Dead (and Undead) Wood

Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

[ QUOTE ]


However, over the years, these 'landscape' trees <u>appear</u> to do extraordinarily well, which <u>seems</u> contradictory - a VERY un-scientific observation. So then, what to do? What is the current wisdom about deadwooding and recycling as related to a tree in an cosmetic, un-natural lanscape?

[/ QUOTE ]

Observation is not unscientific if you know realize that an anecdote is a single data point. It would be unscientific to claim that your practice is the sole cause for the health of these trees. One could be scientific in stating that there appears to be no adverse reaction to your practice ;)
 
Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

Well ...

I used the term "contradictory" because 'woodlot' trees and 'landscape' trees both respond quite well to very different treatment of many different parameters.

I used the term "unscientific" because the observation involved too many parameters. That is, there was no observation for <u>each</u> variable and no control group for <u>each</u> variable.

I certainly cannot afford to perform such a protracted scientific experiment to resolve what appeared to me as a contradiction. I was hoping to learn from the collected widom, here, about how to work more efficiently at improving tree health in both environments.

So, my question still remains: Why do 'lanscape' trees respond so well to quite 'un-natural' treatment; pruning deadwood, live-wood, <u>no</u> 'recycling' (off-cuts, leaf litter ...) etc. I do see a lot of over pruning (whatever that really means). My ultimate goal here is to learn how to better understand tree biology and so provide optimal care to achieve optimal results.
 
Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

[ QUOTE ]


So, my question still remains: Why do 'lanscape' trees respond so well to quite 'un-natural' treatment; pruning deadwood, live-wood, <u>no</u> 'recycling' (off-cuts, leaf litter ...) etc. I do see a lot of over pruning (whatever that really means). My ultimate goal here is to learn how to better understand tree biology and so provide optimal care to achieve optimal results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many trees, if well established, can thrive in marginal locations. A good rootsystem will spread out to where the components it needs are. The greatest limiting factor is free O2 in the soil, then water. This is why compaction causes so many problems. As stated above, a H/O who hires one of us is probably doing other things that replaces the nutrient cycling that is missing in the urban landscape. I often suggest a topdress of compost if people will not do mulch rings. This will get the nutrients that the soil is depleted of to the tree. (yes nutrient is a proper term for major and minor elements of C. Hopkins Cafe)

In my model, pruning is controlling growth with an eye towards a how it will fit in the landscape in the long term. We reduce the vigor of limbs and stems that will conflict with other trees and structures, and with other sections of that same tree. Since pruning is wounding, and wounding is stress, then the proper practitioner "mimics" the natural process of limb loss in the tree, but not taking too much out that we over stress it, or induce a stress responce that triggers a new flush of growth that will reduce energy reserves.

But then y'all know i can go on and on and on....

I've got some sort of software issue, maybe firewall, that is keeping me from getting on a'site.
 
Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

[ QUOTE ]

...
In my model, pruning is controlling growth with an eye towards a how it will fit in the landscape in the long term. We reduce the vigor of limbs and stems that will conflict with other trees and structures, and with other sections of that same tree. Since pruning is wounding, and wounding is stress, then the proper practitioner "mimics" the natural process of limb loss in the tree, but not taking too much out that we over stress it, or induce a stress responce that triggers a new flush of growth that will reduce energy reserves.


[/ QUOTE ]
THANKS, JPS, excellent post - exactly what I was looking for.

[ QUOTE ]

But then y'all know i can go on and on and on....


[/ QUOTE ]
You got my vote ... "go on and on and on...."
 
Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

I have followed this thread and believe it to be a great read...excellent opinions and arguments here.

I have a question, however. It has been established that the branches on a tree assist in diffusing dynamic loading on the whole organism. Deadwood on a tree would likely still react to dynamic loading, even perhaps to the point it accepts the force from the live tissue. So, if the branches on a tree assist in dampening force from loading events (wind, ice, snow etc...) which are greater than the 'normal' loading due to gravity, then does deadwood assist in diffusion?

