longer cuts on poor compartmentalizers| CODIT WALL4

wulkowicz

Thank you for a good reference.

Tubs

Eric Frei

Great, more action on this thread.

Are we clear on what wall4 is now?

Anyone still want to argue?

Anyone want to write a clear and concise sentence to describe what it is and where it is in their own words without quoting 2 miles of text? I mean that's the better way to learn, write it out, no multiple choice bullshit here thanks. It's a better assessment of what you know not what you eliminated then decided upon.

I'll have a go:- Wall4 is chemically altered cells on the inner face of new cambial growth over a wound that helps prevent the outward migration of decay.


Now lets go a step deeper. Ole Wulko a while back made the post I have quoted below.

I believe he referred to the picture he now uses for his avatar, I've attached that picture here just incase something goes skew whiff.

Now, I challenge ole Wulko and others to clearly think about this picture and wall4. To do so you must first know what wall4 is.

When decay comes internally, like the middle of the log rotting out in the picture above, is it possible for wall4 to form?

Think about it, if wall4 is derived from cells of new growth that is altered and the decay never manages to reach the external perimiter of the tree where that growth is taking place then new cells most likely wont alter ... the new cells dont know the decay is just 3" back. Compartmentalization is taking place but is chemical reactions in the existing cells, that is not wall4 my friends, that's wall 3 when we are only looking at horizontal decay advancement.

So I would say, in Wulko's picture, there's no wall4 and to say there is, is a serious misunderstanding.

To advance this further, look at trees where the internal decay did make it to the outside world, a hollow tree with open face. What happens, the new cambial growth does have wall4 on the inner side of the ribs or rams horns.

How many of you have worked on hollow trees? If you have you'd know that there's no "ring shakes". What happens many times is the decay doesn't advance beyond the sapwood, but that process is not wall4.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

newguy18

Well said Eric,Your right on about hollow trees.I know i work on them[mostly removing]at leastly 3 times a week.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

wulkowicz

I am dividing my response to Ekka's challenge into a series of separate posts to keep everything clear and concise as he asks.

There is a problem however, in any expectation that the complexity of any tree's wound responses can be reduced to a sentence; whatever the length or the number of commas. So, I'm not going to bother. This is neither disrespectful nor arrogant; I've simply no interest in attempting the impossible.


Let me begin in saying that the picture above that I now use as my avatar is unarguably the proof or validation of the existence and durability of wall 4. I found the photo in googling for the world's largest hollow tree.

Those of you out there in Oz, had better nail things down against the fierce winds that will be generated by Ekka's socks rolling up and down at high speed as he reads this. That picture would not be possible, that hollow tree would not exist, without the use and the presence of wall 4.

Every practitioner/reader here has looked at relatively small limbs that were hollow inside without any effect or indication on the outside of the limb. The hollows would stay the same size as the limb increased in girth, and if there were no further injuries or penetrations, the hollows would not expand.

Scaling it up to the trunk of the tree, the hollow in my avatar shows the generally successful containment of decay in a "limb" of significant size. I haven't gone back and looked at the photo more closely, but literally every hollow in a tree, open or closed, that has sound wood wrapped around it or bordering it, is an example of wall 4.

Ekka's generalization is incorrect: So I would say, in Wulko's picture, there's no wall 4 and to say there is, is a serious misunderstanding



The misunderstanding is not mine, and because this is a public forum, I do not wish to distract any of us with a heated debate about who is right and who is wrong. So rather than argue about examples of wall 4 right now, let me minorly adjust and edit Ekka's first definition of our disputed wall: Wall 4 is chemically altered cells on the inner face of new cambial growth over a wound that helps prevent the outward migration of decay.


I will say, Wall 4 is a future boundary in the xylem created by cambium responding to signals of wounding with cells that are significantly more resistant to decay than the earlier xylem.


There, in its little straitjacket of one sentence, is a more comfortable definition for me of an important part of wall 4. Immediately however, I begin to search for more information like, "Why doesn't the tree make all of its wood as decay resistant in the first place?"

Or, "Why do we equate hollows with hazards and then pursue hollows with techniques that destroy wall 4?"


There, that should be enough to keep Ekka in high hum for a while. Or at least for the time it takes him to decide about expelling me for insubordination.


Bob Wulkowicz

Sean Freeman

Trying to cram a response into the spare time between putting off several jobs to avoid doing another!

Please let us try to keep in the fore front of our minds that walls 1, 2, 3 and the barrier zone wall 4 are all parts of a model, CODIT and as such they do not appear as neat little structures within every tree we might come to view as it is cut. CODIT was developed with the tools available at the time and is a macroscopic interpretation of what is going on inside the wood tissues...as such it does have limitations.

The complexity of the pathogen host relationship that actually occurs at the microscopic intercellular level within wood tissues can result in patterns of reaction that seem contradictory....Saprophytic become parasitic, parasitic fungi are able to colonise wood tissues and overcome tree defences using different modes of behaviour that almost defy anaylsis.

A number of fungal pathogens (wood decay fungi) within specific tree species are able to breach the tree defences developing hollows from within up to the point at which they compromise the tissues of the cambium, triggering the development of the barrier zone...wall 4.

For some fungi in certain trees wall 4 presents an insumountable obsticle, for others it does not...it bears noting that it is almost impossible to concieve of a tree having only one species of fungi active within its tissues, fungi are competing with the tree and competing with other fungi all at the same time...environmental conditions within the wood tissues have a major influence on the mode of behaviour manifested by the fungi.

Having as usual massively failed to restrict the response to one or even twenty scentences I should try to summarise....

Do I think there is a barrier zone in the log in Bobs' avatar? Yes

How does the decay trigger the formation of a barrier zone? By compromising the function of the cambial tissues.

Are there any absolutes in describing the possibilities of the ever fluctuating relationship between pathogen and host? None that are useful IMO.

CODIT is still for me the basic model on which all other subsequent developments are based...in our understanding of the relationship between pathogen and host.

wulkowicz

I certainly know that technique.

I agree. CODIT is an approximation of things that we are just beginning to understand. Alex cautioned us about the dangers of putting it in a bottle with some formaldehyde as if we could look at it once in a while and confirm its staying mummified, which is one of the first stages in becoming dogma.


The tree in the photograph would not exist if it did not have wall 4 already present inside to prevent the continued rotting of the remainder of the tree. There is a barrier zone in that log that worked remarkably well. I don't think there can be any kind of argument against both its presence or its effectiveness.

Stepping back to your earlier comments, Shigo and others have discussed the presence of fungi and various pathogens throughout the living and dead elements of a tree. They would seem to be unavoidable and universal. We do not yet understand what suppresses them and what releases them, but I will suggest that a tree evolved with familiar organisms would have a difficult time with new invasive foreign decomposers. That CODIT could be very effective with the usual suspects, but significantly vulnerable to something that it's never seen before.

Equally reasonable are your thoughts about multi-species fungi that might sequence decay in a tree, in a sort of one-two punch, that overwhelms or bypasses the previously effective barriers including wall 4.

I can't agree here, and let me try to be very specific. Decay does not trigger the formation of the barrier zone; injury is the trigger, from my perspectives and understandings. And let me try to explain that in a series of declarative statements:

1. The cambium is a single-cell thick sheet wrapped around and creating every woody cylinder on a tree. Most scholars generally agree that it can be described as one cell thick--which is as thin as a living organism can be and still exist. Without the cambium and without its daughter cells differentiating into xylem and phloem, we wouldn't have wood and bark--and leaves would have to be hung on spider webs.

2. The barrier formed as wall 4 can be very localized and relatively small, or can wrap around the entire circumference of the cylinder at the time of wounding. The variations might be understood as a practical response to future threats. Small injury; small threat. Large injury; large possible problems. In a subject tree, injuries can be very common and almost constant, and various parts of the tree can be individually responding to those localized woundings and proportionally anticipating the future.

3. The cambial sheet can easily function as a touch-sensitive, or injury-sensitive receptor network that is spread across all the woody cylinders of the tree. Biologists are well aware of inter-cellular communication by electrical and chemical means, with the additional signals of pressure and hydration, et cetera.

