Inonotus dryadeus?

[JD3000]

Yucko bucko. Amazed how many times homeowners either don't remember any trenching or dont think to mention it. I always bring it up now under the construction type questions

 

[guymayor]

Good to know the site history. What decay was measured on the underside of the roots? Or was this just feared? TRA too often advances on assumptions more than facts. Assessors don't care to get hands dirty, so Inspection is seldom done. Easier to speculate than investigate. Using a shovel and trowel must be Level IV.

The statement of surprise that the tree was still standing betrays significant bias toward removal. That's a big sales pitch by a tomo guy up your way--"Use this shiny tool and your removal recommendations will be valid."

Still impossible to comment more on management options without seeing the whole tree. How much is the removal quote, $5,000?

 

[evo]

Holy crap.. I appreciate saving trees and that many are needlessly removed. However @guymayor is spewing assumptions needlessly. Perhaps the advanced assessment didn't even use tomography but dug and stuck his hand up under the stump, and the roots. Or heaven forbid they used a increment borer. Or, or, or?
Sure it would be nice to know the details, but until they are presented the guy sitting behind the keyboard is the one whom goes quack.

 

[jed1124]

Good to know the site history. What decay was measured on the underside of the roots? Or was this just feared? TRA too often advances on assumptions more than facts. Assessors don't care to get hands dirty, so Inspection is seldom done. Easier to speculate than investigate. Using a shovel and trowel must be Level IV.

The statement of surprise that the tree was still standing betrays significant bias toward removal. That's a big sales pitch by a tomo guy up your way--"Use this shiny tool and your removal recommendations will be valid."

Still impossible to comment more on management options without seeing the whole tree. How much is the removal quote, $5,000?

My job is to preserve trees. That's what my department does. When a clients tree turns into a removal it goes to GTC, which I am not a part of. The purpose of TRA was to justify keeping the asset, not justify removing the tree.
The reason I started this thread was to get a opinion on the ID of the fungus. Was it pathogenic? Parasitic? I was hoping not. When I found out it was, that's when I called in TRA. TRA found that the risk was high, using science, not feelings. The science said the tree should go, my feelings said otherwise. In the end feelings must be put aside for science.
I've followed your writings for quite a few years, they've actually shaped some of my own thoughts on tree preservation. But in this case, when tomagraphy is backed up with resistograph to determine the likelihood of failure, and you still think enough wasn't done to determine risk, I'm at a loss.
I don't have the liberty to determine others risk that they are willing to tolerate, and I make a lot more money on live trees over the course of years than I do one day removals.

 

[guymayor]

Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Hard to say much of anything without seeing the whole tree, or at least an image of it! Inonotus is a significant pathogen, but shell wall is just one datum. And I'm sorry to see that tree was abused by turf cultivation.

I'm still not clear how data from hammering or drilling is the most reliable "science", and is the dealbreaker that determines likelihood of failure, or risk. That was kind of my point, poorly stated as it was. There's so much more to look at and consider. Mitigation options and ANSI-compliant inspections to start with. See Part 8:

Specifying the method, area, depth,
tools, and limitations of inspections is
required, as is avoiding damage to living
tissue, bark or soil. Recommendations
in the US standard are stated as ‘should’,
such as “Inspection should include:
• Conditions in the crown that may reflect
root conditions*****
• Stem tissue connecting the crown and
the roots (functional vertical segments)
• Girdling of buttress roots or stems by
roots or foreign objects, and the
tree’s response
• Tree association with beneficial and
harmful insects
Tree association with pathogenic
and beneficial microorganisms (e.g.
mycorrhizae)
• Wounds, and the tree’s response
to wounds
• Mechanical damage to detectable roots,
and response
• Indications of root disease and response
• Graft unions in grafted trees.”

Only after a
careful inspection can a credible opinion
on likelihood of failure be formed. Tree
owners, and trees, deserve no less.

 

[JD3000]

I gotta say I think Jed did his due dilligence and checked those boxes. Severed and actively decaying roots with homeowners not willing to accept the potential risk due to proximity to the house and tree mass.

 

[jed1124]

Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Hard to say much of anything without seeing the whole tree, or at least an image of it! Inonotus is a significant pathogen, but shell wall is just one datum. And I'm sorry to see that tree was abused by turf cultivation.

I'm still not clear how data from hammering or drilling is the most reliable "science", and is the dealbreaker that determines likelihood of failure, or risk. That was kind of my point, poorly stated as it was. There's so much more to look at and consider. Mitigation options and ANSI-compliant inspections to start with. See Part 8:

Specifying the method, area, depth,
tools, and limitations of inspections is
required, as is avoiding damage to living
tissue, bark or soil. Recommendations
in the US standard are stated as ‘should’,
such as “Inspection should include:
• Conditions in the crown that may reflect
root conditions*****
• Stem tissue connecting the crown and
the roots (functional vertical segments)
• Girdling of buttress roots or stems by
roots or foreign objects, and the
tree’s response
• Tree association with beneficial and
harmful insects
Tree association with pathogenic
and beneficial microorganisms (e.g.
mycorrhizae)
• Wounds, and the tree’s response
to wounds
• Mechanical damage to detectable roots,
and response
• Indications of root disease and response
• Graft unions in grafted trees.”

Only after a
careful inspection can a credible opinion
on likelihood of failure be formed. Tree
owners, and trees, deserve no less.

The crown is good, quite good. With white root rots, buttress root plate failure is often the concern, without visible crown die back. That is were I was at with this, therefore the TRA. Whether Inonotus or Berkleys, white root rot is the result. At the very least Guy, you make me second guess my recommendations and I appreciate that. The next time I get a tree like this I may just call you to come up to CT. But if it fails, it's your ass, not mine.

 

[KTSmith]

This has been a good discussion for me to follow. We need to have more of them...supported and informed by physical investigation using the available tools. ID of fungi from snapshots is often pretty tough...I should say, accurate ID. And as jed says above, precise ID is less important than the natural history of that sort of fungus.

The trick is to come at this with respect for each other as professionals, understanding that we are not always going to agree as to the prescription!
Good to get out there that some serious diseases do not present an appearance of decline until the root plate shifts or the tree goes over! And canopy dieback can be a reasonable strategy for the tree, leading to decades or more of productive life. No, I don't have any simple formula or algorithm to apply here! Just keep slugging and when we have an opportunity to verify or discontinue our hypotheses or our usual inclinations...to do so!
Thanks for the discussion.

 

[guymayor]

The trouble with Q rubra is often the lack of interior and lower branches to reduce back to. That's why the need to see an image of it; not just a good/bad condition rating. A lot of oaks with balanced crowns and a lot of Inonotus conks have stood for decades. Not always pretty looking though.

The difference between providing management options and making recommendations is not just semantic. If you are muni maybe you have less choice about it though.

If our work is dominated by covering our aspirations to avoid liability (which is grossly exaggerated), that's a heavy bias toward removal. It's a tough job--keep slugging indeed!