Poinciana Disease ??

Treebeard1

Hi All,
We have a large Poinciana in bushland at the back of our house in Brisbane. It's about 60years old. Recently we heard a loud noise late at night and woke to found a very large branch had broken off. We rang BCC to advise. Next thing we know is that they have declared it dangerous and are going to remove it. They state that it has a fungal infection and is hollow. Initially, I was told Ganoderma but I can't see any evidence of this. Subsequent enquiries led to us being told that the BCC had asked for an arborist report. First arborist would not commit to removal. Subsequently, second arborist would. Follow up by local councillor on a second opinion also confirmed.
A few years ago I was told by the rangers that they would like to get rid of this tree primarily because it's not a native. On a number of occasions I have requested pruning but the BCC never did. I am suspicious of the motives.
If this tree is sick then it's the healthiest looking sick tree I have ever seen. Excellent foliage & flowering. I suspect that either the tractor mowers have caught the branches & cracked them or the wet weather has overloaded it and increased the weight.
Pictures were taken a few of weeks after.
Can anyone offer any opinions?

Thanks

Attached Thumbnails

       

Eric Frei

In the first picture the branch looks like it broke from a horizontal force not vertical.

I cannot tell from picture 2 where that branch failure was in relation to the tree position, like was it above the track or the fence etc.

There is no evidence of rot or hollowness on that broken branch. Doesn't appear to have broken at a union either.

Trees can be up to 70% hollow and still structural strong, like a tube of steel.

Picture 3 shows typical branching, nice wide crotch not narrow, looks like it has a reasonable strong union that doesn't have included bark.

Picture 4 shows good wound-wood growth around previous pruning cuts.

Seems to me for the location etc that who-ever condemned it is trigger happy.

What suburb is this in? And being council and a public place why cant we see the reports, see who these authors are and what they say. DEMAND IT, it is your right as a tax payer and available under the Freedom of Information Act, council's own website has an RTI (Right To Information) page.

Right to Information - Brisbane City Council

What happens a lot is BCC outsource the consulting/reporting. Likely the outsourced is in the pocket of BCC, it's called greasing your mates. Lets see who these mates are and what their skills are really like. Lets see if the spin doctor was working.

Seems that way to me.

There's plenty of evidence on this forum of the backflips and dual standards of consultants and councils.

__________________

Treebeard1

Branch broke above the track on the far side. You can see the dead branches on the ground near the fence.

Suburb is Tarragindi.

I initially spoke to the local councillor who followed it up with the ranger I believe. He asked for a second opinion which confirmed the first so his hands are pretty well tied. He really needs to follow the advice he has. All we have been told is that it has a fungal infection and that it is hollow. I suspect the "hollow" conclusion came from a knock test. I cannot see any holes anywhere where they might have taken samples. I have asked the local councillor for copies of the report and the name of the company name of the consultants.

Eric Frei

I live in Springwood, not far.

I'd love to see this one myself and see what spin has been put on it.

If you like you can contact me on any of the links in my signature. All I need is the location of the tree, please do not disturb the tree etc, leave it to me and my camera. If I do not answer when you ring just leave me the location.

Keep the pressure on for those reports, definitely we want them. Also best if I make my assessment without reading them so no biases .... see what we get the same or different.

__________________

Eric Frei

Thanks to Treebeard1's info I visited the tree today but only had my phone for taking pics.

Before I start I will say this LOUD AND CLEAR.

If this tree was on private property and was covered by a VPO and the customer asked for a tree report to CUT IT DOWN I would refuse and WALK AWAY.

To warrant removal the tree has to be that bad that other mitigating works would be either uneconomical or not viable for long term retention.

This tree is in a low target area, anyone claiming OHS or "danger" etc is frankly, ARBORPHOBIC (scared of trees).

There is a QTRA system which I have debated, cut a long story short there's nothing of much value as far as assets go under the tree or within striking distance. That leaves only occupancy. How often are people beneath this tree? They'd likely be passing traffic too so target occupancy is very low.

Info:

I saw no fruiting bodies at the trunk/ground interface or trunk flare. I saw some tiny white fungus on the southern side but they were easily rubbed off the bark and did not seem to penetrate the bark, I did not ID them. I doubt they cause any damage at all.

I saw typical deadwood in the upper canopy from shading, yes it had fruiting bodies on it but they were only on the deadwood which is common.

I could not determine any hollowness by tapping, there was sound change as you got closer to the apex of the buttresses but that is due to less timber.

The saddle where all the branches meet was full of water, which means in 99.9% of cases there's no drainage (a good thing), no cavity or hollow for water to get out. In fact I often advise clients to keep it full of water as fungi doesn't grow in anaerobic conditions. I also usually clean it out carefully with a plastic spatula etc and hose to see what is at the bottom and if all bark is there .... often that's the case, then fill it with water again.

There were cracks in the bark at stress points, they are due to growth striation. This is a good thing, it means with the abundance of resources available that rapid cambium expansion (growth) occurred, reaction wood where it is needed.

The form:- Basal flare trunk rises from ground where at approx 0.5m high it divides into 4 main leaders. The unions appear to have included bark but are wide without branches against branches.

The canopy is heavily weighted downhill toward the houses and over the back fences due to phototropism however it offers ample opportunities of both weight reduction and tip reduction, it would be reasonable and in no way detrimental to prune this tree into balance and structural form reducing huge weights upon the saddle (unions where water pools and leaders meet).

The branches (two) which broke were broken from a horizontal force, likely both at the same time. I'd say it was intentional by either kids skylarking or trucks etc.

The vigour of the tree is excellent, full canopy with excellent foliage density (100%). Previous pruning wounds have occluded or have substancial woundwood formations. Dead wood within in the canopy is typical and not excessive, fruiting bodies upon this deadwood are not parasitic but saprophytic.

The included bark unions at the saddle are a weak point. Often as poincianas age the shear weight of their own limbs can cause failure at the saddle. Often unpruned trees in ideal environments experience this as they have in New Farm Park. Two recently failed in New Farm Park, these were the fenced off trees in ideal conditions, this post and this post. Weight reduction pruning and reduction pruning would considerably reduce the probability of failure. Poincianas left to their own means unpruned will often grow until they droop to the ground, then they grow upwards again and so on. It's plausible that mankind comes along and crown lifts them so their canopy doesn't touch the ground which could be part of the problem as the trees own "prop" is being eliminated.

I have no problem at all saying that this tree pruned properly would have easily another 20 years reliable life left in it, if not more. It is a hypocrisy to cut this tree down, a farce, and could even be a collaboration of contractors and BCC to make a dollar or some other hidden agenda, writing reports to appease a motive is nothing new, I present this and this.

To use OHS etc as an excuse to remove this tree simply doesn't fly, and certainly is inconsistent with BCC's typical approach on VPO trees for home-owners.

I smell something corrupt here. I haven't even got into cabling, props, rods etc to extend this trees life, there's ample opportunity for this tree to remain.

Picture below shows 2 failures and their position.



Trunk flare, 4 leaders, saddle and water pool. The discolouration is where the water pool overflows, it is not phelinus noxious.



The water pool.



Crack in bark on top of SE buttress



A growth striation and what the crack will become



Another growth striation

Attached Thumbnails

           

__________________

Treebeard1

STATUS UPDATE:

Hi All,
The wheels are turning and the Lord Mayor's office is now involved. Let's hope we get a sensible outcome.Here's a summary of what has happened since Eric took up the baton and actually looked at the tree in question.

Many thanks to Eric for his comprehensive report.

1) Prior to Eric's post, I had verbal confirmation from him of his findings. I immediately advised the local councillor who asked me to send through the report asap & that he would take up the case on our behalf with the Lord Mayor.

2) The local councillor also advised that he "was not in a position to release the (BCC's arborist) report" and suggested we use the FOI process.

3) Early this morning I emailed Eric's assessment to the local councillor. Conicidentally, immediately after emailing, 612 ABC local radio had the LORD MAYOR on to answer questions. My wife rang & outlined the issue and asked why the report could not be made available. He agreed that it probably should & took our details.

4) We have since been contacted again by the local councillor's representative who, as well as being quite impressed with Eric's professional assessment, advised that it had been passed on to the Lord Mayor's office.

5) We were also contacted by the Lord Mayor's office who advised they would be in touch with the local councillor and the department that produced the recommendation (?? not sure who they are but it's not the rangers) and that they would do it quickly.

Will keep you updated.

Eric Frei

Very good.

What is imperative for all parties to understand is that the tree is scheduled for removal soon, so waiting for an FOI RTI could well cost that tree's life.

__________________

Eric Frei

I wouldn't be surprised if this council "report" now vanishes.

__________________

Garry Brockley

That would be very "convenient" for them

__________________

Eric Frei

Yesterday I took some pictures of the only fruiting bodies I saw.

This is the tiny ones on the southern side of the trunk I spoke of.



This is the typical dead wood in the canopy and the fruiting bodies upon it. I haven't broken any off to get a hands on look or had them officially ID'd etc but they are common on dead wood. They might be Pycnoporus coccineus. They certainly aren't ganoderma as ganoderma is thicker and white underneath.

Attached Thumbnails

       

__________________

Treebeard1

UPDATE:

2 gentleman showed up today. They were at the tree for about 5 minutes. One of them, judging by the description from my wife, might have been one of the guys who "wrote" the report. The other was wearing a safety vest & looked to my wife like he would be doing the cutting.
They carried 2 black boxes. One was small suitcase size & the other was about 300x300x800. Wife didn't see them open either one but they may have. One stuck his hand down inside the saddle where the water is, possibly showing it to the other guy. They had a look at the canopy & then left. Not talkative at all.
hmmm.....

Not sure where we are at with getting the report. Will ring the Lord Mayor's office.

Eric Frei

One was likely the carry case for a Resistograph. That is a tool you drill the tree with to determine hollowness and decay.

Remember, trees can be hollow but still strong just like steel tube. You seldom see solid rod used in construction, tube is lighter and stronger.

If they were to drain the water puddle and get some light down there and have a decent look then you'd have something to note. But regardless, evaluating the canopy, targets etc means you'd know what dosage of pruning to administer to sure things up.

One other treatment I can administer is this.

__________________

Darrell Mcleod

Nice camera shots Eric!!

Treebeard1

UPDATE:

Response from Lord Mayor's Office:

The structural integrity of the tree will be verified next week because the "big machine" that goes "bing" is not available until then.

When they have the results, we will get the 2 reports that have already been done + the "big machine" report. No need for FOI they said.

However I'm guessing that with FOI we can also ask for EVERY document, memo, fax, email, sms, diary entry etc.. that's ever been sent/written on the subject so we might need to review this when the time comes.

Eric Frei

Take pictures of not only the machine that goes bing but the operators.

Chances are they are getting a picus test done at great expense.

Yes with FOI you can request everything including emails.

The fact that there is two reports already and now they decide for further tests means you have already exposed a sham.

I often have a chuckle over the processes, you see, the treatment pre-diagnosis and post diagnosis is pretty much the same. The New Farm Park debacle cost $90K in diagnostics and the trees continued to fall, but all the consultants got paid well I suppose. Failures have continued by the way.

Also the Laman street figs where they eventually decided to do pull tests .... well the pull tests got dropped, for pretty much the same reason as I am saying now ..... the treatment remains pretty much the same so why diagnose?

If the tree has not yet failed, then why should it fail after serious weight reduction, lever arm reduction and sail reduction? Common sense stands in the way of making a quid with fancy tools perhaps.

The counter argument that there will be a root/foliage imbalance that may lead to roots dying and the internal rot (if it's there) spreading quicker can be subdued with this treatment.

Poincianas grow quickly, I have administered 1/3 to almost 1/2 canopy prunes with no problems, and had to return the following year to prune more.

To me this tree is a no brainer, but council have a strange way of building empires on red tape.

__________________

Treebeard1

UPDATE:

We had a call from the Local Councillor today. He advised that the manager of the relevant section and the BCC Head Arborist had inspected the tree today. Whilst it is yet to be confirmed in writing, he was told that the decision had been made to preserve the tree & prune it.

I'm assuming that further investigation with the machine that goes bing will not be necessary. Perhaps the money saved can go toward tree maintenance.

We are yet to hear from the Lord Mayor's Office but I still expect the reports to be forwarded to us as promised.

Eric Frei

And some think both this place and a home-owner make no difference.

Caught with their pants down.

__________________

Jeff Darby

Damn and here I was waiting for a look at this machine that goes "bing bing"...lol..Great result!

__________________

Member: Australian Tree Association

Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard !

Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others

© Jeffrey J Darby 2011

jmcg.insight.gardens

BINGO

well done Eric.

Eric Frei

Any more news?

How about those tree reports?

__________________

Treebeard1

UPDATE:

OK. Gave it a week because despite the information we had from the local councillor he did say it wasn't in writing & that if we heard any different to let him know.

Last week was when the machine that goes bing (Picus) was supposed to be brought in.

Checked today with Lord Mayor's office & told them the unofficial info. from the local councillor and that we would still like a copythe reports. Lord Mayor's office agreed that they would be made available to us.

Had a call later from the Policy Adviser to the Chairperson for City Business & Local Assets. (WTF???) He said they were still trying to find a machine that goes bing and that the reports were actually "site/sight"? reports & not arborists reports. He said they could not get a conclusive arborist report without the results from the machine that goes bing. I think this guy might be a bit confused, out of the loop or been given the runaround by someone in the department. At one point he apparently referred to the reports as "alleged reports".

Local councillor has been notified of this discrepancy with his information.

Eric Frei

Like I said, out comes the typical incompetence and greasing of mates with machines.

__________________

Treebeard1

UPDATE:
Hi All.
OK. Finally have a letter from the Lord Mayor stating that the Senior Arborist inspected the tree on 12th May and found it to be "structurally sound and in good health". Gee.... and to think he could tell that just from looking at it. The others who inspected it said it needed to come down quickly because it was such a threat to public safety.

I have determined that despite information to the contrary, there were never any written reports that contradicted the Senior arborist's observations. In short, this tree was to be removed for reasons known only to those who had determined that this was the best course of action and for that I am very angry.

Had we not pressed this matter and without the help and advice from Eric and this forum, this tree would now be mulch for no good reason.

Subsequently, after verbal advice that the tree was to be retained, we asked for a copy of a report stating the tree's condition. True to their word, the Lord Mayor's office provided a report. This was written on 30th May. Given that it pretty much says word for word what Eric had already told me, I could be forgiven for thinking that he actually wrote the report.
I have attached a copy.

THANKS ERIC & TREEWORLD

Attached Thumbnails

 

Eric Frei

Snap!

__________________

Treebeard1

Hi All.
Well, we got the word on 23 June that the recommendations from the BCC Senior Coordinator Arboriculture would be acted upon before the end of July. A few guys turned up today. Anyway, a little bit of attitude happening apparently and not too interested in a major prune of this "not very important tree". Funny, it was so important a couple of months ago that it needed to be removed within a week because it might kill someone!!.
They said that the main branch extending over our property was a leader branch & that they couldn't cut it too much. Anyway, it was 10 o'clock & time for smoko so they'd have to come back tomorrow.
Be interesting to see just how much rebalancing they do & whether they act on the mulching recommendation as well. If not, guess the Lord Mayor is going to be very annoyed to hear from me again.

Eric Frei

Were they council or contractors?

__________________

Treebeard1

Don't know. They didn't have council shirts on but the better half said that she's pretty sure the guy she talked to was the same who originally told us that the tree had to be removed. If so, he was definitely council from Local Assets.

Brent Ferris

You should ask for name and ID of the head guy, so you can write a letter of recommendation for them (or otherwise if they do a crappy job). I would also take pics before they cut, and after - if possible-- for proof of job (well) done. And I have found it is best to be home when city trees are done, to stop over pruning -- sometimes the cutters get over-exuberant. And be sure to keep that report in a safe place. Good Luck!

__________________
My business: Tree Pruning and Removals -- Strump Removals -- Advice -- Consulting -- Arborist Reports
If you want an honest opinion, call Brent Ferris...because, Trees want to Live Too !
We do great jobs, even in small yards.

Free Estimates Oakville to Oshawa - North to Bradford (Will travel further if cost of travelling covered)