UKTC Archive

Re: Assessing retained tree stability following part clearance of a tree group

Subject: Re: Assessing retained tree stability following part clearance of a tree group
From: BENJAMIN FUEST
Date: Feb 23 2021 08:09:58

Copice with standards !


------ Original Message ------
From: "Wayne Tyson" <wt750mv@xxxxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 Feb, 21 At 00:08
Subject: Re: Assessing retained tree stability following part clearance of a tree group
Sorry, but I can't cite the references, as this "understanding" probably
goes back to the middle of the last century, so be cautious--context is
everything and don't take my "advice."
It seems that I remember that copses of trees tend to have interwoven root systems--nay, sometimes springing up as clones from one founding plant, as
in "quaking" aspen and a species of oak (names forgotten), the copses of
which are really one plant (not, as is often stated, merely clones).
Cutting of one stem or "individual" stem/trunk does not necessarily
adversely affect the others. Another usually will spring up.
The root systems of species that do not form such clonal copses are
frequently intertwined, thus being interdependent to a greater or lesser
degree, in terms of wind resistance--or gravity if an individual's force
vector deviates from the vertical. As the roots of a dead stump decay, that
component of resistance is removed. If such a copse or forest is managed
"properly," individual trees can sometimes be "managed" by removing
selected and widely separated trees gradually over a period of years or
decades, theoretically, giving time for the copse to grow additional roots and retain mutual integrity. As the force vector "arrow" begins to deviate
from the vertical, such trees (and other defective individuals) can be
selected for removal before doing so becomes hazardous to logging crews. To my limited knowledge, this ancient practice is no longer followed, at least
here in the US. Maybe the Black Forest?
Principles applied to context. Sometimes (rarely, if ever?) is this kind of
condition analysis acceptable to the profit extractor.
In my view, mixed age classes are the best objective, and sometimes mixed species/ages. The retention of "seed trees," large, old specimens--if they are sound, should be retained. That practice has been passé for a long time
too.
Maybe someone can find an old dusty reference or two?
Stay safe!
WT

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:23 AM andrew wakefield <awak_01@xxxxxxxx.com>
wrote:
Hi all, I'm interested in the collective's thoughts on assessing the
impact of tree removal on the stability of adjacent retained trees.
Notwithstanding that retaining the windward edge is generally likely to be
the preferred option, this isn't always possible.  How do you/would you
evaluate the impact of the loss of companion shelter and the extent of
additional tree removals or other remedial works?
Any thoughts much appreciated.
All the best
Andy


--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk <https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk>


--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk <https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk>




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk