Kveldssanger

Aye, got it - reading for me soon! I shall expect issue three like an expectant father in the corridor of a hospital.

Reviving this to share an epic track from a very good duo. Absolutely Lord of the Rings inspired, as is most of their stuff. [ame] [/ame]

21/01/16. Fact #131. What are the attitudes of residents in urban areas to trees? To what extent do residents consider trees important to quality of life? Do demographic factors influence how residents perceive trees? During 20-minute telephone conversations with 1,038 randomly-contacted residents of the 112 largest metropolitan areas in the USA, these exact questions were asked. The telephone conversations involved the residents being read a series of statements to do with urban trees, and they had to rate each statement from 1-4 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree). The age of the survey participant, income, and education levels were some of the demographic qualities obtained during the survey, in order to enable for statistical analyses to be run against these variables. Of the 1,038 participants, 44% were male and 56% female, with an average age of 42 (the range was from 18-90). 75% were white / caucasian, 60% had an income of $50,000 or above, and 41% had a college degree that durated for at least four years. 66% stated that, during childhood, they had not lived in the city environment. The results of the statements read to each participant are shown below. From these results, it is evident that the highest value held by individuals is that trees cool and shade surroundings (and this ranking is supported by many other studies), though the fact that all results rank higher than 2.5 (which was deemed as 'neutral') is significant. The second highest response, which is that of trees keeping people calmer, is also supported by other studies as a significant factor in why people value urban trees. With regards to problems trees cause, none of the statements read ranked above 2.5 (neutral). Therefore, many survey respondents would have strongly disagreed (or disagreed) with the statements. Obviously, those who took the survey did not consider these statements as major reasons for why trees cause problems, suggesting either wrong statements were used or residents just don't consider the issues trees cause as being as important as the benefits they provide. So how did demographics impact upon the results obtained? The table below displays all of the variables, though we can see that females strong consider trees to be important for quality of life (85%) slightly more than males (80%), though both genders rate trees highly. The results also show that the better the education of a person the more likely they are to see trees as important, and the same applies to yearly earnings (up to $75,000 - above this, and the positive view of trees drops slightly). Growing up on a farm also seems to be most significant in terms of valuing trees for what they provide, though all forms of upbringing - from urban to rural - are rather similar. Therefore, it can be said with at least a reasonable degree of confidence that people generally do value trees. The adverse impacts trees offer the urban environment, whilst still recognised as problems, are far less significant in how an average resident living in a city will form their view of trees. Those who are least likely to value trees however, according to this study, will have a profile of being male, of a young age, have received little education, have been raised in the city, and be African American or Asian American. Of this data, perhaps the most concerning thing is that more individuals are being raised in cities than ever before, so will the data drawn from this study signify what the future may hold? It would certainly be curious to have follow up studies undertaken, particularly of younger generations. Source: Lohr, V., Pearson-Mims, C., Tarnai, J., & Dillman, D. (2004) How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture. 30 (1). p28-35.

Nice example there.

I wholly agree, David. My initial reaction was to question why the choice of a fell, and indeed a resistograph test would have been a good idea. As with all things, we need more context - unless we ask the arboretum directly, I am not sure we'd ever get that. On that note, should we ask the arboretum?

Fair shout!

How do you find the exams associated with the BSc?

Perhaps, though it's certainly a bad few that spoil it for the many. And sometimes the person who caused the accident is not in the accident itself. I have had that happen to me, where a car went up my rear. The driver of the car in front was so woefully inept that it was a miracle they even managed to put the car into first gear to drive away.

Will have a look and see if I can find anything tomorrow - thanks for that, David. Very much looking forward to that book, whenever it materialises.

Evening all, As you may be aware, I started up a blog a few weeks ago that focusses on sharing interesting bits of information, photos, book reviews, and so on, all related to arboriculture. I did make a thread about this, though am making a new one as the title and first post of the old one was rather nondescript and, if I am honest, I didn't realise that I would find it something I would do every day. If you are interested in learning some new bits and bobs each day, seeing pictures of trees, fungi, and so on, then please do pay my blog a visit and consider subscribing or sharing my blog with others (or bookmark my blog). Really, I'm doing it for the benefit of everybody - myself included. Learning is something we do every day, and we do that through communicating with others, reading articles, and so on. I'm doing my Lvl 4 Diploma at the moment, and I know that information on certain things is quite hard to find, so I am trying to help with that somewhat by keeping posts relaevant to those who may be studying now or in the future (either down the QCF route or the college / university route). Everything is referenced and linked, so you can also navigate away from my site with ease! You can access my blog here - https://arboriculture.wordpress.com/ The facts I post are also cross-posted to this forum, and the thread they are found on is located in my signature. I will be honest and say that I don't know where else to make people aware of this asides from here, so any word-spreading would be great. Currently hitting around 5-10 visits per day. Cheers! Chris

19/01/2016. Fact #130. Arborists will be all to aware of the benefits of formative pruning young trees, particularly where they are present within an urban environment (near to highways, properties, power lines, or otherwise) or have structural issues (co-dominant forks). However, how can the monetary benefits associated with formative pruning be quantified, and if they can be quantified, what does this mean for those who opt not to formative prune? This study looked at five tree species: Corymbia citriodora (x48), Platanus × acerifolia (x104), Pyrus calleryana cv chanticleer (x79), Quercus palustris (x65), and Ulmus parvifolia (x52). All the trees (348 in total) of these species featured in the study were 3-5 years of age, and no more thn 6.5m in height. Data collected were: health, structure, form, height, and canopy / stem defects. 78% of the trees had structural defects (at least one) that required remedial works, and these remedial (formative) works were done with secateurs, a hand saw, or a pole pruner - the latter was most frequently used. The table below shows, in more detail, the average number of cuts (and with what instruments) per tree for each species. The time taken to undertake each cut was also noted, and the data is shown in the table below. By calculating the amount of time it took to prune each tree, the cost in man hours could also be calculated, and the average cost per tree (across all five species) was $2.79 AUD. So how does this average cost compare to pruning mature trees? The authors acknowledge that the pruning of eucalypts of 20 years of age costs $78-112 (adjusted for inflation) per tree. When put against the cost of formative pruning young trees, there really is a massive difference (even if young trees receive formative pruning two or three times in the first six years of their life, which may amount to up to $7). Not formative pruning young trees therefore makes little financial sense, and also opens up the tree to far more significant structural issues in maturity. For example, co-dominant stems were frequently observed in this study. The removal of such forks when young is easy and has little impact upon the tree, though in maturity not only may the fork have bark incluson, but dealing with the issue is far more difficult and only ever going to be a firefighting measure that costs a lot of money each time. Perhaps formative pruning could even help local authorities, who have less money available to them than in years gone by. Granted, this won't apply for trees already in maturity, though where new trees are planted ensuring they are formatively pruned can really have marked financial benefits. Source: Ryder, C. & Moore, G. (2013) The arboricultural and economic benefits of formative pruning street trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39 (1). p17-24.

I can't say I know either, though I suspect hybridisation is a genetic thing that is supplemented by environmental conditions - assuming two potentially compatible species are within close enough proximity to one another, and the conditions are right, then they may potentially hybridise. The larch one is ramorum, no?

Very interesting! Flesh looks akin to G. australe, from that photo. My colleague remarked that because people are paying attention to fungi on trees more these days, there's a high probability that many just weren't looking before and thus associations were missed / are only just being identified. It's also interesting, from reading Stamets' Mycelium Running, that you can artificially inoculate some species with particular fungi in a lab but the same association will not be seen in the field.

Aye. Tree owners weren't in today, either. May send them a letter asking for their permission. Really want to ID it without any doubt. After all this if it's Laeti then I'll sell all my books and go and work as a bus driver in Derby.

Potentially - one of the FC officers remarked at how quick the plant pathologist wanted to visit. We spotted another lawson cypress further around nearer the church that had near identical symptoms, but less extensive (earlier stage of decline). Soil samples, foliage samples, and bark samples were taken. The pathologist did say that P. lateralis may be able to hybridise with Phytophthora of cedars (not sure on the species), which may be an issue - we have mature cedars on site as well. If both harbour Phytophthora, then there may be a risk of hybridisation, therefore.

It was a hard one to read, I admit. Tried to basically take the good bits out and write it an a way that was hopefully easy to digest!

FC came down today and took a load of samples. Will keep you posted. May be a few weeks.

Binoculars suggest its very unlikeky to be Laetiporus. Perhaps Daedalea quercina, instead. Hard to say, even with binoculars. One of the maze gills.

Nice!! How did you postively ID the fungus - microscopy? Must pay another visit to the Heath soon and spend a whole day exploring.

The L6 is changing next year to incorporate exams, I believe - though I may be wrong. At the very least, it is being considered.

18/01/16. Fact #129. This study, undertaken across six neighbourhoods of differing socio-economic values in Cincinnati, Ohio, was set up with the hypothesis of trees beneficially impacting upon property values. The results aligned with the hypothesis, though the findings from the study will be discussed below. The six neighbourhoods featured in this study, all of which contained principally small and single-family homes that were between 60-80 years old, were Bond Hill, Carthage, Clifton, Hyde Park, Kennedy Heights, and North Avondale. From these six areas, the authors identified 100 residential property sales in each neighbourhood that were up for sale at the going market value, and subsequently visited each property and recorded the trees present within the property’s grounds (collecting data such as dominant genus, whether the trees were deciduous or coniferous, canopy cover percentage, the diameter of the trees, and the level of maintenance the trees have received – including tree health). Visits were done in winter of 2005-2006 and again in Summer of 2006, with the second visit serving to determine whether deciduous trees had a differing impact upon property value depending upon the time of year. The results from the winter survey suggest that tree cover had a progressively increasing benefit to house prices in relation to an increase in canopy cover in all six neighbourhoods, with an average increase of $561 per 1% increase in canopy cover. Because the mean property value across the six neighbourhoods was $166,357, and the canopy cover average was 24.8%, the average value of the trees within the property is $13,913 (or 8.4% of the house price). Summer results were very much similar, with the study data showing that every 1% increase in canopy cover lead to a $580.92 increase in property value. With the average property price being $166,357 and the mean tree cover being 27.1% (likely an increase due to the presence of foliage crowns), tree canopies account for $15,743 or 9.5% of the value of a property. Looking at the two surveys combined therefore, the authors found that tree presence accounted for an increase of $780 per 1% increase in canopy cover during summer, and an increase of $669 in winter – these differences are not statistically significant. The reason for the difference in value increase, the authors posit, is because buyers cannot conceptualise what canopy cover will look like in the summer with regards to deciduous trees. With the mean sale price of the 600 properties being $188,730 and a mean canopy cover of 25.8%, the average value of the tree canopy was $20,226 (or 10.7%). So did tree attributes (such as genus, and whether they were coniferous or deciduous) have an impact upon house sale prices? With regards to whether a tree loses its leaves in winter or not, there was no significant difference. In relation to tree genus (of which 40 genera were identified in the study), again there was no significant difference. Ultimately, the buyers were simply content in paying more for properties with trees, regardless of species. Similarly, the number of trees within a property was not significant, nor was their stem diameter. However, the six neighbourhoods did show variation with regards to how beneficial tree presence was to property value. In the more affluent neighbourhoods (Hyde Park and North Avondale) tree presence had a significantly beneficial impact upon property retail value, whereas in less affluent areas (Carthage) the presence of trees may have little to no impact – or even drive down house prices slightly. This may be down to the fact that trees cost money to maintain, and the less affluent neighbourhoods had less disposable income to spend on tree maintenance. Source: Dimke, K., Sydnor, D., & Gardner, D. (2013) The effect of landscape trees on residential property value of six communities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of Arboriculture. 39 (2). p49-55.

You really dove head first into that joke, eh...

Yeah was a PICUS by the looks of it. Sweet Ganodermas and a shame about the beech being dismantled. I wonder if they had considered other options for retention, such as closing off the surrounding area to visitors (though I am sure they did). Hope they have more talk on it later.