Suckers - What do you tell the client?

[treevet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My original question stands unanswered. I have unsuccessfuly looked for an answer.

I understand (plant class was a long time ago) the cellular mechanics of how they form and what they do over time.

Why, o why, are they called water sprouts? Sorry again for the earlier misnomer. It seems to me that suckers have similar growth characteristics.

I am looking for a study that compares the photosynthetic capacity and/or transpiration capacity of the adventitious tissues to standardly formed tissues.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is teh closest I could come up with (simple search at auf site--anyone can be an ISA boffin, Blinky!)

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?Jou...ue=6&Type=1

and this study involved sprouts, as well as calling into question strict adherence to the slanted-cut approach that we have all been taught, no matter which deity we think may have taught it.

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?Jou...ue=5&Type=1

In botany lit there is probably something more specific to your question, which would have to be narrowed a lot to be an hypothesis.
Gives an idea of the technology and statistics involved. Daunting!
The 3Rs is still a good starting point, unless the tree says otherwise. Remove 1/3, reduce 1/3--also a good approach re posts on the last 3 pages of this thread!

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks suspiciously like you citing someone else's research (Shigo incl. in both of them). Cannot you think for yourself son?

Can anyone spell hypocrite?

A legitimate post response and on topic.

 

[theXman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My original question stands unanswered. I have unsuccessfuly looked for an answer.

I understand (plant class was a long time ago) the cellular mechanics of how they form and what they do over time.

Why, o why, are they called water sprouts? Sorry again for the earlier misnomer. It seems to me that suckers have similar growth characteristics.

I am looking for a study that compares the photosynthetic capacity and/or transpiration capacity of the adventitious tissues to standardly formed tissues.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is teh closest I could come up with (simple search at auf site--anyone can be an ISA boffin, Blinky!)

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?Jou...ue=6&Type=1

and this study involved sprouts, as well as calling into question strict adherence to the slanted-cut approach that we have all been taught, no matter which deity we think may have taught it.

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?Jou...ue=5&Type=1

In botany lit there is probably something more specific to your question, which would have to be narrowed a lot to be an hypothesis.
Gives an idea of the technology and statistics involved. Daunting!
The 3Rs is still a good starting point, unless the tree says otherwise. Remove 1/3, reduce 1/3--also a good approach re posts on the last 3 pages of this thread!

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks suspiciously like you citing someone else's research (Shigo incl. in both of them). Cannot you think for yourself son?

Can anyone spell hypocrite?

A legitimate post response and on topic.

[/ QUOTE ] you're reading comprehension sucks treevet, it's not even fun to argue with u because you get things so screwed up. You constantly put a spin on things and leave things out. I'm going to take this to the tree free zone tomorrow, as Tom asked to get back to the original subject here. You have become the #1 D-bag on treebuzz. Top of the list.

 

[sean_freeman]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to take this to the tree free zone tomorrow

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe I am the only person who wishes this infantile exchange had been moved to the tree free zone pages back.

This is aimed at all those who have contributed to the kindergarten behaviour -

I have long understood and accepted that we use these forums for different purposes and often venting or sparring is par for the course. But seriously the way in which this thread descended into nonsense is both frustrating and disappointing.

Its a shame it really is since I have read examples where each of you have provided personal insights that are important and helpful to broadening our general understanding of matters that more often than not do not have a definative answer.

Personally I enjoy intelligent sparring even when (as is often the case - easy - ) that sparring spirals into farcical ridicule...but such forum sport (for want of a better definition) IMO should not swamp threads like this one, in which the OP was asking a very common (yet not answered - no i don't have one!)question.

I have posted this not because I have any delusions that my opinion matters all that much to any of you, but because I asked Tom to intervene based on just how innappropriate I found the decline spiral some of you forced the conversation into.

 

[Blinky]

Your opinion matters as much as anyone's Sean and it's clear you are in good company. I've apologized for my part because I too believed this thread was going somewhere.

...but the troll continues to crap on it with his petty attention seeking, he can't stop, every post has some snide, personal negative crap designed strictly to provoke a response. With his volume of spooge, he's gonna get some bites. Frankly, I think this thread is mush now because of all of his crap you have to wade through to pick out the good parts.

 

[wulkowicz]

<font color="blue">BW: I'm writing this in a depersonalized fashion, I hope, to point how ruthlessly corrupted, distorted, and manipulated this thread has been. It started with a valid set of questions and a mistaken mingling of definitions. All that was solvable--eventually.

There is also a badly incomplete set of BBC tools here that uses an imbedded quote option which duplicates everything from that chosen author. The next post will be as long as it was, and it is very difficult to answer or comment on individual issues.

When two or three quotes are strung together, the jumble seems beyond our control to use them as valuable histories--so we wander.

What I'm trying to do with Sean's post as an example is to identify the two of us in a conversation for a point by point, or a sparring interlude, or a Yank/Ozzie whatever--as a simple and direct use of color. Sean stays in black text. I choose to write in blue.

I have also tried this as a sample in this thread. http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.p...;gonew=1#UNREAD (Don't know if it connects.)</font>

------------------

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to take this to the tree free zone tomorrow

[/ QUOTE ]

SF: I do not believe I am the only person who wishes this infantile exchange had been moved to the tree free zone pages back.

This is aimed at all those who have contributed to the kindergarten behaviour -

<font color="blue">BW: I think it's a serious mistake to shift this thread to the tree free zone. That move cedes control to the infantile exchangers. Likely no one interested in the original questions will follow and the protagonists will lose interest because it's a less public stage.</font>


SF: I have long understood and accepted that we use these forums for different purposes and often venting or sparring is par for the course. But seriously the way in which this thread descended into nonsense is both frustrating and disappointing.

Its a shame it really is since I have read examples where each of you have provided personal insights that are important and helpful to broadening our general understanding of matters that more often than not do not have a definitive answer.

Personally I enjoy intelligent sparring even when (as is often the case - easy - ) that sparring spirals into farcical ridicule...but such forum sport (for want of a better definition) IMO should not swamp threads like this one, in which the OP was asking a very common (yet not answered - no i don't have one!)question.

I have posted this not because I have any delusions that my opinion matters all that much to any of you, but because I asked Tom to intervene based on just how innappropriate I found the decline spiral some of you forced the conversation into.

<font color="blue">If someone would like to join in, select quote and pick a color--sans motorcycles right now...


wulkoblue

 

[fireaxe]

The article "BRANCH JUNCTION CHARACTERISTICS AFFECT HYDRAULIC SEGMENTATION IN RED MAPLE " lends to the idea that there is a difference in water hydraulic connectivity resulting from the different angle of attachment of the branch. Another supporting fact is Hagen-Poiseuille law. I use fact here because it is a law, supported extremely well. Both ideas help me understand better what is going on.

So what to tell a client? Trees growth response is for energy production or for water flow?

There is purpose for the sucker/water sprout topic. Purpose is at times elusive. A solid understanding of what is going on and why they come up in the first place would drive a consensus.

A consensus is a pretty important driver for an industry that involves practioners and living things. The inconsistent advice given between arborists is not advancing us into professional status. Bickering looks pretty bad.

Remove 1/3, reduce a 1/3? That is a how much reduction in hydraulic/photosynthetic potential? Will an adjustment by the tree be necessary again?

 

[guymayor]

Sorry but this thread is useless without pics, because there are so many kinds of sprouts. Like that french guy said about defining terms, and arguments less than 3 minutes.

The best background piece on sprouts that I know of is Sprouting in Temperate Trees: http://arboretum.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Botanical-Review-Sprouting-in-Temperate-Trees.pdf
A Morphological and Ecological Review
PETER DEL TREDICI is amazingly perceptive.

The diversity in origin and function and permanence of sprouts is very wide. How can you expect to find a golden rule to manage them all? Post a *(%**&amp;^(*&amp pic willya?

 

[fireaxe]

Any sprout that do not arise from a tip meristem or a leaf axial bud that becomes a new tip meristem which elongates at a rate of 300-600% faster than "normal" growth. I am trying to figure out what to call them since this seems to be a sticking point.

Latent bud shoots or epicormic growth? The typically growth characteristic I am trying to get an understanding of is why the growth is sickeningly straight with rapid elongation. Earlier in the thread, I was informed that the cellular structure was similar in all wood tissue.

I am uninformed to my satisfaction, so I pose questions. I have thoughts that are not being communicated clearly enough. I am, as tree vet says, not a phD. Just a tree guy who wants to understand the subject. I have not the time to conduct research because I have mouths to feed at this time. I read as much as I can, but it is never enough. As far as leaving the research to the phD's, explain what the heck is going on better and I would drop it. Telling me that this proceedure seems to work ok is inadequate even if you have a boat load of anecdotal evidence. I should be considered an idiot if I thought that every situation was the same.

I am uncomfortable with any advice of what to do until I have an understanding of function.

How many trees have been topped? How many liontailed into failure? Why do they fail? How many times have you seen a tree that has had all the water sprouts removed every year? I get the calls EVERY day.

There was some potential leads in the paper you provided that I need to take a look at fully. From some of the generalized statements made in the paper, the other research may help with understanding. One of the interesting points mentioned is that water moves right on through the trachial vessel and has to slow to cross the barrier into the next? Is is possible that these vessels in the water sprout (or sucker) is being hyperelongated to give extra water flowing potential or for extra water storage? The purpose of creating energy does not make sense. Why elongate so quickly? Does it take energy to form xylem?

My way too broad hypothesis is that the rapidly elongating sprouts are grown to provide hydraulic assistance to the tree.

 

[GoodYautja]

A) The Arthur Clough Oak blew my mind.

So when there is unbudded good wood on a tree, as the declining wood fails, the epicormic growth that will come can sometimes be manipulated into sound-structured branches. This could be done probably far more often than we would guess, saving countless trees, however it would require, patience and vision and dedication, three rare-enough commodities.

B) I deeply appreciate the scientific conversation on this thread regarding the true meaning of this growth.

C) However, practically speaking, I still think that the client-tree relationship is all-important. If the client does not wish to intensively care for a declining tree, or for that matter, put up with it, I think it is a far better alternative to try to make the tree as pleasing to the customer as possible, even if it means not letting the tree reach its Completely Full Potential. Indeed I would think it would be better for 'trees' in the long run, to remove a tree for a client and plant a new one, one that the client can begin a journey with, increasing their understanding and appreciation for trees and igniting an emotional connection with that tree and its development in the future.

D) So, as I said before I would prune for beauty, but I also agree with those on this site that speak out against butchering. So I suppose this beauty pruning must be done not only to the wishes of the client but also to my definition of beauty, a definition which is partly defined by a tree that can thrive. As I gain knowledge and insight, I further refine my understanding of how to prune for health AND beauty.

E) If i didn't think that could be done, I wouldn't be doing this work.

F) Yes beauty is personal, but it's the shared appreciation of a beauty (by more than one person) which really is the driving force of any community or society. I dare say a shared appreciation of one type of beauty is why treebuzz exists. Sometimes its just between two people (h.o. and arborist), sometimes its universal.

G) I believe the answer to the topic is: The Truth. You tell the client the extent of your understanding of suckers, and your opinion and what that opinion is based on. If you don't feel happy with the extent of your knowledge, learn more. As it seems currently, the "right" answer is not yet known.

H) I look forward to anyone's responses to my thoughts (after reading this thread, i look forward to some more than others) *_*

I&amp;I) Thanks!

 

[Frax]

I'm still trying to think up hypotheses for the original question, which refers to the elongation of watersrouts. Haven't read enough to discover anything definitive.

And, yeah, I'd like to know why they are called watersprouts too. A clue maybe?

I have 4 thoughts. I can't contribute to the water pressure angle since I don't know enough about hydrodynamics to intelligently contribute there...BUT anyway...

1. Watersprouts are not ALWAYS elongate, and I know you also know this too because you've seen it. Elms for example get leaves right off the trunk and main scaffold limbs. Spruce will grow small normal looking shoots off the trunk after they have been limbed up if there is sufficient sun at it.

2. My best guess is still that its a race to the light as most of the elongate sprouts I see are in the interior of trees.

3. Would you guys say that sprouts after topping cuts are more elongate than a usual sprout? The shade hypothesis wouldn't hold then. This is an actual question put out there for intelligent contributions.

In this case maybe the tree is designing something that will eventually produce the best engineered solution given the new set of circumstances the tree has been given from a structural position. And yeah, we have all read that these shoots are more weakly attached than original branching. Always and forever? Over time does the tree compensate and reinforce the structure when it has stored enough in the 'bank' again to afford really good renos.

4. What I have never bothered to look at, and I will now, is this.... are the actual internodal sections long, or are they just not pushing side buds and therefore not branching and thus SEEM longer?

What would be cool to see, and I'm sure it's available for viewing is a photomcicrograph cross section and longitudinal section through normal year old and 2 year old shoots and watersprouts respectively. I've seen poplars regrow from topping where it is obvious they were topped and some cases where its not that obvious.

I've tried to keep my thoughts strictly related to the purpose of watersprout being long compared to normal shoots. If I missed something ueful on this already contributed, I'm sorry. It just got lost in the crap.

 

[guymayor]

"The Arthur Clough Oak blew my mind."

Mine too. Can anyone look at that in tree time and still doubt that trees are programmed to be immortal?

"So when there is unbudded good wood on a tree, as the declining wood fails, the epicormic growth that will come can sometimes be manipulated into sound-structured branches. This could be done probably far more often than we would guess, saving countless trees, however it would require, patience and vision and dedication, three rare-enough commodities."

All 3 yes, but a minimal amount of each, really.

"I deeply appreciate the scientific conversation on this thread regarding the true meaning of this growth."

Read the del Tredici paper, then, and you'll see many types of growth described, and several hints at True Meaning. Take your time, substitute small words for big words where needed (needed for me pretty often). He writes very clearly, for an academic...

"However, practically speaking, I still think that the client-tree relationship is all-important. If the client does not wish to intensively care for a declining tree, or for that matter, put up with it, I think it is a far better alternative to try to make the tree as pleasing to the customer as possible, even if it means not letting the tree reach its Completely Full Potential."

OK, I think. Client goals drive job objectives, and a smaller treee is better than no tree, OK.

"Indeed I would think it would be better for 'trees' in the long run, to remove a tree for a client and plant a new one, one that the client can begin a journey with, increasing their understanding and appreciation for trees and igniting an emotional connection with that tree and its development in the future."

Yes this is sometimes true, but the longer you work with trees, the less this remove-and-replace approach may be needed to fall back on. It might even start to look like a cop-out. Joining the journey as the tree coasts into gentle senescence can be more emotionally rewarding than raising a teenager, maybe more so.

Of course that's coming from a senescing sexagenarian, whose teenagers have all flown the coop, so take it fwiw.

 

[wulkowicz]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but this thread is useless without pics, because there are so many kinds of sprouts. Like that french guy said about defining terms, and arguments less than 3 minutes.

The best background piece on sprouts that I know of is Sprouting in Temperate Trees: http://arboretum.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Botanical-Review-Sprouting-in-Temperate-Trees.pdf

A Morphological and Ecological Review
PETER DEL TREDICI is amazingly perceptive.

The diversity in origin and function and permanence of sprouts is very wide. How can you expect to find a golden rule to manage them all? Post a *(%**&amp;^(*&amp pic willya?

....Read the del Tredici paper, then, and you'll see many types of growth described, and several hints at True Meaning. Take your time, substitute small words for big words where needed (needed for me pretty often). He writes very clearly, for an academic...

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">According to the author, Del Tredici, The term sprouting, as used in this article, describes the process whereby a tree develops secondary replacement trunks. Sprouting that occurs higher up on the stem or in the crown of erect trees, though not qualitatively different from basal sprouting, is not covered in this review because it does not lead to the production of secondary trunks.

I agree it is a very good review, but we have been talking about watersprouts--those parts originating above the ground.

Hmmmm, I still have 2 and a half minutes left on your clock.

Bob Wulkowicz

 

[guymayor]

Are all sprouts originating above the ground really called watersprouts, and are they all treated, and interpreted to the client, the same? I think not, not by a long shot; I'm still cxonfuased by the question.

"Hmmmm, I still have 2 and a half minutes left on your clock."

Whose clock, Mad Hatter? Without a pic or example, has the clock even started? Page 58 here goes into it a little--fireaxe, does any of that look like what you are talking about, in the PICS?

http://www.tcia.org/PDFs/TCI_Mag_NOV_SM_.pdf

 

[fireaxe]

I pick G!!!

Problem is that it really isn't truth , its an opinion . Of course that is one too! Opinions are like ___, everybody has one. Some pretty well informed opinions, fact supported, in this media. The sun coming up tomorrow is a fact (I hope). It will be a beautiful sunrise would be an obfuscated opinion (mine today). The opinion matters little globally, the fact matters.

My inquiry of what is going on has implications on many aspects of the business of tree care. As a standard MO, I instruct my staff to make cuts that minimize the potential to cause water sprout growth. Any oopsie cut that causes extra sprouting is a disservice to the client - both of them, only one is paying me directly. Historically, the opinion has been put forth that water sprout growth means that a tree is in stress mode. Good golly, wouldn't want to stress out my patient. If the cause were water potential, then don't screw with water movement in a tree. It takes a while to be familiar with the trees you work with because they do not all seem to have the same response. Why different would be such an excellent set of facts in the toolbox. Liontailing, heading cuts, changes in exposure all seem to set off stress mode. Most of these practices are not performed by a pro unless the client directs and the check is good. Another, well sparred thread all together. Its black, or its white or perhaps grey.

For years I was using the "If I make a cut here with no other branches around, I am sure it will sucker because there is nothing in proximity to supress the latent buds".

Yet I'd make the cut, take a look later, and no sprouts. WTF? Guess THAT didn't apply in this case. Arborist with egg on his face. I like eggs, but not all over my face.

The why is so F%&amp;@*!g important in the decision process. Basis in fact leads to positive outcomes. Me likey positive outcomes - makes me look good .