My Nothofagus antarctica (antarctic beech) which, given the size I bought it at, is about 15 yrs old and 20ft tall, is now at a rather unjaunty angle as a result of the storm at the end of October. It's probably now about 15-20 degrees off the vertical. There are no roots unearthed. It is a very light and airy tree, not much more than 6 inches diameter at the base, which is supposed to be its defence against the very strong winds it gets where it grows naturally in Patagonia. And I have removed some major branches from time to time as I have been trying to enforce a single-trunked habit. Nevertheless as it is I can't move it at all by using my bodyweight to push it, though I haven't yet tried tying a rope high up on it and pulling that.

I'm observing some splits on the trunk no the side that has been lifted, so I'm wondering if there is a bit of a fungal problem on that side of the tree which weakened the roots on that side.

Since it's fairly close to my property boundary, and it's blown inwards, I can't really put in anchor points for guylines on the side that would be useful.

Any thoughts on what I can do with it? I really don't want it leaning in this direction and I'll have to cut it down if I can't straighten it.

On 22/11/2013 16:19, echinosum wrote:

My Nothofagus antarctica (antarctic beech) which, given the size I
bought it at, is about 15 yrs old and 20ft tall, is now at a rather
unjaunty angle as a result of the storm at the end of October. It's
probably now about 15-20 degrees off the vertical. There are no roots
unearthed. It is a very light and airy tree, not much more than 6 inches
diameter at the base, which is supposed to be its defence against the
very strong winds it gets where it grows naturally in Patagonia. And I
have removed some major branches from time to time as I have been trying
to enforce a single-trunked habit. Nevertheless as it is I can't move
it at all by using my bodyweight to push it, though I haven't yet tried
tying a rope high up on it and pulling that.

I'm observing some splits on the trunk no the side that has been lifted,
so I'm wondering if there is a bit of a fungal problem on that side of
the tree which weakened the roots on that side.

Since it's fairly close to my property boundary, and it's blown inwards,
I can't really put in anchor points for guylines on the side that would
be useful.

Any thoughts on what I can do with it? I really don't want it leaning
in this direction and I'll have to cut it down if I can't straighten it.

I guess that everything is fixable, but the question I would like
answered is /why/ has it been pushed over? Could it be that the roots
on the side the wind came from are not as substantial as they should be?
It is possible, for example, that there is large rocky area barely at
subsoil level, and the tree's roots cannot penetrate on that side? I'm
a bit puzzled by your comment about the splits. Are these vertical,
horizontal, or varied? If there is fungal damage to the roots, I really
wouldn't bother trying to save the tree.

As you say, if Patagonia is know for one thing it is strong winds.
Nothing grows high unless it has a structure designed for it!

One thing you could try if you want to save the tree is get in a
mini-digger and remove soil from under the raised root area. Then you
might be able to push the tree back upright with the mini-digger, and
put soil back on top. You could then use the bucket to push down the
soil, or drive the mini-digger over the replaced soil to firm it, but
whether or not that would damage the tree's roots I can't say. How you
would the stop the tree tipping again is another issue. Deep ground
anchors on the lifted side might work, and so might a hefty prop on the
tipped side, but neither would look pretty!

--

Jeff

On 23/11/2013 17:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
As you say, if Patagonia is know for one thing it is strong winds.
Nothing grows high unless it has a structure designed for it!

Remember that strong winds have the effect of keeping growth restricted.
Without the strong winds many of the trees could well grow a lot taller.

On Friday, November 22, 2013 4:19:58 PM UTC, echinosum wrote:
My Nothofagus antarctica (antarctic beech) which, given the size I

bought it at, is about 15 yrs old and 20ft tall, is now at a rather

unjaunty angle as a result of the storm at the end of October. It's

probably now about 15-20 degrees off the vertical. There are no roots

unearthed. It is a very light and airy tree, not much more than 6 inches

diameter at the base, which is supposed to be its defence against the

very strong winds it gets where it grows naturally in Patagonia. And I

have removed some major branches from time to time as I have been trying

to enforce a single-trunked habit. Nevertheless as it is I can't move

it at all by using my bodyweight to push it, though I haven't yet tried

tying a rope high up on it and pulling that.



