Epicormic growth on trunks

Robert, you mentioned the potential for future failure of poorly attached epicormic branches. When looking at similar aged epicormic branches, tell me the criteria you use to judge the strength of the attachments. In other words, how do you distinguish the poorly attached epicormics from the not-so-poorly attached epicormics?
 
Quote:

An overextended tree growing into a clearing and likely to fall doesn't have a problem; we have a problem.

In one of the few black-and-white explanations for things, trees are either volunteers or purposely put in place by us. How the tree got there isn't really an issue as much as whether or not we're going to let it stay. It's our problem, and not any fault of the tree, or in the tree.




If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that it is EITHER the tree growing in the clearing has a problem OR we have a problem with the tree growing in the clearing.


I didn’t say that at all. I said, trees at locations that were determined by the general processes of seed dispersal, and in that sense carried to their place by fate, are what we call volunteers. This is not a label I invented, it seems to have been used back into the 19th century. Creating a true dichotomy would be to distinguish these volunteers from the trees that are planted in a location by us, by our conscious decisions and interventions. In a way I guess we could call them conscripts, but I won’t do that and will simply call them non-volunteers.

Looking at non-volunteers, there are issues of responsibility created when we plant trees; these are well-founded in practical issues and laws involving ownership and liabilities. I can harvest the apples from a tree on my property, and I’m responsible when that tree falls on the car. If we shift the locations to public property, we also shift the ownership and the liabilities to the public owner.

Volunteer trees, almost by definition, sprout up on both public and private property and their future is tied to being left alone to grow to a significant size. Municipal arborists don’t generally care for them, and they are often times left relatively unprotected by the public because the trees are not considered part of a conscious design.

Guy’s hypothetical doesn’t state if his tree is a volunteer or a non-volunteer; I think he’s saying it is a probable hazardous tree determined by its targets, angle of lean, and other variables. I don’t think he was talking about providing tree care for that tree. (He can correct me if I’m wrong.)


And you're inclined to say that it is not the tree's problem at the end of the day - it's our problem, depending on how much or how little we care about that particular tree in that particular clearing.

I respectfully accuse you, sir, of a false dichotomy. We share this earth with trees. The trees share this earth with us. A tree's problem is our problem. Our problems are the trees' problems. We have the sentience to reason/rationalize/care and trees do not, but our coexistence on this planet necessitates a proper relationship between us, which in my opinion is shared problems.


If I am right about Guy’s context, you are creating a flawed relevance. Guy is responding to a previous post saying, “trees seem to have no problem coexisting with us, it's the people who have a problem coexisting with the trees.” Guy is not talking about shared-problems with a tree; he is only talking about that tree as a threat. It may be extraordinarily healthy, it may be exceptionally well-anchored, and it may have no included bark at all.

A position at the edge of a clearing, its angle and height are not problems in the tree. They are our problems. That tree’s future will likely be not be determined by its health, but by the most shrill complaint that the tree will fall on some innocent’s head.



To the topic at hand, epicormic growth may be in the best interest of a particular tree (starch production, etc. mentioned above), but may not be in the best interest of the people who live locally around that tree (aesthetics, potential future failure of a poorly attached epicormic branch).


Our discussions on epicormic growth are different orders of magnitude from the tree that Guy introduced. It will be a big beast falling unexpectedly to the ground. Our epicormics are localized reactions and local people may have cosmetic opinions. They have little significance placed alongside Guy’s threat.


Some sort of compromise is necessary. Shared problem. Arborists should be there not to correctly apply the dogma of the day, but to mitigate the problem and work out the compromise.


Compromise is often artificial. Dogma becomes hollow as we learn more. Neither are necessarily useful if you want an appropriate correction. Arborists shouldn’t be lemmings. Then again, they shouldn’t be badgers either.


(Just taking someone's advice not to keep my mouth shut.)

--------------------
Robert Heiskell

You’re doin fine…


Bob Wulkowicz
jiggy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Robert, you mentioned the potential for future failure of poorly attached epicormic branches. When looking at similar aged epicormic branches, tell me the criteria you use to judge the strength of the attachments. In other words, how do you distinguish the poorly attached epicormics from the not-so-poorly attached epicormics?


First, let me thank you for some challenging questions that could give you practical clues to the quality of various epicormic attachments. Next, let me say that I will delay my answers until we set up some background information for our discussion.

I went and googled the phrase, “strength of latent bud attachments” and was delighted to find a treasure trove of the 1980-90 publications and pronouncements that I was so pissy about in trying to learn about trees. There is one publication from Cornell dated 2006, but it is really a compiled document of the 1980s that contained a rather complete list of the dogma that irritated me.

I will be very pleased to use them in various references for my mutterings about how long it takes for stupidities to die. In culling through them, I only found instructions and cautions about the relative weakness of epicormal growth; there were no illustrations, photos, or drawings that showed me any differences between advantageous and spontaneous sprouting. I also tried searching through Google images and couldn’t find anything that would fit our discussion.

So I’d like to ask the readers to do a little shared searching for the actual examples of various attachments that we could use in this thread or e-mailing back and forth. Some 25 years ago, I was given 2 sections of a 3” limb fork that was accidentally dropped, which popped the joint open quite cleanly so one could see the steps of growth that were likely the result of each growing season. Regrettably, it’s in a shipping container in Nova Scotia at my writing camp and perfectly safe from me dragging it into the light of the day.

I think there may be some examples in the US Forestry Services archives and they could prove very helpful in this adventure.

Admitting that my reviews of the materials were simple and short, I thought I detected the smell of repetitious dogma, i. e., saying the same things again and again until everybody believe they must be true. If that’s the case, this thread will likely turn out quite different from what you expected.

Thinking aloud, neither advantageous or spontaneous buds can have any strength until they form the three-dimensional structure of a branch union. Since it shares essentially the same growing conditions of the larger tree, it’s increasing girth ought to reflect the growth of the rest of the branches, unless the increased numbers and areas of its leaves can give it extra sugars for building cells.

Perhaps we’re unfairly criticizing epicormic growth by comparing it to branches that have had many years to grow and to develop those internal alternating laminations that Shigo showed us in what made up a branch union. It may be an unavoidable truism that in trees, strength comes from age. And in a reasonable reciprocal; younger is weaker. If those are plausible, then the ability to tell weak from strong attachments will be very difficult without first having comparatives and examples to help us discover outside clues as to what’s gone on inside.

I know these are the same questions you asked me, but I don’t really have any photos or videos of actual problem locations. I’m also now fairly suspicious about whether or not they really exist in support of those pronouncements. Without photos and such, I’m left the world of intuition and conjecture, which isn’t usually such a bad place to be and I’m fairly comfortable with being considered ignorant.

Do you, or the readers have any examples, stories, or photos of branch connections that failed from an “epicormic weakness”? Were there big branches that fell and were somehow different in how they separated from the tree?

In the papers and pamphlets I rummaged through, I was getting suspicious about uncovering yet another “water sprouts sap the vigor of the tree” which had no justification from what we understand today about the physiology of a tree.

Are there really dangers to arborists or others from weak attachments, and what might be the details? Did this justification come in after an established belief that epicormal growth was unsightly and unwanted? Does this emperor have no clothes?

Me go sleep now; it’s four in the morning. Gack



Bob Wulkowicz
 
[ QUOTE ]
Robert, you mentioned the potential for future failure of poorly attached epicormic branches. When looking at similar aged epicormic branches, tell me the criteria you use to judge the strength of the attachments. In other words, how do you distinguish the poorly attached epicormics from the not-so-poorly attached epicormics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Glenn, good question. I don't know. My (ignorant) statement grows from my limited knowledge/experience in this field, and the general rule of thumb that I've heard from lots of people that "epicormic branches are poorly attached". So, how do I distinguish between good/bad attachments of epicormic branches? Put that on my list of things I need to learn/understand.
 
The alleged 'weak attachment' mentioned over and over without saying what that really means. Since epis start out on the surface of larger limbs it takes years of branch collar development to make for a proper branch attachment. Until then, the attachment is 'stuck' on the tree like a Post-It note. In time the layers of growth will change it to a true branch connection which will be stronger.

