daltontrees

Hope your parade has dried out. Perhaps you were right, or perhaps Mr H was having the day off. But the Beech/Diatrype association is a strong one, as is the Beech/Hypoxolon nummularium association. I must look more closely next time.

It' got to be quite a complex phenomenon. Hollowing of the stem will make the weight pressure on the remaining wood greater per m2, except that the crowns have usually retrenched by then and the whole thing weights afraction of its mature weight. Easy calculation if I could be bothered. But it would be interesting to see if new increments in late mature oak revert to ring porous as young retrenchment growth becomes the only foliage in the crown. Another factor might be the recycling of nutrients as a tree hollows out. For the first 500 years an oak might just be taking from the soil, but of the next 500 (give or take) it has 500 years of steadily decaying wood inside it feeding all those nutrients back into the soil. That's a pretty good pension.

Or was it Hypoxolon nummularium? Or both? It was gettign dark and I was in a hurry, only got the pictures now to go by.

I looked at a Beech last week, it had fallen apart largely due to Ganoderma but had lots and lots of K. deusta at the base. I though it had the same on a large detached limb like in these pictures, but on closer inspection it was masses and masses of Diatrype disciformis. Pic attached, not the most representative of the density of the Diatrype. Tree had Kretschmaria, Ganoderma, Diatrype, Pseudotrametes and 2 species of Stereum.

Oh no, I'm about to do it again... I agree that that is possibly a factor. I studied dozens of ancient oaks in Wales a few years ago and one could clearly see groth increments undergoing ... well, there isn't a word for it except in geology ... crenellation that was giving rings a width not attributable to vascular function. Next time I get to study dozens of ancient oaks I will get permission for some biopsies and put the hypothesis to the test. You haven't figured it out, you've gone from amateur theory to self-peer-reviewed proof without scientific rigour. But I think you could be partly right.

Oh FFS. If you had persevered with the article you would have seen that it proves very strong scientific evidence that you were right in your claim earlier in this thread that many ancient trees are not as old as people thought they were. And far from saying "if you don't know the age of a tree, then guess.." it tends to say the opposite and provides insight into how existing methods of ageing from girth could be refined and also hints that there are mechanisms and processes in tree physiology that we not only don't understand but didn't even know existed. In this case, the sepeeding up of growth increment in late maturity in Oaks. Those earlier experts weren't ill-informed, they were under-informed. No-one informed them, they did it for the first time, which is pretty impressive. They informed the world and now someone has taken it a stage further and done it better, and eventually someone will improve on that. That's how science works. Did I just say Vepasian is right? Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Although it relates to A. angustifolia, there may be something in it that helps. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-67622015000100009

I've always been curious about this 12 year 'law', so I looked into it a bit more. Firstly the Land Registry (England) says - "Over 85% of land and property in England and Wales is now registered with us. Much of the land owned by the Crown, the aristocracy, and the Church has not been registered, because it has never been sold, which is one of the main triggers for compulsory registration. "Some people think that unregistered land isn’t owned by anyone or refer to it as ‘no man’s land’. But this isn't right. In England and Wales, all land is owned by somebody, even if the legal owner can’t be identified. For example, if a person dies without a Will or blood relatives, their land or property can pass to the crown by law..." Secondly, the 12 year system appears to be one whereby someone who occupies land, exclusively, can claim title to dospossess the holder of the paper title. That person is technically a 'squatter'. The rules are - You must show that: the squatter has factual possession of the land the squatter has the necessary intention to possess the land the squatter’s possession is without the owner’s consent all of the above have been true of the squatter and any predecessors through whom the squatter claims for at least 12 years prior to the date of the application "Factual possession" signifies an appropriate degree of physical control. "Necessary intention to possess" is “not an intention to own or even an intention to acquire ownership but an intention to possess” ... “the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow”. It looks like compulsory registration of land will be in place by 2030. I suppose then in theory claiming land before then under the 12 year rule would require occupation now and for the subsequent 12 years. That's cleared it up for me, one can't eye up a bit of spare ground across the back fence and stake a claim and just wait for 12 years. You'd have to fence it off, enclosing it in your own garden, and make some use of it for 12 years. Only then can a claim be made. Chopping a tree down on it meantime would be unlawful. Using this procedure of registration as a means of getting the right to remove a tree would be overkill. The preconveyancing and conveyancing processes look complex and onerous, and probably expensive as a result.

When did you break it off? Whereabouts on the tree was it? Was the tree exhibiting any signs of ill-health? Where in the country are you? Help us tyo help you....

I am lucky to ahve acustomer who is a Monkey Puzzle obsessionist. Her tres regularly produce lots of big fat seeds, she has a boy and a girl right next to each other. Even if she wasn't generous with the seeds, they freuenty litter the adjacent pavement. Half a mile away is a similar Romeo and Juliet pair, showering the public footway. Lots of seeds to be had. Anyway, point is the customer has discovered by priceless trial and errot that it is best to germinate the seeds in pots at least a foot deep, and allow them that much depth to develop for 5 years. The pots are allowed to stand freely drained in little more than peat. Conclusion? The tap root on A. araucana is strong and I suspect in nature is an all-important evolutionary adaptation. I'd love to hear of progress on the vegetative reproduction trial Gary, but if it works a bit of soil depth is going to be important if tap root is going to develop as a buffer against a very humic surface layer and lack of drainage. My dalliances with growing stuff in pots proved to me very quickly that watering from above vs watering from below are life or death to some species, and that there are times of the year when you need to switch from top watering to bottom watering. And vice versa. The best strategies seem to be those that mimick nature. I don't quite know why, but I would guess that unless hardiness of new cuttings is in question a good old waft of air around the waxy-cuticled leaves won't do much harm. More important maybe to keep the roots relatively warm? Don't really know my stuff on this, only what I have tried and can extrapolate to A.a.

Good to see a sensible well informed debate. I'm guessing this tree is in England, and I don't know enough about englis land law to comment. I could, though, add that by admitting to qualms on a public website the would-be feller of the feral trees steps from 'innocent through ignorance' to 'calculated risk' if he takes the job on and gets busted. Could? I just did.

Yep, that as well. It's all about attitude. Always be doing something... other than looking at Facebook.

What you describe is pretty much covered by 002011 - City & Guilds NPTC Level 2 Award in Supporting Colleagues Undertaking Off Ground Tree Related Operations You can download the syllabus from NPTC. It would be great if a lot more people had that ticket, it doesn't prove you are a good groundie but it proves that you know what elements make a good one. Just add good attitude and remove mobile phone and , hey presto, someone that you can rely on and don't need to check if he can set up a capstan at short notice , for example. It would be a real bonus to have an aerial rescue-trained groundie. On the other hand, not many companies would be willing or able to pay extra to have this sort of person on every job, becasue a lot of the time they just need brash rats. This industry knows how to do things right but ends up doing them cheaply or quickly a lot of the time, as there's bugger all policing of good work practices. When I was running big jobs I would love to have had the service you describe, when I could book in a competent all-rounder for a day or two.

There seems to be confusion about this. The volume limits apply to "the felling by any person of trees on land in his occupation or occupied by a tenant of his". I don't think it matters who actually wields the chainsaw on behalf of that owner, it is the decision to fell by the ownber that matters. If the owner has more than one site, the limit in theory applies to the combined sites.

Ignoring the matter of insurance for now, the law only holds a tree owner responsible for damage or harm that could or should reasonably have been foreseen. That becomes a matter of proving negligence. Insurance might cover the negligent tree owner. Insurance is a whole lot less likely to cover the hapless victim of a freak healthy tree accident, precisely because the tree owner is not liable at law, and hence not at insurance. Why have insurance? That's a different question. Insurance is for lots of things and people have it for those things. It's not for everything, and insurers are in the business of paying out less than they take in.

Just taking Axa's HomeSmart policy as an example, public liability/ property ownre's liability covers responsibility for contents and buildings.

Dryads Saddle (Cerioporus squamosus) has pores, Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) has gills. Yours has pores.

I am convinced that Rylands v Fetcher has no relevance to this insurance business, if anyone wants to know why, I will explain. The key here is what an insurance policy says. It is usual for storm damage to be covered by insurance, that is to say damage caused to the insured property. It is not the same as damage caused to someone else's property by your property. And htat's what is happenign when a branch falls off a tree, across a boundary and onto someone else's land. It's not even that clear, an by now flatyre and others will have found that insurers will deem such occurrences as Acts of God whether they are arguably storm damage. And in a rather oxymoronic twist of the tale, building insurance policies normally include public liability insurance, which means that if the offending tree was in poor condition such that damage to a neighbour's property should have been foreseen and avoided, the insurer would probably pay out. Here's where we can leave it. The law excuses someone for damage caused by freak occurrences. A lot of insurance policies use this to exclude the insurer's liability. The only solution is to check the wording of your policy and if it doesn't cover you or your neighbour to your satisfaction, get a policy that does. Policies differ, seek one out that isn't a sham. Ask anyone on the street whether damage caused by a tree coming down in a gale is the sort of thing that should be covered by building insurance and they will say yes. But it only does if you buy a policy that says that, and you will probably have to pay more for a good policy. Most policies don't. I changed mine last year because my old one was a con, I told the insures to shove it up their axa, and I got a new one . Insures are very capable at selling policies, matched only by their ability to avoid paying out claims. Sh*t happens.... and you have to pay extra for it not to happen to you.

Well, a bit of selective copying of Wikipedia could help explain the issue. What is an Act of God? Wikipedia has two useful definitions derived from case law. The first is from England. It is an occurence which involves no human agency which is not realistically possible to guard against which is due directly and exclusively to natural causes and which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, plans, and care. The second one is from Scots law and is more useful I think because it encapsulates the issue of whether someone is to blame for an Act of God. "Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them." Scots law also subsumes Acts of God within what I think is a less emotive term "Damnum Fatale" which literally means "loss/damage ordained by fate" and codified in Scots law as “a loss arising from inevitable accident, such as no human prudence can prevent; — such, for example, as the losses occasioned by storms or tempests, lightning, floods . . . or . . . by any calamity falling within the legal description of an act of God” . It keeps God right out of it. It is fair to say this is a very old concept of law, and Vespasian cannot be excused for not knowing of it since it predates his spell as emperor by at least 100 years as I think it was addressed by Cicero by at least 40BC. And the Romans at least initially didn't embrace the christian concept of a single God. Rather than relying on the unseen hand of God as the agent of accidents, they just saw that some things just happened that couldn't have been foreseen, or rather needn't have been foreseen by (in flatyre's case) the tree owner. Or by the owner of the shed, I should add for completeness. And most improtantly of all, there is no legal liability to pay for the cost of putting right damnum fatale. Thousands of years of common law from all around the world have arrived at this same necessary conclusion, so that we can all get on with life without paranoic obsession with what might befall us or our neighbours.

I think the last 3 pics are scanning electron microscopes. I want one. But they cost about £50k.

I shoudl add, as I often have to, that if the tree is not in England, the aforegoing advice may be wrong. I am assuming it's in England, as no-one bothers to say so unless it isn't.

A couple of things to add. First the tree sounds like it's not in the Prof's ownership, so self-abatement under exemption may not be an option. Secondly, wilful damage (the cutting of roots) to reduce water uptake of the Oak is not covered by exemptions. Thirdly the cutting of roots to reduce wter uptake in the long term is a questionable solution, since if it is not accompanied by crown pruning the roots will grow back. Fourthly the TO's RPA comments were in the context of a proposed extension, not the subsidence damage, and could have been relevant. It may be the Prof who has picked it up wrong and confused it with zone of influence. I'm not having a go at you, Chris, just thought I'd round out the Homeowner's advice. The issue is certainly actionable nuisance. If the tree owner won't abate it, he could be liable for the resulting damage. If he would do it, but can't becaue of the TPO, he should apply to have it allowed, and do it of he gets permission. If he applies and doesn't get permission, he should appeal. If he still doesn't get permission, the Council is liable to pay compensation for the damage.

OK the answer which someone let slip is much less interesting than some of the clinic-related guesses, it was a hazel flower (female), and the sample was nabbed on Sunday just outside Glasgow. Here's close-up of the male part (hmm, bracing myself for all sorts of comments). The tree/bush was pretty big and festooned with male catkins, but I could only find a few female flowers.

Didn't read the instructions, eh? Kind of spoils the fun if you post your answer.

I'd agree with janey. I have been involved with 3 that did what yours is doing and in all cases honey fungus was confirmed. I saw one of them last week that I had recommended be removed 5 years ago. It has fallen over. Once the stem bark has split like that, I think you can give up all notions of feeding/mulching. I associate it with separation of bark and wood quite far around the stem, not a split in the wood. I have never seen a monkey puzzle stem fail, it's unthinkable given the density of the wood.