The message
from Alan Gould contains these words:


When ivy is seen growing up a tree, it is often assumed by gardeners to
be 'attacking' or setting about to harm the tree and finally to kill it.
In some cases this may be true,

Rubbish.

but it is more often the case that the
tree is already sick or in trouble of some kind and the ivy is growing
up it in preparation to act in its natural role of scavenging.

This is nonsense. Ivy is not a parasitic plant, and does not obtain
its food or water from trees, any more than it does from walls; it gets
those through its own below-ground root system. If you sever climbing
ivy stems at the base of a tree trunk, the entire section of ivy *above*
the cut will die; proving that the living tree is not its means of
sustenance. It is not a "scavenger".

As the ivy develops, the tree deteriorates and finally dies, giving
every impression that the ivy killed it. If left to do so, the ivy will
remain on the tree until it is all gone, stump, roots and all. We often
have questions about stump removal in this group and that is nature's
way of doing it - if given the time.

You seem to be suggesting that ivy somehow digests dead trees, stumps
and roots, which is not true. Given time, all dead trees and their
stumps/roots will eventually rot, fall, and be digested by
microorganisms; that has nothing to do with ivy being present.

Janet.