Before and after

Kathy i share you torn dilemma when it comes to clients you have a good long relationship with who are asking you to preserve their tree when perhaps replacement in a new postion is the logical solution. I hold very similar feelings about hard or severe reductions, and though our crew is three guys including the owner we have had the same mutinous emotions on a few jobs that you describe....prolonged discussions and justifications between the three of us have always resulted in good outcomes for tree, client and personal crew relations
smirk.gif


Fred and KyLimbwalker, I would not want you to think I was comparing coronet cuts to Shigo or target pruning I'm not, and yes I agree that Neville's work is confined in application to very old trees in special environments, (wish I had some of those environments to work in!!) but I do think there is much to be gained from the developing ecological approach to managing the urban forest.
I have personally taken the retrenchment model proposed in Neville's work and in a couple of instances applied it to a large high use public park area with over 200 big trees. hat very gradual minor reduction work carried out within a management plan spread over at least 10yrs seems to me to be the best of all worlds. I would wilingly acknowledge that such situations are not easily comparable to small private property owners with one big significant tree that they love and cherish but is in an impossible situation/location etc...

KyLimbwalker, its not necessarily my desire to see huge numbers of 700yr old trees in the urban forest, nor do I suggest that any one causal factor is preventing urban trees reach anywhere near their potential lifespan, we all know the interralted factors at play there...however i do think Kathy has a good point about the attitude to older (not even veteran!) trees and the maintenance issues associated with their developing age.

Like Kathy and others this exchange of ideas and views esp on an issue so close to my arb-heart fills me with energy and enthusiasm. I have gained greater clarity just from the brief postings in this thread, (it links in an odd way to another thread started by Reg) it is (for me anyway) in exploring the grey areas in our profession that i can become better at providing useful options to tree owners. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything derogatory about your work in Arboriculture KyLimbwalker. In getting critical feedback from other Arbs on forums like this one that I hope to avoid disappearing up my own #@$ which as some who have met me would suggest is kinda likely
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
... clients you have a good long relationship with who are asking you to preserve their tree when perhaps replacement in a new postion is the logical solution. I hold very similar feelings about hard or severe reductions

[/ QUOTE ]Logical--to whom? Whose logic should be followed? I'd rather list management options than give recommendations, because it is their tree's fate to decide. Once we give up the deciding power, we give up much of the liability, so our risk tolerance increases. The clients may then be more open to management, and less inclined to remove.

Kathy, maybe I misunderstood. Coronet cuts to me are intentionally jagged, like a little crown a prince would wear. If you are just leaving stubs with smooth cuts (preferably slanted at nodes), then we agree.
 
Okay Guy...Logical...i did struggle for another word...but mate we had a federal election last night, and my sons 21st so to say my mind is weak and delicate right now, well would be an understatement
wink.gif
...I should have persisted and said easier option for removal and replacement or more obvious or the more commonly taken option.

Coronet cuts as decribed by Neville and applied in the uK are jagged and yes deliberately so.
 
Kathy wrote:

i think we (americans) often treat trees in the urban forest the same way we treat grocery stores: when they are kind of old looking and need a lot of work, we tear them down and put up another one.

On the other hand 'we (americans)' will take the frame of a '66 Mustang and buy parts from salvage vehicles and after-market reproductions, bolt them together and claim that we have a '66 Mustang. How much of the original tree/car is needed to claim originality?

For trees the trunk and root system would need to be viable. Applying the concepts of architectural reconstructions to trees makes a lot of sense. Stabilize the tree by reducing potential failure points, support parts that may fail and monitor the tree.

I'm confident that the concepts being discussed in this thread will be more normal management plans with the next generation of arborists. In order for this to happen they'll need to see examples of success. It's so good to see at least these examples in place. Keep up the good work!
 
This is my favorite thread in a long time.

I find myself wanting to sit around and discuss this subject over a few beers. I guess I'll see you Kathy at the Geezers. Will anyone else be there?

I think Tom's right in that the subject of how we treat ancient trees will become more and more important in the states in the coming generations. It doesn't surprise me that Europe is already tackling this problem. The longer I work as an arborist the more I feel I don't know; I know that I am becoming to see systems of interactions, not just individual trees. My current obsession is soils and vermiculture.

I appreciate everyone's openness in discussion and look forward to discussing this subject more in the future.

-Chris
 
Kathy,

(I majored in Geology, which may explain why my head is rock hard.)
bangtard.gif


First of all, you obviously bring a very high level of conscience and ethical rigor to your work. That is what we all should aspire to. Also, I agree with your philosophy, regarding our society's throw-away tendancies, and the constant craving for new and improved. I am as slow to pull the trigger on removal as anyone in this market. I probably have installed 3 times as many cables here as any other climber in our county, and half of them in old trees; then lie awake when the wind howls at night, wondering about some of them.

I would, however, like to see some actual research that shows that stimulating extra epicormic shoots by making jagged, aggressive cuts is better for trees in the long run than making clean, sloping, cuts at laterals or nodes, (ala Guy)and/or removing select (though not too many!) branches back to leaders (ala Shigo). I know (or thought I knew) that jagged stubs decay more. I slso suspect that most trees that are "retrenchment" pruned (and isn't that just another way of saying "reinvigoration pruned", or "renewal pruned" like they did pre-P.P. Pirone?) contrary to Fay's claim, will not live as long, and will not stand as long. What he is doing is, in effect, promoting intentional creation of storm damaged-type trees. I've spent most of my career trying to prevent storm damage in trees.

Sean, I like your gray areas description, and I'm trying to learn in them too. Science always moves on; I already take some of Shigo with a grain of salt, thanks in part to Gillman. But I say, show me better research on this one!

Guy, I can not tell a lie; that was Jeff Hafner, not me, in the pic (though I can still make most of the same types of cuts, and most climbers can, if "encouraged" to do the extra climbing involved). Your point about pole pruners is well taken. The Corona 1600, if kept sharp, makes almost a 2" diameter cut, and we use them and pole saws, sometimes with a second 8' section, all the time on big trees (see pic, from the same maple, also Tom pic.)
 

Attachments

  • 105121-IMG_3315(Small).webp
    105121-IMG_3315(Small).webp
    54.6 KB · Views: 59
[ QUOTE ]
Kathy, maybe I misunderstood. Coronet cuts to me are intentionally jagged, like a little crown a prince would wear. If you are just leaving stubs with smooth cuts (preferably slanted at nodes), then we agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i think you understood and perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one. the best pruning decision for the tree in the long run, in my opinion, dictated leaving a column of 6-12 inch wood w/little in the way of side branches. this, i think, guarantees in the long run a long rotting "stub" w/lots of little epicormics that didn't quite make it (ie also dead). with this unavoidable 10 yrs-down-the-road vision, i chose to make jaggedy coronet cuts to increase habitat. i don't see how making a flat chainsaw cut in this situation would be one ounce better or worse than a coronet cut. i could be FOS on that, but i believe it to be true. if i'm right, then this was a very harmless place to experiment w/coronet cuts.

this has been my favorite thread in a long while too, as much because of the mutual respect demonstrated as the caliber of the discussion. thanks to all who chimed in, for making the exchange of (often conflicting) ideas possible!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, you obviously bring a very high level of conscience and ethical rigor to your work. That is what we all should aspire to. Also, I agree with your philosophy, regarding our society's throw-away tendancies, and the constant craving for new and improved. I am as slow to pull the trigger on removal as anyone in this market. I probably have installed 3 times as many cables here as any other climber in our county, and half of them in old trees; then lie awake when the wind howls at night, wondering about some of them.[ QUOTE ]


thanks! and good for you. sleepless nights are part of the work small business owners don't get paid for, eh?

[ QUOTE ]
What he is doing is, in effect, promoting intentional creation of storm damaged-type trees. I've spent most of my career trying to prevent storm damage in trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

point taken. i agree. for me, this treatment is reserved for very specific situations, where removal is perhaps the only other option and there is little to no risk were the tree to fail. i would not dream of taking a mature (or even "over" mature) big leaf maple (our native broadleaf monster) in an urban environment and reducing its height dramatically, leaving big coronet cuts in the interior. you couldn't pay me enough. i'd far rather remove the deadwood, install cabling (preferable non-invasive) where appropriate, and remove dead/dying tops down the road right up until the point where there's not much else we can do.

maybe neville will get my email on monday and chime in. i would be curious to hear his response to research/documentation queries.
k.
 
on the red oak in the attachment, natural targets i.e. nodes are easy to see. Bumps and bulges and wrinkles like collars. Some buds are visible on the surface. The scar where a lateral was shed is a dead giveaway.

The sprout is growth released by a dormant bud and is forming a buttress and is oriented to the sky and is nourished by the vascular stream and its pith trail is anchored by compacted xylem.

So the 1/3 guideline does not determine the place to cut. Look to the left of the branch--just above that wrinkle sticking out there may be the place to make the cut. See the depression that goes across the branch, along that same line? If reducing a branch I would call this a natural target to cut--with a smooth edge, per 5.4.2.

I've enjoyed this thread too but these pruning decisions are based on assessments of the trees' condition. There have been dire predictions made about these trees, but not much data shown in terms of observations, measurements etc.

It's too tempting to put the cart before the horse in risk assessment. Defensible opinions come from systematic and documented assessments. Pretty risky making judgments otherwise.
 

Attachments

  • 105206-Oaksproutatscarpainted.webp
    105206-Oaksproutatscarpainted.webp
    342.1 KB · Views: 65
the ash stem in the picture has been sliced through a dormant bud that is visible on the surface.
 

Attachments

  • 105212-CopyofPb020043.webp
    105212-CopyofPb020043.webp
    205.8 KB · Views: 63
cross-section of the bud, showing compacted xylem curling around the pith trace that was left in the wood as the bud was carried along in the cambium as annual rings were added.

Growth from these buds is very stable compared to growth out of newly formed, adventitious buds.
 

Attachments

  • 105213-CopyofPb020044.webp
    105213-CopyofPb020044.webp
    171.4 KB · Views: 56
[ QUOTE ]
It's too tempting to put the cart before the horse in risk assessment. Defensible opinions come from systematic and documented assessments. Pretty risky making judgments otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very very important point and one I'm always taking for granted so well put...hopefully all of us are stricter with ourselves than anyone else in this regard, I know I try to be.
 
Hi all, great thread!

I looked at Kathy's Silver maple for her client and for her prior to the decision to prune.

Yesterday I looked at the pruning so far and I think Kathy has called it well. I will look again at finish and post some pics. We will follow this tree and keep track. Plenty of room to start a replacement tree on this property if desired.

There is, I think, a lot of room for discussion and discovery of new management methods that keep trees going longer. I think that a lot of trees are removed way before their time. Science based, innovative management options could reduce this problem. I think Shigo would approve he, unlike many humans,liked change.

From what I have read and observed the need for ecological niches that encourage species diversity is everywhere especially in cities. Ecologists are discovering more interconectedness all the time and questioning many anthropocentric views about trees and other organisms that we share the planet with.

Lots of new thinking is going on out there in the world for instance....are some fungi pathogens or are they co-evolved or commensurate organisms that are vital to trees?

Has anyone else read Sillet and VanPelts latest paper? They are suggesting that it might make sense to go into second or third growth redwood forest and adjust (prune/top) trees to create the structure that builds habitat for all those tree associates! They are talking about replacing sources of species diversity!

As for me, I have been messing with wildlife snag techniques and natural or coronet cuts for about 15 years. They make sense to me when approached and applied while thinking carefully.

I still agree with my friend the late John Britton, who said that "tree pruning is for people not for trees". He did not mean don't prune them. Perhaps some of the new ideas that come along will push us more to the tree ecology side of things?

Scott
 
I like working for the clients that give you the leeway for experimentation. I'd love to try some more wildlife enhancements.

You're right about removing too many trees that still have a lot if useful life. It seems that the amount of risk that is acceptable to clients is next to none. Aesthetics also play a major role in the type of work we get paid for. Until we get more clients like Kathy's who are open to these innovative management options, removals will continue.

The coronet certainly is an interesting alternative that allows for fauna habitat as well as seemingly natural wounding. A twist on most modern recommendations. I'd like to try it in a setting where I can measure its progress next to standard cuts (maybe the next view cut I do).

Great thread!
 
[ QUOTE ]
the amount of risk that is acceptable to clients is next to none

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll jump in before Guy here....clients rely on us to help them evaluate and compare the assessable risk in their trees, so to a very great extent it comes down to us and our abilties in relation to the percieved risk (and actual yes!) in the trees our clients own/manage.

There have been a great number of occaisions when clients have had very great concerns over the percieved risk (even threat) within a particular tree or part of a tree about which I have tried my best to present to them in a way that compares that risk to the everyday risks they happily accept and indeed embrace regularly.

More often than not the risk arguemet is actually the icing ont he top of a cake packed with resentments about leaves, blossom, seeds, roots etc...Yes I know there are exceptions where real obvious risk is a major concern....leading clients towards a recognition of the enormous importance and value trees have to all asoects oif the environment is a big part of what I try to do, if from that position they are still adament about their chosen course of action (removal/butchery) then depending on the relationship with that client, I would try to provide them with a range of better options to achieve some of the objectives they desire whilst retaining the tree in an acceptable state, using acceptable arb techniques....Failing all that I just walk (luckily for me I have only worked for businesses that share my attitude to tree management)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom