Reducing trees is unnatural?

[Redtree]

First app From another angle. You can see those cuts that seem thoughtless I know. They are heading like but nodal. Yes they shoot but from closer to the inner canopy. Cut lower down and there is little left. A challenging problem. Few crotches too so gotta pick a spot and cut. Some of these can be temporary and cut next time lower down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Daniel]

View attachment 30583 "I'm not nearly high enough to make sense of that." Ryan as with your math I think you're complicating this wayyyy too much, and re-pruning way too frequently. Wait til the sprouting slows, generally.
Excellent pics just now--thanks! O and click Edit to avoid multiple posts.

I like Rope's approach of flexing the branch to find the cut location. A common spec in Sweden is ~1m reduction; 'take the whip out'. (No Marquis de Sade involved. )
But I don't think Rope was talking about leaving a ragged cut on purpose.

Here's some new sprouts in response to a <2" reduction cut. Normally I would have waited longer to come back and remove those downright laterals, but this tree is VERY hollow and VERY leaning over a house.

That's not what I call reduction cuts Guy. If you had left the two you cut off and taken the end of the limb off, I'd call that a reduction cut... We do need to get clear on definitions.. Industry slow to change.. We gotta be strong and unite to the cause.

 

[Daniel]

First app From another angle. You can see those cuts that seem thoughtless I know. They are heading like but nodal. Yes they shoot but from closer to the inner canopy. Cut lower down and there is little left. A challenging problem. Few crotches too so gotta pick a spot and cut. Some of these can be temporary and cut next time lower down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

NOthing wrong with those cuts.. placement is not much of an issue when cuts are under 1". I think you did a GREAT job on those willows!!!!

Looks like you might have taken a bit too much foliage off, BUT iof they were healthy and vigorous, which it sounds like they are, they'll pop right back with lpenty of new growth, so not too much harm there and the harm done is balanced by the improved structure. Now..... JUST IMAGINE HOW MUCH EASIER IT WOULD BE WITH A BUCKET TRUCK!!!

 

[Pelorus]

First app From another angle. You can see those cuts that seem thoughtless I know. They are heading like but nodal. Yes they shoot but from closer to the inner canopy. Cut lower down and there is little left. A challenging problem. Few crotches too so gotta pick a spot and cut. Some of these can be temporary and cut next time lower down.

Looks like a lot of the inner growth got removed (lion tailing?) but it is hard to see exactly what is going on with that pine or whatever it is blocking the view.

 

[Redtree]

No inner growth removed but yes it looks that way. There never was inner growth and that was the problem. The shoots after topping went up without putting out side growth limiting places to prune back to. Mostly end reduction cuts. And nodal cuts that look like heading cuts but aren't. Those are the ones that look bad, but only until the next seasons growth. I'll look for the second app pics. I think they're better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Redtree]

This is the before and after from a month ago(3rd app over 4 years). High frequency yes, but for intense restoration circumstances. The tree did not break in the ice. I wanted to show the pics of the 2nd app from 2 weeks before the ice and then a week after. I think without the second app the tree would have broken up like the silver maple in the backyard. To me this is a good example of where high frequency is better. Uncommon circumstance but a triple up. Vigorous species and previously topped and minor decay at several points. So the goal of retaining shoots and retaining a full crown is so far successful, escaping damage at least once. Damage that may have lead to further decay on a tree that has enough to deal with. So vitality was maintained and likely even increased. All that leads to a longer life of better benefit.
I'll find a prettier example but I want to show complex problem trees with more difficult solutions.
Also wanted to say, that's the only tree I've pruned that frequently but I do believe it needed it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[guymayor]

Good looking willow tree! How long needed now until the next visit; 3 years? More?
Personally I'm not sure of time savings w bucket.

Daniel, reread the text; sprouts were a response to reduction. I would not know how to name the cuts that removed the 2 downrights. In general I do not think that naming cuts is useful. When writing specs it's counterproductive and distracting ime.
What matters is results, right?

 

[Hulk]

If reducing trees looks unnatural sometimes, so be it. Unnatural looking has little to do with unnatural.
From the ice that reduced the trees, to the great reaction that the trees made, the ice storm looked unnatural, but was completely natural. When I reduce trees I sometimes use, as many of us do without calling it that, the RVT (reduction via thinning) technique. Coined by David Lloyd-Jones. leaving several terminals intact in order to leave a natural looking crown, but still reducing the average size an sail. This app is the best at reducing risk significantly while still maintaining a natural look. I sometimes take a similar approach and then make more small and medium nodal and reduction cuts in order to slow growth and increase light to the middle to cause more retrenchment effect and even more taper increase. This extra step reduces the risk even further, too much in a sense, at least initially. And I know this comes at the trade off of having a shooting crown which then raises risk, but only a touch. It creates a crown that has an interruption in its normal pattern... Temporarily. That is where the second app comes in and sometimes the third and forth. The shooting that results, first of all is not as bad as you might think because where I've cut all branches off at a node or where I've broken the one third rule it is at both times to a small diameter. So in a few years the shoots that are retained after some are removed will correct that ratio of wound to remaining stem. The second app involves retaining, removing and largely reducing the shoots that arose from the first app. Yes this is invasive vs the lighter dose approach that I also support for better structures. But a riskier structure requires a more thorough app and at a higher frequency. This creates a heavy dose with medium cuts at a high frequency as oppose to large cuts instantly. It is sort of a light retrenchment. Or perhaps a temporary retrenchment, applied to significantly improve taper mostly but also to favour certain stems and branches for certain reasons.
In trees with this huge mid risk category, showing flaw and minor to slightly more than minor decay, this can be applied without ever making a cut over 4". If 4"-8" cuts are made to manage trees with holes less than that you better weigh the long term trade off. Decay is better off not given this opportunity, at least here in Ontario. The reduction in risk is greater yes but only in the short term as these cuts are often made at an elbow or leaning stem. Not that uprights are any safer.
Making a 6 inch cut on a 10 or 12 inch stem might more than follow the rules but depending on species it will likely cause a cavity that may lead to a failure but if not will likely cause long term demands on the trees biology.
For those who saw my talk and posters, I said and showed a lot of crazy things. Or at least I hope it came across that way. I would expect on more than a few points there was a difference of opinion. I did try my best to point out the things that I do that are most unusual due to extreme yet not unusual circumstances in tree care. If anything highly multiple stem and highly complex decurrent trees are common here in ON and they need a complex solution.
What looks unnatural to me is the average urban root flare, this is often the first thing that needs fixing (Guy thanks for supporting this as the first step in tree care, establishing good flare). There is little reason to fix the crown if the root flare is likely the thing dwarfing the leader on a Norway while the co doms seemingly hog what resources are left. I speculate this last idea but I know I've seen partial crown dwarfing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So I just tried to read all that and I have to ask,,are you a climber or sales or both.
As a arborist we all need to understand there is no quantifiable methods that applys to all trees. every tree is a new equation or entity. Look at the tree..what does it need to be safe and long lasting,,,,big cut small cut as long as the cut was made proper,,,and your not out of season (big green cuts). I cannot tell by the pic ,,or at least I mean to be nice ...I'm not impressed. There are some bigger cuts to be made ,,liability and preservation is the goal

 

[Hulk]

1/3 rule taper reduction

 

[Mangoes]

My experience is this:
- if you're really good at functionally and aesthetically reducing woody shrubs and a good tree worker, you'll excel at large tree canopy reduction

My team has developed respectable talent at it. We get a good number of SIA prescribed reductions thrown our way care of a local consultant.

 

[Pelorus]

2nd set of photos (post 26) show what you did much more clearly.
Thanks for posting them!

 

[Mangoes]

Get a Tower Red, makes canopy reductions profitable. (So long as you maintain awareness of your break even/hr point)

 

[Redtree]

Thanks Daniel
Missed your post earlier
Yes I took beyond the 25to 33% rule. I do this frequently in willows. But not frequently frequently as in not often a frequent dose. I often remove more than 50 % but with a max cut at 2-3 inch depending on the vulnerability. In this tree most bigger cuts were around 1-1.5" with one or two cuts at 2-2.5". And in the 1st app a few 3-4 inch cuts to remove the odd shoot entirely. Lengths of roughly 1-12 feet removed each time. Common length at 4-6 feet
The tree bounced back well as you can see in the before pic from the third app
As for breaking so many of those rules
We should really refer to them as ideals not rules. When your doing reductions especially. Focus the precious removed volume on reduction. Rubbing after reduction can become a contact point and not rubbing at all. Especially when bark is not damaged to begin with. I'll get into another time. Don't want to start another meandering blab of Arboricultural abstract art.
Here's another rule I break and don't judge too soon. Its not the type of cut I used often in this tree. It's a repeated intermodal heading cut but that is almost impossible on a Willow. A latent bud shot out becomes a node. Not my new idea, just a discovery I made. Maybe that's an old one?

Not that I'm the only one breaking this rule

This is the Silver on the same property that experienced the same ice. I wanted to reduce these but the client made the wise choice to focus on the front yard tree even though it has a lower species rating. Anyone know those ratings? Anyway I cut the damage off with this practice- 'cut to the nearest node regardless of the size or even presence of a branch to take over'.
Pollard like/topping look remains but if cut lower there wouldn't be any crotches left. Just even more vigorous shoots out of even bigger cuts. Kudos to all arborists in Toronto who picked up on not cutting too much off after ice. Tons of great work.
If you look at the first before and the 3rd app after, you can see that the tree is not bigger but shoots are thicker. At this point tree could go three years. But here's another thought. A babbling brainstorm at best (like the opener to this thread which I will one day edit). Tell the client 2-3. That way if they're late you still get there. Even better with the common five year frequency. Especially if it's a soft hardwood tell them 3-4. That way it won't go six or seven which might be likely if you tell them five. And I seriously doubt that a softwood would have a problem with every four. Or four the first time, then every six after that? Or? Eh? Huh?

Also one last babble.
The high amount of canopy removed will hopefully get some of the latent buds lower on the topping shoots to grow. By shining light to them. That's why I still wonder if I should have just applied a large nodal cut to each shoot about 6-10 feet above the ten year old topping cuts. Funnier looking at first but in the long run? Initially it would look like a re-topped tree, but in one heavy app dose. Then I'd wait three years. I dunno, can't stop thinking. Ahhhhhhh!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Redtree]

Hulk, yes I'm both climber and sales.
Over the years I've been doing more pruning and in the past two years I've done twice as much reduction as the two before that. Not that reduction is overly necessary. Especially compared to proper thinning. Just that I have a clientele with trees over their houses. Often soft and often compromised. They may have hired you to see a dead tree. Take time to assess trees closest to the house and land more work, I do it all the time even if it's just a reduction on a co dominant. I often do a reduction where no work was suggested or where removal was suggested. Often for trees with no targets

This Willow was reduced for a golf course a year ago. The goal for the row was to reduce the mess. Cut a few interior leaners but retained the trees at the two ends of the row. Reduced 5-6 near path junctions. Limited target, not no target. Yes there is risk. Cart path. Do more golfers get hit by lightning? Dunno. if you take this tree out then you ruin the protection from southerly winds for the remaining trees so another one could fail. The course would have to pay for the removal of the whole row to remove the risk. Not practical. Reduced, this compromised Willow is likely stronger than its neighbour and protecting it. Note to self-take a pic of the good side of the trunk, there's two sides to every story.
Plus if removed, you really ruin the aesthetics of the row. Like going to a barber and all he does is cut your bangs off. I'm tempted to cut my bangs off now to see how bad it looks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Redtree]

Just saw your post Guy. Yes three years or even four. After 3 years leverage might break a 5" shoot but not likely a bunch of them. Without storms maybe even 6 but when's the next bad storm? Within being front centre to the house I'm thinking three ideally but four to six would work.
About the bucket, I agree with Guy sometimes and with mangoes and Daniel other times. It depends. One relatively short Willow vs a row of willows on a golf course. That's funny. I told the golf course guy they really need a bucket in for that row. You could easily take 400 lengths off at 8-12 feet plus another 400 at 3-8 feet. Ok not easily but easier. Imagine climbing all those. I climbed 6 or eight. Actually, I worked on 8 from 5 or 6. Manual pole saws are cheaper than bucket trucks. There's a dumb comment. Hey what about the Maktech boom saw thingy just for rough Willow golf course app. I know it's for removal but it would reduce this row and accomplish objective in no time. Can you cut clean with that?
Ok it's late and I'm getting dumber.
But I'm also getting a bucket or spider or boom pruner or something. That's not new, there's booms and there's pruners, it's a discovery.
I can see the future. I've been there and back. they have boom pruners and chainsaws are banned. And urban soil beds aren't beds, there columns of soil with breath/water tubes. And everyone loves to rake leaves. And I'm an ewok
Goodnight


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[guymayor]

Yup, yup and yup! What sounds like babble is the result of sorting the antiquated paradigms and myths we have all been taught.

One semantic clarification: "It's a repeated intermodal heading cut but that is almost impossible on a Willow. A latent bud shot out becomes a node." A growth point where a latent/dormant/accessory/suppressed bud exists IS a node, dfangit! When branches are reduced to buds, that is nodal, not internodal, pruning. Read Shigo!

Hearing you apologize for this reminds me of the babbling I did 12-15 years ago as I pulled my head out of the "heading cuts are bad" confusion that is still promulgated today, by entities who do not want to spend money to update the oldy moldy training materials, from Champaign to Charlotte to Londonderry NH. Not to step on big fat toes or anything...

Even the guy who refers Mangoes work still calls cuts to buds 'internodal'-- which drives me crazy. Read the A300! Or the ZTV, or the BS3998, or the trees...
btw, excellent point by Mangoes that shrub regeneration aka retrenchment aka rejuvenation can be excellent training for (shrubs and for) stormproofing trees like Red is illustrating so well.

Hulk, you see small cuts on willows and silver maples working here before your eyes. They avoid storm damage aka liability. If you really think more should be taken off, how much? Where? Why?

 

[Hulk]

Thanks Daniel
Missed your post earlier
Yes I took beyond the 25to 33% rule. I do this frequently in willows. But not frequently frequently as in not often a frequent dose. I often remove more than 50 % but with a max cut at 2-3 inch depending on the vulnerability. In this tree most bigger cuts were around 1-1.5" with one or two cuts at 2-2.5". And in the 1st app a few 3-4 inch cuts to remove the odd shoot entirely. Lengths of roughly 1-12 feet removed each time. Common length at 4-6 feet
The tree bounced back well as you can see in the before pic from the third app
As for breaking so many of those rules
We should really refer to them as ideals not rules. When your doing reductions especially. Focus the precious removed volume on reduction. Rubbing after reduction can become a contact point and not rubbing at all. Especially when bark is not damaged to begin with. I'll get into another time. Don't want to start another meandering blab of Arboricultural abstract art.
Here's another rule I break and don't judge too soon. Its not the type of cut I used often in this tree. It's a repeated intermodal heading cut but that is almost impossible on a Willow. A latent bud shot out becomes a node. Not my new idea, just a discovery I made. Maybe that's an old one?

Not that I'm the only one breaking this rule

This is the Silver on the same property that experienced the same ice. I wanted to reduce these but the client made the wise choice to focus on the front yard tree even though it has a lower species rating. Anyone know those ratings? Anyway I cut the damage off with this practice- 'cut to the nearest node regardless of the size or even presence of a branch to take over'.
Pollard like/topping look remains but if cut lower there wouldn't be any crotches left. Just even more vigorous shoots out of even bigger cuts. Kudos to all arborists in Toronto who picked up on not cutting too much off after ice. Tons of great work.
If you look at the first before and the 3rd app after, you can see that the tree is not bigger but shoots are thicker. At this point tree could go three years. But here's another thought. A babbling brainstorm at best (like the opener to this thread which I will one day edit). Tell the client 2-3. That way if they're late you still get there. Even better with the common five year frequency. Especially if it's a soft hardwood tell them 3-4. That way it won't go six or seven which might be likely if you tell them five. And I seriously doubt that a softwood would have a problem with every four. Or four the first time, then every six after that? Or? Eh? Huh?

Also one last babble.
The high amount of canopy removed will hopefully get some of the latent buds lower on the topping shoots to grow. By shining light to them. That's why I still wonder if I should have just applied a large nodal cut to each shoot about 6-10 feet above the ten year old topping cuts. Funnier looking at first but in the long run? Initially it would look like a re-topped tree, but in one heavy app dose. Then I'd wait three years. I dunno, can't stop thinking. Ahhhhhhh!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hulk, yes I'm both climber and sales.
Over the years I've been doing more pruning and in the past two years I've done twice as much reduction as the two before that. Not that reduction is overly necessary. Especially compared to proper thinning. Just that I have a clientele with trees over their houses. Often soft and often compromised. They may have hired you to see a dead tree. Take time to assess trees closest to the house and land more work, I do it all the time even if it's just a reduction on a co dominant. I often do a reduction where no work was suggested or where removal was suggested. Often for trees with no targets

This Willow was reduced for a golf course a year ago. The goal for the row was to reduce the mess. Cut a few interior leaners but retained the trees at the two ends of the row. Reduced 5-6 near path junctions. Limited target, not no target. Yes there is risk. Cart path. Do more golfers get hit by lightning? Dunno. if you take this tree out then you ruin the protection from southerly winds for the remaining trees so another one could fail. The course would have to pay for the removal of the whole row to remove the risk. Not practical. Reduced, this compromised Willow is likely stronger than its neighbour and protecting it. Note to self-take a pic of the good side of the trunk, there's two sides to every story.
Plus if removed, you really ruin the aesthetics of the row. Like going to a barber and all he does is cut your bangs off. I'm tempted to cut my bangs off now to see how bad it looks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I get where your at now ,, not being funny or disrespect full but you seem to have good philosophy and should consider revising and puting out pruning book, limit it to your region and climate,tree types. Maybe even a artical for the isa book. Pour that brain into words for others to chew on

 

[Hulk]

Yup, yup and yup! What sounds like babble is the result of sorting the antiquated paradigms and myths we have all been taught.

One semantic clarification: "It's a repeated intermodal heading cut but that is almost impossible on a Willow. A latent bud shot out becomes a node." A growth point where a latent/dormant/accessory/suppressed bud exists IS a node, dfangit! When branches are reduced to buds, that is nodal, not internodal, pruning. Read Shigo!

Hearing you apologize for this reminds me of the babbling I did 12-15 years ago as I pulled my head out of the "heading cuts are bad" confusion that is still promulgated today, by entities who do not want to spend money to update the oldy moldy training materials, from Champaign to Charlotte to Londonderry NH. Not to step on big fat toes or anything...

Even the guy who refers Mangoes work still calls cuts to buds 'internodal'-- which drives me crazy. Read the A300! Or the ZTV, or the BS3998, or the trees...
btw, excellent point by Mangoes that shrub regeneration aka retrenchment aka rejuvenation can be excellent training for (shrubs and for) stormproofing trees like Red is illustrating so well.

Hulk, you see small cuts on willows and silver maples working here before your eyes. They avoid storm damage aka liability. If you really think more should be taken off, how much? Where? Why?

Simple math on the maple by light , big cut on bottom branch,to a lateral.a

Yup, yup and yup! What sounds like babble is the result of sorting the antiquated paradigms and myths we have all been taught.

One semantic clarification: "It's a repeated intermodal heading cut but that is almost impossible on a Willow. A latent bud shot out becomes a node." A growth point where a latent/dormant/accessory/suppressed bud exists IS a node, dfangit! When branches are reduced to buds, that is nodal, not internodal, pruning. Read Shigo!

Hearing you apologize for this reminds me of the babbling I did 12-15 years ago as I pulled my head out of the "heading cuts are bad" confusion that is still promulgated today, by entities who do not want to spend money to update the oldy moldy training materials, from Champaign to Charlotte to Londonderry NH. Not to step on big fat toes or anything...

Even the guy who refers Mangoes work still calls cuts to buds 'internodal'-- which drives me crazy. Read the A300! Or the ZTV, or the BS3998, or the trees...
btw, excellent point by Mangoes that shrub regeneration aka retrenchment aka rejuvenation can be excellent training for (shrubs and for) stormproofing trees like Red is illustrating so well.

Hulk, you see small cuts on willows and silver maples working here before your eyes. They avoid storm damage aka liability. If you really think more should be taken off, how much? Where? Why?

on the maple or maples the one over the light

 

[Daniel]

Daniel, reread the text; sprouts were a response to reduction. I would not know how to name the cuts that removed the 2 downrights. In general I do not think that naming cuts is useful. When writing specs it's counterproductive and distracting ime.
What matters is results, right?

That's not what I call reduction GUY... Jesus Christ dude!!!! that tree was hammered years ago... I guess we do have to work on our definitions.. NOTE! In general I avoid reducing upright stems. They are not subject to the same kind of storm damage that big, long, heavy, reaching horizontal limbs and leads are. If a tree has root or stem structural weakness I'll take some off the top.. BUT I DON"T LIKE TO... I like to bring the sides in and leave the top alone as much as possible. This also tends to reduce sprouting issues.

I do have a little trick when I think the tree is going to respond with unwanted sprouts.. leave a few limbs stubbed off a few feet out from the desired final pruning cut. The come back a couple years later, once the trees hormones have calmed down, and remove the unwanted sprouts that are growing at the end of the stubbed off limb. That is an easy cut to make since it will be back to the original target cut. If I had made the original cut at the intended target, the sprouts would all be on the limbs I intend to keep, so they'd need to be tended to with a lot more care, thinning and reducing etc.. the cut ends from this strategy look a lot like the top pics in post #33.

When I tuck the sides in, or often just one side, or even just one or two large limbs, on large mature hardwoods, they do not respond with much unwanted sprouting. Its generally on ornamental type (often fruit) trees, like flowering cherry, where I've taken the top down in order to reduce size, because its overgrown its space in the landscape.

 

[Redtree]

Thanks for all the critical comments and compliments. I am slowly seeing where guys are with this.
Hulk, I'm in the very early process of an article and hopefully a book. Not that I have a spot for it yet. Don't worry not a treebuzz post. Especially the book But in the meantime I'm exploring in the culture here on treebuzz. And getting great feedback. Also better understanding terminology and where it often fails us in our communication efforts. Also good point about location. It's different here where I imagine it's easier to be an oak man. Dunno but u guys in the south get so much growth I'd be back twice a year. Way Up north you could probably reduce successfully with a pair of scissors, every 10 years
Hulk good point as well regarding 'no quantifiable methods for all trees. Each tree is a new equation.' This is the big problem but one with a solution that at least improves the ability to teach it. Or a perspective. Math applied to trees will rarely if ever be more than suggestive, yet helpful for perspective. We can all agree that risk trees can be improved with reduction. But the diameter limit is arguable. Perhaps too arguable. I'm not saying that we need one solution, just a narrower range. The range mostly violated by non arborist hacks. Not that u need be certified. So can we come up with a basic solution chart or matrix that can fit on a card in your pocket?Yes. Here's a stab at it.

with a three way matrix it might have at least an application especially for the new climber. Actually I'll get into this on a new thread. It really needs discussion as communication and application can be made easier.

Mangoes, what study/instruction material do you use with the guys for thin, reduction and retrenchment apps?
I must be short a good many books.
I have best management practices 'pruning'. Basic but illustrates raising without limbing fairly well among other things. I also suggest 'reduction via thinning, wind simulated pruning'. Good book once you give it a chance. But hard to get a new guy to read it. If he reads it though, hang on to him.
I'm going to offset this unnatural looking willow sample with a natural looking willow reduction. The key word being 'looking'. From what I'm seeing here it is almost impossible to top a willow because buds are everywhere. It will shoot from anywhere, where as others will die back. Of course there is more ideal solutions but is it topping or just ugly reduction or necessary retrenchment for decay issues?