Cedar Deodora with mushrooms.

So it's cut first, and ask questions later? ID ing the fungus is only part of the job--how extensive is the decay? If you cannot answer that then you are ignorant of the core criterion for decision making.

OM, skerl, if you recommend removal before exploring, you may be crazed by sawdust lust. Or paranoid. ouch the tree and see! O and like Frans says, a check for diagnosis is certainly in order.

Great article by Cowan. He does not mention but the simple act of excavation can be therapeutic for the tree, allowing infected areas to dry. "it continues to producing structural reinforcements reminiscent of those built to support the Eiffel Tower. " :)

Fine, i'm ignorant. I take healthy trees down all the time and usually don't have a problem with it, guess i'm evil. This is a heart rot that has conks over a 15'-20' strip on a tall skinny tree at a resort. It happens to be in forest country, nobody I have talked to around here (including the forester that id'ed the fungus) has even heard of white spec in deodara. Seems like a good one to remove to me. Shall I explaine all the trees i've had to remove?:roll: I grew up in the timber industry and won't apologize for "killing" healthy trees, deal with it
 
A good percentage of the spruces I've seen blow over in high winds would have been very hard to have to had their failure predicted as the rot was under the root crown. If I see signs of fungus and rot on them I advise removal based on experience. Other species of tree seem to be OK with a certain amount of root rot.

Don't be so quick to assume sawdust induced dementia Mr. Mailure. I ouch trees daily.
 
Ditto to what Darin said. I believe I qualified my statement with the conditional phrase "If it were in my area", meaning that pretty much every tree I've ever seen with mushrooms growing in lines radiating out from the trunk indicated serious root decay IN THIS AREA.

Your assumptions and insults are not welcomed or appreciated.
 
Why is that boy so wack?
Fair question. Answer is, calling for removal based on the sight of mushrooms cuts out an essential step in risk management--assessing the risk! :roll:

Finding out how much rot there is seems to be important in most cases. Sure, if you recognize the shroom on a spruce and you have seen 100 spruces with those shrooms fall over, then a quick judgment may be warranted. But a deodara is not a spruce.

I've worked in central FL and in CA. To say that all trees in a region have these inevitable failure patterns is waaay overgeneralized. Kneejerk recommendations of removal based on the sight of conks is still common, by university people and loggers and arborists who are paranoid, or unwilling to sell assessment as a service, or just burnt-out.

If you don't look, you won't know. If you don't know, you got no bizness advising. Anyone who has cut a tree apart and seen compartmentalization knows that it can be the wrong advice. So why give it? Better to stfu.

Attached is a live oak that had one ganoderma conk in the crevice by the trowel. Brian, would you tell the owner to cut it down?
 

Attachments

  • largo live oak cuypers small.jpg
    largo live oak cuypers small.jpg
    239.6 KB · Views: 8
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
I asked for everyone's opinion treelooker. You can give your opinion without criticizing others.
 
Yes, deodoras are not spruce and that is why I asked Steve if they have any history of blowing over in his area. I still feel you are making some large assumptions here about us and our standards Guy. Telling a customer when a tree is unsafe and should be cut down, despite all of the information you can gather inspecting it, is still a subjective pursuit. On your big live oak, I would need to know a lot more about the tree AND the customer's risk tolerance. Off hand, I'd say that tree is senescent and in its last days. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily recommend its removal. Heck I haven't even suggested that Steve's tree should be removed.

Its sort of ironic to be accused by someone of making decisions without gathering evidence to base them on by a person who hasn't bothered to accumulate any evidence in which to base his his assessment of me.
 
I think, Treelooker, that you are missing a critical step. You say
Fair question. Answer is, calling for removal based on the sight of mushrooms cuts out an essential step in risk management--assessing the risk!

Keep in mind, a hazard tree is determined a hazard by it's target.
In the picture you posted there are plenty of targets.
It is the job of an arborist (cert. or not) to inform the person who has the greatest exposure to liability of the facts regarding the tree, and it's risk potential.