Maybe hair-brained but the thought popped into my head while contemplating this thread.
 
Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

OK Bump already...I feel silly enough as it is. I'm not talking about the 4 year dead, buckling, cracked oak limb hanging over a high use street in downtown Legoland. Plus I realize I'm punching way above my weight here...anyways

Sometimes old neglected ornamentals, or fruit trees, or topgrafted trees like fruitless mulberry are riddled with interwoven live and dead limbs. The dead limbs often seem to support at least some of the weight of the more numerous smaller limbs. Same with dense conifers...usually a result of ornamental shaping, nonetheless removal of deadwood often times changes the shape, subjecting branches which were once propped up to bending forces.

Another example might be dominant forest trees, which often retain the remains of once vigorous branches. These branches have shed the finer components leaving only the main cylinder still attached to the trunk. Is it possible that these branches are diffusing any forces during loading events?

I believe some times retaining deadwood can benefit the structure of the tree. Sometimes I wonder if the lengths we go to to remove deadwood are justifiable in the light of the 'actual' risk posed by it. For example...and I've done it lots...so bad me...but parking a forestry unit under a park tree on the lawn beside it. How many of us go back in and alleviate compaction...or specify this to the grounds crews? Sometimes we bomb sections of large limbs out of the tree and strike lateral roots. The list goes on.

Hope I didn't stink it up too badly in here...I'll take that cup of stfu now...
 
Re: Dead Wood - recycling question

I tried to read as much of the thread as possible. I apologize if I this post is redundant. My hunch:

if it is true, as Shigo states, that is very difficult to deem any wood completely "dead" due to most branches, except those in the very last stages of being shed, containing at least some living tissue (symplast)

and

even non-living tissue (apoplast) is capable of storing bound water

then,

the removal of "dead-wood" would consolidate and focus the tree's resources on what remains of the tree (both the Food being consumed by the remaining living tissue and the Water being stored in the non-living tissue of the dead-wood)

I believe it is this consolidation of resources into the tree which results in increased vigor after dead-wooding. some would even claim the increase in vigor is practically immediately apparent! (i.e. me)

thinking of how trees, untended, shed their branches naturally and wether or not interference by people in speeding up the process is inherently bad or good for the tree, i think we would only know the answer if trees had the ability (or maybe just the desire) to pick up a hand-saw and go to work (or not) on themselves. After all, some of us have long unkempt hair and some have wiffles... decisions, decisions...
 
I am for one always very torn on deadwooding, in commercial/ residential seems to more important for hazardous branches, hangers, etc. and aesthetics. However, I have read a lot on trees in the wild and naturally pruning themselves. Overall, any wound in a tree is not the tree's way of responding. I feel there are trees that do improve in appearance after deadwooding. I too lean towards the weight reduction if deadwood is 3" and larger.
 
you are right trees have existed for hundreds of millions of years without our help , but remember that was in a forest setting , not an urban one . there is no doubt that proper pruning and deadwooding helps our urban trees
 
my latest summation, fwiw:

Pruning Deadwood: 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 if dead parts are not blocking the view. 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. Or the snag can stay, when removing it would speed trunk decay.
Support. Dead branches in dense evergereens 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.
Load Damping. Branches, living or dead, in the middle of limbs keep them wiggling in many directions, not wobbling and jerking and breaking. This is why pruning standards advise against “liontailing” branches. On a larger scale, branches in the middle of trees can absorb load and improve stability. If you watch trees on a windy day, you’ll see limbs dance in time with each other, brushing against each other as they whirl and twirl. If they don’t brush against each other and make some contact, they tend to go out of control—kind of like humans, in a way. When pruning we change that dance like choreographers, cautiously considering dose and timing.

The function of deadwood as habitat is ultimately realized when it hits the ground and recycles. Leaving dead branches to border natural areas can be aesthetically pleasing as they fit naturally into many landscapes. Clients appreciate the entomo-myco-arboricultural role these pruned branches play by increasing habitat for soil microflora and microfauna.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing I've read from you recently about pruning back to 'concentrations of vitality,' has recently proved useful when communicating with a client.

[/ QUOTE ]

Props for that cogent description go to none other than Colin Bahford, currently president of ISA. cribbed from his talk in chicago last year. Recommend you send some good vibes in writing to that champion of field personnel (us/youse). They might make the headaches of his current job easier to handle.

and the deadwood thing is not done yet--this from sean freeeman:

seriously whilst the papers are few and admittedly specialised its not that hard to track down the habitat requirements of saproxylic beetles.

- Three mentioned (way way too quickly) in my Arbcamp presentation from Tasmania (WARRA LTER site) Coripera deplanata; Lissotes menalcas; Prostomis atkinsoni. The research now 10yrs in and continuing on these and other species and is (or at least was 18months…perhaps it was two years time flies….back when I last interacted with them) being undertaken by Simon Grove and Belinda Yaxley at WARRA.



In Europe slightly closer environment to your home just check the Red List species and cross reference their habitat requirements - Oak polypore (Piptoporus quercus); Cardinal Click Beetle (Ampedus cardinalis); (Doracatome flavicornis) no common name… you might consider starting with Mocca’s beetle ~ Hypebaeus flavipes and then muse as to whether this is some weird freak or if it is representative of a huge cohort of invertebrates that just get ignored.



I work (hardish) to form connections with ecologists esp those specialising on fungi and invertebrates, as someone whose focus is supposedly on the tree I am very aware of my limitations when it comes to pontificating on the minute detail surrounding cryptic fungi and beetles…hence I rely on what seem by any established standards of assessment to be reliable and robust research projects.
 
I have a question about dead-wooding and hazards.

First, some observations: I've been taught and always believed that the <u>only</u> time to remove deadwood is when there is a very 'real' hazard to human life or property. I've done a lot of dead-wooding over the years and have noticed that trees are SO much better at shedding deadwood than I could ever be. That is, when cutting deadwood it's necessary to leave a little stub so as to not damage living tissue in the collar. Moreover, in the process of dead-wooding there is <u>always</u> some collateral damage to living tissue - trampled epicormics, scratched bark, etc., etc. However, when a tree finally sheds all of a dead branch, almost everything down inside the collar is dropped and leaves a little 'pocket'. That's virtually impossible for me to do and the little stub I have to leave won't have the weight to pull out and leave a little pocket like the tree does.

So the question is: (aside from any benefits of dead-wood to the tree), isn't
removing deadwood actually hazardous to a tree?
 
So I have a question. Say you have a very large tree, and near the top of this tree a branch breaks and leaves a stub which eventually turns into a dead stub. Or theres just a significant dead branch. Say this never gets cut off by any of us, it decays and leads to a column of decay high up in the tree, and then said tree starts growing roots inside itself into this. This seems to me like an advantage to the tree, not having to move all of its water up from the ground. A benefit similiar to coast redwoods taking advantage of orographic lifting. Does anyone know if this is valid? Obviously there would be hazard issues if this was the case, but say the tree was in the forest. Do some species do this more than others?
 
I have seen many species do this. Cedar seems to be the most prolific interior rooter. Recently had one fail with a 10' mat of roots 12 ot 14" wide. Pretty amazing how they wedged deepr into the inclusion and finally into the wood.
Living of off itself in a way.
Adventitious roots only require darkness, moisture and air.

Makes me wonder if would be possible to wound the collar and graft roots to insert into the deadwood.

Deadwood becomes above ground rooting media?
 
Wow that's a lot of adventitious roots, I wonder if there was any net benefit for the tree before it failed. What species of cedar was it?

I can imagine some pretty interesting scenarios: what if two trees were growing next to each other, crowns touching up high. One dies and the survivor starts growing adventitious roots from the top of the dead one down to the ground. I think that would blur the definition of aerial roots!
 
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