What are everyones thoughts on this?

It is interesting and appears well researched. Would it fly here? I doubt it. Anti-Shigo? I think it is more of a different perspective. Did he ever think along these lines? Would he be open to this today? Possibly, he was a skilled researcher and came to his results by looking at trees with a fresh perspective that bucked the common wisdom of his day.
 
This issue has been hashed out on many forums in the past.

Be cautious about putting fracture pruning in with routine arborculture. This is a very specific way to prune trees in order to generate conditions that are beneficial to microorganisms.

Keep your mind open. Understanding more about what goes on in and on trees will make you a better arborist.
 
oh, my gosh.

now a tree topper with ripped cuts can call their topping, "fracture pruning" and try to justify it. (Now, they can just let the stuff rip and get the job done even faster).

They can use the words FRACTURE PRUNING, just like they do with the word, POLLARDING. Any other word is better than the word Topping, even if it is topping.

I didn't get to read the whole thing by the way, just skimmed it. It would be good in a wildlife area I guess. Definitely not good for the tree's health.
 
In Central Park, NYC, we utilize this technique in our two large woodland areas. Rather than take dead trees down, we will top them and leave them for wildlife (Central Park is an important urban oasis for birds). In the past few years, we have used the coronet cut to make the snags look more natural as well as provide a more diverse habitat. After several years, we will remove the snag entirely (unless something is living there). However, we do not use this technique where public safety prohibits (i.e. over paths or lawns with heavy traffic). As far as we can tell, the park patrons are very pleased with the outcome of the coronet cuts.

Josh
 
we have done allot of work on large estates.

we clear the invasive species, honey suckle, ailanthus, and what not cut the vines remove them later let the choked forest bigin to breathe again

everything we chip goes right back on the forest floor carefully cleared from all root flares of course

we leave habitat where it is not hazardous

we are afforded the opportunity to return often as caretakers of those small patches of forest and get intimate with the trees

RECENTLY i READ AN EXCERPT FROM SHIGO ABOUT CUTTING INTO THE BRANCH COLLAR ON THE UNDERSIDE TO ENCOURAGE A CAVITY WITH A ROOF PERFECT FOR BIRDS. He did mention the negative effect on the tree, and if im not mistaken commented he did not condone it, i'll look it up tomorrow and post the direct quote.

AND I got to thinking about those clients and there properties and the birds, deer, skunk, beetles, yellow jackets, snakes, ground hogs, etc. etc. and of course the saplings and on and on and on

I believe that cornet cut and cutting into the branch collar may become a very useful technique

there is allot more to a forest than trees
 
Xman,

Take the time and read the whole article.

The role of environmental arborist is different from urban arborist which is different than a utility line clearance arborist. All different clients and management goals.

NO where in any of the ancient trees or coronet cutting literature have I EVER read that the advocates are calling for this to become an accepted practice for managing trees in the urban forest.

Something to think about is how much damage is done to the urban forest by knowledgeable and skilled arborists by over-pruning trees. Gutting [my term for the nicey-nicey 'lions tailing' term] is worse overall than all of the topping that's done don't you think?
 
I posted this in the hopes of sparking some conversation, much the way the deadwood thread went. my hopes are to learn from the other great minds on this board and maybe emplore some of these techniques where they would be most useful.....like Tom said NOT in your clients fron yard. but maybe way outback in that old stand of oaks, or that willow there by the swamp.

great posts so far guys!
 
[ QUOTE ]
In Central Park, NYC, we utilize this technique in our two large woodland areas. Rather than take dead trees down, we will top them and leave them for wildlife (Central Park is an important urban oasis for birds). In the past few years, we have used the coronet cut to make the snags look more natural as well as provide a more diverse habitat. After several years, we will remove the snag entirely (unless something is living there). However, we do not use this technique where public safety prohibits (i.e. over paths or lawns with heavy traffic). As far as we can tell, the park patrons are very pleased with the outcome of the coronet cuts.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

that's really cool. Thanks for sharing this.

We've done some small things for wildlife. I've suggested leaving standing trunks plenty of times. We leave like a 20 foot stalk, bore in with the saw in different areas to get insects started faster and a place for woodpeckers to get started too. As long as it's not in a kids play area and not tall enough to hit anything when it falls, it's a good idea for wildlife. If the tree was alive and I worry about it resprouting; growing back an unsafe tree; then I'll also girdle it with the saw at the base. I haven't had a customer yet that was unhappy that it was left. Most have great stories about what has come to work on the trunk.
 
Ahhh, the dead wood thread... great times!
cool.gif


jp
grin.gif
 
There was a post on a woodworking forum that I follow that talked about the life of a tree. From seed to soil there are lots of paths that the tree may take.

Shigo talked about understanding the results of what we do to the tree when we're involved at a point in time. Like Doctor L referred to above...I heard Shigo say...if you want to create wildlife habitat, make flush cuts.

The woodworker talked about taking a tree out of the seed to soil arc and make lumber out of it. Using the wood, temporarily, as something more honors the tree. This is a conscious decision. Hormel meat packing company had a slogan, 'We get the oink out of the pig' Shouldn't we do the same? If trees are in decline and in a proper place, give them a second life as habitat trees. At some time, everything ends up in the landfill and becomes soil again. If we can make lumber or habitat it extends the soul of the tree just a bit longer.

It's hard for North American arbos to understand how trees have been managed in Europe and the rest of the world. Since this concept is based in the UK we can look back and see that the woodlands have been intensely managed for human consumption for milleniums. Out of this 'island mentality' comes the idea that there is a self-sufficiency that must be considered all of the time. During colonial era of the West [world history, not just US] all we had to do was move a little and there was more. This makes for a much different relationship with the natural world. Those of us in the US have lived in a culture of Manifest Destiny. There is always more to have, why worry about diminishing resources? In the UK the 'frontier' was hard to win. A farmer couldn't just up and move when a new house needed to be built. They had better hope that there were materials close at hand. The ability to move wasn't there...the resources had to be close.

I don't think that there will ever be 'ancient trees' in the same sense as in the UK. We haven't manage our trees that way. cut and move on...isn't that how we manage our urban forest? If there is the tiniest risk we cut the tree down instead of doing basic risk management. Crown reduction, move the target, cable and brace and now, coronet cutting, are accepted management techniques. Lets get out there and use these modern tools with the same fervor that we've taken to synthetic ropes, chainsaws and cell phones.
 
Interesting, I have done something similar with no idea what to call it:

Wealthy client, very interested in proper tree care, amazing property, bespoke architectural home, willing to pay T&M to get things "just right".

One item of a long list of tree work they wanted was the pruning of a recently dead Douglas Fir. Dead. Growing on a rock outcropping and swept by salt winds, it was a gnarled and stunted specimen, rapid trunk taper, not at all representative of it's species. But according to the client it had a "presence" in their landscape they wanted to preserve, and an "interesting underlying structure" they believed I could reveal. Hmmm.

With the client's understanding that it would indeed all have to go one day, my appreciation that there were no targets of value if I got rid of 20' of top and started from there, I went at the job as if I were 20 years of artistically controlled rain and wind and ice and sun.

I made some multifaceted tapering cuts, cuts I let peel out, cuts to fray the bark in spots and in general had a lot of fun in a tree I knew I could not hurt. Also left a structure that will eventually fall "right there" when the roots do give out.

The client was stoked with my results.

If I'd known to call it coronet pruning, I would have definitely blown my horn about it, but who knew!

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

Good points Tom D. about many paths on the seed to soil circle.

I did a removal for an artist who wanted 15' of a Western Red Cedar left standing just to try his hand at carving a totem. Even as we were raking up, he was walking around and around it, stopping to see it from this angle, running his hands over it, walking away, crouching to see it again from low...

Given the art released from stone he had in his yard, I have no doubt he found something in there, would be interesting to back and see.

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

Some times people will save themselves the cost of a stumpgrind by hollowing it out with an ax and planting some flowers or just put a big pot of flowers on the stump.

It doesn't always have to be trees the way your neighbor does it.


Northwind
 
with the first company i was with we had no loader or flatbed or crane so we had to buck everything and put it on our shoulders. I don't miss that. I laugh when everyone starts scratching there heads when the loader cant get to a log or the winch line is not a possible solution. I just grab a saw and start bucking. the head scratching turns to belly aching.

my boss would try to sell everyone nurse logs and they would pay us extra to leave the log cut a trench in it fill it with soil and the rest was up to them. saved us allot of time toting and sharpening.

i wish more clients would allow tree companies to leave the material on site where it belongs. where it came from.

I guess nature is too unsightly.
 
this is a pretty cool thread!

I've got pictures of totem poles I've done, mushrooms and bird houses. if you care; i'll look them up and post.

I have a standing spruce trunk waiting for me at an old farm. we took the tree down to about 18 feet in summer of 2008. I'm going to totem pole it with what ever characters I see fit. I just thought with the economy down, i'd have more time than this.
 
ok i think we have established that it may be good on dead trees and where wildlife values are high. Kathy H talked about coronet cutting on a declining backyard tree here once, and I lit into it, rather unmercifully, in retrospect. As as safety and amenity are values in urban trees, intentional wounding does not fit imo. Strongly recommend this site-http://www.treeworks.co.uk/-way ahead of US arb study imo. I asked the author about it last week--here's his reply:

GPM Is it ever proper to begin retrenchment pruning before the tree starts to decline? Aside from individual branch reduction for specified reasons.

**By ‘decline’, if you mean before the tree begins to retrench, then no; unless carried out for scientific reasons, I can’t see why one would want to induce or mimic retrenching for its own sake.** However we typically find ourselves professionally drawn to intervene with trees when this is not in their interests; for economic, safety and cultural reasons, prompted by some anthropocentric requirement (management for risk control or visual amenity). Professionally we are often drawn to intervene to mitigate decline, perhaps indicated by stress or disease symptoms (though I suspect we may differ in our definitions).

When is intervention appropriate? This would depend on the objectives of the client, also hopefully informed by the CA professionals’ expertise and advice. Intervention needs to consider time and priority, (if it is necessary at all, if so, how soon and how long can it reasonably be put off?), whether any intervention with the above ground tree / parts can be avoided (can intervention relating to health or stress remediation be confined to the root-soil system, mitigating rhyzosphere condition, again when and how long and how little).

We are drawn to intervene with trees for a variety of reasons. Typically though, safety and amenity have been the main drivers in our western culture (amenity usually driven by shifting notions of visual landscape aesthetics – balance, light and form). From the point of view of conservation arboriculture the driver is the tree (as host to its colonisers); its longevity and continued existence is its focus for a number of reasons, though some, I suspect, you are not convinced about. Nonetheless, tree management form a conservation arboriculture standpoint is based on the precautionary principle, i.e. a reasonable calculation of the risk of causing harm is sufficient before proportionate measures are taken to control such risks, so full scientific certainty is not necessary that we may be causing harm (Rio Summit). On this basis and in light of research about ecological continuity (1,700 different species of invertebrates whose lifestyles depend on British saproxylic habitat; their continued existence depends on veteran trees and their habitat in all their contexts). A key conservation arboriculture objective is therefore that there should be ‘no avoidable loss of veteran and ancient trees’. Given that mature trees are the veteran and ancients of tomorrow, this objective extends to the management of the younger, mature cohort (important also for its contribution to ecosystem services, including urban climate control).
 
Hmm This article gives you something to really think about.
I have done what we call Habitat Trees in areas way off the beatin path to not harm anyone. Usually take the tree that has had storm damage,trunk damage,and the third shift of woodpeckers are comeing on duty. Basically go up and take of almost all the thin dead branches some back to about 2' from the trunk. I have left some ripped out branches just to keep the natural look(try not to spook the wildlife)to much. I see the potential in the more forested areas but I think out in plain view might draw alot of questions. Very interesting thread far thanks for posting.
Nate
 
It's an interesting aspect of arborculter I've never heard of before. Great post jim. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don't think it would do well in my area. Too many targets and not enough wildlife but I do a considerable amount of side work in the pinelands so I could see something like this doing well out there.
 
i just read that deadwood thread straight through then came back to this, fascinating. thanks for referencing it. really got me thinking about allot things

it seams the general consensus is that many actions in this industry have a time and place. Specifically refering to dead wood removal or not to removal. And if the time and place or technique is wrong dire consequences may ensue

other actions reverberate through chains of events that have consequences both intended and not. sometimes in our best effort to do the right thing we cause more harm than good.

reminds me of an eastern thought "to do nothing is to everything there is to do"

sometimes some redneck tops a bunch of trees or some hot shot young climber lion tails every tree he climbs and makes a bunch of clients happy how "tidy" their trees appear referring much work giving him more opportunity to swing through the urban forest wreaking havoc. Or another neighborhood is built and what trees are left are just future removals no dignity left no forest left.

those actions have the potential to bring alot of work to excellent arbos as well as learning ones who will all go on to bring modern arborculture into the modern world. after all it takes alot of tree cuttin' to pay for that sweet new saddle. I guess im trying to say that the chain goes both ways Sometimes evil paves the way for incredible things.

The selection pressure humans have put on all plants and animals has had drastic effects on there evolutionary roller coaster ride for sure look at apple trees, Bradford pears, dogs, yams, and lets not forget the poor unfortunate bulls that lost the ability to breed and rely on humans for artificial insemination or they will have no progeny to pass their genetics on to... Some of these trees may go the way of the dodo as well without us to act as their caretakers.

but don't be fooled the trees and all the other non-human organisms manipulate us as well, perhaps even better.
they have manipulated us into ensuring the survival of their genetic code to the extreme of the pursuit of elimination of all competition to some way beyond simple favoring of a particular flower. That same bull mentioned earlier may never make the beast with two backs but as long as there are humans to feed his survival as a species on this planet, and perhaps one day others, is ensured with no effort but to posses that DNA that makes him too big to f***...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom