White oak with active butt-rot conks beside a picnic table
A 22 m tall white oak (Quercus alba), 85 cm DBH, grows in mowed turf in a public park. On the north side of the root flare, at and slightly below grade, there are three fresh Inonotus dryadeus conks, one of which is exuding amber droplets. The flare is partly buried; the turf grade around the trunk was raised roughly 10 cm about ten years ago during irrigation work. Six metres north of the trunk stands a permanent picnic table with benches, used by family groups on perhaps 20 weekend days a year, typically for one to two hours at a time. Weekday pedestrians pass within 3 m of the trunk about 40 times a day. The site manager proposes simply moving the table 12 m and stopping mowing under the crown, and wants the tree kept because it is the largest in the park. Wind exposure is moderate and the soil is a slowly draining silt loam.
1. Assign a likelihood of failure for this tree and justify the rating from the evidence. State what findings would move your rating up or down.
Read the worked answer
Reasoning from the evidence, not from the name of the fungus:
- What the sign means. A conk at the root flare is the fruiting body of a fungus decaying the butt and major roots. Amber exudate at the conk indicates the decay is active, not historical. The relevant cross-section is the one carrying the entire tree, so this is the worst possible location for decay.
- What makes it worse here. The buried flare holds moisture against the bark and kills fine roots, and it also hides how far the decay has spread. I cannot see the flare properly, so my first field impression is incomplete by construction.
- Rating. With an active conk at the butt, no lean, no visible crown decline and no cracking, the near-term likelihood of failure is best classed as possible. I would not call it improbable, because the pathogen is established at the load-bearing point. I would not call it likely without evidence that a large share of the butt cross-section is gone.
- What would move it up: soft or hollow resistance when probing the flare in several directions; a dull, hollow sound when struck; measurable loss of sound wood leaving roughly 30% or less of the radius (a rule-of-thumb threshold, not a verdict); any lean or soil cracking at the flare; progressive crown thinning; a new conk higher on the trunk.
- What would move it down: hard, solid wood in multiple probe directions, no hollow, healthy crown, no lean, no soil movement. Sound surface wood does not exclude internal decay, so I would pair probing with an advanced assessment rather than rely on a knife alone.
- Assessment that is also mitigation: careful root-collar excavation to expose the flare both improves the diagnosis and removes the fill that is harming the tree.
2. The manager asks you to rank the realistic management options. Compare at least three and state which you would recommend and why.
Read the worked answer
Options, ranked by how reliably each reduces risk per dollar:
- Reduce the target. Move the table 12 m, fence the immediate area or convert it to a mulch ring, and route pedestrians around the flare. Impact likelihood for the seated target drops to very low, and nobody needs to climb or cut a decayed butt. This is the cheapest and most certain measure, and it can be done this week.
- Target reduction plus flare excavation and advanced assessment. Add root-collar excavation to correct the grade problem and give a real basis for deciding whether the tree has a future. Combined with option 1, this is what I would recommend: it manages today's risk and produces the information needed for the long-term decision.
- Crown reduction. Limited value here. Removing sail reduces bending moment, but the tree's problem is anchorage and butt strength, not crown load alone. Heavy reduction on a mature oak also creates large wounds and costs the client money without changing the decay.
- Removal. The safe default if excavation or probing shows extensive decay, if the tree leans, or if the client cannot accept a residual risk they cannot see. Justify it with the assessment, not with the conk alone.
What I would not offer: cabling or bracing. It does nothing for a decaying butt and invites false confidence. Any recommendation should be in writing, with the residual risk stated and the client's decision recorded.
3. After the table is moved and the area fenced, what is the residual risk, and how would you set a re-inspection interval and triggers?
Read the worked answer
Moving the table does not change the tree; it changes who is under it. The likelihood of failure is unchanged (possible), but the likelihood of impact for the seated target falls to very low, so the overall risk at the table drops from moderate toward low. The residual risk is not zero: pedestrians still pass within 3 m, and a butt failure would drop part of the crown over that path.
Re-inspection design:
- Interval. Twice a year, timed to seasonal conk production, plus a full assessment after any storm exceeding the local damaging-wind threshold or after prolonged saturation.
- Triggers for immediate reassessment. A new or larger conk, renewed exudate, cracking or splitting at the flare, any change in lean measured from a fixed reference, soil heave or a visible root-plate crack, or new crown dieback.
- Recorded baseline. Photograph and measure the lean, note the conk positions and dimensions, and record the probe results so later inspectors compare against data, not memory.
- Client communication. In writing: what was found, what was done, what risk remains, what the triggers are, and who is responsible for calling for re-inspection. A low risk rating is a statement about the target and the interval, not a promise about the tree.