Real Nice Crown Reductions

[ QUOTE ]
Having done thousands of similar reductions over a 15 year period & seen the results I really dont think there is a great concern of long term detriment to their health. I pretty much follow Jamins principles to a "T"! In follow up of them i have observed that most return to similar volumes of foliage in 12 months, but on a reduced framework, or you could say a re-engineered structure less prone to failure due to reduced leveraged loading of branches & stems.

Yes, for the most part from the trees perspective they could happily be left alone at 0%. And when large parts fail thats OK. There is no target present & the parts can lay on the ground at the base of the tree & decompose.

But that is not the real world for the urban arborist.

As arborists we are ususally working on trees to help a tree fit in with human needs, desires, values & most often, fears-founded or not.

Of all the Crown Reduction Pruning I have done, only a handful have enquired asking for it.

Most are converted topping or removal requests, usually founded on the fear of failure of large trees with fairly good structure-eg. not major defects.

So if a 15,20,25 or even 30% reduction from the tips inwards (not interior) helps to reduce major & secondary lateral branch or leading stem failures, and ease the concerns of the customer, and prevent the next guy from coming along & topping it or talking them into removal because thats all they're good at, then i think a 25% crown reduced tree is quite an ok option. Better than 100% to ground level.

Managing trees is a fine balance between health & structure.

If you focus too hard on one, you'll likely jepodize the other.

5% is gonna do stuff all to improve a trees structure & help prevent failure.

50% is gonna detract from the trees health. But that is also not to say that there can be cases where in the trade off of heath vs structure it could still be the best thing to do to save a tree from removal, in some cases.

Vigor of the species in general & the individual specimen need to be taken into account.

Sure on a stressed veteran tree little more than large deadwood might be the right dose.

But on the otherhand, a heavily over-loaded, over-extended major scaffold branch may be lost all together to failure equalling a greater % loss than had it been pruned enough to prevent the failure. There is also the potential for that failure to tear out at the union & make a massive irrepairable wound to the piece it was attached, resulting in that needing to be removed too.

It does take skill to both sell & perform this type of work compared to the alternatives.

I don't know about you, but i'd have a hard time running a profitable tree service if i ran around doing 60 estimates a week and told them all that they should just leave their trees alone & not worry about it because their tree knows best and it really doesn't need us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very sensible and practical approach to crown reductions and treework in general, well said.





.
 
Trev, I agree with your post emphatically. What you describe and what I see in that video are two different things altogether. Almost every tree I look at for a potential client can use some measure of reduction, whether it be an individual branch or an entire portion of a tree. It is a good practice to sell as a preventative measure against wind, snow, and ice damage, as well as preventing parts of the tree from gaining apical dominance when they shouldn't.

In the video in this post, I see a number of trees that appear to be more in the 40-50% foliage reduction range, and like I said, it looks like he is selling these overall crown reductions as a routine service, and not a solution to individual problems, where sometimes more radical reductions such as these are called for.

Maybe I'm wrong and he's not selling this routinely. And maybe the reductions are not as bad as they appear to me, I can't say for sure. I'm just going by what I see, which looks excessive and unnecessary to me.

-Tom
 
These other posts reflect some elements that had me hesitant in my initial reply. What the video doesn't say/show for a lot of the pics is what were the initial client requests, what was going on in the crown that was not visible to us (dead, broken, diseased, etc.), what was under the tree in some cases, and what was the previous pruning history.

While we can take some educated guesses with the before and after shots, most probably pretty good guesses, we've all come across clients where we've had to compromise a bit. By that I mean we try and take less than they initially want, but perhaps more than we think should come out in one season. Maybe take off the entire branch instead of heading it back. Maybe bring the crown in a bit more than necessary, but at least they are reduced to a proper point and not an inter-nodal cut or lyon-tailed.

We know that if they get someone else the tree will just become a hat rack and perhaps become hazardous or decline in the future. So, we have the choice to do what we can, hoping to educate the client and work with the tree in the future, perhaps being able to save some of its grace and beauty considering the alternative. Or we can walk away and let whatever happen. Each tree, each above-type client presents a choice.

I believe the client and the tree make the decision. If I can work with them both, then I'll give it a go. If either will not stand for it, then I walk away. Anyway, that's my humble philosophy.

If these were examples of regular pruning, then it still seems to me that most were overprunned. If some of the pics were compromises with the client, or the result of issues not available to us, then perhaps they are not that bad considering all the info.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[...]as well as preventing parts of the tree from gaining apical dominance when they shouldn't.
[...]
-Tom

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not willing to judge the arborist from the video but to me, APICAL DOMINANCE is an important concept to understand when pruning yet it it gets only a brief mention in Chapter One of the ISA CA Study Guide and NO mention in Gilman's Illustrated Guide to Pruning.

In fact, Tom's post is the first time I've heard apical dominance mentioned outside of bonsai discussions. Anybody else here wondered about that? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree... so to speak.
 
Not sure why there is so little mention of it. Every time we reduce, subordinate or suppress a branch (however you want to say it), we are changing the 'apex' of that limb, and forcing the tree to reconfigure its growth pattern. Sometimes the subordinate limb that we want to takes over, sometimes it doesn't. Funny how that works!

Nevertheless, there should be more discussion of it for sure.

-Tom

(Excellent thread derail, Blinky.)
 
Chip, to answer your question, most people here think its all about the climbing and NOT about tree BIOLOGY! I have NEVER been paid to climb a tree, I am paid for what I do while up in the tree!
 
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Tom's post is the first time I've heard apical dominance mentioned outside of bonsai discussions. Anybody else here wondered about that? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree... so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

well in layman terms it's topping. just worded a different way. Top it by 1/3, crown reduce is by 30%, apical dominance that thing to stay below my roof peek. It's all the same. Some do it nice a pretty like the vids here, others use gaffs and nub it right off. Either way, we shall never ever see the end of tree hight reduction.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still not willing to judge the arborist from the video but to me, APICAL DOMINANCE is an important concept to understand when pruning yet it it gets only a brief mention in Chapter One of the ISA CA Study Guide and NO mention in Gilman's Illustrated Guide to Pruning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya on the cert guide, but my reading of Gilman's guide left me with a completely different opinion than that of your reading. I found that the emphasis on dominant leaders, and reduction cuts to ensure scaffold limbs maintained a balance with the main stem was repeated and made very clear. Perhaps the words 'apical dominance' were never uttered, but it seems to my reading that the goal is the same. Trees with a central leader, scaffold limbs which are in proportion to their unions and the wood present to support them. Reduction pruning seems to be emphasized.

I agree that in an urban setting, most trees need reduction cuts to maintain a comfortable relationship between tree health and tree owner's confidence.

However, some of the pruning in that slideshow made me wince. We all comromise with our clients, but at some point it is up to us to do what is right. I'd rather do the proper job and NOT get paid, then do a crappy job and get paid. That said, most people who expect a 'hatrack' are amazed that mitigation and structural reduction can be accomplished while retaining the form of the tree. Generally, they need to be present to appreciate the skill and deliberation that goes into a proper reduction.

I'm no saint, and I have done some bad work in my past, but I've learned from it, I always felt guilty and I generally avoid working for those who can't be convinced not to top.

When you can go back to a tree you've worked on in the past and examine its reactions to your work, then you can truly get a sense for appropriate reduction technique. The tree remembers what was done, and grows accordingly.
 
Just my humble opinion, guys, but it is my belief that apical dominance is a biological process/condition that occurs both in trees as a whole and in individual limbs to a lesser degree.

When I mentioned it earlier, I was referring to reduction cuts to curb the growth of over-agressive limbs that should remain subordinate for the sake of the overall structure.

I think when you look at an entire tree or an individual limb, you find a recurring theme of the apical bud and stem supressing and out-competing the subordinates. Very often when a subordinate starts to take over, a structural weakness or defect begins to take form (not always).

This is my take on apical dominance. I agree with the above post, I just felt the need to clarify a bit. Sorry for the derail!

-Tom
 
[ QUOTE ]
Very often when a subordinate starts to take over, a structural weakness or defect begins to take form (not always).


[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting Tom, never thought of that before, thanks.

there's been some excellent posts from various folk in this thread on the science, thinking and ideas behind crown reduction





.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That said, most people who expect a 'hatrack' are amazed that mitigation and structural reduction can be accomplished while retaining the form of the tree.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said




[ QUOTE ]
Generally, they need to be present to appreciate the skill and deliberation that goes into a proper reduction

[/ QUOTE ]

even then they rarely understand the skill and level of experience involved



I still believe, with all things considered, the crown reductions in the video are generally well done by a skillful climber



.
 
All pruning cuts should be made, keeping in mind, WHAT the trees reaction will be. In a LOT of cases, the mis-management of the tree by the owner, makes the job of the pruner near impossible.

When large pruning wounds are created, due to poor management, the trees response is usually to initiate dormant latent buds, and by nature of their location, are weakly attached. These NEW limbs are often referred to as water sprouts, even IF the tree wasn't technically topped!

When we are asked to crown reduce a mis-manged tree, we often plan for doing the work over a few years!

I hate to criticise another arborists work, especially from the photos provided, but IMO LESS is MORE. When pruning a healthy old tree, we do NOT cart the removed material away to the chipper. It is moved away from the base of the tree, away from the climbing and/or rigging lines. That way you can see just how much of the live crown the pruner has removed.

Another thought is the reaction of an OLD tree VS the reaction of a younger tree. Old trees can not handle as a severe pruning as younger ones. Species and climate also play a role in HOW much is TOO much!

Just my take on the issue!!!!

The pruning standards do NOT take into accout the management (or lack of) or the Goal for the tree in a specific location, there is nothing like experience to make people better pruners. Much like a removal wizard, you have to know how large a piece can be rigged off a specific point! In BOTH cases LESS is MORE!!!!!
 
several look over thinned to me, and removing 25% > on a mature oak, beech or walnut (to name a few) can trigger decline from my experience.

I'm not a fan of crown reduction unless just trying to get as much life out of the tree as possible before removal. I consider reduction of large mature shade trees to be a prolonged removal. Here in the southeast, I have also seen terrible sun scald, especially on oaks, after "crown reduction".

Some pics look really good though, I just tend to lean toward the conservative side of % removed during pruning. A lot of customers like to see a whole $h!tt load of canopy removed because I think they feel they're getting more for their $. Thats why topping is still practiced, some homeowners want to see a drastic difference in the tree.

I know a lot of guys are selling crown reduction, but I just think it should be a last resort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom