Daniel. Great points about temporary cuts. And I've done what your saying but never thought of it exactly like that. Just like that Willow I showed. The nodal cuts that are left can shoot then when you remove it the stem remaining will likely have grown more. This also improves cut to remainder ratio. I also refer to shortening lower limbs as 'tucking' with clients. It is a great compliment to raising as you shed light on living space and garden below.
On the leaving uprights I agree to a certain extent. I'm assuming your not referring to the willow. In most harder trees I agree. If I'm doing a reduction I might just thin the central upright. In a heavily decurrent (spreading) tree I would likely treat it in balance with the rest and reduce it. In a very tall tree with a target I would likely go quite hard on the leader especially if any decay or structure issue. Furthermore it is interesting that the ice here broke more uprights than laterals. Silvers, birches and Siberian elms, all softer species, broke uprights more. The uprights had to bend 180 degrees to meet gravity while the reaching laterals only had to bend 45. What about Limbs that are at 60 degrees to the horizon and are in between, these are high up where wind is strong and leaning slightly.
Guy, thanks for the references to check out.
Kevin, I think the cuts will heal faster if anything. Less area to cover. I do check and haven't seen slowness. Hard to measure or get a feel for though. And yes I do the odd oak, sugars don't generally need reduction but did one sugar reduction/retrenchment, black cherries, lots of locust. All good usually for at least five years. Watch reaction annually where possible. Any way the softer hardwoods. So yes these trees are tough and don't die easily but they do die. And death isn't the point. If you make 1-3 inch cuts to avoid 6-16 inch failure then you save the trees aesthetics and structure. The failure leads to decay and structural vulnerability. Then the risk tree is removed. Toronto silver maples are coming down frequently. Actually after the ice some of the topped and reduced silvers stood up best. Not that topping is good, but it worked in this case until topping issues catch up.
Top five reasons for loss of softer woods
Poor nursery growth, up and roots
Poor pruning and late raising leading to decay.
Lack of thinning or reduction pruning
Storm failure due to the previous three points leading to decay then removal of risk tree
Spent today observing reactions to about 100 I did two seasons ago. Locusts, freemanii, norways and apples. Looking good over all after ice and although my app was thought to be too light, a good percentage sent shoots. The point is if they all sent shoots then too hard. If none sent shoots then too light. I could have gone heavier here and lighter there. But harder overall would have looked ugly and been worse in the long run. Many I just accepted could not be corrected in one app or in a ten year cycle. But they can be IMPROVED enough at a ten year cycle to avoid damaging failure that might also lead to removal. We really can only guess the dose weight. It's great to have a few handfuls of samples of 100 to look back at though. They are going ten years to next dose which is long but out of a hundred likely only a few will suffer in a storm before ten is up. Again, storm depending. Can't make trees bullet proof with ten year cycle and don't need to.
For some species do we need to go every 3-5?
We don't need to go at all. But if we want to feel safER under a Willow or soft maple we can. So assuming a target then I'd say 3 is ideal for an average Willow or Manitoba. Maybe 4 for average silver. But these numbers aren't for a tree way at the back fence. Add 2-3 for that. These numbers are for trees over the roof. Then throw in decay and minus 1-2 years. Or throw in multi stem Norway maple madness. If you want to improve this do it with a heavy app to start and light follow up apps every two or three.
As for pruners I used to use Marvin bull but too heavy. Now I go from reg Marvin to pole saw. Sure I make a lot of handsaw cuts too, but impossible to finish a thorough reduction that is complex due to structure and or decay. With those we are not looking for natural looking we are looking for structural improvements and accepting the trade off of unnatural LOOKING shoots. That's the whole point to this thread . obviously a retrenchment is unnatural looking but a reduction may have to also look odd but more restorable than retrenchment.
It is necessary in trees with higher risks with more target value. And necessary to get pole tools out to reach the ends that remain after you've made the bigger (1.5-2.5 inch) cuts.
Hulk thanks for mentioning diameters. We need to talk about the bigger cuts with diameters because it's hard to see it. Did you leave those two big stubs to shoot and keep them away from the remaining limbs that will take over. I know those storm cuts can be a brain teaser. Especially when your forced to do something big. And I don't think you needed to take more. Time is on your side. Watch reaction and get more next time as you manage reactive shoots as well. Looks like you made a few small (1-2") cuts on that upright as well. I'd also reduce an upright like that. It can still dominate, especially if it's still there after a storm. Now it's more likely to be there enter a storm.
Daniel. Here's tucking in a very black and white sense. Structural improvement through shaping. Much more of a shear than I would normally apply. I used pruner and 12 foot ladder. Not shears. More detailed structural next time
Just wanted to show I also do natural looking apps. Still high volume reduced. This will go 4-6 years. No house. Good tree. Willows not only can take heavy app. They laugh at it. Pruners required. Even if your 145 lbs.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
boo hoo so it went overseas. I'll ask Mark to post it here too.
