[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My entire intention and direction were mocking and sarcastic.
[/ QUOTE ]No Shinola, Sherlock. But yes, by removing declining parts back to concentrations of vitality, new parts are more likely to grow, to replace the old, like the man said.
[/ QUOTE ]
-------------------------
<font color="blue">Welcome back young man,
Ah. What more could I ask for to continue my lecture of sarcasm about the longevities of dogma/dumb:
Remember my first grousings about watersprouts back in 1990?
“
Remove water sprouts because they sap the vigor of the tree.” That was the explanation and justification in all of the lists, including the ISA, of “Why We Prune.”
Conceptually, that larger cylinder, attacked by epicormic growth, was being drained by those shoots. In this pontification, an energy/arrow flowed outward from the tree to the sprouts. They were consumers. Bad sprouts. (I actually remember my son saying that when he was little.)
Duh,
now some of us understand that the energy flow is really from the photosynthate factories of leaves into the larger woody cylinders. The energy/arrow is actually reversed. Don't talk about reserves, storage or starch--the originators of the original energy molecules were from those leaves. Better understood today, those trees consumed or “sapped” the vigor of the leaves.
Do you agree, Watson?</font>
--------------------------
…But yes, by removing declining parts back to concentrations of vitality, new parts are more likely to grow, to replace the old, like the man said.
<font color="blue">Oh, oh. Did I hear you and the old man say,
concentrations of vitality? Is there another energy/arrow hiding off stage somewhere?
“Declining parts” imply a shrinking or diminishing arrow of energy--true? Now, what fills in the space explaining the consequences of removing declining parts?
Trees don’t always replace parts that are removed; we all know that. And a very common consequence of removing parts, one way or another, is to see an initial flush of new sprouts with big leaves at the site where the energy/arrow has disappeared.
There’s no argument that every woody cylinder is a “concentration” metaphor in words, but it is misleading as a biological reality. Simply because we cut something off that we declare intellectually to be declining doesn’t mean that the tree is going to follow our instructions.
Trees are reiterations of the woody cylinders in various sizes and placements as determined by many forces from the locale, to the genes, to the hormonal percentages and the millions of things we don’t know about yet.</font>
---------------------------
After 10 years of flogging this nag, I've found that people who prune trees more readily understand this concept (many better than I) than people who do not. If this basic, Shigolicious logic escapes you, prune a few hundred mature trees, watch them for 5 years, then call me in the morning.
<font color="blue"> After 20 years of flipping this gag, I would hope that people who prune trees do understand concepts better than people who don’t. Alex’s logic has never escaped me. He started me in this business. And I absolutely believe in his predictions about the New Arboriculture.</font>
--------------------------
Of course I agree that this potential treatment is a small part of a sad scenario, where root abuse is the main problem, and if it's not addressed, odds of restoration are not so great.
<font color="blue"> Did you read any of the text and information about the tree and its religious surroundings? Root abuse is the main problem? Restoration by removal is the solution?
My God, the Mongols tried to destroy it. The Mongols (1206). Apparently, they couldn't kill it at when it was a few thousand years old.
-------------------------
For me, this poor creature is stuck in a theme park and dying the death of a thousand cults.
Wulkowicz</font>
