cornus nuttalli split/strange cobra config.

Mark you are very lucky to have such an extended working relationship with a client, something I'm sure all of us strive to achieve, real tree care after all has a time frame ay beyond any of our life spans!
smirk.gif

I for one can fully understand why you would try your hardest to accomodate her wishes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think people see us do our "crown reductions" and get it mixed up with "topping" because they don't understand the difference in technique and training.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.


Guy, I wish I didn't have to do this job. But, when she expressed her concern for more damage to the neighbors house and that the larger leader is aimed towards hers, well I guess we just felt obligated to limit the risk as best we could (based on our knowlege).
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wish I didn't have to do this job.... I guess we just felt obligated to limit the risk as best we could (based on our knowlege).

[/ QUOTE ] Mark, what do you wish for then, to remove it instead? From your description, it sounds like reduction is the only way to go, if aftercare will be there.
wink.gif


Of course, the amount to reduce should be flexible, depending on what the climber sees up close.
 
A very good point Guy, what we see from the ground and the final decisions that informs should be differed till the aerial inspection is completed.....a point brought home to me only last week...this is something as consultants we should always bear in mind.
 
To me, it seems that a reduction is only buying some time at the expense of the tree's well being and aesthetics. I don't like to reduce trees- especially 115' Tulip trees. I don't like the way the tree reacts to this type of procedure, and that makes me regret to practice it. I almost would rather take it down and start over.
 
I agree, reducing a Liriodendron is usually a temporary solution, though Blinky and I reduced one that size very lightly, ~10%, with <6" cuts that I think will not need repruning for at least 5 years.

Reducing other species can very often be a permanent and effective and attractive solution.
laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
To me, it seems that a reduction is only buying some time at the expense of the tree's well being and aesthetics. I don't like to reduce trees- especially 115' Tulip trees. I don't like the way the tree reacts to this type of procedure, and that makes me regret to practice it. I almost would rather take it down and start over.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi mark,
i agree with both sides here i think. around here there is SO much topping that height reduction to minimize hazard years after the damage is done is often the only option other than removal. i've done it a few times this summer in a way that i thought prolonged the life of the tree and didn't leave it looking "topped" to the untrained eye. more often though unless the tree has outstanding qualities (like being 115 ft tulip poplar or a very old somewhat unusual native dogwood), i'll recommend removal.

guy, i get the feeling you might be fine with doing some of the crown reductions i decline to bid on - i'd love to see some photos of past reductions that you feel were successful. i think i'm making sound decisions based on science and field experience when i refuse those jobs, but i also know as a pruner it just "hurts my feelings" to have to bring an old tree to its knees just to give it a few more years. personal thing..
 
Kathy what is the sound science you are using? I think that reducing the height of a tree by 25% is not sound science (in most cases). There are huge biological and physical consequences to crown reduction. The work of Wessoly etc. shows that small changes in the crown can have large effects on tree safety.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Kathy what is the sound science you are using?

[/ QUOTE ]

mrtree, i think perhaps you've misread my post. i am practically allergic to crown reduction, and was trying to open my mind to the possibility of another perspective. ask my employees how many times they've been asked to reduce the height of anything other than a hedge or an apple tree and they will have a short list indeed. can you post a link to or more specific info about the study you're referencing. i'd like to read it.
thanks,
k.
 
[ QUOTE ]
To me, it seems that a reduction is only buying some time at the expense of the tree's well being and aesthetics. I don't like to reduce trees- especially 115' Tulip trees. I don't like the way the tree reacts to this type of procedure, and that makes me regret to practice it. I almost would rather take it down and start over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mark....

Exactly what I was thinking today, and maybe worth a new thread.

The best examples I can think of, are often my own examples, because I have near total control over the tree, the replacements, and the maintenance.

In Beaverton, I removed a Norway maple about 8 years ago, that was planted about 1978. It's trunk was about 8' into our yard from the sidewalk, and reached over the walk, and about 15' out over the street. So, maybe 35' - 40'.

It was taking a fairly big health-hit on major leader - 20% to 25% of the canopy volume. Verticillium best I could tell.

Anyway, I was sure I could have "babied" the tree for as long as it would last. Maybe 3 to 7 years - who knows. There was still a lot of green tree left.

But instead of pandering with the thing, I got rid of it. That was ONE tree gone.

In it's place, different arrangement: I planted western hemlock, hinoki cypress, vine maple, rhododendron, Sasanqua camellias, big Miscanthus Ornamental grass, azaleas, some ground cover and few other things.

Within 4 years, the replacement plant material replaced more foliage in the area than the tree provided, and in several more years, would shade a third to half the concrete previously shaded.

Instead of a slowly declining tree, the area reeived many plants and trees, providing a planting that doesn't take such a big foliage loss due to an occassional disease.

Knowing how to plan canopy cover with trees AND smaller plants, is one reason I was hoping the ISA might consider CEU's outside the current domains. Possibly adding a domain pertaining to how trees are integrated in landscape design.

What Mark wrote...

Allows arborists to LAUNCH MORE of their skills and resources to benefit customers immediately, than limiting the work to just "hospice" care skills.
 
There are some very basic and modern references to physics and tree reductions, but I get the feeling most people have not read them. Look in the ISA catalogue for Tree Structure and Mechanics Conference Proceedings. This is a must read, nobody should call themself an arborist without reading this compendium of papers. From the references you can find some of the basic science.

It is clear that removing huge amounts from the tops of trees will not make them much safer than removing relatively small amounts. Unless the tree is the worst possible case removing huge amounts of the tree is redundant in terms of safety and will likely result in decay and sprouting that will reduce the safety of the tree over time.

If you feel that the best case is too remove the tree, but you remove the top (using whatever term you wish) to comply with the wishes of the customer you have set yourself up for trouble as MDVANDEN and Tom Dunlop have brought up in recent posts.

Crown reduction may be necessary in some cases, but how do you make the decision of how much to remove? Do you do it by feel, experience, best guess? What about determining the safety in a repeatable manner and then looking at the what need to be done to increase the safety to an acceptable level.
 
mr I agree that Why Trees Stand Up and Fall Down is a good resource. So is Gilman's guide, which nicely explains and illustrates the simple act of reducing a tree. Kathy please drink in some of that good medicine so you will get over your allergy to reduction pruning. It can be fatal--to your clients' arboreal assets.

Nature reduces trees by storm and by dieback due to disease or root loss, and the trees resurge. So what is wrong with shortening branches?

we've gone from mark reducing a damaged liriodendron to md removing an undiagnosed declining maple. we're all over the map here. reduction is seldom hospice work, but if that meets the client's goals then that is good practice. So is smart replacement.

"how do you make the decision of how much to remove? Do you do it by feel, experience, best guess?"

all of the above--basically by seeing and feeling and responding to the tree, and following the best science available, and remembering that often Less is More.
 
[ QUOTE ]


we've gone from mark reducing a damaged liriodendron to md removing an undiagnosed declining maple. we're all over the map here.

all of the above--basically by seeing and feeling and responding to the tree, and following the best science available, and remembering that often Less is More.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never wrote that the maple was not diagnosed... (as the map expands wider)
cool.gif


As far as shortening limbs, it seems to work out well many times. I tend to use the practice to narrow trees, rather than reduce height. But I use the method sparingly - either way.

To make sure people are happy, I also make sure they are aware of how fighting nature "can be" higher maintenance in many cases. Removal of branch ends and stem tops removes hormone production that keeps trees "in-check" - especially many hardwoods.

Anyhow, they are forewarned of the potential "surge", resulting in the need for greater numbers of cuts in following years, should sprouts emerge with vigour. As long as customers are happy with being prepared for that possibility, then it's reasonable.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, I was sure I could have "babied" the tree for as long as it would last. Maybe 3 to 7 years - who knows. There was still a lot of green tree left.

But instead of pandering with the thing, I got rid of it. That was ONE tree gone.

In it's place, different arrangement: I planted western hemlock, hinoki cypress, vine maple, rhododendron, Sasanqua camellias, big Miscanthus Ornamental grass, azaleas, some ground cover and few other things.

Within 4 years, the replacement plant material replaced more foliage in the area than the tree provided, and in several more years, would shade a third to half the concrete previously shaded.

Instead of a slowly declining tree, the area reeived many plants and trees, providing a planting that doesn't take such a big foliage loss due to an occassional disease.

Knowing how to plan canopy cover with trees AND smaller plants, is one reason I was hoping the ISA might consider CEU's outside the current domains. Possibly adding a domain pertaining to how trees are integrated in landscape design.

Allows arborists to LAUNCH MORE of their skills and resources to benefit customers immediately, than limiting the work to just "hospice" care skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I contract climb for a local arborist here and he has gotten a job to do some 'restorative' pruning on four severely topped Rainbow Shower trees (Cassia X nealiae). The trees are extremely close to power lines and the shape and structure of the tree is now a nightmare.... The new growth is extremely aggressive and is already pushed up into the power lines and growing into the parking spots below them.

Personally, if I were making the decisions I would have recommended removal right off the bat, after the extreme topping these trees received. Why not remove and re-plant a more appropriate plant material with less 'issues'? I can understand both Kathy and Mark's situation as their clients are very attached to the tree (which can become a HUGE factor for many clients), but it seems a lot of times people either resort to 'topping' or annual thinning (applying bandaids) to a structurally and functionally defunct tree. Even making a living soley on this aspect of tree work.

One of the best teachers I've ever had used to drill into us that most of the issues for trees in an urban environment can be traced back to 'wrong place, wrong tree.'

Sorry to veer from the conversation...

jp
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


One of the best teachers I've ever had used to drill into us that most of the issues for trees in an urban environment can be traced back to 'wrong place, wrong tree.'

Sorry to veer from the conversation...

jp
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Much of the wrong tree / wrong place problem in our area, stems from contractors hiring "budget" landscapers to put in greenery to sell the homes. Treating the yards like putting flowers in a vase. Just stick them in, mix-'em-up a little and call it good. It really hurts the owner, or future owners in the pocketbook, because a removal and re-landscape is often more expensive than just a landscape. Municipalities should be doing better now, but tree lists of the past few decades caused thousands of tree problems for west Portland suburbs; including the infamous "fruitless" flowering plum which caused so many stained carpets.

It's actually as subtle as the nitty-gritty that Linden should not be placed on a slope near sidewalks. The seed /pods are like throwing dried rice on the walking surface.
 
"Treating the yards like putting flowers in a vase. Just stick them in, mix-'em-up a little and call it good."

Amen to that. Around here, it is the "Siouxland" Cottonwood, which is amazingly week, developes more bad than good crotches, gets huge, and typically dies at 30 to 40 years. Cost of removal can run in to the multiple thousands of dollars. We can usually convince the homeowners to replace, with the logic that replacing now rather than in 5 years is cheaper than removing the tree piece-meal over several years, and will allow for 5 extra years of growth on the replacement tree in the mean time.

Mark, could you maybe just moderately reduce (say, 3" cuts) the affected leader only, and then dynamic cable it to the other leaders? One problem with the proposed cutting is that new homeowners might fall in love with the tree, and not be aware that it is "term limited." Meanwhile, decay from your cuts becomes a new hazard with your name attached.

A relevant note: Gilman has a very good paper addressing tree responses to different approaches to crown reduction in this month's Journal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom