Top Crape Mytles ?

Not sure what your point is on the word "topping", Guy? We'd get ten different answers if we ask, "What does a tree look like? too.

Is there a better one-word term to describe the internodal heading off of limbs and leaders?
 
Great post by Ryan. 'Remove and replace' is a poor option, for many reasons, abdication being primary.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a better one-word term to describe the internodal heading off of limbs and leaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

TL, we may not agree on aesthetics, but we really should agree on terms describing practice. Glad you mentioned 'internodal'...so are large nodal cuts topping, or reduction?

At what point does reduction pruning become 'heading off'? Diameter? % sapwood?
The definition(s) of 'heading' are hard for me to understand.
Stay tuned, while the pruning standard is revised, this year. Here's a snip from the UK

Crown reduction and reshaping
COMMENTARY ON 7.7
Crown reduction alleviates biomechanical stress by reducing both the leverage and the sail area of the tree, and can allow retention of a tree in a confined space. It can also be used to create a desired appearance or to make the tree more suited to its surroundings. Unlike topping (see 3.28
and Annex C), it retains the main framework of the crown and therefore a high proportion of the foliage-bearing structure, which is important for the maintenance of vitality. Not all species or individual trees are
appropriate candidates for reduction.
In crown re-shaping, the height and/or spread of one or more portions of the crown are selectively reduced, while not necessarily reducing the height and spread of the tree as a whole (see also 7.8 and 7.9.2 regarding the selective pruning of individual branches).

7.7.1 General
When assessing the suitability of a tree for crown reduction, particular regard should be paid to the characteristics of the species as well as
the physiological condition of the individual tree. The extent of crown reduction should be determined on the basis of the management objective (see Annex B) and on an assessment of the ability of the tree to withstand the treatment.
The general principle is that, following reduction, there should still be a strong framework of healthy small-diameter branches and twigs (leaf-bearing structure), capable of producing dense leaf cover during the following growing season. In order to apply this principle, each
tree should first be assessed so as to decide how much and where to cut (see also 7.2.4).

A crown should normally be reduced in proportion to its original shape, so as to avoid altering the balance of the tree as a whole, but the objective should not be to achieve symmetry for its own sake. The shape of the crown may be altered if there is a specific need to do so,
e.g. for biomechanical integrity.
Due to its potentially negative effects, crown reduction should not usually be carried out in addition to other crown pruning operations,which would add to the amount of wounding and leaf loss.

NOTE 1 Although crown reduction should not be combined with
systematic crown thinning, it often entails some degree of thinning due to the selective removal of branches at their points of origin.
Within the context of crown reduction, as opposed to topping, the cuts would normally expose a much smaller proportion of heartwood or ripewood than of sapwood and should not exceed 100 mm in diameter except on very large trees.

7.7.2 Specification for crown reduction and/or reshaping
The specification should be accurate and clear, so that the desired result is achieved. To avoid ambiguity, the specified end result can be stated either as the tree-height and branch-spread which are to remain, or the average equivalent in branch length (in metres). End
results should be specified for individual branches if the growth pattern of the tree creates a need for this, or where clearance from a specific object is required (see 7.8).

NOTE 1 Specifications for a percentage reduction are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc. A 30% reduction in crown volume can be considered to be approximately equivalent to a 12% reduction in overall branch length (i.e. radial distance).
...
**Annotated photographs should be provided** where this would be helpful in describing the desired result.
cool.gif
 
so are large nodal cuts topping, or reduction?

A: If brought back to proper lateral then reduction. If not, topping.

At what point does reduction pruning become 'heading off'? Diameter? % sapwood?

A: When the tree has no more dignity, natural form is destroyed, and root to crown balance has been lost.


The UK rules are interesting to read. Lots of hyper-descriptives. We still need a general term that can categorize all of it. Kind of like the word, "pruning". There are a lot of facets to it.
 
As far as the proper spelling goes, my thought is that it was originally "Crepe". The flowers look like Crepe paper. Both Crape and Crepe are accepted though.
 
Good answers. The ?s were more to the industry at large; not raggin on ya.

so are large nodal cuts topping, or reduction?
A: If brought back to proper lateral then reduction. If not, topping.
Q: What is 'proper lateral'? One (or more?) that will sustain the branch and prevent decaying or sprouting in a manner difficult to manage?

At what point does reduction pruning become 'heading off'? Diameter? % sapwood?
A: When the tree has no more dignity, natural form is destroyed, and root to crown balance has been lost.
Q: Dignity's 100% subjective, but...good points re form and physiology.

The UK rules are interesting to read. Lots of hyper-descriptives. We still need a general term that can categorize all of it. Kind of like the word, "pruning". There are a lot of facets to it.
&&yes, they do describe a lot in the UK, while ANSI is stripped-down, and descriptives to aid usefulness are very hard to get included, *Unless there is public comment calling for them!* So when it comes out for review around April, speak up!
 
[ QUOTE ]
'Remove and replace' is a poor option, for many reasons, abdication being primary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I obviously don't agree, but it's hard to be persuaded by "many reasons" when you don't articulate those reasons.

If their size can be reduced and managed cost-effectively without topping, that's acceptable. Internodal pruning cuts are occasionally necessary, but should be avoided whenever possible.



I refer to the USDA Plant Database or Virginia Tech's dendrology site when I'm unsure how to properly spell a tree name.

Crapemyrtle isn't a true myrtle in the Myrtaceae family and therefore should be written as one word. Although it is most often seen written as two words. I'm not aware of any definitive guide on writing common names.
 
Glenn You're absolutely right about naming; redcedar and baldcypress are other examples of one-word proper common names. But that's small stuff.

Abdication, aka copping out, was articulated as the primary reason to avoid the tired old isa/Negative Nancy "Remove and Replace" mantra. Arborists by definition can manage trees.

Sometimes R&R fits the job objective, I agree. But...Any calculation of cost-effectiveness MUST include the current and potential value of the tree on the site, or it is just an easy out for the inexperienced or unable.

Internodal cuts are never necessary, when the arborist has the time and ability to follow the A300 Standard and locate buds/nodes/growth points. Easy to find on crepemyrtle btw.
 
Q: What is 'proper lateral'? One (or more?) that will sustain the branch and prevent decaying or sprouting in a manner difficult to manage?

A: I, for one, like the rule of thirds; a good solid lateral at least 1/3 the size of the piece being cut. A bush full of suckers doesn't do the trick for me. Although a thick lateral in addition to suckers would be better.

Q: Dignity's 100% subjective, but...good points re form and physiology.

A: 100%???? The occasional whacko might like a totem pole in their yard but you survey the majority and they'll agree on what a tree looks like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom