# tree boring



## cashdan (Jul 16, 2008)

I am having a couple of trees cut down on my property, and the person who is doing it suggests he do a pencil-width boring on a nearby tree since it suffered some construction damage years back. Even though the scars seem to have healed, he says there could be some interior rot, and thinks it's worth doing since the procedure is relatively inexpensive. Question is whether this type of boring compromises a tree in any way. Thank, Sheldon


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 16, 2008)

Do you have a picture of the trunk and root flare? Mechanical damage to the trunk does not necessarily equate to interior decay. You also say that there has been "healing." That's a great sign. 

Boring to detect decay will open up a path for pathogens to enter into the interior, thereby possibly accelerating decay. Google "CODIT" or "Compartmentalization of Decay in Trees" for a more detailed explanation. You can use a rubber mallet to sound for a hollow interior, use exterior clues to determine if decay is present, or go with a more technical method (tree "radar"). 

Boring to say "Yup, this tree has decay" does not mean anything. If your tree guy knows enough to say "This tree has x amount of decay and x amount of solid wood, and this species is considered a hazard if it does not have x inches of solid wood around its trunk," then boring would mean more. If all he's going to do is drill into the tree and see if it has decay, then you might need to find another opinion (especially if he's the one selling you on removals). 

Just because "the procedure is relatively inexpensive" doesn't mean it should be done.


----------



## cashdan (Jul 17, 2008)

*Tree boring 2*

Many thanks for your prompt and detailed response. It was very enlightening. I've attached a few pictures of the trunk which, incidentally, measures two feet in diameter. I think the tree is a white Oak.
As you can see, the top scar has fully healed while the bottom scar which measures about 1" by 6" is still a bit open. The rest of the tree is clear. I probed the wound a bit and it didn't seem pulpy to me. The last photo magnifies the wound a bit and may provide a better view.
Once more, I appreciate your help.
Best, Shelly

P.S. Turns out I wasn't able to construct a URL on which to store the shots so they can be viewed. If you're comfortable sending me an email address to which I can send the shots, I'd be happy to send them along. My email is mail][email protected][/email].


----------



## arbor pro (Jul 17, 2008)

My old forestry professor taught me how to bore trees to check for decay but, it was only done in extreme cases when rot was evident and there was a scientific process for doing so and calculating the amount of dead wood vs holding wood. 

At that time, it was determined that, if a tree is already showing significant signs of rot that boring into it to do a decay test wouldn't compromise it any further because it's already been compromised to the point that it raises a safety concern. 

I don't know if I would suggest doing such to a tree recovering from construction damage unless there were symptoms of decay. Of course, the best inobtrusive way to check for decay is to contact a local university and see if they have a resistograph available.


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 17, 2008)

I don't see any pictures.



> Of course, the best inobtrusive way to check for decay is to contact a local university and see if they have a resistograph available.



A resistograph uses a drill bit to probe and creates a wound. Tree radar is unobtrusive, using sound to calculate decay. 

Probing into the decay itself (without going through healthy tissue) can be OK, but it will not tell you how much solid wood exists around the trunk.


----------



## RedlineIt (Jul 17, 2008)

cashdan,

Your pics aren't showing up yet.

You're getting good responses here, I'll add my two-bits.

Yes a resistograph uses a drill bit to probe, but it's not "pencil-width", much smaller diameter, and a competent operator should be able to determine the ratio of sound wood to decay wood using one.

By saying his probe would be "pencil-width" not even "pencil-diameter", this sounds like your tree-guy (Arborist??..Hmmm...) is going to vertical bore *with a chainsaw!* If that's the case he will learn nothing of value, damage the tree and you don't want him around, don't let him do it.

Boring for decay with a chainsaw is done only when the tree is already a done deal for removal and the climber wants a quick and dirty read on presence of decay.

Hope I'm wrong, but I've seen it done, used as a sales tool to frighten the home-owner into buying a removal, and this one smells just a bit like that to me.


RedlineIt


----------



## cashdan (Jul 17, 2008)

*Tree boring 3 (hope this isn't getting too boring)*

Many thanks for your prompt and detailed response. It was very enlightening. I've attached a few pictures of the trunk which, incidentally, measures two feet in diameter. I think the tree is a white Oak.
As you can see, the top scar has fully healed while the bottom scar which measures about 1" by 6" is still a bit open. The rest of the tree is clear. I probed the wound a bit and it didn't seem pulpy to me. The last photo magnifies the wound a bit and may provide a better view.
Once more, I appreciate your help.
Best, Shelly

P.S. Turns out I wasn't able to construct a URL on which to store the shots so they can be viewed. If you're comfortable sending me an email address to which I can send the shots, I'd be happy to send them along. My email is mail][email protected][/email].


----------



## ATH (Jul 17, 2008)

RedlineIt said:


> .....
> By saying his probe would be "pencil-width" not even "pencil-diameter", this sounds like your tree-guy (Arborist??..Hmmm...) is going to vertical bore *with a chainsaw!* If that's the case he will learn nothing of value, damage the tree and you don't want him around, don't let him do it.
> .......
> RedlineIt



That is a scary thought - I hope this is not the plan!

I was assuming they were going to use an increment borer.

This is a slightly more intrusive way to test than a resistograph-but a far cry from a chainsaw bore. Increment corer and resistograph each have advantages and disadvantages. With an increment core, you can actually see what is going on, rather than just measuing how hard it is for the drill bit to turn. The increment core should be _much_ cheaper than a resistograph. In fact, if you have already paid for a consultation, I would expect the increment core to not be an extra charge. The resistograph is a much more expensive piece of equipment, so I would expect a separate charge for that.

If you really want to keep the tree, a professional very may well need more information before he is willing to verbalize that it is "safe" to leave. If he is unsure, it would be most wise of him to recommend removal...


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 18, 2008)

> If he is unsure, it would be most wise of him to recommend removal...



...and it would be most wise of you to get a second opinion from someone who is competent enough to be sure. 




> in fact, if you have already paid for a consultation, I would expect the increment core to not be an extra charge. The resistograph is a much more expensive piece of equipment, so I would expect a separate charge for that.



Agreed...but this doesn't sound like there was a consultation. it sounds like the tree cutter (note the word 'arborist' not used) might be drumming up some more business...


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 18, 2008)

Here are Shelly's pictures...


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 18, 2008)

One more...


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 18, 2008)

There probably is some decay inside the tree, but like I said before, that doesn't mean removal is warranted. There has also been a grade change (possible when the original damage was done?). How does the rest of the tree look? Any dieback? 

I'd begin with a mallet sounding and an excavation of the root flare for an inspection. If you've already probed the decayed area, and it doesn't seem deep or extensive, then it's a good possibility that it's not.


----------



## cashdan (Jul 18, 2008)

Thanks for posting the pictures. The rest of the tree looks fine with no observable die back. I'll follow your advice and expose the root flare to see if anything is going on...but not right away. The temp here (MA) has soared into the 90s and is expected to stay that way for a while. I think, though, I can manage a bit of thumping with a mallet. If I get some tapping back, I think I'll stop watching horror movies. 
Have a good weekend.
Shelly


----------



## Toddppm (Jul 18, 2008)

Not sure about the Oak( doesn't look like a White oak trunk though?) but your Hemlock looks like it's loaded with Wooly Adelgid!


----------



## RUBE (Jul 18, 2008)

Are the edges of the leaves round or are they pointed cause it looks like red oak bark but I'm not from around NC sooo....but the differance in decay between white and reds is large.

A very thin, long drill bit and cordless drill will work for finding decay. After ya drill a few you get a "feel" for it and look at the bit for white or dark drillings. Follow up with some bees wax.

Not to raise another issue but as somebody else noticed(good job) the grade change. You may want to search Armillaria mellea as well.


----------



## appalachianarbo (Jul 18, 2008)

> your Hemlock looks like it's loaded with Wooly Adelgid!



Actually, it's infested with scale. No adelgid to be seen (I zoomed in on the originals). Scale causes the yellow stippling thats seen on the needles in the picture. Not deadly, but does stress the tree.


----------



## booboo (Jul 19, 2008)

A pic of the whole tree and its setting would be helpful.

The tree appears to have a robust growth rate and you say there is no dieback so even though there has been fill on one side and some old damage, it seems to be in good condition. Do some research on CODIT. I see no reason for any kind of invasive check of decay. Even though there will be a decay column in the tree, there appears to be plenty of sound wood around it and I don't think it would be wise at all to create a wound in the healthy wood. The tree appears to have almost completely compartmentalized the old wound and should be very sound. As long as the tree isn't hanging over any high value targets, it would be best to recognize that there is some decay present and focus your efforts on maintaining the vigor of the tree. Perhaps some very careful removal of some of the fill may be appropriate, especially if it extends out to the drip line, but you would need to be careful not to damage the root system. A rubber mallet may help give an idea of the extent of the decay but I would not drill. 

Also, it looks like a red oak, not white. There are some very capable and professional arborists in the Amherst area. I know because that's where I cut my teeth in the industry. Also, the Shade Tree Lab through Cooperative Extension at UMass is a valuable resource.

My .02


----------



## turnkey4099 (Jul 20, 2008)

cashdan said:


> ...
> 
> P.S. Turns out I wasn't able to construct a URL on which to store the shots so they can be viewed. If you're comfortable sending me an email address to which I can send the shots, I'd be happy to send them along. My email is mail][email protected][/email].



photobucket.com is a good, free site for storing and sharing pictures. 

Harry K


----------



## cashdan (Jul 22, 2008)

*Thanks*

Thanks to all those who responded to my query. The answers proved very helpful...and enlightening. As of now I've decided to forgo the boring and expose the root flare a bit to give the tree a bit more breathing room at its base. As for scale or agelid, there isn't much I can do about that since I live in a heavily wooded area with a zillion pines, and spraying a few trees, I fear, would be like
pissing in the ocean.


----------



## arbor pro (Jul 22, 2008)

*Let's change this thread to 'tree exciting'...*

Every time I come upon this thread, the title, 'tree boring', throws me for a loop. I can't help but think, "tree work isn't boring, it's exciting. In the very least, it's marginally interesting but, cetainly never boring"...


----------



## treeseer (Jul 22, 2008)

yes it does look more like a red oak. I would probe with a thin wire like a survey flag first--noninvasive, easy, just poke it in the cavities.:monkey: Rubber hammer after that.

does look like a grade change--when was that wood wall put in?

the below is from the attached. opcorn: 

	Trunk flare. A most vital area to inspect is the trunk flare, where the trunk expands or “flares” into the structural roots. If you cannot find the flare, remove mulch and soil and any small girdling roots until it is visible. Roots that encircle all or part of the trunk are known as stem-girdling roots. These not only damage plant tissues and circulation, but they can impair stability. They are commonly found on container-grown trees, but can occur on almost any tree. After the end of a root is cut off, new roots can branch off sideways. This growth in time may girdle the stem. 
	Trunk. If there is a hole in the trunk or root collar, you can gain information about that cavity by probing with a tool such as a screwdriver or a tile probe, a long, narrow fiberglass rod with a “T” handle. A ruler or yardstick will give you some idea how extensive the cavity is. If the trunk sounds very hollow but there is no soft spot or opening to probe and measure, then more advanced equipment may be used to determine how much sound wood is in the stem. Drilling and coring can measure the sound wood in one small area, so many holes must be made to get a picture of the whole tree. Drilling and coring invade healthy tissue, potentially spreading decay and decreasing stability. Practicing on fallen trees can provide valuable experience in the use of these methods. 
Devices using radar and sound waves are not as invasive, but they cost a lot more. Trunks can also be tested by pulling on the tree, using the Statics Integrated Method. 

All of these methods and devices require experience to interpret the results well enough to communicate the risk to the tree owner. Deciding how closely to inspect a tree is always a professional judgment, different for each assignment and each tree. Cavities over two-thirds of the diameter are sometimes considered “hazardous” and a reason for removal, but with close monitoring and care, trees with cavities over 80% of the diameter have been managed for many years.


----------



## cashdan (Jul 24, 2008)

*title & wall*

Arbor Pro:
I agree Tree Boring is a bit mundane but Tree Exciting isn't exactly eye-popping either. How about Debbie does Trees?

Treeseer:
I removed the dirt covering the root flare 15 or so years ago, and built the makeshift retaining wall you see in the picture out of pieces of pressure-treated 4x6 wood posts.


----------



## arbor pro (Jul 24, 2008)

cashdan said:


> Arbor Pro:
> I agree Tree Boring is a bit mundane but Tree Exciting isn't exactly eye-popping either. How about Debbie does Trees?



Interesting name for a tree care company if the owner's name is 'Debbie'...

...Bunch of cheerleaders toting chainsaws rather than pompoms - would OSHA make them wear chaps? :monkey:


----------

