daltontrees

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.

Just trying to avoid the ambiguity of common names. but yes, black. I don't want to anger the villagers.

Looks like a genuine nigra.

The tree owner NEVER gains a right to have roots or branches in a neighbour's soil or airspace. You are correct the roots and branches can be cut back to the boundary with impunity. You are also correct to foresee possible failure of the tree and to give the tree owner fair warning to foresee it too and to prepare for the possibility of it after pruning. The law expects reasonable behaviour. Without warning the tree owner, the tree could fail after pruning and either harm or damage the tree owner's property or the neighbour's. In the former case the pruner would be liable. In the latter case the tree owner would have a defence against negligence. Giving warning removes both these liabilities and defences. As for the tree declining after pruning, well what right does the tree owner have to take the neighbour's soil nutrients, water and light and to have a tree's viability depend on these? None. The law on this has been clear for centuries. If I was you I'd steer clear of using 'nuisance' or 'trespass', as they can be highly contentious terms. Trees do not trespass, they encroach. Nuisance is more than encroachment, and is not the same as annoyance.

What?

No-one can answer the question unless you say what country you are in.

probably Robinia pseudoacacia

Where there is a wound liek a tear-out or a pruning cut, the idealised circular cross section of a stem or branch has been compromised and there is localised stress around the wound, leading to reaction wood which is also ultimately CODIT wall 4 too. There may therefore be flexure alternating between tension and compression, whether it's gymnosperm or angiosperm. It's always worth taking a load of slices through an occluded wound and noting the ring history of woundwood and the colour/density of the early and late wood. I'm still winging it, still haven't time to look up the full answer.

Native and a key ancient woodland indicator species.

I'm all in favour of anyhting other than the knee-jerk reaction of felling/pruning which you'll mostly get on a site for people who make their living off felling, pruning and firewood. In this case it would only be appropriate I think if compaction was already part of the problem, nad een then (as in all cases) if the tree benefits (over remaining life expectancy) outweighed the cost.

Looks like Bird Cherry Prunus padus

Wherever wood is on a tree, its make up is partly a localised stress, and so may vary in compressive or tensile strength and annual increment by proportions of lignin, cellulose and cell numbers and density. There are probably some simple linear relationships between stress and these components. In conifers the overall effect seems to be more wood and lignin rich, but in broadleaf denser wood with more cellulose. I should look this up to verify it but I haven't the time.