mrtree

Frank's example of a decayed beech (stump) is a no brainer from his limited description and photos. The tree show extensive decay without a complete nondecayed shell. t/r is between 0 and 20%. We do not know the architecture of the tree so that is no help. If you can put your finger underneath it while the wind blows you have a major problem. Either you mean it is about to topple in the soil or there is a major crack in the stem. Either one likely points to removal. What is the deciding factor for this tree in my opinion is the location. Next to a busy road changes really means the tree will never be vigourous again and will never lay down enough new wood to compensate for the loss of strength. We know that the future is not good for the tree due to decay and stress and as such I would consider removing the tree and using it as an opportunity to plant new trees.

Steven your photos show a different story than we have been presented with earlier. I still believe the tree could have been saved if the owner wanted. If you read Mattheck's VTA and talk of t/r I am sure you can examine these photos as a learning ecperience. Brian Kane believes that Mattheck's 30% limit for t/r is far too conservative. t/r could be as little as 1% in certain cases.

On what basis do you believe that there is a 3% chance the tree will fail? Where will it fail? I can tell you without a hurricane force wind there is no way that the trunk is going to break. Each of the photos in post 43 show literally feet of solid wood and even by Matthecks t/r formula we are safely within accepatable limits. As for you reducing trees by 35% and they still fail (twice within a year after a 35% reduction) all I can imagine is that you did not accurately assess the tree and manage it correctly. You mention that you have had lots of trees fail that you have tried to manage. What does this say? The point of this and other threads is that trees can be maintained and managed if knowledge and expertise is used. Pointing to failures does not mean that others are not capable or that other trees are not managable. Your argument is nothing but fear mongering.

Oh the complexities. To make it even more difficult. Can't the photobiont be a cyanobacteria or in about 5% of known lichen species (the cephalodiates) be both? Lichens with cyanobacteria need liquid water while those only containing algae can adsorb water vapour from the air. Reproduction is not necesarily by spores, many lichens reproduce by vegetative propugales (such as isidia, soredia or blastidia) or thallis fragments. Lichen-forming ascomyscetes may reproduce sexually (via ascospores) but these spores must meet a photosynthetic partner and relichenize. Your endoliths are common in deserts and are about the only visible life in the dry valleys of Antarctica. Remarkable creatures.

God I love whales. Can you imagine when whaling stations would process literally 20 whales a day? It was common for pelagic whaling ships to remove their decks every year prior to returning home for the winter. The smell was apparently unbearable.

Ah what a great excuse. No thought, just what ever makes the money.

Yes, hear there are different opinions, other forums not so much,

How much do you charge per hour? Time multiply by price per hour equals what you should charge. Thus you will make a profit. If you desperately want the job take the calculated price and cut by two thirds and you should get the job and drain your accounts as well.

And there you have a large part of the problem. The oak man vs. the euc man or the climber vs. the arborist or the worker vs. the egghead. We have an industry where the bulk climb, cut and chip and a few offer other services and (almost) never the twain shall meet.

Why is it some uncommon for arborist to run into bats? I imagine that most arborists work in urbanized environements where trees are not so suitable for bats. Tree-using-bats need hollows and flaking bark and these are conditions that are discouraged in urban trees. Since most older and hollow trees are removed we can logically expect a paucity of bats in younger "healthy" trees.

Unfortunately what I see is the arborist/tree service industry creating a climate of fear about trees. There are individuals that work to preserve trees but as a whole the industy is about removals and butchering trees (ie. not proper pruning). We talk about hazard and risk assessment, liability, defects, wind storms, the wrong tree, the wrong place etc. We are able to find lots of reasons to remove trees and the easiest answer is the home owner is scared (or six who stood and cheered). Steven did what the people wanted,fine, but do arborists ever have a duty to do something other than remove? Do the payments on out trucks and chippers drive our business? A thought for another thread but ultimately why do we remove trees? I think the answer is not safety.

Two points 1) stem breakage does not refer to unions. Branch breakage is is another place to look. 2) while "the customer is always right" we can discuss on this forum other options. The discussion on this and other threads is a learning experience and a theoritical exercise for me, not a chance to save a specific tree. I can only look at a few photos here, not get a feel for the tree and its setting and thus any opinion is based on that and experience, not the situation on the ground.

Lets talk about SIA and SIM elsewhere and how we assess trees. Suffice to say I look at a tree and try to determine if the tree is obviously so decrepit and in a location it needs to come down. If the anwers does not jump out at me in 30 seconds then I start to think about methods of assessments and what are the most likely parts of the tree to fail. That being said my obviously needs to be removed and everybody elses is entirely different.

The most common planting problem I see is planting too deep. If you get in the habit of planting an inch high (compared with the classic idea of the proper depth) you start to reduce the chances of girdling roots. Adventitious roots can be a real problem for trees. Planting higher also is better for gas exchange and reduces water logging problems. Willows (and other raparain trees) are evolutionarily used to being flooded and having silt and soil deposited on there roots, thus they grow upwards quite well. Most trees are not used to this and are gentically conditioned to grow out and down. I think we should we should always plant a little high Plant it high and it will thrive Plant is low and it won't grow.

Tree statics is just another tool to use in evaluating and understanding trees. It is not the be all to end all but it can help to inform our decisions. Using the online calculators is an interesting learning experience. Ultimately the arborist can only present information and opinions, the tree owner will make a final decision.

Looking at the last images I would not be concerned about the trees toppling or the stem breaking.

Steel and wood are both materials that show strength properties, thus structures of wood and steel may need different amounts and arrangements of materials to achieve the same strength. While steel may corrode, and wood may decay, the great thing about trees is they actually continue to add strucutre as they grow and large trees are actually more stable (ie. resistance to toppling and stem breakage) than smaller trees.

Hama asked "what do you mean by 250%?". This is a measure of the structural safety of an object. When an engineer designs a structure s/he must design it for the loads intended. Thus 100% indicates the design is safe (will not fail) under the current design when you consider the architecture, load, and material. The same idea can be applied to trees. Wessoly (and others) have done engineering work on trees to understand how "safe' they are and how to measure that. Tree pulling tests are the result. For those that can pull trees there are on-line calculators that give us an indication of the safety of the tree you input data for. When using these calculators I don't want to see 100%, I want to see something in the 200% plus range, meaning that the tree is twice as strong as needed for the intended load (generally 117kph winds I believe). That gives us some leeway beyond "just strong enough" Steven has stated he would like to learn about VTA etc. look at Mattheck's books and articles about tree pulling etc. Search Erk Brudi's site and look up papers by Brudi and van Wassenaer and a very general paper by van Wassenaer and Richardson (check out Urban Forest Innovations website, maybe the PDF's are there).

What is ridiculous about comparing a tree to a building. They are both structures that must withstand the same rules of physics. The point is the Eiffel Tower is not only hollow but has holes all over the shell; thus why does a hollow tree, or one with a hole in the outer wood, immediately get called hazardous, dangerous, defective, etc. The Eiffel Tower stands, thus I think trees can stand when they are less than "entire". The job of an arborist or evaluator is to take training, experience, knowledge and technique and determine if the structure of a tree warrents its removal or some mitigation technique.

Absolutely Not only what was left but what was the architecture of the tree, what was its location (primarily to wind), what is the maximum normal winds in the location, what was around the tree interfering with wind flow, what was the growth rate, what was the trees foot print, etc. If you are going to remove a tree because it is hollow or has a decayed centre than I assume you would recommend the immediate removal of te Eiffel Tower and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, oh and every other building that has rooms in it.

Just quickly the strong growth is a good sign. T/r threshold of 30% is likely not to be meet in this case besides 30% is not very indicative of tree safety. Reasons for felling? If we are only basing on risk, I would want to see a massive crown with perhaps around 20% T/r. Would look at safety calculators and want something less than 250% before I would consider felling. Excessive (I now that is an opinion) fungal conks or root/trunk interface becoming pedestals would also be a reason. I would say remove if other options are not available (and yes the home owners desire may make only one option feasible).

That should move easy, easy, easy. The sooner the better. Root prune as you go. I would suggest digging at the edge of the grass then ease the whole root ball up. I would do a serious check of the old root ball/system to ensure that girdling and winding roots are not existing from the nursery pot. Plant perhaps an inch higher than you might believe is correct.

Trees: Their Natural History by Peter Thomas Two books to open your eyes to the importance of tree and natural systems Bringing Nature Home by Douglas W. Tallamy Teaming with Microbes by Lowenfels and Lewis

"one thing for sure is that trees die when smothered in mosses, and trees suffer in pots when the soil surface has become moss bryophyte dominated" Again I find this hard to believe. IF you look at work done on Redwoods there seems to be more biomass (mosses etc.) on the branches than in the tree. These are trees that last hundreds, if not thousands of years. Is it the mosses that cause there death or a multitude of reasons. Nursery pots are often covered in mosses and a liverwort called Marchantia polymorpha. These are not instantanous invasions and a lot happens to plants, perhaps too much water, nitrogen and too little oxygen and root space. Again are bryophytes the cause of the suffering, a contributing factor or just an innocent bystander?

I think this may be out of context. Moss and trees are organisms with intimate relationships. Suggesting that forest decline is diriven by mosses may be too general a statement and very preliminary an answer. Dr. Klinger's work (and others) may find mosses on and under declining trees but is it a chicken and egg question? Do mosses increases as more water and light become available as a trees declines and losses leaves or are the mosses causing the decline? In western North America in many areas if SOD, ecosystems evolved with fire. I don't know but I am willing to bet in fire dominated ecosystems mosses (and bryophytes) have increased as fire has been surpressed. Are the mosses leading or following the ecosystem succession? I doubt mosses are the primary cause of much decline as many forests have huge amounts of mosses which seems to be natural and further mossess cannot thrive on the forest floor where decidious trees dominate as they are often smothered by leaves (thus they like trunks and limbs). Coniferous forests do not have this smothering problem so forest floor mosses tend to be abundant in coniferous forests.