Tree-to-Ground Guying

[treeseer]

Colleagues,

The old oak in the pictures has a wound ~50% of the circumference and ~6' high halfway up the trunk, on the side opposite the house. I can shove my entire handsaw in the gap between the woundwood and the xylem in several places along the edges of this wound. I can also shove it straight into some of the cracks, to a depth half the length of the blade.

Crown reduction is not a reasonable option given the age of the tree and the severity of the defect. The best management option seems to be a guy cable installed from a point above the defect and anchored into the ground. I reviewed the ANSI standards and the BMP's with the client, and our course seems clear. I have specified ground anchors only twice in the past, and cannot confirm whether these were installed, or recall seeing others.

Can you please refer me to successful cases of tree-to-ground guying? The client would like to know of some before going ahead. Sorry for the crappy pic of the wound; light was bad and i forgot to adjust the camera. 6 dead limbs around this wound and i have no clue what caused it. Theories?

 

[Dadatwins]

Looks like some old lightning damage caused the wound? Can you get enough angle to offer support? At that height looks like you will need tree to ground cable to be at 60-75 degrees to offer any support/insurance which will be signifant distance from base. Looks like a crack to the left if the wound also will need some bracing. Why no tip reduction option, looks like the tree has some buds up there still.

 

[D Mc]

Treeseer, it is always difficult to tell from pictures as we cannot see the whole tree as you have seen it. But it looks like the wound is actually at the upper portion of the tree where it branches out?

We know you are hesitant about doing a crown reduction; however, it looks like it could be a possibility.

We don't see an appropriate place above the wound for a guy attachment. Where are you thinking of attaching it? When we think of ground anchors we think of stabilization against whole tree failure. Clearly this is not where you are going with this, you are more concern with what is above the wound? More info on your thoughts?

Our first thought on the injury was lightning damage also exacerbated by canker.

D and S Mc

 

[jomoco]

I fail to see any logical reason to think that tree to ground guying would help this tree at all, in fact it appears that the exact opposite would be the case.

I have successfully guyed many trees in danger of toppling onto busy roadways by pouring concrete anchor boxes below ground with galvinized heavy duty forged eyebolts in them.

Do you have any indication that the root structure is failing or diseased?

Expand on your rationale for tree to ground guying a bit more please.

Atleast limb to limb cabling will move together in the wind as one system.

Why wouldn't tree to ground guying effectively tear this decurrent tree apart in high winds?

jomoco

 

[treeseer]

Expand on your rationale for tree to ground guying a bit more please.

Failure at defect cannot be mitigated by bracing or cabling. Trunk could still crack, no matter how many times it is braced (and the wounding to install the brace would destroy the tree's own reinforcement tissue.
There is nothing to cable to, except the ground.

Hard pruning trees this old is a very bad idea physiologically and also aesthetically, and light pruning would not mitigate enough.

Potential point of attachment 2-3' above defect.

I hear what you are saying jomoco; I don't want to mess up the tree's natural movement, but the defect is so severe I am concerned about a NE wind breaking it onto the house.

No other signs of lightning strike, no signs of canker organism. Root anchorage seems good, at least average for species and age.

I'll post more pics in a coupe days. Thanks, y'all.

 

[beaverb01]

I would dead wood the tree and then reduce as much as possible. In other words, reduce weight, then cable. I personally would reduce the crown by 1/3. What have you got to lose at this point? That defect looks severe. IMHO, the only other option would be removal. Anything other than a removal would be a gamble for the HO (and you) as far as the tree breaking at the defect during a blow.
Just my 2c.

Beaver

 

[Dadatwins]

I would dead wood the tree and then reduce as much as possible. In other words, reduce weight, then cable.

cable to what? The top has the defect, so it could only be cabled to the ground not to itself. I would agree with Jomoco that only cabling the top to the ground would probably cause more harm, since the top would lose flexibility. It would be my guess to eliminate the possibility of the top breaking out the entire tree would have to be guyed to the ground, so no movement exists. That would be pretty massive undertaking and require substantial cabling. I would think option of reducing the top would mitigate some risk, but not all might be best advice.

 

[treeseer]

Tree is very old; I would hesitate to reduce 10% and starve it; more is out of the question from both a starvation and aesthetic point of view. "Crown reduction is not a reasonable option given the age of the tree and the severity of the defect."

Yes by stabilizing the trunk you are losing the flex that stimulates extra tissue to grow, but that same flex is what could cause the top to fail onto the house. It's a give-and-take proposition; something's got to give.

 

[kennertree]

What is the approximate hieghth of the defect? If its not too high could you set a pole some distance away from the tree with the top of the pole being in line with where it needs to be cabled, cable to the pole and then guy the pole? Don't know if it will help or not, its just a thought that crossed my mind.

 

[clearance]

I would dead wood the tree and then reduce as much as possible. In other words, reduce weight, then cable. I personally would reduce the crown by 1/3. What have you got to lose at this point? That defect looks severe. IMHO, the only other option would be removal. Anything other than a removal would be a gamble for the HO (and you) as far as the tree breaking at the defect during a blow.
Just my 2c.

Beaver

Trees come before people, houses and powerlines Beav, always. At least in some peoples eyes. But what do I know, I am just a utility guy who removes hazard trees, and this tree looks like a hazard to me.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

iss the purpose of the guy to reduce rrisk of failure, or to make it "fail safe" e.g. so the if thee to goes, it will fail towards the guy lines, or in a predictable arc of the a guy line?

As for hazard, many people are willing to assume more risk then others. Any tree can fail under the wrong conditions. As long as the client understands thaat there is stil an elevated risk, and the treatment is is just to mitigate the risk, not eliminate, then where is the problm. It is their propeerty

mit·i·gate (mĭt'ĭgāt') To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity

 

[Ekka]

As for hazard, many people are willing to assume more risk then others. Any tree can fail under the wrong conditions. As long as the client understands thaat there is stil an elevated risk, and the treatment is is just to mitigate the risk, not eliminate, then where is the problm. It is their propeerty

Run that by their insurance company first coz if it does fail most likely they'll be paying for the damage and the customer only the deductable.

 

[BarkingMad]

I am also just a tree guy, but I would have VERY bad feelings about having my name and my company's reputation associated with anything to do with a tree llike this one. It looks from the pictures like a tree to CONDEMN, give an estimate to take it down, and drive away if the clients want to coddle it at the risk of their lives. If you work on it, the insurance company will come to you if it fails and a claim follows. The client can only assume so much risk, and at a point the "expert" is legally expected to know better.
Maybe the situation isn't as bad as the pics and the description made it seem to me. It does in any case seem like a job to get some armor-plated butt coverage on, with signatures and the toughest language you can muster.

 

[beaverb01]

I understand wanting to save an old tree. I also understand that around here anyway, if there is a known defect or if the tree is dead (either way, a hazard) and the HO knows about it and does not act to remove the hazard, insurance will not pay for resulting damages. The HO ultimately has the decision to make. Tell them to check their policy or call their agent so they can at least make an informed decision.

:greenchainsaw:

Beaver

 

[woodchux]

I would want to remove everything above the wound area. It looks like there are several large limbs below the damage that could be encouraged to replace the crown over time.

 

[treeseer]

My good ness, what a diverse array of opinions. I shall provide more pics and data, in hopes of getting closer to a consensus.

ps i am NOT shrinking from the challenge of managing this tree, repatation be damd. I like the indirect guying thoughts, kenner and TreeCo. Clients do not have a high risk tolerance--baby on board, with all that caution many new parents have.

reminds me when my kid was born--first thing i did was swing him in my arms, and soon tossed him into the air.
Whee! mom frowned, but silently.
different storks, different strokes...

 

[pdqdl]

I think you need more information.

It looks to me like the decay would descend considerably into the lower parts of the trunk. It also looks like there might be considerable decline above the central part of the tree. If the tree is in a serious state of decline, it is is certain to be more dangerous and expensive to remove after it had decayed more.

I would probably suggest that the client wait until the tree had leafed out in the spring to evaluate the overall health/vigor of the tree. That, or spend a fortune doing some core evaluation.

The tree is not likely to blow over until it gets some leaves. If it looks so fragile that it would not stand until it grows leaves, then the top of the tree should be condemned immediately, as cabling would be a waste of the client's money and would never be safe even if cleverly cabled.

Why not suggest that they cut down the tree, and plant a new one that can grow up with their child ? Removes the risk, and gives them something positive to watch, rather than something to worry about on dark and stormy nights.

 

[treeseer]

I saw it in leaf, in september.

i already pruned the (very little) deadwood.

Come to st. joseph's for the mcfc march 7 and hear more.

http://www.mocommunitytrees.com/images/MCFC_Conference_2008.pdf

Removal is not a reasonable option. That from a certified arborist? Yikes.:greenchainsaw:

Kevorkian Tree Service, at your disservice!

 

[clearance]

Removal is not a reasonable option.

Alrighty then, but the tree smashing the house in, perhaps with ugly consequences is?
Like I said in my first post, people, house, powelines, they all come after trees. With you, and people like you anyways. Here is a thought, get these clients to look up this thread on thier computer, let them see the diversity of opinions.

 

[treeseer]

get these clients to look up this thread on thier computer, let them see the diversity of opinions.

Great suggestion, bruddamon, but I beat you to it--I put this thread in 4 forums and they are linked to them all. I run a transparent tree consultancy, tankyouberrymuch!

I told em they'd hear from the Kevorkian types; they are too intelligent to put a whole lot of stock in any one opinion.