I'm observing some splits on the trunk no the side that has been lifted,

so I'm wondering if there is a bit of a fungal problem on that side of

the tree which weakened the roots on that side.



Since it's fairly close to my property boundary, and it's blown inwards,

I can't really put in anchor points for guylines on the side that would

be useful.

Any thoughts on what I can do with it? I really don't want it leaning

in this direction and I'll have to cut it down if I can't straighten it.


echinosum

David's comments seem sensible. ISTR one of ours at work some years ago lost some of it's top by wind damage and that sort of split and fell over rather than snapped so that's probably the nature of the beast.
These things grow fairly quickly as you've seen so in the absence of any disease (which is difficult to assess from here) I think I would be tempted to cut it down low and let it regrow (I suspect something like this which evolved in a harsh windy environment would respond favourably but I've never tried it)
Then select the best new shoot to reform the tree. If it does respond it should be more sturdy than before.
I certainly don't much like the idea of attempting to guy it up or shift the roots in any way.

Rod

"Rod" wrote in message
...


David's comments seem sensible. ISTR one of ours at work some years ago
lost some of it's top by wind damage and that sort of split and fell over
rather than snapped so that's probably the nature of the beast.
These things grow fairly quickly as you've seen so in the absence of any
disease (which is difficult to assess from here) I think I would be tempted
to cut it down low and let it regrow (I suspect something like this which
evolved in a harsh windy environment would respond favourably but I've
never tried it)
Then select the best new shoot to reform the tree. If it does respond it
should be more sturdy than before.
I certainly don't much like the idea of attempting to guy it up or shift
the roots in any way.

Rod

My two freestanding Wisterias have thrived under guyed conditions for
several years now.
You are in a reverse situation of needing to prop.
As with guying you must get the tree vertical first before attaching the
final support.
I use a mini tractor in pull mode. Push mode needed in your case - unless
your neighbour
would allow access for you to pull from - then attach the prop on your land.
imho - Excavating roots is not an option.

Pete

Wind damage is a noted problem with Nothofagus pumila grown in Britain, which grows too effusively in most of Britain's relatively low wind conditions, and then suffers wind damage when the wind does blow. N pumila is a good timber tree, but needs to be grown somewhere windy to avoid this overgrowth. I hadn't known it as an issue with N antarctica which is smaller and not interesting for timber. My tree does not seem to be unusually effusive in comparison with Patagonian examples grown in relatively sheltered locations, such as within woods, although it is clearly effusive in comparison with those grown somewhere with a serious blast.

The splits in the trunk are vertical. The weakened roots are close alongside a low beech hedge, so might be weaker because of competition on that side, though the beech hedge is kept very low so I would have thought that a sizable tree would have been able to get its roots really deep after 12 years in the ground, and well under the hedge. I really can't do any digging beacuse of the nearby plants.

Where we are on the Chiltern plateau, the subsurface clay is pretty deep over the underlying chalk (with a light loam topsoil) - in fact the chalk is so deep I don't know how deep it is - when we had a new garage put up the foundation diggings didn't expose chalk. There's a place in a similar plateau location near Berkhamsted where they have dug a big hole to show you the soil horizons, and they don't get down to the chalk.

Generally speaking I find that newly planted trees grow slowly to start with and are drought prone for a few years while they are in the loam. Then they get their roots into the subsurface clay, and start to grow quicker, and don't suffer from drought any more. This tree has been like that, indeed it seemed to get its roots deep most quickly than some.

I think based on what you say I'll chop the tree off about 6 ft above ground level, and see if it rights itself. If not, I'll cut it lower.

On 25/11/2013 11:25, echinosum wrote:

The splits in the trunk are vertical.

That's interesting. I would have thought that vertical splits were the
results of compression damage.

--

Jeff

In article , echinosum.d0916b7
@gardenbanter.co.uk says...

I think based on what you say I'll chop the tree off about 6 ft above
ground level, and see if it rights itself. If not, I'll cut it lower.

I read somewhere that in their native areas, if damaged by fire they
can sprout again from ground level. I might be tempted to cut it right
off.

I've just had the same problem with a 15ft twin trunked pittosporum;
a gale the other day knocked one of the trunks right out. Thinking the
other half would then be more vulnerable to wind and the same fate I
pruned it down to about 6".

Janet

Aren't the classic splits that oaks and the like suffer from fungus, resulting in them becoming hollow trees, vertical splits. What do you mean compression damage - driving a vehicle into it? If it was bent over by the wind to cause local compression, that would be horizontal rather than vertical surely.

I get lots of little vertical splits in some of my fruit trees, but they heal. I think this is due to intermittent drought and water-plenty, so when it grows fast the outer parts of the tree can't keep up and split. But those are much smaller than this. The bark is still partly intact over the splits in this case.

On 26/11/2013 08:40, echinosum wrote:

'Jeff Layman[_2_ Wrote:
;995725']On 25/11/2013 11:25, echinosum wrote:
-
The splits in the trunk are vertical.-

That's interesting. I would have thought that vertical splits were the

results of compression damage.

Aren't the classic splits that oaks and the like suffer from fungus,
resulting in them becoming hollow trees, vertical splits. What do you
mean compression damage - driving a vehicle into it? If it was bent
over by the wind to cause local compression, that would be horizontal
rather than vertical surely.

I get lots of little vertical splits in some of my fruit trees, but they
heal. I think this is due to intermittent drought and water-plenty, so
when it grows fast the outer parts of the tree can't keep up and split.
But those are much smaller than this. The bark is still partly intact
over the splits in this case.

Time for a bit of clarification, methinks. Are we both talking about
the same thing? I was assuming structural cracks that at the very least
are through the bark and into the sapwood - maybe even into heartwood.

By compression damage I mean that caused by pushing down from the crown.
Normally, one would expect a tree subject to extreme winds to be
either uprooted or snapped off at its weakest point. A horizontal crack
would appear at that point, gradually extending inwards until it had
weakened the heartwood sufficiently for the tree to break off. That
would be as a result of exceeding the tensile strength of the remaining
wood at that position. Consider, though, that wood is much stronger
across the grain than along it. It is far easier to cut wood by
splitting it along the grain than across it, for example. There is a
very interesting discussion of tree structure and strength at
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/l...rees/session3/

If a wind-rocked tree has good roots and high-tensile strength wood, it
isn't going to get uprooted or snapped. But that doesn't necessarily
mean that it will withstand compression, to the same degree. Also, as
you note, fungal damage might play a part. I found this at
http://www.arborilogical.com/service...-and-bracing/:
"Trees with trunks that have narrow angles of branch attachments may
develop vertical splits. Such cracks are often a result of structural
stress or storm damage. When such splits are found, immediate attention
is needed to prevent complete failure. Your arborist can advise you as
to whether the tree should be removed or if cabling and bracing is a
viable alternative".

--

Jeff

Thank you, very helpful. Yes, the cracks are deep. They are also fairly low down, well below any major branches, thuogh not all the way down to the ground. Although there are indeed major boughs (present and removed) at narrow angles, the cracks are wrongly located to be associated with that. And they don't look new either, they didn't occur during the recent storm, and if they are mechanical damage they are old mechanical damage. If not fungal, I would wonder if they were caused by rapid growth. But since I hadn't spotted them before they must developed over the last year or so. I have read that fungal decay in oaks and the like actually helps them reduce the risk of being snapped off in the wind as it reduces their stiffness.

Given what has happened, ie the tree is now at an angle but there are no roots pulled out of the ground, it seems to me that any mechanical failures took place in the roots where I can't see them.

In the same place I found this. The Importance Of Low Hanging & Branching Limbs on Trees | Low Limbs

I have indeed been deliberately removing lower limbs to create a standard form. That increases the stress. I wonder if that is my problem. I don't want a tree bushy to the ground in that location, so I wonder if that is an insoluble problem. Though I have a similar birch which has no problems.