Dead-wooding a Hungarian oak

Spent yesterday in a large old Quercus frainetto (Hungarian oak) removing dead-wood.

How does that link up with my ecological viewpoint?

Pros of dead-wooding:
- the oak was right next to and thus had part of the crown over a well-used path
- the other side of the canopy was over a lawn which is very inviting to sit on/play on in the summer
- we had no idea how long the dead-wood had been there and so was it close to failing?
- Alex Shigo - Modern Arboriculture - "dead branch removal is a health treatment because the dead wood is an energy source - cellulose, lignin, glucose - for fungi" (p.102)
- in a Botanic Gardens, where there is more of an emphasis on appearance, removing dead wood may make a tree more aesthetically pleasing

Cons of dead-wooding:
- oaks are renowned for holding onto dead wood for a long time
- dead branches will most likely fail in high winds - and the Gardens shut if winds are above 30mph
- the dead limbs provided habitat for insects, lichens, and yes even fungi (let us not forget that fungi are biodiversity too and as such should not be marginalised)
- on the point of fungi, the tree will already have compartmentalised off the dead branch (although this can of course be overcome)

In this case, despite my tendencies towards keeping trees natural and leaving deadwood for the bugs, beasties and epiphytes, perhaps we were right to remove large dead branches, given the high volume of pedestrian traffic around the tree. However, I compromised by not touching any shorter or smaller bits of dead wood (e.g. dead stubs of branches that had naturally snapped off), on the basis that these have less weight and are less of a lever, so are less likely to drop off.

Dissections of a eucalyptus

Since last posting about the options of studying via distance learning, I was encouraged by tutors to apply for suitable arboriculture jobs. One such job, as temporary arboriculturalist at a Botanic Gardens, actually came through, and I started early in the year.

The first month or so were spent clearing up the damage caused from January's storms, which led to around 40 trees being knocked down and another 40 needing removal at some point, just in this one garden.

One such tree that survived standing, but wouldn't have lasted much longer, was a large eucalyptus. It was multi-stemmed, having arisen from a coppice, and there was unstable included bark between the stems that began to fail in the January storms. Coupled with the tree's signs of decline the decision was made to remove it as opposed to reduce it.

We dissected the stump and saw brown rot that had broken through and been compartmentalised, and the rings were a recorded battle between tree and decay fungus. Unfortunately the fungus never fruited and so we have no idea what it was, but seeing the stump and how the decay had operated was still interesting...

1. Ring of brown rot in the heartwood compartmentalised by the tree (Shigo's Walls 2 and 4)

2. Another ring of brown rot in a different stem

3. Included bark between the two stems, showing the beginnings of decay associated with it

4. Possibly the entry point of the decay - the rotted centre of the coppice stool. Also shows "rams-horn" growth pattern where the two stools have included bark instead of joining.

1. Areas of one of the cracks formed by included bark, where decay was widespread

2. Ring of rot compartmentalised by the tree

3. An area where the decay broke through Wall 4

4. Another area of decay, entering through included bark

Also interesting to find was a lump of concrete in the centre, remnants of the old practise of filling up cavities (in this case, the centre of the coppiced stool) to prevent rot from spreading.

Pest and disease pics

Just a few photos of different tree pathogens seen in the past few weeks:

Weeping lesions on the base of a birch. Closer inspection revealed...

 ...bootlaces of Armillaria, or honey fungus. Bad news for the tree, but good news for mushroom foragers!

Beech scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga) on, well, a beech 

Daedaleopsis confragosa on a dysfunctional stem of a Cotoneaster shrub

Kretzschmaria deusta at the base of a Juglans regia, showing both the anamorph, vegetative phase (light grey) and teleomorph, reproductive phase (black) fruiting bodies

 .

Weeping lesions on the stem of a beech (Fagus sylvatica) that most likely indicate infection by a Phytophthora pathogen (ramorum? kernoviae?)

Fungus fun

A few fungi spotted this winter:

Armillaria (honey fungus) rhizomorphs

Kretzschmaria deusta on beech

Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mushroom) on a very ill-looking horse chestnut

Piptoporus betulinus (birch polypore) on, um, birch

A top view...

...and a bottom view of Trametes gibbosa (lumpy bracket) found on a beech stump

Ganoderma (not sure which species - resinaceum? applanatum?) - there was plenty of it on a fallen beech

and, finally:

a fungus in symbiosis with an alga, or otherwise known as a lichen. Possibly a Parmelia species?

College vs Self-study

Just in case anyone is in a similar position to me and thinking of doing a full-time level 3 N.D. in arb, I thought I'd write about how I've found it after one term. 

I imagine it would be more useful to someone new to arboriculture, who doesn't necessarily have prior experience of tree identification, tree science and basically the arb theory. Indeed most the people on the course have come direct from school or from unrelated backgrounds.

Personally I'm finding it a bit basic to be honest. I guess that having studied ecology and then worked for a bit, I've picked a fair bit of background knowledge. More importantly, I've wanted to know as much as I could about trees, so I was motivated to read the books and see what I could find. In this way I already had a good idea about different tree species and how to ID them, as well as doing Visual Tree Assessments. It definitely helped working as a ranger somewhere where I could go out and look at the trees and compile my own personal notes on them.

I'm not saying I know it all, or that it's a waste of time, and I certainly don't want to come across as having an enormous ego - I'm just saying that given a few years of working in a related discipline and having a personal interest in the subject, it's relatively easy to accumulate a similar or greater knowledge of the theory side of arb than can be attained doing this kind of qualification.

The other thing I'm finding is that the resources we're being directed to in college often give more information than the actual classes. In this way it's possibly a better option to study it by distance learning, as information sources could be collected from tutors and then accessed by the student. Certainly I'm now thinking that I'll look more for conservation/arboriculture jobs and try to complete the course by distance learning. A change of heart given that one reason I decided to do a full-time ND as opposed to a day-release AA Tech was that I thought that devoting time to the course would yield better results. However, doing the full-time ND is certainly useful for the practical side of arb - I think we're being given better tuition at a steadier rate than if just doing CS38 and CS39 short courses.

So... good books to look up that give in-depth information if carrying out private research into arb:

1. Modern Arboriculture by Alex Shigo (a recent Christmas present and near enough a Bible on Arboriculture; it's not just scientific, but philosophical and practical too)

2. Stupsi Explains the Tree by Claus Mattheck (sounds basic but I believe anyone starting out in tree body language should read this - honestly. It gives a great guide to all the different ways that a tree silently shows us what is going on inside it)

3. The Body Language of Trees by Mattheck & Breloer (this builds on what Stupsi Explains the Tree intoduces - a great help with VTA)

4. A Manual of Wood Decay in Trees by Weber & Mattheck (explanations of different types of rot and a guide to the commoner decay fungi - pretty indispensable!)

5. Diagnosis of Ill Health in Trees by Strouts & Winter (perhaps a bit in-depth at first but using it to look up different diseases one comes across really helps to improve knowledge)

Traditional woodland skills

Coppicing, charcoal burning, horse logging, using billhooks/axes/handsaws, and creating wattle fences... I think I'd love to be part-arborist, part-woodsman living and working in the woods, but able to carry out tree surgery on some big old ancient trees on the side. Ah, the dream!


I'm currently researching and writing an investigative project at college about traditional woodland management. The following books have been of great help...


Elizabeth Agate - Woodlands: a Practical Handbook (BTCV)
- this contains nearly everything the conservationist who works with woods needs to know - a bit of background on woodland history, how to use handsaws, how to coppice, make charcoal and use coppice products


D. Cook - The Ax Book: the Lore and Science of the Woodcutter
- makes me want buy an axe and work in the woods with it - an amazing book about axes and woodsmanship!


Anything by Oliver Rackham, especially his engrossing contribution to the New Naturalist series, simply called "Woodlands"


Piers Warren - British Native Trees: their past and present uses


Ben Law - the Woodland Year


plus:
http://www.smallwoods.org.uk/
http://www.craftsintheenglishcountryside.org.uk/
http://www.englishcharcoal.co.uk/
http://www.commonground.org.uk/ (especially for those arty folk!)


and priceless others...

They all make for really interesting reading about a time before forestry meant harvesters, chainsaws and spruce plantations. The woods were managed in a truly sustainable way, and no one used gas or coal for home heating, and we didn't use imported timber. It's a shame how things have changed, and I personally think we should start doing more of this sustainable management before the oil and coal run out and we realise softwoods won't solve our problems.

College so far

5 weeks in and generally - it's going well. I'm e6njoying learning about the different fungi and diseases of trees, for instance, and we're having to do our own personal guide to trees. I'd started doing this in the summer, taking photos when the leaves were out, and now it's a case of identifying the twigs and buds and putting it all together with photos and my own descriptions into one document. It's great for honing ID skills, actually looking at a sample and writing my own description of the texture, look and smell of foliage, bark or twigs. For instance, I'd never realised just how rowan buds look a bit like hairy beetles, with a "head" and then "wing cases" made out of bud scales. Things like that help them stick in your mind. 


However - some of the aspects of the N.D. are slightly simplistic, although maybe that comes with having university and work experience beforehand. More of problem that I'm finding is that some (but not all, thankfully) students seem interested only in climbing trees and swinging about them with a chainsaw. Knowing the theory is what makes you an arboriculturalist, not just being able to climb and wield a chainsaw up in a tree. Students who aren't even on the arb course are demanding to climb, which then leads to these guys climbing up trees while the actually arboriculture students are being groundies. If you're desperate to climb that much, but don't want to do the theory, then do your CS38/39 short courses and stop taking the place of those who want to learn how to care for trees, not just cut them!


On a more positive note I've had some feedback on some Visual Tree Assessments that I did as a ranger, and the professional surveyor I reported them to was very impressed - I have to thank Klaus Mattheck's wonderful books about VTA for that, but still, it's good to know you're doing it right and picking up on the right symptoms.