Unreasonable Cut down tree

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by fairplay

You mention all the mycorrhizal fungi associated with Sycamore, but in my 30 odd years of studying fungi I can confidently say that Sycamore is one of the worst trees to go looking for fungi, but I will readily accept that on the Fungal Records Database of Britain and Ireland (FRDBI) Sycamore has over 1,400 different fungi (of various shapes and sizes) growing 'nearby'.

Sycamore forms arbuscular mycorrhizas, not ectomycorrhizas - the fungi involved (phylum Glomeromycota) form large spores individually or in small clusters in the soil, rather than in large aboveground fruiting bodies.

[gobbiner]

Originally Posted by fairplay

There are some fantastic photos on the WEB showing how the tree (not just Sycamore) has grown around things such as old abandoned bicycles.

.

This beech in a local churchyard is growing around a grave stone i did ask the rector about it and he said it had been checked out and was perfectly safe

[Alan Livsey]

Further to APC's comment, i wonder what is considered as 'good reason'? Is it when the tree is on the verge of falling over? or causing an accident/damage to property? Where do we stand in making insurance claims if this occurred, and how would this affect our premiums if the insurance company was aware of fragile trees adjacent to property?
Going off thread a bit - just food for thought.

Alan.

[Hawk Roosting]

Originally Posted by APC

And while we're at it, who was it who suggested that sycamore could be regarded as native in the south-east? I'm interested in seeing their source of info. It's a nuisance species for sure though, even if it could be defined as native. Naturalised for sure.

I remember Ted Green saying sycamore is 'more native' than field male, but I don't know the reasoning behind this.

[KentYeti]

Firstly the insurance issue. If you have any additional risk from having a tree close to your property it is vital you tell your insurance company and make sure they have noted it. Like any additonal risk there is a strong chance they will not pay out after an incident if it has not been disclosed to them.

I have a 200 - 250 year old oak tree on my property with a TPO on it. And have recently reminded my insurance company it is there. I also do a full visual inspection of it twice a year to be as sure as I can nothing is about to fall off it. I have also had it fully checked and partly pruned by a Local Council suggested tree surgeon in the past. I had to get planning permission for that and the lady from the Council came on the day of the tree surgery to agree exactly what needed doing.

The point I am making is that if you have large trees close by they are going to cause work and expense. If you don't want that don't buy/rent a house next to one. But in our little close of 11 houses it is the major freature and much loved. And full of birdlife. Indeed it was one of the reasons a recent planning application for an extension by a neighbour was turned down. The impact on the tree had not been professionally investigated and reported on.

So it is sad to hear of other large trees being cut down. Rather than pruned back to a safe level.

Cheers,

Brryan

[Hawk Roosting]

Originally Posted by Alan Livsey

Further to APC's comment, i wonder what is considered as 'good reason'? Is it when the tree is on the verge of falling over? or causing an accident/damage to property? Where do we stand in making insurance claims if this occurred, and how would this affect our premiums if the insurance company was aware of fragile trees adjacent to property?
Going off thread a bit - just food for thought.

Alan.

There is a huge element of professional judgement (which will differ from one practitioner to another) but largely, with hazard trees, the decision to remove will come after an inspection and an assessment of tree health and the presence of defects and signs of decay (initially using Visual Tree Assessment methods - which may be sufficient in itself to make a decision on the action required), possible further investigations to establish the extent of the decay using invasive/non-invasive means as appropriate, and an assessment of the likelihood of the tree (or a part thereof) failing and its size, the potential target, the likelihood of damage to property or injury or loss of life.

There are a number of different methodologies available, each of which has its supporters and detractors (although from what I've seen a lot of the arguments come down to the personalities of those involved!). Here's a couple:

THREATS

QTRA

The insurance industry and arboricultural profession worked together a few years back to try and come up with a robust method of assessing the risk of tree-related subsidence to a property but I think a lot of arb consultants felt it was largely unworkable - too many variables.

[Hawk Roosting]

Bryan/KentYeti,

I wish there were more householders like you who recognise the cost and effort involved in 'managing' (for want of a better word) their trees, and are willing to expend that cost and effort. I have come across a lot of people who move into, say, a new house backing onto pre-existing woodland, then complain about the leaves/the shade/the twigs being blown off by the wind and expect the woodland owner to do something (usually unspecified) about it.

I would add though that sometimes there is no safe level to which a tree can be pruned. Or at least, the tree could be pruned back heavily to make it immediately safe. But if this cannot be achieved using natural target pruning methods (i.e., the only way to make the tree safe is to, in effect, pollard it) then it can lead to further problems in the future. Most species will regrow vigorously from the cuts, but the regrowth, from adventitious buds, will often be weakly attached. This causes a problem as the regrowth increases in size/weight, particularly as pollarding-type cuts remove the tree's natural defences against decay fungi.

This combination of heavy regrowth weakly attached to a possibly decayed branch end results in the unintentional creation of a hazard tree, one which will need cyclical re-pruning (possibly even full repollarding) which is often both unhealthy for the tree and very expensive in the long term.

Because of this, the best option is sometimes to remove the tree altogether and plant a more appropriate replacement (not necessarily in the same place).

Just to add, there is nothing wrong with pollarding if carried out in an appropriate situation. It can be hugely beneficial for, say, riverside rural willows where there is little risk to person/property, but is best avoided on street trees along busy highways.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by Hawk Roosting

I remember Ted Green saying sycamore is 'more native' than field male, but I don't know the reasoning behind this.

People 'say' all sorts of things, it doesn't mean they are accurate or even in any sense 'true'. There is a wealth of pollen records from archaeological contexts, while these records do not provide an absolute measure of whether a tree species is definitively not 'native' (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence) the presence of pollen does demonstrates presence of the species producing the pollen, for example with A.campestre a google search on "Acer campestre pollen archaeological record " yields multiple results.

Sycamore has yet to be securely identifed in the early/mid post glacial period from UK context - doesn't mean it was not there - but to date no one has definitively found it - unlike Field Maple. There is a interesting overview of A. pseudoplantus spread at: http://www.nobanis.org/files/factshe...doplatanus.pdf

CM

[poschiavanus]

I went back & re-read Ted Green's paper in British Wildlife after this thread. It seems a well-balanced overview.

Basically evidence for the Sycamore being either native or introduced is scanty. Neither hypothesis is scientifically falsifiable on current available data. Obviously introduction is always easier to disprove. If any of the type of evidence used for Field Maple such wood with bark on from an archaeological site, leaves preserved in peat, were discovered for Sycamore then it would change things.

In any case Sycamore has been part of the natural scene in Britain for hundreds of years, so decisions about how to manage it need to be taken on more rational grounds than an emotional introduction/native dichotomy.

As to whether it is a 'weed' this is very much a gardeners/foresters term. In our garden it's Oaks, Beech, Birch, Holly and bit of Norway Maple which crop up as seedlings everywhere, but I'm not advocating that these should be extirpated up and down the road. (An emotional thing for sure as I like these trees).

The insect issue is another red herring. Maples in general have relatively few specialist insects (I find doing leaf miners on them much more straightforward than on many other trees): but they do support a large biomass and many polyphages. After all another native Ash, has even fewer specific insects. Sycamore also contrasts with trees, supposedly introduced around the same time, such as London Plane and Horse Chestnut which have only a handful of insect associates. (Mind you Sweet Chestnut, here since Roman times, also has a scanty entomofauna; whereas English Elm, similarly a Roman introduction (the Atinian Elm of Pliny, has lots of insects).

In Scotland, Sycamore is a pretty wonderful support for lichens.

Everyone is perfectly at liberty to like or dislike Sycamore (my attitude is probably best summarised as 'meh' ). All-in-all I'd say that its better to sit back and look at the actual things one wants (in the garden, nature reserve, townscape, countryside) and make decisions on that basis.

Townscape tree planting is amazingly subject to fashions : would any one plant such a large and high maintenance tree as Common Lime now? I remember learning a few years ago from one of the local tree experts how one could date plantings by the species used. I do fear that the future will see larger trees being replaced by species which (as in the case of the OP) do not contribute so much to the 'greenness' of the town and city.

[fairplay]

So Oliva, you really got your money's worth out of your innocuous opening post, I hope it's opened your mind somewhat, but after all this time I suppose you must have been to the council to find out why the tree had to be felled.

Are you going to tell us their response and whether you accept or do not accept it ?

Neil.