Copper Beech Crown Reduction

[ QUOTE ]


We need a healthy biodiversity in towns and cities as well as in the wild areas. Dont you agree?



[/ QUOTE ]

We sure do! But how is reducing a mature tree a reasonably way to achieve biodiversity. Large, mature trees return the most benefits to our cities strictly because of their size, surface area and longevity. Reducing a tree like this is an unsustainable practice and not helpful to the client, the tree, the urban forest and the environment in general.

I'm not knocking the quality of pruning, it was done very well (and very quickly! 3 hrs of climbing for that is fast, good work) and the goals were achieved while maintaining good tree from fundamentals.

I question the pruning prescription. As a dedicated, educated arborist, you have come up short in educating the client as to what is best for the tree and the urban forest. I don't subscribe to the notion that "the customer is always right". Was she an arborist, a forester, a horticulturalist, a scientist even?

What will this tree look like in 5 years? 10 years? the client may have you back on a 5 year cycle, but what if the client moves away and the tree is left to grow past the reduction?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I think this topic merits some discussion. I think crown reduction should be applied to abnormal situations, like an infirm tree, infrastructure conflicts, orchards and the like. Reduction should never be applied to healthy, mature trees with enough room to grow to mature size, we have so many other tools to keep those trees healthy, education is one of them.

Vince
 
Let us not forget that the biggest threat to urban trees are uneducated property owners. So long as property rights extend to allowing uneducated individuals make the call on whether trees live or die, there will always be situations like this.

The point I'm trying to make is that if a person wants to cut a tree down for a reason that we might think superflous, they will. If reductions are a management practice that allows people to sleep better at night and decide to let their tree live, then sign me up!

If the client moves away and another person moves in, it would be a good time to introduce yourself to the new HO and let them know about the management strategy.

I don't agree that tree reduction is an unsustainable practice, primarily because it used to be done during times when the waste material from the work procedure was used to feed livestock and heat homes. Pretty sustainable living, if you ask me. Coppicing and pollarding are certainly different ways of reducing trees that, if done properly, allow the benefit of trees and mitigate the risk of failure.

The method of reduction exemplified by grover's work, to me, dissuades property managers from making irrational decisions based upon a fear response that may end up in eliminating any benefit that trees provide. Even if the tree is not at the mature potential an open grown individual in an urban setting could be, it is undeniably storing carbon, filtering oxygen and water...yada yada.

I feel that these reductions are a psychological prescription to ignorance, but one I can live because the work order doesn't read remove.
 
The work met the objective, tho maybe 10-15% off may have too. You looked at the condition and the site and heard client goals and did it well (and I agree fast).

Check the new growth on the interior next spring, as dormant buds release. Sorry Vince but totally disagree about unsustainable; ime trees do not really "grow beyond reductions", because of the new interior growth the effects are longterm.

I don't know of any wildlife mortality due to paclobutrazol, do you? funny the topic of chemicals in england comes up; it will also be in next month's arborist news.
laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
As a dedicated, educated arborist, you have come up short in educating the client as to what is best for the tree and the urban forest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I did well, I've got many years experience in managing trees and I believe the solution applied in this situation was the best solution available.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't subscribe to the notion that "the customer is always right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I, I've turned down jobs where a client has insisted I hack their trees in half.

[ QUOTE ]

Was she an arborist, a forester, a horticulturalist, a scientist even?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think she runs a website or something, she knows very little about trees, what she does know for sure is that the Beech was becoming too big for it's location. She's happy now though, she gets to keep her tree and enjoy it for many years to come.

[ QUOTE ]

What will this tree look like in 5 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

great, it will easily outlive all of us.

[ QUOTE ]

Reduction should never be applied to healthy, mature trees with enough room to grow to mature size

[/ QUOTE ]

There wasn't enough room in this case, that tree can grow to over 80ft.

[ QUOTE ]
we have so many other tools to keep those trees healthy, education is one of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

The tree is healthy and will remain healthy for well over 100 years. I educated the woman that my solution was the best available.

.
 
"Reduction should never be applied to healthy, mature trees with enough room to grow to mature size "

What if likelihood of failure is unacceptable to the owner?

"Never" is a dangerous word.
 
Reductions are a nice alternative to absolute removal on non hazardous fear based removal consultations. Had an elderly lady call me 4 years ago and tell me she wanted her tree gone, that it scared her. I got there and it was beautiful needed a good canopy clean and some end weight reduction, but nothing more. We talked for two hours and I ended up saving the tree from the ax and doing the clean out. I came by to take a picture a month later after leaf out(I told you it was beautiful) and it was gone! I called her and asked why she didn't call me.... she said she was scared and i would have talked her into keeping it again.(i shake my head) I wish i would have thought of reduction on the first consult. the tree would still be there and be beautiful instead of mulch in a flower bed somewhere. It is the customers property and they will do what they will. It is not our job to decide what is acceptable risk for them; it is our job to get the tree within their acceptable risk level, sometimes that means removal or reduction on a "safe" beautiful tree. The referral we might get through meeting the customers needs is a potential client who is sitting on the fence so to speak on removal/reduction and we can educate/save/manage those tree/trees for the entirety of the time the client owns the property and hopefully get referred to more clients that have more trees we can save from the fear ax.
 
Hope you don't mind me hopping in on your thread, Grover. I did this reduction the other day and thought of your Beech.

42" DBH sugar maple. Co-dominant stems, old tear out, decay. Decent reactive growth and still some good holding wood. However, Moderate/High risk of failure. Client does not want to remove tree outright. This is a large tree on the south side of the property, so lots of shade provided in summer. I encouraged the planting of new trees this spring and prescribed 25-30% crown reduction. Revisit in 2 years to inspect. Most likely buying a few years before eventual removal.

351283-Maplereductionbefore.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 351283-Maplereductionbefore.webp
    351283-Maplereductionbefore.webp
    99.3 KB · Views: 15
[ QUOTE ]
Revisit in 2 years to inspect. Most likely buying a few years before eventual removal.


[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, Taylor. Most likely in 2 years you will look at the tree's response and say "Why did i think this tree would ever need removal?" Get some pics of the interior sprouting and retrenchment in 2 years; it's amazing.

Trees know so much more about tree care than we do.
wink.gif
 

Attachments

  • 351312-resproutingwhiteoakcaption.webp
    351312-resproutingwhiteoakcaption.webp
    297.5 KB · Views: 33
Agreed. I would like the tree to stay there for many more years. However, many targets near this tree. It was somewhat of a struggle for me to not condemn this tree outright due to the location and size. Finding that line where risk can still be mitigated... and still, anything can happen! Excited to see what it will look like in 2 years.
 
What I learn from people posting these before and after prunings is priceless. And the critiques, based on so many varied experiences is awesome.

Grover,
Thank you, and thank you for your clear responses to the critiques laid before you. Nice work!

Everyone,
Please post more reductions!
 
Heres one I did maybe a month back, a copper beech as well. Its had multiple large tear outs on the right side, and they wanted it reduced/lightened. I was able to take about 8ft off the top, and the left side (south) came in 10-12' without opening up the canopy too much, as it was very dense to begin with. The right side wasnt much left to work with after the tear outs, so just shaped accordingly. Tree started off at probably 70-75' tall.

There was a semi-new cable between the 2 main leads, and I took enough weight off that I was able to pull a foot of slack out of the cable, which was only about 8 feet long to begin with. I havent done many large tree reductions, so was pretty happy with the end result as it was specced "reduce canopy without opening up trunk to sun scald".
 

Attachments

  • 352038-Beechreduce.webp
    352038-Beechreduce.webp
    159.7 KB · Views: 87
nice looking treee! i hate when i forget to take before pictures...
the proof of the pudding will be in the sprouting--if it aint crazy your dose was not too high.

what kind of fasteners on the cable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom