kevinjohnsonmbe

If we have a flush of rain, then a proper Indian Summer, I think we'll see lots more trees & plants going through another (partial) cycle. They'll be tired when it comes to starting again next year if it does happen.

Good pics David! I went back today and tried to get a better look. Fought my way into the stem and found this (not so) little surprise... Final pic is right at the top, maybe 15m. I'll try and get closer pics tomorrow.

Did you read post 21?

I toned it down as much as I could, but I've got my pants down waiting for the Mods......

It seems the OP is relating that which he has seen in his village, not that which you seem to assume he may have read in a tabloid. What offends you about the post so much that you want to belittle that which someone seems to want to share from his personal experience? Could it be that you are a mealy mouthed liberal offended by the merest suggestion that a Muslim might be associated with terrorism? Are the words 'stupid' and 'terrorist' so difficult for you to accept? Does the name Nicky Riley mean anything to you? Perhaps 'stupid' is an inappropriate description, perhaps vulnerable, impressionable, gullible might be more appropriate as relates to the delivery agent, but are you so retarded that you think the big boss delivers the package? Yes UK foreign policy has been terribly mismanaged. Yes, uncontrolled immigration has created the environment for exploitation from within and whilst both those issues piss me off, you are coming in a close second.

I can't quite fathom what your involvement has been from the posts so far Jim?? Are you a casual observer or in some way engaged in the process???

Here's a pic of my favourite example of a stem in a local woodland. Thankfully, it's very isolated from casual foot traffic and no structures nearby so the 'risk' element is very low. I've been watching it for about the past 8 years. It's a beauty, the woodpeckers love it as a feasting station! Conversely, those close to the roadside or in parks etc, if allowed to degrade to this level - and the value of doing so is self evident, must present considerable risk of collapse. I'm thinking of noting examples where I find them and asking those responsible what system they are employing to measure / mitigate the risk.

Bet you wouldn't want to go round his house on your own though, or go for a beer with him......?????

Concur!

Here's another reason why there's no road kill on A39: I don't fancy much for the cats chances! Seriously weird!!

Dangerous to engage in the great pasty debate! Horse & Jockey (Helston) (most random name for a shop that specialises in pasties - maybe topically relevant though!) is the best in Cornwall - that is an indisputable FACT!

Great responses, more food for thought and, as often happens, taking the thought process in another new direction - many thanks! I was originally thinking predominantly of standing stems but the responses have broadened it out to full (or as full as remains) dead crowns. I started thinking about it after an ancient tree forum at Lanhydroc recently. There were some comments made about the need to educate arborists in the preservation of existing, and facilitation of future, veteran / ancient trees – that’s a bit of an aside, but that’s where the thought process started. It rather felt like the presenter considered the arborist as ‘the weak link’ for want of a better phrase in destroying potential future veteran trees. I felt that view failed to acknowledge the constraints under which the arborist might be operating for example: The instruction received from the tree owner (assuming no TPO / CA constraints apply) – we’re trying to make a living after all! The advice / guidance of the arborist (or consultant if engaged) in provided recommendations to the tree owner. That which is actually achievable. The cost implication for the tree owner. Future liability issues that may follow from either the consultant or the arborist providing recommendations. So that’s the background, I wasn’t thinking of questioning RPA’s for veteran trees (didn’t want to open that can!) but since that forum I’ve been noticing more and more standing deadwood stems – particularly at the road side through the Glyn valley between Trago / Bodmin (for Cornish natives), in country parks (Lanhydroc / Cothele) and in private estates. So that’s when I started thinking, in the absence of the majority of VTA indicators, how is it (reasonably) practicable to make a judgment of how long a standing stem might remain stable – and provide the valuable diversity and beneficial habitat (and a certain visual amenity.) So accepting that the usual variables apply – wind, soil, height of stem / dead canopy, target area, population etc….. How are the people responsible for these situations making that judgement (assuming they are not doing a pull / stress test??) Firstly I wouldn't call it 'RPA' I would invent another term, say 'support zone'. Yes, agreed! That is the nub of the question, what is required to support a dead tree in an upright position. (and therein lies the problem; over what time frame, what size / shape of remaining crown, how do you test, how long (or even – can it ) be assumed as ‘safe’ or acceptable (depending upon the traffic / hazard zone) Cutting back the roots of a dead tree will probably, almost certainly, result in the structure failing more quickly by admitting subterranean decay that could accelerate the loss of strength and woody material in structural roots. But I imagine you'll get nowhere by telling a developer that he'll get another 2 years out of his standing deadwood if he allows a full RPA-type support zone. The original question didn’t relate to a development scenario but totally agree your point both relating to the developer (if in that scenario) but more broadly, any intrusion in the existing root area would likely accelerate the potential for decline in stability for the reasons you highlight. I think more importantly is the issue of risk. Particularly if loss of support in the invisible subterranean area is a real possibility the risks associated with retaining a dead tree are predictably ever increasing but unmeasurable b any VTA or even most of the more advanced techniques. The most logical outcome I see is that an exclusion zone around the tree where people and property are excluded or cna be predicted to be rarely present is ahat is needed. It could hbe the area within which branches could drop or it could be the falling distance zone in any directions where root zone failure would allow the weight of the dead tree to go that way. Yes, totally understood and agreed. I am sure there would be exceptions, but I instinctively expect that the risk exclusion zone will be bigger than the support zone for all dead trees. But it needn't necessarily be a circle. If the dead tree is leaning and could only go one direction the risk exclusion zone could be a segment of only 30 degrees. Good logic. I'm making this up as I go along (as if you couldn't guess) and I a now thinking that the but differences between compressive reaction wood strategies of support in conifers and tensile on broadleaves might mean that for leaning trees the support zone will be directionally the same as the risk exclusion zone for conifers and directionally opposite for broadleaves. Mmmmm, now there’s a line of thought I hadn’t considered. I was only thinking of standing stems but, as is so often the case, the question has resulted in answers (maybe more questions?!?) far beyond that which I was initially thinking. For an upright dead tree, I would be inclinded (after a quick flick through Tree Roots in the Built Environment) to go for a support zone of no more than 5 x DBH. Beyond that roots are most unlikely to have structural significance. I suspect a more rigorous approach would be to relate the SZ to the estimated extent of live canopy when the tree had last been in normal vigour. As ever, just chatting, don't act on this as formal advice. I'd be interested in any other opinions. Jules, I was hoping the topic might catch your eye and I’m much obliged and fascinated by your thoughts. I think we’ve said this before but just to reinforce – it is just an informal exchange of ideas and discussion. It’s a poor reflection on the state of our society where ‘having a chat’ (albeit online) gives rise to worry about possible litigation. I know it probably doesn’t actually amount to much (in a legal sense), but I play by the ‘old rules’, if I do it, it’s my responsibility. Interesting question. I assume you want to know how much of the roots need to be retained in order to maintain the stability of the tree? If that is the case Mattheck's graph showing 'root-plate radius/stem radius plotted against the stem radius from field studies of wind thrown trees' in 'The body language of trees' is probably going to be useful. However, this applies to living trees, so the wind load would be much higher than a dead tree. Yes saw that, agree, wind load would be (probably amongst the most) significant factor(s) if a crown (albeit without leaf) was retained. Apol’s, I should have said (in this question) I was thinking only of standing stems. Using this approach might work if you are thinking along the lines of trenching for the installation of utilities etc. However, if it is for a structure or similar to be constructed near to the tree, I would allow for an area equal to the height of the tree as an exclusion zone. Makes sense. Just a quick though as you have not mentioned the height of your retained dead tree. Consider the hazard and whether you are able to reduce the tree so should failure occur then the risk is significantly reduced ie, failure would not cause structural damage (the reason you ask for an 'RPA'). You could add a natural prop (sturdy limb or similar) to ensure the tree falls the opposite way to the prop if that is acceptable or desirable. I have seen that approach on the continent. In terms of RPA, I concur with Jules, maybe a new name? Makes sense.

The power of the internet! Shared knowledge with people you may never have met under normal circumstances. How's that little one of yours getting on chap, I haven't seen that thread for a while, it was heart wrenching to hear what happened. I hope you're all on the mend.

It's not a 'bought in', it's a hedgerow flower. Not sure if that makes a difference? It's just that I associate walking the lanes and seeing the primroses in the Spring... The start of the new season....

Primroses in September??? That's a first for me!

Is it the toilet at home or at the workplace? The one at home wouldn't need to be HSE compliant......

Any one had any experience or offer any insight into calculating a suitable RPA for a standing dead tree? It's not a question that relates to a specific scenario so I don't offer the detail of 'it's this tree, with this height & spread, in this situation'... Just a train of thought I was having. So, assuming there was a standing dead tree which it was desirable to retain, and assuming the indicative RPA calc's in 5837 take account of the full extent (and some room for expansion) of a living root system, and assuming that a standing dead tree would only require that portion which would provide sufficient anchorage to retain stability, and assuming the necessary anchorage requirement would reduce proportionately in relation to a reducing crown or height of a standing stem....... And that's a lot of 'assumings!' What would you think?

And the stew pot!

Makes sense, now I've had chance to think about it. It's a new product, there are more sales for an upgraded model than there would be for a retro fit market and if you have a opportunity to innovate, no point 'designing in' compromises. I'm really pleased with current model and upgrade looks like a great piece of competition for the opposition - esp the predicted price point. Laughed at your "you knew JC?" Retort !!!

Like your style!!!

:thumbup:

Depends??? Are YOU attached to client???? Question: can we attach select client(s) to your tree prior to grind??

The contrast between the usual PR department 'polished' sales pitch production and your raw / first cut presentation was rather refreshing and surprisingly captivating if you don't mind me saying! I just bought the 3001 earlier this year - good kit, very happy with it. Mindful of that, and being a bit of a tight-wad, can I ask, did you look at options for incorporating the winch with the existing model, perhaps by means of an independent tree attachment system? I can see the benefit of utilising the single attachment via the bollard and cutting down 'clutter' rather than having a second attachment system for the winch, and (I'm guessing) alignment of working lines might be more challenging with a winch separate to the bollard? Be interested to hear your thoughts?

There's something amiss somewhere, maybe it is as simple as self motivation?