- Location
- Milwaukee
I really wish I hadn't wasted my time on this thread
Proper topping
- Thread starter Kevin
- Start date
mdvaden
Participating member
- Location
- Beaverton. Oregon
[ QUOTE ]
Oh boy!
Topping is wrong! ALWAYS!!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't support that theory.
In fact, I taught "when" to do topping at a garden club lecture, and in classes taught.
One example I referred to, was a young Amur maple that I cut the top off of, so that the remaining limbs on the right and left sides would form two leaders, providing a spot like a natural seat.
The cut was only 1" in diameter, an closed-over in 2 years.
Last fall, I contacted a Safeway store manager, and pointed out that 3 Austrian pines were almost in front of his sign. If they were not cut now, they would require a 8" topping cut in the future, whereas a small 3" diameter topping cut above a whorl of limbs now, would close over in about 4 to 5 year and salvage the trees.
So it really depends on if there is a need, and how small the cut is. Big cuts often are bad news, but smaller cuts can be done to provide a benefit.
In this this tree photo album here, #19 shows a tree that was salvaged nicely by topping...
Tree Photo Album >> Look for about #19
The image is about 6 years after the cut. The canopy above was too big to fit, so I concentrated on the union. The side limb were mostly horizontal when the topping cut was made. They arched upward as a result of auxins accumulating in the cells on the dark limb undersides - stretching the plant cells and redirecting the growth.
That's how a tree can be saved by utilizing horticulture education and topping.
Obviously, big cuts on big trees almost always cause problems and hazards. But I consider the "never top trees" to be more of a myth that withholds benefits from property owners in special circumstances.
Oh boy!
Topping is wrong! ALWAYS!!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't support that theory.
In fact, I taught "when" to do topping at a garden club lecture, and in classes taught.
One example I referred to, was a young Amur maple that I cut the top off of, so that the remaining limbs on the right and left sides would form two leaders, providing a spot like a natural seat.
The cut was only 1" in diameter, an closed-over in 2 years.
Last fall, I contacted a Safeway store manager, and pointed out that 3 Austrian pines were almost in front of his sign. If they were not cut now, they would require a 8" topping cut in the future, whereas a small 3" diameter topping cut above a whorl of limbs now, would close over in about 4 to 5 year and salvage the trees.
So it really depends on if there is a need, and how small the cut is. Big cuts often are bad news, but smaller cuts can be done to provide a benefit.
In this this tree photo album here, #19 shows a tree that was salvaged nicely by topping...
Tree Photo Album >> Look for about #19
The image is about 6 years after the cut. The canopy above was too big to fit, so I concentrated on the union. The side limb were mostly horizontal when the topping cut was made. They arched upward as a result of auxins accumulating in the cells on the dark limb undersides - stretching the plant cells and redirecting the growth.
That's how a tree can be saved by utilizing horticulture education and topping.
Obviously, big cuts on big trees almost always cause problems and hazards. But I consider the "never top trees" to be more of a myth that withholds benefits from property owners in special circumstances.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Topping is indiscriminate heading. The cuts are made in either completely random or incredibly uniform locations with no regard to nodes or potential regrowth.
To me, most other pruning that ends up looking like topping can easily be classified as some form of pruning.
Back to the original question... How much of a 'stub' to leave? There is probably a good rule of thumb for each species and diameter. But, it would take years of experience to know exactly what the stub length to diameter ratio is supposed to be. What I've done is to pay attention to how a species reacts to storm damage or pruning cuts. After seeing many examples in species that I work in regularly I've been able to make cuts at places that will allow the tree to callous over as quick as possible.
To me, most other pruning that ends up looking like topping can easily be classified as some form of pruning.
Back to the original question... How much of a 'stub' to leave? There is probably a good rule of thumb for each species and diameter. But, it would take years of experience to know exactly what the stub length to diameter ratio is supposed to be. What I've done is to pay attention to how a species reacts to storm damage or pruning cuts. After seeing many examples in species that I work in regularly I've been able to make cuts at places that will allow the tree to callous over as quick as possible.
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
[ QUOTE ]
what the stub length to diameter ratio is supposed to be
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the kicker, and as you previously mentioned Tom it's probably species specific.
what the stub length to diameter ratio is supposed to be
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the kicker, and as you previously mentioned Tom it's probably species specific.
- Location
- Longmont, CO
M.D. The photo you use to support your rationaliztion to "top" may not be the best example. Here is why:
I noticed the limb to the right has included bark and a verticle split at that union. It looks like it will fail (unless you cable it).
After 6 years, it doesn't look like it is compartmentalizing at all. If the C.O.D.I.T. takes too long, or not at all, then that cut introduced decay in the trunk wood and will most likely fail.
It seems to me that this example may not be the best to support the point you were making.
The reason why I say this is because I have seen many cuts like that that were made on decidious trees and they ultimately were the demise of the tree.
Perhaps, conifers deal with a cut like that differently. I don't deal with conifers much. Correct me if I am seeing things wrong.
I noticed the limb to the right has included bark and a verticle split at that union. It looks like it will fail (unless you cable it).
After 6 years, it doesn't look like it is compartmentalizing at all. If the C.O.D.I.T. takes too long, or not at all, then that cut introduced decay in the trunk wood and will most likely fail.
It seems to me that this example may not be the best to support the point you were making.
The reason why I say this is because I have seen many cuts like that that were made on decidious trees and they ultimately were the demise of the tree.
Perhaps, conifers deal with a cut like that differently. I don't deal with conifers much. Correct me if I am seeing things wrong.
mdvaden
Participating member
- Location
- Beaverton. Oregon
[ QUOTE ]
M.D. The photo you use to support your rationaliztion to "top" may not be the best example. Here is why:
I noticed the limb to the right has included bark and a verticle split at that union. It looks like it will fail (unless you cable it).
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no split, and the wound has almost calloused over.
That's why its important to see a tree in person. Fortunately, I simplified that task.
It does have that kind of appearance though when you see it in the image.
The bark, cambium, etc., is entire. Its a very solid tree.
Had there been a split, sure, a cable would have been handy.
Actually, there already would have been a cable
M.D. The photo you use to support your rationaliztion to "top" may not be the best example. Here is why:
I noticed the limb to the right has included bark and a verticle split at that union. It looks like it will fail (unless you cable it).
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no split, and the wound has almost calloused over.
That's why its important to see a tree in person. Fortunately, I simplified that task.
It does have that kind of appearance though when you see it in the image.
The bark, cambium, etc., is entire. Its a very solid tree.
Had there been a split, sure, a cable would have been handy.
Actually, there already would have been a cable
[ QUOTE ]
How much of a 'stub' to leave? There is probably a good rule of thumb for each species and diameter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting.
So would the stub length be longer for larger diameter or shorter?
Do you have any evidence, examples, pictures etc of this theory?
For other readers would you say cutting the top off a tree to a target lateral limb is reduction or topping?
On an extreme example lets say the tree was a single leadered variety with plenty of laterals, many pines make this a perfect example, so would making a 100' pine tree say 60' but cut at a lateral be topping?
And are you suggesting that when the main spar is cut to the lateral that now a stub be left above that lateral? What of species that shoot from stubs?
I would really like to hear the answers to this. In the example by the original author removing the dead top was called topping, however if he cut it back correctly to a lateral is it not reduction?
According to Mattheck shorter trees are stronger trees so would not the reduction be adventitious especially if it is recognised as a correct arboricultural practice?
How much of a 'stub' to leave? There is probably a good rule of thumb for each species and diameter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting.
So would the stub length be longer for larger diameter or shorter?
Do you have any evidence, examples, pictures etc of this theory?
For other readers would you say cutting the top off a tree to a target lateral limb is reduction or topping?
On an extreme example lets say the tree was a single leadered variety with plenty of laterals, many pines make this a perfect example, so would making a 100' pine tree say 60' but cut at a lateral be topping?
And are you suggesting that when the main spar is cut to the lateral that now a stub be left above that lateral? What of species that shoot from stubs?
I would really like to hear the answers to this. In the example by the original author removing the dead top was called topping, however if he cut it back correctly to a lateral is it not reduction?
According to Mattheck shorter trees are stronger trees so would not the reduction be adventitious especially if it is recognised as a correct arboricultural practice?
- Location
- Titirangi, Auckland, NZ
Hello Treewiseguy, I can't help but feel once again we're all starting to talk at cross purposes. MB described his picture as "proper topping" with the quotation marks he aknowledged that it was in fact the removal of a dead top from the tree in preference to the removal of the entire tree for the client.....not topping. Had the tree been live, healthy and the single leader removed to the same height then yes I think we'd all agree that would be topping. As to which of us would do that to a healthy tree under what circumstances etc well each can explain their case if they wish to.
There are clearly strong species specific traits that make some species able to survive, comparmentalise and regrow their original form despite very agressive pruning that goes well beyond the recognised standards (dose) or the accepted pruning practices. No matter what part of the world we live in we come accross species that fall into htis category ( Ficus are a classic example, Mangofera is another)
For me and for a great many others in our profession topping...or the indiscriminate cutting of branches and limbs internodally...is totally unacceptable and we don't do it. The reasoms are so well known to all on this board I'm not going to bother parroting them out.
I had many situations where prospective clients of the buisness I work for have wanted large trees made small, and asked for them to be topped thats not what we do, we can offer them other options to manage their tree/s but topping is no solution at all.
When Klaus Mattheck came out to Oz Brisbane in 2004 this issue of dramatically reducing veteran trees was raised in the two day seminar, and frankly I feel that he was unable to defend his position. Retrenchment of veteran trees is not anything like the description of making trees shorter, it can take 30/40yrs to complete and envolves cycles of pruning removing less than 0.5m from the height of the tree each time (varies with species of course!) The modelling and static testing done by Lothar Wessoly in 95' as part os the SIA series of papers clearly demonstrates that canopy reduction to achieve greater stability in the entire tree requires only minor changes at the top of the tree, not the dramatic cutting represented in Matthecks diagrams.....and we're not even touching on the subject of managing target exposure or countless other options that don't include topping, or indeed anything envolving a chainsaw.
There are clearly strong species specific traits that make some species able to survive, comparmentalise and regrow their original form despite very agressive pruning that goes well beyond the recognised standards (dose) or the accepted pruning practices. No matter what part of the world we live in we come accross species that fall into htis category ( Ficus are a classic example, Mangofera is another)
For me and for a great many others in our profession topping...or the indiscriminate cutting of branches and limbs internodally...is totally unacceptable and we don't do it. The reasoms are so well known to all on this board I'm not going to bother parroting them out.
I had many situations where prospective clients of the buisness I work for have wanted large trees made small, and asked for them to be topped thats not what we do, we can offer them other options to manage their tree/s but topping is no solution at all.
When Klaus Mattheck came out to Oz Brisbane in 2004 this issue of dramatically reducing veteran trees was raised in the two day seminar, and frankly I feel that he was unable to defend his position. Retrenchment of veteran trees is not anything like the description of making trees shorter, it can take 30/40yrs to complete and envolves cycles of pruning removing less than 0.5m from the height of the tree each time (varies with species of course!) The modelling and static testing done by Lothar Wessoly in 95' as part os the SIA series of papers clearly demonstrates that canopy reduction to achieve greater stability in the entire tree requires only minor changes at the top of the tree, not the dramatic cutting represented in Matthecks diagrams.....and we're not even touching on the subject of managing target exposure or countless other options that don't include topping, or indeed anything envolving a chainsaw.
mdvaden
Participating member
- Location
- Beaverton. Oregon
The word "discriminate" or "indiscriminate" is really just a smoke screen or professional sounding phrase, no matter who says it.
Even a hack "discriminates" when making a cross-cut on a stem above a whorl to top, say, a pine tree.
Maybe just 1 person in 80 makes a cut with no thought behind it - whether for health, or just to whack the top off.
Many crown reductions are topping when defined in simple uncomplicated terminology. Its still topping, usually done in a way to cause the least amount of damage.
Damaging topping is not "indiscriminate" - its just damaging cutting.
Even a hack "discriminates" when making a cross-cut on a stem above a whorl to top, say, a pine tree.
Maybe just 1 person in 80 makes a cut with no thought behind it - whether for health, or just to whack the top off.
Many crown reductions are topping when defined in simple uncomplicated terminology. Its still topping, usually done in a way to cause the least amount of damage.
Damaging topping is not "indiscriminate" - its just damaging cutting.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
Many crown reductions are topping when defined in simple uncomplicated terminology. Its still topping, usually done in a way to cause the least amount of damage. Damaging topping is not "indiscriminate" - its just damaging cutting.
[/ QUOTE ]All pruning is wounding.
Mario and all, please read ANSI. Like that Volraire guy said, arguments would be short if folks agreed on the definitions.
Many crown reductions are topping when defined in simple uncomplicated terminology. Its still topping, usually done in a way to cause the least amount of damage. Damaging topping is not "indiscriminate" - its just damaging cutting.
[/ QUOTE ]All pruning is wounding.
Mario and all, please read ANSI. Like that Volraire guy said, arguments would be short if folks agreed on the definitions.
- Location
- Titirangi, Auckland, NZ
Totally agree, we're just dancing around with different takes on the same phrase.
[ QUOTE ]
So would the stub length be longer for larger diameter or shorter?
Do you have any evidence, examples, pictures etc of this theory?
[/ QUOTE ]
These two still remain unanswered, the other answers great, I'll continue proper topping ... no regrowth, shorter safer trees, less recalls and worried clients. Glad we all agree it's OK when circumstances dictate.
So would the stub length be longer for larger diameter or shorter?
Do you have any evidence, examples, pictures etc of this theory?
[/ QUOTE ]
These two still remain unanswered, the other answers great, I'll continue proper topping ... no regrowth, shorter safer trees, less recalls and worried clients. Glad we all agree it's OK when circumstances dictate.
- Location
- Titirangi, Auckland, NZ
TreeWiseGuy, [ QUOTE ]
I'll continue proper topping
[/ QUOTE ] Thats fine mate so long as you're happy you can justify just why it is you are cutting the tree in the manner you are cutting it in terms of tree biology and the predictable outcomes of those cuts.
[ QUOTE ]
no regrowth
[/ QUOTE ] Well I for one would be amazed if there were no regrowth as a result of what I understand topping to be, but maybe you can top just a little bit, just enough not to disrupt the hormonal flows in the branch and limb structure of the tree, and not stimulate meristematic growth points between the nodes....but then it wouldn't be topping would it??
[ QUOTE ]
shorter safer trees
[/ QUOTE ] Well even stumps have inherent risks associated with their presence...if you can define "safer" for me that would be nice.....safer than what, a tree that has not been topped? No tree at all? A tree without targets? "Safe" is not a useful term in defining the state of trees for me anyway. But again great if you're happy to use it and feel you can define it for your clients, and they're convinced that you are providing them with these safer trees.....
[ QUOTE ]
less recalls and worried clients
[/ QUOTE ] I get less of those when I'm providing total plant care for their trees, more often than not it doesn't envolve the use of a chainsaw at all, it certainly doesn't envolve what I consider to be topping.
I'll continue proper topping
[/ QUOTE ] Thats fine mate so long as you're happy you can justify just why it is you are cutting the tree in the manner you are cutting it in terms of tree biology and the predictable outcomes of those cuts.
[ QUOTE ]
no regrowth
[/ QUOTE ] Well I for one would be amazed if there were no regrowth as a result of what I understand topping to be, but maybe you can top just a little bit, just enough not to disrupt the hormonal flows in the branch and limb structure of the tree, and not stimulate meristematic growth points between the nodes....but then it wouldn't be topping would it??
[ QUOTE ]
shorter safer trees
[/ QUOTE ] Well even stumps have inherent risks associated with their presence...if you can define "safer" for me that would be nice.....safer than what, a tree that has not been topped? No tree at all? A tree without targets? "Safe" is not a useful term in defining the state of trees for me anyway. But again great if you're happy to use it and feel you can define it for your clients, and they're convinced that you are providing them with these safer trees.....
[ QUOTE ]
less recalls and worried clients
[/ QUOTE ] I get less of those when I'm providing total plant care for their trees, more often than not it doesn't envolve the use of a chainsaw at all, it certainly doesn't envolve what I consider to be topping.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Right on, Sean!
Such a great need for some coherent description of proper reduction pruning...it's being worked on.
Such a great need for some coherent description of proper reduction pruning...it's being worked on.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
