08/13/2024
Hey tree pros, regarding risk assessment, I’ve seen a couple recent papers sharing conclusions like this:
“In particular, we were unable to detect a relationship between codominant stems, included bark, multiple branches emerging from one location, and overextended branches when we assessed storm damage…”
And,
“The likelihood of fork failure must frequently be assessed during tree inspection.
Most of the guidance used in practice is based on the shape of these forks, especially on the form ("U" or "V"), the angle between branches, the presence of lateral bulges, and the branch aspect ratio. However, observational studies indicate that the practical predictive ability of these traits is limited at best.”
So how are you all looking at branch unions these days? How are you incorporating research findings like these into your thinking? Are you starting to be able to discern stronger and weaker traits among codom and included unions that are more specific and subtle than simply “U” vs “V”?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370659961_Defective_or_Just_Different_Observed_Storm_Failure_in_Four_Urban_Tree_Growth_Patterns
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370890332_Trees_Adjust_the_Shape_of_Branch_Unions_to_Increase_Their_Load-Bearing_Capacity
PDF | The likelihood of branch union failure often needs to be assessed in tree risk assessment. Most of the guidance used in practice is based on the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
