Reducing trees is unnatural?

I was just kidding. I guess I don't joke around enough. But yes I have a minimum charge based on my distance. Toronto 4-5 an hour away. Hometown almost no minimum. Just quoted a half hour hometown job which equates to 1.25 hrs don't forget. 150 solo prune from ground.
If a trees risk can be mitigated remember that it is temporary. So with that white pine, yes it may become more of a risk as the decay inside progresses. The next inspection may reveal that removal is a good idea. Or it may reveal nothing in which case I would still advise another reduction to further reduce risk as some risk has likely come back through growth. Without multiple tomography over time the idea that nothing has changed is hypothesis not conclusive. because this sub urban forest tree is not as important as a city tree, I would recommend against any expensive tomography. If I thought that was necessary then removal would become an option to deal with the risk. I should say that we just had a very powerful storm here and the tree stood up. Reduced again in a few years, it may hold up to an even greater storm. Unless the decay has progressed further. Then reduction might just make it as capable as before but not more capable. Probabilities are not always easy to define. A tomograph done once now and again in three years could show the progress. That is the only way tomography might be quite useful in my opinion. Without understanding change over time what good is tomography anyway. So there is a hollow spot today. So what. The level of Understanding a tree is increased significantly by return visits and assessing changes and responses. No tree is done no tree is finished, until it is removed. Sell this expensive return work where trees value out weighs the work. Otherwise cut it down. I cut a few big ones last week. They won't cause any problems now. And they won't give us any benefits either
 
I just saw this thread come up and I have to say I've been working more in Toronto this past year than ever before and Toronto has a lot of oaks that have had previous reduction pruning done and it's obvious even after regrow I a natural overall shape.

These trees do not look natural it's obvious work has been done to a significant scale however, in Toronto I am still seeing large old mature oaks standing as pillars throughout many communities and they seem like they could be there for years to come yet.

So I think even if unnatural it can help the longevity of the sustainably of a tree for it's nature. So as unnatural as it appears it still is there to appear so I'm putting that in the win column for all of us.
 
Okay, so I admit that I haven't read the thread (this is where I should stop, right?), but I've been thinking on this subject lately. While severe reductions do look unnatural, I've noticed more and more trees that haven't been touched that have retrenched themselves in the same way small to moderate reductions are done. So, yes, reductions are noticeable, which is why I prefer thinning to reducing when possible, but I also have to bend my preference to acknowledge that even the natural order makes reduction "cuts".

So there's a place for both. Ultimately, I've come to see that most of us do not provide tree care, but do what man can do to mitigate the inherent risks of people living in close proximity to trees while trying to limit the negative impact to the trees themselves. PHC is the closest to true "care" we can provide, and that only in some forms and when done responsibly.
 
Yes I agree Crimsonking, most of what we perform is not tree care. It is landscaping. It is clearance and risk management most of the time. Funny when the client comes out after a cleaning and raising and says 'they look healthier and happier'. Actually they were happier with the dead on the ground and their bottom limbs attached, shading their feet. I don't agree that PHC is the main form of tree care though. Watering at the right times (drought) trumps most PHC in my opinion. Take a healthy Norway or silver maple, which covers almost half of Toronto's canopy. The best thing you could do is likely a light, natural looking, frequent reduction. (Every 7 years. Or every 3 to regain control of a neglected tree, a detail that is missed in a generalization otherwise). If you get a few reductions in over a decade then you'll likely avoid the unnatural looking reduction that Mother Nature will apply. Or should I say ugly not unnatural. Because yes Mother Nature often makes ugly, natural, beneficial reductions. Pretty and natural are two different things. Application by man is civilized or at least it can be, while increasing lifespan of the tree. Small and medium cuts over time constantly reduce the likelihood of large, natural failure. Mother Nature applies reduction chaotically and increasing lifespan is not the goal or the outcome. The outcome is the succession of the forest. An urban forest does not have a batter on deck ready to fill the space. If we want a civilized space we should have a civilized canopy and reduce the softer hardwoods in order to keep them longer and stronger. Avoiding large failure also avoids future risk. There is no reason a regularly pruned urban tree should ever have a whole or pruning cut larger than 3-4 inches. Never should it have its heartwood opened up or cut into. Only neglected trees with major decay possibly require large cuts. We need to inform people and clients on integrating real tree care with landscaping. My goal is to leave a tree with the likelihood that it will live longer and stronger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Great points!
I would like to clarify my statement about natural reductions. Lately I've noticed trees that have branch structures that look as though they've had light reductions done, but have never been touched. They have shed horizontal tips back to vertical shoots that can sustain the branch. It's impressive to see. It's also not drastic or too noticeable- except to arborists. I wasn't referring to stem or limb failure, but you're right, that is what we try to prevent through minimally invasive pruning.

I do wish more clients would embrace a long term, minimal approach to managing the specimens on their properties. Most want a permanent, or at least a 10 year, solution to be applied in one visit, leaving the trees looking rough for the rest of their potentially shortened lives. I do like pruning exactly how you suggest, a little at a time, over an extended period.
 
I worked for a contractor Saturday as a sub and he had me cable a big elm. Several unmovable targets (main BUSY road, houses, service drops gallore).It was like he wanted spider Man to come in, get in a good high tie in, and frickin' sling to every lead. No disrespect to the guy, just the image I was getting in my head.

There were old tear outs from storms, some old wounds with decay. Add that with the targets, it causes him to be nervous. But when I was in the tree, you could see the wounds were superficial right now and it wasn't in the worst of shape. Honestly I'd have expressed a need for maintenance and monitoring. Periodically thin and reduce ends to manage/ eliminate fulcrums on the longer limbs.
It was kinda fear based tactics you know? It's not helping the tree or keeping it from breaking, it's only trying to control the level of damage after a failure. If that's where ones head is at, it's already too late for that guy to maintain that tree.
Gotta work the outside to encourage what you want in the inside. Remove terminal buds, encourage response growth further back on the stem, train the growth, and repeat as needed over time.
Preaching to the choir,I know
 
What's really sad is that just as so many arborists are reexamining the benefits of an "unnatural" (temporary?) appearance, the A300 committee doubles down and adopts the B******* philosophy of Job #1 = choosing a "natural system" of pruning.

Screwy. Beyond screwy, like they WANT the standard to be less relevant to practice in the field.
 
Guy that is sad to hear that the standards aren't changing where they need to. But this doesn't mean we can't change the culture on our own. It certainly would be nice if the standards gave us a better lead though. I like how you mention the term 'temporary'. That is a good way to look at reductions. Whether it is the natural reduction of the ice in Toronto 2013 or the careful reduction applied by an arborist, the reality is that time and growth will blend out stubby ends and the interruption of stem direction. It's not so important what the after pic looks like. It's more important what the tree looks look and what the tree taper is like overall, five years later. In a sense we need to prune in a natural way I suppose, if that means reducing overextension like a storm does, in order to improve taper. The storms always find the weak spots. A highly exposed tree tapers itself well because no time is given to over extend. A less exposed tree overextended and is a sitting duck for the perfect storm. An arborist needs to be the storm in a sense.

6778500af7d5940e0adff0a64ea518cc.jpg

A highly exposed sugar maple on the freshwater shore of Georgian Bay. Already a well tapered species, but really tapered here due to reaction to regular wind. The codominant stem is almost meaningless as it is tapered so well and attached well. A wise tree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Today's reduction. Silver Maple. 4.5 hours in the tree and one of my fastest yet considering it's a multistem tree and 75 feet wide to start. Done with 10 foot silky pole with Marvin and 5 foot extension hanging on my tree motion to make 15 feet when needed.
805c5f94196a310f2f75098bab083aec.jpg


And after, which reminds me, I'll try find a pic of a tree years after reduction
179804b71caeaed1910e42cbe5e309b5.jpg


Largest cut about 3 inches. Stub on far left. Client requested 8 inch stem cut to prevent overhanging the neighbour so I explained the harm and stress on the tree and future risk of failure of the remaining stem. Generally the large cuts are 2" and under. Several lengths over 12' removed. All different lengths cut off down to 6 inch ends in order to create a split or a redirect from spreading to upright. Notably you may see some of the nodal pruning I apply. Lots of crotch pruning but lots of nodal too. In some cases, a cut is aimed at but the cut is made a node or two out. This retains a touch more foliage and also keeps the damage off the dominant stem. Could even be temporary and hit the original target next time. A technique Daniel mentioned years ago on treebuzz. Also notable is the small internodal cuts. When it's half the diameter of the Marvin I'm not too concerned. It can shoot a dormant bud or die back and a twig can fall later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I mentioned to the client that a soon return for pruning again is ideal, but five years is more practical. She said she might go for every other year. It surprised me but I still honestly believe that like nature, more frequent storms are better. The next application would obviously be lighter if it is sooner. Light, frequent storms are better than rare, strong ones


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just noticed my famous mistake and an important detail. The height reduction above is actually downplayed. I took the pic from the roof, in the exact same spot with no zoom both times. But the after shot points slightly lower. The point of view is the same. The angle of the view is slightly different. Notice the difference by looking at the trunk flare or the roofline on the left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Did you use some thinning cuts too or just reduction?

Doesnt look bad to me at all but truth be told I prune and train much smaller trees.
 
Definitely a few but not as many as reduction cuts. Probably more on the second application to correct the sprouting that I expect, which is usually not as chaotic as many people think. Small and medium reduction cuts don't sucker like a cut stump. The taper is improved throughout the tree, so even inner branches are shortened to prevent them from growing passed reduced leaders. And to prevent failure of inner snake like limbs, which often have poor taper in this species, and are now more exposed from the main, outer reduction. But even though those cuts are within the crown, I would still classify them as reduction cuts. Often I place a few thinning cuts just below a reduction cut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gotcha.
I've never been able to classify taking out a co-dom leader or branch and maples can have plenty. There's no collar and the angle of the cut us more like a reduction cut. Semantics I know.
 
This post refers to trees that are passed establishment and into the period of growth, often established and or neglected into their 'problems'. For the basic idea skip to the last five or six sentences. You got it JD3000, Maples can have plenty of codominant stems, especially the now popular and wonderful 'freemanii'. And that is why I often reduce the reduction cut diameter, cutting 6-8 feet off at times instead of 12-15. (Or appropriately smaller lengths in a smaller tree). Reduction cuts remove the larger stem, so they never have collars. And thinning cuts aren't always enough on their own. (But enough in a sugar maple) Often, a maple crotch with a 3" and 2" inch stem has no collar on either side, as you mentioned. To mitigate between reduction and thinning, you can make a reduction cut at a node or two above one of these points leaving the option (necessary or not) of cutting at the lower crotch once the ratio improves. (The reduced side will gain diameter slower than the stem left to dominate). A good prescription involves progression. It also depends on the reason for reduction. Major decay requires those bigger, uglier, more damaging reduction cuts. (Damaging cut traded for reducing the likelihood of even bigger storm damage, or equally sized but uncontrolled 'hit the car' storm damage) Narrow crotches, codominant stems and minor decay only require small and medium reduction cuts. And I think the amount of wind load reduction achieved with the removal of small cuts (lengths up to 8 feet, diameters up to 1.5 inches) is majorly underestimated. Actually freemanii is a great species to debunk the common practice and ideology around codominant stems, narrow crotches, and stem ratio correction. The first problem is correction. The term ignores progression. To try to correct a tree instantly may ruin it. To improve a tree progressively may in time correct it. When a freemanii has so many stems, a progressive approach is really the only approach I see working out. The other approach is only a disaster for the tree. You can't significantly reduce or remove all the codominant stems when a tree is mostly codominant stems, and mostly narrow crotches. You also can't have any immediate goals of correcting a one to one to one to one to one ratio. He goal should be to slowly move away from even ratios, among for at least some difference, not major difference. Part of what I'm trying to say is that we think in terms of cutting at crotches instead of in terms of nodes more often. We do need both. Further to that once the cut diameter falls below 1.5 inches, the diameter of the remaining stem does not matter much. A 1 inch cut leaving just a bud or leaving a 1/8 inch stem is fine. It looks funny and breaks the one third rule, but a year or two later, that bud will be a 1/2 inch stem at a 1" cut. All sapwood too. So the one third rule is partly or largely useless as well, certainly in cuts under 1 inch. In tightly branched, narrowly crotched trees like maples, look at the terminal of a codominant and come down several nodes. This other habit we arborists have of coming down to a major crotch is archaic and often impossible given the texture of maples. And maples, particularly soft maples, are becoming more important every day. Not that we should plant many of them but we should take care of them, including norways and Manitobas. Crap, I stayed up till midnight again, obsessing thinking and practicing communicating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
First off, I've been meaning to thank you Ropeshield, for bringing to my attention the phrase 'stem tracing' a while back. Nice term. In maples this teqhnique, if I understand it correctly, can involve a reduction cut. I'm assuming that usually, it is a thinning cut which maintains the direction of the stem. As for the application I preach and practice, of course I know they are going to grow. The idea is bigger slower. Bigger quickly is natures competitive way. Open grown trees are overweight. Subordination is civilization. The heavy application is short sighted and necessarily so in the case of heavily decayed trees, which may be at or approaching decline. If you call that before and after shot of the silver maple tickling, then I'm a little surprised. Tickling to me is four foot thinning lengths. Eight feet reduction lengths is not. Maybe you didn't see the pics? Anyway, remember that silvers like the one I posted are almost strong enough. They are not majorly decayed. They only need a touch. And a heavy hand creates a new risk point. It may take a longer time for the risk to grow back, but given the decay inflicted by an overly heavy hand, the risk in twenty or thirty years will be high at those decay points, creating a tree that requires more heavy weight application of reduction, and a tree that may not live as long as a tree that undergoes the medium weight application. Two medium applications, five years apart will always be better than one heavy application, accepting a very slightly higher level of risk in the five year term, and probably less risk and a longer lifespan in the long run, especially given the option of reduction every 7-15 years thereafter. The light to medium application does not need to be applied every 5 years, just ideally every five years, at least for the 2-3 first doses. Look at our maples. It took them 30 years to get to the point where codominants are literally choking the central stem. So it often takes 2-4 applications (2 is good, 4 is better) over 15-20 years to get them back into shape, while still avoiding heartwood cuts, that our boulevard trees in particular, can't handle well. Application weight and dosage need differentiation. Dosage is a combination of the frequency and application weight. We need to start using all three terms. So a high dose can come from medium weight application every five years or from a light weight application every other year. I did some birch the other day. That looks like tickling to me. And species appropriate. Like a sugar maple generally (or should I say 'on average'?) needs no reduction. Possibly just thinning. I reduce 10-20 soft maples for every sugar. The sugar has specific reasons. The soft ones simply to improve taper. If we don't do it regularly (every 3-15 years) with light to medium application, then Mother Nature will do it every 15-50 years with heavy to severe application.


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

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom