What can I put in a tree to fill a small cavity?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Originally posted by Tree Machine
If water entering the cavity reaches the cracks at the central core of the tree, so will the fungus. In an instance such as this, advantage fungus.
Maybe, maybe not. the fungus can grow, true, but the tree grows too. When it grows with enough vigor, it has the resources needed for codit.
Even when it's advantage fungus, the match is not over. The tree can hit aces in response, the fungus can double-fault. Even if moist conditions in the bottom of a cavity may increase humidity in the whole cavity, does that increase the fungus' advantage enough to justify extending a cavity by cutting a drain? the book reviewed below refers to drought as being an ally of decay fungi.

And even all that's true and the drainhole works for a time, won't it eventually clog or grow over? Whaddya do then, recut? Sorry, but I still can't see how cutting through healthy wood to drain a cavity makes sense.
Understanding fungus, and its basic needs and growth behaviors is important in our roles as stewards of the tree community.
I agree. I loaned my copy of the book reviewed below, so I can't find out all of what it might say about all this. (The cracks emanating from the core that you refer to are xylem rays, which it is true can be motorways for fungal spread.
They also can be walled off, making a star-shaped hollow.) Have you read it?
FUNGAL STRATEGIES OF WOOD DECAY IN TREES

In 1878, in Germany, as I learned in Forestry 101, the modern science of tree care was born with the publication of Robert Hartig’s text on tree disease. This landmark book described the parasitic mode of life of Armillaria on Scots pine and documented the breakdown of cell walls by Phellinus pini. In 1863, Schacht had described the invasion of cell walls by fungal hyphae. Lacking the tools necessary for a closer analysis, but building on Schacht’s work, Hartig postulated that enzymes secreted by fungal hyphae dissolved lignin and caused secondary cell walls to collapse. As a result, wood would become worthless, and trees would fall down.

In 2000, in Germany, the science of tree care took a great leap forward. Building on the work of Hartig, Shigo and many others, Francis W.F.M.R. Schwarze, Julia Engels and Claus Mattheck published Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees. Now available worldwide, and made readily accessible to English speakers thanks to the superlative translation work of William Linnard, this book shows the reader an entirely new way of looking at decay in trees. By understanding fungus-tree interaction more completely, the tree manager can make decisions about how to handle infected trees with more certainty.

More certainty is certainly needed today. Many authorities tell tree managers that infections by Armillaria, Ganoderma, Inonotus and other fungi are considered sufficient cause for immediate removal of the tree for fear of failure. However, based on over ten years of research, Schwarze tells us “…the mere occurrence of a fungus fruit body on a tree does not indicate the extent of the decay…Degradation processes, host differences and environmental conditions are too diverse…decays often affect only a small amount of wood in the tree, so that stability and safety are not impaired.”

The book begins with a review of wood anatomy, focusing on the layered structure of the cell wall. Readers of Mattheck’s earlier work will recognize the hedgehog demonstrating the mechanical stresses within the tree. By listening to this “body language” spoken inside the tree, the diagnostician may “hear” the decay spread--and sometimes stop. With magnification up to 1000x, the reader is able to see clearly the action of the fungus in the cells, and the reaction of the trees to the attack.

Fungal pathology is reviewed next; the brown, white and soft rots. Much advanced information on soft rots, which were first described by Schacht in 1863, is presented. For instance, research by Schwarze et al prove what Sinclair, Lyon and Johnson saw indications of in 1987—that Hypoxylon deustum (a.k.a. Ustulina deusta) causes a soft rot in the sapwood of various trees. This is just one example of a pathogen shifting strategies, from saprophyte to parasite, or from enzyme-secreting to hyphae-growing that the authors note, especially on moisture-stressed trees.

Chapter Three, the heart of the book, is devoted to Fungus-Host Combinations. For a diagnostician of limited understanding, such as the reviewer, the illustrations here tell the tale of fungal pathology better than a thousand words. First, electron micrographs take the eye into intercellular and intracellular space, where the chemical battles take place. Then, three-dimensional anatomic drawings paint a distinct picture of the disease and the defense. Finally photographs, of standing trees and cross-sections, show what we all see in real life when a rotting tree is cut down and cut up.

By pulling the eye and the mind from the inside of the tree to the outside and back again, the book allows the reader to exhaustively examine what takes place when fungus and tree combine. Still, as Schwarze says, “it requires an effort to understand these…’trials of strength’…the only sensible approach to predicting the future expansion of a decay…” Or termination of a decay process; for he and others have observed, “many trees, old and young, in which a decay has been successfully compartmentalized”. The authors note why “stress treatment” fertilization of struggling trees often backfires—decay fungi thrive on excess nitrogen.



Chapter 4 begins with the compartmentalization model, and verifies that theory with microscopic assessment. Since most fungi which endanger trees’ stability work from the inside out, the ways that trees resist that outward spread are reviewed at some length. Xylem rays can be the trees’ Achilles Heels, the pathogens’ paths of least resistance. Similarly, xylem cracks produced by rapid drying after removal of a branch are “motorways” for infection, so the authors suggest that “the use of wound sealants could be quite successful against wound parasites. However there is still a great need for research here.” When large branches must be removed, experimenting with sealants seems preferable to opening the heartwood to decay.

Throughout the book, we are reminded that the tree’s vitality and its energy reserves are the most important factors in making a prognosis. Since fungal spores are present throughout the air, soil and water that surrounds the tree, it is the arborist’s first and constant task to make trees stronger and more resistant to any attack. If fungus gets a foothold in a tree, following the discoveries within Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees can lead to a program for managing the tree to resist decay and retain and increase its value.
 
You're one compelling dude

Guy, thank you a million times over for that intelligent look into a prime reference text. I'm glad to know it exists. I will hunt it down and gladly shell out whatever it costs. Thank you for spending your valuable time to offer us the insight. You're a credit to our profession. You deserve a hug.
 
Re: You're one compelling dude

Originally posted by Tree Machine
I will hunt it down and gladly shell out whatever it costs.
Happy Hunting. After the review came out in 2001 in JoA, the book went out of print :( (?!) Last time this topic came up here, AS guys bought up the last 4 copies Amazon had at that time.

It costs over $50, but is packed w 10+ yrs of very focused research. ;) Some reviewers looked at the cautious advocacy of experimenting with sealants, objected kneejerkedly, and dissed it for that reason alone. :rolleyes: If you have a U connection, you can get it loaned through their interlibrary network.

Keep the pictures and the comments coming! Very useful. As for the hug, I'll recruit my wife to dispense one.:blob2:
 
This tree was definitely hosed

Guy, you mention my reference to cracks at the center of the tree as xylem rays. Xylem rays eminate from the innermost core of the tree, outward to the phloem, which situates in a zone between the cambium and the bark. Zylem rays give quarter-sawn (vertical grain) lumber that lustrous and desirable sheen, the 'tiger rays' as I've heard it called.

Physiologically, these xylem rays are pathways for nutrients back and forth, to, and from the phloem (seasonal). As you referenced, these horizontal rays can be motorways for fungal spread.

That much is true, but the physical and chemical defenses of the tree, ideally, will prevent this.

The cracks I mentioned in the heart center of the tree are just that - cracks. Not rays, but physical cracks. It doesn't exist in all trees, just some and I haven't found any real pattern or species consistency, just that some trees have the central vertical cracks, and some don't. Lumber men prize the heartwood for boards, but not the very center. Often there will be cracks right up the middle of the oldest part of the tree, the remnants of when the tree was a sapling. I believe this is a case of the young tree freezing, the water inside the young sapwood expanding, wood cracking, and then the tree moving on with essentially no ill effects

...until a wound allows entry of a fungus into the tree. If the fungus moves successfully to the deep interior of the tree, and reaches these interior vertical cracks, then we have an ideal scenario for the eventual hollowing out of the trunk and early demise of the tree.

In the photo below, in chunking the hackberry trunk into firewood lengths, I noted the decay from an old, torn-off limb site, which hollowed to a cavity, entered the very center and raced downward through the very, very center and expressed itself as a mushroom flush at the base of the tree almost 3 meters away from the originating wound site, down low where near the earth it is generally cooler and more moist. There was no evidence of any wounding at the base where the Dryad's Saddles were fruiting.

If I were to have a 3-D model of just the decay in this tree it would have looked like a bulbous hollow, atop a pole, sitting on a big vessel - kinda like a long, stretched-out hourglass with a smaller top and a big, fat base.

This is just an example, not necessarily a broad model for decay, but I do see this sort of thing occasionally.

The question then comes up: Would early sealing, or the creating of a drainage have allowed the tree the time advantage to set up CODIT barriers against the invasion of fungus?
 
TM

Hackberrys are one those trees that are very poor at compartmentalizing, especially large wounds. I doesn't matter wheather it is a storm inflicted wound or a well placed collar cut intentionally done to the tree.

I had a storm damaged Hackberry about 15 yrs ago or so that had a co dom ripped from the main stem, big ugly wound, but fresh. I did the same as you were describing in the thread, using saws and hand tools to smooth it out, carved the wound into an elliptical shape, sealed it good. The tree is still standing on the courthouse lawn, which has given me an oppurtunity to observe it over the years. Rams horns have formed on the edges but the main stem has decayed to nothing more than a shell.

Previous to the Hackberry, I had a larger Sugar Maple, I did the same thing to this tree only it has not decayed one bit, still standing with a heavy lean toward the house and has with stood many windstorms since then.

What are those conks in the picture?? I have always attributed Botryospharia as the main decay fungi in Hackberry. Those don't look quite right from what I usually see.

I don't know if anyone noticed, I put the five star rating on this thread. Even though we have a difference in opinions and methods here, this has been an excellent discussion and shows how much more there is to learn about trees.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Re: This tree was definitely hosed

Originally posted by Tree Machine
Would early sealing, or the creating of a drainage have allowed the tree the time advantage to set up CODIT barriers against the invasion of fungus?
TM if you are of the strong opinion that reducing moisture will slow rot, then can you not achieve that with an external diversion device--"capping"--, and flush (A great use of pneumatic tool, or shop vac) and foam fill? I'm leery about filling alone to do this, since it wouldn't take much moisture entering or gaps in the fill to create 100% humidity conditions.

I sure would try the above before cutting a drainhole in live tissue.
 
Originally posted by Tree Machine
In fact, fungus can go where water can't, that is, uphill, up the tree,

Time out! If water can't go "uphill, up the tree", then how do trees live? Water can, in fact, go uphill. Let's see, we can call it translocation, transpiration, capillary action, evaporation, (there's another one, something to do with negative pressure differential, or something like that?)

Oh, never mind. I should have stayed out of this one.
 
Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
But you better not be cutting into live wood for the singular purpose of draining water and calling it 'tree care', or else someone might (rightfully) call you a HACK.
Skwerl, read again. That's what I've been saying all along, but not in such blunt terms, because I don't pretend to know it all.
And 14, TM's reference I think was to water moving uphill inside a cavity, not inside xylem. Y'all are welcome to jump in anytime, but it'd help to read things a little more carefully before lobbing the grenades.
 
Some of those 50-year-old ideas are not all bad. It's amazing how fast we arborists abandon ideas like filling cavities and painting wounds, because it saves time and money for us not to do it. When we go talk to the university professors and other experts at the extension office, they will tell us that wounds should be dressed, we just don't know the best formulation for the dressings and /or fillings. Just because paint is not ideal, doesn't mean that there isn't a better alternative. There just isn't much industry drive to develop something that will be a pain in the butt to use.
Much of the cavity filling done over the years was good for the trees, in my opinion. There were problems, like the lack of flexibility of concrete, and digging into codit walls to install it, but over all the fundamental principle is sound. Keeping out those animals, insects, and other organisms that cause the break-down of codit walls.
 
Am I right or wrong?

I tell customers that are worried about ground level cavities all they need to do is 3 or 4 times a year spray some pesticide in there. Then they won't see those dreaded bugs crawling about.:rolleyes:
 
Back in the day, it was common for the arborist to fill those ground level cavities with concrete. As they finished they would almost always make a decorative pattern in the concrete. A pattern that looked like a brick wall was common. Once in a while you'd see a little doorway formed into the concrete and a little man or bunny or other clever figure peeking out.
 
Hey guys, sorry I posted the pic of plunging a saw tip into a cavity to drain it. I was simply answering Leon's question of 'How do you drain a cavity without drilling a hole in it?

Plunge cutting, aside from being a dangerous practice in an of itself, is not a recommended practice, by me or anyone else. Please don't take it as a recommendation. The cases where I create a slot drain are isolated events, based on individual cavities where I felt doing nothing was worse than plunging a slot for drainage. That is all.

In an ideal CODIT scenario, the reaction wood seals off the wound site from translocated water, and water travel routes around the site, definitely not into or through it. For water to enter into a wound site is biologically contrary to the tree's attempt to compartmentalize. From the inside, the tree is trying to keep water away from the wound site. From the outside, the tree has no defense. Water can either get in and pool, or the water runs off.

If the water runs off of a wound and does not collect in it, the tree has a much better chance of a successful compartmentalization.

Wood has certain properties, like when it gets wet, it swells, and when it stays wet, it will soften and fungus will invade it. I don't care if we're talking about plywood or a limb or trunk. I've never seen anything good of a wound site holding water. I have, however, seen many instances of hollowed-out trunks and failed compartmentalizations because of it.

So, if a compartmentalization is failing, is it better to attempt an invasive measure, or just let it go, thinking that doing nothing is safer for the tree than doing something? Isn't cutting a limb off considered invasive? Drop-crotch pruning? Thinning, selective limb removal? Call it what you will, its all wounding.

Treating an existing wound by creating a small wound, however, is bad from all the feedback I'm getting from many of you. The tree, if it could talk, might say, "Ouch Jim, that slot drain hurt, but thanks. Now I've got at least a biological chance in to set barrier walls now that mosquitos can't breed inside of me".

A few of you guys seem to express a clear understanding of the compartmentalization process. Mebbe you can enlighten us on how to tell the difference between a CODIT barrier wall of defense, and simply a line of demarcation between wood that is fungally permeated and that which is not. There is a big, big difference.
 
"If the water runs off of a wound and does not collect in it, the tree has a much better chance of a successful compartmentalization."

This just isn't true. The tree has walled the area off and doesn't know or care about pooled water.

"I have, however, seen many instances of hollowed-out trunks and failed compartmentalizations because of it."

You see a huge cavity and some water and blame the water. Isn't it possible that there are other factors at work? Do you suppose the water came AFTER the cavity? And if that cavity was first, how do you know the water was the problem.

"For water to enter into a wound site is biologically contrary to the tree's attempt to compartmentalize. From the inside, the tree is trying to keep water away from the wound site."

The tree is not trying to keep water away from the wound site. It's rerouting it so it can be used on the other side of the wound site.

Wood already has a lot of moisture; there is no benefit to keeping water away from moist wood.
 
Just to interject a clarification into the debate. --Wood that is continuously wet does not decay (at least not in the normal fashion and not quickly). Submerged wood is protected. Dry wood doesn't decay much either. Wood decays at the transition zone from water submersion to air or when subjected to wet/dry cycling.:angel:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top