UKTC Archive

Re: stability of surviving stem of a split co-dominant tree.

Subject: Re: stability of surviving stem of a split co-dominant tree.
From: MARK ASHMAN
Date: Jan 18 2022 12:28:42

Wouldn't logic also dictate that a codominant stem having failed, it's partner being of very similar proportions, has a more or less similar likelihood of failing (leaving aside site conditions), even before taking into consideration loss of connectivity/altered exposure.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jerry Ross" <trees@xxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 Jan, 22 At 11:39
Subject: Re: stability of surviving stem of a split co-dominant tree.
You say that with a co-dominant stem, there is minimal or zero connectivity of wood fibres between the two stems. That may be a bit true with some forks, but unless the division is at ground level (when the contribution of buttress roots comes in) there is going to be some structural connectivity. It's much easier to split a tight V-shaped fork as compared to a more open one, but it still needs /some /force to break it apart, and the force needed to initiate that split gets greater with larger diameter stems.
I don't think one can disregard that linkage entirely.
There's also the question of the strength of a single stem with a circular cross section as compared to one that's flattened on one side as a result of having developed appressed to its do-dominant neighbour; and the section that actually split is likely to be nearer D-shaped, so the business of "coping with loadings on cylindrical stems by pre-stressing the wood in cylindrical section" cannot be assumed to apply. Especially at the tear, where there is no bark or outer tissues present to hold it all together. Also, of course, the stem that's left is likely to be leaning with nearly all the branches on one side. OK as long as it was sheltered by its other half, but... Every situation is different but my instinct would be to be rather suspicious of your imaginary tree.

On 18/01/2022 10:52, "Rupert Baker" (rupert_baker@xxxxxxxx.co.uk) wrote:
Dear Dave et al,
Thanks for the responses so far; the link to treecalc is useful; many thanks. I do however have reservations about using it in this situation. As I said in my original post, the x-sectional area supporting the remaining stem has not changed; on the hypothetical tree - (and it is hypothetical! - I do not have a particular specimen in mind at present; it is just something I've come across many times over the years) - there were once two stems each connected to the main trunk below; by definition with a codominant stem, there is minimal or zero connectivity of wood fibres between the two stems. Each stem is therefore being supported by its own cross sectional area of wood. If there is no defect or decay within this wood, what is the difference between a single stem with the other one broken out and a pair of such co-dominant stems on a whole, undamaged tree. I understand the effect of an open cavity on a circular cross section of wood - one only has to split logs to realise that once one has made the initial split the others are all easier. Trees have evolved to cope with loadings on cylindrical stems by pre-stressing the wood in cylindrical section (Wessolly et al amongst many others). The key thing I don’t know is: does the presence of the other stem in a pair of whole co-dominant stems act in any way to assist in the pre-stressing of its neighbour? Or does each stem behave as -in effect - a cylinder with a section missing; and thus be prone to failure through bending stresses.
Rupert
-----Original Message-----
From:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info  On Behalf Of David Evans
Sent: 17 January 2022 17:10
To: UK Tree Care<uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: stability of surviving stem of a split co-dominant tree.
<<I've been musing about this for some time; if one has a tree which was double-leadered, with a pair of codominant stems and a tight compression fork between them>>
Hi Rupert
Put your remaining stem through TreeCalc.
https://www.treecalc.com/?lang=2 <https://www.treecalc.com/?lang=2>
It'll give you a starting point Safety Factor. You'll then have a conservative measured assessment, that'll be free of all hidden noise, bias, and error that are endemic to qualitative opinions about what is difficult and complicated decision.
Cheers
Acer Ventura


--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe sendmailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and Stockholm Tree Pitshttps://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>


Mark Ashman PD Arb (RFS), M. Arbor. A.
Inline image
Hill-fort  Tree Care Ltd
trustmark logo <http://www.trustmark.org.uk/> AbroiculturalAssoc <http://www.trees.org.uk/> Landfield Farm House . Burrough Road . Little Dalby . Melton Mowbray . Leicestershire . LE14 2UG . Tel/Fax 01664 XXXXXX








--
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