Dead (and Undead) Wood

no offence to Gilman but if you want to learn about large thorough tree reduction I suggest practitioners. you tube has a bunch. mine is gone now on Vimeo only. Google Ryan Redvers. don't know who or why my video was removed. I saw Daniels almost ten years ago and I phoned him up and he inspired me. I've got a presentation on Prezi I think is ok too. I'd like to do a new one of both. not to say mine would be the best. Guy also has a more balanced view or Cassian Humphreys out of Australia. also David Lloyd Jones out of UK. I just find Gilman heavy handed. I see the solution like I see the problem. it took 40 years for a tree to grow into a problem so it will take at least 15-20 years of reduction to improve it. it can't be 'corrected' in one heavy application. and heavy dose comes from high frequency (every 3-5years to start) not from heavy application. we need to influence a trees future not change it's past.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
just saw your post after I posted again Daniel sorry I keep posting over before I get a chance to read yours. your too fast. I would like to say though that Gilman has an ok video on you tube but it is over an hour. he does talk about cutting mostly in the periphery and avoiding stem cuts. I think he understands trees very well, especially small ones and training in the beginning. but once trees are over 40 feet and gone wild and neglected, I haven't seen a whole lot of great science to back up great application. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Gilmam has a structural pruning thing coming up in ottawa ontario so i hope to participate in that.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Then why rant against science on a computer? Just use some good, old common sense to replace the computer, your cell phone, your equipment... all of that required science to exist. It's hypocritical to rely on the very thing you despise to make a case for it being incompetent and inferior to your common sense. Without the scientific method, you'd still be sitting around a campfire, farting and giggling with the rest of the Neanderthals. If you don't believe there's any science in aboriculture, then you don't have any of that precious common sense, either.
 
Right Daniel, there's nothing you can learn from the principles of physics and engineering as well as plant biology.

That's the height of absurdity and pure folly.

I'm out.
 
I'll have to read read my post but I sure need did not mean to say that there is no good or benefit that come from science

What I'm saying is it's important to understand the limitations I'll try and especially when it comes to free work it's that simple there's many limitations and scientist that study trees don't necessarily have all the right answers right now I'd much rather listen to someone like guy Maher who understands all the modern science on plant biology and has over 30 or 40 years of experience at applying that in real world situation
 
Funny I should tune into the buzz at this particular moment...I understand all the modern science; in my wildest dreams!

I'm sure Ed meant there's no *scientific* evidence, as in from formal experiments, because there are too many variables. btw a big Hi to Mahk! I also enjoyed the last issue more than most. and I was also confused by Moore's piece--he's much more sensible in person! And if someone's gonna quote Gilman, they oughta cite the current version of his book.

Dan you're invited to bring up your bucket truck to Ohio and take part in the next round of pruning research here (April? August?). Deadwood is outside the scope though...: Page 40: https://tcia.org//TCI-publications/tci-magazine/2016/11/viewer/desktop/index.html#page/10

"a study on European-style crown regeneration using structural pruning techniques outlined by Henry Davis (TCI, April 2003). Some trees were reduced by 20’ or more, using cuts under the 4” maximum set in the German and English tree care standards. Each climber measured their index fingers before ascending, so they could quickly know where to make the right cuts. The bigger, subordinating cuts were made first. We did not try to estimate the relative size of the remaining laterals, or guess at their ability to take on the terminal role, which encourages outward growth. Mature trees have overextended limbs-- terminal roles gone wild!--so the objective is the very opposite--downward growth.

One original thought was to take over 40% off many of the trees, but a lack of easy brush disposal and mercy by the climbers kept the dose lower. Many cuts were made at a fork, some were back to an upright lateral behind the fork. Species including sweetgums, red maples, pin oaks, silver maples, and white pines were selected in a random pattern, with all treatments receiving a range of sunny and shady conditions. We knew from past work in the field that exposure to sunlight is a big factor in crown regeneration. Dr. Jake Miesbauer and technician Don Ropollo discovered this the hard way, from rotten responses to large cuts made in 2013. The specs were simple, so little training was needed. In 2019 and 2022 we will take increment cores to document the limits of decay from pruning wounds and measure the lateral branches below the specified cuts, to assess the trees’ response after three and six years. "

I hope that the results of this project can affect the daily decisions we make while pruning, and how we train new arborists."Lewis said, "We'll do better work when we pay attention to tree growth, and rely less on arbitrary formulas, like the 1/3 rule." We expect the same results in Ohio that we typically see in the field, in line with Jason Grabosky and Ed Gilman’s reduction of Shumard oaks and live oaks in Florida. Sprouting from the cut surface was rare, with regrowth dispersed among interior laterals. The trees may reconfirm that 2007 study, indicating that specified retrenchment by European standards can regenerate smaller, safer, healthy, long-lived, low maintenance crowns."
 
There you have it thank you guys for such great information and to my point we're going to need to wait some years before the science come through to give us any further insight into how to prune trees .

well I already know how to prune tree so I don't need the science to tell me. I could tell them actually but they don't want to hear it and I could make my case with common sense and just a little bit of observation in real world situation like post-ice storm
 
Last edited:
So by 2020 I'll be 62 years old.
Even then it will only show the amount of decay in these branches at best. Which is not a sound measure of structural stability over time.

So what can we learn from that with certainty.
The only way to really tell how that the decay is going to effects the branches ability to maintain is health and structural integrity is to wait until it fails, or dies, which could be another 30, 40 or 50 or even 100 years.

So the scientist will have to guess at what the long term effects of the measured decay is .

now maybe it will be obvious and be easy to draw conclusions from the data but in the case that it's not, the conclusions and resulting guidance received is going to be questionable.

So yes I trust the scientist that launch satellites to have their job dialed in fairly well,
on the other hand when it comes to drawing conclusions about tree work there are truly too many variables making the scientist work extremely difficult and I'd rather trust my own knowing
 
My point Daniel, is that we are still in the theory stage. Don't mistake the guidance set out in ANSI or anywhere else as absolute. Too often it goes from guidance, to rule of thumb to rule. This is more the failing of the non-scientist in that they want clear rules to work by. The theory relies on field observation to validate or modify it. To use your example of the exact cut at the target. That becomes clouded by the filter of cost benefit. It's not cost effective to take the time to make the cut at the target or to attempt to train the crews how to identify the exact location of the target. Thus the guidance is revised because it is a disservice to the business of tree work.

So, no, common sense doesn't trump science. They are part of the same positive (hopefully) feedback loop. The common sense defined by your observation is great but that just forms the basis of a hypothesis, science will test that hypothesis.

To use another of your common sense examples, common sense tells you to use a rope with stretch in it to rig out a big piece. Science tells you what percentage of elongation, the optimum force, and the dimensions of the piece for that species at the particular time of year and environmental conditions.


The one doesn't trump the other nor should either become a religion. Let's not worship at either shrine....
 
JeffGu said:
Then why rant against science on a computer? Just use some good, old common sense to replace the computer, your cell phone, your equipment... all of that required science to exist. It's hypocritical to rely on the very thing you despise to make a case for it being incompetent and inferior to your common sense. Without the scientific method, you'd still be sitting around a campfire, farting and giggling with the rest of the Neanderthals. If you don't believe there's any science in aboriculture, then you don't have any of that precious common sense, either.
Click to expand...
Hold on Gu. I take great offense to some very specific parts of your post? Can you guess which?
 
In response to guys post above, I would not recommend reducing the height of the mature hardwoods, especially more sensitive species, by 20 feet. What purpose does that serve?

Only time I would even think about taking anywhere near that much off the top, is if there is a major structural defect low in the tree.

I always think it's better to bring back the big lateral limbs and leave the uprights growing unmolested. Each lateral is treated individually, with the amount of reduction to depend on multiple factors, including how far overextended it is, how big and heavy is the limb, how is it joined to the parent stem, how is the rest of the limb structurally, how sensitive the species is to pruning, what is the potential for property damage should the limb fail, and what is the clients tolerance for risk, when is the tree likely to get pruned again, and last but not least, how healthy and vital is the tree, meaning is taking a lot of weight and therefore leaves off going to significantly hurt the trees health.

I can guarantee that making good cuts based on the above considerations, will have far better results long term, than arbitrary 4 inch cuts.

But how is a scientist going to plug all those variables in? The only way to do that is to have lots of years of experience.

The scientist doesn't stand a chance at putting all those pieces together. So he says 4 inch cuts and 20 feet off the top. Then he's going to draw conclusions, but he hasn't got the common sense and experience to include the pruning described above in his experiments. So ignorance for lack of a better word, and the difficulties in gathering effective data are going to spoil the results that count, which is the advice to real world workers.
 
Last edited:
treehumper said:
My point Daniel, is that we are still in the theory stage. Don't mistake the guidance set out in ANSI or anywhere else as absolute. Too often it goes from guidance, to rule of thumb to rule. This is more the failing of the non-scientist in that they want clear rules to work by. The theory relies on field observation to validate or modify it. To use your example of the exact cut at the target. That becomes clouded by the filter of cost benefit. It's not cost effective to take the time to make the cut at the target or to attempt to train the crews how to identify the exact location of the target. Thus the guidance is revised because it is a disservice to the business of tree work.

So, no, common sense doesn't trump science. They are part of the same positive (hopefully) feedback loop. The common sense defined by your observation is great but that just forms the basis of a hypothesis, science will test that hypothesis.

To use another of your common sense examples, common sense tells you to use a rope with stretch in it to rig out a big piece. Science tells you what percentage of elongation, the optimum force, and the dimensions of the piece for that species at the particular time of year and environmental conditions.


The one doesn't trump the other nor should either become a religion. Let's not worship at either shrine....
Click to expand...
And look to European writings for further reading on the subject.
 
treehumper said:
My point Daniel, is that we are still in the theory stage. Don't mistake the guidance set out in ANSI or anywhere else as absolute. Too often it goes from guidance, to rule of thumb to rule. This is more the failing of the non-scientist in that they want clear rules to work by. The theory relies on field observation to validate or modify it. To use your example of the exact cut at the target. That becomes clouded by the filter of cost benefit. It's not cost effective to take the time to make the cut at the target or to attempt to train the crews how to identify the exact location of the target. Thus the guidance is revised because it is a disservice to the business of tree work.

So, no, common sense doesn't trump science. They are part of the same positive (hopefully) feedback loop. The common sense defined by your observation is great but that just forms the basis of a hypothesis, science will test that hypothesis.

To use another of your common sense examples, common sense tells you to use a rope with stretch in it to rig out a big piece. Science tells you what percentage of elongation, the optimum force, and the dimensions of the piece for that species at the particular time of year and environmental conditions.


The one doesn't trump the other nor should either become a religion. Let's not worship at either shrine....
Click to expand...
That's interesting that you mention the target cuts again.
you know what Shigo said about that?

His advice was to return to the tree one year after the cut was made and examined the new wound wood.

If it was perfectly round then you know you would hit the target, otherwise you were to learn from it and get the cut perfect next time.

While shigo was a true genius, and will always be admired for cracking the mystery of compartmentalization, the above advice has me wondering if he was on the spectrum....

How realistic, how effective, how much sense does that show.... And why did he give such defective advice..... Because he was drawing conclusions about a trees long term structural integrity from the discoloration that results from pruning cuts. His perspective was no doubt influenced by the fact that he got his start in forestry, trying to persevere timber value by reducing the discoloration.

However, not all discoloration leads to the type of decay that causes failure. Recognizing the types of cuts that cause stability destroying decay come from cuts that violate the branch protection zone and that the decay caused by leaving a stub after pruning will not lead to tree failure or result in nearly as much interruption of the xylums ability to transport fluids up the trunk, is something Shigo never put together. And his teaching of aiming for the perfect target cut has been hurting the industry ever since.

No disrespect intended... So I look at the reverence for Shigo and think that has created a paradigm which has taken far too long to change.

Once again common sense Trumps science
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom