Chris at eden

Second thoughts looking at the pics again. It looks battered, really disfigured. I would fell and replace. Not exactly a great loss.

Get one of the Phytophthora testing kits to check. If its not it will probably be Pseudomonas. The latter is much more common. If its the latter, de-compaction and treatment with potassium phosphite has had positive results at Bartletts. As stated already, assess the risk first tough.

Bit of an after thought. When I say level 3 I mean something like ND or tech cert, not these new L3 chainsaw certs.

Reuben makes a good point about quals but you can do detailed tree inspections with level 3 also. I don't personally think you should be doing detailed inspections with anything lower than that as that is what is mentioned in NTSG. Its also the pre-requisite for PTI so is the benchmark I think. Its not a bad idea to have PTI also. It also depends on professional affiliations. I know an AA reg consultant who charges £320 plus VAT for mortgage reports and can turn out 3 on a good day. Another mate of mine works for a large consultancy practice for major building firms. He was telling me a couple of week ago the he did a 5837 tree survey and constraints plan and the fee was over £2k!!!! That didn't include the AIA, AMS or TPP either, they would be extra. I can only dream of charging that. I work on a fixed rate for 10 trees and then charge per tree thereafter. I know how long it will take to inspect, transfer the data to a spreadsheet and then draw on CAD so I can kind of estimate. Sometimes I do better than other times but it means I don't have to go on site to quote every job. The draw back with that approach is, the client will tell you there are 3 trees to look at and then you arrive to find 15. I then advise that the fixed price is for 10 and it is this much extra for the other 5. Its up to them then. As long as you tell them up front in the quote and then discuss the pros and cons on site its usually ok. In my experience you will make more per hour for mortgage reports than on 5837 but 5837 are more common. Risk and structural damage reports are few and far between in my experience. I wouldn't quote my fees on here but I personally think £300 a day is quite low.

The occupier liability act does not apply here if I am reading those pictures correctly. Both versions (1957 and 1984) place a duty on land owners to maintain there trees in such a state that they do not impose an unreasonable risk to visitors of their land, 57 for those invited, amended by 84 to include trespassers. It looks to me that the tree has fallen onto adjacent land in which case the duty is covered under common law. i.e. via court precedent. You would be better served reading the NTSG guidance as that gives info on inspection frequency and all other aspects.

It sounds like the cold weather has killed of the terminal buds. Those are the one on the end of the branches. These buds secrete chemicals called indole auxins which basically supress the growth of secondary (side) branches. This is known as apical dominance or apical control. If you cut them off the side growth will grow unchecked and the same will happen if the frost kills them. If you continue to cut it back it will re-start the process of this wild growth as you refer to it. This is actually a valid way to grow Catalpa as it forces the tree to put on larger leaves but it wont flower and wont really be tree shaped. I have a jungle garden so I cut mine down to about 4 feet every spring so I get these big leaves. If you want it as more of a tree you will need to regrow the canopy. allow it to grow for a season and then when you prune it, select out the best leaders to create the canopy shape you want. Don't reduce the leader at all. To begin with it will still throw out side shoot but just keep trimming these off. Allow the side branches to develop on the new leaders. Eventually the buds on these new leaders should produce enough chemical to take over the apical dominance role. It may always be a bit misshapen and multi stemmed and will take a while to reform as you want it. Catalpa is also pretty sensitive to wind and possible frost but don't quote me on that last point. As such you should always plant them in a sheltered position. Hope this helps,

Hi Sloth/Kev, I always find both of your posts interesting and informative so Kev no cowering to be done at all mate. It probably is L6 in reality but I read it when doing tech cert years ago. I quickly realised when I started L6 that I seriously over read for TC, especially on tree health. There is a lot of strategic stuff in the L6 as well which I didn't like the sound of but loved it once I got into it. In reality this fungi stuff isn't really my thing, I like the planning and subs debates so I usually leave the fungi to folk better informed such as David and Tony. L6 is great, really changes your outlook professionally so go for it. My 2 year old was born 3 months into my first year and it is tough but if you stick at it you can get there. 3 kids would be heavy duty though. Expect to work every night for at least 3 hours and aim to meet the AC. Don't over read, you will fall behind. Its very tempting sometimes. Gaz, ask dave about the ref for that O2 transport. It was Andy that first put me onto back when I was doing TC years ago. He may still know the ref.

I think the deadwood would encourage other soil dwelling organisms which in turn improve aeration and that without doubt will encourage M fungi. I read somewhere years ago the HF transports oxygen along the bootlaces so it can grow in an oxygen poor environment, even water filled xylem vessels. This is what makes it actively pathogenic in its colonisation strategy. M fungi on the other hand would struggle in a low oxygen environment I believe meaning that they get out competed by the HF.

Done.

I think the natural control they speak of would be mychorrhiza which is more common in better quality soil. Having deadwood slowly rotting away must encourage the development of a more complete soil dwelling ecosystem which would include M fungi which then inhibit infection by HF by competing for habitat. HF is associated with sub-optimal soil conditions so that would be the first port of call, improve the soil. Decompaction for a start. Taking that into consideration maybe the piling of large amounts of deadwood beneath the canopy could have a negative effect? Not sure? So maybe best to spread it out I would think. Any thoughts?

Bang on Jules, and what was worse is that many consultants often called it a 20% reduction not an offset. So that they used to trim off 20% all the way around. This was a common theme that I used to see in planning applications at the time.

I always wonder about that. That problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to give a false impression. If they are saying that they get approval for all their projects I don't see it but then again I don't see that as my issue. If the application is validated based on my AIA being acceptable then I consider that a success. If the client has ignored my advice and it is then refused I don't see that as my issue either. If its a none starter I tell them. If I can work something up I do. I had one recently with about 50 trees the majority of which were cat C and U. Self set stuff mostly. There were about 10 B cat trees so I advised them to stay away with the design. They ignored my advice so the app requires the removal of all trees. I then wrote up the AIA objectively saying that the impact of tree losses is high (for the B cat) and explained that there is no point in saying otherwise as the TO will see straight through it. They accepted this and paid the fee with no issue. It isn't my job to get them planning permission. I give them advice on feasibility and point them in the right direction. The rest is up to them.

Yes it went with the 2005 standard and it was 20%. Mainly because consultants were offsetting into areas where there would clearly be no roots. Now its at the discretion of the consultant and TO but I see no reason why you cannot encroach slightly as long as you can justify it based on site conditions. Some LPA's are more open to this than other in my experience.

Ahhhh, I think I see where you are coming from. Are you saying that if an impact is identified which could be resolved by off setting you could amend at the AMS stage? That is pretty much what I did in the example I gave, so yes I agree. Although I did it at the AIA stage and didn't refer to it as offsetting. I thought you were talking about the required modifications such as to reflect the position of roads, buildings, level changes, etc. My mistake. Cheers for clarifying. I've seen so many plans where the RPA's are plotted 10m into the footprint of an existing house.

You can't modify the RPA at the method statement stage. The RPA is a constraint so should be used to determine the layout. It not the same as the offset rule either. Its designed to reflect onsite restrictions such as roads. I.e. you don't get roots under roads. If you changed the RPA at the method statement stage that would most likely be after consent had been given. Not to mention you may not need an AMS. The LPA won't allow this. When you submit the AIA to the LPA the plan that should accompany is a draft tpp. Not the TCP, that is for the design team. No offence intended.

I had one passed recently by Birmingham City Council when a proposed extension was cutting into just over 10% of the RPA. I didn't even bother to offset, i just sold it to the LPA that such a small area incursion would not be an issue as on the opposite side was a public open space which would be a better rooting environment. I also advised that the foudations within the RPA must be dug by hand and under supervision. No roots over 25mm to be severed, trech lined to protect roots from concrete, etc. The tree is a mature oak with a TPO, and is located on the council open space. I would not have tried the same approach if the opposite side was an engineered highway as i doubt i would have got away with it and i dont like getting negative comments back. Plus it would be unprofessional which i dont like either. Horses for courses.

5 cube per calender quarter, but you cant sell more than 2. Thats the felling licence others have mentioned.

They blush red if you press the pore surface, hence the name. I have read other reasons for the name though.

The paper is called straightening out the askanazy curve, i think it was in an isa journal. You should be able to get it from google. There is a really good site with all the old isa papers. Anything older than a year i think.

Looks right. Press it, see what happens.

Pruning in the winter is a traditional approach but I'm not convinced its correct one. Most of the common decay fungi fruit in the autumn meaning that spores are at an all-time low during the summer months. There are exceptions. If it’s hot and dry that doesn't favour fungal development either. And the trees are actively growing meaning they can perform CODIT as they have not only the potential energy within their tissues but also an abundant re-supply of kinetic energy produced through photosynthesis. The production of reaction zones through tylosis, etc requires energy, something that deciduous trees don’t make in the winter. If they are expected to draw on their potential/stored energy through the winter it would reduce the mass/energy ratio which is needed to kick start growth in the spring. That wouldn’t be a great survival strategy hence they do nowt and start to react only when growth kicks in next year. I don’t really think it makes a huge amount of difference, just small margins really. How many tree surgeons only prune for 6 months of the year! The Askanazy curve is also accepted when people say don’t prune before the leaves come out. This is based on Askanazy testing starch levels in trees before leaf burst when he found them to be low. Problem is, he only checked cherry trees. It’s not surprising their energy is low as they flower before they leaf. That uses up energy which cannot be replaced before the leaves are out. Yet still people advise this. Again how many trees have you pruned before the leaves come out and what was the effect? Not much in my experience.

Oyster fungus

I thought of another. Beech has a heavily suberized barrier zone (not all trees do) which makes it very difficult for organisms to cross. One of the problems with using micro drills to investigate is that it breaches the barrier zone and its suberin defence. Timing of pruning. Trees have a reduced phenol index during their dormant season meaning that wound response is minimal during the winter. Tylosis is also temperature dependent and does not occur at very low temperatures. Reaction zones may not form at all in some species at very low temperatures. The list goes on!!!

Another consideration is the different ways in which heartwood or sapwood prevent decay. Heartwood contains phenolic compounds which give it its colour and prevent decay as they are extremely toxic to micro organisms. Example would be oak. Generally only specialist organisms such as chicken of the woods can decay heartwood as they have developed strategies to do so though evolution. If you cut a branch and expose heartwood its defence stays in place so they are resistant to most decay organisms. There are exception obviously. On the other hand trees with only sapwood (e.g. birch) rely on the wood being filled with water to prevent decay. Decay fungi require oxygen to respire so are kept in check while vessels are filled with water. Prune a branch off a birch and the vessels dry out. They can then decay as the defence has gone. In fact, fungi such as Piptoporus are believed to be latent colonisers in that the sit within the water filled vessels in a dormant state waiting for the right conditions. Once the vessels dry the spores can develop. Another good example of sapwood vs. heartwood is in old woodland oaks. If you look at the very old dead branches all that remains is the central core of durable heartwood with the less durable other area of sapwood decayed and fallen away.

I sent a picture to forest research like this a few years ago when sudden oak death first arrived and it was the next big bad. They advised that it wouldn't be SOD or its Cornish cousin unless there were infected Rhodos or Viburnum near by. They thought more likely at the time that it may be P. cactorum or citricola which I admit at the time I didn't know they affected beech.