UKTC Archive

Re: Application to fell Beech with suspected Meripilus

Subject: Re: Application to fell Beech with suspected Meripilus
From: Andersonarb
Date: Aug 09 2006 10:40:53
In a message dated 09/08/2006 10:05:48 GMT Standard Time, writes:

Mind  you, I never could find out whether I should have expected fruiting
body to  re-appear.

According to Claus we ought to be able to draw some conclusions from the  
body language of fungi, if an annual bracket gets consistently smaller it 
seem to indicate that all the nutrient reserves on which it was drawing are  
being used up. Therefore decay has been compartmentalised and the trees 
defences  are working well. If you think about it we see plenty of old hollow 
with  no signs of any fruiting bodies so it stands to reason that there must 
have been  decay but it's now stopped. I don't think that means that the 
isn't going  to stick its nose up again at some time in the future, but for 
now we can  perhaps regard it as dormant and not structurally significant. 
Remember the size  of a conk is not neccesarily related to the extent of 
decay, I 
don't think  anyone has satisfacorily made that connection yet
Mynors mentions in many places the lack of knowledge about the mechanisms  
and if Lonsdale himself points out that RAT 7 is now 7 years old, well? So 
out do your QTRA target appraisal, and if you really want to see a conk then 
ask  the applicant/notice giver to be patient.
Up here in Sheffield, a Planner bluntly told me that he didn't want to  serve 
a TPO on a CA tree but he didn't want me to cut it down just yet; there  were 
other losses on the site. So would I mind withdrawing the notice in writing  
and then we'd consider it again in a few years time. I didn't particularly 
want  to make work for him nor the TPO making things difficult in the future. 
I  withdrew. Keep things simple, keep everybody sweet.

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre