David Humphries

Black one on the other side of the yellow Tremella is probably something else. Any shots of it? Small white ones are probably Bjerkendera adusta. Stereum species in the last one, close shot needed for a stab at an Id.

Busy, busy

Heterobasidion annosum (Butt rot) here on a long felled pine, shots taken today

bit of blow through yesterday, nothing major though

Flammulina velutipes (velvet shank) on chestnut, on the side of the A1 in north London .......taken this morning

Not sure if that's directed at me or the general membership, but I wouldn't know the answer to that Nick. Have you experience with tree motion sensors for root plate stability? Better = cheaper or better = more sensitive/accurate?

Budget's a bit tight for the rest of the financial year so thought we'd give it a bit of a Heath Robinson affair !

Perhaps better with Laetiporus than Fistulina, Armillaria definitely good

I've not done that, normally just let nature do its thing or give it a little hand by ring barking just above ground level with a saw. I haven't read anything specifically about inoculating stumps to kill them, (Paul Stamets, in his book Mycelium Running) talks about inoculating with saprotrophs to combat pathogenic species) It may be worth introducing the stumps with a strong parasite like Armillaria mellea. Not sure of the best way to do that but perhaps see if there are any commercial plugs available and drill the wood by the cambium (like the glyphosate Eco plugs) . I've seen mycelial plugs of other Armillaria species available, but they're more saprophytic in nature and are unlikely to kill a 'live' stump.

What I play with in the woods is my business

Very little force loaded via the hand winch in reality, because the micrometers pick up on the smallest fraction/degree of tilt and the change in the length of the trunks peripheral wood fibres. This method is thought to be non destructive and I understand that no tree has failed during an actual test. I think I'm right in recalling that one tree (in the thousands that have been pull tested) has failed or had structural concerns after receiving a positive safety factor. (I'm not sure what the circumstances were with that tree)

I thought we both used Bullman ?

I don't know tbh, but if and when the report becomes avaible and/or if the tree is subjected to further pull tests, I'll be sure to updated this thread.

Possibly the mycelial felt of a long term Laetiporus sulphureus colonisation.

I understand the refurbishment of the playground will address the rooting & surface area.

Didn't imagine your old eyes would have picked up on that Mr Bolam I couldn't possibly comment, but there may have been someone keeping a watching brief from afar

I don't actually know the cost, that's between the Borough of Islington and the Consultant (although I would like to know) But it's worth considering that this tree has a very high CAVAT value (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) to the borough and the local resident, so the cost would appear to be worth the outlay. The removal of such a sizable monster would be considerable. https://www.ltoa.org.uk/resources/cavat

The tree was pulled from two different angles Paul. I don't know (as i didn't stay for the second) if the second pull (which was carried out perpendicular to the first) was placed on a different section of the canopy or if they used the same point. I suspect they would have set up a different point so that they were pulling at the furthest point from the anchor rather than twisting the canopy during the pull. This would then measure the potential tipping point and stem breakage from a different angle. Not to forget that the Meripilus is the main reason for the test on this tree, so failure from the root plate being the focus rather than the stem or parts of the canopy failing.

The data on tree species values has been gathered by practitioners since the 80's, I understand that every time a tree pull takes place on any species that data is then fed in to the system to add to the bench mark data.

Hi Darrin The below offered from a onlookers perspective rather than someone who knows. The tests carried out on this particular tree are focused on the data that is being drawn and evident at the time of the specific conditions of the tree and its environment. So if the soil is saturated at that time, that will play a part and vice versa. I understand that 1000's of pull test have been undertaken since the 1980's on a wide range of tree species and I would assume that those would have been in good and poor condition. I get your point regarding saturated soils, as I've also witnessed seemingly sound roots give way and witnessed root plates slip entirely in saturated soils under wind load.

Very good management Jake, like that

Good double entendre there Mr Bullman Or do you refer to the high level of target specifically?

Plenty of food for thought in the earlier pages of this thread so no need to start a new one. Last week we were kindly invited along by our colleagues at the London Borough of Islington to witness a tree pulling assessment on a particularly impressive London plane which has a colonisation by the giant polypore (Meripilus giganteus) Possibly due to surface level changes during the building of the playground some years before. This was the second tree pulling event I had attended (first one was in 2011) both carried out by the consultants at the Bristol based Tree Works Environmental Practice. The tree is in the middle of a well used playground (which is due for refurbishment) and is the largest of its type in that borough. It has a CAVAT value in the hundreds of thousands of pounds and has the appearance of high vitality. A pull line with a dynameter was set up about halfway up in the target tree and attached to a base anchor and then winched under relatively small tension to simulate a load. Various meters (for elasticity and incline) were set up around the base of the tree to measure against micro changes in relation to the potential for stem breakage and root plate tilt. The operation was then repeated at a perpendicular angle to test the load from a different direction. The data gets transmitted from the meters and added in to the equation of (amongst many other things) the trees dimensions, locality, direction of wind load, exposure, expected wood strength etc.....and this then arrives at a calculation with gives the Safety Factor. We were informed that the lower limit of threshold for a tree and a situation like this would be to have a safety factor of 1,5 or above and although I couldn't stay for the entire session (so didn't hear the second set of results) it was looking like this tree had a safety factor exceeding the threshold. I haven't heard exactly what the borough plan to do with the information but I suspect it will give them the confidence to keep on managing the tree. Prior to the static load assessments the tree had a canopy reduction undertaken last year to lessen the impact of the wind upon it. A very interesting morning

Any shots of the pore surface or flesh Jake? Bit of an odd one, earlier tiers look to be Ganoderma like, whereas the last few pale layers look like Fomes. Not entirely sure that I would rule Phelinus ignarius out either.

Cheers sean, but wish it had been with a better camera !