The death of a Hybrid Popular tree

[Barebuttminer]

The death of a Hybrid Popular tree
Without going into to much detail at this time I would like to get this forums thoughts and input on this subject.
On 06Jul2018 This Popular tree had its exposed above ground roots hacked on one side along the property line.
I believe that this hacking of the roots should have caused the tree to think it was in a drought situation and that it should have slowly shut down, causing some of its leaves to yellow and drop off, until it reached an equilibrium with the input from the remaining healthy root system.
However within 2 weeks of having the roots hacked 85% of the leaves shriveled up turned brown and died still attached to the tree, 10 weeks later the tree was completely dead.
I think the tree was poisoned.
 
Questions:
Would the hacking of the tree roots alone have caused this tree to die?
In addition to having the roots hacked was there a poison (roundup) applied to the open wounds on the roots?
Would it be feasible to test for poison or trace elements after 2 years of death?
Is there a forensics lab out there that can test for toxic elements and poisons? If so where are they located?
 
Posted pictures is a 10 week pictorial time line of the tree dying.
The hacked roots


 

 


 


 


 
The tree time line.

01 Popular Tree 15Jul2018


 

02 Popular Tree 15Jul2018


 

03 Popular Tree 15Jul2018


 

04 Popular Tree 15Jul2018


 

05 Popular Tree 16Jul2018


 

06 Popular Tree 16Jul2018


 

07 Popular Tree 21Jul2018


 

08 Popular Tree 25Jul2018


 

09 Popular Tree 27Jul2018


 

10 Popular Tree 27Jul2018


 

11 Popular Tree 16Aug2018


 

12 Popular Tree 30Aug2018


 

13 Popular Tree 06Sep2018


 

14 Popular Tree 19Sep2018


 

15 Popular Tree 10Oct2018


 

[gspren]

Who did the hacking, you or a neighbor?

[Barebuttminer]

Who did the hacking, you or a neighbor?

Neighbor

[WDH]

The roots appear to be purposely hacked. 

[wisconsitom]

Not so much the cutting of a portion of the tree's roots....but what chemical was applied to the ground in the vicinity of the tree?  I would focus on that.  Very likely, an herbicide capable of doing extreme damage to a tree was applied to the turf to control weeds.  In a darker vein, somebody could have applied with the bad intent of harming your tree.  The roots of that tree surely have migrated into neighboring properties.

Tissue samples can still be taken by a qualified diagnostician.  In this state, we have something called The Department of Ag, Trade, and Consumer Protection-DATCAP.

4 years ago, a neighboring mega-farmer drifited glyphosate onto my land via spraying his field (actually a rented piece) on a windy day.  I told him that while he had damaged some of my trees, I was willing to accept this loss, so long as it is never repeated.  Well, next spring, Mr. Mega-Farmer-he is a known quantity in the township-did the same thing.  I called DATCAP and initiated a case.  The agent took photos, tissue samples, and my narrative.  He contacted the farmer and informed him that he was close to losing his pesticide applicator's license.  That got his attention!

We don't have problems with that guy anymore.

[gspren]

If the neighbor applied chemicals on his own property that were absorbed by your tree's roots that were on his land whose problem is it? I would like to know since a neighbor planted a Crepe Myrtle inches from our property and it will eventually be a problem.

[btulloh]

If the neighbor applied chemicals on his own property that were absorbed by your tree's roots that were on his land whose problem is it? I would like to know since a neighbor planted a Crepe Myrtle inches from our property and it will eventually be a problem.

That will depend on the particular laws in your state and locality.  You'll need to consult with a local attorney to really know.
Crepe myrtles certainly do put out runners and root shoots.  They are manageable, but maybe not a problem you want to inherit.  At least he didn't plant bamboo.
Back to the OP - I imagine CA has an agency that can/will do the forensic work on the poplar.  The sooner you get samples from the dead tree, the better.  Perhaps the damage is the responsibility of your neighbor and you are entitled to damages.  An attorney could answer that question.

[Southside]

Like the others said, you need to find out what the law in CA is that pertains to boundary trees and over/under hang to know if there is even any potential case.  Depending on how much herbicide was used there may still be residual left in the tree tissue, but I think the odds of that are getting slim.  The next issue, given the delay, will be trying to prove that if you do detect herbicide there that the herbicide is what killed the tree and it was not something that was applied later, was "planted" evidence, or came from another source.  

Your burden in court will be to show a "preponderance of the evidence" or that it's more likely than not as to the source, timing, and WHO applied the herbicide.  Neighbor tells the judge "Yea I hacked the roots because I thought they were coming off of my tree 5' away and I didn't want it to grow into the fence and I sprayed Round up I bought at Tractor Supply to kill the weeds in the mulch" and your case is gone.  Sorry about the whole thing and I sure would not be happy if I were in your shoes but I think you have a very hard case there.  

[Woodpecker52]

My advice cut down the tree, Move  away from the property line, and plant a smaller type tree like dogwood.  Your neighbor can do what he wants to on his own property!  I am sure he appreciated having to rake leaves from your tree, anyway not worth stirring up a ruckus and having an enemy next door most shootings start over petty disagreements.

[clearcut]

In California, for the most part, trees on a boundary belong to both owners. You can legally remove any parts of a tree that crosses the property line, without permission. However if you damage the tree, you may be held liable for any loss that your neighbor has. 

Your county Agricultural Commissioner regulates pesticide use and misuse. 

What you have is a neighbor problem more than a tree issue. Even if you prove an herbicide was applied, you only have presented circumstantial evidence that the neighbor applied it. 

[wisconsitom]

I see wires, garages, houses, fences...plenty of targets for a felled tree to land on.  Instead, this is an arborist's job, the tree being taken down in pieces...and expensive.  If barebuttminer can avail him or herself to a local government expert, then  there would be no need to believe nonsense like the thought that spraying glyphosate on a few weeds in a mulched bed could kill a big poplar.

Get an expert on your side so when nonsensical things are brought up by your opponent, they can be readily dismissed.

Most likely, this person could also explain that the neighbor does not actually have free rein to do as he wishes...when it impacts the lives and property of others.

[Southside]

Good luck getting a "government expert" to testify in a civil hearing as an expert witness.  So that means you hire an expert witness, $250 or more per hour, plus the $250 for the attorney, filing and service fees, in a case that lacks corroborated evidence.   There is no economic value to the tree, never was, so there is no recovery there.  Best case is the fee to remove it, or half more than likely since it's a boundary tree.  Cheaper just to pay the tree service and be done with it.  Sometimes you have to pick your battles.  

[Barebuttminer]

If the neighbor applied chemicals on his own property that were absorbed by your tree's roots that were on his land whose problem is it? I would like to know since a neighbor planted a Crepe Myrtle inches from our property and it will eventually be a problem.

Rule No. 1: Trees with trunks standing wholly upon the land of one owner belong exclusively to him, even though their roots may grow into the land of another.  This means that a tree – including its branches – is owned by the person upon whose property the trunk is located.  The fact that the roots may grow under the neighbor's property is irrelevant to ownership.  (Civil Code Section 833.)  This law has been in effect since 1872.
                          
A neighbor's trees, branches or roots are encroaching into your property.  Do you have the absolute right to cut or remove those branches from your property?  Surprisingly, the answer is "No."
 In the 1994 case of Booska v. Patel, a California appellate court held that a neighbor does not have the absolute right to cut encroaching roots and branches so that they end at his or her property line. You must take into account the health of the tree before you start cutting or chopping.
 

[Barebuttminer]

My advice cut down the tree, Move  away from the property line, and plant a smaller type tree like dogwood.  Your neighbor can do what he wants to on his own property!  I am sure he appreciated having to rake leaves from your tree, anyway not worth stirring up a ruckus and having an enemy next door most shootings start over petty disagreements.

The tree was removed and the stump ground. The tree was in place 15 years prier to the building of their house

[Barebuttminer]

In California, for the most part, trees on a boundary belong to both owners. You can legally remove any parts of a tree that crosses the property line, without permission. However if you damage the tree, you may be held liable for any loss that your neighbor has.

Your county Agricultural Commissioner regulates pesticide use and misuse.

What you have is a neighbor problem more than a tree issue. Even if you prove an herbicide was applied, you only have presented circumstantial evidence that the neighbor applied it.

You are right Woodpecker52 and I and others have had this problem ever since they moved in 4 years ago. City folk, moving to the country, and then complaining about animal smells & noise, wild life crossing their land and in my case trees shedding leaves which fall on their land.

[Barebuttminer]

I see wires, garages, houses, fences...plenty of targets for a felled tree to land on.  Instead, this is an arborist's job, the tree being taken down in pieces...and expensive.  If barebuttminer can avail him or herself to a local government expert, then  there would be no need to believe nonsense like the thought that spraying glyphosate on a few weeds in a mulched bed could kill a big poplar.

Get an expert on your side so when nonsensical things are brought up by your opponent, they can be readily dismissed.

Most likely, this person could also explain that the neighbor does not actually have free rein to do as he wishes...when it impacts the lives and property of others.

The tree was brought down removed from my property and stump ground by a licensed Arborist in May 2019, yes it was very expensive. I did keep the trunk (thinking it would make a nice picnic table) and a few of the roots in anticipation of having to do forensic testing.
According to my lawyer my case against the neighbor is very strong.
I have sent the neighbor a demand for payment letter along with proof of their negligence.
The neighbor has turned the case over to his insurance company and now the neighbor's insurer is demanding a written report, after the fact, before they release payment for damages.
Unfortunately while I did have 2 separate arborists look at the tree in September 2018 and both stated that the tree appeared to have been poisoned all I got was a verbal.
I'm now searching for a way to prove that the tree was poisoned hence the reason for my post to The Forestry Forum.

[Barebuttminer]

Good luck getting a "government expert" to testify in a civil hearing as an expert witness.  So that means you hire an expert witness, $250 or more per hour, plus the $250 for the attorney, filing and service fees, in a case that lacks corroborated evidence.   There is no economic value to the tree, never was, so there is no recovery there.  Best case is the fee to remove it, or half more than likely since it's a boundary tree.  Cheaper just to pay the tree service and be done with it.  Sometimes you have to pick your battles.  

The tree does have economic value in a residential setting in accordance with the USDF sponsored National Tree Benefits Calculator website.
http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/
The hacking of the roots on my tree which lead to the death of the tree was the straw that broke the camels back in this case and I refuse to back down from these bully's again.
 

[WDH]

Well, he did hack the roots and he cannot prove that he did not poison it, and he cannot prove that hacking the roots did not kill the tree.  The hacked roots seem to be the smoking gun. 

[wisconsitom]

Barebutt, going back to my original thought...do you have something like our Department of Ag(riculture), Trade, and Consumer Protection?  Alternatively, does your area have County Horticultural agents?  I think some folks reading this thread don't know what help is available in cases like this.  And it needn't cost you a dime.  IF Cali has anything like what we have here, there are indeed government agencies set up to handle precisely this type of issue.

[Southside]

Well, he did hack the roots and he cannot prove that he did not poison it, and he cannot prove that hacking the roots did not kill the tree.  The hacked roots seem to be the smoking gun.

Yes - but in a courtroom he does not have to prove anything. 

[gspren]

If the neighbor applied chemicals on his own property that were absorbed by your tree's roots that were on his land whose problem is it? I would like to know since a neighbor planted a Crepe Myrtle inches from our property and it will eventually be a problem.

Rule No. 1: Trees with trunks standing wholly upon the land of one owner belong exclusively to him, even though their roots may grow into the land of another.  This means that a tree – including its branches – is owned by the person upon whose property the trunk is located.  The fact that the roots may grow under the neighbor's property is irrelevant to ownership.  (Civil Code Section 833.)  This law has been in effect since 1872.
                         
A neighbor's trees, branches or roots are encroaching into your property.  Do you have the absolute right to cut or remove those branches from your property?  Surprisingly, the answer is "No."
In the 1994 case of Booska v. Patel, a California appellate court held that a neighbor does not have the absolute right to cut encroaching roots and branches so that they end at his or her property line. You must take into account the health of the tree before you start cutting or chopping.

Watching shows like "The Peoples Court" they often say you may remove branches that encroach your property line, are you saying Judge Judy is wrong, :D

[Barebuttminer]

If the neighbor applied chemicals on his own property that were absorbed by your tree's roots that were on his land whose problem is it? I would like to know since a neighbor planted a Crepe Myrtle inches from our property and it will eventually be a problem.

Rule No. 1: Trees with trunks standing wholly upon the land of one owner belong exclusively to him, even though their roots may grow into the land of another.  This means that a tree – including its branches – is owned by the person upon whose property the trunk is located.  The fact that the roots may grow under the neighbor's property is irrelevant to ownership.  (Civil Code Section 833.)  This law has been in effect since 1872.
                         
A neighbor's trees, branches or roots are encroaching into your property.  Do you have the absolute right to cut or remove those branches from your property?  Surprisingly, the answer is "No."
In the 1994 case of Booska v. Patel, a California appellate court held that a neighbor does not have the absolute right to cut encroaching roots and branches so that they end at his or her property line. You must take into account the health of the tree before you start cutting or chopping.

Watching shows like "The Peoples Court" they often say you may remove branches that encroach your property line, are you saying Judge Judy is wrong, :D

To run afoul of the law, your neighbor doesn't have to chop down your tree. Its enough to just damage the health of your tree. For example, your neighbor has the legal right to trim branches of your tree if they hang over the property line. But if the trimming seriously injures your tree, your neighbor will be liable to you for the damage done. Similarly, if your neighbor uses a chemical in his or her yard to destroy unwanted roots, and the chemical seeps onto your property and kills one of your trees, your neighbor can be liable.

[Barebuttminer]

Barebutt, going back to my original thought...do you have something like our Department of Ag(riculture), Trade, and Consumer Protection?  Alternatively, does your area have County Horticultural agents?  I think some folks reading this thread don't know what help is available in cases like this.  And it needn't cost you a dime.  IF Cali has anything like what we have here, there are indeed government agencies set up to handle precisely this type of issue.

Tissue samples can still be taken by a qualified diagnostician.  In this state, we have something called The Department of Ag, Trade, and Consumer Protection-DATCAP.
Thank you Wisconsitom.
I am currently looking into these agencies that you have mentioned as well as the testing labs at the local collages.

[stavebuyer]

After reading this thread it reaffirms my belief that I have been wise to take every available opportunity to be my own neighbor(purchase any property that was for sale that adjoins).

I don't doubt the neighbor wanted the tree gone and may have done more than chopped the roots. 

I hope one of you move soon. Its not worth it.

[lxskllr]

I'd go the opposite path Woodpecker suggested. I'd replace it with the most irritating tree I could find. Mulberry maybe, or perhaps bamboo. Neighbor would be longing for the good old days when there was a poplar there  :^D