Dead (and Undead) Wood

[guymayor]

What kind of silvicultural studies would you recommend?
Just ran across this
Deadwooding: Which, Where, why?

Dead branches are traditionally removed from trees to lessen decay moving into the parent branch or stem, improve air movement, increase stability by lessening load, ease access for climbers and some wildlife, and lessen risk and litter nuisance, among other reasons. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but most clients, as well as most arborists, seem to enjoy the view of the living tree’s architecture more after the dead parts are removed. However, dead branches can also contain value to the tree, when they provide benefits such as:


Resource translocation. Some recently dead limbs may still have ‘juice’ stored inside, containing stored resources that are still traveling downward. (These resources are a reason that some object to the term “deadwood”.) Large branch removal can be done in stages to allow for this movement, which can also result in a protection zone being formed at the final cut.

Support. Dead branches in dense evergreens may be holding up neighboring branches above. This support can prevent breakage as it increases sunlight to and air flow around living branches.

Habitat. In trees that compartmentalize well and have no major disease concerns, dead branches are retained because some organisms find niches in branches that are not in stems. Or on branches: spiderwebbing between twigs can catch aphids and other plant pests. Also, dead branches that protrude from the crown provide perches for raptors and other valuable birds.

Damping. Weight in the middle of limbs in trees can absorb load and improve stability.
References
1. Gibbons, P. and D. Lindenmayer. “Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia; CSIRO (2002).
3. Geytenbeek, Richard. Arbury Park Outdoor School: pers comm.

✦ Franks, A. and S. Franks. “Nest boxes for wildlife - A practical guide.” Bloomings Books (2003).

✦ Gould Group. “The Nestbox Book.“ Wilkinson Publishing (1997).

✦ Birds Australia: http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/resources/info-sheets.html; Info Sheet numbers 9 & 10.

✦ fauNature website: www.faunature.com.au

✦ Backyard Wildlifers: www.backyardwildlifers.com.au

 

[oceans]

What kind of silvicultural studies would you recommend?
Just ran across this
Deadwooding: Which, Where, why?

Dead branches are traditionally removed from trees to lessen decay moving into the parent branch or stem, improve air movement, increase stability by lessening load, ease access for climbers and some wildlife, and lessen risk and litter nuisance, among other reasons. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but most clients, as well as most arborists, seem to enjoy the view of the living tree’s architecture more after the dead parts are removed. However, dead branches can also contain value to the tree, when they provide benefits such as:


Resource translocation. Some recently dead limbs may still have ‘juice’ stored inside, containing stored resources that are still traveling downward. (These resources are a reason that some object to the term “deadwood”.) Large branch removal can be done in stages to allow for this movement, which can also result in a protection zone being formed at the final cut.

Support. Dead branches in dense evergreens may be holding up neighboring branches above. This support can prevent breakage as it increases sunlight to and air flow around living branches.

Habitat. In trees that compartmentalize well and have no major disease concerns, dead branches are retained because some organisms find niches in branches that are not in stems. Or on branches: spiderwebbing between twigs can catch aphids and other plant pests. Also, dead branches that protrude from the crown provide perches for raptors and other valuable birds.

Damping. Weight in the middle of limbs in trees can absorb load and improve stability.
References
1. Gibbons, P. and D. Lindenmayer. “Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia; CSIRO (2002).
3. Geytenbeek, Richard. Arbury Park Outdoor School: pers comm.

✦ Franks, A. and S. Franks. “Nest boxes for wildlife - A practical guide.” Bloomings Books (2003).

✦ Gould Group. “The Nestbox Book.“ Wilkinson Publishing (1997).

✦ Birds Australia: http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/resources/info-sheets.html; Info Sheet numbers 9 & 10.

✦ fauNature website: www.faunature.com.au

✦ Backyard Wildlifers: www.backyardwildlifers.com.au

The points on translocation and habitat make the most sense to me, and resonate with what I practice as of now. I'd like to know more on species and time regarding translocation. I feel that once the bark is coming off, the tree has pulled what it can from the branch, but I could be wrong.

Case in point, and I have seen it quite often on Oak...the cross section of a branch after pruning can show potions of live and dead tissue (sort of like a pie graph), despite the outer appearance of a branch being entirely dead. It's as if sections of xylem shut downhill other areas hang on, perhaps allowing starches back into the parent stem?

 

[KevinS]

The points on translocation and habitat make the most sense to me, and resonate with what I practice as of now. I'd like to know more on species and time regarding translocation. I feel that once the bark is coming off, the tree has pulled what it can from the branch, but I could be wrong.

Case in point, and I have seen it quite often on Oak...the cross section of a branch after pruning can show potions of live and dead tissue (sort of like a pie graph), despite the outer appearance of a branch being entirely dead. It's as if sections of xylem shut downhill other areas hang on, perhaps allowing starches back into the parent stem?

I just assumed that meant that the branch wasn't done dying yet. I've seen branches can die like a pie, 1 slice at a time. Starts as a bit of decay no big deal and it spreads around the branch circularly so if there is one strip still pulling starches I just assume it's not done dying.

 

[oceans]

I just assumed that meant that the branch wasn't done dying yet. I've seen branches can die like a pie, 1 slice at a time. Starts as a bit of decay no big deal and it spreads around the branch circularly so if there is one strip still pulling starches I just assume it's not done dying.

Yup, exactly, but I've seen it at times where the branch look entirely dead from the outside, and only find the appearance of live portions after the cut. Kind of makes me wonder what process the tree goes through when letting go of a branch. Would they always die in radial segments?

 

[KevinS]

Yup, exactly, but I've seen it at times where the branch look entirely dead from the outside, and only find the appearance of live portions after the cut. Kind of makes me wonder what process the tree goes through when letting go of a branch. Would they always die in radial segments?

I don't think it's an always thing some times it's a top down kind of thing. I think it would really depend on the reason it died, got wounded, etc. Is radial sections usually due to a bug or sun deficiencies etc and so on.

Squirrel damage I've seen go out sort of in waves like in a bay on to the beach. So it's still radial but not sectional like a pie. So I'm certain there's a cause and effect thing going on.

 

[evo]

I have found the same many times, in many different patterns. On bigleaf maples i have seen that all the wood and bark are completely dead about a foot or more outside the collar. While making a snap cut a few inches out there is a complete ring of live sapwood of only a few rings outside of very dark decaying wood. this is not a extended collar. Just assumed it was the limb finishing up.

 

[oceans]

Sounds like it's a matter of at least one entire growing season for a parent stem to translocate what it can.

This gets into the question of what rate particular species do this. That would help determine whether to leave a dead limb on or not.

 

[KevinS]

Sounds like it's a matter of at least one entire growing season for a parent stem to translocate what it can.

This gets into the question of what rate particular species do this. That would help determine whether to leave a dead limb on or not.

That would vary beyond species I'm sure growing zones local weather etc but I'm swinging way out of my range for this topic

 

[evo]

Just a month ago now I was in a poplar where the lower limbs were dead. It was a moist day (week for that matter) and the bark on the limbs peeled off like a wet sponge all the way around. I'm guessing the limbs were dead longer than a growing season. The tree had very distinct collars, and I made target cuts. All final cuts were smaller than 1.5" dia. More than 1/3 of these limbs still had living tissue 2-10" from the collars, some also had dead outer growth rings, and live appearing inner rings. It would be next to impossible in a practical way to catalog which species does what, where, when, and how long.

 

[guymayor]

While it would be totally impossible to catalog which species does what, where, when, and how long, perhaps we can go by some tendencies we've observed. With active infections like hypoxylon, or on fast-rotting species, take more. When bark is shedding that may well be a sign the whole branch has sent its resources back to the parent.

The most practical way may be to see what breaks off under pressure. Before cutting, just push, pull, or kick the limb and see what breaks off. Then one option would be to reduce the remainder back to a former growth point (node) and leave the rest, if there's a specified reason.

 

[KevinS]

While it would be totally impossible to catalog which species does what, where, when, and how long, perhaps we can go by some tendencies we've observed. With active infections like hypoxylon, or on fast-rotting species, take more. When bark is shedding that may well be a sign the whole branch has sent its resources back to the parent.

The most practical way may be to see what breaks off under pressure. Before cutting, just push, pull, or kick the limb and see what breaks off. Then one option would be to reduce the remainder back to a former growth point (node) and leave the rest, if there's a specified reason.

If the limbs are appearing dead but there's a bit of a strip left alive, and say we kick the piece it would never break off as smooth as a saw cut. While it would take the load off no doubt, do you think that openly exposing that last strip would hasten it's demise or matter at all? I doubt it would ever get far with codit, being mostly dead.
Do you think it would spread rot into the parent stem faster or have a difference at all?

Say on poplars, limbs often fall so the tree can 'heal' over the wound. The stubs would have less weight therefore you would assume they'd stay on the tree longer. While codit will settle in below the outer bark wouldn't seal around inviting bugs, dampness, etc.

So would it be better or worse than a'proper pruning cut?

 

[RopeShield]

If the limb is dead, for a month or so during growing temps. I believe the flow of resources is negligible especially the flow of photosynthetic mtl. Removing the limb to allow air at the wound is best to establish the barrier more effective ly. Without air compartment alization cannot occur. This nothing new. This is why trees stop bleeding. Leaving deadwood is the equivalent to a leaky tap. It continues to wick away resource.

 

[RopeShield]

Low vigor vitality limbs is another subject. They can be encouraged or you can simply pull that weed.

 

[RopeShield]

Resource translocation I believe is something very difficult to predict. Severe a root, shoots will die, shade a limb roots will die. Flow stops or slows immeasurably in the real world but a dead limb is guaranteed to wick material away from where it is needed and nd not vice versa.

 

[KevinS]

Resource translocation I believe is something very difficult to predict. Severe a root, shoots will die, shade a limb roots will die. Flow stops or slows immeasurably in the real world but a dead limb is guaranteed to wick material and not vice versa

So you are saying always remove anything dead? For the trees sake it'd be better off

 

[RopeShield]

Just clarified that last reply.
Yes in terms of flow. In the big picture no. Deadwood is an equal to the living as well as
All the levels and layers of decay including all the associated. I believe that the world is an organism. And everything in it is alive. Even the rock in my boot.

 

[RopeShield]

Your employer is lucky to have someone so keen for arboriculture reminds me of someone I know.

 

[KevinS]

Just clarified that last reply.
Yes in terms of flow. In the big picture no. Deadwood is an equal to the living as well as
All the levels and layers of decay including all the associated. I believe that the world is an organism. And everything in it is alive. Even the rock in my boot.

I wonder how much we lose by removing deadwood but gain back by mulching. The rotting debris is relocated crown to ground so is it better worse or equal

 

[evo]

Ropesheild, I disagree with the two statements you made. 1# the tree cannot compartmentalize without air. (#2) Also how can a dead limb wick away the trees resources like leaving you faucet running.. Neither of these statements make any since if you think about it. No offence but come on this is so far off that it is leaving my jaw hanging open.

 

[KevinS]

Ropesheild, I disagree with the two statements you made. 1# the tree cannot compartmentalize without air. (#2) Also how can a dead limb wick away the trees resources like leaving you faucet running.. Neither of these statements make any since if you think about it. No offence but come on this is so far off that it is leaving my jaw hanging open.

So trees don't need air. Earlier in this thread there was talk about keeping wood submerged, well the interior of cavities anyways, the thought was if the wood was constantly wet it would never rot (like submerged logs) so this makes some sense.

Trees grow in flood zones all over the place, but usually if they get flooded say by beavers or grade change, etc. they drown so this could show some air is needed.

3 thoughts:
Bugs, crud, dieases, yada yada, all can suck for trees but, they are all air borne, flying, crawling bugs (all that I know of anyways). So if they were submerged or in ceran wrap or something the bad things can't get to it and either can the air.

Does codit function any differently if air access was cut off?

If trees don't need air to compartmentalize why does crown dead wooding, thinning, structure, etc. that improve air circulation improve tree health. Often seen in fruit trees etc.