Hazard Tree evaluation

Ropesheild
I really like the opening to that. I'm sorry to say I haven't used a rope pull test more than I can Count on two hands. And I believe I should practice this more often. But if you still speculate after no noise or obvious weaknesses isn't that speculation justified if there is visible decay, especially exposed? I know decay isn't bad but if you can get into a tree trunk the decay is exposed. Is it hollow and open for a vertical length? If so and the pull test on a 40" dbh tree shows nothing I'd probably not speculate a whole lot. But I'd still reduce with one or more 4-10 inch cuts plus the medium and small cuts. Then I would ask.'is that less risky than before? Yes but did it need it? Yes it's a cottonwood that you can not only stand in but get in. But I do agree the pull test could help, especially if you see inconsistent bending. How much pressure? do you put 1500lbs at 3/4 way up with 5-1?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Like to see the tree move. Back and forth side to side or oscillate
It's like pushing your kid on a swing. You build up momentum on the return to rest or heavy side than relax. Rocka by baby. Look to try mimicking what happens naturally. Just loading a rope will not be enough to get a feel for failure potential. Tree needs to be worked like mother nature will
 
That is good experience. This is why climbers can 'feel' the tree. And only after several years did I even start to develop a feel for trees. But as a new climber progresses (and I highly suggest progressing slowly) you start to feel the way a limb bends or how the whole tree moves. You start swinging branches to see the whip. Not that I believe you are just looking to cut the whip off. Sort of but Some prescriptions demand and require more in order to succeed. With that poplar I wonder if it has otherwise typical systematic structure? Cottonwood often has impeccable structure with 45 degree limbs, good taper, good spacing and sparse.
You probably will need heavy reduction cuts that will create a distinct and well justified interruption in the growth pattern. But often an awkward species to reduce. Especially with heavy application.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"Is it hollow and open for a vertical length? If so and the pull test on a 40" dbh tree shows nothing I'd probably not speculate a whole lot. But I'd still reduce with one or more 4-10 inch cuts ..." :cachetada:

"Some prescriptions demand and require????? more in order to succeed. ...You probably (????) will need heavy reduction cuts that will create a distinct and well justified interruption in the growth pattern."

Translate please. If the tree has held up to everything so far, who are you to play Lucifer and go medieval on these trees? Your specs match trees in active failure mode over schools, maybe.
 
Yes good point I meant to say 'if there is a target.' If no target I'd go lighter but still heavier than a decay free situation. Especially considering exposed decay. But I wouldn't do nothing if a pull test shows nothing. That's the main point. And 4" might be too little on a 40" tree, no? And the second point is that the interruption in the growth pattern is a term I use instead of growth phase change. Not that these are parallel terms. Just similar. A poplar rarely has distinct elbows and deviations like willow or basswood does. Species like maples, ash, and hackberry etc are hard to reduce with a significant and likely necessary application without changing the natural look. So beauty in slenderness and flowing stems is traded off for better strength. With that poplar, a possibly heavy appropriate application might produce a temporarily ugly finish. Like taking clippers to a guys hair and just leaving the odd tuft of hair. No big worry though. It will fill in.
But yes I prefer the lighter, more natural looking application weight. I use it ten times as often as it's mostly enough or overkill already. Also remember over kill is better than not enough (in the right context). For example a poplar over a house. Let's say it is perfectly structured and decay free. I would still suggest mild reduction (two to three doses over 10 years, but not written in stone) just for the added insurance of making it closer to the strength of an oak. An oak I rarely suggest work on unless it's really old and shows potential issues. As Dan points out, especially on the reaching horizontals.
I'm not lucifer I'm civilized[emoji3]
I would also like to add that the unpruned poplars did fantastic in the ice storm in Toronto. That's the thing, it wasn't as big as the test that Quebec got in 1998. In Quebec 1998 ice I'd want an oak or a three times reduced cottonwood over my house. Of course in a big storm I'd rather no tree over my house. But to be more practical over time I'd rather take the risk and reduce the risk. Nothing is ideal with reduction. Just different levels of risk reduction options. We don't know when the next storm is going to happen or how bad it will be. Not a statement to scare anyone. Just something to consider. We look back at storms to take guesses on the prescription. Ice in Toronto broke a lot of uprights perhaps even more than horizontals. so I now I look at them just as much as I look at the reaching limbs. Especially in soft hardwoods.
The Point is that I would reduce the leader on a poplar near a house. With plans of follow up application to build on the increase in taper. I have poplars and soft maples that I consider to be a strong as some red oaks. But not white oaks. White oaks take the cake imo for strongest natural structure and taper. I saw one after a tornado laughing at the elms. Or crying for them. Anyway I think this idea that good structured trees don't need reduction is true. Most of the time. I also suspect I look stupid when I point out the minority in a grey area. So many of my statements are not meant for the average tree. So. Sometimes, species with poor strength and or taper are better off reduced (hopefully progressively) in order to create canopy in urban spaces without as much risk. And we can't rely on planting only harder hardwoods. Diversity. speed of growth is good too. But slow that speed down with a hand saw or pruner once the tree is gaining size and damage potential. Better yet structure prune it on its way to that large size. On average I show up to a neglected tree and correct structure is not an option. Certainly not with one app. Not that I don't head that way. Long term neglect requires long term improvement. Progressive Crown reduction leads to less failure. This leads to greater urban canopy. It's one step down and two up. Instead of three steps up only to fall right down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"Yes good point I meant to say 'if there is a target.' If no target I'd go lighter but still heavier than a decay free situation. Especially considering exposed decay."

There's most often a people/property target, and there's always a target--the tree itself. Speccing a 8" or 10" cut would be exceedingly rare ime.
that runs into the question of removing resources needed to codit, exposed heartwood and growth rings, all that stuff you said was a must to avoid, just a few posts ago!

"the interruption in the growth pattern is a term I use instead of growth phase change. Not that these are parallel terms. Just similar."

Arrgh this shows a need for consistent terminology. I interpret David L-J's unwieldy term of 'growth phase change' as simply a 'narrowing point', a change in taper. Directly observable, measurable, palpable, and leading to the Prime Directive in Pruning--Smaller Wound Size.

Interruption means 'break between'; less apt imo, as nothing is broken; there is no break.

"I'm not lucifer I'm civilized"
well ok i guess lol

"On average I show up to a neglected tree and correct structure is not an option. Certainly not with one app. Not that I don't head that way."

This reminds me--thanks for the beforeandafters on the willow and the maple. They led to good discussion with the Tree Steward audience.
The willow was a how-to (one lady thought not), but I still maintained the maple was a how-not-to columnarisation. Maybe that's my older perspective; not sure I'll be around to do a revisit. Or the owner might move, or...
Anyway a preference for longer pruning cycle. <3 years is less usual for me to spec.
I like Gilman's credo; wait for sprouting to slow down.

"Progressive Crown reduction" I like that phrase--descriptive, in more ways than one. :)
 
Yes agreed on the maple if your talking about the freemanii. The one on the reduction thread I think? I should have done more favouring of stems and I was very hesitant to post that 'shaping' type of app. I just find it interesting that the uprightness was corrected to some degree and breakouts likely prevented. But yes ratios still 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1. And so on. A very difficult and not unusual tree to deal with. Multi stem madness. Only correctable over several apps. I've seen attempts at trying to correct too quickly and the tree sends shoots that grow so fast just replacing the multi stem problem. Especially if your not back for ten years. Shoot becomes new co dom often closer to main stem than before.
Also yes maybe deviation in growth pattern is better ? I dunno. Some kind of change in growth pattern is created with heavier reduction.
And thank you very much for the reminder on pics. I will post some more on the reduction thread. And most likely a tree with a debatable solution. With years of neglect. Or should I be real and say 'with years of natural growth in an unnatural environment.
Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom