jacquemontii

This sycamore was recorded during a recent survey, located outside the site but with a few overhanging branches. In my view an attractive tree of high amenity value. But the tree appears to be a lapsed pollard, so there is a good chance that if it remains unmanaged and out of cycle (bearing in mind the tree is outside the site ownership) then this would be a defect that could downgrade the tree to a category B. Given the position of the tree, its unlikely to be of any issue or pose a significant constraint to any development, but I thought it might be interesting what others thought about categorizing trees of this nature.

Does anyone else find it difficult to distinguish between category B and C groups? I personally find the definitions in the cascade chart so similar, that any group comprising trees of generally poor individual quality (maybe self seeded trees growing in competition) but with a higher/greater collective landscape value (for example located on a boundary, screening a potential development site) could be interpreted as either B2 or C2?

Please see photos of what I believe to be a graft union on a mature copper beech. The tree is 20m high, with a well balanced crown spread. Located in a private garden and currently surrounded and sheltered by other trees. Some of these companion trees may be removed and I am considering how the beech will stand up to the exposure. Having referred to Lonsdale (Tree hazard assessment and management, 1999) this tree appears to present similar external signs of graft incompatibility as shown in the book. Does anyone have experience of beech failing at a graft union?

The retaining wall (which is at least 1m high, although it doesn't look it in the photo) will remain in place and the trees are outside the site ownership. Excavations for a new house are proposed approximately 4m from the wall within the existing car park. I would estimate the trees are approximately 30 to 40 years old and it is thought that the wall pre-dates the trees. The footing depth of the existing retaining wall is unknown at this stage. My thoughts are that the roots are unlikely to be established below the compacted surface of the existing car park within the site, and that the likely distribution of roots will be located within the more favourable soil conditions in the gardens below.

With regard to section 4.6.2 of BS5837, it is my view that the circular RPA for these sycamores should be adjusted (see attached photo). In this instance the trees are off site (the site is in the car park above) and the trees are located at least 1m below the retaining wall and the level of the site. I think it is unlikely that any roots growing under the footing of the retaining wall would be well established below the surface of the car park above? Surely the majority of roots will be in the garden below in the more favourable rooting conditions? What does anyone else think? Not sure how I can prove this either way without the aid of a mini digger, so can anyone point to any literature which deals with rooting characteristics in this kind of situation?

Thanks for the encouraging response Arb culture, and indeed to all others who have taken the time to respond on this, it really is very helpful to get all this input!

Thanks Treeseer, some good pointers, but what about the species characteristics of beech? With reference to 'Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance': In a table of Species characteristics to take into account before pruning, beech is described as relatively likely to die back after severe cutting, since it often tends to produce relatively few epicormic shoots. Also, its lack of durable heartwood often leads to excessive development of decay. I know in this instance we're not advocating "severe cutting", but presumably these species characteristics are pertinent?

Interested in opinions regarding this branch union on a mature beech (approx. age 200 years old - based on the formula of John White’s ‘Estimating the Age of Large and Veteran Trees in Britain’). The union contains water, which can be seen leaking from a small visible section of included bark on one side. Would it be correct that if it contains water then the majority of the hollow remains sealed against decay, aside from the small included section? There appears to be plenty of slight bulge formations around the union which suggest extra wood laid down to strengthen (optimised). As seen in the photo, the tree appears to still be in good vitality, with all past pruning wounds well occluded. There is a cavity further along the branch, again with healthy looking wound wood forming to the edges (although beech does not compartmentalise decay too well?) In terms of context the tree is located in a private garden and the branch has a spread of about 9m and overhangs the boundary wall and a minor public lane. (there are no obvious signs of any fungi – don’t be fooled by the photo with the bird feeders, which at a glance look a bit like fungal brackets!). In terms of a conclusion based on a visual inspection, I would suggest this is a potential defect, but it looks ok at the moment, and would recommend further regular monitoring to check for signs of any splitting in the union (particularly after any storms). Would there be any merit in some light pruning to reduce the load, whilst maintaining the aesthetic balance of the branch? Or would this in effect weaken the branch, reducing the energy mass of an old tree?

Oak in Studley Deer Park, North Yorkshire...

There was no sign of any old inonotus brackets on the floor or elsewhere on the tree. These additional photos show the other side of the tree. Some dark stains emanating from the fork unions (and some unsympathetic pruning with epicormic growth). Does anyone know what causes the vertical line down the trunk? Is this a shear induced crack that has occluded?

I also found this ash tree nearby, with a bark deformity, which I suspect could be target canker (nectria). The affected area occurs at about 4m high, and from the ground I observed peeling cracking bark, with what looks like the concentric annual rings of target canker beneath? It’s a fairly large tree and I am concerned this could be a potential area of weakness and in a critical position, below the fork of a large ascending stem. Does anyone else recognise the cause of this deformity? And if so is structural failure known to occur?

Thanks very much to everyone for the responses. Some useful pointers regarding the decision making process, much appreciated.

I’m currently studying Visual Tree Assessment, with a view to eventually taking the Professional Tree Inspection. I have a theoretical question based on an oak (please see photos). Considering the overall form and balance of the tree, the trunk and leader has developed a natural lean and curve to the south. At the base of the trunk there is a pronounced root flare on the tension side, (in the opposite direction to the curve) which I would interpret as being an important component in stabilizing the tree. A decay hollow is forming within this root flare. At the opposite side of the trunk (compression side) there is another wound (possibly impact by machinery?) with a small Ganoderma bracket (indicating white rot in either trunk or roots). With the format of the professional Tree Inspection course in mind, what conclusions/recommendations would be expected of this tree? Is this the type of tree likely to be encountered in the exam? Having weighed up the risks of potential targets, would this be a straight forward decision to fell for safety reasons, or am I jumping the gun slightly? I know it’s difficult to form an assessment based on a few photos, but any helpful advice would be appreciated.

Hi, I'm wondering if this is a young Ganoderma bracket growing on the basal wound of a mature oak? I've compared the sliced internal composition and it appears similar to me...The external bracket turned brown after I had finished prodding at it, but it was previously all white.

Please can anyone help ID this small cluster of fungi at the base of a cherry... The tree is fairly mature and has had quite a lot of past pruning works. Also noted some surface roots with mower damage.

Same site but on another poplar I found what I thought was a Ganoderma species (see pics below). I was fairly confident at the time so I didn't bother to slice into it or take very detailed photos, however I have since consulted some books, and based on the host being poplar I'm now not so sure? Wondering if its Fomes fomentarius? Is it possible to find Ganoderma on poplar? Any takers?

Please see photos of a bracket at the base of a large mature black poplar. I'm thinking Rigidoporus ulmarius. As per previous advice from this forum I took a slice of the bracket which I photographed on site. Unfortunately as you will see the photos of the slice are pretty awful, however I am hopeful they still provide enough info to get an ID. Is this slice showing cinnamon coloured tubes in contrast with pale flesh, and therefore distinguishing it from Perenniporia fraxinea?

Hi, Does anyone know what is going on at the base of this cypress tree? Its not something I've seen before and I was wondering what may have caused this formation? The rest of the tree appears to be of typical form and habit (approx. 15m high, and is in good physiological condition).

Would appreciate some insight from those experienced in Visual Tree Assessment. I’m doing some personal study with a view to taking the Professional Tree Inspection. I have a theoretical question based on a beech tree I recently discovered. The tree forks into 3 stems from 2m high. The trunk appears to have developed a natural lean to the east, with corrective vertical growth in the stems above. The second photo shows some detail of the east side of the trunk (compression side). There appears to be evidence of what I think may be beech bark disease (dark stains, cracking peeling bark and white material that could be Cryptococcus colonies). However, Cryptococcus aside, what really concerns me is the included bark and compression fork union. The line which appears to continue below the union to near the base of the trunk is a cracking of the bark, with occasional glimpses beneath of what appears to be an occluding crack? Would this indicate an underlying crack developing due to the weight of the crown compressing the leaning stem? Is it common for beech to fail under these conditions? What remedial measures would be appropriate in this instance? I realise its difficult to offer opinions based on a few photos, but any pointers would be gratefully received.

Can anyone ID this fungi. There are several fruiting bodies, all observed within 1m radius of the trunks of a row of beech.

Hi kevinjohnsonmbe, Forgive me but I'd rather not reveal the details of the TPO for reasons of client confidentiality. What is it that you think I should be looking out for in the original document?

In this instance the ha ha is linked to a listed property and all the sycamores are listed in the TPO group schedule. Unfortunately this the only photo (not originally taken to illustrate this point), and it does not show the extent of existing damage that has already happened along the length of the wall, which has fallen away in parts and is directly attributable to the heave damage from the trees. This subject may have been done before in other threads? It got me thinking about the potential conflict of protected tree verses protected architecture. For example a listed wall in danger of falling, being reconstructed to accommodate a protected tree, bridging with a lintel across the root buttress. There must however be many occasions when the tree is not so lucky?

A row of self seeded sycamores have developed within a yew hedge, along one side an historic walled kitchen garden. The trees are covered by a group TPO and are growing along the top of a dry stone retaining wall, which forms the edge of a ‘ha ha’. Although it doesn’t show up too well in this photo, the trees are generally causing damage along the wall. The sycamores are mostly semi-mature, multi-stemmed trees with compression forks and included bark which may limit their long term value and retention. As the trees mature, the problems for the wall will continue. The client would like to remove these trees and I would think we have some justification to make a TPO application to fell. Whilst these trees form a notable landscape feature worthy of retention for their amenity value, they do however pose a significant problem to the fabric of this historic landscape feature. I’m interested in how others approach the management of trees in similar circumstances?

"snakes and ladders board" I like that! great summary of the BS! I will look more closely at the defining features in future. I do however think that in order to classify a tree as A3 it would also have to be a tree of such proportions for the species, that it would be obvious to most (developers) that the tree was worthy of special retention. This is also allowing for retrenched ancient trees. Thanks for the advice, and sharing your adapted ATF chart. Very useful for those of us who regularly work to diameters.

During a BS5837 survey I recently identified an oak that may qualify as a veteran, based on the girth. What criteria and references do people use to identify the presence of a veteran tree on site, as per section 4.5.11 of the BS? The tree in question has a girth of 4.5m and I am basing my conclusion on guidance in ‘Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management’. In this instance I have referred to section 1.2 Definition of ancient and veteran trees, fig 1.3 Chart of girth in relation to age and development classification of trees. According to this chart my tree appears to be on the cusp of being locally notable and veteran, so possibly it falls short of the veteran status at this stage. Whilst I realise there are many features and characteristics associated with veteran trees, if you’re going to categorise a tree as a veteran, then a classification chart is a very useful way to demonstrate and justify this to the client for whom there will be inevitable design implications.