daltontrees

I figured that out, and it's probably Phytopthora, but that doesn't mean it needs a dose of something else to kick it when it's down.

As Sloth suggests, leave it alone. Except I'd say if you can't stand to look a thte dead bits, then look the other way. No good can come of wounding the tree at a time when it is ailing, even if you are just removing dead stuff you will open up infection points.

Horse Chestnut is susceptible to three common problems. Leaf Miner (Cameraria ohridella), Guignardia Leaf Blotch (Guignardia aesculi) and Bleeding Canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi). These are almost ubiquitous in the UK. Spray treatments are available to see off Cameraria and Guignardia (spray treatments) and it may be practical on a single smallish tree to spray preventatively. Bleeding Canker is a bit more difficult, and the best way to avoid it that I cna think of is to prevent physical injuries to the bark and to keep the tree as unstressed as possible, meaning mainly adequate watering in dry conditions, not overwatering, good mulching around and no competition form grass or weeds, perhaps occasional liquid feeding, all that stuff. Stressed trees are less able to see off the regular attempts of pathogens to infect and colonise them. Keep the tree healthy and it should live for a couple of centuries.

Good diagnostic characteristic, that. Thanks for the reminder.

I think everyone's fairly sure it's Trametes versicolor. It's a very variable fungus, colours change from situation to situation. The key thing is that even if it's another species of Trametes or even if it's Stereum, it's 'saprophobic' i.e. only feeding on dead wood. So it probably hasn't killed that part of the tree, (that might be whoever sanctioned the heavy previous pruning). What to do? Nothing. The tree will have compartmentalised the dying parts of the tree and the decay as best it can, and removing the dead woood would only open up a new line of attack for this and other fungi.

I use Firefox and I am getting this ransomeware thing every couple of days. The simplest way to get rid of it temporarily (till the next time) without losing unsaved work on your computer is to hold down Control and Alt at the same time and press Delete. This opens up the Task Manager, click on the browser you are using and click 'End Task'. This pest only happens with Arbtalk.

It's a confusing term, as it sounds like it should be a thing but instead it's a distance, a number. All other things being equal, the torque at the base of a lever (like a branch) is proportionate ti the length (the lever arm) of the lever. The longer the branch the more likely it is to tear at the base. Officially one can't say 'what is a lever arm?' you should say 'what is lever arm?'

That's what we are doing. Structures are insured.

This is covered in the recent BS8596 bt it doesn't grant an exemption, it just says what to do if potential roosts can't be ruled out and targets can't be excluded. As I recall. it also only covers publiuc safety, not private safety.

That6's what I'm saying, there is no exemption, and no statutory power for anyone to grant one on application. A license can be granted if it's a public health issue but not if it's a priate safety issue.

I have an even worse scenbario a thte minute, a pigeon in a large TPO'd Lime, tree is so dangerous that I have notified the Council that it is being taken down urgently without applying for consent. On looking into the legalities, it seems there is no statutory power to disturb nesting birds in emergencies like this. We are watching the nest, first time the bird leaves with chicks the nest is coming out and a bird scarer is going in for the week or so it will take to mobilise the removal.

Not Goat Willow.Grey Willow Salix cinerea

Cross Order inosculation would also be the scientific find of the decade. Like grafting a bat's tail to a snake and expecting the latter to grow wings. And fly.

Ridiculous! That Heras fencing should be braced against accidental impacts that might damage the tree.

I wouldn't even go that far. If you state it was safe in your opinion a few years ago, the owners could pursue a line of argument now that the defect that caused it to fail now was likely present a few years ago too and ... gotcha on negligence. There was a bit of this kind of thing in the recent Cavanagh v Witley (and another) case. It would suffice, surely, for OP to be honest and say tre was assessed informally, hazards identifed and risks discussed but the owners decided not to proceed? As the saying goes 'the law operates best when it is subservient to the honesty of the case'.

VTA does not assess risks, it identifies hazards. The hazards and their likelihood of materialising need to be weighed up against what or who might be hit and hte severity of harm or damage, and then consideration given by the occupier to tolerance of that risk and the amenity value attached to the tree.

Stagecoach v Hinds and Steel 2014. Correct, poor Mr Steel had only been there previously to work on tree, Stagecoach tried to show he had a 'duty to warn' but like the landowner he had no cause to inspect the base of the tree.

Cornus and Sorbus are so distantly related that grafting or hybridisation is unimaginable. They are both Eudicots but that's where the similarity ends. Compatible grafts or hybrids across genera are rare enough, and between Orders are extremely rare. Simlarly compatible grafting. I suspect a simpler explanation. The photo at the top of page 2 that suggests a twin stemmed tree forking at ground level has diffrerent bark on the two stems. It maybe that there are two separate trees growing so closely together that they appear to be the one tree but they are neverrthless two trees. The remaining pictures show what looks indeed like torminalis leaves growing from Sorbus barked stems and Cornus leaves growing from Cornus barked stems. Two trees, I'd say. If not, this is the scientific discovery of the decade and would send international geneticists back to primary school in search of their sanity. AS if say a bat had been successfully cross-bred with a snake.

Not great pics of the buds, but that was my first thought too.

Sort of a happy ending. Reputation intact, fee paid, scrappy trees gone and replaced for longer term in hoopefully unmolested position. Presumably developer happy too, he got away with it.

NOt so great having the back of the gob and the backcut at pretty much exactly the same level, leaving nowhere for the hinge to ... hinge.

Aaaah, I see. Sort of makes sense but sort of makes me want to run away screaming. Clearly it's a subject considerably larger than my brain.

Very uinteresting, and I'd love to have reliable way of telling australe and applanatum apart. The other Ganoderma species seem to be less frequent up here, but I'm always on the lookout. I'll collect a few spores next time and see if I can get to grips with teh sizes. The Andy Overall article gives his sizes as follows • Ganoderma applanatum spores were 5.8–7.0 x 4.5–5.2 μm. • Ganoderma australe spores were 9.0–10.0 x 6.2–7.1 μm. And then I'm looking at your last photo and thinking, those spores aren't definitely one or the other species. No exospore obvious either. Which are they?

I have been told that scottish spruce is not suitable for structural work, as it has grown too quickly. I believe a lot of the structural spruce we use over here comes from Sweden which as you indicate is growing in harsher conditions, more slowly. Maybe the scottish stuff can be used OK if it is of bigger dimensions that an imported equivalent. Dunno...

This thread has descended rapidly into a series of gentle rants about the CAP, farming, Brexity etc. which is a shame because the question originally asked is an interesting one. And the answer I think is that the expense of looking after TPO'd trees shouldn't be borne by the public purse. The only difference between an ordinary tree and a TPO'd tree is that the latter's owner needs to ask first before working on it. The cost of asking is nil, although it may take up time. The answer is not always 'no'. Most owners of most TPo'd trees would want to keep them anyway and would have therefore to pay for teh maintenance anyway. Why should the public pay for that? So there are relatively few cases where a tree is TPO'd AND the owner wants to do work to it AND that work is only allowed under conditions that make the work more expensive to do than if there was no TPO. That's the only situation where there is any argument that the public should pay that extra cost. TPOs don't oblige an owner to maintain a tree. As such, there's no ongoing cost except if keeping a tree at a sensible scale is the only alternative to removing the tree, an act that it not allowed under TPO law. And that, I reckon, is the situation that gave rise to TPO law in the first place. The real cost to an owner of a TPO'd tree is it may prevent him maximising use and value and enjoyment of his property. But that's a different compensation debate...