Seeking advice for pollarded eucalyptus

[Corymbia]

You misunderstood my expression of injustice. I meant the analogy of pruning paints and support systems for lack of scientific comparison.

Sorry

My analogy was not to the comparative sciences involved but to the problem of relying on observation without a scientific basis. People thought paint was good until proven otherwise ... then we stopped painting altogether and now we are back to asking when is it appropriate to paint and not to paint.

The same is true for the current discussion on bracing ...

We all know what rope can do and the affect of slack on loading ... we use it everyday when it comes to rigging down trees. Seems to me that the live oak being lowered to the ground and the live oak with a fall arrest system use the same physics and material science.

 

[treevet]

The analogy sucked even more AFTER the explanation.

Pruning paints are used for "disease, insect, mistletoe, or sprout control, or for cosmetic reasons." ANSI A300 -1, 5.4.1 Lots of good science supporting sealants, in particular circumstances.

Time to trade in that monochromatic filter, eh?

that word doesn't fit no matter how hard you try.

5.4.1 is contradicted by 5.4.2 "wound treatments that are damaging to tree tissues SHALL not be used.

Very little "good science " supporting tree paint and PLENTY supporting not using it.

 

[treevet]

Sorry

My analogy was not to the comparative sciences involved but to the problem of relying on observation without a scientific basis. People thought paint was good until proven otherwise ... then we stopped painting altogether and now we are back to asking when is it appropriate to paint and not to paint.

The same is true for the current discussion on bracing ...

We all know what rope can do and the affect of slack on loading ... we use it everyday when it comes to rigging down trees. Seems to me that the live oak being lowered to the ground and the live oak with a fall arrest system use the same physics and material science.

The same is NOT true for this discussion on bracing....science is observation and successful practice. Much of it in regards to steel cabling, none or little in regards to elastic bracing (relatively).

 

[Corymbia]

The same is NOT true for this discussion on bracing....science is observation and successful practice. Much of it in regards to steel cabling, none or little in regards to elastic bracing (relatively).

Observation does not = science it equals perception ... that is why people thought the world was flat. Quantifying observation (measure and test) adds to the validity of the observation. "Successful practice" is not scientific it is a qualitative judgement and again that is important but it is not scientific. As Shigo said "Until you have only one variable ... it is not an experiment"

You are right that there is far greater observation in relation to steel cabling but that is simply a fact of it being an older more adopted technology. So that is one of those meaningless observations. That argument is like the suggestion 100 years ago that cars are not suitable for transportation because most people use horse and carriage. No I am not saying you need to sell the horse ... it is a very eco friendly way to get to town but not so good to get across state in a hurry.

Remember I like steel and I love PLPs but again my preferences are not scientific either otherwise the whole world would live in my house and eat Thai whenever they could.

 

[treevet]

Observation does not = science it equals perception ... that is why people thought the world was flat. Quantifying observation (measure and test) adds to the validity of the observation. "Successful practice" is not scientific it is a qualitative judgement and again that is important but it is not scientific. As Shigo said "Until you have only one variable ... it is not an experiment"
.

You make many statements as though they were fact which I have repeatedly disagreed with. This is another one of them.

"Science" (Webster's New World College Dictionary) "Systematized knowledge derived from OBSERVATION, STUDY, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principals of what is being studied."

The ONE variable here is "do they work or do they not work". Having installed well over 2,000 cables over my 40 plus career and not having one fail that I have been notified about or observed, I can rationally conclude....yes they are successful and yes they do conform to "the principals of what is being studied".

Can you honestly do this with elastic cables? I have NEVER seen ONE installed in all the region I operate in since they appeared here 15 years ago so, no, I cannot make the same determination about these and likely neither can you.

 

[treeseer]

"Science" (Webster's New World College Dictionary) "Systematized knowledge derived from OBSERVATION, STUDY, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principals of what is being studied."

Dave, I agree with your main point, but n"and" means "and", not "or". Yes, you and I are practicing science when we observe and study, but the conclusions that we draw are not as solid as those based on controlled, formal experimentation.

The ONE variable here is "do they work or do they not work". .

That may be one outcome, but it is not an experimental variable. Brian Kane and I chewed this over in Arborist News a couple years ago, reaching a good understanding I think:

"Science and Research

In The Importance of Science in Arboriculture (February 2006), Brian Kane described the usefulness of rigorous research using the Scientific Method, echoing a similar article by Robert Miller (April 2004). It’s hard to exclude enough variables from large living systems such as trees to produce valid results, so we in the field are grateful for good research. Dr. Kane has coauthored some very useful studies, such as the one on the strength of woundwood.

One facet of the article, however, was quite confusing. Wherever formal research was described, the more generic term “science” was used. The ISA motto “Science, Research, Preservation” makes it clear there is a distinct difference. As the high school science students that I tutor understand, research is only one aspect of science. “Science” includes observation, description, analysis, study, review and identification; functions that all human minds employ every day to gain knowledge.

Textbooks, glossaries and dictionaries make it clear that research is not synonymous with science. It is very valuable but like other forms of science it is limited. Myths can be generated by overgeneralizing its results. Anecdotal experience may lack the protocols for publication, but like research it can shed enough light to advance arboriculture. If we had to wait for research to guide our every move, we could not function.

Arborists must be willing to plow through research articles and use the nuggets of information they find. But the writing must be clear enough to read! As Dr. Shigo wrote thirty years ago “By writing and talking in laboratory lingo and technical jargon, (researchers) surround themselves with a barbed-wire barrier of words that keeps their work from reaching the people who can use it”.

The Scope of the arboriculture journal says, “…potential authors should bear the readership in mind.” They should also remember that no one group can claim a monopoly on knowledge or science. If everyone works harder at communicating, the barriers to better tree care will come down.

Guy Meilleur, BCMA
Apex NC

Brian wrote a good response; wish I had it as a doc.

 

[treevet]

In The Importance of Science in Arboriculture (February 2006), Brian Kane described the usefulness of rigorous research using the Scientific Method, echoing a similar article by Robert Miller (April 2004). It’s hard to exclude enough variables from large living systems such as trees to produce valid results, so we in the field are grateful for good research. Dr. Kane has coauthored some very useful studies, such as the one on the strength of woundwood.

"Limitations of science increases as the number of variables increase. In mathematics and physics the variables can be easily controlled, so science works best there. When we move from chemistry to biology, the number of variables affecting living things increases greatly. ......The natural tree system is much bigger than the sum of its parts. The point is that science alone will not give us all the answers we need to help trees." A New Tree Biology, Shigo, 1986.

Sounds similar doesn't it?

“Science” includes observation, description, analysis, study, review and identification; functions that all human minds employ every day to gain knowledge.

"Science is knowing. Art is doing. Art implies skill. Helping trees is art as well as science. Art is doing the many tasks that are necessary to help trees grow and to help trees when they are in trouble. Art takes practice.

Art and science still leave the subject incomplete. There is still more. The remaining ingredient is COMMON SENSE, the rarest ingredient in the world today.

Common sense is the innate ability to know what is best, or what is right, or how to do a task the best way or to make the best decision. Common sense grows from experience and attention given to a subject or any living or nonliving thing. Common sense is a built in survival system. Common sense grows in a person as they send signals out, receive them back-feedback mechanism- and then rapidly make any correction or adjustment that is needed.....

Helping trees depends greatly on common sense. The only way to get common sense about trees is to give them your attention, touch them and watch them grow, wane and die. And watch them do better after you have done something for them.

Common sense is also similar to what I call constructive philosophy; thinking in a way that results in a worthwhile answer or practical application and solution to a question or problem. Constructive philosophy can result in doing something that will help rather than hurt a person, animal, or a tree. Common sense and constructive philosophy are entwined.

Why all this discussion on science, art and common sense? Because the person who works with trees must have some of all of these ingredients."

This quote is also from "A New Tree Biology"



Another quote I find relevant to this discussion is...

"Science is of no value if it does not change something for the better, even if the change is a better understanding of some process, and the new knowledge makes you feel better." Shigo

(or a little wealthier...Treevet quote)

 

[Corymbia]

What am I missing - other than a brain and personality?

You make many statements as though they were fact which I have repeatedly disagreed with. This is another one of them.

"Science" (Webster's New World College Dictionary) "Systematized knowledge derived from OBSERVATION, STUDY, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principals of what is being studied." .

That is the pot calling the kettle black. Because you disagree with something it is not fact ... no chance that you may be wrong?

"And" is a conjunction which means all 3 (observation, study and experimentation) are included in obtaining systematised knowledge. According to Websters observation is only a part of the process of deriving systematized knowledge that leads to but is not in itself "science". So I see that you disagree with me and Websters ... I bow to you as the authority. This demonstrates the point that we (both you and I) can perceive things differently therefore perception (non quantified observation) cannot be absolute in its conclusions.

Perhaps, for example, the reason that you don't see braces fail is that you overprescribe, bracing trees that has only minor defects that the tree would normally deal with by itself or using heavier cable than needed. (I am not saying you do or would but rather I am simply pointing out why observation is unreliable).

Can you honestly do this with elastic cables? I have NEVER seen ONE installed in all the region I operate in since they appeared here 15 years ago so, no, I cannot make the same determination about these and likely neither can you.

With sincerity, I bow to your extensive use of bracing ... I have only done perhaps 200. I have seen properly installed cable braces fail in storm events.

You state that you have no experience with dynamic bracing and therefore assume as a result that these are not effective. Maybe you have no experience with a scanning electron microscope but that does not mean they don't work. Passing opinion on something you have no experience with is a tad more ignorant than me talking about bracing with my limited experience when compared with yours ... and interestingly we both agree that there is a place for good quality cable bracing.

Yes, I have used dynamic bracing and specified its use and I have not as yet seen a failure so based on my observations it works ... but clearly that proves nothing

I am hoping I have misunderstood but it appears that you do not believe that dynamic bracing works or is inappropriate because you have never seen it used or working ... That argument is devoid of logic or any scientific substance and is certainly not like you, so I am guessing that something has been lost in the process.

 

[treevet]

I have given comprehensive descriptions in this thread and the cabling thread as to my problems with this system and haven't the inclination to :deadhorse: If you want to know why I object to this system....try reading the entire thread/s.

If your goal is to win some battle of attrition then as you can see it is not likely. This system can not possibly be adjusted so it does not allow just the right amount of movement (to develop your highly desired reaction wood) nor can it in the other direction be adjusted so it does not hit into the end of it's elasticity causing tissue compression.

Furthermore one proponent advocated removing the system entirely when a sufficient quantity of reaction was harvested and when I confronted him with the question....you mean you plan to remove the system on trees you found a need to install them in....no answer was ever returned. What is your opinion on this subject?

Common sense is all that is necessary to recognize that....that and a lot of experience installing a system that does neither ....allow enough movement to allow the defect to become more profound....nor does it allow injury to tissue after the initial installation.

 

[Corymbia]

A lengthy response

If your goal is to win some battle of attrition then as you can see it is not likely. .

There is no battle and attrition is a poor way to proceed if there were. Intellectual discourse, questioning and seeking answers is an appropriate source of learning. Because I use and recomend this system, I want understand that I am getting things right and not making drastic mistakes.

This system can not possibly be adjusted so it does not allow just the right amount of movement (to develop your highly desired reaction wood) nor can it in the other direction be adjusted so it does not hit into the end of it's elasticity causing tissue compression.

Excuse me being lost ... I am not sure why the system cannot be adjusted or removed in the unlikely event that the tree has reacted appropriately and or the target below has changed. Can it be adjusted precisely ... no of course not but does that make the system invalid? ... I don't think so. I am not sure that you or I can quantify the "right amount of movement" but some movement is better than none.

Perhaps another bracing application that demonstrates the point well is guying. If a tree is guyed too rigidly it will not develop appropriate caliper and will always need support. How much movement is enough? As much as it wants may not be appropriate as the stem may want to bend over

Unfortunately a braced horizontal limb with a loaded cable has no stimuli to produce tension wood or prop tissue (thigmomorphogenesis will not occur). It is no different if it is braced or propped and you are right in this situation the branch is dependant on the system for ever. As a result of the limb "sensing" that it has adequate support it is more prone to elongate. As the tree grows it may then need additional bracing.

I find it odd that a practicing arborist finds it difficult to understand the benefit of dynamic systems given our constant use of ropes that have varying dynamic properties. Before braided rope there was 3 strand ... so bouncy but that did not make it fail. Then there was rock climbing rope ... static was easy to climb but take a fall or use it for rigging with a lowering device and you wished you had dynamic rope. Dynamic rope was great except when you had a 200 foot length you were trying to body thrust.

Yes you have 2,000 braces but I would have supported 100 times that number of branches using rope (and you have probably done 5 times more than me again) as a part of tree removal. We already have a fair idea how much a limb will deflect when loaded (with a climber) or when partial failure occurs (cutting part the way through with a chainsaw)

In fact here is a great example.

We have a horizontal branch that we are concerned about. So we tie in, we set the dynamic brace up on the trunk so that we maintain the appropriate angles and ratios and then we come down and limb walk to the point of attachment.

I know that you are still agile but I am a little heavy footed now days so I would probably be loading the limb by 50 pounds or more. The limb drops 18 inches by the time I get to the brace point. The limb is fine, it doesn't break and I brace it with "Cobra" whilst I am sitting on it. I tighten the brace firmly. When I move back to the stem the brace appears to have a little slack.

Is the limb likely to reach breaking point as a result of a vertical load? I guess it may be possible but not very likely since the brace limits deflection. Years of lowering branches tells us that it is unlikely.

Can the limb be stimulated by various downward loads? Yes because the limb gets little to no support when it is unloaded! So now we have reaction wood being developed. We have a limb that is getting stronger ... Hmmm

During heavy loading will there be damage to the cambium ... perhaps but remember the brace is not supporting the weight of the limb but rather it is assisting in carrying any additional load since the branch itself continues to take the initial mass of the limb plus the extra 50 pounds. Lets assume smow and that the load gets to 500 pounds at the point of the brace. Given the surface area of the system the brace will be applying a lot less pressure than we get from a lot of every day rigging situations.

Observation is not enough! Do we exceed 860kPa. Sorry to go metric but it easier when doing maths. Assume a 2.5cm wide system applying a force over a length of 100mm (roughly 2 inches by 4 inches). 1 / (0.025 x 0.1) x 500 = 200kpa. We can conclude scientifically that generalised cell rupture will not occur.

What mistakes have I made? I know that there were a lot of assumptions in the above example and these assumptions exist because we are not talking about a real example so I apologise for that and ask for leniency in the pain you are about to inflict:greenchainsaw:

 

[treevet]

You know at first I was suspicious that you were Ekka using another name but after a while I have decided you are not and applaud you for your persistence and attempts at staying with facts for the most part.

I think I am going to get out of this thread but first I have a couple of questions you might address for me and perhaps others.....

1. What is it that you think this system does BETTER (keeping mind Shigo's quote) than the galvanized steel system?

2. There has been a number of vague references to "limitations" of use of this system by some posters and the inventor. What are they.

3. What do you see as the limitations of the steel system if any?

4. We have violent storms in our area. Would you, in good conscience recommend use of this system in such an area. Last year we had a hurricane with 70 mph sustained winds for about 5 or 6 hours. Shortly before we had a massive ice storm which loaded the trees with massive amounts of weight and they broke up all over town. Would you protect a house with your system. Would you be confident that conductive tissue, and maybe even storage tissue would not be compromised in this environment with a wrap around support.

5. Why do we not see evidence of dissections of trees with your system that have been involved with extreme stressing outside of the elasticity to the point of being in a static state? You would sell a lot more if you did not just use assumptions.

I have actually done scientific experiments WITH Dr. Alex Shigo in seminars in Boone SC (with just 24 other students and everyone had their own microscopes) where we injured trees and dissected them to study the 4 walls of compartmentalization.

You and Treeseer keep referring to my inaccurate reference to science by just mentioning "observation". What I said was observation along with many successful installations of attempting to prevent failure of codoms. That is as scientific as the above mentioned Shigo experiments is it not?

 

[jefflovstrom]

Only the strong survive?!
Jeff

 

[Ekka]

Hot off the press

 

[EdenT]

HA HA HA (forced laugh)

The writing style of 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters but only 10 minutes to spare. Must be Tool Time at TW.
:spam:

PS. The biggest joke about this is you comparing the cabling debate to the untold misery and suffering caused by the war in Iraq. You need to get some perspective! Seriously!

 

[treevet]

I know something else that is hot when it comes out (LOL) :fart:

 

[outofmytree]

You know at first I was suspicious that you were Ekka using another name but after a while I have decided you are not and applaud you for your persistence and attempts at staying with facts for the most part.

I think I am going to get out of this thread but first I have a couple of questions you might address for me and perhaps others.....

1. What is it that you think this system does BETTER (keeping mind Shigo's quote) than the galvanized steel system?

2. There has been a number of vague references to "limitations" of use of this system by some posters and the inventor. What are they.

3. What do you see as the limitations of the steel system if any?

4. We have violent storms in our area. Would you, in good conscience recommend use of this system in such an area. Last year we had a hurricane with 70 mph sustained winds for about 5 or 6 hours. Shortly before we had a massive ice storm which loaded the trees with massive amounts of weight and they broke up all over town. Would you protect a house with your system. Would you be confident that conductive tissue, and maybe even storage tissue would not be compromised in this environment with a wrap around support.

5. Why do we not see evidence of dissections of trees with your system that have been involved with extreme stressing outside of the elasticity to the point of being in a static state? You would sell a lot more if you did not just use assumptions.

I have actually done scientific experiments WITH Dr. Alex Shigo in seminars in Boone SC (with just 24 other students and everyone had their own microscopes) where we injured trees and dissected them to study the 4 walls of compartmentalization.

You and Treeseer keep referring to my inaccurate reference to science by just mentioning "observation". What I said was observation along with many successful installations of attempting to prevent failure of codoms. That is as scientific as the above mentioned Shigo experiments is it not?

Wow, take a week off and look how much reading I have to do.

Let me have a crack at your questions TV.

1. It allows the branch its natural movement thus allowing the creation of reaction wood.

2. In circumstances where constant pressure will be applied by the system. IE where you have a pre existing break in a codom. IMO that is a job for rod bracing and a static system.

3. Overkill for SOME applications. For example the trees originally discussed in the OP or Seans snare sytem. In both cases there is no evident failure but rather the possibility of failure.

4. I have no experience whatsover in weather conditions that you work in. I think that question would be better answered by someone from the colder countries in Europe.

5. Cracking good idea. Of course you would need a tree failure with a dynamic system installed first! Humour aside it would be great if such a pm could be performed to assess what, if any, long term damage was created by pressure on the bark where such a system was correctly installed.

In short then. IMO, where in Treevets words, you need a system in place that says stop(!) then steel static is the right choice. If, on the other hand, the tree needs to move in order to strengthen itself by the development of reaction wood then dynamic it is.

 

[outofmytree]

There is a phenomena called "Bottle butt" that I have brought into discussions in the past, that I used to have some photos of but since have been displaced in my file by other pictures at the limit of capacity.

"Bottle butt, or swelling at the base of an oak (picture in book). This is an indicator of decay in the base or butts of trees. In the absence of fruiting bodies, it is necessary to rely on other indicators of decay to determine if a tree has internal decay" Pg. 9, Wood Decay Fungi, Christopher J. Luley, Ph.D.

This apparently is reaction wood formed in response to the base of the tree being challenged by the structural void IMO (chronic).

I could go take a picture of one of the many local trees that have this affliction if anyone is interested.

Sorry about the delay, I have been a little busy.

This is a C.ficifolia with some interesting abnormalities.

And this is a L.confertus with its own problems.

And just to give you an idea as to how common this occurence in street trees is....

I took these photographs in 1 street in North Perth over a distance of about 500metres. As many as 10% of all street trees in the surrounding suburbs are affected and the vast majority of those are L.confertus. On the other hand, I would say less than 1% of trees which are not topped show the same reaction. I have long suspected that these growths, whatever their direct cause, are strongly influenced by the stress of losing up to 100% of canopy every 2-3 years.

Not much to do with cabling E.camaldulensis I know but still a cool topic!

 

[Ekka]

lignotubers

 

[Corymbia]

lignotubers

Not so sure if that is the correct title but is quite common in Lophostemon confertus and can get even more pronounced ... it is definitely not something to worry about.

I would really like to dig one up and dissect it just to have a look .

 

[Ekka]

See around here we rarely see that, I mean if you said to me "take me to see some brushbox" I could easy, but if you said "take me to see some brushbox with basal bowls" I'd be a littel stuffed.

So something going on elsewhere that is not going on here. Well not as prevalent anyway.