OK to leave stub?

[beastmaster]

We have had to remove some large branches from mature live oak tree, do to expansion of a building and driveway. My boss who has been in the buisness as long as I have(25+years) has me leave long stubs, sometime 4ft long. His reasoning being the cuts probably wont heal anyway do to the age of the trees and the size of the branches, and leaving a long stub will delay decay from reaching the trunk of the tree. It's ingrained in me to always cut a branch at the branch collar, yet what he's saying does make some sence too. These are large branches some two foot in dia. Any feed back? PS It still feel wrong.

 

[scubadude1188]

A collar cut is always best. Even old trees still grow and compartmentalize like young trees they just do it slower. I'd stick with the collar cut plus I think it looks better anyway.

 

[limbwalker54]

A collar cut is the correct cut. At least the tree will have a chance at compartmentalizing.

 

[Mikecutstrees]

Cutting limbs that size on an oak will probably lead to it's decline anyways. But it's always best to make correct cuts at the branch collar. At least then it will have a chance to heal over the cut and keep water out. Between the construction and the removal of large limbs mature trees have little chance to make it. But I hope they do..... Mike

 

[limbwalker54]

I agree with Mike on the large cuts. When making this decision, make sure you consider the loss of photosynthetic potential, shock, etc, before you take off something so large.

 

[John464]

Pruning mature trees will have a hard time compartmentalizing at branch collar. If it all possible, reduce the limbs as little as you can. Since multiple large limbs are obstructing I suggest reducing them to a lateral. This will be better for the tree. If you have to cut beyond any lateral branches then a proper cut wil serve better at branch collar than a stub.

 

[treesandsurf]

Seems like it is an often encountered problem for the arborist after a major storm or large lateral failure.

Sometimes it wasn't the arborist who decided to take so much out of the tree .

My understanding is that there are certain chemicals (phenols and resins and gums etc.) that are 'released' within the branch protection zone at the branch collar and play a role in the compartmentalization process.

Now the question is whether or not the removal of the stub will inhibit or encourage the processes that take place at the branch collar.

http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/B/branch_protect_zone.html

jp

 

[treeseer]

I don't think it makes a lot of difference either way. I've never seen a 2ft. diameter limb removed where the tree even came close to closing over. A 2ft. diameter limb may have a 30 to 36 inch wound at the collar cut. If at all possible I think it is best to have the limb live if so I guess I would come down on the side of leaving 6ft. nubs.

Lose/Lose.

Totally agree. Unfortunate decision to remove entire limbs.

 

[tree md]

I advise them to leave the large diameter branches in mature trees as I have observed the same as Treeco. It does seem to be becoming a fad to leave stubs on mature trees. Seems to be feng shui to leave these stubs for "wildlife" branches these days. I prefer to cut then at the slimmest part of the collar.

 

[treemandan]

I also think of this from time to time. It does usually end up " Lose/Lose". I am just grateful no one is climbing all over me and cutting off limbs.

 

[jomoco]

Totally agree. Unfortunate decision to remove entire limbs.

I'm gonna agree with you and Treeco, because in time the stub will either resprout and grow, or die back to a very well defined bark branch ridge that is almost impossible to miss, it's where the dead wood stops and the live wood starts.

The fellow is very wise, possibly even an Ent that understands how damaging hastiness is for tree doctors in general.

His method makes good sense to me anyway.

jomoco

 

[newbym]

Can't we compromise?

When it comes to large branches being removed, I will usually recommend trimming it back to the best point that I can find that I think has any chance of supporting the limb, or to a 6"-12" stub if nothing else. Then I tell the customer that we must come back in 1 or 2 years to finish trimming the stub at what is usually a much more well defined branch bark ridge in a tree that has (usually) been setting itself up for the compartmentalization of that wound for a year (or two).

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I'm gonna agree with you and Treeco, because in time the stub will either resprout and grow, or die back to a very well defined bark branch ridge that is almost impossible to miss, it's where the dead wood stops and the live wood starts.

I'm on the big stub band wagon.

My understanding is that there are certain chemicals (phenols and resins and gums etc.) that are 'released' within the branch protection zone at the branch collar and play a role in the compartmentalization process.

One problem is that often times the BPZ is not present on large low limbs.

My model where ;
Primary branching
the bud originated as secondary to the terminal bud, pith is connected and the trunk and branch wood are the same tissue.

Secondary branching
the more common branching where the bud was epicormic, and developed after the teminal bud, often years latter. The BPZ is physically present in the wood structure.

Without the BPZ there is no true collar, branch and stem pith is conjoined so reaction wood can go all the way to the center with ease, and wall one reacts like a flush cut.

I try to leave the stub as long as possible.

 

[outofmytree]

Totally agree. Unfortunate decision to remove entire limbs.

Does this logic apply to limbs removed for need rather than aesthetics? Sticking with the 3 D's being diseased, damaged or dead.

How do you differentiate between trees that are capable of callousing and those that are not? Do you use a particular age or perhaps a percentage of the trees likely life or is it more about size relative to the species within its particular enviroment. For example in WA an E.Grandis may achieve 35 meters compared to 45 meters in other areas with richer soil and higher rainfall. So is its relative maturity based on its relative size or do you use some other method to determine the "collar or stub" decision?

More information please Guy.opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

 

[thejdman04]

I always cut it back as far as I can.

 

[Labman]

Leave a large stub.

Likely it dies back before long.

Later it falls off.

Don't they call large, dead limbs widow makers?

I am looking at it from my homeowner's viewpoint.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

This one is interesting.

Treeseer ...

Do you remember the Catalpa I dealt with in Jacksonville, Oregon, where the historical society wanted the tree saved, but a local tree service said to remove it?

Wish I saved the photos.

Anyhow, the power company stubbed-off a big limb about 16' away from the main stem, which would have been about a 20" cut if memory serves me right.

The limb resprouted with some useful growth.

_______________

The largest cut where I have a cross-section photo, was a maple removal. From that, I know for a fact that a 14" diameter limb removal at the branch collar resulted with compartmentalization at 16" deep.

_______________

Would depend on the type of tree for my choice. If the limb sprouts, maybe, but I rarely remove a large limb.

If it's a conifer, the limbs seem to decay over time, but by a dead limb remaining entirely, it prevents any closure of the wound. Guess it comes to the choice between very slow closure versus no closure.

_______________

When in Savannah for 8 months, I did not get to see enough trees of the species mentioned to really understand them thoroughly.

 

[B-Edwards]

I agree that's probably a good thing to leave the stubs for awhile at least. If it doesn't produce any growth and dies there will be a very defined area of live tissue vs dead and the stub can be cut off then without harm to the collar. What I have done (my own thinking here not taught) is apply a water seal over the dead wood . Not a tar based sealant but something like Thompson's so the wood wont decay as quick and have a better chance of being covered by the branch collar before it rots, what are your thoughts on that?

 

[TreeTopKid]

I was taught that 'target pruning' principles should always be observed, and I still agree with that, however on occasion when the wound is going to be so huge and there is no visible branch bark ridge I have started to lean toward leaving a stub as I have seen evidence on some Live Oaks round these parts where the stub has been left and the bark has not lifted at all, not even after ten years or more.

This is always a taboo subject with such a lot of differing opinions.

 

[046]

totally agree, storm damage is where one is more often forced to remove larger limbs. either because of storm damage or by request of ignorant home owner.

preference is to leave as much wood alone as possible. ugly looking wood still has a chance to come back vs no chance after being lopped off.

visualize where collar will end up after healing, then make cut further out from there.

it's amazing how many trees in Tulsa got topped after last year's ice storm. healthy huge oaks that took heavy damage, but with loads of smaller supporting limbs. those are the tree's that need minimal pruning, but got major limbs lopped off purely for cosmetics.