Kveldssanger

Need better photos if I'm honest - close-ups.

I disagree here, though I can see where you are coming from. Whilst not all roots are created equal (in the sense that tension roots [wind-ward side] are arguably more critical than compression roots [lee-ward side] if looking at the root plate as a whole), there has been such significant severance here that I would suggest that the loss of compression roots more than contributed only a little. Agreed, though I would point out this statement contradicts your first statement a little, in the sense that the rooting environment has been 'maintained' and has thus lead to issues with necessary anchorage. Self-optimisation was lost, and could not be regained in time for these adverse loading conditions, and thus the tree failed.

Ah yes, the fabled Pseodocarnea icelandii.

Think I have the flu, or at least something drastically similar, so I shan't be posting facts until I recover enough to actually concentrate on something for more than 30 seconds before wanting to go to sleep! Cheers.

The rooting environment of a tree extends outwards significantly from the main stem. By this logic, one would be equalliy guilty if an oak were to exist 15m from a boundary - fine roots would almost certainly exist beyond the threshold of the grower's land. Furthermore, this does not justify unreasonable actions by the neighbour to abate the 'nuisance' that was tresspassing roots. Severing so many roots so close to the main stem and expecting the tree to remain upright under significant loading is like me taking one of your legs off below the knee and expecting you to walk properly. The High Hedges Act is clear here. A hedge is not, by default, too high. We also don't know the context here - are the neighbours new, are the owners of the hedge itself new, was there ever any expression of the hedge being too high by anybody? There may not have been. The growers may have had no inclination that any neighbours disliked the hedge. Potentially so, but we don't know the size and depth of the neighbouring gardens from the photos, nor can one justify a 'wrong' on the back of another 'wrong'. Masquerading the severance of roots as a justified act simply because the hedge is apparently too high is not right. I would disagree. I would side with the growers, as one cannot justify severing roots that close to a tree (or a line of trees). There really is no excuse. If the neighbours had explained to the growers what they were doing and they were fine with that then OK, but if not, then there is no excuse. If I am driving at 30mph down a 40mph road and someone slams up the back of me doing 40mph, they cannot use the justification that I was driving too slow for their liking and they subsequently just rear-ended my car as they 'didn't have to slow down'. Similarly, you can't sever roots nonchalantly and then cause an accident under the premise of "well, the roots were in the way of my landscaping operations".

Common law is clear. Reasonable care. Severing roots on the entirety of one side is not reasonable, regardless of the situation.

Opinions vary, but the facts don't.

Not true. Those roots are severed.

Many of the anchorage roots got severed on one side, as has been pointed out. I would say none of those are now structurally 'safe', assuming roots have been severed to such a marked degree. From the photos, it appears roots have been significantly severed. And therefore, I would suggest the neighbour doing the grounds work is at fault for the windthrow, and should also be liable for the costs of the takedown of the entire hedge line (and subsequent consideration of a suitable replacement). Shameful if they did indeed sever the roots to such an extent.

17/11/15. Fact #82. There are many factors that impact upon leaf conductivity (related directly to stomatal activity). These include: solar radiation, humidity, leaf temperature, carbon dioxide concentrations (internally and externally), leaf water balance, and abscisic acid. Each will be explained, in brief, below. Solar radiation Stomata appear to, on average, open fully at light levels of 5-20% of full sunlight (100-400 umoles m(-2) sec (-1)). Where lights levels are below the saturation threshold, shade-tolerant species' (e.g. 3 mins for Fagus grandiflora) stomata open both faster and at lower light levels than non-shade-tolerant species' (e.g. 20 mins for Liriodendron tulipifera), though there was, at the time of this publication, no significant difference between shade-tolerant and non-shade-tolerant species in this regard. Humidity As the reative humidity between the leaf and the air widens, stomata will close. However, stomatal closure can also - but not always - be regulated by pre-dawn water potentials of the leaf as a whole. Prunus, Citrius, and Picea species are particularly sensitive to humidity changes, and this is primarily down to the lack of a cuticle in the lower part of the guard cell and the water supply to the epidermis being relatively slow. Leaf temperature Optimal temperatures for leaf conductivity are between 22-34 degrees Celsius for deciduous hardwoods, and slightly lower for conifers. Temperatures either side of this range will usually mean stomatal response to other factors is delayed, which inhibits the photosynthetic process. Carbon dioxide concentrations External carbon dioxide concentrations were, at the time of this publication, largely considered to be of relative unimportance to leaf conductivity, in the sense that other factors are far more influential, and because ambient carbon dioxide concentrations can vary significantly. Conversely, internal concentrations do impact upon leaf conductivity - internal concentrations are driven both by ambient concentrations and also the rate of photosynthesis within the leaf. High concentrations of carbon dioxide cause closure, and low concentrations cause stomata to open. Leaf water balance As pre-dawn water potentials of the leaf fall, and leaf water balances drop on the whole, stomata will close due to the loss of water from their structure (this is governed, in part, by potassium (K+) concentrations in the guard cell decreasing alongside, though also by abscisic acid). Stomata can respond by abruptly closing or gradually closing at either critical leaf water balance or pre-dawn water balance. Abrupt closure will occur when turgor pressure reaches a critical point, as will, albeit slightly differently, gradual closure once a critical leaf water balance is reached. With regards to gradual closure as a result of pre-dawn water balance, is considered to be governed primarily by abscisic acid. Abscisic acid As abscisic acid levels increase, stomata will close. In Malus domestica, abscisic acid levels were observed to increase linearly in response to falling turgor pressure - it is not known which drives which, in this relationship. When moisture int he photosynthetic tissue falls, abscisic acid is secreted where it moves to the guard cells and triggers stomatal closure via the induction of K+ movement out of the guard cells. Only when moisture levels recover do the photosynthetic tissues stop releasing abscisic acid. Abscisic acid, in deciduous hardwoods, is also observed to possess anti-transpirant qualities, though the efficacy of abscisic acid in this regard relates to how quickly the abscisic acid penetrates the leaf, how quickly it leaves when moisture levels recover, and the water-use efficiency of the species. Other factors High wind speeds incude stomatal closure through the drying effect (increased evapotranspiration) the winds have upon the leaves, though wind also has an abrasive effect when it causes particulates to rub against the leaf cuticles at high velocity and erode the protective waxes. Mineral deficiencies, particularly potassium and calcium, can also influence upon leaf conductivity. Conversely, ozone and sulphur dioxide appear to induce stomatal opening, though high dosages of sulphur dioxide will cause stomatal closure. Hydrogen fluoride also induces closure. Source: Hinckley, T., Teskey, R., Duhme, F., & Richter, H. (1981) Temperate hardwood forests. In Kozlowski, T. (ed.) Water Deficits and Plant Growth Vol. VI: Woody Plant Communities. USA: Academic Press.

Good post!

Of course, but one can hardly say the material is not relevant. Even where there are issues with how the text translates to nowadays, or where something may be entirely wrong, it gives a timeline and provides context. If someone writes a lot of books, each in huge detail, and publishes them tomorrow, then awesome. But there isn't a huge amount of decent and new literature that goes to such depths on such an array of topics. Kozlowski was an American (at least, if memory serves correctly), so it makes sense (assuming he is American) that he wrote with a tendency towards the temperate US regions. A bit like I'd expect an Australian to write about the Eucalypts.

I think it means the stem 'weight' (mobile weight from stored starch and such) is re-allocated to the growth tips. But yeah, get on that diet. Doctors hate this tree! Find out its secret in only three simple steps. Subscribe now!!

Old books certainly do smell...! 15/11/15. Fact #81. In young trees in particular, one can observe a loss in weight on a local level during growth periods. This is because, for the young bud to grow (elongate), respiration on a local level will be required to supply the growing bud with much-needed nutrients (this requires sugars to be burned). As the bud cannot initially create and then immediately 'repay' the energy 'debt' it has accrued, there is a period of time where the weight of the stem drops as the stored sugars are 'allocated' to the new growth areas. The overall mass of the tree does not necessarily decline. Simultaneously, nutrients will also be trans-located into the new growth, which further changes localised weight distribution. Resources will also be trans-located from roots during the growing season, which also indicates that root 'weight' will be greater during the late summer to late winter, and lesser during early spring to mid summer (phenologically, it will vary for species, of course). To illustrate this, we can observe the following differences in weight distribution over (part of) a growing season (would have been 1911 or 1912, I think). Presentation of the data will be as follows: Species: [Time period] - Loss is weight (%) in stem / root Norway maple: [2/5-21/5] - 47.0 / 44.4 Black alder: [27/4-8/8] - 1.2 / 46.4 Ash: [4/5-21/5] - 29.6 / 36.1 Beech: [27/4-21/5] - 16.6 / 28.9 English elm: [2/5-18/5] - 27.0 / 36.2 Larch: [27/4-21/5] - 20.5 / 15.5 Spruce: [27/2-22/5] - 6.0 / 23.0 Silver fir: [25/5-14/5*] - 7.1 / 5.9 Scots pine: [11/3-22/5] - 19.9 / 19.9 *might be a typo. From this, we can observe differences between species. This may be genetic, environmentally-induced, or otherwise. It is important we recognise that there is such difference, of course. Source: Busgen, M., Munch, E., & Thomson, T. (1929) The Structure and Life of Forest Trees. UK: Chapman & Hall.

15/11/15. Fact #80. Every individual tree we see is classed as a phenotype. A phenotype is the summation of genetic coding (genotype) and environmental factors (ecotype) that influence how that genetic coding actualises. The resulting influence of the environment on genetic coding (from the seed) means every individual tree is unique in its outward appearance. We can therefore conclude that there is significant phenotypic variation amongst tree populations - or distinct heterogeneity. Source: Watson, B. (2006) Trees: their use, management, cultivation, and biology. India: The Crowood Press.

First pic not loading. Is the second one Stereum sp., perhaps.

Ordered Kozlowski's series 'Water Deficits and Plant Growth'. Managed to buy all seven volumes for a total of £50 including postage - that's easily 1,500 pages of information! Once they're through I'll pick out some good stuff.

15/11/15. Fact #79. Natural root grafting can be considered rather common, when trees, particularly of the same species, exist in close proximity to one another (intra-specific grafting). However, self-grafts are even more frequent, and this involves two roots of an individual grafting together. Inter-specific (between different species) grafts occur very infrequently. A 'true' graft requires an entire vascular connection to be present (union of cambium, xylem, and phloem), and is far more likely to be observed where two different roots grow in roughly the same direction (anatomically and physiological similarity) and then, upon contact, fuse together. Where roots do not share aforementioned similarities, they will either not fuse or fuse with discernible abnormalities. This is particularly the case with roots of different species appearing to fuse together - in fact, they rarely will. This is described as a 'false' graft. Vascular connectivity between the two fused roots is not evident. Age also plays a role in the abundance of visible root grafts. Older trees will, of course, have more grafts on average than younger trees, by sheer virtue of the fact the tree has had a greater time in which to develop grafts of any nature. Additionally, it seems that where roots grow against an object such as a stone or rock, grafting between two roots is more likely - this is considered to be due to the localised increase in pressure one root will exert upon another, assuming two roots are growing onto the same stone. However, this does not mean that where there are no stones no grafts will be evident, as grafts still occur in stone-free soils. Plantations, on the other hand, will very rarely show grafted roots until trees have begun to significantly establish. This is because the distance between individuals is usually greater than in a naturally-occurring woodland stand. Source: Kozlowski, T. (1971) Growth and Development of Trees Volume II: Cambial Growth, Root Growth, and Reproductive Growth. USA: Academic Press.

Major General Smedley Butler.

Let us not also forget the masses of Iraqis killed, too. War, and associated acts, on every side, induces casualties. Mainly innocent lives, as well. Just to show how many have suffered on the Iraq and US sides: US lives (wounded only? - not updated for a few months) - Casualties in Iraq - Antiwar.com Iraqi lives (deaths) - https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Sobering.

14/11/15. Fact #78. Where population density of plants is at a point where there will be competition between individuals for resources, one can begin by stating that each individual acts as a direct stressor to its neighbours. Where a pathogen (or multiple) is then introduced into the equation and it infects particular hosts, this will then exacerbate existing stress levels (by lessening individual plant fitness) brought about by competiton between individuals - both on an inter- and intra-specific level. Of course, when one understands that multiple pathogens will impact upon multiple individuals (or the same and / or different species) in a given spatial environment, pathogens really do, at least in part, take competition between individuals to that next level. For instance, when a leaf rust was introduced to a mixed culture of lettuce and groundsel, it was observed that infected lettuce suffered less significantly than infected groundsel. Observations suggest that rust, in this case, impacted upon inter-specific competition, though also facilitated increased growth rates in uninfected individuals (given their higher fitness in comparison to infected individuals - a divide that may widen with time, in fact, given the adverse cumulative impacts of poor competitive ability). The aforementioned observation also looked into groundsel at an intra-specific level, by studying infected individuals in monocultures and in mixed culture with lettuce. In the monoculture, rust-infected individuals had reduced growth rates, as did those in the mixed culture - this was, obviously, expected. What we can draw from this, with regards to plants, is that infection by pathogens will increase diversity in plant fitness of individuals within a wider community. By default, there exists sometimes marked variation between individuals of the same, and different, species, though pathogens serve to magnify this disparity. This may even lead to many plants remaining rather small, and allow only a few successful, fitter individuals, to achieve significant heights. Interestingly however, the study did remark that, where groundsel were grown in monocultures, plant density within rust-infected individuals was lower than density for uninfected monocultures. As winter kills off rust diseases however, the growth-stunted and stressed individuals in the infected monoculture were actually able to take advantage of the lower population density and improve growth rates dring periods where rust was not present, to the point that productive ability raised to 55% (in winter) from 40% over the summer, when compared to healthy groundsel populations (that would be assumed to operate at 100%). A proxy indicator for trees, no doubt. Source: Ayres, P. (1991) Growth responses induced by pathogens and other stresses. In Mooney, H., Winner, W., & Pell, E. (eds.) Response of Plants to Multiple Stresses. USA: Academic Press.

If we are looking at the same thing (third picture just under the tape) it may just be slight fibrous kinking, either self-inflicted or due to a pocket of decay. It may also be nothing whatsoever. A circumferential shake may be unlikely as there is no signs of wounding. Of course, I may be entirely incorrect here.

That is, nonetheless, a good straight bit of timber there.

For anyone looking to buy any books, look at T. T. Kozlowski's publications. His writing style is incredible. Also look to invest in the Physiological Ecology series by Academic Press. Again, wonderful writing format. Unlike anything else I own. So straightforward.

Yeah, sure. WIll do one later, anyway. Not reading this book all day! Hahah.