What do you guys think, is this limb dangerous?

[stehansen]

This tree is in a park and is not over a campsite; however, it is over a road right between two campsites. It is a Valley Oak tree. The limb has been kind of lion-tailed in the past, a little has been taken off of the end and everything has been removed in the middle as it was all hanging down over the road. As you can see the crotch has included bark. It looks to me like if you remove the lower limb that the next limb up might be weakened at the crotch. If you take both limbs off you have removed over half the tree. Give me your opinions please.

 

[treeseer]

Fork does not look good from here, and stripped middle and esp. the lean do make things worse.

Maybe reduce 1/3 of the lower fork and 1/4 of the upper fork.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

1/3 reduction bottom branch seems like alot considering the target rating, i would worry about the effect on hydrolics and the increased risk of summer drop (or is it sudden limb drop?)

Are those factors Seer?

 

[treeseer]

1/3 reduction bottom branch seems like alot considering the target rating, i would worry about the effect on hydrolics and the increased risk of summer drop (or is it sudden limb drop?) Are those factors Seer?

Removing end weight, maybe 1/3 of the total branch, reduces risk of limb drop.

I don't know what you mean by hydraulics, but yes that target is THE factor.

It'd be nice to see a closer shot of that fork. It could be that lower one has to go back even more.

 

[stehansen]

I'll be back there on Monday, I can get a closer shot of the fork and the other side as well.

 

[rbtree]

I agree with Guy, reduce the end weight. Cutting off that huge lateral at the union would not be a good thing..the wound would take years to compartmentalize, and decay would surely result, weakening the critical lower trunk. Crown reduction, taught by Klaus Mattheck, and espoused upon by Guy and others,is a necessary "evil" for many trees.

 

[Stumper]

I also would go for tip reducton on the lateral limbs-Probably less than what Guy is espousing but that depends upon where the best reduction points are and an onsite eval of the situation. Remember that a quite small reduction at the tip where The leverage is greatest can quickly reduce the tensile loads at the union by a large margin. If the limb is holding up currently and you reduce the loading to half, the chance of breakage decreases enormously. Sometimes that much load reduction is achievable with only 15% foliage removal on the target limb.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Removing end weight, maybe 1/3 of the total branch, reduces risk of limb drop.

I don't know what you mean by hydraulics, but yes that target is THE factor.

It'd be nice to see a closer shot of that fork. It could be that lower one has to go back even more.

Yeah I'm admitedly out of my element here. By hydraulics i mean the trees ability to carry on transpiration. to me 1/3 and 1/4 pruning seems a bit drastic. I'm kind of with stumper, surprised that the tree would have to be pruned back so much. I would worry about SLD for the ramainder of the stem because of the fluctuation in water uptake caused by the removal of so much leaf. And considering the target, an intermittant use road, it seems like you could get away with less.

Would drastic prunning of a lower branch affect a higher branches ability to take up water? or are they completely independent?

Threat mitigation seems to be your bag, so really i'm asking if i'm on the right track, or if i'm being overly cautious.

Thanks Seer.

 

[treeseer]

really i'm asking if i'm on the right track, or if i'm being overly cautious. .

O yea you me stumper and Rog are all on the same track, as close as we can virtually be. I don't see SLD as an issue on this so much but I agree with everything else you're saying.

Good question on one branch's pruning affecting the higher branch's uptake; I tend to think not but who knows for sure?

 

[NickfromWI]

How bout cabling that bad boy?

love
nick

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

How bout cabling that bad boy?

love
nick

Best, but too expensive.
This is one of those rare times I'd reduce, keeping in mind it's likely the start of removal for this limb. One third now, keep notes and re-inspect in a couple years for further reduction, repeat until the limb is gone or effectively subordinated.
If the limb can be effectively subordinated to a safe limb, the long term prognosis for this tree is much better than if the entire limb being removed.
If the target made the tree more hazardous, both cable and reduction, or removal of entire limb or tree.

I don't understand Guy's recommending reduction for the center lead, other than his love for reduction work.

 

[Gopher]

Have you closely examined the main trunk?

From your pictures, I can't see all sides of the trunk from ground up. I am assuming you have determined the lower trunk to be sound, and all options of canopy work valid.

Nick brings up "cabling". What is more expensive, cabling, some minor reductions in limbs and keeping the tree that many more years, or slightly more tip reductions, with more to follow and then removal?

Can we estimate the potential number of years gained by each practice, and then determine which one (or combination) would be the most "economical"?

Just some thoughts...

 

[treeseer]

(cabling) too expensive.
If the limb can be effectively subordinated to a safe limb, the long term prognosis for this tree is much better than if the entire limb being removed.
I don't understand Guy's recommending reduction for the center lead, other than his love for reduction work.

Mike, my love is tree conservation, which reduction, thinning and cleaning are part of.
Most reductions/subordinations can be permanent fixes; the notion that reduction is usually just one step toward removal is pure bs, unless you have some basis for that statement. I hope to heaven that we are not in the same retirement home, because we would debate this to our death it seems.

The problem with cabling is that there is nothing to cable to due to the lean, based on my look at the picture.

If you reduce the lower stem you expose the upper stem to more stress; that and the lean over the road are the reasons for shortening it.

 

[rbtree]

Mike, what do you know of Klaus Mattheck's work? Have you studied it or been to a seminar? If so, what do you think of his ideas?

Many think crown reduction is a euphemism for topping, while both can have a place in tree preservation, both to maintain a declining/old/ poorly placed tree's, or to correct a storm damaged tree, as Guy has so thoroughly presented to us his experiences with restoration of horribly damaged trees, where cutting to internodal points (as in stubbing and topping) can actually be the best solution.

 

[treeseer]

cutting to internodal points (as in stubbing and topping) can actually be the best solution.

Thanks Roger but the protocol is to cut back to the first good node, not to make internodal cuts. This is not made up but just follows Shigo's words on reduction, p 458 of ANTB: "...proper crown reduction is done at nodes, or at crotches...", (he never siad that reduction was usually the first step in removal; I wonder why so many others think that way?), and on "topping', p. 114 of the ANTB Dictionary:
"...make the cut at a node...the nodal cut should be slanted at an angle opposite the angle of the branch bark ridge...Crowns of maturing trees may be reduced...Make certain that all cuts are made at nodes."

Nodes are generally easy to see; they're where laterals are or were. They often have bumps or bulges or wrinkles.

 

[Eagle1]

The only problem that I see in that picture is that somebody put a park under that tree.

Really, reducing weight is the only solution for now. No need to get out the protractors, micro-scopes, and quoting Biblical scholars.

 

[treeseer]

No need to get out the protractors, micro-scopes, and quoting Biblical scholars.

What, you don't like using gear? :angel:

 

[Eagle1]

lol. I was just being funny. All the posts are solid and helpfull.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

It's hard to see the foliage from those angles, but I'm guessing that taking the lower limb or leader off on the left would not mean a third of the foliage. It sort of looks like that limb may have 25% of the canopy.

 

[rbtree]

Thanks Roger but the protocol is to cut back to the first good node, not to make internodal cuts.

Thanks, Guy, that's what I meant, i just said it wrong.