Hubbry Logo
Tree forkTree forkMain
Open search
Tree fork
Community hub
Tree fork
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tree fork
Tree fork
Tree fork
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Typical wood grain pattern at a mature tree fork, Slater et al. (2014)[1]

A tree fork is a bifurcation in the trunk of a tree giving rise to two roughly equal diameter branches. These forks are a common feature of tree crowns. The wood grain orientation at the top of a tree fork is such that the wood's grain pattern most often interlocks to provide sufficient mechanical support. A common "malformation" of a tree fork is where bark has formed within the join, often caused by natural bracing occurring higher up in the crown of the tree, and these bark-included junctions often have a heightened risk of failure, especially when bracing branches are pruned out or are shaded out from the tree's crown.

Definition

[edit]
A typical tree fork in a Norway maple (Acer platanoides)
Fork at canopy level in a kapok tree (Ceiba pentandra), colonised by an epiphytic Tillandsia

In arboriculture, junctions in the crown structure of trees are frequently categorised as either branch-to-stem attachments or co-dominant stems.[2] Co-dominant stems are where the two or more arising branches emerging from the junction are of near equal diameter and this type of junction in a tree is often referred to in layman's terms as 'a tree fork'.[3][4]

There is actually no hard botanical division between these two forms of branch junction: they are topologically equivalent, and from their external appearance it is only a matter of the diameter ratio between the branches that are conjoined that separates a tree fork from being a branch-to-stem junction.[5] However, when a small branch joins to a tree trunk there is a knot that can be found to be embedded into the trunk of the tree, which was the initial base of the smaller branch. This is not the case in tree forks, as each branch is roughly equal in size and no substantial tissues from either branch is embedded into the other, so there is no reinforcing knot to supply the mechanical strength to the junction that will be needed to hold the branches aloft.[5] To alleviate potential strain, it is recommended to identify and prune the codominant stem early in a tree's life, while in mature trees, a risk analysis should be conducted to decide whether to remove one stem, cable them together, or leave them intact.[6]

Wood grain pattern of a fork of Fraxinus excelsior (Common ash), as found by stripping off the outer and inner bark layers

Anatomy and morphology

[edit]

Research has shown that a unique wood grain pattern at the apex of forks in hazel trees (Corylus avellana L.) acts to hold together the branches in this species, and this is probably the case in most other woody plants and trees.[7][1][8] This is an example of 'trade-off' in xylem, where mechanical strength to the tree's junction is gained at the expense of efficiency in tree sap conductance by the production of this specialised wood, known as 'axillary wood'.[9] The complex interlocking wood grain patterns developed in axillary wood present a great opportunity for biomimicry (the mimicking of natural biological structures in man-made materials) in fibrous materials, where the production of a Y-shaped or T-shaped component is needed:[10] particularly in such components that may need to act as a conduit for liquids as well as being mechanically strong.

Tree fork morphology has been shown to alter with the angle of inclination of the fork from the vertical axis.[11] As the fork becomes more tilted from the vertical, the branches become more elliptical in cross-section, to adapt to the additional lateral loading upon them, and Buckley, Slater and Ennos (2015) showed that this adaption resulted in stronger tree forks when the fork was more inclined away from the vertical.[11]

Bark inclusions and fork strength

[edit]

Where a junction forms in a tree and bark is incorporated into the join, this is referred to as an 'included bark junction' or 'bark inclusion'. A common cause of bark being incorporated into the junction is that the junction is braced by the touching of branches or stems set above that junction (in arboriculture, these branch interactions are termed 'natural braces'). Such included bark junctions can be substantially weaker in strength than normal tree forks, and can become a significant hazard in a tree, particularly when the bracing branches are shaded out or pruned out of the tree.[12][2] Research has shown that in hazel trees, the more the included bark is occluded within new wood growth, the stronger that junction will be, with the weakest forks being those with a large amount of unoccluded bark at their apex.[13] Common tree care practices are to prune out such bark-included forks at an early stage of the tree's development, to brace the two arising branches above such a junction so that they can not split apart (using a flexible brace) or to reduce the length of the smaller arising branch, so that it is subordinated to the larger branch.[14] Care should be taken not to prune out 'natural braces' set above weak tree forks in mature trees unless that is absolutely necessary.[15]

The strength of a normally-formed tree fork can be assessed by its shape and the presence and location of axillary wood: those that are more U-shaped are typically considerably stronger than those that are V-shaped at their apex.[16] This characteristic, and the presence of bark included in a tree fork, are important attributes for tree surveyors and tree contractors to note in order to assess whether the tree fork is a defect in the structure of a tree.[4]

  • An included bark junction formed in a wild cherry tree (Prunus avium)
    An included bark junction formed in a wild cherry tree (Prunus avium)
  • A junction with included bark that failed in storm conditions, growing on a hazel tree (Corylus avellana)
    A junction with included bark that failed in storm conditions, growing on a hazel tree (Corylus avellana)
  • Tree fork, rejoining together again
    Tree fork, rejoining together again

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tree fork

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A tree fork is a morphological structure in trees characterized by the bifurcation of an axis, such as the trunk or a major , into two or more equivalent axes of roughly equal diameter that form sharp angles between them. These forks are a common feature in tree crowns, arising from either endogenous developmental processes or exogenous responses to environmental factors like trauma. Tree forks develop through architectural metamorphosis, where genetic predispositions lead to main forks (primary bifurcations in the stem) or recurrent forks (repeated branching patterns for crown plasticity), while external influences produce standby forks (dormant buds activated by changes) or accidental forks (trauma-induced splits). Structurally, they feature dense axillary wood with interlocking beneath a bark ridge, which can include natural braces in some cases, enabling them to function as efficient load-transfer points in the tree's cantilever-like . In , tree forks play a dual role: providing stability and adaptability to the 's for better light capture and , yet posing risks of failure, particularly in accidental forks with bark inclusions that weaken junctions under mechanical stress. Recent has refined understanding of fork , challenging earlier models like the "collar hypothesis" by emphasizing the role of orientation and in force distribution. Beyond natural ecosystems, tree forks inspire applications, such as using discarded forks as strong, biomimetic joints in sustainable wooden buildings due to their intricate networks.

Definition and Characteristics

Definition

A tree fork is defined as a morphological structure produced by the bifurcation of an axis in a tree's trunk or major , yielding two or more equivalent axes of roughly the same . This configuration arises when the primary growth axis divides into co-dominant stems that compete for dominance, rather than a single leader continuing upward. Unlike simple branching, where a subordinate lateral emerges from a dominant with a distinct insertion angle and hierarchical structure, a tree fork features stems of comparable vigor and size emerging from a common point, often without clear subordination. These forks typically appear in the upper portions of tree crowns, contributing to the overall architectural diversity of the tree. The terminology surrounding tree forks, particularly the concept of "codominant stems," originated in 19th-century forestry observations, rooted in Gustav Kraft's 1884 crown classification system for assessing social status in stands. This framework was later translated and popularized in English through Assmann's 1970 work The Principles of Forest Yield Study, and adapted into modern in the early 1970s via Martin H. Zimmermann and Claud L. Brown's Trees: Structure and Function.

Occurrence and Prevalence

Tree forks, defined as bifurcations where two or more stems of comparable diameter emerge from a common point, occur more frequently in angiosperms than in gymnosperms. In broadleaf angiosperm species such as sugar maple (), yellow birch (), and American beech (), forking is common in northern hardwood forests. In contrast, gymnosperms like pines (Pinus spp.) exhibit lower forking rates, typically arising only after terminal bud loss, as their stronger suppresses multiple leaders unless disrupted. Environmental conditions, particularly light in dense forests, influence fork prevalence, with suppressed trees forming temporary or standby forks to position branches for improved illumination. In such settings, mature broadleaf trees may develop forks as they respond to shading from overstory canopies, based on observations in temperate woodlands where drives architectural adjustments. Forking increases with tree age, height, and girth. In urban environments, tree forks often appear due to improper that fails to subordinate competing leaders early in development. Municipal inventories attribute codominant stems to routine clearance that promotes multi-stem growth if not managed structurally.

Anatomy and Development

Morphological Structure

Tree forks, also known as crotches, exhibit distinct external morphological features that vary based on the angle of bifurcation and the configuration of . The angle at which the stems diverge typically ranges from acute V-shapes, often less than 45°, to more open U-shapes exceeding 90°, with wider angles generally promoting greater structural integration. At , a prominent branch bark forms, consisting of rolled bark tissue that marks the boundary between the diverging stems; in V-shaped forks, this tends to narrow and invaginate, while in U-shaped forks, it appears raised and more expansive, facilitating better bark adhesion. These external characteristics are commonly observed in tree species such as oaks and maples. Internally, tree forks display interlocking wood grains that enhance attachment stability, with trunk fibers weaving around the base and sides of the branch or codominant stem, creating a compaction zone where grains deviate perpendicularly to the axial direction. The zone of attachment is characterized by annual growth of the parent stem's tissues enveloping the fork's base, forming a supportive collar that interlocks the vascular tissues of the connected stems, though direct conduction between the stems above the junction remains limited. This interlocking pattern arises from the vascular cambium's activity, which produces secondary and in response to mechanical stresses at the junction. Cross-sectional views of tree forks reveal the intimate integration of the fork with the parent stem's layer, where the trunk's curves around the base to form overlapping collars of tissue, ensuring continuous and pathways. In such sections, the wood grains appear tortuous and denser at the apex of the fork—up to 27% denser than in the —highlighting the reinforced attachment zone beneath the bark ridge. These anatomical details can be visualized in diagrams showing fiber orientations, such as those depicting a red oak with a central compaction zone and peripheral interlocking fibers.

Formation Mechanisms

Tree forks primarily form through the disruption of , a process where the terminal inhibits the growth of lateral buds via hormonal signals, leading to a single dominant leader. When the leader is damaged—such as by strikes, , or herbivory from deer, , or —the suppression is released, allowing two or more lateral buds to compete equally and develop into codominant stems. This "accidental fork" mechanism is common in young s, as the loss of the apical prompts rapid outgrowth from nearby axillary buds to reestablish dominance. Hormonal influences, particularly the redistribution of (, IAA), play a central role in promoting dual stem growth following such disruptions. produced in the shoot apex normally flows downward to maintain by inhibiting outgrowth, often indirectly through secondary signals like strigolactones. In young trees, damage to the leader alters this basipetal transport, reducing inhibition and enabling multiple buds to elongate, resulting in forked structures. This process is more pronounced in early developmental stages due to greater architectural plasticity. Certain species exhibit genetic predispositions to fork formation, particularly under environmental stressors like shaded conditions that weaken . For instance, silver () often develops multiple upright branches near the ground, particularly in its native or disturbed habitats where rapid multi-stem development enhances survival. Such mechanisms can yield V-shaped junctions as morphological outcomes.

Types of Tree Forks

Codominant Stem Forks

Codominant stem forks occur when two or more primary stems emerge from a common point on the main trunk and develop to similar sizes, typically with comparable , often each comprising a significant portion of the trunk's at the union (e.g., more than one-third). These stems grow in a predominantly vertical orientation, forming a characteristic V-shaped that lacks substantial interlocking wood between them. This configuration arises from early developmental competition among apical buds, where no single bud dominates growth. Such forks are prevalent in certain tree species, notably the Bradford pear ( 'Bradford'), which frequently exhibits this trait due to its rapid, upright growth habit. In evolutionary terms, codominant stems may confer advantages in for interception in certain environments, though they are more common in open-grown individuals, such as those in urban or edge habitats, where abundance favors such despite long-term risks. By distributing photosynthate across multiple equivalent leaders, the tree can rapidly achieve greater stature and broader -capturing surfaces, enhancing early growth rates and before potential structural vulnerabilities manifest. Case studies of urban-planted trees highlight the prevalence and consequences of codominant forks, with species like the pear showing frequent development of these structures leading to elevated failure rates. For instance, many urban pears exhibit codominance soon after planting, contributing to widespread structural failures within 15–25 years, often during storms or under snow/ice loads, as their weak unions split under accumulated mass. In managed landscapes, unpruned codominant trees in cities demonstrate significantly higher failure incidences compared to those with a single dominant leader, underscoring the need for early intervention to mitigate risks in human-altered environments.

Branch Junction Forks

Branch junction forks occur when a main branch divides into two or more sub-branches, typically within the tree's crown, facilitating lateral expansion and structural complexity distinct from primary trunk bifurcations. These forks are characterized by narrower crotch angles, which can affect hydraulic flow and mechanical stability at the junction. In conifers like pines (Pinus spp.), such forks are highly prevalent in crown areas, where they support iterative branching patterns essential for light interception in dense stands. Morphological variations of branch junction forks include standby forks, which form in young under low-light conditions to produce bushy crown structures, and recurrent forks that resorb over 2-3 years in species like those in the and families. In tropical trees, ramification forks represent a specialized variation, involving repeated bifurcations that promote extensive canopy expansion through rhythmic growth and sylleptic branching, as seen in architectural models like Rauh's and Aubréville's. This ramification enhances by creating tiered, plagiotropic layers that fill canopy gaps. Branch forks constitute the majority of bifurcations in mature forest canopies, with estimates reaching around 70% in certain tropical species such as . For instance, in reiterating conifers like , these junctions dominate upper crown development, while in tropical species such as , ramification drives modular growth with up to six annual flushes. This high frequency underscores their importance in overall tree architecture and forest dynamics.

Accidental Forks

Accidental forks arise from exogenous factors, primarily trauma such as mechanical damage or injury to the main axis, leading to the activation of dormant buds and bifurcation into two or more axes. These forks often form sharp angles and may include bark inclusions, increasing the risk of structural weakness, though they can persist as permanent features in species like cedars (Cedrus spp.) and pines (Pinus pinaster). Unlike endogenous types, accidental forks represent a response to environmental stress rather than developmental programming.

Structural Integrity

Bark Inclusions

Bark inclusions consist of trapped layers of periderm tissue that become embedded between the stems of a tree fork, hindering the development of a complete wood-to-wood union and thereby compromising structural integrity. This defect arises primarily in codominant stem forks where the angle between stems is narrow, such as V-shaped junctions, leading to compression of the bark as both stems expand radially during growth. The included bark remains alive initially but often undergoes necrosis over time, failing to differentiate into supportive xylem tissue and reducing the effective interlocking area of the attachment. The begins when two codominant stems initiate from a common or close proximity, causing their periderms to abut and fold inward under mutual as circumferential growth occurs. This compression prevents the normal formation of interlocking across the union, with the trapped bark acting as a barrier that limits mechanical fusion. Included bark is a common feature in such forks, observed in a substantial proportion of codominant unions across various species, including and . Three primary morphological types of bark inclusions are recognized based on their configuration and degree of occlusion: flat, embedded, and cup-shaped. In a flat bark inclusion, a thin layer of bark lies parallel to the plane of the bifurcation at the apex, with minimal surrounding xylem development, resulting in a broad, unoccluded separation (as depicted in schematic diagrams showing a straight, uninterrupted bark layer spanning the junction's upper surface). The embedded type features bark fully enclosed within the union, surrounded by xylem on multiple sides but without complete bridging, illustrated in cross-sections as an internal pocket of bark tissue isolated from the exterior. Cup-shaped inclusions occur when partial occlusion forms around the bark, creating a concave "cup" structure with xylem bulging laterally, often shown in diagrams as curved bark at the center with wood growth arching over the edges to partially encapsulate it. These types vary in their impact on union strength, with flat and embedded forms generally presenting greater risks due to less compensatory tissue development.

Strength Assessment and Risks

Tree forks, particularly those featuring bark inclusions, exhibit significant mechanical weaknesses due to the absence of interlocking wood fibers at the junction, which concentrates shear stresses and reduces overall load-bearing capacity. Biomechanical analyses demonstrate that such forks typically withstand 24% to 50% less load before failure compared to unions without inclusions, as the included bark prevents proper development and creates a plane of susceptible to splitting under tensile and shear forces. This is modeled through distributions, where the fork apex acts as a stress singularity, promoting crack propagation in a scissor-like manner or progressive . Common failure risks in tree forks include sudden storm-induced cracks and gradual decay, both exacerbated by environmental loads. During high-wind events like hurricanes, forks in species such as live oaks () often split at codominant stems, as seen in post-storm assessments following in , where weakened junctions accounted for a substantial portion of failures due to and leverage. Gradual decay, initiated by fungal ingress at inclusion sites, further compromises integrity over time, leading to reduced modulus of rupture and eventual catastrophic splitting even under moderate loads. Quantitative assessment of these risks relies on metrics such as the included bark ratio (IBR), defined as the proportion of the junction occupied by included bark relative to the total union width. An IBR exceeding 0.5 signals high failure risk, correlating with diminished occlusion and lower strength retention— for instance, fully exposed inclusions can reduce junction strength by up to 50%, while partial occlusion (e.g., cup-shaped forms) may preserve up to 36% more capacity. These evaluations, informed by rupture testing and finite element modeling, guide arborists in prioritizing hazardous structures.

Practical Applications

Identification Techniques

Identification of tree forks and associated weaknesses begins with visual inspection techniques commonly employed in field settings. Arborists perform Level 1 tree risk assessments, which involve limited visual examinations from ground level or accessible vantage points to detect obvious structural anomalies without physical contact. These assessments prioritize non-invasive observation to identify potential hazards efficiently across large areas, such as urban landscapes or forests. Key visual indicators of tree forks include abnormal bulges or "big bellies" formed by tension wood, creases or ridges signaling included bark at the junction, and discolored or fissured bark that may indicate decay or stress concentrations. V-shaped forks with narrow attachment angles (typically less than 45 degrees) often exhibit these signs more prominently than U-shaped unions, where bark may integrate more fully. Discoloration, such as darker streaks or peeling, at the fork can suggest internal weaknesses, prompting further . These cues are derived from the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) methodology, which interprets tree "body language" to infer mechanical stress without . High-risk forks frequently display multiple such indicators, correlating with elevated failure potential. For more detailed analysis, advanced non-invasive tools supplement visual methods in Level 2 and Level 3 assessments. Resistograph probing employs a small-diameter drill (approximately 3-5 mm) to measure wood resistance incrementally, revealing density variations and decay extent at fork junctions without significant damage to the tree. This technique quantifies hidden defects, such as cavities or weakened wood fibers, by producing graphical profiles of drilling torque, allowing arborists to map internal integrity along targeted paths. Similarly, sonic tomography transmits low-frequency sound waves through the tree trunk or fork, using sensors to record wave velocities and generate 2D or 3D tomograms that highlight zones of low-density or decayed material. These methods are particularly useful for forks where visual cues suggest but do not confirm weaknesses, providing quantitative data on wood quality. Arboricultural standards, such as ANSI A300 Part 9 (2011, consolidated 2023), outline protocols for evaluating fork stability through integrated assessments that combine visual, tactile, and instrumental data. Level 2 involves a comprehensive 360-degree visual and sounding inspection (e.g., using a to detect hollows via changes), while Level 3 incorporates advanced tools for precise defect localization. Stability is gauged by factors including fork angle, with narrower angles increasing risks, and the visibility of bark inclusions, which are associated with reduced union strength (~24% weaker in some species like ), especially in narrow-angled junctions. Although specific numerical scales vary by , protocols often employ semi-quantitative rating systems—such as assigning scores based on defect severity, attachment angle, and inclusion extent—to classify forks from stable to high-risk, guiding prioritization in . These standards ensure consistent, evidence-based identification to mitigate hazards effectively.

Arboricultural Management

Arboricultural management of tree forks primarily involves targeted interventions to enhance structural stability and mitigate failure risks, focusing on pruning, support systems, and proactive planting strategies. Subordinate reduction pruning is a key technique for codominant stem forks, where one competing stem is shortened or thinned to favor the dominant leader, thereby reallocating resources and reducing mechanical stress at the union. This method, applied during dormant seasons to maximize wound closure and minimize disease risk, can decrease wind-induced strain on the pruned stem by 38% with 33% foliage removal and up to 71% with 66% foliage removal, effectively lowering overall fork load. Cabling and bracing provide stabilization for existing forks that cannot be fully resolved through alone, using dynamic or static systems to limit excessive movement without restricting natural growth. Dynamic cabling, employing elastic ropes like or , is installed in the upper with 5-25% slack to absorb wind energy, while static options such as rods are suited for lower crowns and offer rigid support. Guidelines recommend sizing based on stem at the fork: for trees up to 400 mm , minimum breaking strength of 20 kN for dynamic systems and 40 kN for static; scaling to 80 kN and 160 kN respectively for 600-800 mm diameters, with professional assessment required to avoid over- or under-support. Preventive measures emphasize selecting and trees during establishment to avoid fork development, particularly in urban settings where space constraints amplify risks. Arborists recommend planting cultivars with inherent single-leader growth habits, such as certain maples or oaks bred for central dominance, to minimize codominant tendencies from the outset. Early structural , initiated 1-2 years post-planting and continued for 15-25 years, involves subordinating competing stems to maintain diameters below half the trunk size, fostering strong attachments and enhancing long-term resistance in street tree programs.

References

  1. https://scholars.direct/Articles/botany/jbr-3-012.php
  2. https://energy.mit.edu/research/using-natures-structures-in-wooden-buildings/
  3. https://doi.org/10.36959/771/566
  4. https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/24039
  5. https://auf.isa-arbor.com/content/26/5/264
  6. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/32619/Farrellthesis0610.pdf
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237162519_How_branches_are_attached_to_trunks
  8. https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/471726
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6232754/
  10. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/acesah/all.html
  11. https://www.umass.edu/urbantree/factsheets/35codominantstems_rev1.html
  12. https://www.polartreeandenginecare.com/post/spruce-tree-pruning-practices
  13. https://blog.irontreeservice.com/common-tree-defects-co-dominant-stems/
  14. https://www.totallandscapecare.com/design-build/lawn-maintenance/article/15042006/tree-pruning-tips-and-advice-about-bradford-pear-trees
  15. https://www.aces.edu/blog/topics/forestry/how-tree-growth-affects-tree-failure/
  16. https://richmondtree.com/bradford-pear-lifespan/
  17. https://www.bartlett.com/blog/codominant-stems-and-reducing-tree-failures/
  18. https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers20-09/09318.pdf
  19. https://auf.isa-arbor.com/content/41/4/194
  20. https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/bark-inclusions.shtml
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282275897_The_Level_of_Occlusion_of_Included_Bark_Affects_the_Strength_of_Bifurcations_in_Hazel_Corylus_avellana_L
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238757178_Failure_Mode_and_Prediction_of_the_Strength_of_Branch_Attachments
  23. https://auf.isa-arbor.com/content/46/3/210
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagrams-and-images-defining-three-morphological-types-of-bark-included-junctions-in_fig5_308148077
  25. https://www.historictreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Slater-The-Failure-of-Forks.pdf
  26. https://www.deland.org/DocumentCenter/View/2569/EP30000_Restoring-Trees-After-A-Hurricane
  27. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FR173
  28. https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/outages-and-safety/outage-preparedness-and-support/ansi-a300-part-9-2011-tree-risk-assessment.pdf
  29. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8784/f7cc39c90111a293672858457bdfeb5fd008.pdf
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/5/1041
  31. https://www.bartlett.com/tree-advice-and-resources/technical-reports/resistance-recording-drills-for-decay-assessments
  32. https://www.bartlett.com/tree-advice-and-resources/technical-reports/sonic-tomography
  33. https://www.tcia.org/business-support/ansi-a300-standards/
  34. https://auf.isa-arbor.com/content/41/1/3
  35. https://www.treesaregood.org/treeowner/pruningyourtrees
  36. https://files.site.forpsi.com/44/9e/449e1a5b-3842-4fcc-9ae5-3552460bb7b7.pdf
  37. https://auf.isa-arbor.com/content/26/3/170
  38. https://utia.tennessee.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/269/2023/10/SP659.pdf
  39. https://www.leegov.com/hurricane/Documents/Preventive%20Tree%20%20Pruning.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.