To prune or not to prune?

[BigJohn]

For me as one who works with trees I am always looking at and noticeing trees in my area.I feel that trees in their natural enviroment are healthier, maybe not safer. Over the years you see things happening with trees make you go hmmm. For example there many trees that no one cares for. Large mature trees takening care of themselves the way nature intended. I may notice a large limb dying back and slowly detrerirate. I believe there is a design in place to shed limbs that may become to large or just aren't producing to shed. Once this process is complete your left with a beautiful tree again. I believe if you take a tree that has never been pruned of live growth and just let it go it would be better off than a tree that has been pruned once and then left go. When I say pruned I mean the pruning of live growth that is impropper as too many of do from time to time for one reason or another. I believe once a tree is pruned impropply of live growth it is in need of ongoing maintance.

I am a firm believer in letting a tree be a tree. I understand removing hazard deadwood and smaller deadwood. I really see no reason for live growth for reasons other than it is too close to structures or property or the ocasional crossing limb.

I think if homeowner wants to prune a tree for asthetics of what he or she feels looks good then they need an explanation of how it there responsibility of the ongoing care this tree will need for health and orimental purposes.

 

[Matt Follett]

BigJohn

Well said, IMO..., however I think that we MAY be on the right track with the pruning of young trees. Often either from improper nursery practices (!@#$% wruk ##$$ heading small $%^# make me so #$%^ mad some days) or damage during transport, trees end up with co dominance that may not be over grown (I am thinking of 90% of the Ash street trees out there with co dominate unions at 4'!) here the removal of live growth serves a definite and productive purpose.

Generally speaking I find if hard to believe that we can, in the best interest of the tree, 'structurally prune' a large mature tree.
Most of the time problems which were not fixed years ago may be made worse by fixing them now, i.e. blowing out a 8 inch limb that is crossing a 12 inch limb. The exceptions are out there, but I think few and far between.

I believe more and more our purpose as arborists is becoming primarily the mitigation of hazards in this world of 'whose fault is it anyway'. (And we have to be careful here or it could be our fault!) Sure we may diagnose problems and provide solutions but most of the time these 'problems' cannot be solved by simple pruning.

With the debate of what makes a tree look good that is almost stylistic, and things may change from time to time, and place to place. At one period in time it may be 'all the rage' to have your tree cleaned entirely of its deadwood, and crowns artificially raised to allow us to walk freely underneath... but I dream of a day when the front yards are littered with sticks and leaves, and kids can play hide'n'seek by ducking under Mrs. Smiths front yard tree!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

John,

You touched on a notion that Wulkie would promote. I agre with you. Leaving more live wood has got to be better. If we look at what trees do without our heavy interference we would see that they take care of themselves pretty well. Not to say that a little snip and nip once in a while isn't needed.

A few years ago I started an experiment with an elm. We dug one out of a planting bed and brought it home. The sapling was about five feet tall and less than two fingers in diameter. I have only pruned one little limb. That one would have grown directly into the soffet on my house so it got shed with the Felcos. The tree had a mishap last spring. My soil is so good the tree has grown super fast. It split into a typical elm Y at about fifteen feet. The two leads got too heavy and the union split. At first I thought about doing a bolt/cable but decided to cut out the split and bend a lower branch into a vertical. This year it should start to grow up and be the dominant.

The small branches on the trunk grow but are really compact. Instead of skinning them, they stay in place. No reason to skin.

Why cut off the food factory?

Tom

 

[NickfromWI]

My favorite trees are ones where the branches reach the ground or come very darn close. When I climb a tree, I look for deadwood. If I see branches that are going to be crowding eachother, I will cut there, too. I don't necessarily do this because I think it's better for the tree, but rather because I think my bosses and their clients want the tree to look "clean" and "organized." I've been sent back up many a tree because I didn't take things out that others thought SHOULD be taken out.

In the mean time, I've had coworkers that just cut everything in their path. The bosses are more often quite satisfied with their work (which is usually quicker than me trying to get around a sucker without breaking it).

My dream tree (some people have a dream house...I just have a dream tree) will be an oak (not super important what kind) maybe 60' or 70' and spreading just as much. No grass would grown underneath because the sun didn't reach that far down. You could tie in at the top, limb walk out one of the lower branches, and when you got to the end, you could just step onto the dirt. There would be ample room for good swings, places to hang a hammock, and there'd be many good TIPs so several could climb at the same time.

If any of you see a cheap house with this tree in the back or front yard, please let me know!

One question I have about "to prune or not to prune" is when there are rubbing branches. It makes since to this tree hugger that I should try to prevent rubbing from occurring wherever I can. If I see it, I will cut out the least desirable of the branches. The question- how big is too big? If I saw two limbs a foot and a half in diameter each, I might just leave them. Cutting one of them could remove 15% of the foliage in the tree! So how big is too big?

love
nick

 

[Matt Follett]

Yep Nick I know that question well, where do we draw the line at what is too big a cut for this instance. My opinion, (not based on anything other then sonme taught knowledge assembled in a way for me to understand which may not be relavent anyway...) is that for somthing like a six inch limb on a 50 yr old oak that's almost touching, but not quite... (couple of inches of clearance) another limb, out she goes.

Same limb, Silver maple, maybe leave it be. Why, the oaks' most likley going to be around for a while... long enough for the limbs to rub, decay and become a failure point possibly. The silver, well somebody will either top the poor thing 'cause it got to tall, or it will reach the end of its life span within a few years anyway (typically they last about 75 -80 years around here before they start to decline) and the cut here may cause a decay point which could be the demise of the tree, (weaker wall 1, quiker wood to decay etc. etc.) While the silver may rub and decay sooner in the overall picture, it's probably not as crucial a tree.

18" limb yeah, no way am I taking that out, doesn't matter what the species, the wound that I cause is going to be way more problimatic then the rubing of the limbs, and limbs of that size aren't going to be moving much, so little contact is going to result in more 'included bark' then actually wounding of the wood.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

I've gotten away from cutting rubbers unless there are more compelling reasons. After disecting, vertical and lateral, some rubbers I don't see large decay pockets. The limbs that I've cut were from removals or drooping/interfering limbs. To have rubbing limbs on the cutaway list would be deadly in some trees.

Tom

 

[Matt Follett]

Yeah Tom, in two related cases (seperate sites) two years ago I removed rubbing limbs on willows, in one case it was both in the other it was the upper one.

Well two weeks later in both cases we we're back cleaning up failed limbs, in the one where we removed both it was the limb below (couple of feet, and we sectioned out the ones above, no they didn't land on the one below and fracture it), on the other tree, where we just removed the upper one that was laying on the other, the bottom one failed!

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Stress is Good, Strain is Bad

Originally posted by Tom Dunlap
I've gotten away from cutting rubbers unless there are more compelling reasons.

Same here. If it looks like the rubbing will worsen and widen the wound, a reduction cut(s) on the upper one will relieve the most pressure with the least wounding.

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

over the years ive pruned hundreds of trees..ive cutt back to good growing points and in the arboricultural world the jobs that ive carried out would be classed as good to high quality work..just as many of you guys have over the years...yet in the back of my mind im thinking 90% of these trees are now ruined..and for what real purpose where these trees pruned/reduced for..i will tell you the reason ,,mans phobia of trees and obssecion for controlling things and no other reason...when a perfectly happy street/ park/or other ameinity area tree is pruned or reduced for no good reason why shouldnt mr &mrs homeowner expect the same ,in my opinion 90%of urban trees need little more than deadwooding or a crown lift

 

[NickfromWI]

I looked at a Camperdown Elm last summer. The question was if the large deadwood should be taken out. After looking at the tree, I said to do nothing to the tree.

The dead limbs were supporting large live limbs. To remove the dead may have caused immediate breakage of the live limbs. At the very least, dead wood removal would have caused a drastic change in the appearance of two very beatiful, rare trees.

love
nick

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by ROLLACOSTA
90%of urban trees need little more than deadwooding or a crown lift

What city are you in? Leftfieldville?

Absolutely some dead wood needs to stay where it is. Like you I've seen ones I've overpruned, sure, but I've seen a whole lot more that failed for lack of corrective pruning.

 

[NickfromWI]

I would like to point out that the trees do not NEED anything. They will live and they will die. Didn't you see the Lion King! Follow Rafiki, he knows the way.

We humans in the urban environment have expectations. We WANT the trees to live longer and be "safer." There is no reason other than human desire to make a tree live longer. Yes, in order to survive, the tree has needs (water, sun, etc)....but who says it has to survive? It does not HAVE to survive. We just want it to.

love
nick

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

GUY..so you always prune for a real purpose???? humm corrective pruneing?????? Guy Vs mother nature...dead wood no thanks keep it in the woods

we carry out work for schools etc and on the job sheet it reads 20% reduction...usualy for no purpose thats what im getting at pruneing for no aparant reason

when you say corrective pruneing do you mean formative??? which i think should be done.... if not id like too see somebody correctively prune out a 100 year old co-dominant stem succesfully

 

[BigJohn]

I am with you there Tom on structural pruning of juvenile trees with what may be some genetic deformalities. I believe like humans trees too are prone to genetic growth deformalities. I think at a young age we can remove some growth that may not be in the trees best interest while there is still a collar there to cut it back to. As far as large rubbing branches I believe these are best let go. It would do more harm in some cases allowing decay to rapidly set into the trunk wood putting the tree into a more imediate decline. I believe you get more years out of the treee when you would let it go and simply prune out what hazard deadwood may come from this. As Nick said about the guys who tear through trees and cutting things out there way and getting things done quickly I know exactly what he is talking about. I am one man who like others who don't make the rules just out trying to earn a buck and make the boss and client happy. We don't always agree with what we do. Nick if you Roachy you can ask him I am deffinately guilty of that. If I was ever to be employed by myself maybe I could change some things.

 

[wiley_p]

I am not a big advocate of pruning, mostly because what I am called on to do is trimming not pruning, I see trees in the forest and in large yards left unmolested that are great. I,ve yet to get a customer who will commit to a pruning program, My feeling is once we start pruning, there should be a plan, or vision of 30 yrs down the road particularly structural pruning. I hate starting a crown restoration job and 2 years later come back and the customer had some scumbag cutthroat top and head the tree back to a specific ht. I would enjoy working with someone like Guy, or Mr. Sanborn. It isnt always easy to talk a customer into removing the savaged tree next to their house, and planting the same species 10' farther out so it can be left alone (good nursery stock is key). But this is still the type of pruning I am most fond of.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

The only real pruning I do on large trees is if one limb looks to be more vigorous then another and may be subordinating it, ie crowding it out. then maybe fine prund to allow for light and growth, maybe avoid the tree "needing" to shed that branch

Large low limbs get thinned to reduce vigor (or vitality if your in on that argument) so they dont overtake or "girdle" the sectral stem (s).

Usuall one can "get away" with taking no mre then a wind storm would take.

If cuts are are small in proportion to the originating stem then they usually close up fast.

It is when people get into old trees and leave wonds that are large in terms of stem aspect ratios where the probelms start. Or removal of large limbs period.

One of the discussions we had a t the tree house project (Bob Phillips, Charly Potoorf and a few others) was that we do not rally know what sort of effect we will have eventn with a folliar reduction of 15% on a mature tree. It couls be years before the results of the energy production is seen. Rapid reflush of growth is a indicator of somehting gone wrong.

You need to look ar the over all vigor of the branch and limb. Small termianl; growth probably means that the tree is senescent and uptak is not very good. There is just enough gwoth going on to maintain the status quo.

It all depends.

A minimalistic aproach to green removal is a good thing though I will agree whole heartedly.

This ties into MM's sucker thread. Leave as many inner branches as you can

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Originally posted by wiley_p
My feeling is once we start pruning, there should be a plan, or vision of 30 yrs down the road particularly structural pruning.

I've been advocating for a long time for the people doing the sales to talk about tree maintinance. If all you talk about is pruning then all they think about is cutting wood.

"retain us to maintain your property"

Sales is as much changeing their point of veiw as closing the immidiate deal.

Mr. Sanborn

BTW, JP works better. Especiall since Guy's like 20 some years older then me

I'll be 39 in q few weeks (I sure felled older then him, when i watche him shimmy up spars winter before last)

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

In this thread, BigJohn, Matt, Tom D, Nick, Rollacosta, and wiley_p
all are thinking like me, all this prunning is overrated.
Anyway, it was going well, until Guy and JP had to rain on the parade with their "101 reasons why a tree must be cut."

One of the situations I run into, is where a very large open grown White Oak is over run by undergrowth and we clear the underbrush to exopse the tree, so the new homeowner can see it.
At this point there are some huge dead limbs on the tree that were sufficated by the underbrush. Each limb will have a collar that extends way out, maybe a foot or more.
The trees are beautiful, but once we remove the deadwood, there are these ugly stubby, cut, un-natural looking things all over the lower trunk.
The removal of the dead limbs puts the tree out of natural balance too. To me it looks stupid and in the back of my mind, I know it did not do one good thing for the tree to remove these lower dead limbs.

 

[jamie]

lower limbs

if removing the dead lower limbs did no good, would leaving them have done the tree any better?

surely if the are dead, the tree will have compartmentalized within the stem so that any infection etc cannot invade the rest of the tree. the tree will have began to callus up the collar in preperation for the branch to be shed and the 'wound' to close up.

so removing the deadwood removes the deadwood habitat which sustains saproxylic organisims but not the tree.

if the tree had enough deadwood that removing the deadwood caused the tree to become severly out of balance and then posed a risk wouldnt there be other forces at play that could be identified as the problem?

as long as correct pruning cuts are applied i cant see how deadwooding will be bad for the tree.

i hope that made sense, i kinda got a bit lost, its late, im tired and im ripping mp3s

jamie

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Jamie, I'm afraid you missed the point, along with the other two previously mentioned.
That's ok, beauty and appreciating natural things can be very subjective.