"structural pruning"

[John Paul Sanborn]

I guesss I should rephrase my last statement.

http://www.natlarb.com/content/pubs/September 2002 TCI - Structural Pruning of Large Shade Trees.htm

I think some of what he suggests is needed, I've been doing it for years. I just cannot agree with his total methodology. Too much of the dynamic mass is removed in one treatment.

 

[Nickrosis]

Originally posted by murphy4trees
One thing I Am extra careful of when pruning old trees is making 100% sure that cuts don't violate the trunk or branch collar. This means cutting a litttle outside the target. I know Shigo says that is harmful.. that's fine for him and other scientists and in a perfect world all pruning cuts would be right on target.

Daniel,

That's awesome, I'm glad to know you do that. Unfortunately, I see so many trees hacked, flushed, and ripped - not to mention spurred. These seemingly minor effects add up to a bigger message: It would have been better to have never touched the tree.

One of the purposes of pruning is aesthetic, right? What's wrong with that? Nothing, but I can see a problem if a job is sold on the basis that the tree "needs" this work performed. If someone prunes the D's (dead, diseased, dying, declining, damaged, etc) saying it is for the tree's sake - terrific. Then the salesperson should add that removing the lower branches is for clearance purposes only and that the thinning is partly done for the tree but primarily to allow the grass to grow.

In other words, I don't have a problem with work being performed for reasons other than tree health (unless it's a champion tree). Trees are here for our sake. My point is that we should be open and honest in sharing our motives and purposes for what we do. I'm saying this to myself more than anyone.

Nickrosis

JPS: You'll never find anyone who completely agrees with you.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

You mean everybodey doesn't?

At least Mike Mass always does !

 

[Tom Dunlap]

JPS hasn't ever said anything that I can disagree with in all the years I've known him.

I just got my copy of TCI today and thumbed through the pruning article. I do like the philosophy of reduction pruning. This is a pretty advanced skill. Too advanced for most climbers. In order to be successful the climber has to know how a tree will react to the cuts and make some pretty technical decisions.

I think it's pretty bold of TCI/NAA to publish an article like this. It does kind of fly in the face of the A300 and most pruning philosophies.

Someone posted a referance to the 3 D's. How does anyone know what a declining branch looks like without doing at least a starch test?

Too much pruning is done to justify a chipper payment. Less is more.

Tom

 

[Greg]

What I found really interesting about the article was how it pointed out how Pollarding was a good thing that americans screwed up and changed for the eroupeans. I guess I have never seen a tree that has been "pollarded". Topped trees look like hell, but I bet a freshly "topped" tree would fair better than a properly pruned or un touched tree in the same area of a major storm. But big deal, it is still an ugly topped tree -Just becasuse it is alive that is supposed to good. Sorry, I'd rather have no trees than a bunch of topped trees.
The article also (to me) implied that a large shade tree in an urban setting is a potential hazzard to be blown over just because it is not in a stand of trees that help protect it and limit it's size.
Don't get me wrong the article had some great historical information and I did learn from it, and I'm glad I read it, but it also greatly conflicted with everything else I have learned about proper pruning. This article told me to take more out of the tree -a lot more.
Greg

 

[Nickrosis]

5 Ways to Spot a Declining Branch:

- Fewer leaves
- Smaller leaves
- Dead tips
- Dearth of leaves near trunk
- Shrivelled twig

Without even taking out the iodine, I think it's pretty obvious to the naked eye that a branch is not doing well.

Nickrosis

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

OK let's change the term to "defensive dieback", or how'bout "Apical Decline"?

 

[Rob Murphy]

No trees?????

Greg said
"Sorry, I'd rather have no trees than a bunch of topped trees."
Well you could live on the "Nullabor Plain"....
I suppose its the times when you have to do some major wieght reduction because of stress fractures or storm damage....and you get that .....
Oh No this is kinda like "topping" cringe.
Hope fully the articles reaches an audience that is informed enougth not to see it as an excuse to "top" trees.

 

[Stumper]

Thanks for all the input, guys. Curiously the illustrations in the article (read drawings) don't show tree abuse. The photos are what got me wound up-looks like most of you reacted similarly.

Nick. Well said!(several times) Aesthetics are a valid reason for pruning an ornamental tree. Let' s face it. If we advocate a completely "go natural" approach we are out of our jobs. We manipulate trees for people's use. We can do that well- so that the tree's interests are served and thus the owner is better served- or horribly-so that future problems are laid for all concerned.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

This topic is also being discussed in the Plant Health Care forum at the ISA discussion forum. Some very interesting thoughts and viewpoints.

There is a time for the work that the article suggests. Not as a general response though. I don't think the intention of the article is to suggest this practice as an every day procedure. Add the idea to your tool kit.

The pictures are pretty poor too.

Tom