how well does Linden compartmentalize

Daniel

Daniel

Carpal tunnel level member
Location
Suburban Philadelphia (Wayne)
Had a storm damage Linden with a big co-dom (1 of 3) lead break out.. Maybe 15" diameter .. the rip took a 2" thick strip of wood, 5" wide, rip down the trunk about 18-24".. Too dark for pics..... coming soon..
I think the tree can be saved for some time. Will be able to triangulate cables on the remaining leads, which always gives me great confidence in structural stability even with advanced decay. Some reduction pruning and the tree should be around for some time, maybe 10-15 years. I rarely work on Linden, and have seen them to be somewhat poor compartmentalizers.. from what I can see of older wounds on those I have worked on. Would like to know more about the Linden's response to wounding before coming to a final decision with client as to keep this tree or not..
Any thoughts?

Thanks...
 
I would say that they are decent but not great… They respond to wounding faster when young in my experience (This probably goes for most trees). Having said that, they are one of the most flexible trees in our area, accounting for probably less than 5% of the storm damage I have seen in my career, which is a lot. They are a pretty common tree up here, so the low % of storm victims means to me that they are very resilient.

-Tom
 
This hits on three distinct qualities of wood biology in living trees: decay resistance, compartmentalization effectiveness, and closure. All three are more-or-less independently determined.

The term "decay resistance" comes from wood products testing, essentially how long a stake of heartwood will last when hammered into the ground. Decay resistance is based on pre-formed heartwood extractives. So black locust and osage orange have high decay resistance and red oak is intermediate or low in decay resistance. In our lab tests, all sapwood is pretty similar...not very resistant to decay. So sugar maple or paper birch are not very decay resistant.

Compartmentalization refers to the effectiveness of boundary setting to resist the spread of infection. Sugar maple is effective, for example. A hollow tree with a big void and healthy sapwood indicates effective compartmentalization. Poor compartmentalizers, say trembling aspen or paper birch, rarely produce trees with big voids...they just rot.

Closure refers to closing over a pruning wound or some other wound with new wood. At it's best, the vascular cambium reanneals and becomes confluent, producing normal wood over the closed wound.

Okay then, linden is not especially decay resistant, is moderate in compartmentalization, and great at closure.

Trouble comes when folks confuse those terms and lump them all together. Another pet peeve of mine is referring to CODIT (the model) as if it were the reality (compartmentalization). Our European friends are especially irksome on that point!
 
Sure Caleb, we could add pest resistance. Some insects do bore through compartmentalization boundaries, although most seem to respect them. My point here was just to be aware that those three characteristics of durability (decay resistance), compartmentalization, and closure are distinct. Of course, they can overlap too.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Trouble comes when folks confuse those terms and lump them all together. Another pet peeve of mine is referring to CODIT (the model) as if it were the reality (compartmentalization). Our European friends are especially irksome on that point!

[/ QUOTE ]

Where will I find more information about this topic?

Joe
 
Joe,
I distinguish between compartmentalization and CODIT in a little article for the Arboricultural Journal (the British one) which is linked to: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/8529.
My research group has done a lot of work on decay within and outside of living trees. Much of that is in the scientific rather than the practitioner literature. Most of my articles since 2000 are linked to:
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/ktsmith.

Looks like I should develop that theme of those distinct processes in a little review and a little educational article. I have a few writing projects in the queue ahead of that, though! As I am reminded from time to time, arboriculture is a sideline for me!
 
Nice differentiation, though separating resistance to insect pests from resistance to fungal and other pests would find they are more closely related.

I've been guilty of lazily using CODIT to describe the whole process...but isn't closure a part of wall 4 of CODIT?

I first got this link from Dr. Gilman; a very influential study: file:///C:/Users/guy/Downloads/pruning%20collar%20dujesieffken.pdf

"if compartmentalization is effective, why are there hollow, living
trees?"
'A living hollow tree is ultimately an example of successful compartmentalization. From the point of view of the tree, ultimate success is continued tree survival. As long as the vascular cambium is moving outward and away from established infections by producing new wood, and the outward spread of decay is resisted, compartmentalization
is successful.'

Gold star, in the walk of fame!

O and if you were writing this in 2014, would you say that 'At its simplest, compartmentalization resists the spread of infection in trees', or
'At its simplest, compartmentalization resists the weakening of tree structure by the death of tree tissues from drying and dysfunction, and the potential degradation of those tissues from decay'?
 
Thanks Guy, it's taken me a little time to consider your alternatives for 2014. I respectfully say "no", I wouldn't go with either of your suggested alternatives here.

Here's my problem with alternative (1): Our lab took a lot of flack from other scientists in the 1980's who rightly recognized that the plugging component of compartmentalization (including but not limited to tylosis formation)first functioned nonspecifically and abiotically to prevent cavitation and desiccation of actively conducting xylem elements. This would correspond mostly to Wall 1 of the CODIT model. Now, Shigo recognized and explicitly mentioned that compartmentalization first involves constitutive structure and response to abiotic injury in the absence of infection. But he was so excited about the infection part (who wouldn't be?) that his reduced emphasis on the abiotic part opened him and the rest of us up to really gratuitous objections by other scientists. Some residual misunderstanding on that part helped prompt me to write that Arb. Jour. article years later.

My problem with alternative (2)is that: effective compartmentaliztion may actually weaken structure through repetitive formation of barrier zones. The best example of that is with multiple-year injury from sapsuckers. The barrier zones form to each round of peck injury and result in delamination within and between annual rings. The delamination that lumberman refer to as "ringshake" is usually associated with just that, repeated BZ formation. Now, is ringshake anything that a practicing arborist needs to be concerned about? Oh, probably not, but it is a weakening of the structure.

OK, more than you wanted, I'm sure.
 
"OK, more than you wanted, I'm sure."

Maybe very useful...

"Now, is ringshake anything that a practicing arborist needs to be concerned about? Oh, probably not, but it is a weakening of the structure".

Kevin,
Perhaps climbing arborists' then should distinguish delamination from Kane, et al's, claim of > 40% strength from callus and/or lignified wood formation after wounding by reading repetitive annual barrier zones?
An example might be when climbing beyond a perennial canker along the stem assuming strength that may not be there.
 
Kevin, I'm not surprised to hear that you have a problem with "At its simplest, compartmentalization resists the spread of infection in trees." That was no alternative--just quoting the 3rd sentence in your paper!
shocked.gif
This is still a hot button emotional topic, isn't it?

my objection is not gratuitous; just looking for perspective. The actual Drying damage is disregarded when we dwell on the theoretical possible 'Demon' of Decay. I get this a lot from reviewers.
So anyway it sounds like you'd agree with 2), with the exception of ringshake.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this ringshake phenomenon is
1 Not common,
2 More of a lumber quality concern than anything else.
3 unrelated to most perennial aka 'target cankers', which are not often points of failure, see http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/70372-perennial-target-other-cankers.html

Roland, if you're just looking for reasons not to climb, you'll have to look farther. If Wilmington had a climbing arborist, they wouldn't have whacked all those big laurel oaks. They do have plenty of uf planners though...
crazy.gif
 
Thanks Guy, Overall, I can go with 1-3. Ringshake, as with a lot of timber defects, occurs in clusters. So, it is common where it is and not common where it isn't! Tautology aside, sure, ringshake isn't common, even in forest trees. Other than pockets of sapsucker activity, I don't think I've seen a good example of it in urban and community trees.

I've moved beyond the "demon of D" mindset. Most of my work these days points to the ecological value of wood decay. I know you share much of that view.

The identification of processes as being in response to distincly biotic or abiotic stimuli is a core issue in plant pathology and physiology and really affects the interpretation of what we see! For much of the 20th Century, decay in living trees was thought of as the same as the decay of wood products. And of course there are aspects in common, but big differences as well!
 
[ QUOTE ]

Roland, if you're just looking for reasons not to climb, you'll have to look farther. If Wilmington had a climbing arborist, they wouldn't have whacked all those big laurel oaks. They do have plenty of uf planners though...
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I no longer live on the barrier island. Wilmington's trees are @ the mercy of the local take down artists.

As for climbing, I prescribe reasons to go aloft about as often as you find reason for conflict. That puts me in many trees.

Your link sheds absolutely no light on the subject. Odd you would even post it. If Dr. Smith says structure is weakened by repeated BZ formation, then I will defer to his experience over yours... every time.
beerchug.gif
 
Gosh Ed, why so touchy? The link quoted the arborist for a reeeeally big city attesting that re-forming BZ's don't (in his experience) cause failure. If you still suspect some strength loss, or lack of strength gain (Kane's data indicated way over 40%), well, it's always good to be careful.

But if a smoke-and-mirrors company says it ain't safe to climb, so they wanna nick the owner for crane rental, the owner oughta be careful, and get a second opinion! And of course you are well advised to heed Kevin's sapsucker experience, but I don't think he'd want you overextrapolating it...

Kevin, Amen to ecological value! I tried your link but "that person was not found". The 2006 paper seemed to equate 'proper cut' with 'collar cut to the origin', but I might have read that wrong. Anyway I'm grateful that you guys are looking at the bigger picture re the trees' interactions with associates.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Gosh Ed, why so touchy? The link quoted the arborist for a reeeeally big city attesting that re-forming BZ's don't (in his experience) cause failure. If you still suspect some strength loss, or lack of strength gain (Kane's data indicated way over 40%), well, it's always good to be careful.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have done this for many years.
fight.gif


I enjoy working on site with you quite a bit more than trying to communicate with you on forums.
smirk.gif


I respect Kane, et al's research but apparently you do not see the difference between Kane's thick woundwood formation with >40% strength gain and Kevin's comment about repeated BZ formation weakening structure.

http://archive.treelink.org/joa/2003/july/03Kane.pdf

If I come upon a target canker along the stem I am climbing on I might remember Kevin's statement and before going further, assess appropriately. As we all should.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The best example of that is with multiple-year injury from sapsuckers. The barrier zones form to each round of peck injury and result in delamination within and between annual rings. The delamination that lumberman refer to as "ringshake" is usually associated with just that, repeated BZ formation. Now, is ringshake anything that a practicing arborist needs to be concerned about? Oh, probably not, but it is a weakening of the structure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kevin, would repeated pesticide injections or maple tapping cause delamination as well?
 
Thanks Guy for checking that site. The Forest Service corporate site was down for much of yesterday, I don't know why. My link seems to work now. Yes, the 2006 article does indicate my opinion that the default setting should be to remove a branch at the branch collar at the base of the branch. Your observations and Ed Gilman's research and my ice storm recovery observations support the view that branches can be correctly and productively reduced to a properly-proportioned lateral to mitigate storm injury. This forum has discussed/argued what that proportion might be. To me, "it depends".
Having said the above puts me on the slippery slope. If a reduction is OK for an injured branch, is it OK in an effort to reduce the potential impact of a future storm? If that is OK, is it OK to reduce branch length to improve the view or to make room for the driver of the riding lawnmower, etc. I know it's frustrating for those who have "seen the light" of value of reducing otherwise healthy, uninjured crowns, I have not yet gone that far.

And for Mr. PC--when I say that multple BZ induce ringshake, I mean many multiples as with sapsucker and perhaps ambrosia beetle attackes. I don't think anyone taps or injects enough to do that...but I could be wrong there!
 
[ QUOTE ]
If a reduction is OK for an injured branch, is it OK in an effort to reduce the potential impact of a future storm? If that is OK, is it OK to reduce branch length to improve the view or to make room for the driver of the riding lawnmower, etc. I know it's frustrating for those who have "seen the light" of value of reducing otherwise healthy, uninjured crowns, I have not yet gone that far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slippery slope, yeah, I am so busted for trying to see the standard evolve, since the 2002 ice storm made it obvious that the 'heading cuts' concept was a weight around the neck of this profession. You describe perfectly the chain of reasoning, and the stubborn resistance that reduction pruning still meets, even from the knowledgeable.

If the Expo talk really made sense to you, there should be no question about reducing otherwise healthy, uninjured crowns, to prevent damage in future storms. (Daniel already told you about the unpruned, sprawling linden that failed.) In case you forgot, here's the ppt. Look at Ryan Redvers' work pruning boxelders and poplars, which escaped any damage from this winter's storms. etc., etc.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zpsrrxelgugfvv....ppt?n=15346635
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom