Dead (and Undead) Wood

Hollows are amazing ecological niches. Sillett et al have documented this copiously in their redwood studies, 200'+ above ground.

It is however I think a separate topic from deadwooding aka pruning dead branches. This thread has helped me refocus on the function of dead branches for wildlife like spiders and birds, and lichens etc, and aim for retaining this where reasonable and even relocating it and securing it in forks for nests etc.

One more thing to change in the A300 standard, to allow this!
 
I would consider the removal of dead tissue in a tree to be comparable to washing your hands. I don't think the tree really cares much. The limb is sealed internally typically CODIT and all. While I do not think that the dead tissue is in itself infective to a healthy tree, it most certainly increases the number of wood decaying fungi present in the form of spores. All good unless the tree has it's "skin" broken. You wouldn't want to hang out in the hospital around a high frequency of infectious agents if you have multiple skin breaks (like a burn victim) but it may be doable in a fairly sterile environment.

The tree doesn't care - whatsoever. There has been non productive or damaged shut down limbs WAY before the first commercial arborist got on the scene.
 
My understanding of CODIT is that the ability of walls 1, 2, and 3 to form effectively can be related to wall 4 being sealed, or closed. I was under the concept that decay can spread internally (magnitude depending on species) until air is prevented from entering the wound, since the fungi and bacteria need oxygen to live.
I still like Tom D's contribution concerning the highly detailed deadwood job which seemingly resulted in the tree being able to fend much better for itself.
It may be interesting to examine wound wood age and how it may or may not have translated into twig extension, or distance between terminal bud scars throughout the crown
 
Well, short of published Literature I did remove the Dead wood from 2 of 3 Virginia pines in my front yard in 2001. I never did get around to removing the Dead in Pine number 3. The 2 dead-wooded pines improved in healthy appearance over the next 4 years, while the 3rd declined until While Deployed in 2005 my wife called the Company I work for and they pronounced a time of death upon arrival and removed it for me the following week. I am quite sure had I ever gotten around to dead-wooding that 3rd pine, that It would have survived to have been ripped out of the ground with the other 2 in a spring storm Micro-burst in 2011
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would consider the removal of dead tissue in a tree to be comparable to washing your hands. I don't think the tree really cares much. The limb is sealed internally typically CODIT and all. While I do not think that the dead tissue is in itself infective to a healthy tree, it most certainly increases the number of wood decaying fungi present in the form of spores. All good unless the tree has it's "skin" broken. You wouldn't want to hang out in the hospital around a high frequency of infectious agents if you have multiple skin breaks (like a burn victim) but it may be doable in a fairly sterile environment.

The tree doesn't care - whatsoever. There has been non productive or damaged shut down limbs WAY before the first commercial arborist got on the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Deadwood removal is pretty much an aesthetics driven facet of our industry in my opinion.

A decent argument could be made on both sides of the issue. The pro-
deadwood removal faction can argue that it reduces the wind sail factor somewhat, reduces fungal, bacterial and insect loads somewhat.

The pro-natural faction can easily argue that leaving deadwood provides structural support to nearby live limbs being buffeted during high wind events. That increased levels of fungi, bacteria and insects stimulates the tree's natural defenses keeping the tree's immune system on its toes so to speak. It can even be reasonably argued that higher weight bearing loads on both limbs and trunks stimulate greater caliper growth in both.

In terms of what's best for the trees themselves? In my opinion, in 95 percent of the cases, the pro-naturalists win the day. The most beautiful trees I've ever seen have always been in their natural settings, deadwood and all. Whereas even a class one pruned tree only holds its beauty for a few years before suckering out and losing its beauty.

The 5 percent of the trees that I feel truly benefit from our interventIons are the split or otherwise structurally deficient trees that we rod or cable back into a degree structural soundness, where otherwise they would die or become compromised much sooner.

Jomoco
 
Deadwood/wood will draw water and plant chemicals as liquid or vapour and molecular.
Deadwood is in essence a wick.
Removing the wick may or may not be beneficial. I see deadwooding as beneficial in most cases with the exception of Black Cherry for some reason just seems to go further into decline

Complexities abound with mother nature.

Apply quantum physics to this and many new questions and answers there will be.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Deadwood/wood will draw water and plant chemicals as liquid or vapour and molecular.
Deadwood is in essence a wick.
Removing the wick may or may not be beneficial. I see deadwooding as beneficial in most cases with the exception of Black Cherry for some reason just seems to go further into decline ...

[/ QUOTE ] Good point. Maybe absorbing ambient moisture is a factor, but retaining existing moisture, and resources held in solution in that moisture, is the primary reason I prefer to conserve dead stubs until the tree seems ready to let them go.
Avoiding Dessication and Dysfunction and Damage in heartwood is an objective--there is more than one D in CODIT! Attached is the central trunk of a beech smashed by ice 10 years ago. Headed back to nodes at the time; no sprouting at all, except the end of the lower lateral, which is younger tissue exposed to some sun. (shade and age of wood are likely factors in budbreak)

What to do? The ugly factor in winter is grating on the client, but I am more inclined to tether sections to lessen risk than cut it at the origin, which would accelerate heartrot. At this point decay is very slow and risk minimal. Complexities indeed. (o and nice avatar--I impaled my palm like that once)
 

Attachments

  • 321099-beechtrunknosprouts.webp
    321099-beechtrunknosprouts.webp
    91.3 KB · Views: 58
I am doing alot of deadwooding-dw in a mixed mature hardwood with a few white and red pines recently.

Hazard prunes for ropes course, elements and trails.

I am leaving many stubs and really like partial cut and fracturing-looks natural.

Some species the the limb rots back into the tree and others not.
The former seems to occur in heavier shade and north side of the tree.
The latter seems evergreens and the opposite of the above.

Any and all observations any one can contribute will add to our collective knowledge.
Look at species, location, enviro etc.
Maintaining and selling deadwoood as a feature is so easy.
Leave standing dead trees or suspend justether to neighbouring supporting tree.
HOs and property owners do get it, micro and macro biota etc.
Sharing is caring, sharing habitat is only the start, water and food sources need to be considered as well for diverstity.
 
"...I am leaving many stubs and really like partial cut and fracturing-looks natural."

While i tolerate some rips and stubs left on small branches, there are generall very good reasons to make the smallest cleanest cut possible. If I left or initiated decay in a tree near a ropes course and 10 years later rot spreads and something happens, I would not want to be explaining wildlife value or "natural"-looking aesthetics to an opposing attorney.

"Some species the the limb rots back into the tree and others not.
The former seems to occur in heavier shade and north side of the tree.
The latter seems evergreens and the opposite of the above."

Good observations; species is the main determinant of response imo. Studying anatomy of each type can inform pruning decisions.

"Maintaining and selling deadwoood as a feature is so easy."

Standing snags yes. Retaining rotting stubs on live trees; only in extraordinary cases does habitat trump tree health ime, and I would want the owner's stated agreement with habitat as objective in writing.
 
Clarification on the stubs and fracturing in this case.

1. Dead wood only, no fracturing or stubbing of live limbs
2. Dead wood stubs are kept to a minimum size so they will be held in place or position so as to rot to completion in the tree with out danger to anyone.
3. No initiation of decay, decay is present already or will occur at point of codit or at point of attachment with hazard potential mitigated to nil.

Leaving deadwood in trees is alot like leaving dead trees in the forest, when it makes sense and is safe it should be incorporated at every opportunity.

Please excuse me for miscommunicating the hazard prune as including live tissue, it was meant only for deadwood for this the first stage in their plan(not mine).

Thanks Guy for the advice on objectives and agreements.
CYA
 
All good up there my man! Didn't want anyone getting carried away as some in the UK.
shocked.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Deadwood/wood will draw water and plant chemicals as liquid or vapour and molecular. Deadwood is in essence a wick. Removing the wick may or may not be beneficial.

Complexities abound with mother nature.

Apply quantum physics to this and many new questions and answers there will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, nature, in her ascending and interwoven complexities, is a continuous marvel. But I don't think quantum mechanics slide easily into the topic here. Quantum physics has its own separate rules under newtonian physics--good luck in us assimilating that quickly.

A wick is more generally a transport mechanism. Deadwood isn't physically as much moving liquids as it is old "storage." A living woody cylinder draws liquids; a deadwood cylinder is a moist appendage.

The topic thus returns as, "Is it beneficial to remove a moist appendage?"



Bob Wulkowicz
jiggy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
A wick is more generally a transport mechanism. Deadwood isn't physically as much moving liquids as it is old "storage." A living woody cylinder draws liquids; a deadwood cylinder is a moist appendage.

The topic thus returns as, "Is it beneficial to remove a moist appendage?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Rope's description of a wick analogy fits the case of transporting/draining liquids containing stored resources moving downward toward the core of the tree. So the answer to your topic is, It depends: on how moist it is, whether enough of those resources have moved, the movement of disease and what type, etc.

All this agrees with Shigo's more general description of a branch and its bank balance--if it overdraws, it falls! As usual, if we follow trees' tendencies, we can get it right.
cool.gif
 
I believe when there is an extreme water deficit the deadwood will contribute negatively.
Plant chemicals may also be effected when deficits are extreme. We can see resin, stains, fungi and elements move through wood- dead or alive.

What part of the tree dries first or is the driest when there is a drought? I ask drought because H2O is the 1st depleting macro nutrient. Ok well Except in a compacted soil Co2 would be and that is less likely to occur than a drought. MB

Old wood or heart/core wood dries out 1st and is my observation of standing girdled trees.

H2o moves from the inside out. This means the outside would be the last to to lose water unless the drying occurs faster than the water is able to move through the column of wood.

Just thinkin out loud, excuse my lack of cohesive thought.

I gotta go the basement and tinker for awhile and finish my wine before I blow a gasket.
 
I believe when there is an extreme water deficit the deadwood will contribute negatively. Plant chemicals may also be effected when deficits are extreme. We can see resin, stains, fungi and elements move through wood- dead or alive.

I always enjoy your exuberance; although I sometimes have to run out of the way with a soup pot on my head.
smile.gif
We need to guard against blurring words--of facts, processes, and conditions. I believe that everything is linked to itself, but chunks of dogma in this business are often uncoordinated and unchallenged; they're what we inherited.


What part of the tree dries first or is the driest when there is a drought? I ask drought because H2O is the 1st depleting macro nutrient. Ok well Except in a compacted soil Co2 would be and that is less likely to occur than a drought. MB

I know you are asking about the wood of the tree, although leaves are probably the first visible victims of drought. You force me to suggest words of macro-water and micro-water to distinguish vessel use and "porous" occupancy.


Old wood or heart/core wood dries out 1st and is my observation of standing girdled trees.

I think it would be rather late in drying and don't understand how it would be different in a "girdled tree."


H2o moves from the inside out. This means the outside would be the last to to lose water unless the drying occurs faster than the water is able to move through the column of wood.

Again, we have to keep it in context. Xylem is indeed "inside;" immediately alongside is an outward porous zone wrapped with an impervious "skin." We call this "sapwood" and perhaps distinguish that from heartwood, but most of that info comes from observing "lumber."

Can water move through a column of wood without leaves?


Just thinkin out loud, excuse my lack of cohesive thought.

Thinking out loud is very useful; those echoes are useful as well...


Bob Wulkowicz
 
[ QUOTE ]
Rope's description of a wick analogy fits the case of transporting/draining liquids containing stored resources moving downward toward the core of the tree. So the answer to your topic is, It depends: on how moist it is, whether enough of those resources have moved, the movement of disease and what type, etc.

All this agrees with Shigo's more general description of a branch and its bank balance--if it overdraws, it falls! As usual, if we follow trees' tendencies, we can get it right.
cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. When we repeat statements often, and make shifts in definitions and contexts, we create vocabularies that appear valid because they are familiar, but are misleading. ...transporting/draining liquids containing stored resources moving downward toward the core of the tree. seems plausible on first presentation, but is a mixture of apples and oranges.

Many of Alex's general descriptions were analogies--to make his audiences and readers more comfortably digest technical biological facts. It's not necessary to keep everything exactly point by point; the approximation can be sufficient to explain a new idea. We all use figures of speech--and there are hundreds of them--to help us argue and explain stuff.

However, when figures of speech become stand-alone, we can get, and stay, misinformed. A bank balance is not a tree. Yes, it has deposits and withdrawals, and it has the simplicity and convenience of ATMs, but living things are the essence of many complexities,

Starch, for example, can be called a deposit; stored as money in the bank. But withdrawing that deposit may not be so simple and convenient. Thinking it is, stays faithful to the assumption, but fails the facts.

What exactly in a tree, is overdrawn--and what is balance failure?
cool.gif



Bob Wulkowicz
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rope's description of a wick analogy fits the case of transporting/draining liquids containing stored resources moving downward toward the core of the tree. So the answer to your topic is, It depends: on how moist it is, whether enough of those resources have moved, the movement of disease and what type, etc.

All this agrees with Shigo's more general description of a branch and its bank balance--if it overdraws, it falls! As usual, if we follow trees' tendencies, we can get it right.
cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. When we repeat statements often, and make shifts in definitions and contexts, we create vocabularies that appear valid because they are familiar, but are misleading. ...transporting/draining liquids containing stored resources moving downward toward the core of the tree. seems plausible on first presentation, but is a mixture of apples and oranges.

Many of Alex's general descriptions were analogies--to make his audiences and readers more comfortably digest technical biological facts. It's not necessary to keep everything exactly point by point; the approximation can be sufficient to explain a new idea. We all use figures of speech--and there are hundreds of them--to help us argue and explain stuff.

However, when figures of speech become stand-alone, we can get, and stay, misinformed. A bank balance is not a tree. Yes, it has deposits and withdrawals, and it has the simplicity and convenience of ATMs, but living things are the essence of many complexities,

Starch, for example, can be called a deposit; stored as money in the bank. But withdrawing that deposit may not be so simple and convenient. Thinking it is, stays faithful to the assumption, but fails the facts.

What exactly in a tree, is overdrawn--and what is balance failure?
cool.gif



Bob Wulkowicz

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some profound (and far reaching) wisdom in this post and it goes in my Laudable Quote folder. Great thread ... great stuff Bob!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but the charge is $35.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you charge for estimates, and give frequent-flyer miles?
cool.gif


bob

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a continuation of the bank analogy. Overdraft fee.
 
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