Auxin, Sprouting, and ANSI A300 Part 1

[treeseer]

millbilly: "I do have a belief that could use some clarification. It has to deal with the terminal bud. It is my belief that the terminal bud release a growth regulating hormone that suppresses dormant bud growth. Once the terminal bud is removed, by pollarding or stubbing or natural cause, then all the dormant buds wake up and sucker..."

Close, but a bit oversimplified. The apical/terminal bud makes much but not all of the auxin hormone. If removed, many of the terminal buds on the interior laterals tend to share that apical dominance and produce more growth. Often, existing dormant buds are released and slowly grow endocormic sprouts that are attached to the core. In this way, light reduction pruning, as on a large exposed tree, tends to make it more compact and less likely to fail.

After hard pruning or other damage, newly formed adventitious buds formed and create rapid-growing epicormic sprouts that are not attached to the core.
The ANSI standard in 2001 changed, dropping the 1/3 guideline that recommended cutting back to bigger laterals 1/3 the size of the parent branch, or larger. The standard now instead refers to 25% being the recommended maximum amount removed from a branch or from a tree. This avoids shocking the tree into panic epicormic sprouting.

Arborists should refer to the ANSI A300 standard for guidance on tree pruning and grow beyond the obsolete "1/3 Rule". As Ed R points out, even that standard is in need of updating, and is up for review next year. All concerned arborists are encouraged to 1 get familiar with the current standard and 2 participate in the revision. :msp_thumbup:

 

[lxt]

I Love new standards.........& the fact that someone would consider the 1/3rd rule obsolete...Now its 25% LOL, for my whole career its been 1/3rd & now we will need a dam protractor & other geometry based tools to trim back to a lateral branch!!

I wonder who it is that says something is obsolete & what authority gives them that kinda power? Like 25% will reduce the shocking of the tree........Hog crap!! So now lets crown reduce the tree by cuting back to laterals larger than 1/3rd as if any of us truly measures every pruning cut we make? Not to mention I dont care how big the lateral is...there will always be secondary (epicormic sprout) growth.........depending on specie & in some cases that dont even matter!

I think they revise the A300 & other standards so we all have to make the purchase of a publication (god forbid we leave something alone!), some things are tried & true & should be left alone...............the best prune job is one that doesnt need done, its all for cosmetic appeal anyway, if trees truly needed us to maintain them then we would have jobs within our forests forever.........Nature takes care of its self, its just that we want trees to perform, look a certain way & dont want them to get to tall, Poor Shigo would be rolling over if he knew where this trade was headed!!!



LXT..............

 

[treeseer]

, for my whole career its been 1/3rd... :beat_shot: :beated:

Redirect Notice

 

[lxt]

The ANSI standard in 2001 changed, dropping the 1/3 guideline that recommended cutting back to bigger laterals 1/3 the size of the parent branch, or larger. The standard now instead refers to 25% being the recommended maximum amount removed from a branch or from a tree. This avoids shocking the tree into panic epicormic sprouting.

Arborists should refer to the ANSI A300 standard for guidance on tree pruning and grow beyond the obsolete "1/3 Rule". All concerned arborists are encouraged to 1 get familiar with the current standard and 2 participate in the revision. :msp_thumbup:

The key words above say it all ............! LMFAO


:looser:

Avoids shocking the tree into panic epicormic sprouting, LOL..... must be new terminolgy there?


:crazy1:

encouraged to participate???....................Only when & if it makes sense!!!!


The dinosaur anology is funny, but hardly applies....I doubt a global climate change will alter tree pruning methods, your futile attempts to rationalize are laughable & unfounded.............show me it works!!!!!! cause I can show you it dont!

LXT..................

 

[lxt]

You are the same "Guy" who advocated for Murphy leaving those stubs on the tulip? now you are encouraging us to follow the A300...............

LMFAO.............International consultant my azz.......you sure you arent Mitt Romney?




LXT..........

 

[ropensaddle]

millbilly: "I do have a belief that could use some clarification. It has to deal with the terminal bud. It is my belief that the terminal bud release a growth regulating hormone that suppresses dormant bud growth. Once the terminal bud is removed, by pollarding or stubbing or natural cause, then all the dormant buds wake up and sucker..."

Close, but a bit oversimplified. The apical/terminal bud makes much but not all of the auxin hormone. If removed, many of the terminal buds on the interior laterals tend to share that apical dominance and produce more growth. Often, existing dormant buds are released and slowly grow endocormic sprouts that are attached to the core. In this way, light reduction pruning, as on a large exposed tree, tends to make it more compact and less likely to fail.

After hard pruning or other damage, newly formed adventitious buds formed and create rapid-growing epicormic sprouts that are not attached to the core.
The ANSI standard in 2001 changed, dropping the 1/3 guideline that recommended cutting back to bigger laterals 1/3 the size of the parent branch, or larger. The standard now instead refers to 25% being the recommended maximum amount removed from a branch or from a tree. This avoids shocking the tree into panic epicormic sprouting.

Arborists should refer to the ANSI A300 standard for guidance on tree pruning and grow beyond the obsolete "1/3 Rule". As Ed R points out, even that standard is in need of updating, and is up for review next year. All concerned arborists are encouraged to 1 get familiar with the current standard and 2 participate in the revision. :msp_thumbup:

So whats next? Topping is coming back, as long as its 25% ? What objectives are being ascertained by all this hoop la? Why participate, the credit will be given to someone whose only tree experience is from using one of its products, commonly called paper. We had a guru that studied over time,did many cross sectionals and put in huge hours of research to produce a standard. He at least used his effort to back his findings. What gets me is, all this energy toward reduction which invigorates more crown growth and nothing mentioned about fundamentals and goals of the reduction,invigoration. I could see some progress if the recommendation was not so broad and vague. Example; tree had been lions tailed in past and now we are going to reduce to attempt to invigorate more inner growth! I think reduction should be warranted, not standardized. I also believe we need to be focused on the below ground aspect of care before recommending invigorating crown jmo. In your model and thinking the short term result may reduce failures, what about the long term consequence of more crown growth? Please remember; I many times believe reduction is warranted but it is in no way standardized. There is benefits of both reducing without lateral considerations and just as many benefits with lateral pruning. Reducing to laterals can help with sail in both short term and long but with less invigoration, so imo; it would depend on goal desired and prescription as to which would be most beneficial. Either way, still needs more emphasis on roots to achieve optimum result

 

[ropensaddle]

So whats next? Topping is coming back, as long as its 25% ? What objectives are being ascertained by all this hoop la? Why participate, the credit will be given to someone whose only tree experience is from using one of its products, commonly called paper. We had a guru that studied over time,did many cross sectionals and put in huge hours of research to produce a standard. He at least used his effort to back his findings. What gets me is, all this energy toward reduction which invigorates more crown growth and nothing mentioned about fundamentals and goals of the reduction,invigoration. I could see some progress if the recommendation was not so broad and vague. Example; tree had been lions tailed in past and now we are going to reduce to attempt to invigorate more inner growth! I think reduction should be warranted, not standardized. I also believe we need to be focused on the below ground aspect of care before recommending invigorating crown jmo. In your model and thinking the short term result may reduce failures, what about the long term consequence of more crown growth? Please remember; I many times believe reduction is warranted but it is in no way standardized. There is benefits of both reducing without lateral considerations and just as many benefits with lateral pruning. Reducing to laterals can help with sail in both short term and long but with less invigoration, so imo; it would depend on goal desired and prescription as to which would be most beneficial. Either way, still needs more emphasis on roots to achieve optimum result

Bump

 

[David (saltas)]

The authors of a standard can be sued so they are changing the way they are being written

Old standards used to be prescriptive e.g. If you have this situation you must xyz

New standards set a performance outcome but will not tell you how that is to be achieved e.g. you need to the risk of prevent fire