# Multi Trunk Birch Question



## kjd722 (May 8, 2012)

View attachment 237455

Here is my question: my customer wants just the trunk that has ant damage removed as it naturally leans over her home. I can get it down safely, but, will it harm the rest of the tree. Concerning the bronze birch borer it is easily a class 1 tree, and she likes the shade from it. Assuming the ants have not entered the other trunks, is it okay to remove just the bad one? It can be flushed pretty low without hitting the other trunks. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Carburetorless (May 8, 2012)

kjd722 said:


> View attachment 237455
> 
> Here is my question: my customer wants just the trunk that has ant damage removed as it naturally leans over her home. I can get it down safely, but, will it harm the rest of the tree. Concerning the bronze birch borer it is easily a class 1 tree, and she likes the shade from it. Assuming the ants have not entered the other trunks, is it okay to remove just the bad one? It can be flushed pretty low without hitting the other trunks. Thanks in advance!



Shouldn't you be considering the risk factor to the property?

If the tree has 33% or less shell thickness, then it's at high risk of failure, and corrective action should be considered.

If it has 20% or less shell, it's at critical risk, and corrective action should be taken.

Drilling the trunk with a small diameter bit will give a rough idea of how much solid wood remains. For the other trunks you tap them with a rubber mallet to see if they sound hollow, if they're not then they're O.K., and you don't need to drill them to check their shell thickness.


----------



## husabud (May 8, 2012)

It should be fine. You will be losing more than is conventionally acceptable, but with the ant damage I would remove it. Checking to see if the other two stems are sound is a good idea. Have you climbed it for inspection?


----------



## kjd722 (May 8, 2012)

Btw, I didnt mean safe for the rest of the tree as in possible damage, I meant safe as in disease risk since she likes the tree. The property is the main factor but like I mentioned, the tree trunk can be safely removed. Above the rotted part the tree is very solid and alive leading me to believe the damage is not too severe as of now, but coring will tell me if the lower part is too rotted for me to climb it. I was basically wanting to know if removing the trunk and leaving that part of the stump exposed will have negaitve affects for the rest of the tree? Thanks.


----------



## kjd722 (May 8, 2012)

I hadnt yet, a friend caught me while I was out and I had my wifes car and none of my gear, but the crown looks great when compared to the rest of the trees in my area.


----------



## Carburetorless (May 8, 2012)

kjd722 said:


> Btw, I didnt mean safe for the rest of the tree as in possible damage, I meant safe as in disease risk since she likes the tree. The property is the main factor but like I mentioned, the tree trunk can be safely removed. Above the rotted part the tree is very solid and alive leading me to believe the damage is not too severe as of now, but coring will tell me if the lower part is too rotted for me to climb it. I was basically wanting to know if removing the trunk and leaving that part of the stump exposed will have negaitve affects for the rest of the tree? Thanks.



Yes, if the upper part of the branch is alive, then removing it will be detrimental to the rest of the tree. 

In such a case it's more beneficial to only remove it if it posses a threat to people and/or property; However, you should inform the HO that the tree needs to be checked periodically for further deterioration. They'll probably want to go ahead and remove it so as to avoid the problem later, and you should inform them that by doing so you open the rest of the tree to decline.

If you did remove it, the rest of the tree would have to be checked periodically as well, since it will be in a more accelerated state of decline due to the removal of such a large amount of live wood, and the large cross section of exposed trunk that is closer to the root system.

I'm thinking that by cutting the branch that close to the root system you will move the decay process closer to the roots than it would be if you left it as is. So it makes more since to leave well enough alone, rather than making things worse.


----------



## kjd722 (May 8, 2012)

Thank you so far for you knowledge, but I wanted to point out that there are 4 stems, not 3. I would be removing the smallest one, if the HO still wants to. Not sure if that makes a significant difference in your assesments. Thanks again.


----------



## Carburetorless (May 8, 2012)

kjd722 said:


> Thank you so far for you knowledge, but I wanted to point out that there are 4 stems, not 3. I would be removing the smallest one, if the HO still wants to. Not sure if that makes a significant difference in your assesments. Thanks again.



My assessment is a general rule of thumb; However, there are other factors to consider. To begin with, the tree looks like it's grown from a stump where someone cut it off in the past. 

Something else to consider is the location, it's very close to side walks, any tree in decline is a hazard in such a place. Not only that, but the side walks themselves can cause compaction of the soil around the root system, as can a lot of foot traffic around the base of the tree, which can lead to further decline.

As a general rule of thumb; Don't fix problems that don't yet exist, but keep a watchful eye on potential problems where they are likely to occur.


----------



## ddhlakebound (May 8, 2012)

Carburetorless said:


> Shouldn't you be considering the risk factor to the property?
> 
> If the tree has 33% or less shell thickness, then it's at high risk of failure, and corrective action should be considered.
> 
> ...



Can you please explain what these statistics are based on? They are vague at best, and wholly wrong at worst. 

And while drilling the trunk can determine the amount of sound wood at the drill site, it does not give a complete picture of the entire trunk, and you've now opened the sound, unwounded wood to the possibility of decay because of the wound you made with the bit. IMO boring a trunk for soundness should be reserved for after the decision to remove has been made, in order to determine safety to climb and/or rig from.


----------



## ddhlakebound (May 9, 2012)

kjd722 said:


> View attachment 237455
> 
> Here is my question: my customer wants just the trunk that has ant damage removed as it naturally leans over her home. I can get it down safely, but, will it harm the rest of the tree. Concerning the bronze birch borer it is easily a class 1 tree, and she likes the shade from it. Assuming the ants have not entered the other trunks, is it okay to remove just the bad one? It can be flushed pretty low without hitting the other trunks. Thanks in advance!



It's difficult to determine the cause of the injury from the pic, could be an old tear out wound, physical damage, or a canker of some sort. The ants are NOT the cause of the visible injury, only a symptom of it. 

The injured stem being removed would probably create a dramatic imbalance in the root/shoot ratio, and could be a catalyst for long term decline. I'd be in favor of keeping the damaged stem, and if it failing on the house is a legitimate concern, sell the lady a cabling job to help maintain the tree and shade while greatly lessening the chances of a failure with property damage.

If you must remove the damaged stem, consider removing the whole tree and stump, and replanting a new shade tree in it's place, because I do not see good things in the future with a huge basal injury (basal/root rot) and a significantly stressed root system.


----------



## ddhlakebound (May 9, 2012)

Carburetorless said:


> My assessment is a general rule of thumb; However, there are other factors to consider. To begin with, the tree looks like it's grown from a stump where someone cut it off in the past.
> 
> Something else to consider is the location, it's very close to side walks, any tree in decline is a hazard in such a place. Not only that, but the side walks themselves can cause compaction of the soil around the root system, as can a lot of foot traffic around the base of the tree, which can lead to further decline.
> 
> As a general rule of thumb; Don't fix problems that don't yet exist, but keep a watchful eye on potential problems where they are likely to occur.



Whose rule of thumb are you referring to Carbie? 

It's very common for landscape birches to be sold with multiple stems, and I see no visible evidence to suggest that this multi-stem is re-grown from an old stump cut.

Going by your "rules of thumb" and "considerations", I bet you can find a way to justify practically any tree as a removal. Also, if the sidewalk was in place before the tree was even planted, how is it that the sidewalk is causing compaction? And you don't generally see an excessive amount of foot traffic in a residential yard, especially when there's a sidewalk a few feet away.



> Don't fix problems that don't yet exist



Is that something like don't prevent problems before they happen? Sounds like another rule of dumb to me.....


----------



## pdqdl (May 9, 2012)

I am not opposed to taking out the damaged trunk; the homeowner seems to want that done, right?

I have seen many "clump" trees lose one or more legs to no apparent long term damage. I certainly wouldn't expect dramatic problems, particularly from a river birch. They seem to recover rather nicely from severe storm damage, so I wouldn't get too worried about knocking off that one major branch.

I also think that sounding the damaged trunk and attempting to assess the risk of failure would be appropriate. Does it show signs of losing branches in the upper portion? Pound on it with a mallet, throw a rope in it and shake it some. Perhaps just watch it sway on a breezy day. This should give you a pretty good idea if that ugly scar on the trunk is more dangerous than just unsightly.

If the trunk turns out to be pretty sound, you should consider cabling, as suggested previously. This will alleviate the homeowner's sleepless windy night problems, and very likely will minimize damage to the home in the event of a failure.

I don't generally condemn a tree just on account of a hole in the trunk, and certainly not on account of some ants. Major decay on a leaner over the house?


----------



## Carburetorless (May 9, 2012)

ddhlakebound said:


> Can you please explain what these statistics are based on? They are vague at best, and wholly wrong at worst.
> 
> And while drilling the trunk can determine the amount of sound wood at the drill site, it does not give a complete picture of the entire trunk, and you've now opened the sound, unwounded wood to the possibility of decay because of the wound you made with the bit. IMO boring a trunk for soundness should be reserved for after the decision to remove has been made, in order to determine safety to climb and/or rig from.



Have you been brain washed or what?

Why would you bother to drill a trunk after you've decided to remove the tree??? 

You're being a complete moron at best, and a usurping troll at worst.


----------



## Carburetorless (May 9, 2012)

ddhlakebound said:


> Whose rule of thumb are you referring to Carbie?
> 
> It's very common for landscape birches to be sold with multiple stems, and I see no visible evidence to suggest that this multi-stem is re-grown from an old stump cut.
> 
> Going by your "rules of thumb" and "considerations", I bet you can find a way to justify practically any tree as a removal.



Stop trying to put words in my mouth, I'm not suggesting it be removed, as a matter of fact I suggested the opposite; You obviously have hostilities towards me, probably because you're a hack posing as an expert. 





> Also, if the sidewalk was in place before the tree was even planted, how is it that the sidewalk is causing compaction?



The concrete in the pic is obviously new, the tree not so new. If you had a lick of sense you would know that.



> And you don't generally see an excessive amount of foot traffic in a residential yard, especially when there's a sidewalk a few feet away.



Oh well, I guess they can quit making "Keep Off Grass" signs now.



> Is that something like don't prevent problems before they happen? Sounds like another rule of dumb to me.....



No, it means don't throw out the baby with the bath water. As I said, I suggested the opposite of removing the tree, that's why I suggested drilling the trunk first, as opposed to removing the tree then drilling the trunk as you suggested in your drunken stooper.


----------



## ddhlakebound (May 9, 2012)

Carburetorless said:


> Have you been brain washed or what?
> 
> Why would you bother to drill a trunk after you've decided to remove the tree???
> 
> You're being a complete moron at best, and a usurping troll at worst.



I guess you're on another "clueless" day.......

I said.....


> Can you please explain what these statistics are based on? They are vague at best, and wholly wrong at worst.
> 
> And while drilling the trunk can determine the amount of sound wood at the drill site, it does not give a complete picture of the entire trunk, and you've now opened the sound, unwounded wood to the possibility of decay because of the wound you made with the bit. IMO boring a trunk for soundness should be reserved for after the decision to remove has been made, in order to determine safety to climb and/or rig from.



Drilling into a live stem allows the good wood (which you're attempting to determine the quantity of) to be opened to decay pathogens. Have you not yet figured out that wounding causes decay? Yes, most trees will compartmentalize the drilling wounds. But not all, and there are methods to determine the soundness of a stem which do not involve opening it to new pathogens.



> Why would you bother to drill a trunk after you've decided to remove the tree???



It was very plainly stated......* IMO boring a trunk for soundness should be reserved for after the decision to remove has been made, in order to determine safety to climb and/or rig from. 
*

And one more time.....Do you have a source for your "rule of thumb", or not?


----------



## ddhlakebound (May 9, 2012)

Carburetorless said:


> Stop trying to put words in my mouth, I'm not suggesting it be removed, as a matter of fact I suggested the opposite; You obviously have hostilities towards me, probably because you're a hack posing as an expert.
> 
> The concrete in the pic is obviously new, the tree not so new. If you had a lick of sense you would know that.
> 
> ...



Carbie, my hostilities towards you are based on the fact that you consistently offer advice where you have little or no knowledge. Get more knowledge, and give good advice, and you'll notice that the "hostilities" towards you lessen greatly.


----------



## Carburetorless (May 9, 2012)

ddhlakebound said:


> I guess you're on another "clueless" day.......
> 
> I said.....
> 
> Drilling into a live stem allows the good wood (which you're attempting to determine the quantity of) to be opened to decay pathogens. Have you not yet figured out that wounding causes decay? Yes, most trees will compartmentalize the drilling wounds. But not all, and there are methods to determine the soundness of a stem which do not involve opening it to new pathogens.



Yeah there are non-invasive methods, but they require sophisticated/expensive equipment that rarely gets used, and would be extremely difficult to justify the cost of. Not to mention the fact that it would price you right of 99% of the jobs that require it's use.

So a small fluted bit makes more dollars and sense.



> It was very plainly stated......* IMO boring a trunk for soundness should be reserved for after the decision to remove has been made, in order to determine safety to climb and/or rig from.
> *



No, boring is used to determine shell percentage in order to evaluate risk of failure during storms.

Unless you're climbing which probably does about as much damage as a storm, so yeah, you should bore every tree before YOU climb.


----------



## Carburetorless (May 9, 2012)

ddhlakebound said:


> Carbie, my hostilities towards you are based on the fact that you consistently offer advice where you have little or no knowledge. Get more knowledge, and give good advice, and you'll notice that the "hostilities" towards you lessen greatly.



No, I already have the knowledge, and I've checked it with people who are more knowledgeable than you. 

So stop otstir: up #### like this.


----------



## StihlyinEly (May 9, 2012)

I have not done this with river birch, but I have on numerous occasions over many years taken single mature trunks out of clump-form white birches, and a couple times with yellow birches that have grown off a stump. In no case that I've been able to view a few years later (at least 8 or 10 different jobs), have I seen problems with the rest of the tree. Not saying it won't happen, just that I haven't seen it, and river birch are considered hardy and resilient trees.

I'm also in favor of assessing the trunk in question using the non-invasive means already described, and cabling it that's feasible. Sounds to me like the best all-around solution for the homeowner based on what I've read and the pic shown. 

Just the way I look at it.


----------



## beastmaster (May 9, 2012)

Here in So. Calif. we basically have one birch, the Betula pendula. This tree doesn't compartmentalize very well at all. Topping or a sever pruning can kill them. The wood is very light weight, and wouldn't do a lot of damage if it fell on a slanted roof. I don't know if that is trait of all betula's.
Its never good to remove a major live leader from a tree, granted we sometimes have to do it . I wouldn't be drilling into it if your keeping it either.
This is a good example of where a dynamic bracing system would be used I think. Not so much to support the leader but to hold it or redirect it if it did fail. I would do some detective work and find out the cause of the problem(Not the ants)and that information would help you make an informed decision.
A multi-trucked tree may have several leaders, but still have one crown. We all know what happens if you take out a large portion of a trees crown(canopy)Just something to keep in mind.
You can get a lot of opinions, but the call is on you, so study all the variables so you can make an informed decision based on logic and understanding.


----------



## kjd722 (May 9, 2012)

Everyone keeps saying that river birch are hardy and could handle the loss of one stem.....this is a white birch, kinda hard to see since the pic only shows the lower part, but the top is white papery birch. Not sure if that would change opinions but I wanted to make that known. As for the damage....there was a limb busted off in the past the nobody took care of and that led to ants moving in. I will run all the great info from you guys and let her know the options and risks. Very helpful guys, thank you.:msp_thumbup:


----------



## pdqdl (May 9, 2012)

beastmaster said:


> Here in So. Calif. we basically have one birch, the Betula pendula. This tree doesn't compartmentalize very well at all. Topping or a sever pruning can kill them. ...



That tree is native to Finland, it is their national tree. Southern California is too far south for that tree to be hardy. Blame the health problems on the local climate, not the tree.


----------



## pdqdl (May 9, 2012)

kjd722 said:


> Everyone keeps saying that river birch are hardy and could handle the loss of one stem.....this is a white birch, kinda hard to see since the pic only shows the lower part, but the top is white papery birch. Not sure if that would change opinions but I wanted to make that known. As for the damage....there was a limb busted off in the past the nobody took care of and that led to ants moving in. I will run all the great info from you guys and let her know the options and risks. Very helpful guys, thank you.:msp_thumbup:



Oops. That would be me. It looked a bit dark on the trunk for a white birch, and I didn't look very hard.

I don't think that changes my opinion concerning the problem. White birch are not quite as hardy this far south, and are particularly prone to borer problems. I see you are in Wisconsin? I think they are pretty hardy further north where you are. 

I don't know about the prevalence of birch bark borers in your area, but that should not affect your decision about whacking one stem off that tree, unless you are already infested.


----------