Like others have said, thinning out some of the epi clusters seems to speed up the branch collar formation in the remaining epis.

This tree lost about 65% of its crown. We think that it might have Oak Wilt and possibly effected by wet soil conditions. As the tree started to decline last May I noticed that a lot of epis formed on the large trunk wood. The epis have a season of growth and they look good. When I took out the deadwood I stubbed off the remaining limbs a ways out fr0m any epis. My hope is that the tree is done declining. If not, the work I just did is the first step in a staged amputation. right now, I'm enjoying my role as a surgeon. If I have to be a mortician, so be it.

This tree reminds me of the Black Knight in the Monty Python movie 'The Holy Grail'....'Just a flesh wound!'

Keep it up Bob! It's always good to hear what you're thinking.
 

Attachments

  • 257920-CR-Fromnorth.webp
    257920-CR-Fromnorth.webp
    47.7 KB · Views: 50
Robert, I really enjoy your posts. Don't worry about the word traps. Just take them for what they are.

Adding to Tom's comment on the size difference of epicormics compared to trunk, another factor is exaggerated growth typically seen in these situations. The loss of apical control of a branch, whether it be from storm damage or bad pruning, triggers not only the production and release of buds but the rush to produce as much leaf surface in as short of time as possible.

It is this exaggerated elongation that I feel is most responsible for the weak attachment statements. As Bob W. said the branch will grow and develop strength in time. However, exaggerated growth puts additional stress on that fresh union. This is by design as the tree will not need all those branch attachments once it stabilizes from the created damage.

Dave
 
[ QUOTE ]
... how do you distinguish the poorly attached epicormics from the not-so-poorly attached epicormics?

[/ QUOTE ]Better attachments have buttresses formed, and no inclusions with adjacent sprouts, for starters. Endocormic growth from a dormant bud is attached to the core by a pith trail and compacted xylem, so it is literally not epi- but endocormic, or -al, if you prefer.
smile.gif
 

Attachments

The leaning tree with a bad attachment is a problem for *both* the tree and thee, especially if thou beest under it. robert h has it right re people and trees--not separable. Working arborists understand this, and so do many others.
wink.gif
 

Attachments

[ QUOTE ]

bob w, maybe if you showed us just one of the trees you've pruned, or at least some of the trees that you say "we" arborists have mispruned, the context for your poor opinion of the state of tree care today will clarify your Hobbesian rant. You talk a good talk generally, though you look through your glass more darkly than i find useful...so let's see the walk.
cool.gif



Since you've been away for a while I will attach some drivel on pruning, familiar to most here. fwiw; if any seems like dogma please enlighten me.
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]



I will try to depersonalize this post and crosspost it to another title soon. I have, however, left these following paragraphs in place because they are my longheld philosophical and ethical statemnts:


I have an obligation to the people starting out in this craft to say what I think directly and clearly. I faced the same frustrations, as well as the same eagernesses to learn. They are my self-chosen responsibilities and enjoyments in stretching minds and jousting windmills. That's my business, not yours.

Spare me any further cheap shots from Illogic 101. Dogma stinks when it inhibits learning. Honest examination and critical thinking help us touch the trees.


Alex Shigo never suggested touching trees with chainsaws was the only way to understand them. That your first distortion. He specifically dissected many to be able to explain in English, to an interested audience, what he thought were new and different perspectives he had uncovered.

How many trees you or I have pruned is irrelevant in this thread about epicormic growth. The opening thread here asked,

Is it good/bad/indifferent to remove these epicormic shoots? If so, what are the reasons?.


I attempted to answer his requests, critically and honestly. You stuck in your distractions, implying that I should be disregarded by this arborist audience based on how many trees I've pruned. (BobW's not one of us.)
.
Well, I am one of youse. In the time of the download posted here, I was an honestly qualified certified arborist, IL521, stepping forward to save acres of volunteer trees from clear-cutting. I allowed additional forces to gather and defeat the stupidity, and I was "laid-off" a month or so after the victory.

(I didn't upload my full resume because it's not useful to this discussion and will only further polarize some players.)

But, here is an Chicago Park District excerpt from that resume suggesting I might indeed be qualified to talk about trees:

In the area of Urban Forestry, my tree-saving programs in Chicago received the Gold Leaf Award in 1988 from the International Society of Arboriculture. During my District tenure, contributed a number of improvements and new concepts for trees, urban landscapes, open space issues, conservation, and pollution control issues along with the continuation of various public safety and urban park inventions and designs carried to patent applications in four separate fields.

Initiated the first comprehensive studies of soils in the Chicago area and parks with the Soil Conservation Service. Certified Arborist (IL-521) in 1991.

My demonstration projects of water conservation are now established to support and enhance park landscapes, replace or reduce conventional irrigation, and lower neighborhood storm water loads. Acted as CPD initiating project manager on the median beautification for Lake Shore Drive. Also received two Friends of the Parks Annual Awards for saving park land (1986) and trees (1994).


I didn't start this thread. I didn't use the word "sentience" or post the upload. (Perhaps that writer's thought might have been irony.)

I'm not sure what a word trap is, but I'm pretty sure my writing discipline doesn't let me indulge in them.

I am agressive. I'm not Injun Joe scratching at the door of the cave.


Now, I'll get back to Blinky's valid complaint that a very useful thread got derailed...


Bob Wulkowicz
smile.gif



http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/cru...tent?oid=884225
 
Gosh did I say something wrong? Sorreee! OK then you don't prune trees; 'nuff said.

Looking at an eclipse through the clouds darkly,
mad.gif
kind of like looking at arboriculture from the one dimension of negative criticism. Critical thinking in the true sense also involves positive assessment; worth a try sometime if you ever get bored channeling Andy Rooney.

[ QUOTE ]
Honest examination and critical thinking help us touch the trees.

[/ QUOTE ]Illogical me--I thought that actually touching trees was honestly examining them!

Without direct experience, or at least referents, we're like blind men pawing separate parts of the pachyderm, and spinning tales of very different observations. Honest examinations without adequate information don't lead to much; the best-made speculations of mice and men and elephants are often turned asunder.

I could stay up and watch NASA's image of the moon, but it's not the real thing so screw it. Bleak December's wind ensuin', so Fung out; back to work, or sleep. Y'all don't mind us--Tigger and Eeyore blindfolded and touching arboriculture; that's all this was.

boxing.gif
 
Somebody kill those last posts because before that, this was the most educational thread on TreeBuzz EVER!

Anything can be viewed through a glass darkly and when I look at the future... I see it darkly.

But I know a lot of arborists and most of them love trees a lot more than money. I would gladly do this job for free if if I had enough money to live quietly.
People pay me to accomplish a goal, clear a roof, remove a hazard... it's THEIR goal. If they had no such goal, I wouldn't have a job.

I don't go around CREATING goals for people, I respond with what I know and often modify or eliminate or replace goals. I do that because I view my job as that of an arbitrator. The customer and the tree have a dispute, tree is growing one way and the customer wants it to be different. Better me than someone who doesn't value the tree's life.

When a tree cutter gets the call, they go looking for MORE trees to cut on... Arborists generally go for less cutting. We do things like aerating soil, eliminating turf competition, planting conscript trees so they have a future. We try to ACTUALLY solve the problem.

Arborists are the reason to be optimistic. The only way to keep piping new learning into tree care is via arborists. Arborists help customers learn too. Urban trees are conscripts, even if they start out as volunteers. Arborists are the people who will see to it that they are valued and treated as well as can be.

The only reason to view that darkly is that arborists as professionals aren't valued, people mix us up with tow truck drivers and wackos's with death wishes. I haven't met an arborist who didn't have a passion for learning about trees and I never met one who thought they knew even a fraction of what they want to know.

Academia is where dogma lives. Us dirty, sweaty guys? We love to learn and it doesn't bust our egos or threaten our status to admit we need to learn more.

And as for the idea of grafting tissue to strengthen included bark unions... I want to learn it, where do we start?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Somebody kill those last posts because before that, this was the most educational thread on TreeBuzz EVER!

[/ QUOTE ]ok i'll clean mine out.

That was a monumental manifesto, sir. You have come a long way baby since you discovered that trees are even more fun than rocks and rivers. They are ALIVE, and our evolutionary partners!
 
Ain't that the truth, Blinky. How about satisfying, though?
Long term satisfaction from pruning a tree which will be around for my grandchildren to enjoy is pretty hard to beat, sure beats regailing folks about the monster removal...hard to show them without before pix.

[ QUOTE ]
We share this earth with trees. The trees share this earth with us. A tree's problem is our problem. Our problems are the trees' problems. We have the sentience to reason/rationalize/care and trees do not, but our coexistence on this planet necessitates a proper relationship between us, which in my opinion is shared problems.

To the topic at hand, epicormic growth may be in the best interest of a particular tree (starch production, etc. mentioned above), but may not be in the best interest of the people who live locally around that tree (aesthetics, potential future failure of a poorly attached epicormic branch). Some sort of compromise is necessary. Shared problem. Arborists should be there not to correctly apply the dogma of the day, but to mitigate the problem and work out the compromise.

(Just taking someone's advice not to keep my mouth shut.)

[/ QUOTE ]

With regards to the Oaks in the original post. From what I read, the development of the epicormic branches was due to the loss of understory and the sudden prevalence of light lower on the trunks, which most likely stimulated latent buds in the bark to grow into adventitious tissue (epicormic growth). While the removal of neighbouring trees was definitely a problem for the long term health of these trees (a negative) the response of epicormic growth would indicate a positive solution. Greater starch reserves to cope with a stressful event, IMO. If the goal of an arborist is to strike a compromise between the desires of an uneducated public and the health of the tree, then we should train these epicormics to develop into useful limbs, which will both aid in girth development and stabilize the oscillation during high wind events, and remove the ones which are not candidates for useful limbs. If the goal of the arborist is to educate clients, public with information related to the preservation of the long term health of the tree, perhaps we should consider letting the tree decide which limbs to retain. Perhaps we need to clarify the goal of the arborist.

Breakouts are only a problem if there is a target. If there is no target, there is no problem. How many trees have we all seen in our careers which have had limb failures which then continue to grow? If there is no potential for personal or property damage then why not let the failed limb grow? Some of the most colourful character trees I have had the pleasure of seeing have had the 'problems' of limb failures.

For example, near my house is a small park which surrounds a dry creekbed has several laurel willows which have had limb failures, and even one which partially uprooted which caused the trees and limbs to come to rest on the ground. The limbs of these trees adapted and continued to grow, some have even developed roots at the points where the wood has come to rest on the ground...which is unbelievable to me...trees don't have congnitive ability, eh? I would question what cognitive ability we think we have which sets us so far apart. There were zero targets. Someone came in and cut the ends off all the failed limbs and severely reduced the canopy of the overextended willow which tipped over. Why? It was completely unnecessary, no target = no problem = no reason for corrective pruning. The trees had sorted it out, or were in the process of doing so. Sometimes when we have learned to use the hammer, everything becomes a nail.

Trees are fascinating organisms, the ultimate survivors. To think that we can prescribe a one size fits all approach to the care of these organisms is downright ignorant. To think that they do not reason within the scope of their environment is ignorant as well. Like I said previously, we humans consider ourselves capable of rational thought...and where has this left humanity? Are we as a population of organisms as well rooted and well planned out as our woody neighbours? Do we have the ability to root ourselves and grow stronger when parts fail? Or do we artificially prop failed parts, and fail to reinforce the parts which actually provide the condictions necessary for humanity?

We also seem incapable of recognizing that trees do not need us...AT ALL.
 
Would someone, or several people, please give me a definition for "useful limb"? I don't think we can have this conversation until we specify what a "useful limb" is. Useful to who? The tree? The property owner? A purple finch? A possum?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Would someone, or several people, please give me a definition for "useful limb"? I don't think we can have this conversation until we specify what a "useful limb" is. Useful to who? The tree? The property owner? A purple finch? A possum?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would qualify a useful limb as one that will benefit the tree long term, and not detract from the health of the tree, as would a poorly attached or included branch that is more likely to break off later in the tree's life, exposing it to decay. In short, a 'less potentially harmful' limb.

That's one definition, anyway. The one I meant when I said useful.

-Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom