicitly stated that you are not welcome for whatever purpose, I imagine they would have no difficulty getting an injunction to enforce their right to exclude you. Continued trespass would then be contempt of court. There are defences against actions of tort against trespass but none of them would apply here. Perhaps the best illustration is for the defence of 'necessity'. The word says it all; if the prunuing can be done with a scaffolding tower from within the nuisanced property, it is not 'necessary' but only desireable or cheaper to trespass by climbing the tree within the neighbour's boundary.

Mini-bump. Am still planning to do this when I get a moment. I had a 1 hour drive to a job yesterday and by the time I got there I had thought the whole thing through and it was crystal clear. Now I've forgotten what I realised. D'oh!

It's not that simple, yest there is a right to cut back to the boundary but it's how and when and with what regard to the risk that might be created for the tree owner that is the important refinement of the law. Or maybe you are not interested. Could get yourself or a customer in trouble some day. I should state it another way. Acting reasonably in relation to others is the law. What you can do within that in relation to trees is the refinement and does not replace it.

Nice try to clarify it, but I would take issue with a few things. Firstly BS3998 is not the law, but could be used in court as a measure of industry best practice if a dispute arose about whether the work had been done appropriately. There is no duty of care to prevent tree nuisance. Absolutely definitely not.

I hope he takes her to the cleaners...

Someone please look it up and then put it on the forum here that you're all partly right and partly wrong. It's undsettling that several professionals froem the industry are willing to state such differing and contradictory versions of the law on a public forum. Bad for the reputation of the 'profession' if nothing else. This subject comes up regularly and never gets resolved. And I'd use ascaffolding tower if I had to. Only the OP and the arborist have seen the site. If I couldn't get at least 2 anchor positions of at least 50mm diameter that were entirely in the client's airspace, including one suitable for descent on a rope and cambium saver, I'd use a tower. You can hire them by the hour for buttons. No pole pruner in the world is going to let you do good quality cuts from the ground. The neighbour has said no trespass, that means no trespass. Why recommend a rope-and-harness solution that can't be implemented?

Not one to be shock-loading in a dismantle. Main anchor for climber in adjacent tree, methinks.

I meant to add, I seem to have a suitabler dod of wood outside that needs carved a la Shigo, to illustrate a point. Will wait till teh neighbours are out. 114dB of Husq harmonia is rarely welcome in victorian suburbia.

I don't think I can explain it but I will soon post a synopsis of the explanations of the big thinkers on the subject.

Well'I am hoping to cite Shigo (and Thomas, I think) on this sort of thing soon. Right after the wean has gone to bed, I have cooked and had my dinner, downloaded my survey data from today, sadi hello to wife, watched the Mentalist (my one guilty pleasure). I may be gone for some time...

Ahhh, Jaysus, me head's started spinning again...

I'm interested too. I have been looking into this for almost an hour and the answer is both simple and very complicated. I have made a page of notes that I need to distill into a concise form. Basically not all asymmetrical growth is due to gravity, not all adaptive growth is triggered by gravity and not all wood arising from adaptive growth is reaction wood. Got that? No, me neither. But I almost have. Gimme another day...

Wait till my head stops spinning and I will try and get to the bottom of it. I aint trying to define reaction wood, just trying to clarify what the accepted definiton is from reliable sources...