- Location
- Seattle WA
Before and after
- Thread starter Stumper
- Start date
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Location
- Seattle WA
the trunk, well on it's way to all kinds of hollow and rotten..
before y'all start freakin...
yes, i know coatracked silver maples of this size in such proximity to buildings should be removed. tell that to my friend mike, who owns the house and almost cried when i told him it was a crane removal (back yard is down in a bit of a pit). took 2 climbers 8 hrs to reduce 2/3 of the tree by about 20 ft - some ansi crown reduction cuts and some closer to neville fay coronet cuts. next week we go back to do the rest and install probably 4 ehs steel cables. hazard is greatly reduced, life prolonged, etc. but we both walked away feeling sort of like hacks on a mission from god, to quote the blues brothers. not very satisfying (and really difficult!) work. another franken-tree, plus habitat. sigh. very mixed feelings.
before y'all start freakin...
yes, i know coatracked silver maples of this size in such proximity to buildings should be removed. tell that to my friend mike, who owns the house and almost cried when i told him it was a crane removal (back yard is down in a bit of a pit). took 2 climbers 8 hrs to reduce 2/3 of the tree by about 20 ft - some ansi crown reduction cuts and some closer to neville fay coronet cuts. next week we go back to do the rest and install probably 4 ehs steel cables. hazard is greatly reduced, life prolonged, etc. but we both walked away feeling sort of like hacks on a mission from god, to quote the blues brothers. not very satisfying (and really difficult!) work. another franken-tree, plus habitat. sigh. very mixed feelings.
Attachments
- Location
- Canon City ,CO
Kathy, I know the feeling...but I think you did well.
mdvaden
Participating member
- Location
- Beaverton. Oregon
[ QUOTE ]
The tree in the "before pic" of Stumpers example had already been heavily crown reduced. I'd say about 10 to 15 years before the pic was taken. Look closely in the before pic and you can see all the old cuts. Plain as day to me.
In Stumpers after pic the reduction was done just outside of the old cuts. I'd say in another 10 to 15 years the tree should resemble closely what it looked like in Stumpers original before pic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, my first impression of the first pic was crown-reduced too, rather than topped previously.
There were apparent cuts where width or lower hanging limbs were removed, leaving a slightly more upright form.
At least that's how it looks in the pic.
The tree in the "before pic" of Stumpers example had already been heavily crown reduced. I'd say about 10 to 15 years before the pic was taken. Look closely in the before pic and you can see all the old cuts. Plain as day to me.
In Stumpers after pic the reduction was done just outside of the old cuts. I'd say in another 10 to 15 years the tree should resemble closely what it looked like in Stumpers original before pic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, my first impression of the first pic was crown-reduced too, rather than topped previously.
There were apparent cuts where width or lower hanging limbs were removed, leaving a slightly more upright form.
At least that's how it looks in the pic.
mdvaden
Participating member
- Location
- Beaverton. Oregon
[ QUOTE ]
the reason
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks some some old geezer's knees
the reason
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks some some old geezer's knees
Good work Kathi. Too bad your friend wouldn't go for the removal. He could be establishing a much better tree in that spot instead of putting off the pain for a little while longer. Is he a young guy? I tend to get talked into that kind of tree work by older folks who just want the tree to last a little longer than they do. If your friend is relatively young their is no good reason not to start from scratch.
TreeCo
Carpal tunnel level member
[ QUOTE ]
Good work Kathi. Too bad your friend wouldn't go for the removal. He could be establishing a much better tree in that spot instead of putting off the pain for a little while longer. Is he a young guy? I tend to get talked into that kind of tree work by older folks who just want the tree to last a little longer than they do. If your friend is relatively young their is no good reason not to start from scratch.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the starting over part. Only as a last resort.
Kathy's and Stumper's trees both have decades of useful life left in them. They are worth the preservation work and saving. Way, way better than starting over, maybe.
Good work Kathi. Too bad your friend wouldn't go for the removal. He could be establishing a much better tree in that spot instead of putting off the pain for a little while longer. Is he a young guy? I tend to get talked into that kind of tree work by older folks who just want the tree to last a little longer than they do. If your friend is relatively young their is no good reason not to start from scratch.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the starting over part. Only as a last resort.
Kathy's and Stumper's trees both have decades of useful life left in them. They are worth the preservation work and saving. Way, way better than starting over, maybe.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the starting over part. Only as a last resort.
Kathy's and Stumper's trees both have decades of useful life left in them. They are worth the preservation work and saving. Way, way better than starting over, maybe.
[/ QUOTE ]Same here. Looks like very good work, Kathy. You and the crew should hold your heads high. That tree may outlive us all. We do not know how fast or even if that rot will progress, or how well the woundwood will grow.
re "ansi reduction cuts", what are these? The pruning standards do not mandate the 1/3 guideline.
'coronet cuts"? Did you leave jagged ends on purpose?
There is lot of confusion (much of it in my own head) about pruning terminology. The ANSI committee made some progress in the latest version, but we have a long way to go to define what the heck it is that we are doing up there.
O and stumper a mild critique: I'd be wary of cutting back to right-angled laterals. That leads to the "hollow elbow" syndrome. Better to cut to a smaller lateral that is headed toward the sky.
O and Chip you ID wizard you--Aced the risk test and now showing up the old man on Dendrology 101! You've come a long way, baby.
I don't agree with the starting over part. Only as a last resort.
Kathy's and Stumper's trees both have decades of useful life left in them. They are worth the preservation work and saving. Way, way better than starting over, maybe.
[/ QUOTE ]Same here. Looks like very good work, Kathy. You and the crew should hold your heads high. That tree may outlive us all. We do not know how fast or even if that rot will progress, or how well the woundwood will grow.
re "ansi reduction cuts", what are these? The pruning standards do not mandate the 1/3 guideline.
'coronet cuts"? Did you leave jagged ends on purpose?
There is lot of confusion (much of it in my own head) about pruning terminology. The ANSI committee made some progress in the latest version, but we have a long way to go to define what the heck it is that we are doing up there.
O and stumper a mild critique: I'd be wary of cutting back to right-angled laterals. That leads to the "hollow elbow" syndrome. Better to cut to a smaller lateral that is headed toward the sky.
O and Chip you ID wizard you--Aced the risk test and now showing up the old man on Dendrology 101! You've come a long way, baby.
Mangoes
Participating member
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
Nice job Kathy!
Risk abated, longevity obtained, tree a few steps closer to veteran status and the biosphere that such a tree creates.
Risk abated, longevity obtained, tree a few steps closer to veteran status and the biosphere that such a tree creates.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Good job Kathy.
Jake and El 'Wood' Blues would welcome you on their Mission!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues_Brothers
Seeing the results of the veteran tree maintenance that has been done in Europe has shown me that too often the death sentence is given to trees that have potential for living a longer life. Of course they do become a higher responsibility though.
People like Jammin' Justin Blues, Boston Blues and Swingin' Seattle Blues need to make their way to the front of the stage.
Jake and El 'Wood' Blues would welcome you on their Mission!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues_Brothers
Seeing the results of the veteran tree maintenance that has been done in Europe has shown me that too often the death sentence is given to trees that have potential for living a longer life. Of course they do become a higher responsibility though.
People like Jammin' Justin Blues, Boston Blues and Swingin' Seattle Blues need to make their way to the front of the stage.
- Location
- Tha Dirty Bean
[ QUOTE ]
Crown reductions should be considered a lot more often than they are currently. The more tree physics that we learn the easier it is to see that this is a way to extend the safe useful life expectancy of trees.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree 100% It seems the anti-topping campaign has been mis-interpreted by many good arborists.
The willow in my pics will be reduced even further in the spring, and completly removed within the next five years. I would never get away with doing this on a street tree so I took the opportunity with this one which is in a low-use park.
Crown reductions should be considered a lot more often than they are currently. The more tree physics that we learn the easier it is to see that this is a way to extend the safe useful life expectancy of trees.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree 100% It seems the anti-topping campaign has been mis-interpreted by many good arborists.
The willow in my pics will be reduced even further in the spring, and completly removed within the next five years. I would never get away with doing this on a street tree so I took the opportunity with this one which is in a low-use park.
- Location
- Seattle WA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
re "ansi reduction cuts", what are these? The pruning standards do not mandate the 1/3 guideline.
'coronet cuts"? Did you leave jagged ends on purpose?
[/ QUOTE ]
hey guy.
i'm not a "letter of the law" type of person, so even if the standard was super clear i would likely follow my own interpretation of it's intent. call me fuzzy-headed or call me strong-minded, all the same to me - it is what it is.
i guess what i meant is we did our best to follow standard reduction cut ratios (no less than 1/3 diam. which i guess is shigo?) where possible. more often than not in this tree it was not possible w/in the scope of our hazard reduction goal. so we fudged the 1/3 lots of times but did reduce back to laterals. i made standard thinning cuts on leads over the house, where i wanted the tree to NOT sucker back. i left big hideous looking coronet cuts (yes, intentionally left very jagged as if the stem failed by ice storm) on most of the biggest leads, sometimes with precious little upstream to "assume leadership role". these uglier and (for me) experimental cuts were mostly tucked into the center of the canopy.
thanks everyone for not slamming our efforts to do the best thing in a tough situation. i'm sure stumper felt about the same when he walked away as we did. i've been a rabid anti-topper for over a decade, as i've mentioned no doubt before, and am trying to open my mind to other bigger-picture alternatives to "no height reduction ever". still a beginner here, after all this time.
[ QUOTE ]
re "ansi reduction cuts", what are these? The pruning standards do not mandate the 1/3 guideline.
'coronet cuts"? Did you leave jagged ends on purpose?
[/ QUOTE ]
hey guy.
i'm not a "letter of the law" type of person, so even if the standard was super clear i would likely follow my own interpretation of it's intent. call me fuzzy-headed or call me strong-minded, all the same to me - it is what it is.
i guess what i meant is we did our best to follow standard reduction cut ratios (no less than 1/3 diam. which i guess is shigo?) where possible. more often than not in this tree it was not possible w/in the scope of our hazard reduction goal. so we fudged the 1/3 lots of times but did reduce back to laterals. i made standard thinning cuts on leads over the house, where i wanted the tree to NOT sucker back. i left big hideous looking coronet cuts (yes, intentionally left very jagged as if the stem failed by ice storm) on most of the biggest leads, sometimes with precious little upstream to "assume leadership role". these uglier and (for me) experimental cuts were mostly tucked into the center of the canopy.
thanks everyone for not slamming our efforts to do the best thing in a tough situation. i'm sure stumper felt about the same when he walked away as we did. i've been a rabid anti-topper for over a decade, as i've mentioned no doubt before, and am trying to open my mind to other bigger-picture alternatives to "no height reduction ever". still a beginner here, after all this time.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
even if the standard was super clear i would likely follow my own interpretation of it's intent.
[/ QUOTE ] Tree folks are a strong-willed group. I deviate from the standards only if I have a clear justification. What use are the words in there if we just do what we think they are trying to say, rather than what they DO say?[ QUOTE ]
...(no less than 1/3 diam. which i guess is shigo?)
[/ QUOTE ]I just read through the pruning section in A new tree biology and saw no mention of the overemphasized 1/3 guideline. [ QUOTE ]
... (yes, intentionally left very jagged as if the stem failed by ice storm)
[/ QUOTE ]After reading through the coronet cut article it seems like the main reason for those cuts is to increase habitat for decay organisms, the opposite of what we are trying to do with trees. The idea of leaving more surface to sprout just means more potential epicormic buds, and more rot. I don't understand coronet cuts on landscape trees--can anybody enlighten me on what can make them proper?
even if the standard was super clear i would likely follow my own interpretation of it's intent.
[/ QUOTE ] Tree folks are a strong-willed group. I deviate from the standards only if I have a clear justification. What use are the words in there if we just do what we think they are trying to say, rather than what they DO say?[ QUOTE ]
...(no less than 1/3 diam. which i guess is shigo?)
[/ QUOTE ]I just read through the pruning section in A new tree biology and saw no mention of the overemphasized 1/3 guideline. [ QUOTE ]
... (yes, intentionally left very jagged as if the stem failed by ice storm)
[/ QUOTE ]After reading through the coronet cut article it seems like the main reason for those cuts is to increase habitat for decay organisms, the opposite of what we are trying to do with trees. The idea of leaving more surface to sprout just means more potential epicormic buds, and more rot. I don't understand coronet cuts on landscape trees--can anybody enlighten me on what can make them proper?
Mangoes
Participating member
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
Cornets are also to increase the surface area of potential latent buds from which epicormic shoots can develop. A traditional cut restricts epicormic development site, which on less vigorous trees (oak.....these tech do come from UK) is a bit more of an issue.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Thanks Mangoes, but I am still confused.
[ QUOTE ]
Cornets are also to increase the surface area of potential latent buds
[/ QUOTE ] I don't get it. Either the latent (dormant, suppressed) buds are there or they are not. If you're talking about surface area of bark on which potential adventitious (new)buds can form, then ok i get that. [ QUOTE ]
from which epicormic shoots can develop.
[/ QUOTE ]The alternative is to cut back to a node, where a terminal bud was once set and lateral buds remain. Many of these are ready to be released, and will more likely be released imo if the cuts are made just above them. [ QUOTE ]
A traditional cut restricts epicormic development site, which on less vigorous trees (oak.....these tech do come from UK) is a bit more of an issue.
[/ QUOTE ]Veteran oaks are definitely low on vigor, so these cuts may achieve the goals of veteran tree folks in the UK. But after watching damaged trees, most of them mature oaks, resprout after damage, it looks like they tend to sprout more back at nodes and not on the jagged ends.
pic attached to the next post is of a topped oak resprouting, not at the end but at the nodes.
[ QUOTE ]
Cornets are also to increase the surface area of potential latent buds
[/ QUOTE ] I don't get it. Either the latent (dormant, suppressed) buds are there or they are not. If you're talking about surface area of bark on which potential adventitious (new)buds can form, then ok i get that. [ QUOTE ]
from which epicormic shoots can develop.
[/ QUOTE ]The alternative is to cut back to a node, where a terminal bud was once set and lateral buds remain. Many of these are ready to be released, and will more likely be released imo if the cuts are made just above them. [ QUOTE ]
A traditional cut restricts epicormic development site, which on less vigorous trees (oak.....these tech do come from UK) is a bit more of an issue.
[/ QUOTE ]Veteran oaks are definitely low on vigor, so these cuts may achieve the goals of veteran tree folks in the UK. But after watching damaged trees, most of them mature oaks, resprout after damage, it looks like they tend to sprout more back at nodes and not on the jagged ends.
pic attached to the next post is of a topped oak resprouting, not at the end but at the nodes.
- Location
- Seattle WA
hi guy, i think you forgot the attachment.
the bmp for pruning says:
"reduction cuts commonly are used in structural pruning or when reducing tree size. a stem is cut back to a lateral capable of sustaining the remaining limb and assuming the terminal role. a common rule of thumb is that the remaining lateral branch should be at least 1/3 to 1/2 the diameter of the removed portion" (p21 2002 edition)
so there's the 1/3 rule reference, though not strictly prescribed. additionally, on p 13: "when a limb on a mature tree is cut back to a lateral, no more than 1/4 of its foliage should be removed".
this tree, remember, was a removal candidate due to hazard, and the amount of height/weight we had to take out of the main stems often left us with 1/2 inch limbs to take over the terminal role of a 6 inch stem. my understanding of the logic behind these pruning guidelines (supported by my field experience) is that if we chose to prune back to an unsuitably small lateral, we would prompt a flush of epicormic growth that would likely have poor strength and structure thus leading to future problems. given that we didn't have the 1/3 to 1/2 laterals to prune back to, the choices if we wanted to achieve the hazard abatement goal were to 1) remove those stems back to their point of origin or 2) make a cut that would promote crappy epicormic growth. i figured option 1 would create even more rot in the "hydra head" of the old topping cut, in addition to making huge holes in the canopy of a fairly weak-wooded tree. option 2 would create lots of new foliage in the short term, making up for excessive foliage removal of the tops, and in the long run at least prolong the further compromising of the wood at and below the old topping cuts.
felt pretty crappy to leave this kind of cut in a tree, but seemed like the most intelligent option. since the new growth was likely to occur below these cuts anyway, and since that would leave ugly saw cut dead stubs up there anyway, i figured this was a good place to experiment with creating habitat with coronet cuts. i can't find any specs on this type of pruning, so i'm going on what i remember from neville's class in seattle last year.
the veteran tree preservation mindset i was trying to take here, is aiming at creating a secondary canopy lower down in the tree which will keep the tree alive as the (reduced) tops die. cables in the meanwhile hold the massive main stems together.
i dunno. like i said, it's an experiment for me. the alternative truly was to remove the tree. it's safer now, and despite the large percentage of live foliage we had to remove i don't think the tree will give up the ghost any time soon.
clear as mud?
the bmp for pruning says:
"reduction cuts commonly are used in structural pruning or when reducing tree size. a stem is cut back to a lateral capable of sustaining the remaining limb and assuming the terminal role. a common rule of thumb is that the remaining lateral branch should be at least 1/3 to 1/2 the diameter of the removed portion" (p21 2002 edition)
so there's the 1/3 rule reference, though not strictly prescribed. additionally, on p 13: "when a limb on a mature tree is cut back to a lateral, no more than 1/4 of its foliage should be removed".
this tree, remember, was a removal candidate due to hazard, and the amount of height/weight we had to take out of the main stems often left us with 1/2 inch limbs to take over the terminal role of a 6 inch stem. my understanding of the logic behind these pruning guidelines (supported by my field experience) is that if we chose to prune back to an unsuitably small lateral, we would prompt a flush of epicormic growth that would likely have poor strength and structure thus leading to future problems. given that we didn't have the 1/3 to 1/2 laterals to prune back to, the choices if we wanted to achieve the hazard abatement goal were to 1) remove those stems back to their point of origin or 2) make a cut that would promote crappy epicormic growth. i figured option 1 would create even more rot in the "hydra head" of the old topping cut, in addition to making huge holes in the canopy of a fairly weak-wooded tree. option 2 would create lots of new foliage in the short term, making up for excessive foliage removal of the tops, and in the long run at least prolong the further compromising of the wood at and below the old topping cuts.
felt pretty crappy to leave this kind of cut in a tree, but seemed like the most intelligent option. since the new growth was likely to occur below these cuts anyway, and since that would leave ugly saw cut dead stubs up there anyway, i figured this was a good place to experiment with creating habitat with coronet cuts. i can't find any specs on this type of pruning, so i'm going on what i remember from neville's class in seattle last year.
the veteran tree preservation mindset i was trying to take here, is aiming at creating a secondary canopy lower down in the tree which will keep the tree alive as the (reduced) tops die. cables in the meanwhile hold the massive main stems together.
i dunno. like i said, it's an experiment for me. the alternative truly was to remove the tree. it's safer now, and despite the large percentage of live foliage we had to remove i don't think the tree will give up the ghost any time soon.
clear as mud?
- Location
- Louisville, KY
[ QUOTE ]
Cornets are also to increase the surface area of potential latent buds from which epicormic shoots can develop. A traditional cut restricts epicormic development site, which on less vigorous trees (oak.....these tech do come from UK) is a bit more of an issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Guy on this one: either the buds are there or they're not. I believe stimulation of epicormic sprouts has more to do with species, age, time of pruning, sunlight exposure, and stress than it does with the surface area left above the node.
Also- since I'm new to coronet cuts (I had to look them up), I wonder how their effectiveness is supported in academia. I can see how leaving deadwood (and sometimes dead trees) is beneficial to other creatures, but at the detriment to the health of the tree. The coronet cuts appear to be designed to ensure that a decay column will appear.
I don't disagree with diversifying microhabitats but arborists must remember that this is done not in the best interest of the tree.
It kind of sounds like a 'physician' letting a potential amputee's arm rot off, rather than make a clean cut, in order to provide habitat for gangrene and fly larvae. That's cool, but I wouldn't call that person a physician. Maybe a population manager.
Cornets are also to increase the surface area of potential latent buds from which epicormic shoots can develop. A traditional cut restricts epicormic development site, which on less vigorous trees (oak.....these tech do come from UK) is a bit more of an issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Guy on this one: either the buds are there or they're not. I believe stimulation of epicormic sprouts has more to do with species, age, time of pruning, sunlight exposure, and stress than it does with the surface area left above the node.
Also- since I'm new to coronet cuts (I had to look them up), I wonder how their effectiveness is supported in academia. I can see how leaving deadwood (and sometimes dead trees) is beneficial to other creatures, but at the detriment to the health of the tree. The coronet cuts appear to be designed to ensure that a decay column will appear.
I don't disagree with diversifying microhabitats but arborists must remember that this is done not in the best interest of the tree.
It kind of sounds like a 'physician' letting a potential amputee's arm rot off, rather than make a clean cut, in order to provide habitat for gangrene and fly larvae. That's cool, but I wouldn't call that person a physician. Maybe a population manager.
- Location
- Titirangi, Auckland, NZ
Guy I would agree that coronet cuts are aimed at pormoting the accelerated colonisation of the damaged limb/branch, but remember they are also intended to mimic natural fracturing..whether they do achieve that is ofcourse open to debate.
Neville is reasonably open about the fact that this is really applicable to harder more resiliant timbered trees in the amenity setting, and that a good deal of careful consideration is essential before proceeding to make coronet cuts in an amenity tree.....its pretty clear that Kathy has gone through an extended discussion with her client as to what she intended to do and how it would impact the tree now and into the future.
Its very hard to make useful analogies between veteran tree management and human health care but very tempting since some of us (me included) like to call ourselves tree doctors. The quality of life question is open to such varied interpretation....is it "better" to leave deadwood alone or more "pleasing" to have it removed etc....
Sounds and looks like you had a very hard set of decisions to make Kathy and for what its worth I think you served both the client and the tree well.
Neville is reasonably open about the fact that this is really applicable to harder more resiliant timbered trees in the amenity setting, and that a good deal of careful consideration is essential before proceeding to make coronet cuts in an amenity tree.....its pretty clear that Kathy has gone through an extended discussion with her client as to what she intended to do and how it would impact the tree now and into the future.
Its very hard to make useful analogies between veteran tree management and human health care but very tempting since some of us (me included) like to call ourselves tree doctors. The quality of life question is open to such varied interpretation....is it "better" to leave deadwood alone or more "pleasing" to have it removed etc....
Sounds and looks like you had a very hard set of decisions to make Kathy and for what its worth I think you served both the client and the tree well.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
