mrtree

Is Forest Canopies really expensive? NHBS has if for 37.5 pounds. What is that less than an hour for a crew, maybe a couple of hours of pay for a climber. I think that is cheap when you consider you get 500 pages of great info.

Also try a book Forest Canopies, 2nd. ed. by Lowman and Rinker to get an idea of forest canopy complexity and diversity in natural ecosystmes

An excellent starter book on lichens is Lichens by William Purvis ISBN 978-0-565-09153-8 Also consider Lichens by Oliver Gilbert from the New Naturalist series. The book is now available as print on demand. By the way the whole NN series is amazing Books such as Lichen Biology 2nd ed. by Thomas Nash are also excellent but far more complex. There is also Mosses and Liverworts by Ron Porley and Nick Hodgetts in the New Naturalist series. British Lichen Society and NHBS also have various small publications and cards about lichens that inhabit tree surfaces

Lichens do not need (in most cases) liquid water, they can adsorb water vapour from the air. In terms of succession they are first and then things such as mosses and bryophytes (hornworts and liverworts) come in as they need a little organic matter to set their rhizoids (primitive roots) into and require liquid water. As these cryptogramic mats form they also become home to lots of microorganism such as algae and cyanobacteria. As such they are little working ecosystems and in old trees are likely responsible for a lot of nitrogen fixation and nutrient cycling. The holding of water and habitation by pathogens is something I do not believe, or at least believe is a serious problem in healthy trees. Crypotgramic mats are an intregal part of many forest ecosystems and as such I believe that while pathogenic organisms may inhabit these places I do not think they are dominate or negatively affect most trees or we would have seen the loss of trees from environments with cryptogramic mats. There has been some research done on these aerial mats and soils but I wonder if a interesting PhD could be done on them in urban trees. Is the relative absence of crytogramic mats in urban trees a problem for the health of the tree? Have we lost an important part of the food web? One need only look at the life (cyanobacteria and algae) in the water that is held within the complex network of leaves of mosses to realize there is huge amount of life that may be beneficial to the overall tree environmant.

You mention the tree is sitting on rock and is exposed to the winds from the ocean. You mention this as though it is a contributing factor to why the tree is to be removed. I am curious to see if the roots are at the surface because the tree is on rock pavement or are roots running along crack lines or is the soil glacial till with lots of boulders. I believe we are far too eager to say trees on rocks are unstable "because the roots cannot go deep". Static stability of trees in soil does not require an an area of more than 1.5* the diameter of the trunk at soil level. If trees are on (solid) rock they often follow the fault lines (cracks) and literally are wedged in the rock. This is a very strong connection. If you are concerned about the tree breaking because of high winds off the ocean remember that all trees can fail at 117kph wind speed, thus you need to determine if your tree will fail at lower wind speeds. Trees may fail at lower wind speeds for various reasons. Reduce rooting or excessive crown may allow for toppling, weak unions may allow for branch tearout and hollows may allow for breakage. BY using knowledge and resources such as the online tree safety calculators available from various web sites (see Erk Brudi for example) you can start to determine the likelihood of breakage below 117kph. It is worthwhile remembering that if a customer is scared of a tree falling in a windstorm they should be advised that at 117kph their house may begin to fail (unless they live in a hobbit hole). Roofs etc. also fail under the same conditions that cause trees to fail.

Since the tree is going to be removed it would be very interesting to see cross-sections where the fungus is attached. Would also be interesting to see the area racked and any root system that is exposed.

Really? Will there be a single divot left that somebody might trip on? Will there be a stump that might be a trip hazard or an area of ground out stump that might be uneven? Will the increased sunlight lead to melanoma? Will the increased sunlight lead to growth of barberry or roses that might prick somebody? Yes removing the tree may reduce most risks but perhaps not all. This thread is very interesting and instructive with regards to arborist and tree services and our approach to risk. Without seeing the tree in person and meeting the homeowners we can only speculate but I am willing to bet that tree is not high risk and certainly some maintenance will reduce any risk. If you are going to do removals whenever a tree owner requests there is reduced need for arborists. I know tree services that could not even identify the tree but could remove it quicker than any arborist. If you approach risk in a manner that all risk must be reduced to zero than removal is the only option that you are left with. Any tree can be a risk. Acorns are choking hazards, seedlings are a trip hazard or perhaps a hazard if they poke you in the eye. Larger trees shed leaves and seeds that might be slippery when wet. Big trees might impede a car that has gone off the road. Children might climb and fall out of a tree. Stychnos trees are certainly poisonous if you ingest the fruit, male Alianthus trees are an offensive smelling thing and can cause allergy problems. Trees with defects are at increased risk of breakage. If you want to find a reason for removal you can. I question if arborists are really approaching trees as a resource to be managed or a standing money source. Should arborist be looking to provide options and management strategies or simply remove trees? Comments on morals, value of trees vs. humans, and firewood etc. may be made in jest but they certainly indicate an underlying bias to the thought the trees are dangerous, valuable only as firewood, and are organisms with no right to exist without a a humans okay. Everyday I see the remains of trees that have been removed because they are a preceived nuisance or are believed to be dangerous. In 90% or more of the cases I know that there were options other than removal if the owner and tree service thought a little differently.

"If you gave this tree a reduction would you 100% guarantee the safety of this tree? Would you put your name on the insurance so if anything did go wrong you got the bill, and maybe even a jail sentence, would you tell the familiy of the elderly owner that they can sleep safe knowing you have given the tree a little trim?" Well with that attitude just remove every single tree. There is likely no tree you can guarantee as 100% safe so lets remove every tree. While we are at it, less get rid of arborist education/training, no need since the answer is always removal since we cannot guarantee anything 100%.

Thats impressive, IDing lichens from a photo is tough. Knowing their ecological story is even harder. Lichens are often dead give aways to knowing something of the trees. Nitrogen pigs, sulpher or other pollution tolerant, etc.

Those interested in lichens and trees should look at some of the work done by Rose, and Coppins & Coppins, on the use of lichens as indicators of ecological continuity. Genera such as Lobaria should be studied and learnt as the genus can be identified by eye. The "ancient tree" speices are also negatively affected by pollution and eutrophication. The other thing of note is that complexity and diversity or lichens and bryhophytes (mosses, liverworts and hornworts) increase with age of trees.

VTA is visual tree assessment Discussed in Mattheck's The Body Language of Trees

"You are going to have to bring something more to this table if you want to convince me that these forks are not dangerous." It is not a case of these forks being dangerous or not, it is a matter of degrees, all limbs will eventually fail. My belief is that if we always approach a tree and identify the defects during a risk assesment we are destined for the road of removal. Just the mere mention of "risk" assessment puts a negative mark against a tree, then add in the cumulative totals of risks involved and you have decision makers running scared. You must not only assess the location of the tree but perhaps more importantly the severity of the defect found. In the case of a V-crotch you need to look at size, cross-sectional areas, ears, included bark, verticalness of the stems, stems crossing side to side, wind exposure, decay etc.. When you have done this you then need to compare it with your knowledge and any literature you have. This will help to determine the likelihood of failure and perhaps under what conditions. Prescriptions are then able to be formulated. Again experience and knowledge is paramont. In small trees can you remove one side of the bifurcation? Is cabling and bracing needed? Is thinning best? Is topping called for? Is crown-reduction needed, To what degree is a treatment called for? I know that most of my competitors would remove virtually ever tree you have shown, yet these trees have survived decades (or more) with the defect. I believe there is no simple answer to determining the liklihood of failure in these trees but we can certainly make far more informed choices by doing the studing such as you have. I bet the most arborists, let alone tree services, in the world have never looked at ancient or even old trees and studied them. This forum, and a couple others, are populated by a few hundred arborist that are at the forfront of knowledge gathering. Thus I am preaching to the converted but we must learn more about trees if our goal is to save them and we must spread the word. Unless we study trees at all ages it is hard to understand trees. You photos are really quite incredible and a very important learning tool. Studing them (and the trees themselves) is what ever arborist should be doing if they want to do more than removals.

I think your photos show the difference between relatively safe trees with included bark and those that fail because of reduced cross-sectional area. The interesting thing is that you show many trees where only one side fails. If included bark is the defect why do both sides not fail? I think what we see is something slightly different. We can identify the presence of a defect by a V union with included bark, but the real defect is the stems are essentially an inverted triangle with the point at the base and widen as you move upwards. Thus you have a large weight over a smaller cross-section (caused as the stem cannot grow as a circle) and thus eventually the stem with the lowest safety factor fails at the tearout point that is a fulcrum because it is the point of lowest strength. I have read both works and I think that there are problems, not so much in analysis but rather in approach. I look at a tree with large ears and knitting of the two sides and I see something quite different than a bifurcated tree without ears. I do not look at ears as a (desperate) effort to react to strength loss. (In many cases) There has been no strength loss as you indicate by no decay. They are a reaction to a strain and as such, whether optimally designed or not, are a strength increasing mechanism. They may also be a reaction to movement in the tree. What we certainly agreee upon is that most of these earred trees can be saved with some effort.

