2 arborists, 2 VERY different opinions. HELP!

[treemama]

I have a huge, beautiful, old Black Oak in my front yard. The other day my landscaper said he thought there might be a crack in it (there was bark shedding from above the first branch, showing reddish, orange bark beneath and wrapping around and up to the first "junction" of branches).

I had a licensed arborist come this morning. He took a rubber hammer and knocked around the trunk base and there appeared to be a difference in sound, one side more hollow sounding, even to me. He then wrote me up "recommendations" that included the removal of the Black Oak and, to my surprise, a beautiful White Oak (also for reason of "decay at basal zone") and a Cherry (with "dieback and decay at basal zone"). I am sad because these are our 3 best trees but I can't risk the kids' safety. Then, a 2nd licensed arborist came and climbed the tree (the 1st did not). He said that he did not see any cracks, thought it was just shedding bark (maybe bc of all the recent moisture and the area being more compressed there but was less confident about the "why") but did not see any reason to do anything with the tree. He also looked at the White Oak and the Cherry and while he did see the decay at the base of the Cherry (which is evident on the outside) he said there was no reason to be concerned about any of them and told me I didn't have any work for him. ($0 bid vs $8000 bid) He did not, however, bang any little hammers around the base. Other than the shedding bark on the Black Oak the 2 Oaks look healthy on the outside (no decay/mushrooms on outside and leaves are healthy). And I did have a reputable tree company come last year and not point out any issues with these trees.

Any advice??? Thoughts? How important or reliable is that little hammer? What should my next steps be. I would love to save thousands of dollars and these beautiful pieces of my landscape but I can't risk the safety of my kids or anyone else who happens through my yard...

Any advice would be appreciated!!! Thanks!!!

 

[CNBTreeTrimming]

I would say go with the one that's hammered...the tree. J/k get a third opinion. No way to tell without being there to physically inspect the tree.

 

[derwoodii]

I have a huge, beautiful, old Black Oak in my front yard. The other day my landscaper said he thought there might be a crack in it (there was bark shedding from above the first branch, showing reddish, orange bark beneath and wrapping around and up to the first "junction" of branches).

I had a licensed arborist come this morning. He took a rubber hammer and knocked around the trunk base and there appeared to be a difference in sound, one side more hollow sounding, even to me. He then wrote me up "recommendations" that included the removal of the Black Oak and, to my surprise, a beautiful White Oak (also for reason of "decay at basal zone") and a Cherry (with "dieback and decay at basal zone"). I am sad because these are our 3 best trees but I can't risk the kids' safety. Then, a 2nd licensed arborist came and climbed the tree (the 1st did not). He said that he did not see any cracks, thought it was just shedding bark (maybe bc of all the recent moisture and the area being more compressed there but was less confident about the "why") but did not see any reason to do anything with the tree. He also looked at the White Oak and the Cherry and while he did see the decay at the base of the Cherry (which is evident on the outside) he said there was no reason to be concerned about any of them and told me I didn't have any work for him. ($0 bid vs $8000 bid) He did not, however, bang any little hammers around the base. Other than the shedding bark on the Black Oak the 2 Oaks look healthy on the outside (no decay/mushrooms on outside and leaves are healthy). And I did have a reputable tree company come last year and not point out any issues with these trees.

Any advice??? Thoughts? How important or reliable is that little hammer? What should my next steps be. I would love to save thousands of dollars and these beautiful pieces of my landscape but I can't risk the safety of my kids or anyone else who happens through my yard...

Any advice would be appreciated!!! Thanks!!!

Photos please, try show the trees site and the areas of concern.
I am tending to go with the no work chap with the information given, but surprised he did not offer some small hazard trim, dead wooding or weight reduction with his assessment.
Sounding trees with a hammer can useful in structure analysis. But it can be easy to misinterpret or misrepresent the results.


http://www.arboristsite.com/support-announcements/65204.htm

 

[treeseer]

Agree with above. The first guy was an ignorant fearmonger and the second was a treehuggin hippie. Well not quite but inspecting the base is important.
So is not jumping to conclusions like the $8000 man did. His condemnation based on sounding earned him a call to Hartford to see what the state folks think about his effort to deforest CT.

as one who values trees, please consider making that call.

If you paid nothing for these visits, you got less than you paid for from the first, and made up a little of that loss with the second.

if pics include the hollow-sounding area that would help. Interior decay is a big bugaboo and the cause of mass hysteria among arborists. attached is another perspective.

O and the orange coloration where outer bark is peeling off is usually a GOOD thing--reinforcing phellem (?) tissue being added where needed.

View attachment 187533

 

[sgreanbeans]

:agree2:

Had one like this last week, 3 Arborist, me included. white oak with some die back. I said too much water and soil compaction. We have had epic rains. 2nd, said Borer and need to remove? I seen absolutely no sign of that! 3rd, said they will fertilize it, setting up routine visits. She had a beautiful plush lawn and seen no sign of nutrient deficiencies in the trees. Home Owner took my advise and sent soil samples to Iowa state and confirmed mine. Seems guys are using their cert to fear monger for higher revenue, pretty crappy.

 

[derwoodii]

In reference to the title this research shows while we (Arborists) are trying our best, we can often get different answers to the same questions.

Extract from the paper.

During the last decade tree risk assessments have become a commonplace activity for many arborists. As part of a Master Degree research project at The University of Melbourne some 23 tree risk methods were accumulated, from these some 15 were further analysed.


The 12 experienced arborists who assessed eight trees using eight different methods, produced the most interesting results. The hypothesis was that experienced arborists would apply similar values in similar circumstances and hence the differences produced by each method would be evident. However, it appears that the differences in arborist applied assessment values to these eight trees across all methods was so diverse that the influence of each method is not obvious and that the variation produced by the arborists is the greatest influence on the risk output values created by each method. This observation was also confirmed by the comparison of ‘intuitive risk’ values that were chosen by the arborists.

 

[treeseer]

that was an important study; helped spur the current BMP/Qualification efforts by ISA.

I'm continually amazed by what some colleagues identify as "defects". Many, like that orange coloration, are actually strengths!

greenbeans is right about misuse of authority from cert--sell 2nd opinions!

 

[beastmaster]

We recently removed a beautiful Oak. A well known and respected Consulting Arborist condemned it as unsafe, The City Arborist concurred. It had conks growing out of the trunk and some beetle hits. My Boss did the mallet thing, and in the area around the conks was a different sound to be sure. After removal the only rot seen was a little patch around where the conks were. The wood was pulpy. but only a small area and a few inches deep(tree was mabe 90in DBH)
I'm not second guessing this Arborist who condemned the tree, but I think fear of liability if they're wrong(There was many targets)Has a big influence on some Arborist. Some just might be drumming up work.
Finding a honest, fair Arborist takes a little looking and research, Most are honest I think, but there are some bad apples out there and some people are bias and don't even know it. Some just are not qualified. Contact a local University or ask some one at the local botanical gardens or arboretum for a hook up.

 

[treeseer]

We recently removed a beautiful Oak. A well known and respected Consulting Arborist condemned it as unsafe, The City Arborist concurred. ... After removal the only rot seen was a little patch around where the conks were. The wood was pulpy. but only a small area and a few inches deep(tree was mabe 90in DBH) ...

This imo may be grounds for suit against the consultant and the City. Basing decisions on Inadequate Data violates ASCA ethics, unless the severe limitations were disclosed, in which case the owner overreacted or screwed up by not getting 2nd opinion.

In these cases you can drill into decay pocket then stop where resistance is met. yes that can break a barrier but by documenting depth, lack of strength loss is measured. tomograph is best tool and they are getting to be more commonly used..

a pic of that stump would be very interesting to see. uttahere2:

 

[beastmaster]

This imo may be grounds for suit against the consultant and the City. Basing decisions on Inadequate Data violates ASCA ethics, unless the severe limitations were disclosed, in which case the owner overreacted or screwed up by not getting 2nd opinion.

In these cases you can drill into decay pocket then stop where resistance is met. yes that can break a barrier but by documenting depth, lack of strength loss is measured. tomograph is best tool and they are getting to be more commonly used..

a pic of that stump would be very interesting to see. uttahere2:

Here is the butt piece cut about 18 in above ground.View attachment 187746
You can see a little bit of decay, from where the conks`were. but basically as good as you see on old live Oaks.

 

[treeseer]

that's only 18" above the stump? man, my depth perception must be off. it still could be a lot worse down there, but i reckon that got ground out. darn; woulda been interesting.

did you get a look?

 

[beastmaster]

that's only 18" above the stump? man, my depth perception must be off. it still could be a lot worse down there, but i reckon that got ground out. darn; woulda been interesting.

did you get a look?

The stump was cut at about 18in above ground is what I meant. That shot came right off the stump. Here is a photo of the stump;View attachment 187779

 

[beastmaster]

You can see that white rot. that is where the conks were growing at.

 

[treeseer]

Only in that one location? What is that, <10% of the cross-sectional area decayed?

Re coloration, is that pattern of 'heartwood" normal for the species?

 

[beastmaster]

No that coloration isn't normal. Its the vary beginning of the decaying process I think. We removed another Oak on the property that was more advance compared to the first. Check out the discoloration here.View attachment 187915

I cut some slabs from a large branch for the HO where the stain was really colorful and looked like Jesus(Or so the lady said)
Beastmaster

 

[treeseer]

No that coloration isn't normal. Its the vary beginning of the decaying process I think.
Beastmaster

Hmm you might be right, but that discoloration can be an early phase that the infection stays at for a long time. Wood strength not affected much by that imo. wish the conk was ID'd so the tree-fungus interaction could be looked into more. Good camera work thanks.

 

[Arborleaf13]

Just sharing

Hi All,

Regarding the two arborist checking on the same tree, i will say that arborist should inspect the whole tree unless limited by extreme situation. If there is present of dieback, it is good to check in the root collar/root for any sign of defects that obvious. Crack = really need to know the species. Some trees have obvious and aggressive growth cracks that are normal.

I will suggest that (dieback) on tree, we can inspect the root crown area with manual soil excavation/air excavation if allowed. Inspect the terminal twigs to ensure the tissues are live or dead? Check the crack on branch whether a growth cracks or true crack. Hammering on the main trunk can be useful to test on structural integrity but certain tree has natural pockets or gap where sounding using hammer can be misinterpret. Conk is fruit bodies of fungal material. According to few studies, conk growing out can be just a small discolouration (depends how fast the decay) at centre of the trunk. Maybe i will suggest, Resistograph to carry out to check at this section.

Cheers and MErry Christmas.
:smile2:

 

[treemandan]

Hi All,

Regarding the two arborist checking on the same tree, i will say that arborist should inspect the whole tree unless limited by extreme situation. If there is present of dieback, it is good to check in the root collar/root for any sign of defects that obvious. Crack = really need to know the species. Some trees have obvious and aggressive growth cracks that are normal.

I will suggest that (dieback) on tree, we can inspect the root crown area with manual soil excavation/air excavation if allowed. Inspect the terminal twigs to ensure the tissues are live or dead? Check the crack on branch whether a growth cracks or true crack. Hammering on the main trunk can be useful to test on structural integrity but certain tree has natural pockets or gap where sounding using hammer can be misinterpret. Conk is fruit bodies of fungal material. According to few studies, conk growing out can be just a small discolouration (depends how fast the decay) at centre of the trunk. Maybe i will suggest, Resistograph to carry out to check at this section.

Cheers and MErry Christmas.
:smile2:

Yeah, banging on the trunk never seemed very viable to me. It looks good for the client though but I never tried it.

 

[boo]

I have found that "sounding" a tree, is pretty accurate in most cases. After doing it for almost 20 years, and thousands of trees, I have have been fooled 2 times that I can remember.
A person would have to know how much decay, species/wood density/strength, how much weight above decay, how much air does the canopy catch, etc.... an educated guess would be far more practical than almost endless math for the formula that still may or may not give a definitive answer.
Opinions may vary, so, I like the math and science for decisions... I think in your case, I would lean more towards some educated guesses.
Root damage can also cause dieback.
One who touches trees daily, knows them best* <start with him.

Get more educated guesses before you decide what to do.
Make sure to mention your firm interest in saving your trees.
Don't allow anyone to climb your trees with spikes to inspect them.
Call out the scammers, and highly recommend the ones that help you.

Feel free to send any of them here to Arborist Site.

 

[beastmaster]

I do sometimes check out hazard trees with a mallet before climbing them. Sometimes.
I don't really have any experience with some of the sophisticated devices used to check trees, but if that is what I did for a living, I would have what worked and use it. Mostly for us less high tech types there are usually signs and indicators which can be observed to help us make our decisions, but its never perfect and lots of times open to interpretation.