Maple Decline

[data farm 26]

For a different perspective, I personally am a fan of imperfect trees. Since the tree is not a hazard, why not work with, see what happens? Maybe just get that baby some mulch and see what happens?

There is a Norway maple in an abandoned commercial property near me that I absolutely love. It has a massive sun scald on the trunk, the whole south side is scorched 10' up. No irrigation. Yet the tree keeps living and I think it's a beauty.

 

[evo]

For a different perspective, I personally am a fan of imperfect trees. Since the tree is not a hazard, why not work with, see what happens? Maybe just get that baby some mulch and see what happens?

There is a Norway maple in an abandoned commercial property near me that I absolutely love. It has a massive sun scald on the trunk, the whole south side is scorched 10' up. No irrigation. Yet the tree keeps living and I think it's a beauty.

Another unconventional thought, just hat rack it and call it a living snag. It will either die or sprout. If the latter it still can become habitat tree. ‘Perfect’ trees are ecological deserts compared to ones with cavities, blown tops etc..

 

[Neill]

Yeah the messed up ones need loving too !

It does look bad. Can’t fix that damage but you might be able to manage the tree moving forward- removing deadwood, reducing the crown, creating a stable and beneficial root environment. It’s all throwing money at a turd though! Tell the client it will never be what it once was, adjust their expectations for what the tree can be in the future (if it continues to live) and what it might cost vs doing nothing or removing

 

[moss]

Another unconventional thought, just hat rack it and call it a living snag. It will either die or sprout. If the latter it still can become habitat tree. ‘Perfect’ trees are ecological deserts compared to ones with cavities, blown tops etc..

"Hat rack it", need to add that to my tree crown/remediation vocabulary ;-)

 

[evo]

"Hat rack it", need to add that to my tree crown/remediation vocabulary ;-)

I get a kick out of how things are coming around in a circle. When I started it was ingrained never ever reduce the height of a conifer, yet crown reduction was limited to broadleaf that had a structure where it’s allowed.
Now with the current ansi specs it’s pretty much game on, as long as it meets the goal and objective. Of course within limits but if the tree is beyond fiscal salvage the goal can shift to keep it around and standing, the quote should clearly specify it’s outside of BMPs and ANSI..
there is no specs for habitat snags, living or dead.

 

[moss]

I get a kick out of how things are coming around in a circle. When I started it was ingrained never ever reduce the height of a conifer, yet crown reduction was limited to broadleaf that had a structure where it’s allowed.
Now with the current ansi specs it’s pretty much game on, as long as it meets the goal and objective. Of course within limits but if the tree is beyond fiscal salvage the goal can shift to keep it around and standing, the quote should clearly specify it’s outside of BMPs and ANSI..
there is no specs for habitat snags, living or dead.

Crazy! Yes.

 

[southsoundtree]

I get a kick out of how things are coming around in a circle. When I started it was ingrained never ever reduce the height of a conifer, yet crown reduction was limited to broadleaf that had a structure where it’s allowed.
Now with the current ansi specs it’s pretty much game on, as long as it meets the goal and objective. Of course within limits but if the tree is beyond fiscal salvage the goal can shift to keep it around and standing, the quote should clearly specify it’s outside of BMPs and ANSI..
there is no specs for habitat snags, living or dead.

Any link to the current specs?

 

[evo]

Any link to the current specs?

Just ISA BMP’s and anzi. They threw out all the pruning types (eg crown clean), max foliage pruned per cycle and more.
It’s super simplified that ‘natural pruning method should be preferred’
Remove only the minimum required to meet the objective or goal.
And so on.. I like it but it’s a bit too subjective imo, if the goal is to see the entire cascade range, well cut all the trees in half

 

[ATH]

Just ISA BMP’s and anzi. They threw out all the pruning types (eg crown clean), max foliage pruned per cycle and more.
It’s super simplified that ‘natural pruning method should be preferred’
Remove only the minimum required to meet the objective or goal.
And so on.. I like it but it’s a bit too subjective imo, if the goal is to see the entire cascade range, well cut all the trees in half

On one hand it is more subjective...but it expects clearer communication.

"Crown cleaning" was removed, because...what does that mean? What good is it doing for the tree? Just prune to prune and charge somebody? Anything useful that can be accomplished with another description:
Dead wood removal
Crossing, suckers and mal-formed branches
etc...

Max foliage...was just talking about this with a new helper today on a couple decent sized crabapples. When I first met with client he wanted us to shave them all around - I think he was picturing giant lollipops. I asked "why". After hearing his concerns, I realized he just felt overwhelmed by the trees on his back patio and they were growing into his roof. I proposed we lift them quite a bit and prune them back away from the house and some other trees. We took a lot of foliage...my helper asked "isn't there a rule about how much you can take". I explained, no, that changed...and this is why. We probably took 50% of the foliage, but they were all lower and inner branches so we probably only took 20% of the photosynthetic production from the trees (WAG on that number, but its significantly lower than 50%...). I've heard Ed Gillman say "we tried to prune too much off of Red maples, and we couldn't figure out what that number is, they just kept coming back" (he's assuming appropriate pruning cuts, not topping cuts.).

 

[evo]

On one hand it is more subjective...but it expects clearer communication.

"Crown cleaning" was removed, because...what does that mean? What good is it doing for the tree? Just prune to prune and charge somebody? Anything useful that can be accomplished with another description:
Dead wood removal
Crossing, suckers and mal-formed branches
etc...

Max foliage...was just talking about this with a new helper today on a couple decent sized crabapples. When I first met with client he wanted us to shave them all around - I think he was picturing giant lollipops. I asked "why". After hearing his concerns, I realized he just felt overwhelmed by the trees on his back patio and they were growing into his roof. I proposed we lift them quite a bit and prune them back away from the house and some other trees. We took a lot of foliage...my helper asked "isn't there a rule about how much you can take". I explained, no, that changed...and this is why. We probably took 50% of the foliage, but they were all lower and inner branches so we probably only took 20% of the photosynthetic production from the trees (WAG on that number, but its significantly lower than 50%...). I've heard Ed Gillman say "we tried to prune too much off of Red maples, and we couldn't figure out what that number is, they just kept coming back" (he's assuming appropriate pruning cuts, not topping cuts.).

Yeah I kinda miss spoke. It all comes down to written goals now and more target pruning applications.

My favorite Gilman quote was during a live crown reduction demo in PDX. He stopped the show and demanded everyone raise their hands for a % of foliage estimate. Guesses were all over the map, he said ‘this is exactly 30%, but the only way I know that is I have a pack of interns. I’m able to estimate this only because I’ve made them count leaves.’
Kinda drove it home. Less is more from the plants POV, more is better if initiating a staged stem/limb removal or subordination

 

[Neight]

Thanks for the posts. Interesting conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk