Jarhead

Thank you for the references. The go-ahead is usually complete removal of Rhododendron in likely or already infected sites and removal of infected trees. The woodland near me however had a large chunk fully removed. (no re-planting with heavy bracken growth )

I would say so. If without it the tree is likely to fail, surely the extra wood is a defence against that failure. If in doubt, send the lecturer an email!

Organisations such as DEFRA enforce the slash and burn technique to be used on infected sites. Is there a reason this is the only method that seems to be used? Does reduction in risk of spread outweigh the ecological impact on a woodland? It seems to me that it's one of the newly introduced pathogens that will spread regardless of management techniques. These will just slow it down. (If anyone knows a good piece of literature written about this I would be grateful)

Thank you.

Can I ask who's responsibility this would be? If you (as the tree surgeon) requested for the application for work, would you be responsible for the replant after the work? As oppose to that if the client requests you to carry out the removal of the tree ONLY, do you hold any responsibility to re-plant?