David Humphries

Kevin, no offence taken, I value and respect your comments & appreciate the time you have obviously given to create a balanced and researched post. I suspect like the majority of us, I continue to evolve my knowledge with time and experience. Just for the record, I haven't indicated that this tree in this thread should not be removed. That is a decision for PRob to make based on his interaction here and with the tree company he has engaged. Sometimes the time comes when a tree has to be taken down. I'm merely making a generic (personal) observation here of our industry from a perspective of being a tree management officer who has had the privilege 1; to have come from a tools background from the since the early nineties 2; to continue to get the opportunity to be sent to regular seminars, conferences, p&d work shops and college to be able to keep abreast of past, current and upcoming developments in the strategic, practical and scientific sides of our industry. (Which I try and share here as much as I can) & 3; (for me perhaps the most significant) being a moderator here at Arbtalk which gives me, based on time served looking at thousands and thousands of posts (since the started AT in 2007) a full and depressing view of the thousands of trees that get removed day in day out before their time with (again in my opinion) the easy option which is removal without informed consideration of the bigger picture of national urban tree cover and the benefits we all get from them. If that frustrates or upsets people, then perhaps I haven't been sharing or communicating what I have learnt enough. Must try harder .

Once the tree is dead (via having the crown removed) you will have a lump of dead wood that would start to degrade via decay in a relatively short time frame. The location next to the road for a standing decaying dead weight would be difficult and costly to assess and maintain. Personally wouldn't advise that route. http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/picture-forum/55972-sculpture-management.html .

'All' trees are defective in our eyes Dave They are either too decayed, too big, too shady, too messy, too allelopathic, too water demanding, too.........well too tree like Far too much focus still today on negatives associated with trees (predominantly fear based) and not on the benefits they provide us with, like removing and storing carbon, and the filtering out of pollutant particulates like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides & ammonias Providing oxygen Reducing the urban ambient temperature Preventing soil erosion Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera......... I truly believe, that the majority of people in our industry don't have a scooby how they effect these things above on a daily basis by unnecessarily taking out trees that can be managed with their defects for the benefit of us all as a society and not just for the benefit of reducing the personal fear of tree owners. Taking out big canopy trees and replacing with a puny 6 footer ain't gonna cut the mustard. .

I can not comment on the stability of the beech in this thread but beech do coexist with Meripilus whereas some trees succumb to root failure. Pictures below show a (reduced) tree with at least a decade of meripilus association that is significantly exposed to the south west & one that went over with Meripilus whilst in full leaf (but unreduced) during very strong winds last year. Seems to me from the majority of comment here that even with an awareness of a developing understanding of a complex relationship, the over riding feeling that still pervades today in our industry, is to fell at the first sight of fruiting bodies. Knee jerk springs to mind. Cost should not be the only hurdle to management options. .

Cwoargh ! .

Increment Borers from the above............ "The classic increment borer, The increment borer is the classic instrument for fast and reliable results when evaluating age, increment and soundness of trees. Increment borers are also used for decay check-up, pollution control, wood density, chemical penetration control etc." .

Just out of interest PRob, where are you in relation to the storm that the UK has just been subjected to? .

I'm sure there are many reputable Arbtalk members here that are in your area If you don't get any direct contact, you could try this list of Registered Consultants.......... Directory of Arboricultural Association Registered Consultants .

Not entirely sure which example you're referring to, but this one from the estate at Windsor (one of Ted Greens, which he showed to us in 2009) has had a Meripilus association for many years/decades and is still alive and standing (unreduced) as far as I'm aware. If it is this one, as you say, it does have a healthier rooting environment (than the one at the top of the thread) & undoubtedly has a strong mycorrhizal symbiotic relationship. Quite clearly shows a very healthy vascular root/buttress adaption that has grown at a faster rate than the white rot of the Meripilus on the underside where the older root material is now dysfunctional. .

Common as muck .

Hello, welcome to the site. You say you have been advised by a 'tree company'? Were these tree contractors or tree consultants? .

On one face of the trunk or all the way around Rhob? .

Thanks Tony, good points, but trying to keep it simple here..................no place for microscopes in your average Arb man(s) bag Without all of us having access to all of the perceived wisdom from all resources, I think it prudent to probe these thing for discussion (for the benefit of all levels) in basic terms. Unless of course key facts are omitted. I (don't think I'm alone in this) would like to start seeing a wider contribution here, from those that can, for the greater good of the Arb sector. Even if these threads only serve to reiterate the bits and pieces I'm picking up along the way, then that's one Arb who's learnt something Pdf's, photos, experience, bring it on Tree people .

Any shots? .

Here, the reaction wood ribs on the compressive underside of these beech branches .

Having said the above, trees don't always play strictly by the 'rules' Adaption to force can be seen to be applied in the opposite .

Nothing new here, just going through the motions to help me continue to understand how wood grows. Feel free to add your own comments/observations/images. A basic premiss derived from various texts....... Compressive wood = formation of reactive wood to gravity/wind force (made up on the underside of gymnosperm branches & trunks by the laying down of additional lignin in the woody cells to help push the weight against the implied force.. Tension wood = formation of reactive wood to gravity/wind force (made up on the upper side of angiosperm branches & trunks by the laying down of additional cellulose in the woody cells to help pull up the weight against the implied force. .

I don't think this is about limes specifically Rupe, most trees given favourable conditions (soil structure) and the time (tree time) to adapt to that change, will readily challenge the boxes we place them in. for example, these oaks (not swamp trees by any stretch of the imagination) in the middle of a continual pond a meter or so deep, for decades growing incrementally and going through leaf, flower and seed production year in, year out. Text books tell us that this shouldn't be. .

Not entirely confident on this, but it may be the galls of a midge that associates with lime. Containaria tiliarum .

If................? Only a matter of time .

Slightly off centre stem on dryinus, and pulmonarius has a shorter stem (R Phillips) P. Pulmonarius more often in clusters .

That reads like a well considered management plan .

Ganoderma pfeifferi on beech stump .

Pholiota aurivella on beech .

A couple of beech with Inonotus cuticularis on trunk wounds from earlier today in Suffolk .