daltontrees

Good to hear it's working better. But if you want to see cells you will almost certainly not do this with a reflected light microscope and you may have to take the leap to transmitted light microscopy (see my earlier posts) Microtomes are simple in principle. They hold samples firmly while very very thin slices are taken of them. Bear with me and I will post a few pictures. You should be able to improvise a microtome with a bolt, two nuts, a razor blade and a candle.

Good point, but decay IS always damage. Conversely damage is not always decay. Decay can arise from OR cause dysfunction. Dysfunction is a process, not a thing, and I don't see how a consequence of damage or decay can be described as compartmentalised ???

I'd go with Pleurotus sp. too.

There seem to be a few loose ends in this thread. In the interest of leaving the thread a bit tidier as a reference resource, I am going to have a shot at summarising. I suspect I will regret it. There are three parties as I see it. The tree owner, the development site owner (whether he is the developer or the person selling the land) and the public sector (generally the Council). Firstly for trees that are not protected by TPOs or CA status at the time development is proposed. The tree owner has to tolerate the removal of roots in the site and overhanging branches, as long as this is not done mischeviously. He could ask the Council to intervene and TO the tree. The site owner can remove roots in the site, just as he can overhanging branches. This can be done with or without development proposals. The Council can make a TPO to prevent unconsented work to the tree, if it considers it expedient to do so for the amenity of the area. They can alternatively or additionally put forward conditions in a planning consent that protect part of the tree and its roots that are on the site, even if the stem of the tree is on other land. Secondly for trees that are TPO'd already. The tree owner cannot do anything to the tree or its roots without TPO consent, unless the planning consent for the site allows such work. The developer cannot do anything to the tree or its roots or branches, even the parts in or over the site, without TPO consent. The exception is that if the planning permission explicitly or implicitly recognises that the tree works are needed to implement the consent. In that case a separate TPO consent is not needed. Any work beyond that which is necessary to implement the consent is unlawful. If the site owner does not have the tree owner's permission to do work to the tree he can only do what he could do at common law (see first scenario). The Council can make a TPO when it learns of the development proposals if it has reason to believe that the tree should be protected for its amenity contribution to the area and is under threat. This would protect all parts of the tree against wilful damage or destruction. The roots would thus be protected. It can also impose conditions on any work that might affect the parts of the tree that are in the site. The 'site' is the application site. It is not generally competent for the Council to impose conditions on any land that does not form part of the application site, whether the development site and the application site have the same boundaries or not. I think that's the gist of it as I see it. Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone acting on this advice does so at their own risk. Please verify it independently before acting. I cannot be held responsible for trying to be helpful for free.

I don't believe it, I have just read the Localism Act. And I haven't a clue what it does. Apart from saying Councils can do whatever they like within reason.

I am seeing this thread for the first time. Have there been any advances on the revised model, to anyone's knowledge? And digging up old ground, I am inclined to disagree with RobArb's original suggestion that D should be renamed Dysfunction. It seems to me that Damage would be more appropriate since the compartmentalisation of Wall 4 will take place regardless of decay or dysfunction, and regardless of whether Walls 1, 2 and 3 developing. I would also suggest that the formation of all 4 walls in the CODIT model are examples of function, not dysfunction. It is trees' ability to compartmentalise damage that has given the evolutionary advantage to outcompete plants of lesser stature. This seems to me a function. One could go on to argue that all the mechanisms or physical barriers of walls 1, 2 and 3 will happen or are already present regardless of pathogens. Sorry, Rob, but I can't see why Dysfunction is an appropriate term. Decay doesn't seem that apt now either.

I was hoping someone would help me with this too. When I get a moment I plan to put some pictures up of a simple slide being produced from non-woody material using an improvised microtome. But my own wood ones have been a bit poor, I could do with advice.

I'm sorry to hear that it's not working. Did you buy it second-hand? What make and model is it? It really shouldn't be hard to operate, when I got mine I didn't even look at the manual, just plugged it in and put the mini CD in and it worked right away. Mine has a video function too but I just use it as a CCTV till i line up the right shot for a still.

Well, there you go, I'll let my client know. It's still pretty amazing that a fruiting body can develop through such a tiny crack.

I should have looked a bit closer but doing so would have necessitated breaking the cluster open, they looked like they were having a hard enough time as it was. Besides, it was intermittently lashing with rain and gusting about 50mph. I was keen to get my new Nikon out of the salty air asap. That 'driftwood' was a whole trunk about 5m long and 60cm diameter, hollow at the base and I am guessing a K. deusta failure. The fungi were therefore on a part of the tree that would have been at about 5m up. But now growing horizontally on the 'driftwood' in its new position lodged in (no, on!) a sand dune. The force that must have carried it there is unthinkable. If its hitchhikers survived the ride they could survive anything.

Another odd place for fungus, or it seemed odd when I saw it 2 days ago (2nd January). It was on a lump of wood on a windswept beach, 10 metres from the water's edge, soaked with seaspray, draped with seaweed and caked with sand. And still seemed to be struggling on.

I feel drawn now to the Prunus avium camp, or Prunus anyway. Those lenticel bands are so pronounced. I am sure that Aspen's bands tend towards lines of black diamonds which in time can end up as vertical ridging. Also no Aspen leaves in the picture.

You said something about the other trees in the area all being Beech and something else. If you look in the leaf litter at the base of the tree for any leaf forms that aren't from species that you know, it will narrow it down. Aspen leaves are so distinctive that if there is only one of this tree in the area and you find Aspen leaves nearby I'd say you've got most of the evidence you need to confirm it's Aspen. Also if there are any recent wind breakages lying around that look like they came off this tree, have a look at the buds. Some guide books describe the buds as 'painfully sharp' or words to that effect. Stick one into your thumb pad and you'll soon know.

Three things occur to me. Firstly, and as seems to be the case, the fungi seem to be a recurrence of annual fruiting which would mean the tree was already in poor health before the development was commenced. It may be impossible to prove that any subsequent failure of the tree is due to root damage. It might have failed eventually anyway or become so unsightly or dangerous that is removal by its owner would have been required and would not have been resisted by the Council or could have been done under exemption. I get the feeling that proof of tree loss due to the developer's actions without very substantial and expert arboricultural input (at considerable expense) would be beyond the ability of the OP even with the help of all the advice given in this Forum. Secondly it is worth considering as it always is that the Council could be watching this post unofficially and gleaning tactical advantage. Thirdly, my instinct as a citizen is that there is something not quite right here with the Council closing its file. A freedom of information request may or may not yield additional evidence, but in my experience of being on the receiving end of requests when in Local Government and of putting them in on my own behalf the crucial thing is to get the question right. Asking for all the information and correspondence the Council has about the tree and the land could result legitimately in a rejection of the request or a charge being made (legitimately) for information that turns out to be of no use. Frame the request carefully and dispassionately. You do NOT have to say why you want the information and the Council is NOT allowed to ask.

Fair play! Relatively rare though. And oddly mostly up north. Anyway I am slightly envious of some of the finds on Arbtalk, the range up here seems to be genuinely smaller and the finds less frequent. Maybe I am looking in the wrong sorts of woods for the softy Ganoderma. Most of those carnosum were on Douglas Fir, which I rarely see in the city.

Priceless! I am off to chortle about that while I make the dinner. At least you got an answer... No doubt I will bore the ether with my thoughts on it in due course.

Hello, did you ever get anything back? Even a fob-off?

I have just got round to noticing this and looking at it. I am afraid to say that it seems to take itself round in ever decreasing circles and then cops out by suggesting trees be valued by Helliwell, CAVAT or another average value technique. I admire the passion and frustration of the arguments that parks are undervalued, but when CABE tries to equate 'undervalued' as in not appreciated and funded enough with 'undervalued' as in aren't treated properly in accounting terms, it loses its way. What did you think of it? Anyone else?

Fair enough. We don't get to see these soft southern ganoderma up here. I would be interested to know whether based on teh smattering of info and the couple of photos your guess would be whether this outbreak is in its first year or recurrence of a well established annual fruiting?.

I just noticed that you have symbols for subsidence potential. It's not clear what these amount to but it has flagged up that another useful snippet of information for each species would be its NHBC water demand category.

This would be a fabulous resource. With no regard to how much work would be required to gather the info, I would ideally like to see wood type (ring or diffuse porous), frost hardiness (in zones), sexuality (dioecious/monoecious), deciduous/semi-evergreen/evergreen (at the very top of the page), family/genus and species (at the top again). Then I can chuck out all my books and just use Wiki.

Luma apiculata?

Fairly random picture of mine from one of my slides, can't remember what it is, not woody but showing what can be achieved with a half-decent microscope (the one pictured in my previous post) and a camera held to the eyepiece.

Schweingruber is the man, although I wouldn't fancy having his surname and it translated into english. I had great plans over Christmas to fill this thread up with useful and inspiring stuff, but it never happened. It's surprising how lists of things to do expand to fill and exceed available time a.k.a. the Schweingruber paradox. For teh meantime here's another bit of explanation about microscopes. Last thing I mentioned was the difference between reflected light and transmitted light microscopy. Reflected light just means looking at things very very close up using light bouncing off them. Transmitted light means looking through things, usually cut so thin that even something like wood will let some light pass through it. Here's one of my transmitted light microscopes. It is a fancy one for looking at rock thin sections (yes, if you slice rocks thinly enough you can see through them, honestly!). but all,the basics are there for looking at plants in transmitted light. i.e. (i) a built-in light source at the bottom, mains powered (older microscopes may have a pivoting mirror instead so you can use house lights or a window as a light source) (b) a condenser that concentrates the light upwards through a hole in the © stage on which the slide is put and held in place by spring clamps (d) an objective lens that is very powerful in gatering light from a tiny field of view very close to the slide (this microscope has 4 objectives that can be swivelled into place according to how much magnification you want) (e) a focusing knob that moves the stage up and down to get the slide in focus and (f) an eyepiece lens that makes the image suitable for viewing by the human eye and also magnifies the image and additional 10 times (this one has 2 eyepieces, the equivalent of binoculars instead of a telescope). Thgis one cost about £400 new but it has many features you wouldn't need on a biological microscope. Anyone could pick up a cheap second hand student microscope on eBay for £40 that would more than do the job.

My thoughts exactly. If I was the neighbour I would certainly have considered a High Hedges notice. Which by the way according to Government guidance can take into account the 'risk of major cutting destroying the hedge' by allowing for say 3 years' phased cutting.