# Where to make cut on this willow?



## JimL (Mar 18, 2006)

Im pretty sure this is a green weeping willow. Limb split bad in the wind recently. 
Just not sure where to make the final cut, this almost looks like a codom, limb was close in size to the main stem.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Mar 18, 2006)

Hey! Don't you guys remember school days? Giving the answer isn't enough - you have to show your work!

WHY would you cut there? Why not higher? Lower?

Give the ignoramuses some help, here!


----------



## rebelman (Mar 18, 2006)

I would go with the yellow line. Any collar formation probably wouldn't be damaged there. Compartmentalization time might be increased, but a wound that size may never close. This may not matter if the boundaries set up well. Some people think that angle would catch water, but i think trees can handle that.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 18, 2006)

If you really wanted to know, you could wait a year and come back and see where the living tissue is and then cut just past it.


----------



## tawilson (Mar 19, 2006)

If it's like this willow in my yard, you can't kill it. The first pic is a year after an ice storm destroyed it. You can tell where I cut it at the trunk, thinking it was doomed. The second pic is later that year. The last one I just took out my bedroom window.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mike Maas said:


> If you really wanted to know, you could wait a year and come back and see where the living tissue is and then cut just past it.



Leaving a stub, even for just a year, may give decay a head start. What if a collar did not form in that time, would you wait another year? 3? 5?  
The stub will rot and the rot will be in the trunk faster than if the correct cut was made first. I'd look/feel for a bulge somewhere around the red line and cut to it.

Given the speed this genus rots and the size of wound and lack of collar, I would experiment with a sealer. What would we have to lose? But this is not the NEWTS thread


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 19, 2006)

Hi Guy, we haven't gone at it for a while, so let's have at it.
I'm surprised to read you saying "What if a collar did not form in that time", you being a stickler for proper semantics and all.
Here is a definition of a collar, from Tree Dictionary.com:

*"Branch Collar - The branch collar and trunk collar are collectively called the branch collar. Where branches meet the trunks of most trees, there will be a series of collars. Each year two new collars will form. One collar is a trunk collar and the other a collar which is made up of branch tissues. Collectively we call them the branch collar. These collars are what support the astronomical weight of the branch (cantilever). Note, when looking at a tree from the outside, the two collars are often spoken of as the branch collar, e.g., “do not remove branch collars when pruning” "*

There are two problems with a branch collar forming once the limb is removed. First, once a branch is removed, it is gone and won't be forming anymore annual collars to interlock with the trunk collar. From that point on there is some callus that forms around the wound, which turns to wound wood, and eventually is just covered up by normal wood, but there isn't a collar.
The second problem is this is clearly a co dominant stem, not a branch, so there is no collar. If there is no collar to start with, and no collar can form, you statement makes no sense.
I suspect what you meant, is there might be a problem finding the line of demarcation between living and dead tissue. On a healthy looking, fast growing tree, after one year, you are suggesting that you won't be able tell living from dead? 


Now to the silly advancing decay argument.
You suggest the the branch tissue, now dead because the majority of the branch was removed, will be an open route for decay into the tree, and that the dead stub will be food for fungus allowing them to build up populations and vigor, thereby increasing their ability to attack CODIT walls.
I say this is simply unfounded.
Consider my statement that "most of the limb was removed". What did i mean by that? Well, even if you flush cut, there's still tissue from the limb in the trunk. It is cone shaped, and in a lot of cases runs all the way to the pith.
Here's a link to a drawing and a picture from Treedictionary.com:










It's clear that when you cut off a limb, your not removing it all. The other thing that is well understood by most arborists, is that covering a wound whether it is with paint, or if new wood grows over it, it does not slow the process of decay! Shigo even suggested that it actually speeds decay.
If that stub, in one years time will somehow "give the decay a head start", then it follows that the center of that cone shaped area inside the trunk, is also giving decay a head start.
Are you suggesting that hollowing out that cone would slow decay?
No it would not.
You, and others here, would do well to wrap their heads around the theory of CODIT. All that left over wood from a removed branch is abandoned. the tree doesn't care about it. CODIT describes how the tree walls off the decay. Nowhere in Shigos CODIT theory, is callus growing over and covering a wound even mentioned.
Wound closure is not part of CODIT.
You are asking your self, how can this tree survive this injury? Rot will surely go into the tree and quickly spread up and down the other stem!
Don't worry. Trees add new wood every year. This outer layer is where all the good stuff happens in a tree. Because of this a tree can be hollow and still live on.
When injured CODIT tells us there will be a wall 4. The wall is set up between the tree and any new wood that is added from that day forward. 
In time, everything you see in the picture may be decayed away, but the tree can still be alive, strong, and healthy.
Although Willow decays fast, it grows fast. By the time that wood decays to the point it has lost it's strength, the tree will have grown in circumference enough that it won't matter, and wall 4 will stop the decay from advancing into the new wood.
You may be asking, "Then how do some trees rot out and die or break?"
It's simple. Young healthy vigorous trees set up good CODIT walls and out grow decay problems. Old, stressed, over trimmed, trees that underwent un-needed crown reductions, trees that get spiked on trims, and diseased trees, do not.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mike Maas said:


> Hi Guy, we haven't gone at it for a while, so let's have at it.
> I'm surprised to read you saying "What if a collar did not form in that time", you being a stickler for proper semantics and all.
> ... there is some callus that forms around the wound, which turns to wound wood, and eventually is just covered up by normal wood, but there isn't a collar.


ok i stand semantically corrected, substitute "callus".



> On a healthy looking, fast growing tree, after one year, you are suggesting that you won't be able tell living from dead?


 no guarantee of that. Your argument that stubs are ok and will not advance decay make no sense to me--inoculum builds up-- but it's a nice day and we're going to work.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 19, 2006)

Here's a drawing of where the branch wood really ends. Is there really an appreciable amount more beyond the lines originally drawn and whats down inside the tree?
What, more fungus on a 3 foot long branch than a 2.5 foot long branch (the part down in the tree)? 
Enough that you think it will now be able to bust through wall 4?
Let me think about that for a minute...uh...No.


----------



## dakota (Mar 19, 2006)

JimL - some can of worms you opened up, huh? These pissing matches can be awfully informative though.

I would've made a final cut probably just beyond the red line not quite halfway to the yellow. On something like that, after the other consideration of branch collars, I try to keep the wound as small as possible. Even if it appears stub-like you're still better off than flushing it.

Mike's idear of waiting a year is pretty interesting - you'd learn a bit about your willow without doing serious damage, in my humble opinion. However, just don't forget it. We come across staking and guying that should've only been left for one growing season years later that causes serious injury or death to trees because a year seems to be too long for some people's attention span.

Good luck.


----------



## tawilson (Mar 19, 2006)

So I was right, it doesn't matter what you do, it'll be fine?


----------



## clearance (Mar 19, 2006)

tawilson said:


> So I was right, it doesn't matter what you do, it'll be fine?


There you go, expertitus defeated by common sense, again.


----------



## dakota (Mar 19, 2006)

tawilson said:


> So I was right, it doesn't matter what you do, it'll be fine?



If that furry stump thingy in your yard is your basis for 'fine' then go for it. Every day can be a "Do as you feel festival."


And Clarence, expertitus is everywhere. Every profession. Every race. Every gender, age. Every subject that gets debated. You're guilty of it too, albeit less windy than the others. 

No reason to pee on the fire just yet.


----------



## 046 (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd cut it between yellow and red...


----------



## treeseer (Mar 19, 2006)

tawilson said:


> If it's like this willow in my yard, you can't kill it. The first pic is a year after an ice storm destroyed it. You can tell where I cut it at the trunk, thinking it was doomed. The second pic is later that year. The last one I just took out my bedroom window.



You t.a., how about measuring the rot in those hacked stubs? we could have a pool, call it March Madness. How many years until the rot goes to the ground and how many years until that mess splits apart?

Ice storms damage neglected trees a lot more than cared-for trees. You're likely to lose yours way ahead of its time.

Yes it makes a difference.


----------



## pbtree (Mar 20, 2006)

How about an open face cut about 8 inches off the ground, and not worrying about it any more?


----------



## a_lopa (Mar 20, 2006)

leave it where it is and put bees wax over wound


----------



## tawilson (Mar 20, 2006)

treeseer,
It was *the* ice storm of January, 1998 that wiped out much of the northeast and a chunk of Canada. I was w/o power for 21 days. Anyways,as I said, it damaged the willow so bad I figured it would die, and as I didn't like the messy thing I'd finish cutting it down or make a totem pole out of it, I didn't care. But when I saw how it resprouted I figured I'd let it go. But you've got me thinking, and if the tree isn't going to last much longer, maybe this spring I should go dig something up and plant beside it to get established for when it goes. I've got a backhoe and 70 acres of woods and always on the lookout for trees to transplant. I've got a couple of maples flagged now, but I think an oak would be nice there. Thanks for the wakeup call.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 20, 2006)

Tawlison.
Even perfectly cared for Willows are prone to limb breakage, and they are very messy trees. With this in mind, the spot it's growing, so close to the house and driveway, is not ideal.
At this point in time it looks like a nice little tree, but I worry that in time it will outgrow its location and need either reduction or removal. Which wouldn't be so bad, except now you'll have a decaying trunk, which may or may not be weakened to the point that it is a problem.
I like to suggest to people in your position, to go ahead and plant the new, more desireable tree closeby, and then when it gets established and gets to a nice size, remove the Willow.
I do not have the dooms day outlook that some folks have about a damaged tree. Sometimes they can recover just fine. If you really like the Willow, closely monitor the decay, water it often, prune it regularly, and enjoy it.


----------



## tawilson (Mar 20, 2006)

Thanks for the advice, Mike. I don't like the willow for the reasons you mentioned. I figured anything that wanted to live as much as that deserved the right, so I let it do it's thing. I'll leave it and plant a replacement towards the middle of the yard. It will be partially shaded by the willow, and in a place where we can water it when needed, so that's why I'm thinking oak. Sorry to hijack Jimls' thread, but he got lots of answers. The main reason I brought it up was that I was impressed with this willows ability to recover from serious trauma.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Mar 20, 2006)

Good answer Mike. That is a big cut on that tree. Cut will also shift CG high and base taper at that point won't be as wide as it could have been; both giving less stability.

i'd squint and see the white outline as parent, and the green outline as child; with tip of moustache probably around green circle. So i'd target slightly outside the top of your cut lines and finish at red bottom.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 20, 2006)

tawilson said:


> The main reason I brought it up was that I was impressed with this willows ability to recover from serious trauma.




Excellent point Tom, that's mostly what I was saying in my long winded post, a little stub has very little to do with the tree's ability to recover from damage.
Heck I even argue that leaving a stub can be better than removing it completely because you may get sprouts all over it and in time be able to trim it back into a decent limb, much the same way your whole tree has recovered.
Although in the interest of cosmetics, most will choose to cut the stubs off, along with raise the tree up to allow easy mowing and grass to grow right up to the trunk. Even though it's not what's best for the tree, it's what is appealing to some, and the tree will usually survive just fine.
What really matters is the size and location of the injury, the species of tree, the location, the health and vigor, and all those kinds of things. Leaving a little stub is not the cause of a tree's demise.
Decay does not break through barrier walls because of a stub or a wound wasn't painted or covered with wax.


----------



## Bermie (Mar 22, 2006)

If this is a co-dominant stem then there is no branch cone, so no branch wood, so no zone to be walled off by codit.
Cut it as some have said, between red and yellow and monitor it.


----------



## maxburton (Mar 25, 2006)

A couple points based on my conversations with Shigo:

Stubs are as bad as flush cuts.

Codominant leaders do not have collars.

No wound treatment has ever been objectively shown to affect wound response.


----------



## SilentElk (Mar 27, 2006)

Willow? Heck I'd cut it off 4 inches above the ground. Then next fall, I would sell the wood for $160 a cord. Stuff split nice and easy and doesnt weigh much.

Over all though I would agree with all above said answers if you wanted to keep the tree. Just above the red line maybe 25% of the way between the red and yellow lines and closer to the Red.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 28, 2006)

Bermie said:


> If this is a co-dominant stem then there is no branch cone, so no branch wood, so no zone to be walled off by codit.


The tree will compartmentalize the wound. Walls 1 to 3 won't be very effective, but wall 4 will be.
The only time I can think of where an injury is not followed by a CODIT response is where you break through an existing wall from the inside of the tree out, like you might if you tried to clean out a cavity.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Mar 28, 2006)

maxburton said:


> Stubs are as bad as flush cuts.



This is simply not true. There are times wen stubs are less desirable than a "proper" pruning cut, there are times when stubs are better, and mostly, it just doesn't matter.
Think about a big, beautiful old Burr or Live Oak, growing out in a forest. It will have several dead limbs of different sizes, some dead for years, some less.
If you study the collar around these dead limbs, you'll notice as the branch decays, the collar closes in, eventually the last of the limb will fall off and the collar will grow around the stub.
If you think the by coming in and removing the dead limb, that you are somehow doing the tree a favor, you're wrong. And further, if you think it matters if you cut it at the collar, 2" out, 12" out or 3/4s of the way out, you also wrong.
Now cutting into the trunk, or flush cutting, that is obviously bad.
As I have said, you can't remove all the wood associated with a limb that is being removed, unless you can drill into that cone somehow, you're not even getting close to removing it all. That tells you that another 1/2" stub of a limb isn't really going to matter.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Mar 28, 2006)

i think at some points you could say that a small stub swallowed by callous didn't decrease in diameter taper at first as drastically as a 'Shigo' cut; this could give more strength, or not have as much a reduction in strength/ taper loss.

On the flip side. the longer the sealing off and surrounding with callous takes the more chance for 'infection', temporary strutural weakness etc.; and also more volume of 'expensive' tree resources need to be used/ produced to seal/ swallow the stub.


----------

