daltontrees

I'd say it's a Witches Broom (look it up), common enough in Spruce.

Or Phytophthora alni, which is what I was hinting at with 'serious long term'.

Not entirely without reference, and I am relieved to see that I didn't make it up, although I my be interpreting 'occur naturally' wrongly as meaning something different from 'are present'. Viz. - "The present study has demonstrated that ScI and ScII occur naturally in wood decayed by S. crispa, at concentrations sufficient to impair the growth of other fungi. It seems possible, therefore, that these compounds may contribute to the suppression of potential competitors, hence allowing S. crispa to persist for an extended period." Looking again at the article 'Methods' I can't see that a control analysis of undecayed wood was undertaken, and the article doesn't therefore settle the matter of whether ScI/II occurs naturally in undecayed wood. I think it is reasonably settled that trees produce antifungal substances preventatively and/or reactively, but we can't say (at least, based on this article) whether Sc is one of them.

That's too many questions for anyone to give a meaningful written reply. Looks like bleeding cankers, could be anything from minor short-term to serious long term, but no way of knowing even from a 100 pictures. Maybe you need a consultation, someone to have a proper look then spend a while answering your questions then summarise the answers in writing. You'd best say where you are if you want quotes.

Perhaps Stamets read it too and jumped to an unscientific conclusion that you took as fact. Nunc melius cognoscere causas

I was a little confused too, it would be a new definition of parasitism. The attached may help a little, if nothing else the general comments in the last paragrah of p.3 show that competition is fierce between fungi and that inhibition of other species including Armillaria is highly effective. Rather than being parasitism it is out-competition. It also reads like sparassol and the similar ScI and ScII and orsenillic acid are not really synonymous. What I thought most interesting of all is that ScI and ScII are present naturally in woods, poresumably as antifungal defences, but that S. crispa can tolerate these better than its competitors can, giving it almost exclusive access to colonised (but still living) woody hosts. It's a short step to assume that if ScI/II inhibits the opposition and S. crispa can produce it as can trees themselves, it would be a good way to contain other fungal spreads. What stops the S. crispa thereafter is another question. scrispa.pdf

Well nearly none Determining Value Publications CIEEM - Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management but none that it is possible for an arb to apply, since it is largely a factor of how indispensable the trees are in the context of the ecological value of the bats.

COunldn't have said it better myself. See also my reply to Gary Prentice. Potential for needless surveys, potential for needless second surveys, impossibility of knowing whether development might disturb, no basis for knowing how to categorise batty trees and if they will be inhabited if retained amongst development. I will be recording PRFs and stating that I can find no basis for categorisation of consequent conservation value. A poorly thought-out link to 5837 by BSI. They do themselves no favours sometimes.

Sorry I only have the draft and snippets of the final version. It costs £200 ish.

Dunno, I imagine it's pretty much superseded by not just the micro-guide but also the BS (which requires non-specialist survey of woodlands for bat habitat potential) and the new guidance on the use of endoscopes and the like by arbs for confirming or discounting bat presence in PRFs. But I haven't seen the AA guide, I always did my bat stuff from first principles.

It's gone over my head too. 8596 doesn't say the arb has to do the bat survey, (if anything it says an ecologist should) but it does say the arb has to categorise trees to reflect the conservation value of bats or bat features in them. Although that may simplify things and us arbs needn't worry about identifying bat potential, it still leaves a gaping hole - how to categorise. If you have a slightly knackered C1 that has a cavity high up, not developed enough to make it a veteran but des-res for bats, does the tree become a C3? Or a B3, or A3? Wew can all look forever but I don't think we'll find the answer in 5837 or 8596. An A or B category often means retain the tree despite development, but leaving a formerly batty woodland tree in an open space in the middle of a housing development doesn't mean it will still be used by bats, quite the opposite. So will retaining it conserve bat habitat? No. A Gordian knot if ever there was one. And one that the bat and ecology people will no doubt prosper from failing to untie.

Good one, have the rest of the night off!

That's the one. Mine's a 1992 re-issue of 60s 'Classic'. Not as good as the 'Standard', it lacks 'bite' but I think that's the pickups.

Wow, what a blast! Two Les Paul's in unison. I can only imagine how hard it is to play those hammer-on sections so closely at that tempo. I'd go to see that show.

I was only kidding. In the States when DDT was developed to kill mosquitoes, they sprayed vast areas and lakes, nearly killed everything directly and indirectly. Then it all came back. There's no such thing as a magic wand.

Marketed as Tree-age in the states it is "Effective Treatment For: Pine Coneworm, Pine Cone Seed Bug, Tent Caterpillars, Western Spruce Budworm, Winter Moth, Bagworm, Fall Webworm, Gypsy Moth, Mimosa Webworm, Oak Worm, Tussock Moth, Leafminers, Honeylocust Plant Bug, Pine Needle Scale, Red Palm Mite, Sawfly, Clearwing Borers, Flat-headed Borers (including adult and larvae of Emerald Ash Borer), Roundheaded Borers (excluding Asian longhorn Borer), Scolytids, Ips Engraver Beetles, Mountain Pine Beetle, Southern Pine Beetle, Spruce Beetle, Western Pine Beetle, Pinewood Nematode." We should spray the whole country from a giant helicopter.

Impressive, I wonder how much it costs?

It's a BS that tells us how to do 5837 surveys. Of fuzzy status, and I would say not very helpful at all. Only discoverable by accident, but once discovered surely cannot be ignored?

There's never going to be a 'Show us your arb mandolins' thread, so I'm posting a pic of mine here as it's sort of almost a bit like a guitar.

I love the Lester! Which model is it? I can't see what it says on the truss rod cover.

Mint! Still got the bridge shield! I don't think Fender even put one on the re-issues now.

I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to think about the following. Recently I got involved in the consultation on the new British Standard BS8596 on surveying for bats in trees, because the draft . I posted a few things here but I got the impression that in keeping with the usual attitudes to BSs on Arbtalk no-one was really very interested in what the Standard had to say. But in recent discussion offline with another Arbtalker, I have been able to establish the outcome. It is that according to 8596, "Arboriculturists undertaking tree surveys of potential development sites in accordance with BS 5837 should take into account the likely value of trees for bats and PRFs within their assessment of the conservation value of trees". At least BSI changed the draft in response to recommendations from me and others. But it's still not satisfactory. From what I can see, 5837 doesn't mention bats. There is nothing to suggest that the presence of bats or potential for bats makes a tree have 'conservation' value. Indeed, conservation value seems to have the sense of historic or cultural significance, rather than nature conservancy value. Then 5837 suggests that ancient and veteran trees should be cataputed straight to A3, hinting that their habitat value gives them conservation value. So what do folks think, is anyone (apart from me) attempting to follow this change to 5837 that has been snuck in to 8596? Or heard of any LPA knocking back a report that doesn't follow it? Has anyone made any sense of what it's all about and how to reflect batty trees from now on in their 5837 categories? Anyone care?

Yes but that's a static load and the rings are designed with an extra large diameter.

2 ways to look at this. Firstly I downloaded the first five instructions for carabiners that I could find. Every one of them said don't use carabiner on carabiner. So if you do you are not following manufacturer's instructions and you're possibly not covered if it goes wrong. Secondly, whilst a rope round a carabiner spreads its load on the metal over quite a wide area (conservative estimate for a 13mm rope would be about 160mm2), metal on metal is almost point loading, again conservative estimate 4mm2. That's increasing the load on the metal by 4000%. I can't prove it, but that seems a big risk to take. Maybe there's a third point although it may be part of the first point. If you clip two crabs together, pressed against a length of timber, you are putting them both in torsion. They're not designed for anything other than very directional tension. Failure is not only possible but likely.

Or wooden pallets with the slats vertical.