If a woodpecker pounds a hole in a tree, the injury is small and local. If a bear rips the bark off of a large section of a tree, the injury can be significant, and the tree is well advised to anticipate a significant threat.

4. I submit that wall 4 is anticipatory and it only exists as a function of the cambium altering certain qualities in the daughter cells of xylem after the signaling of an injury. In a sense, the cambium is the important organ that carries its own internal watch. It continues to grow away from a previous time, and the present is where it is at the moment. The cambium has no ability to affect any previous structures by dividing and creating new cells; it cannot create a defense as an afterthought.

But it can do some things we don't yet understand at the time of wounding or injury by making its present product, i.e., daughter xylem cells with increased decay resistance. Wood (xylem) made previous to the injury is vulnerable; wood made after the injury has more resistance to decay--theoretically as its default defenses--invasive foreign fungi excepted.



5. I don't dismiss your understanding that something may directly affect the function of cambial tissues. But we need to look at, for example, how Wall 4 is created on the opposite side of an injury to a very large tree. Those two locations are extremely isolated physically with their own transport systems, so chemical diffusion or pressure may not be effective signals.

The cambium however, is wrapped all around the woody cylinder, and an injury to a part of it is an injury to the whole. Communication about wounding is simple and available, and to me, an excellent explanation for stopping the expansion of a decayed hollow.

Please remember that the cambium cannot go back in time and create new cells that are different than earlier cells. Those cells disappear when decay gets to them, and the best time for the cambium to do something durable and strongly defensive is when it gets a signal that an injury has occurred.

If there needs to be a complete containment of decay, we will likely find a continuous wall 4 around the entire perimeter at approximately the same age of growth rings, given the caveat that biology is wet and sloppy.

It may be that the difficult issue to digest here is that of timing. Decay can be introduced or flourish many years after an injury, and the containment of wall 4 at that time can protect the surrounding mass of wood created after the injury. If there is a wounding to the wood once protected by the first wall 4, the tree will create a new wall 4 after the signal of this new injury.

The creatures living in hollows easily scratch through the wall 4 that once contained the hollow and then provide a new invasion of what might've been a very well protected area. Squirrels do it from the inside; we do it from the outside in drilling to find hollows.



As a final paragraph, I will mutter that the labels of pathogen and host are are word judgments that are often biased by our own opinions. In a general way, they are almost moral judgments of bad and good. Some seem easy; others get very difficult we include the concept of symbiosis. I leave the commentators at that time, and wander off to find something better to do.

This way to the egress.



Bob Wolfowitz

Eric Frei

That's hypothetical and theoretical ... an assumption. Existing cells can and do alter offering sufficient resistance to contain the decay, new cells forming can remain the same as existing as the decay is contained by the process and doesn't get anywhere near the xylem. I'm extremely surprised you painted yourself into such a dark corner.

Yes, and there's equally as many hollows that continually expand proportional to limb/trunk growth.

It's not a matter of me or you being right or wrong is discovering the truth that matters. If you think what you are showing is so then microscopy is one way of proving it. If there are new cells being laid that are altered as you have suggested then that'll be easily seen. This can easily be proven with core samples from living hollow trees, comparing cambium from hollow areas to sound areas.

There are barrier zones and reaction zones. Where the dysfunction has not been able to trigger new altered xylem cells as you put it cambial growth continues same as usual, decay advances same as usual... tree grows 3mm outward that year, loses 3mm to heartwood which is consumed by the decay, the distance between the decay and the perimiter of the tree remains uniformly the same, just like the picture.

So far I have offered more supportive evidence than any other to seek the truth of the matter. I can handle being wrong, or right, but how I derive either depends on the evidence and facts I see, so far I see little to support your theory, and it is just that, a theory. I have also offered possible solutions with the core sample idea to show I want fact more than opinion or theory, dont see many others offering validification of their ideas but more insistent to pound away at the integrity of those seeking them.

See many of my responses to Wulko's posts

With Bobs post he conceded that new cells are laid out altered and stronger to resist decay. I did make an error in my post where I said it was wall3 ... it could also be wall2. Wall2 is the ability of existing cells to alter chemically. The whole point is existing cells cannot be wall4, that is derived from new cells that change. What wulko is proposing is that the entire log is now a wall4 of altered cells, I dont think so and have offered the viable method of proving what is really going on.

Also there's barrier zones and reaction zones.

Now, sitting right here on the forum I produce yet again another piece of bloody good evidence (you guys should try to do the same for your causes) sitting in the document attached to this post.

The Effects of Excessive Drilling on Wood Decay in Trees by Mattheck and Weber

Page 4 of the document in that thread.

Now page 9 has a beautiful diagram and explanation to support what I believe is the truth of this matter. Below is verbatim the explanation of the diagram.


Notice that clearly evident line of the BZ with the little white lines and how it so distinctively walled off the decay? Have a read through that document. However, my "common sense" meter also tells me that for new cells to be generated that change to wall4 the decay has to be right onto them, not 3 inches back, and that drill hole showed that.

So, again I have gone a long way out of my way to show you what I have, where I get it from .... what have you guys got?

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Sean Freeman

You are right Bob I was being simplistic and teleological with my reference to your log, and having tried so hard to cover the bases with the role of the fungi, missed the mark with the timing of past injuries (and past...temporarily suspended?...infections).

Of course physical injury stimulates the formation of the barrier zone, I was not trying to suggest it does not, however what I am pointing out to you is this.....Schwarze and Fink showed with their study of Inonotus hispidus in Plantanus x hispanica that where the fungi was able to breach the reaction cells (walls 2 & 3...chemically modified cellular structures) and reach the live cambium...the digestion of cell walls and or contents...through the cambium will stimulate the response to form a barrier zone.

Now this was reitterated in Francis Schwarze's workshop in Brisbane 2008, it is not a statement that this will happen with all fungi or across all tree species but that it has been observed and recorded with Inonotus hispidus in Plantanus x hispanica

Again it is not a refutation of any aspects of CODIT is it the reinforcement of the macroscopic model with greater refinements from microscopic investigations.

newguy18

The saga continues.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Eric Frei

Yes it does, and needs to. There's danger in accepting something just because some-one says so.

On those alarm bells ... Wulko has been peddling his hypothesis before.

Sentience in Trees

He also often refers to singular cells thick cambium which in reality simply doesn't occur. He also has referred to roots not lifting things so I supply pictures to the contrary.

In this thread he promptly jumps on me, even suggesting that "my generalizations" etc. He speaks of straight jackets and dogma ... yet ignores his own.

Thank goodness some-one around here has the guts to challenge things, makes one a better tree man.

Many of us are practical people, working hands on with trees every day. Does Wulko do that? How many has he dissected?

At least this far we have some uniform agreement on what wall4 is, that in itself is a huge feat. And look how that started off, in fact one of the dogmatic's of the debate hasn't posted since the data and facts started to flow, what does that tell you? Tells me people are more interested in saving face than finding out the truth, hardly the qualities required for advancement of anything.

There's many hats one can wear, people have trouble understanding that, if you choose a hat they dont like they then want to have it out with you rather than the subject.

Now lets take a close look at his dogma and straight jacket again in his recent post.

Interesting, then the next paragraph you certainly have an open mind (not! ... and explored with data in my previous post).


Wow, how dogmatic was that? Ole Wulko can see that all from a tiny picture, might as well throw away the laboratories!

It could have been a Saprophytic fungi that only consumes the heartwood. Maybe it was a parasitic fungi that was contained by the reaction zone as previously described in my last post. However there's possibilities that we have to be open to not so closed minded as shown here.

A while back with Treeseer on a tree he was diagnosing that had a fruiting body we spoke of the advancement of decay vs the rate of cambial growth. If the wall thickness remained the same size (say 2" thick due to sapwood) then as the tree gets fatter and fatter slowly the t/r rato slides into the danger zone. For example a 2" thick wall on a 12" dia tree gives us 0.33 ratio above Mattchek's desireable 0.3 ratio ... but what happens when that tree is 36" dia and the wall thickness still 2" is the ratio is 0.11 well under the acceptable ratio. Also in such hollow scenarios the tree is putting on more wood around the wound in most cases triggered by things other than the internal decay, fibre buckling evidence and bulging is what we look for. This phenomena is known by real tree men in the real world, yet Wulko has perhaps also overlooked it, that the cambium could in fact be altering for other reasons such as structural support.

Anyway, I think you all get the drift. Beware of those peddling their own hypothesis that attempt to squash your curious mind, question things till the cows come home.

And like Sean said, different trees, different fungi can have different responses, some will breach the reaction zones of the moist sapwood to the point that wall4 is triggered, but many trees would likely fall over before that happens .... another thing that's been over looked.

With reference to Sean's
There's lots of information out there, referring to it is best. That information has to withstand a lot of scrutiny, it has to be assessed impartially. Common sense told me that for wall4 to be triggered by internal decay would mean the decay would have to breach the reaction zones and affect the cells which are ready to divide. This might happen in localised areas within the tree also.

Here's a video I shot http://www.treeworld.info/f7/fruitin...rees-3330.html at 4.38 some text scrolls the bottom, worth a look. Welcome to my laboratory.

__________________

treeseer

Eric, I don't question the rest of your post but some clarifications here:

"A while back with Treeseer on a tree he was diagnosing that had a fruiting body we spoke of the advancement of decay vs the rate of cambial growth."

We must have been talking about the amount of supporting tissue being added, not 'cambial growth'. I'm not sure what that is.

"If the wall thickness remained the same size (say 2" thick due to sapwood) then as the tree gets fatter and fatter slowly the t/r rato slides into the danger zone. For example a 2" thick wall on a 12" dia tree gives us 0.33 ratio above Mattchek's desireable 0.3 ratio ... but what happens when that tree is 36" dia and the wall thickness still 2" is the ratio is 0.11 well under the acceptable ratio."

So here you have the .3 ratio going form desirable to acceptable, sliding from a guideline to a standard. tsk tsk. This shows the slippery slope we're on when we rely too much on numbers. I sometimes measure wall thickness, but it is just a starting point for exploring the range of mitigation options.

Without aggravating factors like cracks, infections, infestations, or lack of pruning or support possibilities, wall thickness is not a dealbreaker for the tree. .3 is a guideline at most. Many trees have thinner walls but are acceptably safe to the owners.

Sorry to derail the thread; waiting for Bob's response to your dissection.

newguy18

Just here for entertainment,i've looked up what Eric's posted and what everyone else has posted and found that Eric has provided proof for what he says.I'm not sure where Mr.wulkowicz sees wall 4 in his avatar but i also tend to blieve in proving facts,not a theory.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Eric Frei

Newguy, you're great! The reason I keep going is because of guys like you. The reason I keep debating with the academics is because frankly, they love jargon, are can be out of touch.

Many customers speak of the horticulturist or arboriculturist jargon, not impressed with rattling off 25 letter latin names and diseases even the GP cannot pronounce, hardly the type of banter they can relate to.... "I had this guy come here, call things names I never heard of, say they got diseases I never heard names of and I have no idea what he was on about and he made me feel dumb". I try to use language people are comfortable with and contextualize into their terms.

So, on with the show, I'll show you what I mean with Treeseer's post, watch this, very interesting. Nothing personal Guy just need a fresh guinea pig.

Oh really, how funny that is. I bet 99% of people with anything to do with trees would understand what it meant. Also, for laughs I Googled it. cambial growth - Google Search
And bugger me Michigan State University came up number 1 with a beautifully illustrated PDF on it titled Cambial Growth and Development. Yes, my facetious response.

Firstly Guy, in the context of this thread the point was to illustrate the difference in the weight being held by the sapwood. The 0.11 ratio hollow tree has a lot more weight on those cells than the 0.33 ratio tree, that could make a difference. Then again, the tree could also be lighter but what if the hollow was only local?

Secondly the reference to cambial growth is simple, radially if the decay was progressing faster than the tree was growing then some day in the future the tree would fall as all cells would be consumed by decay.

If the distance between the decay and bark remained constant, in other words the sapwood contained the decay, then as the tree grew it would maintain the same constant wall thickness. However as the tree grows and grows the wall thickness ratio slides meaning the same thickness wall now has a lot more work to do, that could result in altered cells.

Some-one somewhere also made mention that the sapwood of hollow trees could also be altered due to the fact that the tree was now unable to file away into the heartwood it's aliens. So then perhaps the sapwood of hollow trees is also more potent as it has those fungi fighters.

Here's some reference:

Quote:

These compounds (including resins, phenols, and terpenes, sometimes referred to as extractives) not only help make heartwood more resistant to attack by insects and decay organisms but also tend to give this inner portion of the stem a distinctive darker color. For example, the famous dark brown of black walnut lumber and the striking red hues of black cherry boards occur only in the heartwoods of these trees, and both owe their characteristic colors to these chemicals. source

With regard to your comment on tsk tsk wall thicknesses. Guidelines are just that, a 0.11 ratio could be very acceptable for a Stanley Park hollow log, or a tree that lost half it's crown, or even a tree that looks just fine and dandy if it's in a field with no targets. The issue is that for this thread people explore other factors of what may be affecting things and not jump to conclusions.

In the context of it being an acceptable wall thickness for a regular urban tree I certainly would say no (but does depend on some other factors as mentioned by both of us), and I dont think it's for the clients to decide what is acceptably safe if it's going to impact upon others, or their insurance company. But that's a whole other thread.



Now, back to regular programming.

What about this then, with regard to the force cells can take, and the numbers mentioned like 145psi etc before cells can no longer do their job, what force is on the cells of a large hollow tree?

With a hollow tree the weight would be taken by the sapwood cells. Lets do some pretend numbers.

36" dia tree, 4" wall thickness, tree was 60,000lbs (big decayed euc).

So, cross sectional surface area is 402.12"2

So, that then comes down to 149.21 PSI ... but that psi per square inch of tree not per cell, how many cells per square inch?

At least I think about these things.

For those interested I liked that Cambial Growth PDF that much I have loaded to TreeWorld's server. It's 5.2mb PDF on this link.

http://www.treeworld.info/manualuplo...ial_growth.pdf

For all of you that have read this post this far a big pat on the back, for those of you have have read this whole thread this far ... grab a beer or coffee and just let it sink in a bit, think about it and wonder a little, it's very good to be curious and dont just take everything you're told as gospel.

__________________

newguy18

Very well said Eric.I'd just like to ask one question strictly out of curiousity,If the sapwood to hollow ratio remained the same then as the tree got bigger wouldn't the tree be weaker simply do to the fact that theres not enough holding wood as the ddiameter of the tree increases?

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

treeseer

We agree then that if that big euc was reduced to 30,000 lbs with less lever arm then the wall thickness criterion changes. As you said;

", explore other factors of what may be affecting things and not jump to conclusions."



O and thanks for the MSU link on the "Impotance" of cambial growth; now I get it. re scientific names, you are right, not to be used for stupefying the client, but often useful for precision.

Eric Frei

NG yes, spot on.

That's what I was showing with the 0.33 vs 0.11 ratios. The lower the ratio the less strength.

Now just today I had another fluke, I happened to be grinding a stump that was around 12" dia which had decay internally. The tree did not have any external wounds, and that's the key here, we are talking about wall4 getting triggered from internally without physical wounding. And the best part is the decay managed to get to the bark at a few points totally invading those splitting cells.

As you require the picture large to see any wall4 I have manually uploaded it to this link, just click and open it, you may have to click the picture to make it larger, it should fill a monitor easily and you can then have a good look all over it. I wet it so it shows up stuff better. If you take pics guys, wet the wood.

I cannot see any wall4 in that picture.

Picture is 763kb http://www.treeworld.info/manualuplo...niferstump.jpg

__________________

newguy18

I don't see any wall 4 either,just some decay and a split.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Eric Frei

Yeah, however we need more samples, different fungi and different trees will have different responses. Most likely no one size fits all but there'll be a pretty good statistic that'll show what is most often likely.

Hard part is finding the hollow trees without external wounds or origins of the decay. A true hollow log, preferable alive when cut/felled.

Guy, here's a question you can answer.

Why is woundwood up to 40% stronger than regular wood?

And for how long (physically not time related), like just the one years growth or for ever?

__________________

TrevMcRev

That "split" looks like it was probably a tree with co-dom stems down low.

Common in Conifers.

Could movement there caused internal wounding to trigger this??

JohN Dee

Wow, this thread has been buried for a whole year!

Well today we took down his really dodgy Sydney Blue Gum after raising the alarm with the principal of the school on the huge hazard of this tree.

The reason I bring up this tree is because it had some unusual growth on it that I thought was very necessary to take photos of. I'm not sure whose side of the argument this will be a + for or if it is even relevant, but I think it is relevant so you guys tell me what you think.

P.S I do briefly understand codit I just haven't sat down and thoroughly read this thread over or thoroughly read up about codit. Will soon though .

Attached Thumbnails

       

__________________
We are what we repeatedly do... Excellence then, is not an act, but HABIT...

Red : Green : Blue

JohN Dee

Hmm, sorry bout the bloody right angle pics, stupid batch resizer...

What do yas reckon bout stickying this thread? A lot of great info in here.

__________________
We are what we repeatedly do... Excellence then, is not an act, but HABIT...

Red : Green : Blue

Eric Frei

I wonder what cause almost 50% of the trees circumference to be killed or removed?

What you have is an injury that has affected the entire circumference in that cross section we are looking at.

From earlier evidence we know that growth after wounding is altered, and almost the entire circumference is altered.

We also know that at even the point opposite to the wound new growth can be altered, even though it is far from the wound. Some evidence suggests that pressure is part of the trigger. Experiments showed that by varying pressure the way cells differentiated would also change.

You get a distinct separation between the new and old wood, it can peel apart (ring shake) or delamination.

__________________

stirmantrees

well i can pat myself on the back as i have read this, the video of yours eric, and the other related thread. took a good bit of time as i did not want to skip anything.
I feel like i just did brain presses
recently left a stub on a laurel oak tree that the neighbor was going to hatchet off of my clients tree anyway. he cant stop her so he wanted me to do it before anybody else. we discussed the fact that the branch and its location would invariably cause decay(Laurel Oak again) at the trunk. The tree was in need of zero pruning as i had trimmed last season. We both decided to attempt an experiment and we left a stub with the intention of removing next season. i will measure and take pic of stub and post here in say ............. a year.
Great thread.

Eric Frei

In this 2009 PDF from Colorado State University Extension there is something interesting regarding hollow sections.

It shows a reaction zone, once again it's not wall4.

Look on page 3 and 4 of the PDF.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Attached Files

tree growth and decay.pdf (503.3 KB, 112 views)

__________________

Eric Frei

Page 100 states:-

__________________

Eric Frei

You know, when you have a logical hunch regardless of what even professors try to do to you, say about you, run you down and talk out of their asses the evidence just keeps stacking up against these alleged industry guru's.

From: Fungal strategies of wood decay in trees By Francis W. M. R. Schwarze, Julia Engels, Claus Mattheck

I present what I figured all along, read carefully where I have underlined in red.

Now I also tell you that behind the scenes Sir Mark Hartley sends emails to his flock pointing out how stupid I apparently am, he believes I'm wrong on this topic but has not yet once produced one shred of evidence about anything to the contrary, all lip service. In fact he believes wall4 comes from kino. Mind you he teaches at TAFE and he might be teaching Judy Fakes's notes about where wall4 comes from anyway.

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________

TrevMcRev

Well it looks like your compiling some good supporting evidence ekka.

As much as shigos work changed arboriculture, maybe we have to be open to further development as time passes. His founding reseach is getting old now, and i'm sure there were plenty of people who resisted his findings from the old "tree surgery" days where topping, scraping & filling cavities & flush cuts were GOOD things to be doing.

Only an open mind can keep learning & growing.

Close minded people eventually get left behind.

Eric Frei

And to add some humour from Treeworld - The Cartoon





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________