daltontrees

True, but it would take a change in primary legislation to make non-replanting an offence. Can't see that happening any time soon.

I see that in Scotland the situation is slightly different in that the Council can also recover "such proportion of their administrative expenses as seems to them to be appropriate". This should encourage the offender to replant, as it will almost certainly be cheaper.

THe Council can enter the land, plant the replacement tree and recover the cst, thogh, can't it? Not quite a disincentive to not replant, but at least the replanting can be assured, which is the main thing.

A simultaneously interesting yet tiresome debate. Is there not the development potential for 3 large villas at stake, otherwise the case would have been dropped? In the High Court counsel for the developer "accepted that there is not a rigid distinction between a seedling and a sapling. They form part of the continuing development of a specimen. Any distinction between the two would be a matter of degree and judgment." And it was shown that the developer had not challenged the lumping together of seedlings/saplings, or at least the Inspector accepted that the distinction between seedlings and saplings had not hitherto been disputed by the developer and that he had no need to examine it. But right at the end of the spectrum the Council had also tagged on "or other potential trees". Does this mean that because they only have potential to become trees they couldn't have been at the time trees per se? And if so does the context suggest that the seedlings/saplings were (and it would seem a highly retrospective argument that might be debarred) also therefore not trees at the time? Oh to be a lawyer, not to enjoy any greater understanding of all this but to anticipate substantial fees for kicking a dictionary around a courtroom for a few days and to be paid regardless of the outcome!

According to Effects of ring-porous and diffuse-porous stem wood anatomy on the hydraulic parameters used in a water flow and storage model KATHY STEPPE and RAOUL LEMEUR (2006) - " we analyzed the stem wood anatomy of the beech [F. sylvatica] and oak [Q. robur] trees. Calculation of stem specific hydraulic conductivity of beech and oak ... confirmed the differences in [hydraulic resistance] predicted by [a recently developed water flow and storage model]. "The contributions of different vessel diameter classes to the total hydraulic conductivity of the xylem were calculated. As expected, the few big vessels contributed much more to total conductivity than the many small vessels. Compared with beech, the larger vessels of oak resulted in a higher hydraulic conductivity (10.66 versus 4.90 kg m–1 s–1 MPa–1). The calculated ratio of [hydraulic conductivity] of oak to beech was 2, confirming the [hydraulic resistance] ratio obtained by model calibration." Thus ring porous trees might, if this model and ratio was found to hold true for other tree species, have about twice the vessel area of diffuse porous. So why wouldn't all trees do this, and why haven't the less conductive trees been wiped out by evolutionary pressures? I think the cavitation idea is a useful way to look at it but there's also a clue in the word 'diffuse'. Diffuse porous trees are lmost certailnly compensating for lower vessel size by using more rings. It is well known that ring porous trees are very dependent on the newly created wood of the spring period to conduct the vast quantities of water that they need for their mode of existence, and do not rely on the last year's (and older) vessels to a great extent. I suppose I am just speculating that in support of the 'fact' you have presented there may not only be good reasons why the ring porous model does not work in freeze-prone environments but there is a good reason why the diffuse porous model does. Narrower but more deeply distributed vessels may make up the same conductivity as a few superficial but large ring porous vessels, and there may also be an insulation factor for the deeper vessels. It seems inevitable that the insulating properties of corkier bark will be a factor too for bigger trees, although the pioneers like birch and alder are diffuse porous but have famously thin bark.

Nicely said, I can only hope that the IS and everyone that is thinking of aligning themselves with IS was watching.

Problem is, a lot of systems are fixed price whether you have 100 trees or as some of my clients have, 50,000 trees recorded. The most flexible (i.e. it'll do a lot especially archives of past work, but you basically have to tell it what data you want to record and what not) seems to be Ezytreev but possibly not worth it for only 1500 trees. Currently I am using PGIS and Excel, with occasional AutoCAD or Paint mapping, and export of grid ref to any .dxf OR .dwg complatible mapping system that clients have. There are loads of asset management software packages out there, it doesn't have to be atree one you use. So many of them have easy links to photos and asset numbers (tags) and works histories. I'd give Ezytreev a call if I was you, they've recently adapted for Android and soem cleitns are uaing it on smartphones. Works on Juno/Geo if you want something indestructible in the field with proper (i.e. not just smartphone) GPS capability.

he best course of action would depend ona few things. Can you say 1. What etc means, i.e what else have you done? 2. What is the size/lifestage/condition/species of the tree? 3. In what way is it damaging the wall? 4. Is removal the only way to resolve the problem? 5. Is the customer willing to write off the ful expense of removal? 6. Is the tree protected bya TPO or Conservation Area? Answering these might lead to a refinement of the good advice you have already had here and help someone explain why you shouldn't take some of the bad advice given (the 'fell it' brigade).

I'm going with William of Occam on this and saying someone has drilled holes in the trees. Reason could be to test starch reserves (I have done this myself with a 15mm auger drill bit, but only on trees that were condemned anyway). The shavings are of course taken away for analysis. A closer look at the holes that shows they are of uniform diameter would be allthat is needed to back up the hypothesis.

That's why I am querying the size. I wouldn't like to meet an insect capable of a cm diameter bore or even an exit hole, but I can easily see some clumsy increment boring doing this.

2cm deep or 2cm diameter?

I missed all this first time around. Being in Scotland I am aware that Wetminster has scottish MPs but has no jurdistiction over scottish policy that might affect AV trees. So I could hassle my MP to get involved but it would be pointless, unless (and hopefully) someone can tell me otherwise.

It requires a prussik loop or some other piece of rope than the climbing line. I think the challenge is to use the climbing line to tie the friction hitch to the climbing line. Easy if you have the end available, a Blake's hitch or one of several other similar knots would do. But if you don't have the end available you have to take a loop out of the climbing line and use that.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean anymore. What's an atc, and why would you be muntered off on a sports climb? You'll need to describe trhe situation better. As I said there'sa better knot for every situation and the Fairmile might be useless or worse for the situation you encountered.

Maybe Stereum again? One could be hirsutum , the other rugosum. Neither is in the fungi directory, but you'll get loads of info on the 'net. Saprophytic.

At your own risk, I trust you understand?! On terra firma. Plus see note about securing the free end. I had a real situation like this a few years ago. A frdn peeled off the 4th pitch of a 9 pitch route on Skye, his last runner popped and he landed ona small ledge 2 foot below and about 40 above me. I didn't have a prussik loop with me and he was unconscious (his rucksack saved him death or paralysis, his helmet certainly saved his life) and I had to climb and scramble up to him using his bodyweight as an anchor. All I could think of to use was an italian hitch, which worked (just). The Fairmond would have been perfect. A pretty improbable situation but it shows that there is usually a better knot for every situation.

I just tried it with a 10.5mm rock climbing rope and a coffee table. Works surprisingly well as a shunt, but only if you pull the free end really hard because when loaded the whole thing bungs up and locks off in a spectacularly effective way that needs to be unset with every pull. The other feature is that the free end has to be loaded somehow, and I managed this easily by marlin hitching it to the krab. If photo is required let me know. Easy easy to tie on living room carpet, could be a real faff on a crag in an emergency with cold hands.

Nice knot but there's a 'hitch'. See attched. If it's loaded by the climber's weight at A, the bight will pull out and the whole know will unravel. If you cliped into the bight at B, you'd need some sort of dead weight or stopper knot at A to stop the free end pulling through. But in all other respects it is a prussik knot that can be tied without the free end being available.

It must be possible, how good it is is a diffferent matter. But in an emergency it won't matter if it's a bit too sticky. Let me think...

What? Norway maples lose almost half their weight in a few weeks? Get that on the shopping channels right away. The platanoides plan.

It's a bit rubbish to disagree with other peoples' suggestions when I don't have a better suggestion myself, but I amn't really seeing the Hypoxolon fragiformis thing. The texture appears wrong for it to be any ascomycete I can think of, due as you say to lack of ostioles. There are numerous ascomycetes that look dotty, and almost as many that are associated with beech, but only on thoroughly dead wood. This tree I am guessing is still standing and has largely intact bark, and not in the thoroughly dead class. It may be just slime flux. te first picture looks like exudate. Thr rouhg bark may be consistent with bark boring such as Cryptococcus. There may even be post-flux exit holes through it. The second picture is less convincing, but on ahighly specuative basis these hemispheres of grey material may be congealing individual droplets of flux. I could just about convince myself the bark is punctured in that area anyway. Context is all. If thi is all that is wrong with the tree and it is in other respects functioning, it could perhaps do with a scrub to assist monitoring but that's all. if the tree is dying, whatever this stuff is I expect is secondary to the main problem. I'd say for the avoidance of doubt that it is definetely not K. deusta.

Just a thought, but this mythical table could have been in one of the dozens of policy, circular and guidance documents swept away in 2014 under the wholesale planning review. Put it another way, if it's not currently available on teh planning pertal online guidance, it doesn't apply any more. Possibly.

# Don't rely on me, it's probably as english document and I only do a few 5837s a year down south.

My first impression is that a cluster of C1 individuals should be C2.

Bienvenue. Desolee que personne n'a repondu. Essayez ca, Fungi on Trees ? An Arborists? Field Guide peut-etre le livre le plus practique au sujet. Naturellement plus utile au RU selon climat et specie, mais neanmoins valide sur l'Europe continentale. Assez bon marche et legere, mais 'au point', je l'ai trouve tres utile pendant mes etudes. Arbtalk does not seem to allow the addition of accents (graves, circumflexes etc.), so apologies for my rubbish french.