So, how do I trim these things?

[topnotchtree]

Nebclimber, would it be a silly idea to remove every other tree and trim the rest. That way in the vacant spaces the clients could plant something better? Then when the rest of the poplars need to be removed, hopefully the "something better" will be getting mature.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Let's not lump all poplars into one group and call them undesireable. Any tree becomes a weed when it's planted in the wrong spot.

As for removing every other one and planting in those spots, first, what would you plant? They want a tall narrow screen.
Second, in landscape designing you want to try to create a natural looking scene, which is hard to do with a straight narrow planting area, but alternating two different trees is about as unnatural looking as it comes.

 

[topnotchtree]

Mike, I understand your thoughts completely. Its just that we all kinda agree (I think) that these trees don't seem to have a long lifespan, compared to others. So I am just trying to think of the future.

 

[treeseer]

You won't be topping because you are making selective cuts, it won't be what's best for the trees, but what the situation calls for.

What Mr. Maas is advocating here is reduction pruning; making reduction cuts. He's got the right idea, but reducing the size of trees IS best for the trees, because 1. it allows them to more safely coexist with people and 2. good for the trees because it allows them to stand up instead of fall down.

Neb if you want to run a tree CARE company you'd work more with those cankers at the base--they are treatable, take a pic and we'll talk about it--and the soil.

Now pass that Wonder Bread, ok?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I was advocating crown reduction in favor of topping, and I think it is understood by all that this is really just the first step in a staged removal process.
The trees are just to large for the area, and as such are temporary, both because of size and disease problems. It's like when someone plants a spruce two feet from their house, it becomes almost a bonsai tree that needs repeated reduction and eventual removal, optimal plant care gets set aside to make the plant fit the spot.
So it is called for to save them from removal, but as I said, not what is best for the trees.

I would be interested in hearing about control for the cankers, it is my understanding that there is no cure for it.

(Cryptodiaporthe (Dothichiza) populea), from M. Dirr's, Manual of Woody Landscape Plants.

 

[treeseer]

I was advocating crown reduction in favor of topping, and I think it is understood by all that this is really just the first step in a staged removal process.

I would be interested in hearing about control for the cankers, it is my understanding that there is no cure for it.

Cure, no, I wouldn't give false hope where there seems to be none. Sanitation and basic tree care can slow the spread of the disease in lombardy's. Treatment of basal cankers would be highly experimental and doubrful to be worth the inve$tment.

very important to point out that different poplars react differently to the disease; for many, treatment may well halt the disease and be well worth trying.

Crown reduction in many cases is a long-term solution to a tree in trouble, but in this case yes it is a staged removal. In any case the goal for an arborist seems to be to lengthen the useful life of the trees.

 

[jason j ladue]

so what kills 'em? why do they have such a (relatively) short life span?

 

[MasterBlaster]

Cuz they are so ugly.

 

[jason j ladue]

then how'd you get so old? :angel: maybe i should i get shopping for life insurance?

 

[clearance]

Could have already cut the garbage down and be admiring the nice new little trees. Don't *** those trees out, then you are just wasting your customers money because he will have to pay again (probably again and again if some of the tree huggers here had their way) to do more work on them.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Tree removal and replacement would be expensive and then the screen would be gone for years, while a deadwood and crown cleaning should leave a nice screen for the next several years.
A skilled arborist should be able to leave the row of trees nice, natural looking and shorter, while a line clearance hack would leave a ****** out mess.
So cost is a big factor. The removals might be a couple thousand dollars and the replacement even more. Then, as mentioned before, what do you plant there instead?
A crown reduction/cleaning would be a fraction of that cost, and they wouldn't lose their screen.

 

[treeseer]

Could have already cut the garbage down and be admiring the nice new little trees.

Let's see, cottonwoods are the devil and killed on sight, Lombardy poplars are garbage--it seems the genus Populus is not very popula, or very well-understood, with clearance. When in doubt, use name-calling, right?

But their owner likes them, which is why s/he wants their life extended. Making trees live longer is not a bad thing, it's what arborists do. At some point replacement will be the best option, but if you don't know about and lay out all the other options for the owner, you aren't practicing commercial tree care.

What is a "tree hugger", anyway? Someone who is not a tree hater? Anyone who does not know the ropes and climbs with a flip line and spikes has to literally hug trees more than a skilled arborist, so spikers are the real tree huggers.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Could have already cut the garbage down and be admiring the nice new little trees. Don't *** those trees out, then you are just wasting your customers money because he will have to pay again (probably again and again if some of the tree huggers here had their way) to do more work on them.

Clearance,

You might be straying outside of your domain. The client here is the homeowner not the utility. Different considerations.

What's wrong with going back and pruning again and again?

Do you sell your truck when it needs an oil change or new tires?
Do you buy new boots everytime they get dirty?
Do you sharpen your chains or chuck them the first time they get dull?

Preventive maintenance is an accepted practice in commercial arborculture.

Dealing with the decay/canker is the first job.

Then look at the pruning. Good advice about doing some crown reduction. It is surprising what the effect of a little crown reduction can have on the stability. According to Erk Brudi's Statics Method, even a 10% reduction can have a huge effect.

Mike,

Have you seen the WI record Lombardy? Up in Washburn, just south of Bayfield. It is in pretty good shape. Especially considering how far north it's growing. If you get up there, it's on the west side of the road next to a one story wood building. Any arbo would see it.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

They list the maximum height of Lombardi's at 90'. I'd like to see that.
Good points, especially abut Clearance stepping outside his area of expertise. Perhaps under a electric line, removal would be the best option.

 

[Ekka]

so what kills 'em? why do they have such a (relatively) short life span?

Ahem, err ... excuse me but could one of you local guys enlighten me too?

Why do these poplars get cankers and rot etc? Are they not suited to the climate perhaps? Or are they what's called a pioneer species?

 

[treeseer]

Why do these poplars get cankers and rot etc?

Populus nigra 'italica"was allegedly selected in lombardy, Italy where it is native. It came over with the colonists ~ 1780. I saw them used more in WI than in NC. Maybe the farther you get from a more Meditteranean climate the worse the pest is.

Yes most Populus need sun and grow fast; pioneers. but like pines in NC they can dominate a long time, in the right site.

 

[jason j ladue]

too much water?

 

[clearance]

Treeseer, Mike, Tom etc. I would like to clarify a couple of points. The first is the fact, that despite your asumptions I really do like most trees, all conifers and most deciduos. The second is the term "tree hugger". My definition of a tree hugger is a person who values trees above all else based on emotions. To them trees come before human safety, financial interests such as employment, damage of property, and interuption of service, such as phone or electricity. They are content to see those in the logging industry lose their jobs, willing to risk dangerous trees falling onto and killing people in cars or parks. They are willing to have their light and phone service disrupted often. They equate trees with humans which is crazy, trees are here for us to use and enjoy. When they have reached the end of their usefullness, have become dangerous or have to go for any other good reason-cut them down. Further more, while I am just a line clearance hack to you people I know what undesirable trees are, I cut them down all the time.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

I consider myself a Tree Hugger but not by the narrowed definition that you use. There are two groups that you're blending into one. Arborists value trees in one way, as the value of an individual or group of trees to be maintained for their value as trees or amenities. Loggers value trees as a product or resource to be harvested. Both of these professions are needed. It's not fair to try and blend their opposite goals into one lump.

Then, on the arbo side, there are divisions and sub-divisions. Utility arbos are cousins to commercial arbos, not siblings. Do you see the seperation? Not that either is better or worse by any means. Both are needed but the arena that they work in and their clients are very different. The rules and guidelines are different for good reason. Flat-siding trees is correct for utility work but is seldom the right thing to do in commercial work.

You've drawn the wrath of commercial arbos because, it seems to me, you're trying to apply the rules in utility work on commercial work. The use of spikes is allowed in the Z133 standards but the use is very narrow. You've alienated the commercial arbos by saying that spiking doesn't hurt trees. Then, when faced with evidence that it does you've gotten an attitude. Different sport different rules. Rugby/soccer/hockey all are basically the same game. But blades won't go far on the field.

My primary responsibility as an arbo is to deal with risk management. With my knowledge and skills I can manage things in a different way than someone less knowledgable or skilled. That might come off as arrogance, if that's what you think, you don't know me. I read books and trade journals, attend seminars and talk with people with more knowledge and skills than me. Combine that with spending my whole life working with trees has given me a pretty good base.

Risk management is much different than risk elimination. There's no such thing as the latter until we become worm food. It is [darkly] humorous to read posts by people on forums about managing risks for trees and then they climb using very risky methods. Go look at the one-handed saw accident thread. How many times do we have to read the justification? Reading posts by the one-handed faction when they talk about hazard trees makes me chuckle. Take care of yourself first, the trees have been around for millions of years, they'll be hear long after the arbos cut off their own limbs.

 

[treeseer]

It is [darkly] humorous to read posts by people on forums about managing risks for trees and then they climb using very risky methods.

Tom when I tell people that someone (you) called my butt-strap saddle a "Sui-slide" saddle, we have a good(nervous?) chuckle. but we're not laughing at the concept of safety--thank you for your attention to this; hope it makes up for some of us who are a little less attentive in that area.

And thanks also for your responses to our friend clearance. Blades won't go far in the field , couldn't have said it better. I respect utility arbos. like Mike Neal, past pres of ISA and Asplundh's Geoff Kempter, who work to raise the level of work that goes on around the lines.

Clearance, you have a lot going for you including openness. I hope your boss will cover your work toward ISA's utility certification; this profession needs more people stepping up and getting involved in raising the level of whatever field they play on.