Kveldssanger

Can't be a Prunus as it's a single terminal bud. Prunus are clustered, no? Sorbus it does appear to be.

Trees - necessity. View - luxury. A bit blunt, but at its core it's not even up for debate.

Is there scope to have a sort of database of open access journal links, split into sections, so people can easily find stuff related to, let's say, street tree management. Maybe too techy? Same with books.

I like the sound of this.

16/02/16. Fact #152. Whilst deaths associated with tree failures do happen, they are generally very rare. In the UK, for example, the HSE reported that the chance of dying because of a falling tree (or tree part) was 1 in 10,000,000 when excluding high wind events (you can access the report here – see page 23). In the US, because of more extreme weather events, mortality rates may be slightly different, and the author of this study seeks to invesitgate exactly how many deaths occurred between 1995-2007, and the event that caused the tree to fail. Before delving into the data however, the author notes that tree species vary in their tolerance to wind gusts. Wood properties and structural morphologies will impact upon durability, and by-and-large (for uprooting and stem snapping, though not branch failure) hardwoods will fare ever so slightly better in wind gusts than softwoods (though all tree species can fail if they are subjected to ten minute gusts of over 67mph). However, the condition of the tree (health), its age, size, and setting (how exposed it is) will also impact upon how likely it is to fail under wind loading. Back on track, data was trawled from multiple sources (from the USA) to identify all wind events (extratropical cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, though also ice and snow accumulations) where there was at least one death. All of the events were then inspected for deaths caused by a tree falling, and all such deaths were recorded. In the information obtained, multiple aspects relating to the deaths were collected. For example, victim age and gender were noted, as was the type of event that caused the death. In addition, the location of the death was noted, including what the victim was in at the time (house, vehicle, outside). In total, there were 407 tree-related deaths between 1995-2007 (an average of 31 per year) across 41 states. New York had the highest death rate at 30, then Washington at 29 (see the table near the end for a greater breakdown). 62% of victims were male, and the average age was 44. In terms of where the victim was at the time of the tree indicdent, 18% were within their home (mobile or ‘static’), 38% outdoors, and 44% in a vehicle. Below, we look at deaths associated with fallen trees only during different weather events, though the below table and map outline all fallen tree-related deaths and their locations very well. A breakdown of the total number of deaths between 1995-2007. A localtion showing all of the locations where trees caused a death during wind events. The numbers down the side appear to relate to total deaths at each location. Thunderstorms 53% (165) of all deaths were during thunderstorms, and 96% of these deaths in the eastern half of the USA were due to fallen trees (because the eastern half of the USA suffers more thunderstorms, and has a higher population density and number of trees). 78% of deaths occurred between May and August (when most storms occur). Most deaths (87%) occurred when the victim was not within their home. Nonconvective winds (extratropical cyclones, gap winds, downslope winds) A total of 143 (46%) deaths were caused by fallen trees during such winds. 88% of all deaths occurred outside of the home, with 50% being when the victim was in a vehicle. October to April was when 88% of deaths occurred, as this is the time when such extratropical cyclones are most potent. Tropical cyclones 15 tropical cyclones caused 57 deaths, though not including deaths from Hurricana Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi. Deaths were observed at similar rates across all victim locations, be it in the home, outside, or in a vehicle, and all deaths occurred within 200 miles of the coastline. September was when 58% of all deaths were recorded, and the range was from July through to October. The table below breaks down the deaths by each cyclone. Deaths associated with tropical cyclones between 1995-2007. Tornadoes Fallen trees as a result of a tornado caused 28 deaths, accounting for only 4% of all fallen tree-related deaths. 42% of all victims were killed in their own home, which was higher than 32% in a vehicle and 25% outdoors (though not being in a home still leaves an individual with a higher chance of dying, during a tornado event). Deaths as a result of tornadoes occurred all year round, though 32% were in either April or November. Wind speeds of of 70-90mph (or above) are most likely to cause death, during a tornado event. An uprooted tree that, during a tornado event, fell onto a house. Source: NBC News. Snow and ice Ice accumulations were the cause of 10 of the 14 deaths within this category, and most deaths happened whilst victims were outdoors. Snow accumulations did however cause death, too. Most deaths were concentrated in the north east and Washington, which correlates with expected weather patterns for the USA. Final remarks In light of all of the above data, it is evident that thunderstorms and nonconvective winds will cause most deaths, of which most will be outside of the home. The higher likelihood of being killed within a vehicle is interesting, as it suggests that it may very well be street trees that cause deaths. In a way, this is hardly surprising, as trees within a woodland are likely to not have a target zone, though it does highlight the fact that consistently passing within the target zone of trees during loading events increases an individual’s chance of death at the hands of a falling tree. Staying within the home may very well be the safest thing to do. Or, as the author suggests, get in the car and drive into the middle of an open field, and wait there (unless it’s a tornado event, where one must either seek refuge in a large building or drive to beyond the reach of the tornado). Despite this, the chance of dying is still only 1.45 in 1,000,000 (on average – some states have higher death rates, as shown in the below table). Of course, in states where there is a higher population density, the risk of death may likely be higher than the national average. How the total number of deaths were split amongst the ‘top’ (meant in the worst way possible!) 15 states, of the 41 where deaths occurred. We should also remember that this data doesn’t take into account injuries associated with fallen trees, or even indirect deaths caused by trees blocking roads (stopping emergency vehicles), falling on power lines (cutting out electrical power), and so on. Furthermore, the window of investigation spanned only 13 years, which isn’t much in the grand scheme of things. Trees with structural defects may also be more likely to fail during loading conditions, and therefore street trees, or those where there is a target zone beneath, should be inspected more regularly than those where there is not. Granted, a touch of realism is needed, and it must be recognised (again) that the death rate as a result of a fallen tree is incredibly low to negligible. Source: Schmidlin, T. (2009) Human fatalities from wind-related tree failures in the United States, 1995–2007. Natural Hazards. 50 (1). p13-25.

I confess I like the older look!

Win Cannot wait to test stuff out when it is rolled out!

Indeed, that was an interesting read. Still hacks me off when people tag trees. Wonder if they'd like it if someone tagged their front door.

Good luck and enjoy.

Sweet. Let me know what you think. Doing the lvl 4 / 6?

Can't say I've read cedar and legendary in the same sentence before! Mind elaborating on this please, Jules?

I would imagine most qualified and experienced consultants would be able to give advice, as I am not certain there's an alder 'specialist'.

Going through some of my fungi snaps from the weekend. Sorted through some so far, which are segmented below. Got a few more to sort - will share over the coming few days! One I am still unsure on whether it's Gano or Perenniporia, and I'll post that ASAP. Trametes hirsuta on Fagus sylvatica (as ID'd by Ted Green) A very neat arrangement of sporophores, in absolute abundance Atop, it appears to be very similar to Pseudotrametes gibbosa. But beneath, the pore structure is different. Not a good photo, and in hindsight I’d have got a better one, but alas! Ganoderma sp. on Fagus sylvatica Totally beastly!! Here we can observe the sporophore emanating from a dead section of its host. A slight upward orientation of the sporophore can be seen. Has its host shifted slightly in orientation, due to the decay? From this angle, the growth increments can really be identified. A beatiful (to some, at least!) sporophore! And we can see howe bleedin’ massive it is! Also note the small sporophore on the same side but right at the base, and a slightly larger one on the floor beneath. On the right hand side of the small basal hollow, we can also see the remnants of an old sporophore (again Ganoderma sp.). Here is the beech as a whole. It evidently has only half a crown. Perenniporia fraxinea on Fagus sylvatica Here sits the sporophore, between two root buttresses. A side profile shot reveals its prominence. Panning back, we can see exactly how significant the buttressing is in this region. Evidently, it is more extensive than in the regions away from the area where the sporophore is emanating from. Daedaleopsis confragosa on Betula pendula We can see four sporophores on this small log. A closer inspection of the one on the bottom right. It has largely remain unblemished. More of a side profile on this one. A very thin sporophore, in this instance.

Absoutely. Nice shots of the new shoots. Hope to see an update in a year or two.

15/02/16. Fact #151. Mature and veteran trees (often pollarded) are very much important, in terms of the ecological value they provide. An array of organisms utilise such trees, ranging from bats to birds, and from beetles to moths. However, when these trees are found within amenity parklands, the presence of visitors means they will be managed both for their safety and for their amenity value. Therefore, deadwood may be removed, and entire specimens may be felled because of the risk associated with their retention. These actions have adverse impacts upon constituent species, with saproxylic beetles potentially suffering quite notably. In spite of this, little research has been completed on old parkland trees and the saproxylic beetle species they support. In addition, because ‘open’ old trees are declining in abundance, both because of their removal and due to the reversion of some old pastures and parklands to higher woodland (mainly due to a reduction in grazing, though woodlands may also be created), the viable habitat for many beetles is being lost. Old and open trees may thus be found commonly only in large parks that are popular attractions, or within private estates where maintenance costs are less of a concern (and there is a very low risk of a failing tree causing harm to a person). Of course, active wood pastures also contain many old trees, and some of these are (or were) deer parks. In this study, undertaken within a 150km radius of Stockholm, Sweden (see map below), the author looks solely at limes (Tilia spp.), which are commonly found scattered within parks (dominated by oaks) as mature or veteran specimens – often, but not always, as pollards (up until around 1900-1950, when such pollarding lapsed completely). In the natural stands, Tilia cordata is most common, though in parks the prevalent species of lime is Tilia x europaea. Across the sites surveyed, of which eight were designated ‘open’, eleven ‘regrown’, and eight ‘park’, four limes (at each location) that had the potential (through the presence of hollows) to act as a host to beetles were surveyed. Accompanied by the sampling of beetle species (through the use of window traps, active from May through to August / September in the survey year), data relating to the size (circumference) of the limes, the total number of hollow limes on the site, and also the location of the trees was captured. The author thus poses two questions that are to be answered, and these are: (1) will park trees have as much beetle diversity as natural stands?, and; (2) is there variation in natural stands, in relation to whether the site is grazed (open) or regenerating (regrown)? For more detailed descriptions of each site, please see Table 6 in the report (linked at the bottom). At a slight tangent before moving on to the results, typically we may associate saproxylic beetles with species such as oak (Quercus spp.), though it is remarked that beetles won’t always have a host preference in terms of the tree species, but in terms of the qualities of the tree itself (hollows, cavities, snags, dead branches, and so on). Granted, we can observe broadleaved obligates, coniferous obligates, and generalists. Results Following on from the trapping period, 14,460 individuals of 323 different beetle species were found. Around 10% of the total number of individuals found were red-listed species, though their presence accounted for 15% of the total species observed. Most of the species found were associated with the wood and bark of their host, and very few were associated with sap runs. The below table outlines such results. Here we can see the breakdown of surveyed individuals and species, across all sites combined. In terms of which sites had the greatest diversity of species, it was found that ‘open’ sites always ranked the highest (see the graphs below). However, the differences were not always significant. Furthermore, the more lime trees found on a site, the lower the diversity of beetle species found in wood and bark. The circumference of a lime tree was also not considered to be important in determining how abundant populations would be within the host, asides from for red-listed species found only in hollows. A number of graphs that compare the different locations against the number of species present, according to specific data sets. Quite importantly, there was generally no significant difference in species abundance and diversity between natural and park sites, and when park sites are compared to sites regenerating they are shown to support a greater diversity of beetle species in certain instances (such as for red-listed species found in hollows). The fact that park limes were found to support a lesser array of beetle species for wood and bark species (for those not red-listed), the author remarks, is because many of the trees in the parks are managed (and thus, any deadwood may be removed). Additionally, whilst the composition of species between park and natural sites was found to be significantly different, many species were found using both parks and natural sites (only sixteen species displayed exclusive preference to parks or natural stands). This means that a park has the potential to host a diversity of saproxylic beetle species similar to that of a natural site. Many species were also found to prefer more sun-exposed conditions, and the author notes that where a park tree may be lacking in deadwood a sun-exposed setting may compensate for the loss of direct habitat associated with deadwood presence. This may perhaps explain why more red-listed species were found in parks, when compared to regrown sites – they require more ‘ideal’ hosts, compared to generalist species. Furthermore, southern sites were found to possess more beetle species, and this is considered to be due to the more favourable climatic conditions (generally, they are warmer). As touched upon earlier, trunk circumference was not found to be a significant factor in determining species diversity. This conflicts with many previous studies, though the fact that most of the limes surveyed were classed as ‘ancient’ may explain this lack in significance – they were already very large in circumference. If limes of a ‘younger’ age (perhaps ‘only’ veterans) were surveyed, trunk circumference may have been significant (or at least more influential). In light of all of the above, we can observe that parks may very well be important for saproxylic beetles – at times, more so than natural stands where a woodland is regenerating around old individuals. This means that the suppression of regrowth may be beneficial for saproxylic beetles, though at the same time there must be an awareness of needing to recruit new veteran and ancient trees. All trees have a point at which they die, and by simply retaining existing old trees and not identifying and safeguarding future ones, beetle species will decline and disappear when the current population of old trees drops or ceases to be. Grazing may be a good means of reducing seedling recruitment surrounding old pollards. Source: Central and East Lakes Rangers. It may also be wise to retain deadwood removed from park trees, either at the base of the tree or in a large pile somewhere else on the site. This may be crucial if beetles exist within the wood structure itself, as its retention allows for the larvae to complete their life cycle by emerging as adults from the wood and (hopefully) reproducing. Not only this, but active management of existing trees may also be beneficial. Many old pollards may be considered highly hazardous and at risk of collapsing, and as pollarding will slow down the rate of growth, viable habitats (such as hollows) can be retained for longer periods in more suitable conditions if the trees do undergo new cycles of pollarding (or crown reduction). If done properly, this may also enable for new trees to more effectively succeed (and eventually replace) the existing old tree population. Most importantly, old park trees should not be felled unless absolutely necessary. Old trees are crucial in terms of the saproxylic species they support (of which some are red-listed), and park managers should therefore incorporate such ecological conservation measures into the management plan for the site as a whole. Source: Jonsell, M. (2012) Old park trees as habitat for saproxylic beetle species. Biodiversity and Conservation. 21 (3). p619-642.

14/02/16. Fact #150. Most towns and cities will have at least one park, which can be used by visitors as a place to relax (via the disassociation with day-to-day life, for example). These parks may – or may not – be heavily planted with trees, and retain vegetation remnants from past land use. It is understood that the presence of such parks is beneficial for visitors, and research has shown that urban parks are beneficial in terms of improving health and well-being for visitors (or those that overlook a park). Not only this, but parks that are well-vegetated (and retain remnant vegetation) are usually far better at providing habitat for species of bird, bat, and otherwise, when compared to vegetated (or non-vegetated) streets surrounding the park. This increased biodiversity presence actually allows park visitors to experience nature to a greater degree than in other urban landscapes, which may be particularly important for those individuals who desire a closer affinity with nature. Therefore, this study sought to determine whether the total tree and remnant vegetation cover influenced the amount of park visitors, and whether social factors influence upon a person’s decision to visit a park with greater vegetation cover, in Brisbane, Australia. The data obtained through this study was collected via an online survey, of which 1,479 individuals within the city responded. Participants were selected on the basis that they had to have been between the ages of 18-70, with an equal distribution of individuals either side of 40. In addition, male and female participants had to be largely similar, and the annual income of each individual surveyed had to reflect Brisbane’s total population. Furthermore, an equal number of individuals had to complete the survey from four different areas of the city, which were reflective of the city’s range in tree canopy cover (so an equal number from poorly-treed areas, and from areas where canopy cover was high). A well-vegetated park in Kangaroo Point, Brisbane. Source: Bugbog. From those surveyed, many questions were asked. In addition to the personal data received from each respondent, they were all asked whether they visit parks (and if so, which ones). Those who answered that they did not visit parks were excluded from the resultant analyses. All respondents were also asked multiple questions to determine how they interacted with nature, in order to ascertain whether those with a better ‘relationship’ with nature opted to visit parks with greater tree. In terms of tree and remnant vegetation cover, overhead maps were used to analyse individual parks. Only those relics over 0.5ha in size were recorded, as they are usually more likely to be home to a greater level of biodiversity. Lastly, Brisbane’s parks were separated into three categoies: local, district, and metropolitan. Local parks tend to have the smallest amount of associated infrastructure to accomodate for visitors, whilst metropolitan parks have a high level of associated infastructure. Not only this, but local parks have a much lower expected ‘catchment zone’ than metropolitan parks, with the latter perhaps attracting visitors from many suburbs and the former only a few streets. More obviously, local parks (1.3ha) are far smaller than district (5.9ha) and metropolitan (20.8ha) parks. Looking at the results obtained through the survey, it is evident that more people visited parks with at least a moderate level of tree cover (see figure below). However, there was found to be no significant difference across tree cover extents. With regards to remnant vegetation cover, it can be seen that most visits were to parks with under 10% remnant cover, though this may be due to the fact that many parks lack extensive remnant cover. Results of what parks the respondents of the survey visited. The black line shows the proportion of respondents who visited each park category. Interestingly, the authors note that 79% of respondents visit parks further afield than the closest one to their address. Those most likley to travel further distances were the individuals who ranked higher in their relationship with nature, as they sought to visit the parks with greater tree and remnant vegetation cover (see below figure). Conversely, individuals living in affluent areas of the city were less likely to visit parks with a higher tree cover. With regards to gender, females were slightly more likely to travel further distances to a park with more tree cover, though there was no significant difference between the genders. On the flip side, males were more likely to travel greater distances to visit parks with higher remnant vegetation cover. Age and income didn’t generally reflect what type of park a respondent would use. Comparing how ‘related’ a respondent was with nature against the type of park they opted to frequent. The larger parks were also home to more trees, and thus greater canopy cover. This may, in part, explain why people who were more connected with nature travelled greater distances to parks with greater tree cover, as local parks were simply less desirable for them. However, by-and-large, visitors chose to frequent parks with only moderate tree cover. The authors remark at this as a bit of a paradox, because parks with a greater tree and remnant vegetation cover are usually more beneficial for human well-being and health, though they are not necessarily the preferred choice. This may be, the authors allege, because ‘western’ cultures tend to prefer open savannah (pastures), in place of heavily-vegetated ones, and because an individual’s perception of safety decreases as canopy cover increases (ironically, research suggests somewhat of the opposite). Similarly, biodiversity will benefit from a greater tree and vegetation cover. Despite this, if parks are to be managed and designed in a way that reflects the desire of Brisbane’s residents, there may be a need to reduce vegetation cover at the cost of safeguarding biodiversity. The fact that only those who seek a higher affinity with nature will travel longer distances to visit parks is also telling. It suggests that only a particular portion of Brisbane’s population actually gains the full benefits associated with parks with greater tree and remnant vegetation cover. What impact may this be having on those who do not visit such parks? One of Brisbane’s botanic gardens. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps there is a need to educate people about the benefits of such ‘natural’ parks. However, if these parks then have a higher number of visitors, will the added disturbance impact upon the biodiversity within? Because such ‘natural’ parks are better for biodiversity, encouraging more visitors may have a negative effect, and not only on biodiversity but maybe also those who go to such parks to feel ‘at one’ with nature. Maybe we can view parks with reduced tree cover as sufficient; if not to satiate the need of many people to visit parks, then to allow the more ‘natural’ parks to continue to provide for those who like them and the biodiversity within. Source: Shanahan, D., Lin, B., Gaston, K., Bush, R, & Fuller, R. (2015) What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks?. Landscape Ecology. 30 (1). p153-165.

Agreed, my BSc was a doddle compared to this! Wrote more already than I did for the entirety of university, I'd say. And they have pointless word limits for university reports, too! Back to normal tomorrow. Just got back from an ATF (Ancient Tree Forum) site visit today, so been uploading photos to my blog and just sorting stuff out. Trying to decide what some of the fungi are, as I have forgotten or am unsure! Knowing my luck, they'll all be Laetiporus sulphureus!

Great post. Nice to be reminded of this, as we can all become complacent as a result of normality and repetition.

12/09/16. Fact #149. Within managed woodlands, deadwood is usually significantly lacking. This may be because deadwood (both standing and fallen) is removed during extraction processes, or because stands are felled before an age where the woodland would naturally begin to accumulate deadwood. Cause aside however, the lack of deadwood (particularly larger fragments of over 10cm in diameter) is bad news for saproxylic insects. Conversely, where deadwood is allowed to accumulate (usually via lapsed management; at times perhaps “benign neglect”), the suitability of a woodland for such insects is enhanced. Additionally, as saproxylic insects may vary in their host preference, a site with a variety of tree species is likely to yield a larger and more diverse population. In the feature study of this article, an investigation was commissioned into how such a “benign neglect” strategy impacts upon saproxylic beetle populations. The location of the study was the Bavarian Forest National Park (Germany) – which employed such a tactic in managing areas of the park (for Ips typographus, at least partially) – and focussed on assessing the relationship between beetle populations and host specifity, and also the minimum threshold of deadwood to support “comprehensive” beetle populations. The Bavarian Forest National Park covers an area that is around 24,500ha, and stand compositions varies across altidunial ranges. At higher altitudes of 1,150-1,430m, Picea abies (Norway spruce) is the dominant species, whilst at lower altitudes above 650m stands consist predominantly of silver fir (Abies alba), beech (Fagus sylvatica), and spruce (Picea abies). Until the 19th century, these stands were largely unmanaged, and were therefore old-growth forests with a likely abundance of deadwood (and associated beetle species). However, once forestry practices were introduced, old-growth stands became highly fragmented and exist today in patches normally no greater than 100ha. This change in stand structure lead to some beetle species becoming extinct. At this point in time therefore, the national park can be segmented into three categories: (1) old-growth forest, where there are many trees of over 400 years in age and there has been no logging for over 50 years; (2) unmanaged forest, where bark beetle-infected (Ips typographus) trees are left, and; (3) managed forest, where bark beetle-infected trees are actively salvaged for timber through the logging process (“salvage logging”). The site is (evidently) home to the bark beetle, which is causing mortality of many spruce trees. Dead spruce stands, caused by Ips typographus colonisation. Beneath, re-growth can be observed. Canopy openness is very high, as is deadwood abundance. Source: Environment and Society Portal. In this study, from the three above-mentioned stand categories, the authors identified a total of 293 plots at 0.1ha each. These plots also spanned across the entire altitudinal range of the park. From these, a randomly-selected 126 were surveyed for saproxylic beetles (21 in old-growth, 52 in unmanaged forests, and 53 in managed forests). Surveying for insects involved pitfall traps, flight traps, and direct searching. In these locations, deadwood accumulation was also calculated. All deadwood was categorised by species, and the minimum threshold for a piece of deadwood being calculated was 12cm in diameter. From the deadwood recorded across each stand type, there was a discernible difference between deadwood presence in unmanaged stands and managed stands (see the below figure). Interestingly, old-growth forests had less deadwood than unmanaged sites, though this may be because the bark beetles in the unmanaged sites were causing marked deadwood accumulations (and such deadwood was not removed, unlike in salvage-logged sites). In addition, old-growth relicts were previously logged (as little as 51 years prior to the study). Furthermore, perhaps the stands had peaked and were now declining in deadwood abundance, because the dominance of large and mature trees would have ‘seen off’ competition many years previously. Any deadwood associated with a loss in competition would have since been degraded by fungi and insects. Other variables recorded were the ‘penetration rate’ of bark beetles (Ips typographus) into spruce hosts (higher rates were associated with higher canopy ‘openness’), ‘senility’ (deadwood from individual fir and beech trees in a state of serious decline), and ‘control’ (altitude and habitat continuity). The difference in deadwood abundance across the range of stand types, separated by species. In relation to the species diversity and abundance of saproxylic beetles (excluding Ips typographus), 12,253 individuals were found from 280 species. 244 beetle species were found through the use of flight traps (103 exclusively), 164 by direct searching (22 exclusively), and 33 by pitfall trap (1 exclusively). 78 of the 280 species (27.8%) were red-listed. Of all the species, 113 were generalist, 90 were found exclusively in coniferous deadwood, and 77 were found exclusively in broadleaved deadwood. Greater total populations were found when there were a greater number of species present (as shown by the graph below). However, the presence of Ips typographus was found to be significant in terms of its impact upon populations of other beetle species found only in coniferous deadwood (of which some were red-listed). Single-tree senility of beech and fir was found to be the biggest driver of broadleaved specialist presence, whilst the increasing penetration rate of the bark beetle was found to be the sole driver of increasing coniferous specialists (though not so for red-listed species, where numbers declined at higher penetration rates). Generalist species simply benefited from a greater abundance of deadwood. How total beetle population correlated with total beetle species, for each site surveyed. Across all sites and for all beetle species, it was found that an increase in canopy openness and deadwood abundance (‘resources’) lead to an increase in beetle populations. In this sense, it can be stated that more resources in a more preferable setting will provide habitat for more individuals of a greater number of species. As a matter of fact, population increases were rapid in response to even only a moderate increase in such resources, across generalist and specialist beetle species. Even where bark beetles did colonise spruce stands, the resultant increase in deadwood was beneficial for many beetle species, and therefore the bark beetle could be described as beneficial for other saproxylic beetles that specialise in conifers. This may, in part, be because of the bark beetle’s effect of opening up canopies, folowing death of the host spruce. However, stand openess had a negative effect upon broadleaved specialists, and this may be because broadleaved specialists are more likely to be fungivores (and fungi specialise in cool, humid, and thus low-light conditions). For red-listed species exclusively, deadwood presence in ‘naturally disturbed’ (as in, not logged) stands is most important. Of course, certain beetle species will fare more preferably in open stands with a high amount of deadwood, whilst others will frequent closed canopies with less deadwood. Despite this, where there is little deadwood, beetle communities may become ‘impoverished’ (suffer from ‘famine’), and there are typically more beetle species in open stands with high amounts of deadwood than in closed stands. In this sense therefore, there is a minimum viable deadwood presence, for all species of beetle – it simply varies depending upon the species, which is not surprising. Unfortunately, the authors did not specify conclusive thresholds, and state that it is hard to calculate them because species may respond differently to differing amounts of deadwood, and there may not necessarily be a ‘cut-off’ point, but simply a continued (and perhaps steady) decline in population until there is not one at all. Highly intricate research would be required to calculate such thresholds, that would need to also be species-specific. Fallen and standing deadwood within a dense mixed forest stand within the Bavarian Forest (there are more incredible photos to see via the source link). Source: Philip Klinger. In spite of this, the authors do recommend that for dense stands of mixed woodland, canopy openness should be around 20%, and the abundance of deadwood from beech and fir should be increased to 30-60 cubic metres per hectare (at least). For more open stands (20-50% canopy openness, or greater), the focus should be only to increase deadwood abundance (to similar amounts as in denser stands). Where stands are logged therefore, retaining deadwood to such amounts would be beneficial in a conservation sense. This is all certainly highly complex therefore, and from reading the paper somewhat taxing to digest (at times!). Granted, because beetle species are highly variable in their preferences, a broad study such as this is always to be welcomed as it ‘sets up the playing field’. Despite this, the authors note that this is research that shoud be defined only as a case study – other sites may vary in their characteristics, constituent populations, and thus ‘ideal’ states. Nevertheless, for montane stands in Central Europe, this research may be considered very important. Perhaps the most critical thing we can draw from this is that managed stands need more deadwood – period. Because beetle diversity and populations incresed alongside deadwood presence, the openness created by logging could perhaps be a good thing when compiled with the selected retention of deadwood – at least, for species that are not red-listed (as these require disturbance only of natural origin, of which logging is not). Source: Müller, J., Noss, R., Bussler, H., & Brandl, R. (2010) Learning from a “benign neglect strategy” in a national park: Response of saproxylic beetles to dead wood accumulation. Biological Conservation. 143 (11). p2559-2569.

Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, I force myself. Got one last part of an assignment to do for Wednesday, else I just grind it out in my spare time. I enjoy keeping myself busy, and find that once I furiously pedal for a brief period of time it's easy to keep up the momentum. I do need rests at times however, though usually for only a day or so. And as I have said before, I don't have kids! Also, having been to university I know how to trawl the net for information (Google Scholar, mainly). I also have a very large library, which cost quite a lot of money that I had saved. Oh, my girlfriend is also very understanding! As for how long these take me (if you're curious), usually 60-90 minutes. I like to spend approx 2 hours doing my blog each day, assuming I can. These posts all go to there, as do photos I find and other little bits I share.

In a bizarre twist of fate, we'd be back to pre-Victorian Britain. I for one wouldn't welcome the pleasure gardens as the only source of landscaping! Keep trees on the streets.

Doing a lot of my Lvl 4 stuff these last few days as I am at an ATF meet on Saturday, so will get back to stuff come Saturday evening hopefully. May get something done tomorrow - will see. Cheers guys.

Lvl 6 the year after next for me, then! One year out to do some research and writing, and then get right back on it.

Gary Prentice David Humphries Jules kevinjohnsonmbe treeseer Few others whose names evade me (sorry!) Mainly for the intelligent discussion. I found myself really trying to attain to their level of knowledge, and it's actually one of the drivers behind why I started to buy books and learn every single day (and do the Lvl 4). Seriously. Thanks guys. Ah, of course, thanks to Steve for the forum. A stellar platform, without question. I remember when Gary showed a pic of a book he got by Biggs & Blanchette called 'Defence Mechanisms of Woody Plants Against Fungi' and I was like what on earth is all this!? It was like reading braille. I ordered it, and now think I could understand much of it.

Do we not have this backwards? Roads and infrastructural services laid and built poorly, with little awareness of the need for trees, and then the trees are blamed for resultant issues. Why is there a need to attain such highway standards, as well? There perhaps needs to be compromise in that regard, else it's certainly a concern that highway standards may become ever more militant? I really cannot work it out in my head. Well, I can. I'd say more, though am not overly comfortable commenting on this issue as some of you may understand.