Assessment of the Load-Bearing Capacity of Bark-Included Junctions in Crataegus monogyna Jacq. in the Presence and Absence of Natural Braces

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. ANSI

   . 2017. ANSI A300 (Part 1)—2017 Pruning: tree, shrub, and other woody plant management—standard practices (pruning). Washington (DC, USA): American National Standards Institute, Inc.
2. ↵
   1. Anten NPR,
   2. Schieving F

   . 2010. The role of wood mass density and mechanical constraints in the economy of tree architecture. The American Naturalist. 175:250–260.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. BSI

   . 2010. BS3998 recommendations for tree work. London (UK): British Standards Institute.
4. ↵
   1. Cook P,
   2. Northey B

   . 2012. Three methods of tree shaping every aspiring tree shaper should be aware of. Toowoomba (Australia): SharBrin Publishing Ptd Ltd.
5. ↵
   1. Dresch HE,
   2. Dinwoodie JA

   . 1996. Timber: structure, properties, conversion and use. London (UK): Macmillan Press Ltd.
6. ↵
   1. Gibbs JN,
   2. Grieg BJW

   . 1990. Survey of parkland trees after the Great Storm of October 16, 1987. Arboricultural Journal. 14:321–347.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Gilman EF

   . 2003. Branch to stem diameter ratio affects strength of attachment. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(5):291–294.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Gilman EF

   . 2011. An illustrated guide to pruning. 3rd Ed. Independence (KY, USA): Cengage Learning.
9. ↵
   1. Jaffe MJ

   . 1973. Thigmomorphogenesis: the response of plant growth and development to mechanical stimulation. Planta. 114:143–157.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. James K

    . 2003. Dynamic loading of trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3):165–171.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Jungnikl K,
    2. Goebbels J,
    3. Ingo B,
    4. Fratzl P

    . 2009. The role of material properties for the mechanical adaptation at branch junctions. Trees. 23:605–610.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Kane B

    . 2007. Branch strength of Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana var. ‘Bradford’). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 33:283–291.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Kane B,
    2. Farrell R,
    3. Zedaker SM,
    4. Loferski JR,
    5. Smith DW

    . 2008. Failure mode and prediction of the strength of branch attachments. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 34(5):308–316.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Kramer EM

    . 1999. Observation of topological defects in the xylem of Populus deltoides and implications for the vascular cambium. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 200:223–230.

    OpenUrlPubMed
15. ↵
    1. Lev-Yadun S,
    2. Aloni R

    . 1990. Vascular differentiation in branch junctions of trees: circular patterns and functional significance. Trees: Structure and Function. 4:49–54.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Lonsdale D

    . 1999. Principles of tree hazard assessment and management. London (UK): Department for Communities and Local Government.
17. ↵
    1. Mattheck C,
    2. Breloer H

    . 1994. The body language of trees: a handbook for failure analysis. London (UK): Stationery Office Books (TSO).
18. ↵
    1. Mattheck C,
    2. Vorberg U

    . 1991. The biomechanics of tree fork design. Botanica Acta. 104:399–404.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Ozden S,
    2. Slater D,
    3. Ennos AR

    . 2017. Fracture properties of green wood formed within the forks of hazel (Corylus avellana L.). Trees: Structure and Function. 31(3):903–917.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Pruyn M,
    2. Ewers B,
    3. Telewski F

    . 1998. Thigmomorphogenesis: changes in the morphology and mechanical properties of two Populus hybrids in response to mechanical perturbation. Tree Physiology. 20:535–540.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Shigo AL

    . 1985. How tree branches are attached to trunks. Canadian Journal of Botany. 63:1391–1401.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Slater D

    . 2016. Assessment of tree forks: course notes. Stroud (UK): Arboricultural Association.
23. ↵
    1. Slater D

    . 2018a. The association between natural braces and the development of bark-included junctions. Arboricultural Journal. 40(1):16–38.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Slater D

    . 2018b. Natural bracing in trees: management recommendations. Arboricultural Journal. 40(2):106–133.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Slater D,
    2. Bradley RS,
    3. Withers PJ,
    4. Ennos RA

    . 2014. The anatomy and grain pattern in forks of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) and other tree species. Trees. 28:1437–1448.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Slater D,
    2. Ennos R

    . 2013. Determining the mechanical properties of hazel forks by testing their component parts. Trees. 27:1515–1524.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Slater D,
    2. Ennos R

    . 2015a. Interlocking wood grain patterns provide improved wood strength properties in forks of hazel (Corylus avellana L.). Arboricultural Journal. 37:21–32.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. ↵
    1. Slater D,
    2. Ennos R

    . 2015b. The level of occlusion of included bark affects the strength of bifurcations in hazel (Corylus avellana L.). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 41(4):194–207.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Slater D,
    2. Harbinson C

    . 2010. Towards a new model of branch attachment. Arboricultural Journal. 33(2):95–105.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Smiley TE

    . 2003. Does included bark reduce the strength of codominant stems? Journal of Arboriculture. 29(2):104–106.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Telewski F,
    2. Pruyn M

    . 1998. Thigmomorphogenesis: a dose response to flexing in Ulmus americana seedlings. Tree Physiology. 18:65–68.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science