daltontrees

OK I will get the pics off the camera. It was precisely to eliminate Meripilus that I rehydrated, the dry version was so messy I literally couldn't tell which way was up.

I found a mass of dried out (could have been crushed to a powder) fungi atht ehbase of a Beech last week. I have to be sure it's not Meripilus, anything else won't be quite as serious. However, it was so dried out it was unidentifiable. So I stuck some of it in a glass of water for a couple of days and it swelled up to possibly its original size. And what looks like remains of gills have become clearer to see. I will put pics up if anyone is interested. Has anyone had to resort to rehydration of samples to aid identification?

Can you explain something please? I missed out on whatever other thread contained your error but it doesn't matter I have a simple question. I use the word 'fluted' to describe trees sometimes. To me it is the combination of raised rounded ridges of wood and the valleys between them, like corrugations. But strictly speaking the flutes are the raised parts. So when I read you writing about channels I am not clear entirely if you mean the depressed valleys or whether you mean the wood through which the tree is channeling vascular flow (which I suppose is the raised 'flutes'. If I am to fully appreciate the discussion and the artwork, can yo clarify your terminology for me please? Explanatory note - I was trained as a geologist and in glacial morphology flutes are ridges and channels are valleys between flutes.

Meant to ask too, why have outliers been removed?

I would go with what sloth says plus I would want to consider crown spread opf parent tree, seeds could just fall out of tree on a still day, skewing results towards wide crown trees. On the other hand seedlings under the shade of a parent tree might not do well. Maybe that's one of the things you are trying to show? Are the graphs a computer generated best fit quadratic? The form of equation you show is definitely a quadratic but I can't think what sort of function in nature it is trying to emulate. My initial thought is that there would be two main factors at play, firstly how far seeds are broadcast, secondly how well seeds germinate relative to distance from parent. Either of these is a big enough question. The data collection for each might be the same or similar. But a single function to cover both? Good luck!

I would suggest (don't use Distel but principle might be the same) that the diameters of your climbing line and friction hitch cord are too similar. Usually we use 13mm line, 8mm cord, immediately realise the importance of a good few mm difference in diameter between them if I have to set up temporary prussiks for any reason with 13 on 13. JUst an idea... someone who uses Distels will come along with a better suggestion.

V. tinus, almost 100% sure. If it's evergreen...

Aye, it's in Tree Health Care forum.

I have never seen Kretzsch on teh surface like that. Looks most like Pseudomonas syringae pv aesculi (Bleeding canker of Horse Chestnut to me). Prognosis not good if it is more or less all the way round the stem. I often seee it followed by or accompanied by Armillaria mellea in cambium killing mode.

Don't the Guidelines say 'a tree the application should clarify exactly [my emphasis] what work is envisaged. A proposal simply to 'top' the tree or to 'lop' or 'cut back' some branches is too vague because it fails to describe the extent of the work. Applicants are advised not to submit their applications until they are in a position to present clear proposals' and 'Reasons for the proposed work must be provided with the application to assist the LPA in assessing its need and suitability. In certain circumstances specific information and evidence is required to support the proposals. This is to make sure that technical information is available to justify the proposals so that the LPA is able to make an informed decision.' and 'If the LPA receive a vague application they are advised to refer back to the applicant and seek clarification. If they grant consent to an application which is open to several interpretations the LPA may find it difficult to take enforcement action in cases where the work falls within one of those interpretations, even though the LPA believe the work exceeds that for which they intended to grant consent' I am just playing devil's advocate, but on the face of it the Council's demands could in some cases be valid. They TPOd the tree to preserve its amenity and they want to be able to envisage how it will look after works, how it will recover from thos e works and whether those works will damage its health so much that it's amenity will be lost to disease. Specifying work and doing it in accordance with 3998 might be best practice but even 3998 leaves room for more than one iterpretation. It says crown thinning can be specified by stating a percentage, that lifting can be specified easily enough within acceptable limits but that specifications of reductions are 'imprecise and unsatisfactory' and should at least say what is to be left in branch lengths . Usefully it says that annotated photographs should be provided where this would be helpful in describing the desired effect. So is the Council right or wrong? For a thinning, the Council is in my view being ridiculous. For a lifting it is probably within its rights and no-one should resent having to specifty a lifting. But for reductions, to me it is moot whether the Council is making excessive demand. However I lean towards a specification that states the desired effect, the underlying reasons for the work and an overall 'what will remain' dimension. The Council should then be able to foresee effect on amenity, make a decision and condition it that work should be done by competent arborist at right time of year to the BS. Thereafter they can hold a breach of consent to be work badly done not in accordance with those conditions. If they are really bungled works, the Council could possibly even prosecute for wilful damage. I would hate to see this pernickety Council's approach being adopted as standard, I instinctively warm to the 'McFly' approach. But I think a poorly detailed application that goes unregistered, is a deemed refusal and is appealed won't always be granted in favour of the applicant. I think it depends on the type of work proposed, a one-policy-fits-all approach by the Council could find it failing to depend appeals. That's what I think anyway. In Scotland it's less clear still, but I won't get into that just now, will do battle on it if your Preservium jobsworthii outbreak spreads to north of the border.

I have for a long time put my ear to the bark before hitting with the hammer. Sometimes this is because I am surveying roadside and it is noisy, but sometimes because (if the bark is smooth enough to get a comfortable close contact of ear to tree) you can gauge quite a lot. I find myself having to close my eyes and clear my mind for a few seconds and tune in, before hitting the tree at all. This is not some sort of hippy thing, I think you really have to try and cut out all other sounds and listen to reverberations and tone. I like to think that the human brain (though not necessarily mine) is capable of assessing the state of the innards of a tree in almost exactly the same way as a sonic tomograph, taking several soundings around the tree and mapping out the likely cavity and/or decay. The tomograph has the upper hand though, it doesn't have to contend with rough bark and can remember forever what it has heard after only one hit wth the hammer. On the other hand, as the experiment on this thread and the experience of a few people shows, decent results should be possible with a hammer, for a fraction of the price (nylon hammer £10, cost per use till it is worn out £0.001 per tree, compared to picus sonic tomograph, going rate maybe £100 per tree).

It does look a lot like Hypoxolon nummularium, early days.

I have had a situation like this myself recently, only the Council tried to approve the notification with conditions. I wrote back and said that the conditions were not acceptable to our client, that I had been telling the Council what we were going to do (not asking) and that if within 1 week I had not heard anything further we would go ahead with the tree removal. It may have helped in that case and would definitely do so in your case to point out that if a TPO was made the client would apply for consent and if this was refused it would be appealed and in the meantime the Council would be responsible for compensation for foreseeable damage to the property. You need to be sure of teh cause and effect and that no other way of preventing the tree causing damage can be found. From all that has been said, there is a small chance that there is a TPO already in place and that you should tread cautiously. Another week shouldn't hurt. There is just as much chance that the Council mistakenly thinks there is a TPO in place and has treated the notification as an application. Finally it is also possible that the Council is one of those that doesn't yet appreciate that s211 notifications cannot be 'approved' with conditions. So, I would write very clearly and simply as suggested above, and give it a week. I would line up the work for immediately after that and would tell the Council that that is the case. In my example, by the way, the Council never replied. The tree is now gone and the 'conditions' are meaningless.

Fab, bet they won't need their windows cleaned this month.

David, thanks for the very helpful response. I just noticed in my last posting that I said cellulose instead of lignin. Doh! I hope you got the point, though. You can't argue with a reading taken parallel to a cut that confirms the decay. Laetiporus sulphureus being a brown rotter too. Very very clear. I want one of those gizmos! So back to Weber etc. having looked more closely as I should have the first time it says that one of the advantages if resistance drilling is 'good identification of dangerous brittle wood viz. a steep drop with brown rot'. So, the reference I quoted about white rot namely 'only advanced white rots give reductions in drilling resistance' should be taken to mean 'of the white rots, only advanced ones give reductions...'. It all leaves my amateur theory in tatters apart from the shred of dignity that I might salvage from my tension wood thought. So, as I think you said earlier to someone, it's not about this tree but whether hammering would match up to invasive investigation. It looked to me that apart from the anomaly on the east reading your sketch looked to be about right relative to the resistograph readings. Thanks again for your reply. I have learned quite a bit from this.

I have been following the experiment with great interest. I know nothing much of resistographs except the general principles. I have, by the way, got myself a nylon hammer (hey, and a stethoscope for interest). So my comments are more by way of my education than of any serious input. According to Weber and Mattheck in Manual of Wood Decays, one of the disadvantages of the resistograph is that 'only advanced white rots give reductions in drilling resistance'. If the fungus is indeed Rigidoporous ulmarius, according to the AA guide 'Fungi on Trees' it is a brown heartwood rotter (and so is leaving the cellulose intact at least initially or until another secondary decay makes its presence felt). Is this a possible part explanation for the odd readings particularly the first one? I just noticed as well that Weber etc. sugggests another disadvantage, that tension wood shows increased resistance to drilling, as does early stage white rot. The odd first reading was on the east side, not normally the tension side, but the fungal growth looks to be appearing at a vertical weakness as might be expected and might there therefore be a predominance of tension wood there? Apologies for wild speculation and book learning as a distant substitute for informed debate. I would be interested in any comments though.

I would be interested to hear the outcome of this in due course if you are at liberty to say on a public forum.

That's a pity...

That's big enough to make a cracking dinner table, surely someone will take it millit and polish it up? What a conversation piece that would be!

Is it by any chance a graft of say Copper Beech on common Beech? I am just wondering if there is some inherent graft weakness that might come into the equation?

I wouldn't use 'hazard', that means the thing that might cause harm, not the thing or person that could be harmed. If anyone can come up with a single word that describes 'the thing or person that could be harmed' they doing well! I think hazard is used because there is no better word even though it is not a good word for the situation. It has to be applicable for passing pedestrians, cars in driveways, houses etc. when the tree might blow over itself. Stricly speaking if you were doing a risk assessment for a downtaking, 'target' should be the word used. We call them 'obstacles' or 'that ffff... shrub again', things to be moved aside, protected, avoided or if all else fails to be sacrificed then replaced.

On the latter point, I think TPOs usually make wilful destruction or wilful damage and offence, regardless of ownership. On the former, the Act indicates that no TPO can apply to tree work for the abatement of a nuisance. Nuisance is not defined in the Act, but to me this must be a nuisance in teh legal sense, not a common usage 'irritation'. The matter of tree roots and nuisance seems to have been defined sufficiently well by the courts already (e.g. Solloway v Hampshire) that I am sure the tree owner can recognise it as such and abate it once he is satisfied that it exists. All I meant was that there may still need to be proof of it being a nuisance, but the onus would be on the owner to prove it retrospectively. Sorry if this is all a bit heavy-duty law stuff, but I am actually trying to get it away from that. The simple principle in my mind is that the legislation deliberately and with very few words said that if you are abating a nuisance, that overrules the preservation of the tree. Any other situation would be a horrendous imposition on tree owners, to have a legal liability for damage to your neighbour's property but not to be able to do anything about it for fear of being prosecuted by the Council. Admittedly this particular case is extreme, the abatement of the nuisance may result in the loss of the whole tree. But surely that doesn't change the principle behind it? If the Act had intended the owner to prove to a third party that legal nuisance existed, prior to its abatement, in my view it shoud have said so and therwe would be a procedure for doing so. The onus of proof seems similar to that held in R v Alath Construction Ltd. which concerned retrospective proof that a tree had been removed as dead. Oops there I go again with case law, but there comes a time that to know where you stand you have to look at decided cases. I am lucky enough to have a copy of Mynors with all the cases quoted in it, but if anyone on this thread wants me to say exactly what the judgements in Alath or Solloway just let me know.

No. 14.

No. ?13

Both right!