Another new section! This one is intended for discussion of issues related to tree hazards and risk management.

Same rules. Enjoy.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 06, 1998 at 18:51:56:

We recently had to take down a 95 year old Austrian Pine. I looked the growth rings. The tree had been growing fast for the first 35 years of its life. All of a sudden the growth pattern changed and the rings became very close together. 60 years ago a house had been built on the property and extensive grading had been done near the tree. The tree had managed to survive for about 60 more years but that grade change had eventualy killed it. It appeared to die of root rot.
Just an observation, thought it was interesting. Maybe you will find it interesting also. Sorry my spell checker is broken. Jim Martin

Reply to post by James Martin ASCA, on March 06, 1998 at 18:51:56:

Hi, Jim. You might have a tough time convincing most people that the grading "killed" the tree, since it took 60 years. But it probably did have an effect that lead to its decline.

In a recent case, a white ash was buried under only 12 inches of soil, and nothing closer than 8 feet to the trunk. It died within 15 months. Trees are amazingly tough, and amazingly fragile (sort of like people, I suppose).

BTW, we don't issue demerits for incorrect spelling.

Russ

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 21, 1998 at 16:44:38:

Hi guys!

I beg to differ.... while I agree that you may have trouble CONVINCING a layperson that construction impact killed the tree, it is clearly possible if not likely!

Serious impacts, (e.g., construction impacts, drought, heavy pruning, etc.) can often be traced back through shrinking growth increments to the year (or even closer) of occurence.

While such serious impacts may not kill the tree outright, it may cause the tree to enter a premature "spiral of decline" (J.R. Clark) from which it might never recover!

While other pathogens may help it along its way (e.g., insects, root disease, people) with the most obvious often being identified as the cuplrit, in fact, construction or other traumatic damage from years ago may have irreperably predisposed, or "caused", eventual death!

Post-damage, preservation efforts may improve such a declining tree aesthetically and slow its rate of decline.... effectively delaying its death... maybe even 60 years?! But then... maybe this is often the best we as arborists can do! Personally, I would consider 60 years a success!!

Torrey Young

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 21, 1998 at 16:44:38:

The thing that I found interesting was that the todays decisions can have such an impact far in the future.

Jim

Reply to post by Torrey Young, on March 24, 1998 at 20:02:45:

Torrey, I don't think we are in disagreement on this. As you stated, I would consider 60 years a success.

My point here is that we do not have enough data to say that a disturbance 60 years ago "killed" this tree. A close examination of growth patterns over that period might help. Knowing what the agents were the lead directly its death. (Why did the man die?- His heart stopped. Why did his heart stop? A bullet went through it. What killed him?) We don't know if indeed the tree recovered sufficiently from the initial stress to be considered "cured", or simply "in remission". Without a lot of further evidence, I wouldn't want to take the stand on that position.

Russ