Cabling and Bracing

[treevet]

I can understand the thinking, but at what diameter of lead does that option go away?

I see the included bark as easier to manage over time than the root crown decay and root/shoot ratio that ekka mentioned.

Combined with the fact that one of those three stems standing alone will be horribly imbalanced and not very pretty, I'd prefer to remove completely and start over than reduce to one lead. And I'd rather keep all 3 with a cable than start over.

Isn't it better to have faults we can see and manage above ground, than to have the fault below ground?

I feel the faults at ground level (if they are not stump suckers and separate) will easily compartmentalize and close the wounds on this young plant. If they are separate sprouts....all the better and no wounding should occur on the remaining stem.

As for the included bark....that will never be able to be "managed" and the pinching and wounding annually by new growth and the potential for structural cracking and pathogen attack of necrotic tissue is not worth leaving them there now not to mention the need for a cable system.

As for the root shoot ratio ...this is not an issue on young trees as much as it is on older trees and is more commonly referred to as "dynamic equilibrium" for a reason.

 

[treeseer]

I feel the faults at ground level (if they are not stump suckers and separate) will easily compartmentalize and close the wounds on this young plant. If they are separate sprouts....all the better and no wounding should occur on the remaining stem.

Probably there will be limited decay, but nothing easy about it. Depends on species, vitality, soils, etc.

As for the included bark....that will never be able to be "managed" ....

Well actually, subordination manages bark inclusion to some extent. By stunting the 2 side leads, it lessens their girth increase, somewhat. Maybe best to cut back the 2 and let the chosen trunk fill out and gain resources and strengthen, then take the 2 back to the base in maybe 3 years. That would give the tree time to work on forming a collar at the base of the 2.

Just a thot.

 

[treevet]

Probably there will be limited decay, but nothing easy about it. Depends on species, vitality, soils, etc. Well actually, subordination manages bark inclusion to some extent. By stunting the 2 side leads, it lessens their girth increase, somewhat. Maybe best to cut back the 2 and let the chosen trunk fill out and gain resources and strengthen, then take the 2 back to the base in maybe 3 years. That would give the tree time to work on forming a collar at the base of the 2.

where do you come up with this stuff? You subordinate (new trendy word of the decade) the 2 stems and the non-subordinated (?) stem will gain in girth quicker giving the same results which is wounding through included bark. All the while (3 years huh?) the eventual cut will be larger when all is said and done.

 

[D Mc]

As for the included bark....that will never be able to be "managed" and the pinching and wounding annually by new growth and the potential for structural cracking and pathogen attack of necrotic tissue is not worth leaving them there now not to mention the need for a cable system.

I have witnessed a lot of trees that contradict the standard by which we judge inclusions. Granted this is only a Ponderosa pine, but these inclusions are hundreds of years old.

Trees are in it for the long haul and tend to work around problems if they can.

Dave

 

[ddhlakebound]

new pics of tri-dom tree

It's in the red family, and the new pics show it to be larger (to me anyway) than it originally appeared.

Based on the better set of pics, I'd give them the options of static cabling or removal, and then make sure that tree got kept and cabled.

Removing 2 and leaving the best one could work, but it would be ugly in the process, with limited chances to become a eyecatching part of the landscape. The combination of size and species indicate to me that thinning to one lead would create greater future difficulty than cabling. If it were smaller, I could easily see recommending thinning to one lead.

I think this tree is past that size.

 

[treeseer]

Nice shot, DMc! Trees are programmed to deal with anything that nature throws at them; it's the human-thrown problems are more problematic.

Yes, subordination is about a decade old to my ears, and it is a useful term. Gilman 2002 gives it 7 pages; he credits Way Hoyt in Florida for adopting the term to this trade of tree pruning. Easier than saying "Pruning to reduce the size and ensuing growth of a branch(/stem) in relation to others..."

"the non-subordinated (?) stem will gain in girth quicker giving the same results which is wounding through included bark."

Not exactly the same--if the dominant stem expands more, there will be less surface area and less pressure from the bases of the subordinates.

"All the while (3 years huh?) the eventual cut will be larger when all is said and done."

ok 3 years is a SWAG; could be 2 or 5, depending...ya gotta go with what the tree gives ya; see below..

Not much larger if the stem is subordinated/stunted, but the key thing is the storage of resources that make a collar at the base. p. 101: "Trees provide you with information on how aggressive each branch is growing and this can guide your pruning plan...as new growth emerges in the spring, clues develop that help you guide your pruning plan."

Scientist as a prose poet; beautiful stuff. Thanks for getting me to crack open the book, Dave S!

"The combination of size and species indicate to me that thinning to one lead would create greater future difficulty than cabling."

What kind of difficulty do you mean? I hear what you are saying about redoaks not responding to new exposure like maple for instance. also trunk rot is an issue, hence avoiding 2 big cuts at once.

And how about guying it more toward vertical for a few years, to see if it "straightens up"?

 

[ddhlakebound]

What kind of difficulty do you mean? I hear what you are saying about redoaks not responding to new exposure like maple for instance. also trunk rot is an issue, hence avoiding 2 big cuts at once.

And how about guying it more toward vertical for a few years, to see if it "straightens up"?

Root and basal rot from the two large wounds left. The one remaining lead wouldn't have a normal root system supporting it in all directions because it's re-growth from an old stump, more likely 120ish degrees, with each other lead taking up the bulk of the root space. I think they all need each other to continue to thrive, even with the included bark faults.

Guying it could help, but I'm sceptical that the home owner would want the guy cables anchored in the yard, and guying won't address the potential rot issues if we make those wounds.

 

[treeseer]

after seeing better pics i agree witchoo.

 

[treevet]

Not much larger if the stem is subordinated/stunted, but the key thing is the storage of resources that make a collar at the base. p. 101: "Trees provide you with information on how aggressive each branch is growing and this can guide your pruning plan...as new growth emerges in the spring, clues develop that help you guide your pruning plan."

I have to call you on this one Guy. Are you insinuating the size of the branch collar is an indication of limb vitality. I viewed that quote by Gilman and he is not giving that impression. The consistent thing about branch collars is that they are inconsistent.

Plus I am not so sure that a branch collar can be instigated. Subordinating, making weaker, does not IMO instigate a collar or make it more profound. Now killing the limb will initiate callus and this will become your new target for pruning but it is not the branch collar. "Collars are switching zones for transport" Shigo

"The branch tissue forms first and then the trunk tissue forms later and they circle the branch collar with a trunk collar..." Shigo

This is why we want to cut outside the collar. We do not want to remove trunk tissue and break into barriers.

 

[treevet]

Root and basal rot from the two large wounds left. The one remaining lead wouldn't have a normal root system supporting it in all directions because it's re-growth from an old stump, more likely 120ish degrees, with each other lead taking up the bulk of the root space. I think they all need each other to continue to thrive, even with the included bark faults.

Guying it could help, but I'm sceptical that the home owner would want the guy cables anchored in the yard, and guying won't address the potential rot issues if we make those wounds.

I am on the retain all 3 stems bandwagon after seeing the new pict indicating a much larger tree.

Not the place for dynamic IMO if there is any place tho. Rodding may even be in order and maybe an early installation would be the ticket.

 

[treeseer]

"Collar" was a poor choice of words; shoulda said buttress or BPZ. we are obviously not talking about branch collars with this thing. Now it's all moot anyway; peace.

 

[jomoco]

Jon I think it's time to retract the "snake oil" epithet. If you have the vision to put a laser in a tube to site your next drill hole, you can see the place for dynamic support.

Fat chance Guy!

And there's a very fundamental reason why. Trees, like humans, must use their muscles in order to develope them and make them stronger, on a regular basis.

Now a snake oil salesman may tell you that just a little bracing of that heavy lateral is going to help it and somehow make it stronger, but it's a lowdown dirty lie. The truth is that holding all that weight alone and unassisted is the only possible way the tree has of building the necessary tension and compression wood it must have to grow larger. The only way to make that limb stronger is to add more weight, expose it to more winds, that it can react to.

It's like a bozo instructor at the gym, telling you there's this new way of building muscle mass in your arms and legs, by wearing special braces that limit your range of motion, and lighten the true load of the weights you're lifting.

Either you understand these fundamental facts of reaction wood dynamics in nature, or you are pushin snake oil on the unwary and uneducated customer.

That's why cabling and bracing can only be justified when there's an identified fault in the tree's wood structure, something known for quite some time now.

jomoco

 

[EdenT]

And there's a very fundamental reason why. Trees, like humans, must use their muscles in order to develope them and make them stronger, on a regular basis.

Tree's don't have muscles! They have wood. New cells are laid down when and where required provided it is possible for the tree to grow wood in that location.

Now a snake oil salesman may tell you that just a little bracing of that heavy lateral is going to help it and somehow make it stronger, but it's a lowdown dirty lie. The truth is that holding all that weight alone and unassisted is the only possible way the tree has of building the necessary tension and compression wood it must have to grow larger. The only way to make that limb stronger is to add more weight, expose it to more winds, that it can react to.

A 'snake oil salesman' isn't telling you that at all. A dynamic cabling proponent is telling you that the limb will either grow strong or it will break before it does. The dynamic cabling is just a safety device to absorb some of the kinetic energy if it does break and therefore reduce the destructive potential of the falling limb.

It's like a bozo instructor at the gym, telling you there's this new way of building muscle mass in your arms and legs, by wearing special braces that limit your range of motion, and lighten the true load of the weights you're lifting.

Actually it is more like wearing a back brace belt when your doing squats with weights that might otherwise destroy your lumbar vertebrae.

Either you understand these fundamental facts of reaction wood dynamics in nature, or you are pushin snake oil on the unwary and uneducated customer.

I would be interested to know how a static cable promotes the formation of reaction wood. Never mind I can answer that, it doesn't. The tree is wholly dependent on the mechanical support for the rest of it's life. As far as the customer is concerned I try to educate them by offering all of the options and their pro's and con's, not just the ones I like.

That's why cabling and bracing can only be justified when there's an identified fault in the tree's wood structure, something known for quite some time now.

jomoco

I agree that when there is a recognized fault in a tree and retention is the preferred option such as the tri-dom stems above that static cabling is a viable and possibly preferred solution. I am not a fan of static cabling because making holes in living tree's is a concept I have difficulty with. However, given the body of evidence supporting this treatment, it obviously can work if professionally installed and maintained. It is however an invasive treatment and as such should not be lightly chosen or mandated in all cases of potential fault. That would be like having your spine fused because you might injure it one day. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

The place for dynamic cabling is where risk of a failure is slightly elevated but the tree has the opportunity and or potential to develop its own 'muscles' over time as you put it. The dynamic cabling is just a safety net until it does, or fails.

It would be wonderful if such ideas could be discussed without resorting to hyperbole and petty insults.

 

[jomoco]

But look at where you're going selling this dynamic junk as some kind of failsafe for perceived threats with no identifiable faults.

Are you going to push it for county park trees with sidewalks or picnic benches under them?

And what happens when the system really does weaken a limb and it fails catastrophically, is not caught for whatever reason, and injures someone below?

Can you claim an act of god?

What if the limb that recently failed in Central Park and killed a man below, had a dynamic failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb?

jomoco

 

[treevet]

I would like to see the manufacturer of this system come on here (Bohn) and say that this system can be installed....then when enough reaction wood is produced....then the system can be removed. How much reaction wood is necessary?

Now that is really putting yourself in a libelous situation!!

ET....What is the difference between invasive and injurious? The static system causes one wound, at one time.... and the dynamic causes chronic injuries in extreme environments like we have here (ice storms and hurricanes).

The steel system will not allow enough travel to allow a defect to worsen but the dynamic system allows a guess at some movement and a hope it is not enough to allow the defect to fail.

ps....how do you know a static system will not allow reaction wood. The codom it is attached to moves in conjunction with the supported member, so there is movement....should be reaction wood

 

[Corymbia]

And what happens when the system really does weaken a limb and it fails catastrophically, is not caught for whatever reason, and injures someone below?

You will have to excuse my asking but how does a dynamic system weaken anything? I checked my cobra supplies and there are no pixies with axes so it is OK to use

Can you claim an act of god?

If it is an act of god then you can claim it as long as you are not out there selling your bracing as God proof. In 200 mile an hour wind all bets are off. In fact in 90 mile an hour wind I have seen the main stem of a tree fail and bring the braced branch down with it.

What if the limb that recently failed in Central Park and killed a man below, had a dynamic failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb
jomoco

Exactly the same thing as if it had a static failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb? Come on what a senseless hypothetical pile of crap! :bang: What if!?

When it comes to tensile strength, who cares what the brace is made out as long as it is appropriately selected for the load involved. Have a look at the slings at your local crane company. Many of them are using continuous round slings essentially made out of a a really long length of "dental floss". What happens if one of these round slings fail ... well if it is used correctly it won't. I have them in my shed that will lift 20 tonnes and the local manufacturer makes them to 100 tonnes.

What you are suggesting is that material science has reached its limits at mild steel and 7 strand whip splice and there will never be anything better. Go back to climbing on 3 strand! I suspect that when / if we can artificially replicate the protein in spiders web you will see a whole new generation of materials.

Perhaps you are a youngster and can't remember 3 strand manila rope but certainly in my lifetime things have changed and I would suggest that EHS cable and tree grip dead ends are one such change that a metal lover such as you should be thankful for.

 

[treevet]

Change certainly can be good at times. I have put in countless cables with a hand brace so I really appreciate the gas drill.

Manilla was not a bad climbing line though.

 

[jomoco]

I would suggest that EHS cable and tree grip dead ends are one such change that a metal lover such as you should be thankful for.

Oh I am, and use both almost exclusively now.

I like my cabling and bracing components to be considerably stronger than the tree, it makes real good common sense to me.

jomoco

 

[EdenT]

I would like to see the manufacturer of this system come on here (Bohn) and say that this system can be installed....then when enough reaction wood is produced....then the system can be removed. How much reaction wood is necessary?

Now that is really putting yourself in a libelous situation!!

Yes a very valid question I agree. Though I haven't used one, I think sonic tomography will eventually be the way that we determine whether a branch union is safe or not and can or cannot afford to have support removed.

ET....What is the difference between invasive and injurious? The static system causes one wound, at one time.... and the dynamic causes chronic injuries in extreme environments like we have here (ice storms and hurricanes).

Firstly let me agree that a dynamic system is weaker than a static one, no question. If a dynamic system is installed (and maintained) correctly it should not be injuring the tree. In the case where a storm event does manage to make it cause an injury, then it is likely the system has actually done it's job and prevented a catastrophic failure. I don't experience ice storms where I live, and suspect that dynamic cabling would not be appropriate for that environment. I will let the manufacturer inform us on that one though.

The steel system will not allow enough travel to allow a defect to worsen but the dynamic system allows a guess at some movement and a hope it is not enough to allow the defect to fail.

ps....how do you know a static system will not allow reaction wood. The codom it is attached to moves in conjunction with the supported member, so there is movement....should be reaction wood

I agree WRT steel holding a defect immobile and preventing further damage. I think if a defect is that pronounced such as a codom splitting out then steel is definitely the way to go. A static system installation is saying, this limb might break at some time, it is a reasonable low risk, low impact target zone but if it does fail we will try and slow it down just in case.

As far as whether reaction wood is formed when there is steel providing support, I defer to your greater knowledge. While I accept that some reaction wood will be formed I doubt it would be enough to cure the original defect that prompted the installation of the static support system. But then proponents of static systems don't make the, at this point I believe preemptive claim that their systems can be removed at some future time.

I also agree that the manufacturer of dynamic systems need to create a body of evidence (with scientific rigor) , to support their claims.

I think Corymbia answered Jomoco's queries more than adequately.

 

[jomoco]

I think Corymbia answered Jomoco's queries more than adequately.

Not even close mate.

Say a fair sized branch above your dynamic system were to fail in a storm, and fall down onto your synthetic line, and get caught up there, rubbing against it everytime the wind blows, for a whole year or two before being discovered and removed?

Can it take the friction for one year? Two?

How would it compare to galvinized steel in that extremely likely scenario my friend?

jomoco