To cut? or to prune? Fix the growing zone? Or to do nothing? Its all the same to an arborist.
However, informing the owner of all the factors involved is critical WHEN YOU ARE CALLED OUT TO DO A RISK ASSESSMENT. In fact, as an arborist if you work on the tree and do not inform the owner of a potential safety issue, and then an event occurs with the tree where a loss is incurred, you could be held liable.
Hell, you don't even need to be an arborist to be held liable. Simply being a professional (the person paid to do the work) is sufficient to be liable.

You imply that you would not advise removal of the tree in the picture you posted. Despite the fact that you noticed a conk on a structural area of the tree.

Kind of arrogant to make a decision FOR someone that relates to THEIR safety and liability, dontcha think?

If that tree should fail, and someone were hurt (like the pedestrian in the photo), or a car damaged or something, a court would find you liable because you decided FOR the owner that the tree was 'ok'. You are the 'expert' which the owner called in to inform them of the risk. You decided for the owner that the tree was more valuable then any potential risk.
Would you gamble the life of YOUR child on that tree?
Just something to think about.
 
I asked for everyone's opinion treelooker. You can give your opinion without criticizing others.

No he probably can't.:evil:
Also, he can turn any of us in for an ethics violation, so maybe we should be mindful of our industry discussions, lest we get into trouble with the all powerful ISA. I mean even discussing removing a tree without appointing a blue ribbon panel is crazy.
 
...informing the owner of all the factors involved is critical WHEN YOU ARE CALLED OUT TO DO A RISK ASSESSMENT. ...
Would you gamble the life of YOUR child on that tree? :O
Just something to think about.
snarf that's a fearmonger/removalist's favorite line; way beneath you I thought. :|: Yes, i got higher-risk trees hanging over my children's bedrooms, and yes we all sleep very well. Yes i did a risk assessment and yes pointed out targets...but clients do not need me to point to where they sleep and say "OOOOO if it falls, OOOOO your kids and puppy dog could be hurt...MMMMMMMMMMM something to think about" :\:

We demonstrate competence and trustworthiness by looking at the trees' strengths as well as their weaknesses. To be objective, equal time should be given to strength factors and contributions, along with weaknesses and the targets. If not, that sounds to me like arborphobically biased consulting. But no offense meant. Here's the report; bash away:

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Client has owned property 3 years. 2 limbs have been removed entirely to gain extra clearance to palms and street. Landscape service has maintained edges of flowerbeds by trenching, and applying Blade herbicide monthly. A fiberoptic line was bored under the tree 2 years ago.
Last year a local tree service removed lower and interior growth in an effort to “stormproof” the tree. No cuts were made at the ends of the branches. Another tree service looked at a red mushroom on the tree and recommended removal.

ASSIGNMENT
On June 27 2009 the owner asked me to assess the tree’s condition and list management options.

OBSERVATIONS
I excavated decayed wood around the infection. I removed >2” extra soil that had been added around the trunk, and clipped away some circling roots. The infection measured approximately 11 inches wide, 6 inches high and 2 inches deep before I encountered living or solid tree tissue. Live oak wood is known to be decay resistant. The tree has sent out 2-3’ sprouts where last year’s “stormproofing” (lion-tailing) cuts were made. The top branches of the tree are sparsely foliated; dead twigs are in the sunlight. Spanish moss is shading out lower foliage. Wound response where branches were removed is poor; very little callus (scar) tissue is visible. The tree is declining, but the decline does not appear irreversible.

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS **note i do not advise, recommend or decide for the clients--they are adults.**
1. Remove no more green leaves until the top of the tree has more leaves and wounds have more callus growth. After that, train some of the lower sprouts to become branches.
2. Orient sprinkler heads so the trunk is not splashed.
3. Mulch flowerbeds, and maintain edges without cutting tree roots (contact herbicide?)
4. Stop using Blade or any other broadleaf herbicide until dosage and frequency are verified tree-friendly.
5. Remove excess moss to get sunlight to leaves.
6. Late this summer, have an arborist inspect the ends of the limbs and remove dead branches, inspecting foliage for size, color and health, and inspecting limbs for canker and cracking.
7. Inoculate rootzone with compost applied in 1’deep, 2” wide holes 2’ apart in the turf area.
8. Mulch tree ring 4” deep with shredded hardwood, leaving the trunk clear.
9. Monitor semiannually, documenting above conditions.
10. Leave the tree alone.
11. Remove the tree.

This concludes my report. I can clarify any portions of it upon request.

Sincerely Yours,

Guy Meilleur, ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist #SO-0284
Certified Municipal and Utility Arborist and Tree Worker
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
“Facilitating the coexistence of trees and people”
Better Tree Care Associates
PO Box 1287, Apex NC 27502
919-387-7045
guym@bettertreecare.com

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

...There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
 
Guy, I really enjoy reading your reports and thought processes and articles. They seem well thought out, researched and helpful. I just can't stand the "look down your nose" that we lowly arbs get when we remove a healthy tree and it's always assumed that we reccomended removal or didn't do more than notice mushrooms on our salad plate before condeming the tree
 
I am puzzled by one thing, I thought excavation of rot was no longer recommended. It sounds like that oak has been sorely abused. What a shame.
 
I thought excavation of rot was no longer recommended.
Some overly cautious authorities think that dumb careless arborists can't remove funky rot without tearing through boundaries, codit walls. I don't think decay can be assessed without looking into cavities, and ya gotta get the rot out to do that. And I don't think we are dumb or careless.

Plus, air and light are enemies of decay organisms, so the excavation needed for inspection is also a therapeutic treatment.

re looking down nose, don't feel too special. I've argued against the mushroom->removal advice with university guys and isa guys and others for a very long time, and the upcoming bmp and ansi standard may make things worse instead of better so i am very bummed about that.

i don't have the patience i should so again no offense meant but imo arborists just gotta stop and do more looking and less cutting and definitely more root care and they should be paid for it all, separate services.

did i scare brian away? :\:
 
The only part that impeeds me from doing anything like that is that no one would spend the money on it. "Ma'am, it'd be $500 to rip the shit out of your front lawn in order for us to determine weather this tree needs to come down. If it needs to come down, it'd be another $2k."

From what I have experienced, if they called me there they already pretty much want the tree down. I have talked a lot of people out of taking down good trees also.
 
More like ' by my non invasive risk assessment your tree rates moderate to highly likely to fail in the near future, if I use invasive techniques and/or root excavation, it may narrow the margin of error for the diagnosis but it will cost you about $x'

In my world fruiting bodies on a tree arent an instant condemnation but they sure ring alarm bells. ALL trees are gonna die someday, its up to us as educated, experienced perfessionals to try to help the uneducated masses predict the 'when' part.
 
The only part that impeeds me from doing anything like that is that no one would spend the money on it. "Ma'am, it'd be $500 to rip the shit out of your front lawn in order for us to determine weather this tree needs to come down.
I do not follow. Driving there (on the clock) and excavating and examining the infection took an hour, assessing the other factors and recording the history from the client and chatting with them another hour, and some light research/calling around and writing the report another hour, 3 hours total to find out what they could do for the tree.

They were thrilled, and couldn't write the check fast enough. No impact to the lawn to assess the trunk--i don't follow that concern at all. Air tool not used on this tree--adventitious roots all over the root crown due to fill, and i ain't messing with those until the crown starts filling back in.

Yes Paul I agree, decay conks are red flags and need assessment. But decay can be compartmentalized--Shigo, Sinclair, Schwarze and many others have documented this.

squish, most clients may be thinking removal when they call the tree guy, but as you note many have an open mind. The trick is to sell the assessment as a separate service. This should not be so hard--I just paid $125 for a well specialist to make a service call/consultation--he did not unpack more tools than he could hold in his hand.

It seems that trade got out of the "free estimate, and answer 100 questions while you're here, and make this decision for me" trap; why can't arborists :?
 
Whenever I convince a person not to summarily cut a tree down, In my mind I call it 'deferred gratification'. Usually I have a customer that is very loyal to me over the long term.
 
Most of the time the customer isn't looking for a way to save the tree. In most cases when I'm called to evaluate a tree, it's to confirm and justify the customer's desire to have the tree removed. Too many times I've convinced a customer not to remove a tree (or so I thought) just to drive by and see the tree gone a month later. They will nod their head and agree with you to your face and then as soon as you leave they call the next tree guy who will cut it down.
 
Back
Top