daltontrees

Thanks for that, I had seen the last two being used but I didn't check whther this was because they were outdated uses or brand new ones. Now I know. For those that are dismissive of all this - I believe it's important that new names are used. It's a matter of taxonomy, and that in turn is a result of research into DNA that shows where species originated. New species can arise as a result of natural genetic mutation, usually at the point of spore production form parent cells, and those mutations that are better adapted to their environment will do better, and will eventually supersede the parent genetic mix at that locale. They might still be able to breed with the parent species. Eventually mutations will carry the new species so far away in characteristics from the parent species that inter-reproduction will no longer be possible. At that point it could be said we have a new species. These branches in the evolutionary tree are what taxonomy is all about. Understanting this adaptation is a step closer to understanding the subtle slow long-term co-evolution with trees. This is one reason why it's important to follow taxonomic name changes. Were the parents of these new species losing the battle agaisnt host tree species? And why? What were the trees doinfg differently? But here's another one to adopt the new names. If you aren't aware of new names you are somehow showing that you don't keep your professional knowledge up to date. And if you don't know about the name changes and why they were necessary, what else don't you know about the fungus? And what else about trees don't you know? And what does that say about the quality of your advice and actions...? Personally (na dI appreciate that I am a sad git) I think it interesting that the fungus formerly known as Piptoporus betulinus is currently undestood to be more closely related to Fomitopsis pinicola. And that The fungus fka Inonotus dryadaeus is not as closely related to Inonotus hispidus as formerly suggested by its old name.

These pics aren't strictly biomechanics, but I thought since they have a sepulchral theme I'd put them next to the previous memorial picture.

Perhaps the foundations have been designed to accommodate the trees' influence, or perhaps there are no shrinkable clays. If the answer to both those is neither, or if you don't know the answers, then speculation is pointless. But if they are 'yes' then ... 5837 in regard to these issues is secondary to well-established industry standards, particularly NHBC and building regulations. Annex A is 'informative', a lower level of imperative than the rest of the Standard. It talks of the 'need to' avoid damage. At best one can say that in saying 'need' it is echoing legal liabilities and the cost/life implications for buildings if the advice is not followed. I know of no precedent citing 5837. There are several subsidence cases citing NHBC and two citing 3998. So could done get hammered for not consulting 5837 or not taking its advice? Probably not in isolation. Could a Council be liable for imposing conditions that ignore Annex D? Hmmm, maybe but not in isolation. Such conditions would be unreasonable and should be overturned. I think someone in the design team would be responsible for spotting the conflict between conditions and likely subsidence. Ideally before conditions were formally imposed.

Powdery mildew, common on Norway Maples. I saw a load of it on Monday in Edinburgh, but only on the red leaved variety. Nothing to worry about and nothing you can do. It's a symptom of humidity.

It's ahawk moth OK, but looks a bit more like the Convolvulus Hawk-moth Agrius convolvuli. Rare. Feeds on Bindweed, apparently, which can only be a good thing.

Almost certainly.

Good balanced perspective there.

Good point, thanks.

As you could probably guess, I disagree that this form of diplomacy is beneficial. If Councils continue to believe that they are within their rights to insist on forms being filled in, and their misguided insistence is acquiesced to by tree professionals, then the public are forced neesdlessly to get bogged down in bureaucracy, leading to resentment of Conservation Area status, leading to resentment of their own trees. But show how easy it is to notify and that the onus is on the Council to chase up notifications, and the public will comply, trees will be properly regarded, Councils will have to decide whether to fund tree protection properly and if not to justify to society why they haven't. The tail should never wag the dog. That way madness always lies. It's like Councils thinking they can condition CA agreements. It's a disservice to all to let them continue. The bottom of the bottom line is tha thet legislation about CA notification is a masterpiece of minimalism. A CA notice has only to do 4 things - Be clear that it is a notification relating to a CA What works are proposed "Sufficient particulars to identify the tree" The date of notification As long as it goes to the right Council' that's it. So a notification could say "I am hereby notifying you that I propose to fell the only tree in my front garden at XX Main Street, Treeborough in the Conservation Area. Yours sincerely Joe Bloggs. 14th September 2016." No map, no justification, no forms, no fuss. A 2 minute job.

A strangely interesting article, that. My own effort dealt with 'eccentricity' in the pure mathematical sense, the relationship between the long and short axes of an ellipse. But the article uses the word 'eccentric' to mean all ins and outs, which is a different problem. That form of eccentricity will always result in an overestimate of the cross sectional area of a stem. Must get a life...

I did a rather complicated exercise last year to quantify the effects of eccentricity on cross sectional area relative to the area rderived froma circumference that assumes a circular cross section. The result was surprising in that the eccentricity needs to be quite pronounced before the difference is significant.

Ah no, that just encourages them to perpetuate the myth that they can demand a form be flled in. It's kinder in the long term to let them know that you know that they can't insist on forms. Just need to ask for acknowledgement of the email and if you don't get acknowledgement, print the email off and post it, and keep a note of doing this.

Here's food for thought. I once had a small tree. Every spring, the terminal buds either got eaten as soon as they softened or got killed by late frosts. As a result, almost every union on it was codominant. It didn't live long enough for these to develop into included bark unions but that was inevitable.

As others have said, the Council cannot make you use its form. In the primary legislation it says that you just have to have evidence that you "served notice of [your] intention to do the act in question (with sufficient particulars to identify the tree) on the local planning authority". I would suggest that you tell the Council that you will not be submitting the form because you don't need to. Better that they know that the 6 weeks is officially rolling (which it is anyway) than leaving them waiting for a form to come in.

Spotted 2 days ago a long alternating curved line of sycamore and copper beech, a bold move at this scale and I think a very pleasing effect.

Problem is, the wee buggers can fly. We can expect them to arrive everywhere eventually. There hasn't been a good hard cold parasite killing winter for a few years too. Thanks for the picture, I hope I never come across them up here but I will remember that image.

I've doen a couple. Like any other species being thinned, if it's done right it can serve a useful purpose. You haven't said what the objective is. But regardless, the regorwth will initially result in re-thickening of the crown rather than spreading of it. Some hollies tend not to have prickly leaves higher up, so it might not be htat bad. Younger stems or the leader(s) have horizontal branches fairly regularly all teh way up, and thinning seems to work best if entire branches are taken out rather than trying to thin the foliage on the branches. Much like one might thin a spruce. If it's not a severe thinning the tree should respond well. Wounds might be slow in healing but will eventually. I have found it important to get right back to the collar, leaving no stub at all. And don't remove the leader(s). Officially, thinning shouldn't change the dimensions of the tree, just its density. Getting the arisings out of the tree will be the hard bit. Working from the inside, pulling them in is near impossible, and throwing them out is near impossible. I use secateurs from the inside, pull the branch to me, strip the bits I can reach, pull again, and continue ad nauseam. Then shove everything down to the bottom, tie back a couple of branches to make a passage and drag everything out. All time consuming but if priced appropriately not a bad way to spend a day.

It's entirely possible, if not likely, that your chestnuts have Pseudomonas syringeae pv. aesculi, Guignardia leaf blotch and Cameraria ohridella (leaf miner). Chestnut is pretty defenceless against all of these, and in combination the leaf blotch and leaf miner could reduce the overall photosynthesising capacity of a crown for a large part of the growing season. Combined with cankers that block return of photosynthates to the root system, a downward spiral can result. Extensive cankers can effectively girdle the stem and death is inevitable. I've seen all 3 on chestnuts in Scotland, but not on youngish trees like yours. Sorry! Welcome to Arbtalk, the forum that rarely softens the blow...

Wanting and getting are two different things. But I can't be bothered with your antagonism, so that's the end of the debate for me.

I would add for my travel time, and if the customer wanted me at that price, i'd get the job. If someone else was nearer and didn't add for travel, they'd probably get the job. Simple supply and demand stuff. I already live in the real world, thanks.

I'd go with all of that. Maybe C. crus-galli for the first and I. x altaclarensis for the last.

Magnolia for sure. Maybe M. officinalis?

A quick epilogue to this, I've just seen the whole thread for the first time. I sub for Jimmyjnr sometimes, maybe a day or two a week. Recently I was working with Ross for him quite a bit. Jimmyjnr is firm but fair, he gets a great deal of satisfaction out of providing a lot of work for the guys. Sometimes he estimates wrong, you can be home by 2 or working late. Swings and roundabouts. As I think he sees it he doesn't dock wages for short days and doesn't want to have to pay overtime for occasional unexpected long days. He is very loyal to his guys, and I think he appreciates a bit of loyalty back, a bit of come-and-go. All this arithmetic about hourly rates is all very well, but many days Ross and I were on site at 8.30 and off site at 3. When I was contracting, that was a half day. And wouldn't I like to be able to get paid for commuting? Meanwhile in the real world... As for Ross, he's a good guy, enthusiastic and energetic, hard working and keen to learn more about trees and the industry. I'd gladly give him work. Recently he climbed for me when I had 3 cracked ribs, and I really appreciated it, I was in a lot of pain. He gets on with it. But he has young family and has to provide, and I didn't know he was commuting as far as he was. It's natural to explore the market a bit. Maybe not quite so publicly though... The wisest words on here have been from whoever said there are always 2 sides to a story. I respect Jimmyjnr and Ross both, for different reasons, having been a contractor and a subbie, I see both sides. I'm sure they'll both go far and I hope they do.

Well put, Paul. It's not a rule, it's a starting point. Justification for accepting or rejecting it is always required, even if it's the acquiescence of teh LPA. And detractors of the arbitrary 12x may wish to consider how any alternative formula (10x, 15x, 20x...) would be justified. Sorry Gary, it being easy to calculate at 10x is not a good justification. Nice try, though.

I know my last post was lengthy but somewhere in it I suggest that it would be too late to grass up the developer using priveleged information, even if the surveyor turns down the survey.