Case study

[JD3000]

Yeah, I woulda hit it harder

 

[Leroy]

I hear that, we will be back to this one in the next year or two I bet.

 

[colb]

Went hard on this one. Interested to see how it sprouts.

I was looking at those leggy lower and outer branches, then saw the cuts you already had to give them. Good first round.

 

[Redtree]

I agree that any support system here is likely unnecessary, especially cobra, a short term fix, likely problematic, for a tree likely to live very long. reduce and train sounds good. By species, my first reaction is that the tree is likely more capable than it looks. meaning doing nothing would likely not be too horrible. I think this might mean that reduction cuts could be kept to 2-3 inch max. maybe 1.5 inch even, depending on risks, targets and weights of the tree beyond suspect failure points. That might translate to 8 foot lengths. I think it's important to question, do we need 4" max cuts here? do we need 1" max cuts here? we need specific diameter and or length maximums. keeping in mind we also need diameter range in the application. I used to say 4'-8' lengths removed. now I just say lengths up to 8' removed. minimums are unnecessary, but keep in mind, the closer we get to 0' the finer and more valuable, influential and long lasting the application is. 20-100 additional cuts in the low end of the range (usually made beyond the main reduction cuts) may not change the tree a lot now, but may have a significant influence on its future.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Redtree]

sorry for the previous post timing wise. I know it is late, I wrote it after post number 8 or 10 or so but my phone said there was some error. I saved it as a draft and it seems I can send again.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[ATH]

It's probably a poor excuse, but I often take less then I would if say, it were my own tree. I don't want to scare the clients.

There is a difference between my trees, a private homeowner, and a public entity in my opinion.

I prune mine yearly. A few little cuts here and there. I know I'll be back at it next year so I can be very easy on them. Would be hard to justify that expense for a private client unless they have a bunch of young trees. Just the cost to show up to do 1 or 2 trees doesn't make sense annually.

Private homeowner, I make them promise me that we can prune again in 3-5 years. If it is a 6-8" tree that hasn't been touched before (especially an A. x freemanii) there is probably going to be a temporary loss of symmetry. I'll minimize that today knowing I'll be back in 3 years...but we have to get rid of that double leader(s). I can either do it all now or in 2-3 stages.

On public trees...not that appearance isn't important but less emotional attachment to the tree. Also, there is money in the pot today, might not be next go around, so I prune them more aggressively hoping to be back in a few years, but setting them up to have a good go if it is longer.

 

[ATH]

sorry for the previous post timing wise. I know it is late, I wrote it after post number 8 or 10 or so but my phone said there was some error. I saved it as a draft and it seems I can send again.

The site was not allowing new posts for most of Sunday....

 

[ATH]

I agree that any support system here is likely unnecessary, especially cobra, a short term fix, likely problematic, for a tree likely to live very long. reduce and train sounds good. By species, my first reaction is that the tree is likely more capable than it looks. meaning doing nothing would likely not be too horrible. I think this might mean that reduction cuts could be kept to 2-3 inch max. maybe 1.5 inch even, depending on risks, targets and weights of the tree beyond suspect failure points. That might translate to 8 foot lengths. I think it's important to question, do we need 4" max cuts here? do we need 1" max cuts here? we need specific diameter and or length maximums. keeping in mind we also need diameter range in the application. I used to say 4'-8' lengths removed. now I just say lengths up to 8' removed. minimums are unnecessary, but keep in mind, the closer we get to 0' the finer and more valuable, influential and long lasting the application is. 20-100 additional cuts in the low end of the range (usually made beyond the main reduction cuts) may not change the tree a lot now, but may have a significant influence on its future.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I've never really looked at specifying cuts by lengths, but I see the value in that. It would have to change by the circumstances. For example, I just pruned some limbs off my 6" dbh White oak that were 8' long and 1" in diameter... I think there are a few cuts on this one that need to be longer than 8'...but beyond those few, that would be a good plan to focus on 4-8' lengths.

