Kveldssanger

I had looked at Inonotus radiatus, though largely ruled it out as it said usually it's found on alder. Glad a more masterful mind thought the same, as it shows I am on the right track with these things! As soon as I saw it all on the stem I thought it was a Phellinus species, as much of the sporophore collection is appressed to the underside of the stem (which I have found to be quite common with Phellinus pomaceus). Sometimes I have seen Phellinus pomaceus adopt more of a typical bracket form, so potentially the depth here is feasible with the genus? Second one - 100%. Ta. Cop-out acceptable. If you're a fan of cider, try and grab a bottle of this stuff. Really good.

Principally Charles Mynors, though also had a solicitor who deals with tree-related cases give me and a few others some info with regards to subsidence and tree management. I also took a look at some of the actual cases where they were available in PDF / as text.

22/04/16. Fact #192. Some info on UK case law, trespassing roots, and subsidence. Roots can be removed to the boundary in the same manner as overhanging branches can, assuming removal is done with reasonable care. As per Lemmon v Webb [1894], it was held that a neighbour could cut back from his property without notice to the owner of the tree, provided that he could do so without entering the owner’s land. In the case of McCombe v Read [1955], such a ruling was again found, where the judge remarked that a neighbour could indeed cut back any root encroachment back to his or her boundary. Furthermore, the judge even ruled that the defendant who owned the trees must ensure that the tree roots did not encroach unto his neighbour’s land so that they could be deemed to be once again causing a nuisance. Soon after, the judge in Davey v Harrow Corp. [1957] ruled similarly, by remarking that “if trees encroach, whether by branches or roots, and cause damage, an action for nuisance will lie”, though only if the apparent nuisance was indeed reasonably recognisable (for trees existing close to boundaries, such an issue almost certainly is). More recently, this precedent is evident in Perrin & Anor v Northampton Borough Council & Ors [2006], where it was ruled that “root encroachment into a neighbouring property was similar to bough encroachment, and that the neighbour could lop boughs or grub roots without notice“. This is not reasonable, in terms of current case law precedent. In severing these roots on the tension side, the line of trees were left at significant rsk of windthrow. Beyond mere direct encroachment and subsequent nuisance abatement, the most significant factor surrounding root encroachment onto a property is subsidence, where the soil is shrinkable in nature. In 1940, the case of Butler v Standard Telephones and Cables was one of the first to deal with the subsidence issue, and it was ruled that the line of poplar trees grown on the Company’s sports field, which were subsiding the claimant’s property, were the culprits. The line of defence the Company adopted was one of not being able to foresee that the poplars would cause such damage, though even whilst the judge did remark that the poplars were very attractive specimens, it was ruled that the Company should have appreciated the destructive potential of trees. Therefore, their defence was dismissed, and the claimant won the case. This ultimately sets the shape of things that were to come, as the precedent set was one of outlining how a tree owner must be able to recognise that trees, by virtue of their mere presence, can cause problems. Failing to recognise this and deal with such problems appropriately is, therefore, negligent. In recent decades, the case of Solloway v Hampshire CC [1981] continued this precedent, and ruled that where harm as a result of the moisture uptake by encroaching roots was foreseeable, action must be taken to reduce the nuisance. This case, in essence, saw the claimant’s property subside as a result of the Council’s trees, though as the area was predominantly considered to reside upon gravel, the Council had no knowledge that small pockets of clay underlay the claimant’s property. Therefore, whilst the initial judge ruled the Council were liable, at appeal it was ruled they were not, given such a geological erratic was not foreseeable: “To say that a risk of damage is reasonably foreseeable means that it is foreseeable, not merely as a theoretical possibility but as something, the chance of which occurring, is such that a reasonable man would consider it necessary to take account of it.” The judge, at appeal, also ruled that nothing short of felling the trees would have satisfied the situation, and because the Council would have not known that these trees were causing such an issue, expecting for them to have been removed prior to the issue manifesting would have been unfair and disproportionate to the level of foreseeable risk. With further regards to the issue of subsidence, Delaware Mansions Limited & Others v Lord Mayor & Citizens of The City of Westminster [2001] ruled that: “The encroachment of the roots was causing continuing damage to the land by dehydrating the soil and inhibiting rehydration. Damage consisting of impairment of the load-bearing qualities of residential land is, in my view, itself a nuisance.” In addition to this, the case stated that the established nuisance would continue up “until at least the completion of underpinning and piling“. Perhaps more importantly, this case continued the precedent that unreasonable and unacceptable burdens on local authorities and other tree owners must not be placed. It is not acceptable for unforeseeable harm to be anticipated and acted upon, by the owner of a tree. This precedent indeed relates back to Leakey v National Trust [1980] and Solloway v Hampshire CC [1981], where it was stated that only where harm is foreseeable can a nuisance be abated. In more recent times, this precedent has been echoed by Berent v Family Mosaic Housing & Islington Council [2012], where it was ruled that subsidence damage caused by two mature plane trees was not a foreseeable threat, and again with Denness v East Hampshire DC [2012] and Robbins v Bexley LBC [2012]. In the case of the latter, the defendant took the issue to appeal, where it was still ruled that they were liable for damage associated with tree roots (from two hybrid black poplars) causing subsidence, given they had not managed the trees in any manner for the period between 1998-2006, and only after this point had they enacted a four-year management cycle for the trees in question – all whilst the risk of subsidence was foreseeable. A line of large poplars adjacent to a factory unit. In this instance, is the risk of subsidence foreseeable? Despite this, where harm is foreseeable, local authorities and owners must act (as already established). This applies also to ‘managing agents’ of a tree found to be causing damage. For instance, the judge in Le Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council [2002] ruled that, where Portsmouth City Council were managing the tree stock of Hampshire County Council, “I do not understand on what basis it can be said that Portsmouth did not owe the claimant a duty to perform its function of tree management with reasonable care. Mr Bebb boldly submits that the only duties owed by Portsmouth were to HCC, and that only HCC owed a duty of care in tort to persons who foreseeably suffered damage as a result of inadequate tree management. I do not agree. The mere fact that Portsmouth owed a contractual duty to HCC does not mean that it owed no duties in tort to anyone else.” As a result, Portsmouth were found part-liable for the damage caused by root-induced subsidence, though it should be noted that a formal agreement was in place between the two parties that outlined the defendant’s role in managing the tree population for Hampshire County Council. Where such a formal agreement is lacking, there appears to be no current guidance on how a ruling would be made. It must however be stressed that adequate proof must be provided in instances of subsidence, as concluded in Hilda’s Montessori Nursery v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006]. Adequate proof is, according to experts and the conclusions of the case, at least one year’s worth of monitoring and the associated data. In Loftus Brigham v Ealing Council [2008] however, it was concluded by the ruling judge that it must be established that roots must be the “most dominant” cause of subsidence-related damage, not simply one of multiple causal agents. Interestingly, this case was overturned and sent for retrial, as it was deemed the judge was incorrect in his conclusions and that burden of proof was not on identifying roots as the “most dominant” cause, but merely a cause. Such identification of whether a tree is merely a cause relates back to Murray v Hutchinson [1955], where the judge stated that one must “not jump to the conclusion that because they have a bad name they are always responsible for this damage.” It was ultimately ruled that the tree was found to play 25% of the role in harm caused to the property, and damages were awarded in light of this. However, the judge in Mayer v Deptford and Lewisham Councils [1959] ruled that, even though a plane tree was found to only have accelerated subsidence damage once it had already begun to manifest via other means, full damages were to be paid, by the defendant, to the claimant. In situations where more than one tree is found within an area known to be subsiding, care must also be taken to identify only the trees that are causing the damage. This precedent was established in Malewski v Ealing LBC [2003], where it was argued by the defendant that trees within the garden of the property were causing the damage to the foundations. Ultimately, it was concluded that the highway tree owned by the defendant was the cause, though the precedent set on accurately proving implication of a tree was critical. As a somewhat aside, the case of Siddiqui v Hillingdon LBC [2003] found that damage had occurred via the removal of trees prior to development, and not from existing roots on site. The claimant had alleged that the cracking was due to soil desiccation, though it was ruled that the cracking was in fact down to heave (resulting from the removal of trees prior to development). Such a case acts as a reminder that exiting trees may not necessarily be the cause of damage. However, perhaps more importantly, the judge ruled that “modern standards of construction can be expected to take account of obvious hazards in the vicinity of the structure to be built…“, which may have implications for future claims where subsidence is an issue for newer builds on sites where trees were retained. Current case precedent does also recognise that the severance of roots may cause heave, as outlined in Park v Swindon BC [2011]. As another partial aside, the case of Kirk & Ors v London Borough of Brent [2005] set a possible precedent for a retrospective damage claim against the owner of trees considered to have been causing subsidence. Some years earlier, a line of properties had to be underpinned as a result of suspected subsidence damage, resulting from the moisture uptake of trees owned by the London Borough of Brent, though the Council were not notified of the underpinning works until after the work was entirely completed. The original judge rejected the claim, though on appeal it was determined that, even though there was no exact proof of the subsidence being caused by the trees, the Council should pay damages amounting to £15,000. In fact, this case influenced a more recent case where a near identical situation occurred, which was that of Robbins v Bexley London Borough Council [2012]. The High Court held that even though the local authority had not been notified of any damage to the property, the damage was still reasonably foreseeable as the trees had caused damage to other local properties and, once that was known, proactive remedial action should have been taken. When taken to appeal by the defendant in 2013, the case precedent remained as per the original ruling, and the appeal was therefore dismissed. Other issues caused by roots, such as damage to drains, is outlined in Kennedy v Bournemouth Borough Council [2012], where it was determined that the roots were not the principal cause of the flooding caused by blocked drains, but instead the principal cause was that of the state of disrepair with the drain pipes themselves. The court decided that the claimant was responsible for making good the drain pipes, so that tree roots could not exploit the cracks for moisture.

The cluster on the stem certainly looks like cuticularis, actually. More 'droopy'. I first thought it was chicken before finding the sporophores on the ground, so think perhaps you're on the mark with cuticularis. As can be seen, these were clustered around a wound site, of which many were still on the stem. Tube layer also looks similar, albeit more blackened in my case. Going back to Dunwich this summer as there's a cracking pub nearby that does awesome food (will go there after for some good cider and food ), so will check this beech as it's right by the road.

Monica Gagliano will now be talking, too. This will be a damn good day, without doubt.

A few shots from a dead birch log. Is this fungi coming out of the lenticel bands, or eggs or some form (zoom in and you may see what I mean)? Cannot find any indication of this species of possible fungus in books.

These shots were taken in a bit of a rushed manner, as I was with the missus and we were at Jimmy's Farm in Suffolk and she was on a mission to feed the lambs. On what I seem to recall was a large hazel coppice (Corylus avellana), I spotted what I considered to be Phellinus ferreus. Is anyone able to confirm by these images, please? Only ever read about the fungus before, so don't want to mark it down as that in case it isn't. Thanks. Link:

David, would you say this is an example of I. hispidus on Fagus sylvatica? Never seen it on this species before, hence the question.

Nice ones there, David! That on the Heath? Just come back from holiday in Suffolk, and paid a visit to Dunwich Forest. Amongst all the bloody planted pine are actually some proper trees, including oak, birch, and beech. I'll make my own thread on other bits and bobs, though came across a beautiful example of Kretzschmaria deusta on beech (Fagus sylvatica). I've always associated it with the butt and lowest portions of the stem (butt-stem interface, really), though this Kretz was rising to at least 2.5m up. As we can see below, the sporophores were all present within a very large stem wound - an old forestry wound, grazing wound, or tear-out? There are red deer around, for example. Images below start at bottom and work up. Didn't get the very top of the wound as the missus was calling me away as she saw four red deer, and then I saw more Kretz and other cool bits.

Looking evidently fabulous! Not sure about the PPE, though.

Guy the entire thing.

Baphomet doesn't have the head of a goat for no reason! Is that goat by the entrance we drove through? That avenue of horse chestnuts, some with Rigidoporus? I perhaps recognise that new fence being where you said there was a cluster of Coprinus feasting on a newly-severed root.

Quite polite how the lamb jsut volunteered itself for the oven! I suppose any larger ungulate would likely cause more damage (goats, pigs, cows, horses), no?

I put up a few shots of the lambs on my blog here - https://arboriculture.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/lambs-love-trees-too/ Images:

Nice shots there. Will certainly return later on in this season and look for fungi. So many trees so plenty of fungal habitat. It was me, Paul, his missus (Sally?), Ted (ATF), Jill (ATF), Caroline (ATF), Reg (ATF), the young fellow who just joined the ATF (I forget his name), the lady taking the photographs you spoke to for a while, and another gentleman. Went out looking at some of the sweet chestnut, some old oaks, some beech, and so on. Indeed, a fabulous park. Once the place springs into life it'd be a form of heaven for me.

Hahaha priorities in the right place! Feel like going back just to get a photo of one of those. Not got any shots of that species of Ganoderma. Ugh! Ended up getting away at 6.30PM. Eight of us stayed and went around. Saw some right crackers.

Loving those shots. Lamb was clearly miffed at all the cameras being pointed at it!

Damn how'd I miss that!? Nice one!

15/04/16. Fact #191. In an age where life is rather tumultuous and detached from nature, many individuals may opt to visit woodlands and forests as a means of escaping from the frenetic day-to-day living of an urban environment. In fact, alongside the rise in urban populations there has been a rise in the number of individuals using woodlands and other green areas, and such a growing desire to visit has led to these sites becoming highly-used and thus pressured. Sites nearby to urban fringes, and those that are readily accessible via transport means (cars, trains, etc) may be most readily used, given that there is only so much time in a day and many individuals will only visit such sites for a few hours (oft during fair weather) before returning home. To probe further into exactly what drives woodland visitation by individuals, we can look at a new article published in the journal Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. This specific study looks at woodland sites in Wallonia, Belgium, and delves into who visits woodland sites (demographics), and how they get there (transport). The region of Wallonia is covered by woodlands (around 30% of total land cover), and these woodlands are found quite far from any major cities (75% of woodlands are located in rural locations). A total of 40 sites were used for the study, and 14% of these were in peri-urban or urban areas. These (peri-)urban sites accounted for nearly 50% of all surveyed participants. Results from the questionnaire are shown below. Who visits Belgian woodlands, and how do they get there? From the above data, we can spot some very interesting things. For instance, many more people visit woodlands during the weekend, suggesting that the visits are undertaken outside of typical working times. Given the average age for visitors to the woodland sites is far below the retirement age, we can safely assume that this is the reason for the preference of weekend visits. This assumption is further supported by the fact that 68% of all woodland visitors are currently employed. We can also observe how the fewest number of visitors visit the woodlands during autumn, which is actually somewhat curious as autumn colours are absolutely stunning. It is arguably not at all strange, however, that the spring months attract the greatest number of visitors, though winter-time visits for walkers is actually higher (by a few tenths of a percent). In terms of how people get there and who with, we can see that there’s generally a mix of sole individuals, families, couples, and groups who frequent the sites, though this is not really where it’s particularly interesting. Instead, it’s when we look at how they get there that it gets quite cool. For example, we can observe how sole individuals will access the woodland by foot or via bicycle, which is likely because of the ease of access via such means. Driving a car is probably not so enticing, as there’s less of a push for time and fewer people to suit on the trip, so it’s not as if once a child gets bored and starts throwing a tantrum that the entire family has to go home – there’s more freedom involved with accessing the woodland. We can also spot how a good third of families will cycle to a woodland, indicating that there is a desire for a family outing to coincide with a sort of ‘keeping fit’ mentality. Granted, cycling may generally be more feasible for families with slightly older children, as toddlers, whilst able to cycle, cannot cycle too far, and nor is it probably practical to have a young child cycle to a woodland unless it’s very close by (which isn’t usually the case, in this region of Belgium). There is a general trend of people going to woodlands to relax, as well. Unsurprisngly, this markedly changes for those who cycle, where it shows that over 95% of those who get to the woodland via bicycle will go there for a sporting purpose. This adds weighting to the idea that families who cycle there have older children (or even a family comprised of only older generations). Such a disparity in results for those who cycle is however surprising, as it suggests only 2% of those who cycle to a woodland do so in order to relax. Perhaps there is no such thing as a leisurely bike ride, therefore? The male:female ratio of woodland visitors is also quite distinctly different. According to this study, a good two-thirds of visitors are male. This ratio stayed true for the means of access to the site being on foot or via car, though rose sharply to 88% in favour of males if access to the woodland site was via bicycle. Maybe this has something to do with the high use of woodland sites for sporting, when the visitor arrived via bicycle. On a broader scale however, the reason for fewer females visiting is curious. Perhaps it has something to do with females feeling more wary of being alone in woodlands, or instead preferring to visit other places during free time. Maybe cyclists arrive at woodlands in order to race or ride with or against other cyclists. Source: National Trust. With regards to the distance travelled to get to the woodland, the data provided is not really eyebrow-raising. An average walk of 4km to get to a woodland site is somewhat fair, and it cannot be thought that anything other than a car journey would bring in the highest distance travelled to reach the desired woodland site. Walkers spending the least time (111 minutes) at a woodland is therefore not surprising, as they’ll spend probably the most time either side of their visit getting there and back. Walking will also expend the most effort in travelling (though not necessarily the most calories burned, which likely is held by those who cycle). Despite this, an average stay of 137 minutes (a little over two hours) is quite reasonable, and suggests that visitors seek a more instant impact in place of spending a whole day on site. Of course, the size of the woodland would have an impact, in this regard. If you’ve walked an entire woodland in around two hours, you may as well go home, after all. The purpose of the trip also defines the length of stay, and as it as generally the case that people were there to relax (excluding cyclists – though sporting is a form of relaxation or recreation) then dragging-out a stay may end up being stressful, as remaining somewhere only for the sake of remaining there is counter-intuitive. If you want a more detailed breakdown of this paper, then I advise you locate a copy. I downloaded the entire journal whilst it was temporarily set as Open Access, though it appears to have once again been ‘closed’ (as of yesterday). It’s a good read, and not too heavy on the science-y stuff. Source: Li, S., Colson, V., Lejeune, P., & Vanwambeke, S. (2016) On the distance travelled for woodland leisure via different transport modes in Wallonia, south Belgium. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 15 (1). p123-132.

I have seen it once on a long-dead lime stem, so perhaps it could be. Would have to go back and check, though.

Is that a massive coal fungus on the strip next to the dead bark on the third image of the first set of shots?

Technically you never did!

Oh, really?

No longer open access. To all those that pulled them all, congratulations.

Probably a Phd in there somewhere, as well!