daltontrees

I have an article from 1888 where the author (Gregory) fished about for any other name having been attributed to these, and she ends up after 12 pages calling them 'cork-wings'.

Sorry ot pop your bubble, man. Cones are way too big for Lawsons, but it's got the right hingy look of one.

Yes it's definitely a scabby conifer. It might be 'weeping' partly as a consequence of the weight of cones. My guess based on cone size relative to scales would be a Nootka. I no longer care whether it's Xanthocyparis, Chamaecyparis, Cupressus, Cupressocyparis. Should be all lumped together in a new genus Scabbyconiferus.

I am sending you the 1993 article just now. I have seen reference to verious other Mattheck article years, some in german and none of which I have. Do you mean Mattheck 2006 "Shear effects on failure of hollow trees." Trees, 20, 329-333.? There's also a 2008 article by Gruber which I am sending too because it sets out quite tetchily I think to refute the t/R 0.3 'rule'. If youy turned up the 2006 article do let me know please.

i have the original article in the office if i remember to send it. feel free to remind ne

Also, hopefully, a guard against people being hurt. The assessment isn't nearly as important as sharing the discussion and findings with site staff. Proof of that is paramount.

I've haad a weak anke since I was 16, goes over regularly. I have developed areflex action that involves me dropping to the ground instantly when it happens, which saves me damaging it but gets some fully looks in Tesco. The elasticy white stuff is totally the best. Hot tips are to shave your ankle regularly and only put one strip vertically right round the bottom of the foot from ankle to ankle (like a stirrup) and one around the ankle on top of it to hold the vertical one in place.

done

There is a common rule of thumb in daylighting calculations called the 25 degree rule. It is derived from the British Standard for internal daylighting BS8206-2, essentially it means that if the vertical angle between the mid point of any window facing a solid continuous obstacle to light and the top of the object would be greater than 25 degrees the internal daylighting may be below the minimum standard, and a more detailed analysis would be required. I'll not get into the detail of it, but that's the basic 'rule'. I dont know where the 38 degrees came from. Hopefully it's clear that the further way the window is, the smaller the angle becomes for any fixed height of obstacle. It would be possible (and I would say it should always be the case) that the mature rather than current height of the trees that are being treated as the obstacle could be used. If so, this would give a distance which could be insetted into the angle calculation in reverse to give a current equivalent angle for the current height of the trees. If so, it would be much much better just to state the distance. So, ATan 22/28 = 38 degrees. The rule if it is being used in this way would only work on level ground and only if the trees are of uniform height for most of the panorama left and right of the window positions. Plus if the height of window has been ignored the buildings could in teory be almost 2 metres closer to the trees. Plus account needs to be taken of the window design, room sizeds and most importantly room uses. Kitchens require twice the daylight of bedrooms. Living rooms are half way inbetween. It's possible to do a full analysis using measured and calculatee Vertical Sky Components and Average Daylighting Factors for rooms. It's time-consuming, though. Rules are no good if the rationale and limitations behind them is not understood so that the user knows when the rule cannot be safely used.

Thuja are elongate, Lawsons spherical.

Removal of branches from a TPO'd tree because of light blockage can in some circumstances be lawful without consent, but the light blockage would need to be really quite bad, constituting an 'actionable nuisance'.

I beg to differ with the majority of replies here. An increment borer can be used to determine the age of many trees quite precisely but needs to be used correctly and the results need to be extrapolated, which can be done with an excel spreadsheet. Let me know if you want to know more or see an example of the method in use. PM prefereably so that I don't have to worry about copyright.

Have a look on Google at what Thuja cones look like and you'll never mistake it for Lawsons again. This one is a Lawsons. Final answer.

1. Sounds trivial. Time will tell, but measured in years. 2. Nothing specific can be done but anything that's good for the whole tree will be good for the roots. Mulching's nearly always good.

Aye well let us know how you get on with that. Or not. I didn't even know there was a version 1.

I very much agree with the last point. And the point I am trying to make about ERC is that life expectancy means nothing really because a tree can be destroyed to a stump and bounce right back for another 40+ years but for BS5837 I think it's fair to say that it's the visual amenity (contribution) it makes that matters. If we pick though the detailed criteria for the various retention categories there's no room for valuing deadwood and other ecological features unless they are of heritage value. There's no place for risk in BS categorisation. There's a separate thread right there.

Ahh you beat me to it. Apparently Mike Ellison of QTRA fame and nothing but a hammer and some dude with an expensive toybox went head to head predicting the state of decay inside a tree, which was then cut down. I believe MIke Ellison's prediction was as good as the whizz-kid's.

No-one I know has a Shigometer. Or a Factometer. I know of 3 Sonic Tomographs and a few resistographs. But be warned, they may give the illusion of scoientific rigour but if not used and then interpreted with considerable skill the results will be somewhere between useless and dangerously misleading. And bloody expensive. An important question is whther the law of negligence could ever require an tree owner to go to this expense. I suspect the answer is no. If you suspect a defect you should follow it up but that doesn't mean gadgets. A decent ear and a sounding hammer is usually enough to build up a picture of the inside of a decaying tree. I have an increment borer that I use only to prove what I already know. If you ever get a chance, sound a hollowing tree before it is felled, sketch the results with depths of decay and sound wood and cavity shape, then when the tree is cut down check if you were right. Adjust judgement and repeat as often as possible. My hot tip is never ever to use the term life expectancy in a report. Safe Useful Life Expectancy is much better, or for BS5837 surveys use Expected Remaining Contribution.

I'm not sure about copyright and where I got it form so I'll send it to you by PM. For private study only.

I'll summarise the law for you. When considering what you are about to do or not bother doing, think first about whether it is going to badly affect someone else. If you can see that it is and you wouldn't want someone to do the same to you, you're probably in the wrong. There, who needs courts?

The generality of that is true, although I don't see how you can tell the prevailing wind direction from the pics. But it's a tiny tree, can't be much in the way of risk or lever arm. These decisions should always be situation-specific. Generally I am in the 'leave the poor bloody tree alone' camp. Reducing height redistributes growth hormones, can result in overextension of limbs and longer term problems. Especially if there are other inclusion forks.

Published research is that roots can't crush and break pipes. They may be present alongside pipes if root penetration in the trenchfill is easier than adjacent ground. But they still shouldn't be growing preferentially beside a pipe unless it is leaking and giving them a steady supply of water and (erm) nutrients. I had to research and report last year on the resistance of a pipe to crushing by roots in contact with it. The strength of a circular intact pipe is phenomenal, much greater than the pressure exerted by roots in contact. And if the root contact was right on a joint? I think the fill material around the joint would need to be very loose for displacement to take place. But I suppose it would be possible for very short sections of pipe with filled joints (not push-fit modern ones.

Yes leave the wound alone. Trees have evolved to cope with breakages, the tree knows best. Apart from paring the torn bark back I'd do nothing else. Reduction would remove capacity for the tree to heal the wound. Wind loads will have been present before breakage and the tree should already have strength in response to the loads. Wind flexure stimulates woundwood. Reduction will slow that down. The pictures show adaptive growth already, the branch failure looks (with hindsight) like it was inevitable and the tree is already coping. Let nature do its thing. Potions and concoctions will interfere with optimum natural processes.

Thanks this is a useful and important point. Drains and sewers if properly constructed shouldn't allow roots to enter and the tree owner's liability for blockage should be limited or negated. There's a couple of other ways to look at this issue. Firstly a sewer that allows roots to enter will allow sewage to escape. That's a problem of the sewer's owner. Second way of looking at it is, should a tree owner be expected to foresee that a neighbour's sewer will be badly constructed? I don't think so, the law could not operate if this principle was applied. I'd even go as far as to say a tree owner is entitled to assume that a sewer is properly constructed.

In the search for the perfect yielding poplar the powers that be have literally tried every possible cross permutation of poplar species.Individuals are often clones, with no individual character. For me, differentiating between them is an occasional academic pursuit but since I rarely feel sure of an ID I have never managed to catalogue the correct management repertoire for each. The overview is that the only good poplar is a dead poplar, or possible the kind that is quite far away from any thing or anyone. Snappy, stinky prolific uncontrollable freaks, on the whole. Sorry, can't hep with any recommendations.