"Survivor bees" found in Blenheim Forest

[Finman]

The tree surgeons cannot help in the case of ash dieback.

 

[Swarm]

The tree surgeons cannot help in the case of ash dieback.

My landowner recently had to fell over thirty trees, it's devastating.

 

[Erichalfbee]

It’s horrid. We had one felled as it was close to the house. There are another three diseased ones at the end of the garden which are being left to fall. Looking across the valley most of the Ashes are dying. Our landscape will be mighty different in fifty years.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Tiddy had to have one exceptionally large ash that was a few yards from the house professionally felled a few weeks ago, the other side of the cottage to the apiary, but I'd noticed it was dying a few years ago - the heart of the tree was totally rotten, just a sponge.
There are dozens of dead ash trees at the foot of the castle rock as well, again not too far from the hives unfortunately.

 

[Curly green finger's]

I've also noticed out on the common in places the Ash dieing but also more Holly, willow, thornes, maple growing. sometimes one tree species goes like the elm and then replaced by a tuther.
I've also heard of Ash trees being grown for resistance so maybe not all is lost.

 

[Erichalfbee]

I read some years ago that older ashes had resistance. Sadly this doesn’t appear to be true
Some of the first trees Stan and I planted when we moved to Wales were Three Elms.

 

[Bumbling Keeper]

colony of bees in an ash tree, the tree is being cut down in the next 2 weeks.
The woman says there have been bees in the tree since she has lived at the house and they have swarmed every year and been visible from march in every year, she is upset the tree has to go. It has ash dieback so unsafe.
She has lived at the property for 35 years.
No one is making a fuss about these bees, no one will even know when they are destroyed.
I've asked if the tree surgeons can save them and been left with no confidence it will happen.

Is the tree actually dangerous? Ash Die-back doesn't make a tree inherently dangerous, but may lead to excessive deadwood and ultimately death. The latest species of fungus to cause what is otherwise a generic term is just one in a long line of diseases to cause die-back in Ash and is far more damaging to young trees if they're genetically susceptible, whilst the old ones frequently just tend to shed a bit of dead wood from time to time. Which Ash are known for anyway. If the public are at risk a bit of tree surgery can sort any dangerous stuff.
I have seen trees looking quite ropey one season only to recover to full vigour the following season - though obviously with a bit of dead wood. The Forestry Commission guidance was to not fell just because of the presence of die-back, but to treat such trees as with any other tree because resistance will only come from the trees' own replication. (Quote: " Some ash trees may have genetic tolerance to ash dieback, meaning they may survive and reproduce to create the next generation of ash trees. Therefore, it is important to retain ash trees where they stand out as being healthier than those around them and it is safe to do so. Retaining a proportion of dead, dying or felled trees will provide deadwood habitat and be beneficial for biodiversity." - see Managing ash dieback in England)
I would suggest that if she has just been told by a tree surgeon that 'it needs to be felled' then she should get another opinion if there's any doubt.
...That said, the bees are obviously nesting in a long-existing cavity, so the weight and structure above the cavity almost certainly need looking at. I can well imagine that the tree surgeons aren't keen to be swinging about around a bee colony - I wouldn't... I've had a number of these discussions with tree surgeons and their customers over recent years and, sadly, in my experience most tree surgeons really just want the work even if they promote themselves as 'guardians' of the environment.

 

[Bumbling Keeper]

Is the tree actually dangerous? Ash Die-back doesn't make a tree inherently dangerous, but may lead to excessive deadwood and ultimately death. The latest species of fungus to cause what is otherwise a generic term is just one in a long line of diseases to cause die-back in Ash and is far more damaging to young trees if they're genetically susceptible, whilst the old ones frequently just tend to shed a bit of dead wood from time to time. Which Ash are known for anyway. If the public are at risk a bit of tree surgery can sort any dangerous stuff.
I have seen trees looking quite ropey one season only to recover to full vigour the following season - though obviously with a bit of dead wood. The Forestry Commission guidance was to not fell just because of the presence of die-back, but to treat such trees as with any other tree because resistance will only come from the trees' own replication. (Quote: " Some ash trees may have genetic tolerance to ash dieback, meaning they may survive and reproduce to create the next generation of ash trees. Therefore, it is important to retain ash trees where they stand out as being healthier than those around them and it is safe to do so. Retaining a proportion of dead, dying or felled trees will provide deadwood habitat and be beneficial for biodiversity." - see Managing ash dieback in England)
I would suggest that if she has just been told by a tree surgeon that 'it needs to be felled' then she should get another opinion if there's any doubt.
...That said, the bees are obviously nesting in a long-existing cavity, so the weight and structure above the cavity almost certainly need looking at. I can well imagine that the tree surgeons aren't keen to be swinging about around a bee colony - I wouldn't... I've had a number of these discussions with tree surgeons and their customers over recent years and, sadly, in my experience most tree surgeons really just want the work even if they promote themselves as 'guardians' of the environment.

Further comment from the Forest Research branch of the Forestry Commission: " With the exceptions of felling for public safety or timber production, we advise a general presumption against felling living ash trees, whether infected or not. This is because there is good evidence that a small proportion will be able to tolerate H. fraxineus infection. There is also the possibility that a proportion of ash trees can become diseased, but then recover to good health..."

 

[Finman]

Is the tree actually dangerous? Ash Die-back doesn't make a tree inherently dangerous, but may lead to excessive deadwood and ultimately death.

This tree was already rotten without ash dieback. It has very old cavity, and what else is rotten?

Then the tree has that disease. The bee nest is old but the colony is not, because varroa kills the bees every second year.

I do not know cases that hollow rotten tree can become healthy any more. And I do not believe that ash dieback could go away from that tree. ..
It is dangerous tree. What the tree can do is to collapse to some direction. No need to cry for it.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Is the tree actually dangerous? Ash Die-back doesn't make a tree inherently dangerous, but may lead to excessive deadwood and ultimately death. The latest species of fungus to cause what is otherwise a generic term is just one in a long line of diseases to cause die-back in Ash and is far more damaging to young trees if they're genetically susceptible, whilst the old ones frequently just tend to shed a bit of dead wood from time to time. Which Ash are known for anyway. If the public are at risk a bit of tree surgery can sort any dangerous stuff.
I have seen trees looking quite ropey one season only to recover to full vigour the following season - though obviously with a bit of dead wood. The Forestry Commission guidance was to not fell just because of the presence of die-back, but to treat such trees as with any other tree because resistance will only come from the trees' own replication. (Quote: " Some ash trees may have genetic tolerance to ash dieback, meaning they may survive and reproduce to create the next generation of ash trees. Therefore, it is important to retain ash trees where they stand out as being healthier than those around them and it is safe to do so. Retaining a proportion of dead, dying or felled trees will provide deadwood habitat and be beneficial for biodiversity." - see Managing ash dieback in England)
I would suggest that if she has just been told by a tree surgeon that 'it needs to be felled' then she should get another opinion if there's any doubt.
...That said, the bees are obviously nesting in a long-existing cavity, so the weight and structure above the cavity almost certainly need looking at. I can well imagine that the tree surgeons aren't keen to be swinging about around a bee colony - I wouldn't... I've had a number of these discussions with tree surgeons and their customers over recent years and, sadly, in my experience most tree surgeons really just want the work even if they promote themselves as 'guardians' of the environment.

The trouble with this advice (and especially that from the FC) is that in general it can be misleading and sometimes costly/dangerous to the tree 'owner'
One of the issues with dieback is, if it is well advanced the tree gets very brittle which makes it dangerous to climb and remove any dangerous limbs (even just for making it safe to clear fell) which may mean in places like gardens or where there is public access, the added expense of needing cranes and high platforms to make it safe for the tree surgeons.
Fine if the tree is in the middle of a filed/woodland where it bothers noone, but by the same issues, if it's in a woodland will that sick tree or trees compromise other surrounding healthy specimens of other varieties.
In cases such as this waiting until the tree is completely dead is not an option which is why you see seemingly 'fairly healthy' trees felled before it gets too dangerous to do so.

 

[Bumbling Keeper]

The trouble with this advice (and especially that from the FC) is that in general it can be misleading and sometimes costly/dangerous to the tree 'owner'
One of the issues with dieback is, if it is well advanced the tree gets very brittle which makes it dangerous to climb and remove any dangerous limbs (even just for making it safe to clear fell) which may mean in places like gardens or where there is public access, the added expense of needing cranes and high platforms to make it safe for the tree surgeons.
Fine if the tree is in the middle of a filed/woodland where it bothers noone, but by the same issues, if it's in a woodland will that sick tree or trees compromise other surrounding healthy specimens of other varieties.
In cases such as this waiting until the tree is completely dead is not an option which is why you see seemingly 'fairly healthy' trees felled before it gets too dangerous to do so.

Well, that is the caveat; safety first. But it should not be taken as a reason to fell any Ash that has dieback. If you're a tree surgeon you'll know that the Chalara species has only been in the country for about a decade, but Ash have always been brittle in decline and there has been some form of dieback present for ever - actually I wonder if, as a pioneer species, Ash are a bit of a barrometer for changing climate or maybe air quality. The presence of dieback should not become a reason for felling the tree and the principle purpose of retaining diseased trees where it is safe to do so is about allowing the species to become acclimatised to the latest disease through natural selection. If they're all felled then we simply lose another species and around 10-12% of our remaining tree cover. The FC are very clear that the presence of the disease in older trees does not affect the timber. Obviously, if the whole tree has died then it will become brittle, regardless of what killed it. This isn't like DED where the beetle moved through the countryside afflicting Elm over around 6" diameter; this disease is airborne and now endemic, so any succeptible species could get it. It is misleading to tell the public that a tree is dangerous if it has the new variant of Ash Dieback, as with almost any disease - and is why the exemptions for TPO's changed from 'dead, dying, or dangerous' to simply 'dead or dangerous'.

 

[Lislarybees]

If you detest this forum and the opinions given by members so much why are you involved here? You do come across as a Troll with posts like this. Why not set up a AMM dedicated Irish forum and you can discuss 'pure' AMMs to your hearts content?

I don't detest this forum - I don't agree with some of the opinions expressed on here and so will call those out. Otherwise it is just an echo chamber. Judging by the supportive private messages I have received from other forum members I would say my contributions are appreciated by many. You might not like them but that is the beauty of a forum. I would also point out that someone being labelled a 'troll' for advocating for the UK's native honey bee on a UK beekeeping forum is frankly ridiculous. I have actually seen this label being aimed at other contributors on here when they have expressed dissenting views on similar topics with the aim clearly of shutting them up. That is very sad.

My biggest concern is that new beekeepers come on here for information/education and they are given some very skewed view points when it comes to Amm. Openly derogatory a lot of the time but yet based on little actual hands on experience. Apart from "I had some black bees once, they stung me and they had chalk brood." Do you not recognise these same worn out tropes being repeated on here? The black bee population in the UK has been mixed up for so long that unless you go to extraordinary lengths your black bee is just a hybridised bee and bears little relation to how a pure Amm behaves or for that matter A.Carnica or Linguistica. Amm is however your native bee and you can't be blind to that or just wish it away.

 

[Lislarybees]

Because there’s no fun in that?

Is that a joke? You actually think this is trolling. Good heavens!

If I remember there were calls for an Amm specific sub forum on here and it wasn't allowed. Why was that again?

 

[user 20297]

I avoid any sect or cult that base all of their beliefs on the bible as interpreted by a governing body and invented by an american restorationist.

........ trouble is, if you're a reasonable person, they tend not to avoid you!. One of the benefits of covid, in this respect, is that it hasn't eliminated humankind (explain that you "Witnesses"), and it's also kept the "Jehovahs" from my door.

 

[Lislarybees]

There's an arguable case that conservation is actively subverting evolution when species have been outcompeted by man. Not my position and rather purist but worth considering before claiming to represent evolutionary biologists.

Eh - not when that evolution is being driven by continued imports.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

The black bee population in the UK has been mixed up for so long that unless you go to extraordinary lengths your black bee is just a hybridised bee

Amm is however your native bee and you can't be blind to that or just wish it away.

Contradicting yourself there rather.
Is it our native black bee and still exists - or isn't it
Or are you just trolling to fuel your obsessive dislike of anything imported?

 

[Apiarist]

If I remember there were calls for an Amm specific sub forum on here and it wasn't allowed. Why was that again?

I assumed that this
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/forums/native-bee-wasp-species.88/was the Sub Section on this Forum for Amm's ?

 

[Lislarybees]

Contradicting yourself there rather.
Is it our native black bee and still exists - or isn't it
Or are you just trolling to fuel your obsessive dislike of anything imported?

Just because you have managed to wipe it out in large areas doesn't stop it being your native bee. And it does still exist in parts of the UK in pure or near pure form and you know that full well. What I am saying is that for most beekeepers in the UK their experience of black bees is most likely going to be a hybrid and so unpredictable in its behaviour. And you can sling the troll tag as much as you like but you also know full well nothing I have said can be labelled as such.

 

[Lislarybees]

I assumed that this
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/forums/native-bee-wasp-species.88/was the Sub Section on this Forum for Amm's ?

If you want me to go back through the forum to find that discussion I will but I think at the time there was suggestion that the specific discussion of Amm would have enhanced moderation to stop the tiresome 'trolling' by Amm haters. That it would be a place where interested forum members could actually discuss the topic productively. But it wasn't agreed to.

 

[Erichalfbee]

1
Is that a joke? You actually think this is trolling. Good heavens!

2
If I remember there were calls for an Amm specific sub forum on here and it wasn't allowed. Why was that again?

1 Of course not. I was just suggesting to Mintbee that it might be less fun.
2.Because the American owners are not keen on too many sub fora
It was my suggestion that one was created but the management refused.
Now stop being so holier than thou. Everybody here knows how you feel about your Irish bees. There’s not really much more to be said. It’s been repeated ad nauseam