daltontrees

Isnt it a bit risky to be asking for or offering copies of a copyright document on a public forum?

Sorry, can't help because I have never compared mine to any other brand. Basically Sorbus sell Haglof and Mattson. Mine's a Suunto and works perfectly well. They all seem to look and work the same. Just need to decide on 3 thread vs 2 thread depending on whether you are doing mostly hardwoods or softwoods. Ideally one of each.

A crod of wood takes up 3.63m3 but it only contains say 2.4m3 of wood. The rest is spaces. This will bulk out if split and thrown in a bag to about 4.3m3. This would equate to about 7 and a bit builders bags. Answer to second question, it depends on the species. Density varies from say 830kg/m3 for Japanese Larch to 1020kg/m3 for Scots Pine. A 3.63m3 block of the first would weigh 3.0 tonnes. A 3.63m3 block of the latter would weigh 3.7 tonnes. But a cord of wood is 1/3 space between logs. So you can say a cord of the former is 2.0 tonnes and of the latter is 2.5 tonnes.

I feel the same way about the term 'reaction wood'. But maybe that's just ME.

That gravel looks immaculate, I wonder if the driveway gets a heavy dose of weedkiller every year?

Beautifully presented.

Hey I might even remember the archeri bit too now, thanks. So you want to know where the name comes from. Well, clathrus comes from the greek word for cage, which is quite apporopriate for Clathrus ruber (Google it). When C. archeri was discovered it was given a different genus name (Lysurus archeri) but was later reassigned to Clathrus when it was found to be closely related to Clathrus ruber and other stinkhorns. I don't know who Archer was, it was and is common to name new species after patrons, colleagues or even friends. This probably doesn't help.

I ejoyed the article on rippling. The article on mechanoperception was heavy going. since it lacks a conclusion and isn't entirel in point to my notion about braiding, I'm going to pass on it for now. It is of course possible to see all wood as reaction wood insofar as every cell of new wood is tuned to its stress situation at the time of its growth and maturation. But that's not what I mean by reaction wood. Here's the definition of reaction wood from the International Association of Wood Anatomists - “wood with distinctive anatomical and physical characteristics, formed typically in parts of leaning or crooked stems and in branches, that tends to restore the original position of the branch or stem when it has been disturbed; also known as tension wood (in deciduous trees) and compression wood (in conifers)”. When I saidf growth abnormality I meant some sort of genetic abberation or pathogen-induced malformation. Like we see with Taphrina deformans, for example, which on Birch can be responsible for some weird and wonderful shapes and lumps. And Birch is known for its braided wood (sic). I won't therefore take up your challenge to demonstrate the difference since I suspect you had a different definition of growth abnormality in mind such as atypical distribution of wood. So wheeling back round with maximum economy of effort, I stand by my precautionary approach to braided wood since intuitively there is no particular suggestion that it is there to compensate for any biomechanical weakness in a way that normal wood would, or even that it is additional wood or is of different character to wood in the rest of the same tree. If I ever get to inject and dissect a suitable tree, I may also get round to taking a few samples of wood from different zones and put them through the microtome and then under the microscope for a comparison of cell size, length, shape and cellulose content.

You'll find the answer here if an answer can be found. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hedge-height-and-light-loss

I am always looking for any sort of mnemonic to hlep me slot htings like this into the memory banks. So how about Clathrus = claws thrust out of the ground?

D'oh. I take the point, if a complaint asrises crown reduction could take the trees outwith the definition in the Act. You have done me a big favour, thanks, I could advise clients in that way. That oscillating in/out of legislation thing was exactly what I was envisaging. I have the sorts of clients who would relish the devilment of winding neighbours up.

I will investigate what they were growing on, I tool the picture with my 4 year old daughter in tow and as ever had no opportunity to linger and contemplate. I tooka a semi-mature holly out 2 years ago in the bed and put in lots and lots of coarse mulch from the local recycling place. 40cm topsoil on glacial clays. Will say more if I can refine my observations.

Gosh, two replies!! Give me a few minutes, hours, days or years to get back to you on this.

Nice to have someone reply on this. Yes, I was thinking specifically about Slater and Harbinson 'Towards a new model of branch attachment' (AJ, 2010) when i said 'where vessels cross, something has to give'. I suppose I should have been more precise and said 'something has to be compromised or some special adaptation has to take place to allow ongoing biomechanical angd physiological integrity', but then everyone would have run away screaming. The generality of the dilemma stands. though. When wood overlaps, it can't just put on an outer ring every year.

That's entirely possible as a solution. But, when the law comes in for the first time we could have 200 year old Beech trees with heights of 30 metres (yes, not 30 feet) and stem diameters at 2 metres height of around 1 metre, coming into the definition of a high hedge. I expect the law is well intended but I astill think it is ill-considered when it will be used by people who have harboured agfrievance about deciduous tree shade for maybe 20 or 40 years.

You're right in a way but (Pedantry alert!) if canopy separation was specified as an action it would then take the hedge outwith the statutory definition of a high hedge. It would then not be competent for the LPA to also impose preventative action to stop the problem recurring.

With veruccas.

Aleuria aurantia in my front garden.

Here's a lovely example of spiral structure. I would only be speculating about species, as the tree has been dead a long time.

Sorry for jumping in, but just wanted to say thanks for the link, it was a good read over breakfast. The article refers to work by D. Lonsdale. I don't recall him calling it anythiung specific. The term Braided seems very apt. However, until it is demonstrated that the extra wood in this braided form is there as a partial or entire self-optimising reaction to loads I would be hesitant to use the word Reaction too. After all, it may be a growth abnormality. So, Braided Wood seems a good term. The problem I have always had in trying to understand it is that where vessels cross, something has to give. The way that trees cope with this at side limb unions or even at the inside of forks is as far as I know not well understood. Braiding presents a fascinating theoretical and actual dilemma for the tree to manage the crossing of vessels and the additional of annual incrementsi. My hunch is that if it has any self-optimising outcome it is the avoidance of unnecessary bulk in the interbraid areas rathe than additional strength in the braids. Someday I would love to have a braided tree that has already been marked for removal and inject the braids at the base with dyes then dissect it.

It will be genuinely interesting to see how the powers that be work out how to calculate the light levels when deciduous trees are involved. And adjusting the overall light thresholds to account for more northerly latitude. Plus eventually how the courts work round the deficiencies in the drafting of the legislation. The more I think about it the more I realise a couple of legal cases are going to be needed to clarify the law. The burning question is, if you have a line of broadleaves that block out lots of light in summer (so much so that if they were evergreen the English legislation would have them cut down) but in winter they block next to no light, do the two cancel out? The question cannot be answered by the legislation as it stands.

What a fabulous find! Michael Kuo's website mentions that this species probably came to California with imported bamboo. Must have done the same at Colchester?

Oh FFS I don't think I'll bother trying that widowmaker cut. By the time you had been up there and taken all the branches off you could have had that tree on the deck a few times over without the showboating. I remember doing some windblow clearance a couple of years ago, the forest floor was strewn with biggish stuff and brash at every angle to about waist height and winching was just not an option. In amongst it all was dead standing timber, we tried to knock it over but it hung up at about 85 degrees, still attached at the butt. Did dart cuts to drop it 2 metres, it still was hung up. Did an elaborate double sink cut to throw the butt sideways. It was still hung up. Darted another 2 metres off it. Still hung up. And so on, 10 times. Eventually got the thing down to 7 or 8 metres, basically the crown on a vertical stick and it still wouldn't come down. Then set about it like a beserker till it was matchsticks. And then had to take a 10 minute break to (i) recover and (ii) think about how to avoid that ever ever happening again. Never did though.

Lovely and neat. I live in fear of downward split barber's chairs in that situation that could pin you and the wire strop to the tree.

Hideous, it's so exhausting. Sometimes we just use a 4:1 pulley system instead of a winch as it's easier to move around and weighs very little and is quick. Trick is to anchor it off a tree at about head height and it helps lift the butt instead of ploughing the forest floor. Good luck with that, rather you than me.