It is my understanding that the ears do not act as a crack but rather are a reaction to the growth form of the tree (ie. V-crotch two stem). In fact they are not a crack but rather an attempt to join the two stems, effectively they are strengthening the union. Of course unions, even with included bark are not inheriently weak, it is the reduced cross-sectional areas of attachment that is the problem. I think a critical analysis of trees with ears and lots of years of growth will show that they are an effective method to "brace" or "through-rod" the union and can become quite strong. When I see this sort of ear in most landscape/urban trees the tree does not last long as the ears are interpreted as a sign of weakness not as a sign of recover and strengthening. Some tree service or "arborist" does a quick visual assessment and says remove. This is very common particilarly in some elms, ashes and zelkovas. Throw in the idea of risk and liability and trees disappear so early that we cannot see too many examples of veteran and really old trees with ears in the landscape. If we look at something such as the new DMM impact blocks we see an increase in metal thickness which has been designed into the form to add strength. If we look at trees in a similar way, change our mindset from the beginning, then we have trees that are savable not always a hazard. I bet this is part of what Hamadryad is about to say.

There are a couple of things to think about. The report: what have you been asked for? tree risk assessment? management options? biological importance of the tree? What is your approach? Tree service arborist? Consulting Arborist? Ecologist? Risk mitigator? What importance is the tree to the property owners, council, locals? What is the long term (10, 20 and 50 years) for the tree? I look at this tree and see a centre of biodiversity over top of two old buildings. I have to wonder if the heritage value of the buildings or tree needs to be considered in relation or does one take priority. If the buildings are the most important thing on the site then the "management" of the tree will be different than if the tree were the priority. This tree is an important source of propugales of lichens, mosses, liverworts, maybe hornworts, bacteria, algae, cyanobacteria, fungi etc. The local area certainly benefits from the micro and macro organisms that exist. Is this something that should be preserved? All that being said from the climbing and saw-wielding arborist point-of-view I would suggest dead wooding over the white building. I am concerned about the weight and size of the limb over the white building. If you do reduce this massive trunk then consider pruning the whole tree to create a visual balance and to allow some light to encourage retrenchment. This then begins a never ending maintenance regime. Of course the soils also need to be considered. Visually inspect the soils and chemical test if necessary. Decompact as necessary and add a mulch layer. The fancy method is to kill/smother grass, cover with composted wood chips and top with rather freash woodchips and perhaps the deadwood from the crown cleaning. Quick and easy method is to kill/smother grass and add what ever woodchips are available.

"I brought this subject up a while back with a bat ecologist, I quickly deduced that in order to find the bats in a sessile oak woodland, we should look to the laetiporus as a rapid and quick locator and pre cursor to bat dwellings within trees. similary in ash we would look to those colonised by hispidus and the canker forming nectria gallagena, and ive proved this in the field. even owls have a certain penchant for particular decay columns, with fistulina decay being the primary cause of the development of its most favoured site characteristics" I would suggest you write this idea up as an article for a popular magazine and also as a "how to" note for a wildlife or ecological journal. The idea is brilliant and crosses fields of study. By writing a "how to" note for a referreed journal you will gain research experience and excellent editing notes. A popular article will allow you to learn to write for a popular audience. I can imagine that writing about fungus without being too scientific will be very difficult. Remember most writing should be done for about the 15 or 16 year old. Writing for the informed mycologist will mean virtually nobdy can follow you. If you would like to persue an article on decay columns PM me and we can talk.

You are looking to pack alot into a "compact and accesibly a unit as possible". I think an identification quide with short notes on ecology would be very useful. Consider that an ID guide will not only be keys and id pages for each of the species, there will also be a need for a page of info for each species, a chapter (at least) on basic identification techniques, introduction, a chapter "about fungi", a chapter about ecological role etc. you are up to a big book already. Long discussions of fungal ecology may be too much. One method to approach a longer book on the ecology of fungus and the interaction with trees would be to write a series of articles that could form the basis of chapters for a "larger" book. These chapters would be great for a number of magazines or self-published on the web. One article can be based on "many fungi will be present at some time or other in a trees long life, to act on this as though it is the begining of the end is nieve". Another might be discussing succession of fungal species. Another the role of antognistic fungus in tree health and use by arborists. ANother the maintenance of healthy soils and how to identify healthy soils with the use of your senses and a hand lense. Lots of ideas to consider. If you are still thinking of a book from the start, speak to a book agent, editor and publisher to get some idea of what you are getting into and what is expected. I have never heard of a project like yours taking less than a couple of years (working full time at it) and very few projects see the light of publication on time. Good luck, I would particularly like to see the ecological and arboricultural discussions of fungus.

Look up any of the names I mention and you will find books and/or scientific articles. If you do some research you might even find who sat on Sillett's masters degree committee. A book entitled Forest Canopies (first and second editions) is an excellent place to start a scientific overview of the subject. The authors I mention each have very interesting generalist books written. Is Sillett truely a legend in the scientific minded arboriculture community? Legend I think applies to only a few. I think he has done a little work related in someways to arboriculture but not much. His main research has recently focused on the structure of redwood canopies and recently the extent of trunk decay and hollows. He has published on reiteration growth and bryophytes in various canopies. I very much doubt more than a handful of arborists have read his papers which is a shame. Most arborists are in awe of his climbing and have not read his papers I would bet.

The book is over rated in my opinion. So what that somebody has climbed the tallest trees, what about the others that have come before? WHat about the amazing discovery in the tree tops. Sillett's research is essentially ignored and not much is made of the very important work of Marie Antoine, let alone all the other great discoveries in the tree tops. I look upon the science as the important thing, the climbing is a tool in my opinion. Who has read books by Donald Perry, Meg Lowman, Nalini Nadkarni or Mark Moffet? These are people who pioneered canopy research and literally showed Steve Sillett the way.

I have three FS550's. They are great machines and I can easily cut 15cm diameter conifers and slightly smaller hardwoods. Inexperienced users are likely unable to handle trees of this size. I find they run about 40 to 45 minutes on a tank of fuel depending on usage. This is about one litre of mix per hour. This can be an over-looked cost of doing business. Locally clearing is about $25 to $35 per hour so if you include labour costs, equipment, overhead etc. the fuel usage can eat up a lot of the "profit" if you do not account properly. My main comments are that users need to learn how to use the tool effecively and efficiently (as with any tool) and proper sharpening of blades is essentially. New users must learn not only about kickback but to use the tree's lean and weight or wind to cause the tree to fall away from the blade. Pinched blades are common and the inexperienced or careless user will pull the handles, bending them, rather than pushing the tree. Blades must be sharp and must be sharpened using a vice on a bench. I tend to keep two or three sharp blades per machine and switch at lunch hour. Sharpen at home at night to ensure the blades are nice and sharp and offset is restored as needed. Cleared about 200+ acres of Scots pine over the last 1.5 years with the FS550's. Combining these saws with a rear-handle 200 has been highly productive for me. A previous company had used only chainsaws and we out produced them by a huge margin.

I am interested in speaking with anyone with experience working with (sub) tropical trees. How does pruning differ? How do you deal with soils etc. If you know of a discussion site for arborist that covers this sort of work I would like to hear about it (Australia maybe?). I have been asked to do some consulting work and have some specific questions about dealing with Ficus macrophylla and microphylla and the alleviation of compacted soils beneath these trees. Please reply by PM. Thanks

Have you ever investigated the laws where you live? Are you allowed to severe or partially severe the trunk of a tree and leave it standing? I bet if you look at the industrial safety code you will find that this is an illegal practice. As for reducing weight there is at least one case I have heard of where a crane collapsed under the massive weight of a water-logged cottonwood. It seems that the green weight tables do not account for spring water uptake and the crane was inadvertantly overloaded.

Are you interested in an answer or finding out yourself? You need to do some literature searches and on-site investigation if you are writing a report or providing an oponion. Legally if you say the roots will not damage the wall and something happens to the wall you could be held liable even if the problem is the wall's structure not the tree. I do not live in an area with shrinkable clay soils but I would suggest you need to find out what is behind and under the wall. This may actually require material testing in a lab. Secondly you may want to use an air spade or hydrovac to investigate the soil/wall interface for roots etc. The problem I see is that you are giving an opinion on something you have no experience with. A bunch of guys on the internet is only one, and not the best, source of information on the specifics of the problem you have asked about.

No I do not live in Britian.

I have been travelling for a couple of months so I have little time to read and reply. I notice that the original poster, who is selling product, has not responded. I would be very curious to hear his response to my posts. If you read the attachment that Bundle attached you will see that spores were infecting the sterile soil mixes and had to be controlled. I think that this is more indication that "healthy" soils do not need commerically prepared mycorhizae.