 

[Redtree]

I like your points about how we treat different trees differently in terms of private vs public vs your own. I was literally just admiring my Acer negundo. I was thinking how it is has been through intense care since I've owned it. (wow I own a tree. Not really just taking care of it for now) It is like a giant Bonsai. Finally getting to where I want it in terms of taper. Extremely storm capable taper. On the very recently pruned half, 8' in from the tips is 2.5-4.5". On the other half, waiting for it's 3rd prune coming soon, 8' in from the tips is more like 2"-4". before I started correcting its neglect, or taming its wild, or civilizing its chaos, it was more like 1"-3" (Wow I feel weird erasing apostrophes from 'it's'. had to double check that. ok I am weird) anyway the point is that we can get a better idea of context and communicate better to peers, employees and homeowners by using cut diameters and looking at diameters vs lengths.

we can spend frequent time and give thorough care to our own trees or sometimes residential trees.
But. this reality also concerns me. I've said it before "why do we use boulevard trees as practice trees?" you see it all the time. if the new guy did it, was the pro around to supervise? was a pro involved at all? you also see good and better pruning on the boulevard just harder for the eye to catch. The point is that these public trees most often get the least frequent and poorest quality of care and attention. They actually deserve the best. They are seen the most, provide the most benefits, shade the pedestrian and the road. They are also the easiest group to care for efficiently on a large scale (in terms of structural pruning, not establishment, which portrays the opposite in many cases) Anyway glad to see the best practice on freemanii in my town recently (might have been mangoes company) they are young trees. 4-7 years in the ground. starting to take off and now with better direction. more subordination looking than reduction. (I actually prefer the word subordinate. I think it encompasses the idea of reaction over time rather than the tree as an object.) in the long run the tree still gets bigger in most cases of reduction, that's another reason why we should call it subordination.
ATH, as for your point on the freemanii Maples, I think it is great that you point out light, frequent care. I really see no other way (obvioisly there is some flexibility in application weight. just a slimmer range than we see practiced) when they are well grown into several co dominant stems, often 5-10 nearly equal stems, also depending on how you count the crotches, maybe 8-16. The heavy hand can often ruin shape, balance and over stress in a stressful, boulevard environment. I find it extremely important for trees like this, including many Norway, Silver, and Manitoba Maple, to be dealt with more progressively or less instantly. The first after picture should not look 'correct' at all. The improvement should be discrete. (plus it's more important to compare something we never can [except in your head], the pic after a year vs. the pic after a year had it not been pruned) The second after picture should also not look correct, perhaps a noticeable improvement. For a long neglected, wild, or chaotic tree, we should only expect excellent structure after 3-5 structural prunes. Even then, if the tree was mid aged or older to begin with, we can't expect 'correct' structure. But we can definitely expect good or great structure, assuming significant decay wasn't a factor. it's more about improving taper than it is about correcting. Mitigation vs dictation. Subordination vs drop crotching (or reducing even.) and good structure is not a question of how 'correct' it is as much as it is a question of how storm capable it is. prune right, prune light, prune often, not like a boffin. just kidding no poking there are lots of great boffins out there. I like to think I'm one. you're one too. experimenting on trees every day. it's called practice. practice makes perfect not really. it just gets you closer.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[ATH]

....
But. this reality also concerns me. I've said it before "why do we use boulevard trees as practice trees?" you see it all the time. if the new guy did it, was the pro around to supervise? was a pro involved at all? you also see good and better pruning on the boulevard just harder for the eye to catch. The point is that these public trees most often get the least frequent and poorest quality of care and attention. They actually deserve the best. They are seen the most, provide the most benefits, shade the pedestrian and the road. They are also the easiest group to care for efficiently on a large scale (in terms of structural pruning, not establishment, which portrays the opposite in many cases)...

I can address this pretty directly....at least for around here:
(1) Because (IF it gets done - which it usually doesn't) it is the untrained or unsupervised street crew doing it. Other cities around that actually have a forester or arborist on staff and take the time to train and supervise their staff do a good job.
(2) Because it is a low-bid job. that often means a company without a CA on staff wins it. They don't know what they are doing or if there is one guy that does he doesn't teach the crew well.

 

[ATH]

....The first after picture should not look 'correct' at all. The improvement should be discrete. (plus it's more important to compare something we never can [except in your head], the pic after a year vs. the pic after a year had it not been pruned) The second after picture should also not look correct, perhaps a noticeable improvement. For a long neglected, wild, or chaotic tree, we should only expect excellent structure after 3-5 structural prunes. Even then, if the tree was mid aged or older to begin with, we can't expect 'correct' structure. But we can definitely expect good or great structure, assuming significant decay wasn't a factor. it's more about improving taper than it is about correcting. Mitigation vs dictation. Subordination vs drop crotching (or reducing even.) and good structure is not a question of how 'correct' it is as much as it is a question of how storm capable it is. prune right, prune light, prune often, not like a boffin. just kidding no poking there are lots of great boffins out there. I like to think I'm one. you're one too. experimenting on trees every day. it's called practice. practice makes perfect not really. it just gets you closer.

good points all around, but storm prep is very important in so many ways....

 

[evo]

In the interest of co-som subordination, do you folks ever make you initial reduction, you "main" cut and then also a small reduction on the branch which have reduced back to? Hope that makes sense...

all the time. I've found the removal of auxin in the terminal bud stimulates on average 3-5 buds down stream of the reduction cut. I feel that I have directed this future growth by directional pruning on the remainder lateral limb. It works well!

 

[DSMc]

all the time. I've found the removal of auxin in the terminal bud stimulates on average 3-5 buds down stream of the reduction cut. I feel that I have directed this future growth by directional pruning on the remainder lateral limb. It works well!

I do the same. Being able to anticipate and control growth response is a key component in pruning.

 

[Redtree]

definitely the same for me Levi. depending on species, age of tree a bit and how bad the tree is a bit. Sugar Maple doesn't need this type of cut as much as Norway Maple does. I like to think of this kind of cut as an insurance plan. the unpruned leader may otherwise fail at its origin, perhaps in the short term and perhaps after many years. So an initial, minor reduction of the remaining leader is a good way to beef up the attachment, by subordinating extension. and I think that is what leaders need, subordination as opposed to heavy reduction. again it depends. included bark needs subordination while included bark and decay may require heavy reduction. 1.5 inch cut vs 3 inch cut. I very rarely go 4 inch. that's so heavy it's like retrenchment that looks like topping. not that we don't need that given the right situation. great example Levi, of one of many techniques to provide the tree with a thorough application so it can stand longer and provide for us.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[colb]

Really appreciate everyone chipping in here. I learned a lot!

 

[Redtree]

live from Ontario. tied in twice. getting this willow just before bud break. Thoroughness is very important, especially on the first subordination application. shown here is the technique Levi is talking about, I think. Also to add to thoroughness, the stem arising one node below the reduction cut is reduced. (sometimes I even remove this one) competing shoots are reduced and may be removed later but I don't want to scalp it. notice how the secondary cuts are made messy. it doesn't matter, they are so small and better than avoiding the cut to have the vulnerable remaining branch blow away entirely. notice also the internodal reduction cuts on competing shoots. the idea is to mitigate shooting on the main stem and these willows grow wherever you cut them, creating a new node. in some ways this is scalped but the remaining growth potential is still spread put and not just along the main stem but including the main stem, which may create some branches lower down. further correcting taper and mitigating extension. To keep the dose heavy, a 2nd application of medium weight reduction will be made in 2-3 years. then after that maybe 5-7. the high frequency doesn't habe to be forever but frequent at first to get the risk down. then after that it's a matter of maintaining it or keeping it down.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Redtree]

another technique.
there is 3 levels here. the primary cut at 2 inch. the secondary cut at 1.25 inch. and a 3rd cut at half inch because the secondary one damaged the 2 inch leader. plus it makes the subordination more thorough.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk