Hollow basswood

[Gopher]

Southwest of a lake home I visited on Wednesday, stands a beautiful 75 to 80 foot tall basswood, with a widespreading canopy. I was there to take care of his white oak near the lake, but before I left, I had my hand in the cavity of the basswood trying to figure out the percent live wood left. I now don't think it is such a beautiful tree.

When I got back home, I got out the calculations in the Journal of Arboriculture (March 2001) - "Comparing Formulae That Assess Strength Loss Due To Decay In Trees" and determined that this tree has somewhere between 35 and 50 percent strength loss, depending on the calculation used.

The man (my client) is quite knowledgable, and I have explained to him that the tree is probaly only at about 50% of what it was. The canopy really needs to be reduced, and there are many 3" limbs that could be taken to successfully reduce the canopy and keep the shape.

My question to you is, "Will I have reduced the wind exposure enough to allow the tree to stand?" It shades his house almost all day, but my gut feeling is that I would not recommend keeping it. I reread the article, and K.D. Coder suggests with his formula that 20 to 44% strength loss is considered "caution", and once above 44%, "hazardous". This tree is, by calculation, either hazardous or close to it.

Bottom line is, I would like to save the tree, and so would the client, but I am and always have been a proponent of "going with the gut" feeling, and mine says to not get in it.

I'd appreciate any comment from all that have expertise in this area.

Thank you.

Gopher

 

[mrtree]

There are a number of variables that you should consider. First in terms of hazard does a target exist? How valuable is the target, can it be moved and so forth.

The strength loss for a cylinder versus a rod does not take into account the location and shape of the cavity, the crown's size, shape and health, and wood strength. Reducing the canopy can help and some european methods suggest as little as four foot reduction of the canopy can have a profound effect.

Do a little more research before making a decision.

Michael

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

It shades his house almost all day, but my gut feeling is that I would not recommend keeping it.

Once agian, we can only give our professional opinions. Where does the ethical imperative come in to say "It's gotta come down!"

IMO it is when the defect(s) is indisputable. We also have to take into concideration where the plant is in the landscape and it's possible exposuer to wind forces. (I'm sure you did Dave)

Then there is the possibiliy that reduction cuts will alter wind loading so as to increase the probability to failure. I've seen this with deadwooding. By removing the large deadwood load I changed the "mass dampening charichturistics" of the tree and a moderate wind cracked sound branches. At least twice that I know of.

Dave, I'm going to look at that parsel of land in Adams/Freindship on Saturday, why don't I stop by and we look at the basswood?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Dave,
Let us know whn you find a mature Basswood with more than 40% left, that will be great find!

I have a concern with doing a crown reduction on a hollow tree. The concern is that you are stressing an already stressed tree by removing foliage. Yes, you will reduce wind drag, but at the expense of the health of the tree.
In the short term, you'll reduce the load, but in the longer term, you decrease the chance the tree can stay ahead of the decay.

MrTree's thoughts are insiteful, and I agree, less is more.

 

[Gopher]

More info from Europe

I am looking at even more data from Europe which also looks at the landscape, wind force on the canopy, height, etc.

Sanborn will stop by on Saturday, and we will put four-eyes on it. (No jokes now - yes, four-eyes AND two brains!)

I like what you say, Mike and mrtree. I will gather even more physics data before doing any alteration to the canopy. My client knows the tree is at a weakened state. I want to make sure I get for him enough solid data to assist him in makinig the best decision for this tree.

Oh, there is a target. It is about fifteen feet southwest of the lake home - major damage would occur. One might say it is a lake home, but they live there year round, unlike most on Green Lake.

Thank you.

Gopher

 

[TREETX]

There is a bunch of tree statics info here in pdf

Erk is pretty easy to get along with as well. He has tolerated my questions.

http://www.tree-consult.org/

I haven't looked through the info in months, but I believe linden is the same as basswood.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Gopher
the tree is probaly only at about 50% of what it was.

but still more than it needs to be, if no cracking or other sign of failure are evident.

[B} 20 to 44% strength loss is considered "caution", and once above 44%, "hazardous". This tree is, by calculation, either hazardous or close to it.
[/B] "Hazardous" to me means "take action"; it does not mean "you must remove". Your thoughts on reduction are valid, as are the concerns about overthinning taking away too much photosynthetic potential and reducing damping effect.
That's why reduction--shortening branches--is the central strategy, and thinning--removing branches-- is limited to weaker branches that aren't making that much food, or structurally essential..

The article you refer to, and Wessolly et al with their adaptations of engineering formulas to tree biomechanics, acknowledge that applicability is limited. Check which part of your gut that feeling is coming from, and consider reducing the worst of the sprawl and thinning the weakest branches, not to exceed 20% of foliage in all. Since it's a regular customer maybe an annual inspection/IPM/PHC visit could be scheduled (and paid for).

Bottom line is, I would like to save the tree, and so would the client, but I am and always have been a proponent of "going with the gut" feeling, and mine says to not get in it.
Mine almost always says "get in there and save it if its value is worth the expense", but then I'm a fanatic that way, I admit.

 

[Gopher]

basswood

Thank you for advice, Guy.

I am quite fanatic about keeping trees, too. Especially when they are in prime location (I am contract arborist for an electric utility as well - which means removing trees in the wrong place)

Therefore, when I have a tree that does have the space and something can be done to minimize the chance of failure, it is nice to keep the large ones.

Sorry no pictures of defects - when I was there I didn't realize the digital was full at the time - my boot!

Gopher

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

How about a guy system that would steer the tree away from the target in the event of failure? It could be as simple as a cable or rope system running from this tree's top to another.

I would also say that although Basswood is softwood, it is tough. I have seen huge Basswood trees with only an inch of sound wood around the outside, that do not fail. They are native to this area and are common along lake shores where they are exposed to high winds. The wood is used for carving and is valuable as lumber, not because the trees are rare, but because they are almost always hollow.
We did a Basswood removal years ago, that only had about an inch of wood. I took a 15 pound splitting maul to a 16 log. Even though the there was only about an inch of wood I could not split the log! It was at this point in time when I understood how these trees keep standing.
Keep these species-specific traits in mind when you make your decision.

 

[TREETX]

Here is the page talking about hollow trees.http://www.tree-consult.org/englisch/Pages/SIAmethod.pdf

 

[geofore]

hollow trees

This is a good time to consider planting replacements to cover the space the tree will leave when it does come down. It is nice to get a 5-7 year headstart with the new trees and the shade from the standing tree helps the new trees grow taller as they reach for sunlight. If you know the old tree will have to go in a few years start the new ones now and when the old one goes you have shade and they fill out well in a year or two after the old tree is taken down.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

The location will make it hard to palnt a replacement in, though it is a good idea.

It is surrounded by lanscape, hardscape, house and a lotline.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn
The location will make it hard to palnt a replacement in, though it is a good idea.

It is surrounded by lanscape, hardscape, house and a lotline.

So preservation is the best plan. The species specificity re toughness that Mike talked about should ease the climber's safety concerns for himself, and the consultant's safety concerns for the client. And if you're a schizo hybrid, same, same.

The statics info treetx linked proves convincingly that reduction of high sprawling limbs increases safety a great deal. Thank goodness for the translation from the German. The tricky part is getting in the right position with the right tool to make those high cuts right but hey that's the fun part too.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

He's going to have fun with that one, a good climber.

Lots of long branches, so small diameter cuts can reduce a lot of leverage

 

[Gopher]

Basswood longevity

As always, thank you professionals for your responses.

JPS sums it up when he says, "He'll have a good time climbing that one." Indeed I will. Beautiful tie-in points are positioned at the top, and the inner canopy if fairly open. When it is complete this fall, I will post before and after shots.

I thank John for stopping by on his way back to Milwaukee and putting another "eye" on it.

Gopher

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

It's too bad you have chosen the John Paul "anything can be fixed by cutting off the lower limbs and even more can be fixed by removing top limbs too" Sanborn way of hazard reduction.
Doen't a tree swaying in the wind naturally slow it's growth?
Does this movement strengthen the tree?
By removing tree top don't you reduce swaying?
Don't the limbs you are removing have leaves that feed the tree?
When cuts are made at the top of a tree, at the apex of limbs, doesn't it trigger advetitious growth that will quickly replace the removed limbs?
Can this adventitious growth soon become more of a wind sail than before the trimming?
Where will the energy reserves come from to replace these leaves?
Will these reserves come at the expense of not laying down new wood over the decay?
Is a crown reduction or topping the tree a short term fix?
Will you make any money if you do nothing?

 

[Gopher]

Theoretical as this basswood has become...

All of these questions have gone through my mind. they always do.

What are we though?

Weaker than weak, intestinal fortitude gone?

I never worry about making money. Just ask my wife. Some how the bills get paid, the boys are fed, and the phone stays on. The real question here is, "After spending much time looking at the tree, researching and studying five different interpretations of calculations of trunk strength, discussing the merits of doing nothing with cohorts in arboriculture, is there a slight chance that absolutely nothing will be done?" Yes, a very slight chance. I have yet to call my client back, but when I do I believe the morally right answer will NOT be to say, "Yes, after hours of deliberation and consultation with many other professional arborists, I have decided to do nothing."

We are far to smart for this. Remember, there is a target. The client is rather knowledgable about trees and wood. Did I mention the home has already been rebuilt after a tree wiped it out 8 years ago?

"Yes, sir, nothing." Oh, by the way, I've got about $300 into that "Do nothing" answer, but I'm a man of integrity, so no problem. I've got six more to look at tomorrow. The one is leaning at a 45 degree angle over the kids bedroom, lost a limb last year, and... well, "Ya sure, dat der tree, she'll be der da rest of yer days, ya, that's fer shore. Don't you go worry-in about dat one."

I will deliver all of the options to him, which will include leaving all as is.

THEN WHY ARE WE HERE?

Skip all of the education, forget about the degrees. Experience? Who needs it. Let's just cut them up after they land on the home. Anyone sleeping in that room?

All of the responses help us. All of our experience in the trees help us.

WE OWE IT TO OTHERS TO GIVE THEM EVERYTHING WE HAVE, NOT SOME FALACY THAT NATURE WILL KEEP THE TREES STANDING.

I have read and re-read the "Veteran Tree" information I had sent to me from England. Believe you me, I want as many trees around as the next person, but many of these trees need to be altered to keep them around.

Thank you all for heartfelt discussion. Now, what should I do tomorrow to make a dollar...?

Gopher

P.S. "Do you believe in miracles?" I do, and I would like to take this moment to remember Herb Brooks, someone who believed and gave many the confidence to attain greater heights.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
It's too bad you have chosen the John Paul "anything can be fixed by cutting off the lower limbs and even more can be fixed by removing top limbs too" Sanborn way of hazard reduction.

Mike you couldn't be talking to me because I never heard about that way (whatever it is.)

Doen't a tree swaying in the wind naturally slow it's growth?
Yes but a tree over the house should be discouraged from excessively swaying, shouldn't it?

Does this movement strengthen the tree?
Yes but too much can break it.

By removing tree top don't you reduce swaying?
A little, yes, that's the idea?
Don't the limbs you are removing have leaves that feed the tree?
Yes, that's why only a little is taken. 10% for an overmature tree, 20% for a mature one, give or take.
When cuts are made at the top of a tree, at the apex of limbs, doesn't it trigger advetitious growth that will quickly replace the removed limbs?
In an older tree like that basswood, not likely
Can this adventitious growth soon become more of a wind sail than before the trimming?
No. Reducing the top decreases leverage, which is a different and usually more major issue than windsail.
Where will the energy reserves come from to replace these leaves?
Leaves are producers, not reserves, Mike. Tree has a safety margin--more leaves than it needs. Others will grow where they're growing now, and some will sprout where the reduction cuts are made, which is OK.
Will these reserves come at the expense of not laying down new wood over the decay?
Some perhaps until new growth replaces waht's cut. Soibuilding in the root zone can more than make up for lost photosynthesis.
Is a crown reduction or topping the tree a short term fix?
Reduction is a very long term fixz; if it needs restoration pruning in 5 or ten years that's still a whole lot cheaper than removal. Topping is quite different--if you don't know th edifference read Gilman's Pruning book or ANSI. Mentioning them in the same sentence reveals a Wulkowiczian anti-pruning virus that's infecting your hard drive and making it soft.
Will you make any money if you do nothing?

No and I would not have fulfilled my obligation to improve the safety and health of my client's tree. This thing is not in the primeval forest, it is next to a guy's house. It is hollowing and sprawling and action is warranted.

If an arborist recommends no action and it crushes the house and kills a kid, that arborist belongs in court, and perhaps under the jail. If it just falls apart and the owner loses that asset because of your negligence, you deserve to lose that customer and a whole lot more. Gilman wrote ten pages on crown reduction, read it then preach like tubby. Before I thought you were a tree man but you're talking like a deep ecologist locked in an ivory tower. You're close to this tree, why don't you look at it, post a pic so we can talk intelligently?

boy, what got under MY collar?

 

[treesurgeon]

sounds like the tree is worth saveing. a crown reduction, thinning and deadwooding may be worth it. if this is a special tree it would depend on the customer. if they want to keep it that bad, give them the lo-down on the chances of a future for this tree. also, it might be wise to plant a replacement nearby.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Dan saved me a lot of typing, good job!

And G.M., I'm very disappointed in your several contradictory stamtements. One I found interesting:
"<B>Soibuilding in the root zone can more than make up for lost photosynthesis."</B>
I assume this means better soil conditions means the tree can add more foliage and have a greater photosynthetic area...HEY WAIT, then you'll have to go up there and cut them off again! Or did you mean the soil conditions will increase rooting area, and the new roots will create photosynthate underground? Perhaps you should just explain, I can't come up with a plausable answer.

Another interesting comment:
<B>"Mike. Tree has a safety margin--more leaves than it needs. "</B>
What is your definition of an overly mature tree? Mature tree? Mine involves the ratio between leaf area and total biomass. What I find funny about this thread is growth increments haven't been mentioned. That is an easy way to figure out if it has to many leaves.

Gopher asks:
"<B>Now, what should I do tomorrow to make a dollar...?"</B>
If you could do it, I would recommend climbing up the tree and <B>ADDING </B>limbs. Since you can't do exactly that, why not use a tree support system to make it safer and while you wait, do some work on the soil, which will add to the canopy.

You show me a tree that can't be made as safe as a sound tree by adding tree support systems, and I'll show you a tree that needs to be removed.


To explain JPS's new middle name, we have gone at it a few times argueing about lower limbs, and now we disagree on upper limbs. When we going to go at it over middle limbs, John?

Let me guess, this Basswood has had it's lower limbs stripped off, yes?