treehumper
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ridgefield, NJ
Targets play probably a bigger part then.
Dead (and Undead) Wood
- Thread starter tom_otto
- Start date
- Location
- Austin, TX
aye!
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
So where do you draw the line on what is for tree health and what is for people who don't like to see birds, etc in their trees?
[/ QUOTE ]I've never been asked to deadwood for bird control. Who here has?
How about deadwooding, then making nests? Branches and twigs can be broken into the right size and crisscrossed into forks for nestbuilding. Good for the trees, the people, and the birds!
So where do you draw the line on what is for tree health and what is for people who don't like to see birds, etc in their trees?
[/ QUOTE ]I've never been asked to deadwood for bird control. Who here has?
How about deadwooding, then making nests? Branches and twigs can be broken into the right size and crisscrossed into forks for nestbuilding. Good for the trees, the people, and the birds!
treehumper
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ridgefield, NJ
How much do you charge for nesting??
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
How much do you charge for nesting??
[/ QUOTE ]Same as anything else--$x/hour.
It dos not take that much time; think about it. Clients value birds; they are beneficial associates for the tree, and they are
too. On the fixed-price jobs it's a small sacrifice to make them a home or two up there.
I'll try to get some pics of this deadwood re-use.
How much do you charge for nesting??
[/ QUOTE ]Same as anything else--$x/hour.
It dos not take that much time; think about it. Clients value birds; they are beneficial associates for the tree, and they are
I'll try to get some pics of this deadwood re-use.
- Location
- Austin, TX
My point was more the eco-system. Birds use trees as more than a place to rest or nest. Trees with deadwood have more bird activity. More cavities to nest in but more so, more bugs to eat that live in the tiny deadwood.
There may be merit to the theory that removing deadwood over "x" diameter is beneficial for urban trees but there is no merit (in terms of tree health) to nit picking pencil sized dead.
There may be merit to the theory that removing deadwood over "x" diameter is beneficial for urban trees but there is no merit (in terms of tree health) to nit picking pencil sized dead.
treehumper
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ridgefield, NJ
yes, some clients want ALL the deadwood removed but in reality it's the big stuff with targets that needs to be dealt with. Leaving dead wood that will encourage wildlife is good. On some jobs we've removed dead crowns and left 20' stumps for habitat. This was in areas that were being renaturalized so targets were not an issue.
i get to work on this nest once or twice a year. The platform was installed a few years ago and deadwood was placed around the edges.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildwatch/ospreycam/index.html
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildwatch/ospreycam/index.html
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
i get to work on this nest once or twice a year. The platform was installed a few years ago and deadwood was placed around the edges.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildwatch/ospreycam/index.html
[/ QUOTE ]Cool.
I watch birds work on my trees a lot, and they spend most of their time scavenging the trunks.
i get to work on this nest once or twice a year. The platform was installed a few years ago and deadwood was placed around the edges.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildwatch/ospreycam/index.html
[/ QUOTE ]Cool.
I watch birds work on my trees a lot, and they spend most of their time scavenging the trunks.
They also bring all kinds of other crap up there too. I've found plastic bags, string and caution tape among other things.
I have enjoyed logging in and watching this osprey nest this season.
They do fly right in and snap branches, dead and alive, right off the trees when they're building the nest up.
I have enjoyed logging in and watching this osprey nest this season.
They do fly right in and snap branches, dead and alive, right off the trees when they're building the nest up.
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Great thread...I would have commented sooner but I have been up in the N.Cascades hiking and looking at 1000-1500+ year old trees (larch and white bark pine)...that have never had any "help" from humans.
As has Tom I have looked for some good research on this subject without success. IMO we prune to much and too often for the most part.
As John Britton once said "tree pruning is for people, not for trees".
I was hanging out with Jack Phiilips recently in Nebraska and he reminded me of Shigo's opinion that Arborists did a lot of stuff to trees that was unnecessary. He had a little saying that I can't recall to describe this.
As for aesthetic reasons for dead branch removal. I think that this is an manifestation of social attitudes. Personally I have seen many trees beauty diminished by dead branch removal.
Ornithologists say that birds prefer to perch on a dead branch.
Risk from large dead branches can be mitigated by breaking the branch off leaving...a smaller stub...yes I do find this more attractive than saw cuts. More biologically active too!
Even in very urban settings I think we will be changing to a more ecologically based management approach. I have been recommending that clients limit clean up for years wherever practical.
Now, where appropriate, I recommend limiting dead wood removal to pieces that are large enough to present risk.Shigo always stressed species specifics and that approach applies as always. I add the specifics of site and use under tree to my thinking.
Trebuchet's list:
"I've seen posted elsewhere on the internet, with at least general regard to deadwooding, that pruning advocates do so based on the following qualifiers, known by some as the "Five D's":
o Dead
o Damaged [Oops! #6 added to the "Five"]
o Diseased
o Deformed
o Duplicate
o Downward"
I can think of reasons not to follow it except for the item"diseased".
The rest of the list, to me, represents old fashioned thinking that is distinctly anthropomorphic and human centered.
Thanks Tom for getting this discussion going...lots of good stuff to think about. Change is in the air as much as we humans resist it.
Here is something to think about: A big dead "snag" tree in a forest will have more living cells in its mass then it did when it was a living tree.
I think we need to be thinking about the roles of those organisms...mostly hidden from us...as we try to grow a healthy urban ecology.
Scott Baker
As has Tom I have looked for some good research on this subject without success. IMO we prune to much and too often for the most part.
As John Britton once said "tree pruning is for people, not for trees".
I was hanging out with Jack Phiilips recently in Nebraska and he reminded me of Shigo's opinion that Arborists did a lot of stuff to trees that was unnecessary. He had a little saying that I can't recall to describe this.
As for aesthetic reasons for dead branch removal. I think that this is an manifestation of social attitudes. Personally I have seen many trees beauty diminished by dead branch removal.
Ornithologists say that birds prefer to perch on a dead branch.
Risk from large dead branches can be mitigated by breaking the branch off leaving...a smaller stub...yes I do find this more attractive than saw cuts. More biologically active too!
Even in very urban settings I think we will be changing to a more ecologically based management approach. I have been recommending that clients limit clean up for years wherever practical.
Now, where appropriate, I recommend limiting dead wood removal to pieces that are large enough to present risk.Shigo always stressed species specifics and that approach applies as always. I add the specifics of site and use under tree to my thinking.
Trebuchet's list:
"I've seen posted elsewhere on the internet, with at least general regard to deadwooding, that pruning advocates do so based on the following qualifiers, known by some as the "Five D's":
o Dead
o Damaged [Oops! #6 added to the "Five"]
o Diseased
o Deformed
o Duplicate
o Downward"
I can think of reasons not to follow it except for the item"diseased".
The rest of the list, to me, represents old fashioned thinking that is distinctly anthropomorphic and human centered.
Thanks Tom for getting this discussion going...lots of good stuff to think about. Change is in the air as much as we humans resist it.
Here is something to think about: A big dead "snag" tree in a forest will have more living cells in its mass then it did when it was a living tree.
I think we need to be thinking about the roles of those organisms...mostly hidden from us...as we try to grow a healthy urban ecology.
Scott Baker
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Yes, leaving high snags in trees can provide valuable perches for raptors, which seems like a fair trade-off. Small infection courts in small diameter branches distal from the heart of the tree in exchange for top carnivores.[ QUOTE ]
Risk from large dead branches can be mitigated by breaking the branch off leaving...a smaller stub...yes I do find this more attractive than saw cuts. More biologically active too!
[/ QUOTE ]yes, stubs are full of decay fungi--how does that kind of bioactivity help the tree? Shigo's gotta be spinning cartwheels right now. The only good stub (for the tree) is one of living tissue that will seal and resprout[ QUOTE ]
Even in very urban settings I think we will be changing to a more ecologically based management approach...I think we need to be thinking about the roles of those organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]I agree, Scott--we need to think harder. We do know that their roles includes parasitism--infecting living bark and sapwood, and also decaying bark and wood. Have you observed any symbiosis?
As arborists, we foster the ecological functions of symbiotic tree associates, and limit the function of proven pathogens. To foster the pathogens in the name of some vague "ecological" goal seems to be anti-arboriculture, a rebellion without a clue.
The Veteran Tree movement in the UK may have been hijacked by ecologists, but it should not happen here.
Apologies to Tom Petty:
"Ripping the trees wide open,
Ecology—for who?
Leaving big wounds and hopin’;
Rebelling without a clue."
Or have you observed any symbiosis? Seeing salamanders at 170' in a redwood is cool and all, but until they demonstrate a function that helps the tree, or exceeds the contribution of the tree, I can't see wounding a tree to create habitat for them. They seem to be doing fine on their own.
Risk from large dead branches can be mitigated by breaking the branch off leaving...a smaller stub...yes I do find this more attractive than saw cuts. More biologically active too!
[/ QUOTE ]yes, stubs are full of decay fungi--how does that kind of bioactivity help the tree? Shigo's gotta be spinning cartwheels right now. The only good stub (for the tree) is one of living tissue that will seal and resprout[ QUOTE ]
Even in very urban settings I think we will be changing to a more ecologically based management approach...I think we need to be thinking about the roles of those organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]I agree, Scott--we need to think harder. We do know that their roles includes parasitism--infecting living bark and sapwood, and also decaying bark and wood. Have you observed any symbiosis?
As arborists, we foster the ecological functions of symbiotic tree associates, and limit the function of proven pathogens. To foster the pathogens in the name of some vague "ecological" goal seems to be anti-arboriculture, a rebellion without a clue.
The Veteran Tree movement in the UK may have been hijacked by ecologists, but it should not happen here.
Apologies to Tom Petty:
"Ripping the trees wide open,
Ecology—for who?
Leaving big wounds and hopin’;
Rebelling without a clue."
Or have you observed any symbiosis? Seeing salamanders at 170' in a redwood is cool and all, but until they demonstrate a function that helps the tree, or exceeds the contribution of the tree, I can't see wounding a tree to create habitat for them. They seem to be doing fine on their own.
I have been reading this thread all along and enjoying the thoughts and different perspectives.
What we do in the urban environment is dictated by peoples' wants and desires. This is not a pristine natural wilderness type situation. There is very little we do in the urban environment that is natural. If it didn't benefit us directly, we would not use it. Why would we bother with the effort and maintenance of a manicured lawn and a fully landscaped living area but for the benefit it provides us?
So having trees within our daily environment does require a certain amount of maintenance beyond what happens in the forest.
The original question of does removing deadwood enhance the health of the tree, I personally think is a no-brainer. Of course, it does. There are many saprophytic fungi that can become opportunistic. Many organisms enter live wood from dead wood. So if you are talking about the health of the tree, this alone is a given; remove the deadwood. It doesn't help the birds, it doesn't contribute to the balance of natural cycling. It does relieve the stress on the tree. And that was the original question: is this beneficial to the tree.
I see many trees which are over-pruned and improperly pruned. I see people not paying attention to the needs of the trees by neglecting to provide them with a proper growing environment; i.e., trees in manicured, weed-free lawns, right up to the trunk, etc.
These are more broadly encompassing situations than the simple question of does removing deadwood benefit the health of the tree.
Dave
What we do in the urban environment is dictated by peoples' wants and desires. This is not a pristine natural wilderness type situation. There is very little we do in the urban environment that is natural. If it didn't benefit us directly, we would not use it. Why would we bother with the effort and maintenance of a manicured lawn and a fully landscaped living area but for the benefit it provides us?
So having trees within our daily environment does require a certain amount of maintenance beyond what happens in the forest.
The original question of does removing deadwood enhance the health of the tree, I personally think is a no-brainer. Of course, it does. There are many saprophytic fungi that can become opportunistic. Many organisms enter live wood from dead wood. So if you are talking about the health of the tree, this alone is a given; remove the deadwood. It doesn't help the birds, it doesn't contribute to the balance of natural cycling. It does relieve the stress on the tree. And that was the original question: is this beneficial to the tree.
I see many trees which are over-pruned and improperly pruned. I see people not paying attention to the needs of the trees by neglecting to provide them with a proper growing environment; i.e., trees in manicured, weed-free lawns, right up to the trunk, etc.
These are more broadly encompassing situations than the simple question of does removing deadwood benefit the health of the tree.
Dave
- Location
- Bay Area CA.
I notice long stubs on most conifers that appear to have
been dead for years.
Have also heard that these resin filled stubs are part of a
protection theme for conifers.
Look at oaks in an undisturbed setting.
Many times a protruding callus can be seen constricting the dead stub.
been dead for years.
Have also heard that these resin filled stubs are part of a
protection theme for conifers.
Look at oaks in an undisturbed setting.
Many times a protruding callus can be seen constricting the dead stub.
I do not call symplastless wood dead due to the bacteria and fungi often living on and in. I do refer to it as symplastless wood that no longer maintains a living webwork of parenchyma cells that is collectively termed the symplast.
I have this listed as having content on subject.
Eckstein, D.; Liese, W.; Shigo, A.L.
Relationship of wood structure to compartmentalization of discolored wood in hybrid poplar. Can.J.For.Res. 9: 205-210; 1979
Walters, Russell S.; Yawney, Harry W. Sugar Maple Tapholes US. Dept. Agric. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report NE-72: 8-15; 1982
You may find some DATA there. The symplastless branch is like a lollipop for fungi to use as energy to work way into tree. If remove correctly it can be a health treatment.
Also
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/tree_pruning/targets/symplastless.html
Much information can be found here: www.shigoandtrees.com
I have this listed as having content on subject.
Eckstein, D.; Liese, W.; Shigo, A.L.
Relationship of wood structure to compartmentalization of discolored wood in hybrid poplar. Can.J.For.Res. 9: 205-210; 1979
Walters, Russell S.; Yawney, Harry W. Sugar Maple Tapholes US. Dept. Agric. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report NE-72: 8-15; 1982
You may find some DATA there. The symplastless branch is like a lollipop for fungi to use as energy to work way into tree. If remove correctly it can be a health treatment.
Also
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/tree_pruning/targets/symplastless.html
Much information can be found here: www.shigoandtrees.com
- Location
- Bay Area CA.
Couple points about callus growth.
Not all callus is the same
Callus growth can cause vertical cracking at wall 4.
This is a particular problem in conifers.
Left undisturbed, stubs remain on conifers for decades...
...forming a different variation of calus over the years.
Conifers inject a column of sap into the stub to resist organisms.
Wall 1 is least likley to resist organisms.
Alot of tree dudes skirt (dead wood included) conifers for alot of reasons and alot of conifers break mid-stem.
I'm not saying that this is the primary cause of failure.
A stem with reduced caliper and a bunch of cracks can be unhealthy and/or unsafe.
Ring shakes: http://forest.mtu.edu/research/hwbuck/hardwood_defects/ring_shake.html
Not all callus is the same
Callus growth can cause vertical cracking at wall 4.
This is a particular problem in conifers.
Left undisturbed, stubs remain on conifers for decades...
...forming a different variation of calus over the years.
Conifers inject a column of sap into the stub to resist organisms.
Wall 1 is least likley to resist organisms.
Alot of tree dudes skirt (dead wood included) conifers for alot of reasons and alot of conifers break mid-stem.
I'm not saying that this is the primary cause of failure.
A stem with reduced caliper and a bunch of cracks can be unhealthy and/or unsafe.
Ring shakes: http://forest.mtu.edu/research/hwbuck/hardwood_defects/ring_shake.html
Branch cores of conifers that have or form resign ducts use resigns and not sap to resist spread of micros and such. That creates a problem for wood product preservatives. The resign soaked area does not take on the preservative and latter in the life of the wood product the resigns are altered and now you have wood without resigns and without preservatives.
You will find resign soaked cores left after the nurse log decays on forest floor.
You will find resign soaked cores left after the nurse log decays on forest floor.
- Location
- Bay Area CA.
Resin not sap...cool, thanks for the clarification John.
Are you takin 'bout 2x4's?
I was talkin about that 75' lone digger pine (with poor stem taper and a bunch of cracks) in the front yard that leans toward the house.
Are you takin 'bout 2x4's?
I was talkin about that 75' lone digger pine (with poor stem taper and a bunch of cracks) in the front yard that leans toward the house.
[ QUOTE ]
I have been reading this thread all along and enjoying the thoughts and different perspectives.
So having trees within our daily environment does require a certain amount of maintenance beyond what happens in the forest.
---------------------------------------
Sure, Correct mulching which includes use of nurse logs would be good soil management.
As far as fertilizing goes we use a custom blend of essential elements including most of the micro-elements. I call them micro-elements rather than miner-elements because when they are lacking they are anything but miner.
Here are some of the elements I use when fertilizing.
Nitrogen (N) Low amount
Phosphoric Acid (P20 S)
Soluble Potash (K20)
Sulphur (S)
Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca)
Sodium (Na)
Boron (B)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
There are 17 essential elements with 14 coming from the soil.
One I do not see in my application is Nickel, Molybdenum, Chlorine. I hope they are not lacking. I did some pedology work in old growth forest. The problem is the people testing my soil for me did not test for all of the essential elements that come from the soil.
I am not against fertilizing. I just cannot see fertilizing with a product that only has 4 essential elements in it and labeled as tree food. Tees manufacture their own food. They are autotrophs. There are a such thing as a heterotroph plant. The ghost flower.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/HTMLFILES/ghostflowers-1.html They have to have their food manufactured by other plants and receives them by way of the bicarbohydrate transfer of plants. They still burn glucose and we do not FEED them. Most animals are heterotrophs. I do not know of an animal that Photosynthesizes.
So yes, many treatments that go on in a natural forest can be done in urban areas that contain trees. Two good articles on the value of fallen tree parts for system health is here, the first two articles.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/hardtoget/index.html
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that will give them understanding.
I have been reading this thread all along and enjoying the thoughts and different perspectives.
So having trees within our daily environment does require a certain amount of maintenance beyond what happens in the forest.
---------------------------------------
Sure, Correct mulching which includes use of nurse logs would be good soil management.
As far as fertilizing goes we use a custom blend of essential elements including most of the micro-elements. I call them micro-elements rather than miner-elements because when they are lacking they are anything but miner.
Here are some of the elements I use when fertilizing.
Nitrogen (N) Low amount
Phosphoric Acid (P20 S)
Soluble Potash (K20)
Sulphur (S)
Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca)
Sodium (Na)
Boron (B)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
There are 17 essential elements with 14 coming from the soil.
One I do not see in my application is Nickel, Molybdenum, Chlorine. I hope they are not lacking. I did some pedology work in old growth forest. The problem is the people testing my soil for me did not test for all of the essential elements that come from the soil.
I am not against fertilizing. I just cannot see fertilizing with a product that only has 4 essential elements in it and labeled as tree food. Tees manufacture their own food. They are autotrophs. There are a such thing as a heterotroph plant. The ghost flower.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/HTMLFILES/ghostflowers-1.html They have to have their food manufactured by other plants and receives them by way of the bicarbohydrate transfer of plants. They still burn glucose and we do not FEED them. Most animals are heterotrophs. I do not know of an animal that Photosynthesizes.
So yes, many treatments that go on in a natural forest can be done in urban areas that contain trees. Two good articles on the value of fallen tree parts for system health is here, the first two articles.
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/hardtoget/index.html
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that will give them understanding.
