Dynamic crown support system on old beech

All great discussion!

Trees don't heal, they seal. Or so I have been told.

If a branch union is one with included bark, the problem isn't going to go away. Maybe the tree puts on a bit of extra wood to help the situation out, but it isn't fixed, just supported better. Cutting out all co-doms in a tree is a bit ridiculoua in a mature tree. What to do?

I usually advise of the nature of the problem ad nauseum to the client. There has to be a plan to "correct" the structure, stabilize as needed and to eventually remove the installed hardware and let the tree do what it does. If I install support for a bad union in a large old tree, I would recommend re-planting. Everything has a lifespan. Cable or not, extreme weather will take it out eventually and it takes a long time to make a new mature tree.

Some things I wish to know about some of the systems that we install (based on things I have seen):

1. Do trees use motion to help cope with wind force? Gut tells me yes. Recently supported by Kevin James.
2. Does a bolt, steel cable or rigid support allow movement? Gut says no. Experience indicates to me that there is a fulcrum created by a rigid brace. Seen quite a few cables break the stem a few feet below the cable. I have seen reaction wood form below cables - what up with that?
3. How long after drilled install does the 7t holding power hold up? Need the study here. I have seen a range of decay around old installs and gut says that the decayed areas of the drill hole do not support as well. Perhaps well enough because the cable is rated far lower than 7t. Seen lots of broken cables, fewer pulled anchors.
4. How much cambium damage is done by a wrap around system? I have to assume some. Another study needed here.
5. Anybody install a cable in a non-included bark situation? I think MOST are installed for this type of structural issue.
6. Anybody seen a co-dominant lead just disappear other than by a storms natural pruning? I haven't.
7. Will cables be relied on by the tree? Gut says yes. If you put a cast on your leg, what happens to the muscles when it comes off? You have atrophied. I don't think trees atrophy, but I think they may not continue building wood for support if it isn't necessary? Had a major incident once because of this...
8. Any study that significantly points to either thinning OR reduction reducing the stress on the co-dom? This is a tactic that we take all the time. I haven't seen the science to back it up, but I haven't read everything...

I like the snake oil reference. I tend to agree. I think we have a need to KNOW about the modifications that we make. Otherwise, you can just call us leeches...

Fire? Really? I would think there would be lots more issues bigger than a cable failure. I don't think of it because I live in an area where wild fires aren't really common at all.

Please do not use your advice to sell stuff for the sake of a sale. It's annoying.
 
Nice post, Tim. I agree with much that has been stated here, and I like the "seal, not heal" quote, which I use quite often with clients.

One significant factor I'm noticing here is the location of the tree and the regulations and culture in that environment. Things surely are quite different over the pond, but the issues that trees and clients experience are much the same.

As for the tree in discussion, one thing I feel is worth clarifying is the type of codominant branch unions under the scope. A large, acute angle, included bark union (ex. 1) is much different than a younger, open angled union of equal diameter limbs (ex. 2). For the most part, this is where the discussion of static vs. dynamic should be focused. It seems that Peter-D wants to install a dynamic system well up in the crown, but what of the lower included bark unions? I've seen both ex. 1 and 2 fail, but FAR more ex. 1.

A complex dynamic system sounds like an awful amount to monitor. If the system is loose enough for the crown to build up appropriate wood, would it still be effective to arrest a failure? Should the system be described as semi-static? How can one determine the razor thin line between support and detriment?

Dealing in absolutes is for the Sith, but I can't get past the thought of using the dynamic system, offering as much movement as possible, and ONLY until corrective pruning is complete.
 
Really Guy, passion vs reason? Are you saying that Europeans (as well as a great many Americans) use dynamic out of "passion " while steel is the system of reason? This is how i read your response.

I've had the pleasure of riding out a few wind storms within view of both systems and i can assure you that only one option is bearable to witness. How the other can be so easily chosen first and foremost by some is beyond me.

And in implying that you beleive 80% of "cable installations" are appropriatly installed and serving their host well, are you referring merely to your own installations, or those of the general populas? If the general populas then we need a little more Chapel Hill here in G'boro, and other city's where I've viewed cabling (including synthetics).

No argument here about the minor wounding affect of steel anchorage (in most trees anyway) but the idea of "hobbling with chains" (figure of speech) a clearly dynamic biological mass exposed to sometimes violent environmental pressures seems an odd and antiquated cure as one's primary or only choice... IMO.

Like you i see the ISA as supportive (pun intended) of dynamic cabling solutions as well as new(er) trends and techniques when they make some level of sense.

Hope this didn't read negatively, it wasn't intended as such.

Peace
 
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/n...pts-evacuations

Large Basswood South of the this house on neighbouring property. Installed 4-5 Cobras in 2010. Rem & Rep June 2011.

Steel or Synthetic would have been compromised. 1 leader was roasted medium well but sprouted late in the year.

"Synthetic weaker" ?!?
crazy.gif


Cobra ratings are for 10 year old cable.

Norm Hall posted a chart on here in '04-'05 that showed test results of J lags pulling out of Red Oak at less than 6k lbs. Some have said high percentage of cables are un-necessarily installed, i would add that inappropriate installation and use of J lags would further exacerbate the ineffectiveness of the systems floating about out there.

I'm not a dogmatic fundamentalist for either system, i prescribe what i deem appropriate and could stand on a bench to defend.
cool.gif
 
Really Guy, passion vs reason? Are you saying that Europeans (as well as a great many Americans) use dynamic out of "passion " while steel is the system of reason? This is how i read your response. "

Ah no the passion I referred to was the steel-or-nothing sentiment from California, and the "hobbling with chains" hyperbole of dynamic fans, etc. Andi and his "karate chop" descriptions may be accurate to a point, but the probability seems way exaggerated to me.

"I've had the pleasure of riding out a few wind storms within view of both systems and i can assure you that only one option is bearable to witness. How the other can be so easily chosen first and foremost by some is beyond me."

to me it's dead simple--if movement *in the fork* will make the tree stronger => dynamic. If movement in the fork will make things worse, static. It is that simple--I think!

"And in implying that you beleive 80% of "cable installations" are appropriatly installed and serving their host well"

Ah you are overstating what i said, but ok.

", are you referring merely to your own installations, or those of the general populas? If the general populas then we need a little more Chapel Hill here in G'boro, and other city's where I've viewed cabling (including synthetics).

I meant systems in general--few perfect, but the majority still somewhat effective. I've seen many failures, and litigated over a few, but generally ours may be a glass half-full/empty type of difference in observations.

"No argument here about the minor wounding affect of steel anchorage (in most trees anyway) but the idea of "hobbling with chains" (figure of speech) a clearly dynamic biological mass exposed to sometimes violent environmental pressures seems an odd and antiquated cure as one's primary or only choice... IMO.

If people look further into thigmomorphogenesis, they'll see there are many stimuli that trees respond to by adding tissue. They are not that hobbled by steel, if the system is designed and installed right, and gets checked at least a couple times a decade. We do have to be cautious choreographers when we teach new dance steps to trees, but done right, they learn fast, and adapt.
grin.gif
 
So I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, a static system would be best in a double leader tree with included bark and a dynamic system would be best in a double leader tree with a tight crotch but no included bark? From all the arguing I've had a hard time following where each system would be best.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, a static system would be best in a double leader tree with included bark and a dynamic system would be best in a double leader tree with a tight crotch but no included bark? From all the arguing I've had a hard time following where each system would be best.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not easy, but I think you're close. Can extra movement ever help strengthen a fork with included bark? Possibly/probably--there are a lot of variables, but I think this would be an exception, the minority of cases.

"If a branch union is one with included bark, the problem isn't going to go away. Maybe the tree puts on a bit of extra wood to help the situation out, but it isn't fixed, just supported better."

The inclusion can be fixed by chiseling out the included bark so new growth forms a branch bark ridge, but this only applies to small trees that can close the wound before decaying. Otherwise, the structural problem (not the inclusion of course) CAN go away, by subordination to reduce load--turning leaders into branches, in effect. Or it can go away by cabling.

"Cutting out all co-doms in a tree is a bit ridiculoua in a mature tree. What to do?"

First, understand that trees have stood with codoms for eons, without our help. In reacting to them in general, the "defect" should not be exaggerated.

"I usually advise of the nature of the problem ad nauseum to the client. There has to be a plan to "correct" the structure, stabilize as needed and to eventually remove the installed hardware and let the tree do what it does."

So you are saying that every system must eventually be removed??? Where in the world does THAT idea come from? Read ANSI A300 Part 3: 33.6.3.4 If decisions are made without considering the science and experience in the A300, they can lead to undefendable conclusions.

"If I install support for a bad union in a large old tree, I would recommend re-planting."

This does not show much confidence in your work!

"Everything has a lifespan."

Anti-scientific horsespit. Guesswork at the very best.

"Cable or not, extreme weather will take it out eventually and it takes a long time to make a new mature tree."

Here's the raunchiest snake oil ever: "Supplemental support (which I do not understand completely) will not work in extreme weather, and preservation work is futile because trees die when they get old--nothing we can do about it. Let us do you the favor of killing your large valuable tree, special today only $X,XXX.XX ,so you can plant a nice sapling."

Please read and understand ANSI and the BMPs. Then it will be clear that there are usually several ways to reasonably mitigate risk of failure. Knowledge of standards can save a lot of time on speculation, and provide your customers with more valuable (and in time more profitable) services.
 
Many years ago I was subcontracted to remove a dead euc over a little old lady's house in La Cresta in San Diego county. While in the top of the removal, I had a magnificent view of her large property and it's many trees. One of these trees was a large Citriodora euc with a huge spread of low laterals very close to the ground. Looking closer, I was somehat startled to see what looked like a series of bowling balls hanging from springs that were attached to each lateral, about 3-4 balls on each, a total of about 16-18 balls in the lower laterals of the tree. Curiosity got the best of me, so during lunch I walked up the hillside to inspect this unusual getup in her lemon euc's lower laterals. And sure enough, bowling balls attached to trampoline springs with J lags, attached to the lower laterals with cinched nylon loops.

I sat down beneath this most unusual tree and ate my lunch while watching the balls dance in the tree as the afternoon prevailing wind began to pick up. This dance was both beautiful and mesmerizing, and I began to wonder if this little old lady was actually trying to strengthen her prize tree's lower laterals with weights, springs and wind dynamics?

Once the job was done that day I politely asked her about her unusual arrangement in her beautiful Citriodora and it's purpose? She smiled and told me that trees and people have far more in common than most people realise, and that her arrangement was essentially an exercise regime to strengthen her prize tree's lower laterals during spring and summer months, and that she had her son detach the balls each autumn before the rains began. I praised her insights on both trees and people before leaving her that summer day, thinking to myself(and not for the first time) that men have very little over women and their wisdom.

The morals of this story are that both people and trees can only grow physically stronger through exercise. That the old term use it or lose it, applies to plants and people. That even frail little old ladies can have far more knowledge of trees than some of the certified arborists pushing snake oil on their clients these days.

The idea that lessening a load on a branch or arm can ever make it stronger, flies in the face of long established common sense. That's why Al Shigo and Bob Felix both agreed that cabling should only be used to help support structural defects in a tree, period. That every installed cable shall be taught, period.

jomoco
 
Wow I am blown away by that story, these things I find very interesting as I don't know anything about cabling whatsoever, or very little and have never done a cabling job ( never even seen on done on this island ). Nice of you to share that story Jomoco.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The inclusion can be fixed by chiseling out the included bark so new growth forms a branch bark ridge, but this only applies to small trees that can close the wound before decaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guy, do have this data? I was told some of this work was done in Germany and published several years back. Can not seem to locate.

ed
 
J,

Great story. Have you followed up by going back to the bowling ball tree after storms in the area? Finding out if this tree survived where others like it failed would validate what is being attempted.

I'm sure that the tree is building up more reaction wood. Reaction wood does make the tree stronger.

The pruning part of pruneandcable changes the dynamics of the tree. Pruning does NOT strengthen the limbs. What it does is reduce the load on a given portion of the canopy. This is important to understand.

Have you ever ridden in a car without shock absorbers? There is no dampening in the movement of the suspension. The load is dissipated by the car's springs moving in full range. Every once in a while you're going to bottom out. When that happens damage to the car or occupants can occur. Dynamic cables don't add strength. They act as decelerators so that the limbs don't move so far that they split. This is really easy to demonstrate using 2" diameter limbs. Take one with textbook perfect unions and try to break the 'Y' then do the same with included bark. use something to make a mini cabling system and repeat. Has there been any added 'strength'. Nope...but it would take a larger load to cause failure. This has always been my goal for cabling.

I never heard Alex say that 'cabling should only be used to help support structural defects.' I do remember hearing him talk a lot about crown reduction work to change the loads on unions that cannot support over-reaching growth. Included with those discussions was the use of cabling when needed. We must not have gone to the same presentations. I never hear Bob speak about tree care, he was in the role of running NAA at the time.

Since cabling and bracing are accepted practices for arborists I wonder if there has ever been a successful lawsuit brought against an arbo who chose NOT to cable. Run this scenario out...

Chose not to cable
Tree fails
Client is able to prove that by not following industry accepted practice the tree failed. [In many circumstances I think this would be really easy to prove. Proven enough for a jury/judge/small claims referee to be convinced too.]
The arbo who chose not to cable is found to be negligent
Insurance pays out the claim

After MANY storms I've seen cabling jobs, even really bad ones, that helped trees survive. When, right nearby a tree that is similar is destroyed. I sure wish that I had a lifetime of comparison pictures to 'prove' what I'm saying.

One of the purposes of dynamic cabling is meant to reduce the load on weak tree structures. They're not meant to 'strengthen'. In time the tree may grow more reaction wood and truly become stronger.

I do have two movies to show how two similar trees move during a wind. My neighbor across the alley had a silver maple that was pretty close to what mine looked like. One afternoon a thunderstorm was moving in and the winds ahead of it were pretty strong. I filmed his tree which was whipping and dancing. Very extreme herky jerky moves. Then, I took film of my tree. The movement is swaying and dancing with a nice rhythm. My tree had been pruned and the first Cobra cabling system in Minnesota held the three main leaders from moving too much in the wind. I've shown the two vids to non-tree people and asked what they thought. Everyone who has watched said that my tree looked more 'right'. And...I did not tell them what they were looking at or which tree was mine. Just like a blind taste test. That proved a lot to me.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The inclusion can be fixed by chiseling out the included bark so new growth forms a branch bark ridge, but this only applies to small trees that can close the wound before decaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob Wulkowicz has been promoting this technique for years. It makes a lot of sense...to me anyway.

If there has been research I would sure like to read it.
 
Here's the link to Bob and Al Tom. Circa 1980.

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=1622&Type=2

Regarding the wise little old lady's Citriodora tree. I seriously doubt she's still alive, or her beautiful trees for that matter, as the 03 Cedar fire swept through that area burning everything in it's path, including my garage miles away in Blossom valley!

Fire may not be a serrious threat to trees in Europe, but I can assure that it wiped out tens of thousands of beautiful and ugly trees here in SoCal in 03 and 07.

jomoco
 
Thanks for the article.

I searched for each word in this list:

only
support
structural
defect

That's why Al Shigo and Bob Felix both agreed that cabling should only be used to help support structural defects in a tree, period.

Would you find where Al and Bob say that in the article? I can't find it.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Would you find where Al and Bob say that in the article? I can't find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm beginning to think I imagined Bob And Al saying that!

But I know for a fact that they did, it's just a matter of digging the article up!

Thought I had it here.

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=1472&Type=2

But not quite the exact article I know I read!

I'll post it in this thread when I find it. However both their articles that I've provided links for are well worth reading in my opinion guys.

jomoco
 
Wow again this thread is getting really interesting. I find that I actually know very little about trees when I read stuff like this. Now this is learning for me, cutting I am proficient ( because I saturated myself with rigging and tree work ) but this stuff blows my mind. Keep it coming class is in session. Guess I now have to invest in some Shigo literature. Feeling one dimensional right now. Time to grow some more.
 
Very cool story about the balls on springs. Hanging bird feeders, wind chimes etc. can bring extra benefits to the loading.

No, I have no before and after pics of chiseled inclusions. Check back in a year or two! But honestly, considering the alternatives, and the logic of it (thanks bob), do we need someone else's data for us to experiment with it? Some research we need to do for ourselves imo.

Nice blasts from the past w the articles--things stay the same (manage the effects of wounding, help preserve trees by using supplemental support), and things change--(filling cavities adds to support).

swing dude you are not alone in overlooking these basic preservation services--the realest of all tree work imo-- while focusing on industrial athleticism and the physics of rigging and removals. That's there way the whole industry is skewed.
Nice to have balance.
blob.gif
 
I have some. Bob Wulkowicz and I had many long conversations over the phone and internet last Spring about this very subject. I used several specie of different age trees. My objective was to attempt to learn how or even if I could 'weld callus material' over an inclusion. A purley anectdotal and unscientific experiment. Ok, lets see if I can figure out how to embed a picture here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom