Coronet Cutting/Fracture Pruning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TC
  • Start date Start date
Well I really like the chipmunk chainsaw sound. But why not keep nature looking natural.

As for the trees reaction, you get more surface exposed for pathogens to land and collect. Either way it's too big of a cut for the tree to seal and will have all the ill effects of any topping cut. I'll assume it's hazard reduction on already dead leaders.

A big problem with topping is it's high visibility to the untrained. You know they think it's the way they want their tree and then it spreads like a disease. So this may be a good solution to a properly applied topping cut that the onlooker would not recognize as the work of a chainsaw.

I like it and look forward to an opportunity to apply it. Puts a bit of art back into our work as well.
 
In my opinion it is a method that only can be used on real ancient trees where there is a great probability that branches will break and tops will come down. But when we all start cutting tops out of trees with coronet cuts than its just another way to start topping trees again and in my opinion we have fought years to stop the topping off trees and we almost won this war and now we just start again....

So i'm not happy with this new development but it's usable with very breakable old trees (and there not so much around here in the netherlands) that are only inches away from breaking apart. For all the other healthy trees it's the best way to start the end of the trees life and habitat.

wouter
 
I'll agree it is a bit ridiculous. I assumed the tree is an old character tree with a dead top. The large dead branches are beginning to fall and need to be pruned for safety only reasons, not to improve tree health. Deads dead right. Maybe I should read the explanation, before I defend it.
 
i have done this myself a few times......

but on trees with dead tops in a woodland to leave some standing deadwood for habitat and hazard reduction.

i would defo not do it any other place.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just wondered what everyone thinks of this?

[/ QUOTE ]


One of the most rediculous things I've ever seen in Arboriculture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, reasons?
 
For what it is worth for me I do not find this approach to specific trees to achieve specific outcomes at all ridiculous.

I do not personally like coronet cutting much it often looks even more contrived and artificial than standard flat chainsaw cuts (though it is true if the intention is to create greater surface area for potential inoculum then the aesthetics are mine not the fungi's).

I do greatly admire the fracture pruning work being done in ecological communities like Hamstead Heath by skilled crews that are being guided by the desire to retain critically rare habitat so close to the Capital.

I have not heard anyone applying fracture pruning mthods ever suggest that it should replace NTP, rather that it is an enormously useful technique applied in specific circumstances...there are some excellent examples shown on Steve Bullimans forum, along with lively debate (arguement) about its role/appropriateness.
 
I can almost... ALMOST!!! see the argument for "Fracture Pruning". Yes, it exposes the axial and radial interior of xylem (or whatever the argument is). Perhaps there are niche-fungi specific to this kind of wounding. Etc.

However, to stand there after the fact with a gas powered chainsaw engaging in some modern art affair... IS BEYOND RIDICULOUS! Waste of fuel, oil, time, muscle, etc.

If the point is to mimic "natural" wounding or pruning by using the "Fracture" method, then just leave it at that! There is nothing natural about a coronet cut.

(Oh, and I'm not shouting. Just using CAPS for emphasis)
 
This practice is really not arborculture...to me anyway. In a broad reach, maybe, since it is the care of trees. Doing this work is for a very specific reason and if it's done properly has standing.

Like Bob Wulkowicz has said, 'There is more damage done by well meaning and educated arbos from over-pruning than the damage done by topping.'

I've left a few snags/trunks for wildlife habitat. I've never gone through the work of coronet cutting though. I make the top cut slope away from the main site line so that the big shiner isn't so visible.
 
Funny! As i sat here reading about this just this past week i said i would never do this! Then someone posted about using it on mature trees with heavy die back or to leave a habitat snag (your whatever you call it). I could see the point to this as a habitat snag in an area heavy viewed that has a flat cut on top looks kinda ridiculous and would be much more appealing if it looked more natural.

So today we were finishing up an area at Longwood Gardens (picnic area, for those familiar) and were asked to do one last removal. A large poplar close to 120ft with a large 4" wide by 16" long woodpecker hole at about 35'. They then proceed to tell us they want to leave the spar standing 3' above the woodpecker hole for animals to nest in and such. They also ask to do a coronet cut so it looks more natural (i laughed a little at first)

So yeah today i did my first coronet cut. I see the purpose in this situation and almost agree with it. Now my final product was much less then natural looking and i wish i could do it over again, after looking at all the natural breaks in the woods on the ride home. Its not as easy as you might thing (or at least i thought).
 
Here is the article I've revisited: http://www.aie.org.uk/trunkline/aie_tr_coronet.html

Coronet cutting = wildlife management technique

Retrenchment = arboricultural technique


I don't really see any new ideas in Mr. Fay's article. Coronet cutting just seems a bit silly...I can't see any reason to do it other than hiding the fact that the trees were managed with chainsaws. From a biological perspective, I'm not convinced that coronet cuts are any better or worse than simple straight cuts.

What is the difference between a "retrenchment cut" and a "reduction cut"? Can anyone tell me?
 
I don't know how I feel about it. Maybe if I'm giving a real life situation, I'll be for it. But, for now, I'll pass.

BTW. The sound at 1 minute reminded me of the dentist office. I had to stop. The agony!
bangtard.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Coronet cutting = wildlife management technique

Retrenchment = arboricultural technique


[/ QUOTE ] Totally agree. Nothing wrong with managing wildlife, in its place. [ QUOTE ]

What is the difference between a "retrenchment cut" and a "reduction cut"? Can anyone tell me?

[/ QUOTE ]A retrenchment cut is a type of reduction cut, done on older declining trees. The hope imo is to "draw a line" where the tree has a chance to stop dying back and respond with some rejuvenation.

Retrenching like in WWI, when one side was under attack and had to retreat, and dig a new trench for defense.

I enjoyed the article, got a lot out of it. Would like to see those trees in the UK sometime. But I don't think my work will be dictated by an ecologist on living trees, in most urban settings.

Habitat is A consideration, but tree safety and survival is a greater goal for most of my clients. I have a maple that I just retrenched, and if it does not respond well I may habitatize it. It is in my back woods, though.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
A retrenchment cut is a type of reduction cut, done on older declining trees. The hope imo is to "draw a line" where the tree has a chance to stop dying back and respond with some rejuvenation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you decide where this line is?
 
[ QUOTE ]
A retrenchment cut is a type of reduction cut, done on older declining trees. The hope imo is to "draw a line" where the tree has a chance to stop dying back and respond with some rejuvenation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide where this line is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good quesion. I'd like to know that too.
thinking.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom