Whats this Fungus ?

[JesseHuffman]

Looks like Aborginawinthemostus

 

[guymayor]

[ QUOTE ]
...I err on the side of caution. I assume risk of failure is fairly high, and I give my recommendations for removal based on the hazard level. If I see G. lucidum on a large tree near a house, I recommend removal.

[/ QUOTE ]Why err at all?? It's not that hard to dig around the edges of the infection and measure the "hazard level". You've heard of compartmentalization. You can assess it. Don't you believe that it can happen to the trees you are called to look at aka bid on?

Several ganoderma infections i've worked with are relatively as big and as consequential to the tree as zits. And they can dry up and (s)heal, like zits.

 

[sean_freeman]

I think the point that a few of us are making is that observing the fruiting body of any fungus is not the end of the assessment, in many many ways it can be the beginning of the most detailed part of the assessment.

Gaining a greater understanding of the relationship between the wood decay fungi and the tree will lead you to have a greater understanding of the intricacies of species characteristics in your area under specific environmental conditions....ie should make you a better Arborist.

 

[KyLimbwalker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why err at all?? It's not that hard to dig around the edges of the infection and measure the "hazard level". You've heard of compartmentalization. You can assess it. Don't you believe that it can happen to the trees you are called to look at aka bid on?

Several ganoderma infections i've worked with are relatively as big and as consequential to the tree as zits. And they can dry up and (s)heal, like zits.

[/ QUOTE ]


How do you determine the level of infection? I'm not convinced that digging around the edge of the infection will give you accurate information at all times.

 

[KyLimbwalker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point that a few of us are making is that observing the fruiting body of any fungus is not the end of the assessment, in many many ways it can be the beginning of the most detailed part of the assessment.

Gaining a greater understanding of the relationship between the wood decay fungi and the tree will lead you to have a greater understanding of the intricacies of species characteristics in your area under specific environmental conditions....ie should make you a better Arborist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure..I agree. But working arborists certainly have a bias to be risk averse with respect to trees threatening buildings or people.

 

[sean_freeman]

I think we are all risk averse, honestly I do. We need to be open with our clients about what can be determined from our observations and what cannot.

Trees are fundamental in delivering the kind of environment we all want to live in, its way beyond whether they look pretty or not (and yes they all look pretty to me

)For me providing advice to a tree owner is about giving them the whole picture...or as whole as i can give them.

If I see a fruiting body then I have to ID it, I have to understand how that particular fungi is known to interact with the particular tree species it is growing in/on.

All trees even the healthiest ones represent potential risks to persons and property under them, how significantly does the presence of a fruiting body increase any particular risk requires a huge number of factors to be taken into consideration (and I am sure that you know this as well as i do

)

As is often the case we can get ourselves into knots when discussing the hypothetical, since we tend to base our positions on trees we have experienced in the past....if we were on a site together I suspect we would find much more that we agree on about a particular assessment than where we disagree.

 

[guymayor]

"How do you determine the level of infection? I'm not convinced that digging around the edge of the infection will give you accurate information at all times."

All times? What are you saying; you need a guarantee or you won't look? Of COURSE you won't get it right at ALL times, and you don't have to be convinced. But you do have to make an effort at gathering relevant data to have any credibility at all.

[ QUOTE ]
...working arborists certainly have a bias to be risk averse with respect to trees threatening buildings or people.

[/ QUOTE ]which working arborists? Not all, certainly! My bias is toward preservation, if I must have one at all. It's easier to be risk-tolerant with more practice at detailed assessment. If inspecting is too much work, or too scary/uncertain, then the tendency is to be a defensive assessor, like the attached.

 

[KyLimbwalker]

I like the chicken little, Guy! I will counter by saying that trees, unlike the sky, actually do fall sometimes. I agree with you fundamentally...Let me rephrase myself: I believe tree companies who employee working arborists have an incentive to be more risk averse, as they are acting in their clients best interests (which includes the safety of their persons and property). I do not have an incentive to write on a contract that a client should (bold) keep their tree or not. I see my role as giving the client options and light advise. Would I tell a client that they should keep their tree? Sure. Would I write that down as part of a contract? No way. I think that there are natural barriers in the market between consulting and typical tree service work; mostly the threat of litigation.

 

[guymayor]

[ QUOTE ]
...tree companies who employee working arborists have an incentive to be more risk averse, as they are acting in their clients best interests (which includes the safety of their persons and property)

[/ QUOTE ]And these interests also include preserving and growing the benefits that the tree contributes.

So they also have an incentive to be risk tolerant.

Balance, not bias!

per attached