|
|
Post by Eristic on Apr 11, 2016 0:37:39 GMT
Last summer this oak tree was covered with dense ivy from top to bottom but now the ivy seems to be completely dead. I wrongly thought that nothing killed ivy so it would be nice to bottle the recipe.  The nest box fixed to the trunk was covered in a curtain of foliage a good foot thick but now it is totally exposed. I assume it must have succumbed to a fungus although there is not much presence of mushrooms of recent years apart from the beefsteak fungus that had eaten the heart out of the tree. I had expected that in due course the ivy would bring the final demise of the tree which must be a few hundred years old but the oak now looks like outliving the attendant ivy.  |
|
|
|
Post by aeshna5 on Apr 11, 2016 4:37:05 GMT
It would be killed if it's cut from it's roots! Looking at the image a good amount of the lower Ivy has been removed- so anything left above will die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eristic on Apr 11, 2016 12:19:05 GMT
It has not been cut from the roots, that would take a monumental amount of work and excavations around the entire circumference of the tree. The ivy cladding the trunk looks bare now but this is due to the actions of wildlife moving in for an easy lunch. This is a very old ivy with shoots emerging from many points around the base, and decades of leaf litter and detritus had accumulated in the tangled side growths up the trunk. Once the leaf covering died an entire eco system of insect and other invertebrate life forms became exposed for the multitude of birds to pick the spot clean. Squirrels running up and down the trunk would also snap off the dead and brittle side branches.
One good thing about the untimely death of the lower end of the food chain is that the tree will now be in a much better situation to survive the frequent storms without the burden of the top load helping to rip the tree out by the roots one stormy night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cotham Marble on Apr 11, 2016 16:05:06 GMT
I'm with Aeshna - the Ivy has been cut away, and although it is not clear it looks to me as though there is new growth at the bottom right of the trunk. I don't understand the classing of ivy as being at the lower end of a food chain, it's a concept that doesn't seem to work with non grazed plants. Ivy is an extremely important food source for lepidoptera (flowers), and birds (berries) and provides excellent shelter for numerous animal species. Oaks are eminently suited to support ivy and more extensive ivy growth in oak woods, would be a significant wildlife gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by accipiter on Apr 11, 2016 19:15:24 GMT
I love to see ivy covered trees and have plenty here, but tell me why do people insist on cutting it off during the nesting season, an action that is totally irresponsible.
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by tjhavenith on May 3, 2016 18:11:49 GMT
I'm with Aeshna - the Ivy has been cut away, and although it is not clear it looks to me as though there is new growth at the bottom right of the trunk. I don't understand the classing of ivy as being at the lower end of a food chain, it's a concept that doesn't seem to work with non grazed plants. Ivy is an extremely important food source for lepidoptera (flowers), and birds (berries) and provides excellent shelter for numerous animal species. Oaks are eminently suited to support ivy and more extensive ivy growth in oak woods, would be a significant wildlife gain. I applaud your reply, Cotham Marble. Many people just don't realise the importance of Ivy. |
|
|
|
Post by Eristic on May 4, 2016 2:04:38 GMT
Oh Dear!
It seems that I have made a serious mistake.
I had assumed that this website was run by naturalists for the benefit of other naturalists and not the equivalent of
Eddie Stobbart name collectors. So, let me clear the air a bit.
First. I never said that I wanted the ivy cut. I may be old but I know how to use a saw and if I had wanted the ivy removed it would have been removed without fuss.
Second. Although my original post was made in early April, I had been aware of the ivy's demise for a couple of months. bear in mind that this tree is not accessible to the public and the weather during the post Xmas period was dark, cold and very wet and muddy and during this time only 3 or 4 people bothered to check their allotments and would not want to waste time cutting ivy.
Third. It is the nature of ivy to grow and root all over the surface area until such time as they strike a solid object to clamber up. Therefore it is not unexpected to see solitary live shoots on the trunk.
Fourth. Do any of you expect to be taken seriously when the posters apparently do not know what the food chain is?
Therefore I will inform and enlighten you in classical fashion:
The 17th-century writer Jonathan Swift wrote-
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em.
And so proceeds Ad infinitum."
The Victorian era mathematician Augustus De Morgan expanded on this with a similar verse:
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
Fith. You are all wrong, very wrong and wronger still: You will never be naturalists unless you study every event
objectively and without any preconceived beliefs.
Finally. I am now fairly sure what killed the ivy but cannot prove it at the moment without endangering the Oak tree and it is too late for another post tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eristic on May 9, 2016 1:12:22 GMT
Sorry for the tardiness of my follow up but this is a very busy time of year for me and by the time I get to the computer, I nod off.
So! Thinking about the subject, the question is, "what kills the ivy, or any other shrub for that matter"? What are the choices?
First on the list is physical damage from man or beast, second is chemical or toxin problems, either natural or by the action of mankind. Then there is infection by fungus or other pathogens and finally? root problems caused by geological conditions.
After many hours of poking around and getting a very lucky break I believe I know the answer. The ivy drowned.
I know my detractors will be unlikely to accept this but they have very narrow minds without the ability to observe and deduce objectively, and there is always a possibility that I am off the mark here but I have no intention of excavating a mature tree to be sure.
If anyone cannot accept that the ivy drowned, or maybe the more objective readers are curious, I will write up my findings, but not for several weeks as I am in the peak growing season and the little plants take an inordinate amount of time and attention to detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayjay on May 9, 2016 11:42:37 GMT
Eristic, your post of the 4th May was a bit of a rant which I eventually decided to ignore at the time but I think it now needs a response as part of a response to your most recent post.
So, naturalist: noun, an expert in or student of natural history.
I've not seen anyone here profess to be an expert in natural history,(they might be, I don't know, some on here definitely know more than I do about many things).
I'd say we are mostly enthusiastic amateurs with an interest in many different aspects of natural history, some of us specialise more in some aspects than others, some have a wider knowledge of many aspects. We are all therefore students of natural history, and some of us are better students than others, as in any subject in the wider world.
It wasn't clear from your first post that you wanted an opinion on what had killed the ivy, you merely wanted to bottle the substance responsible - not necessarily the thoughts of a dedicated naturalist.
Many problems can occur in plant roots which are in constantly wet soil if those plants have not evolved to grow in water. The roots become stressed and are at risk from various rot and fungi organisms.
If you believe that the Ivy drowned you could well be correct.
Did it drown before it was hacked off a few feet up the Oak trunk?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eristic on May 9, 2016 23:06:57 GMT
Thanks for your comments. Unless anyone here declares themselves as professional in the field of natural history they have to be considered amateurs as indeed I am myself. This should not be an excuse to be amateurish and leap in with preconceived notions as to its demise as indeed you appear to be doing. Any dead stems have been dead for a number of years and they are all riddled with woodworm exit holes. Do you have such a low opinion of me that I would not have noticed a few dead branches that are too small to have given any major loss of leaf cover.
As for the end bit, It died but was not hacked off at any height. It died and the foliage withered but this is now academic because I now am confident as to how it passed on and why, although at the time of the original post this was not evident. Ironically, the death of the ivy was indirectly caused by the action of a human, but not deliberately and not close by either and did not involve any cutting or sawing.
Given that no one appears to be the least bit interested in the true series of events and probably would not understand even if I spent a good bit of my time writing and explaining the weird local situation I am not interested in wasting my time trying to inform. I've found the probable cause and that is all that is required.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayjay on May 10, 2016 9:59:55 GMT
Thanks for your comments. Unless anyone here declares themselves as professional in the field of natural history they have to be considered amateurs as indeed I am myself. This should not be an excuse to be amateurish and leap in with preconceived notions as to its demise as indeed you appear to be doing. Any dead stems have been dead for a number of years and they are all riddled with woodworm exit holes. Do you have such a low opinion of me that I would not have noticed a few dead branches that are too small to have given any major loss of leaf cover. As for the end bit, It died but was not hacked off at any height. It died and the foliage withered but this is now academic because I now am confident as to how it passed on and why, although at the time of the original post this was not evident. Ironically, the death of the ivy was indirectly caused by the action of a human, but not deliberately and not close by either and did not involve any cutting or sawing. Given that no one appears to be the least bit interested in the true series of events and probably would not understand even if I spent a good bit of my time writing and explaining the weird local situation I am not interested in wasting my time trying to inform. I've found the probable cause and that is all that is required. Having all of the information and a more detailed photo from the beginning could have helped, but whatever happened to the Ivy, your condescension remains astounding. |
|
The nest box fixed to the trunk was covered in a curtain of foliage a good foot thick but now it is totally exposed. I assume it must have succumbed to a fungus although there is not much presence of mushrooms of recent years apart from the beefsteak fungus that had eaten the heart out of the tree.
