daltontrees

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.

WHat you have described is not a barrier, it's underpinning. 3.3m is no an arbitrary number. I imagine someone specialising in clay soil subsidence has done something along the lines of a retrospective NHBC calculation and decided 3.3m is the appropriate foundation depth. As purchaser I would be lookign for a guarantee that the work has been carried out in accordance with the specification, and an indemnity from whoever specified the works.

True... but you can be super-smug when you see the answer. If you got it right, that is. Then you can post 'I knew that'. Also no point in that.

Little Jelly Ear on Friday popping out of the opening of a dead bud on Ash.

Just for fun, what's this a picture of? If you get it, keep it to yourself, so others have to guess unprompted. I'll put the answer up in a day or two.

Liability - Gary has pointed you in the right direction about liability, NTSG does this issue to death. But it's simple. Check the trees regularly and you have nothing to worry about as long as you act on any concerns you find that could reasonably cause harm to neighbours or visitors. Get someone in to do it if you feel you're not up to it or theres's s specialist issue beyond your knowledge, and act on any advice. Insurance - damage to 3rd party property is usually covered by building insurance, as long as you haven't been negligent by not acting on tree risks. If your policy doesn't over it, get one that does. It shouldn't cost much more, and you don't need to flag up trees unless the insurer asks you to in the proposal form. Ove rht e years I have seen policies covering less and less, so unless you pay for a decent policy you're in for surprises if you claim against a cheapo policy. Power lines - the standard 'wayleave' form power companies is quite simple, probably too simple. You let it have cables in your airspace (whether for your property or for elsewhere, whether for money or for free) and there are two key points of agreement. The company can "fell or lop in a woodman like manner any tree or hedge on the Property which obstructs or interferes with the Works". And you must not "do or cause or permit to be done on the Property anything likely to cause damage or interference of any kind to the Works". This leaves the question of damage from falling trees open to resolution by common law i.e. the answer is not immediately clear. Generally if your trees cause damage (as with general liability as discussed above) and you foresaw it or should have, and did nothing to stop it damaging cables, it would be your fault. If in doubt, get BT or power company out to advise. They might say it's your problem, but they might drop cables temportarily to make felling easy, or switch lines off for a day to make it safe. BT might just fix a breakage on the spot, because (in my experience) it's more hassle to report it as a breach of wayleave adn get its solicitors onto you. I have never known a leccy company to take that relaxed view, possibly because the costs and logistics of repair are bigger.

I am currently hunting for something similar. Depends what is meant by 'mature'. Biggest can get is 13m high 150mm dbh, but I am looking for a particular species and supply is limited or non-existent. All sorts of issues arising about digging up, moving, planting and either underground guying or aerial guying. In theory you can get really big stuff, but in practice they may need a tree spade so big that it has to be brought over from Germany for a couple of days. Possibly even bring the trees over too if you want fully (well, early- ) mature. Hilliers have been the best bet so far. Quite a decent choice of 10m specimens. Much easier to get mature for species that won't even reach 10m when mature. Easier to get cultivar than straight natives. PM me if you want to swop notes.

I think the common name is Chinese Thuja or Chinese Arborvitae.

I am going from the east edge of Glasgow so if you can make it that far you can have a lift from there. Somewhere like Hamilton? Am sending you a message with mobile phone number if required.

I misinterpreted 'no one would argue'. So I now don't disagree, it is an encroachment and the tree belongs where it came from. If it roots, though, the new growth that derives sustenance from the neighbour's soil is his, after the point where he notices it or could reasonably expect to have noticed it. Then if he tolerates it, it's his. If severed from the original tree it may carry on with his accceptance. If not, no harm done. And I don't think he can demand that the original tree owner does not sever it and cut off it's supply from original tree. I don't really understand the physiology of layering roots, but it may be that the vascular flows to and from the new roots are plumbed primarily if not exclusively into the new growth. It would then be one of the 'branch attachment' enigma questions about what happens to the competition for cambial growth between new vascular growth and old vascular growth from the original tree.