Where would YOU cut this branch?

[treeseer]

In the US, 'heading cut' has 2 definitions. One is 'internodal' the other is 'to a lateral <1/3 the diameter of the parent.' Confusion is inevitable, but the 'heading cut' concept remains prominent in training materials. So if the objective is to reduce the branch to reduce its growth relative to other branches, maintaining long-term health and safety with minimal maintenance, many US arborists are trained to obey a '1/3 Rule', and make the cut at the red line.

If the objective is the same, where would you make the cuts?

In the UK, Germany, and other countries, this term is not used. Attached is some research that seems to indicate that red cut might not be the best.

 

[Pelorus]

Trying to make the tree look like a golf ball on a stick?
how about a SWAG: you are making the tree "safer"?

 

[kyle goddard]

Ive seen some excellence reductions. I believe it depends on what you are trying to achieve. I like the idea of 2 samller cuts., ive made them all. I try not to take anything beyond 1/3.

 

[teamtree]

What is the objective of the pruning?

What is the species of tree being pruned? I know I would treat a Silver Maple much different than say a Shagbark Hickory or a White Oak or a Pin Oak. I have pruned White Oaks once or twice in a career....but have pruned on Silver Maples over and over and over.

I go back to earlier points on pruning.....Is there a cut and dry "right" way to prune a tree? Who is to say what is right and wrong. I am not defending "topping" by any means, but it goes on everyday....and for the most part it satisfies the owner's desire. Does it come down to who does the least amount of damage to the tree with there pruning?

A would like to see a survey on trimming for the purpose of health vs. safety vs. clearance. How many people buy in to the face that pruning the tree "properly" will allow the tree to be healthier????

 

[ATH]

Can I prune at both blue lines?

 

[treeseer]

For those who missed it, "the objective is to reduce the branch to reduce its growth relative to other branches, maintaining long-term health and safety with minimal maintenance"

Yes ATH, 'lines' was supposed to be plural; I flubbed on the cutandpaste; sorreeeboutdat.

Yes I think it does come down to which pruning option does the least amount of damage. Pruning the tree properly will allow the tree to be healthier; that seems to be a no-brainer.

For what species etc. would the red cut be the right cut?

 

[teamtree]

The objective seems vague and open-ended....but I get your point. I was thinking in terms of the customer.

Pruning the tree properly in terms of making the proper cuts vs. making bad cuts is a no brainer. I am on the fence as to whether or not pruning out certain limbs will allow the tree to grow stronger and stay healthier vs. leaving those limbs. When you thin a tree, is it to reduce the sail, prevent fungus issues, or to improve the health. I often heard arborist talk about if a tree is thinned out it will allow more nutrients to go to less foliage so the tree will be stronger.....What do you guys think?

 

[imagineero]

All my posts are gone :-(

 

[Pelorus]

All my posts are gone :-(

They may have been headed back during the migration to the new server.
Rest assured that your post reductions were done in the interest of "maintaining long-term health and safety with minimal maintenance"

 

[BC WetCoast]

The typical answer it depends:
- is this a street tree that will see regular pruning cycles or won't see a saw for 15 years
- is this branch going to be retained in the long term (if you follow Gillam, you may subordinate a branch now, knowing it will be removed in future pruning cycles)
- how does it fit with the rest of the tree
- are there clearance (road, buildings) issues

At first glance I would remove at the blue lines, but would not be adverse to remove at the red line if the situation warranted.

 

[sgreanbeans]

This can get real deep,LOL. I think the goal should always be to remove as little live tissue as possible, to achieve desired goals.

I often heard arborist talk about if a tree is thinned out it will allow more nutrients to go to less foliage so the tree will be stronger.....What do you guys think?

I don't think so, you never make a tree "healthier" buy removing live tissue, that has nothing wrong with it. You may prevent future damage from bad structure, mechanical damage or wind, but whenever you take live tissue, it hurts the tree, induces stress. Diseased, busted and dead,etc, of course does not count. That's gotta go. All of them react differently to pruning. Even the same exact species can react much differently from one another, depending on location and soil profiles. You can have perfect cuts, leaving the 1/3 and the tree, depending on species, it can sill explode with epi's. It is trying replace what was lost. It is trying regain the balance between canopy and roots. Roots send nutrients to the leaf to make food and the leaf then feeds the root. When ya prune a lot of live tissue, your taking food away from the roots and it does not like that. It is all conditional, what works for one, will be bad for another.

 

[teamtree]

This can get real deep,LOL. I think the goal should always be to remove as little live tissue as possible, to achieve desired goals.



I don't think so, you never make a tree "healthier" buy removing live tissue, that has nothing wrong with it. You may prevent future damage from bad structure, mechanical damage or wind, but whenever you take live tissue, it hurts the tree, induces stress. Diseased, busted and dead,etc, of course does not count. That's gotta go. All of them react differently to pruning. Even the same exact species can react much differently from one another, depending on location and soil profiles. You can have perfect cuts, leaving the 1/3 and the tree, depending on species, it can sill explode with epi's. It is trying replace what was lost. It is trying regain the balance between canopy and roots. Roots send nutrients to the leaf to make food and the leaf then feeds the root. When ya prune a lot of live tissue, your taking food away from the roots and it does not like that. It is all conditional, what works for one, will be bad for another.

Good points....I tend to agree with you.

 

[Adamgaspo]

In the context that the info was given I would cut at the blue lines. Although depending on the species, location, and growth I would choose differently. I've seen willow oaks that have 5 to 10 co-dominants. What is the proper cut there ( redundant question) most trees that I see like this have already become established, and do not see a blade for 10 yrs or so. Based on that I would opt to reduce co-dominants to the maximum to provide the best lonterm benefits for the tree. This statement primarially pertains to the city trees that I care for.
The guidelines outlined by isa are there for a reason, and yes they are some times difficult to interpret. Personally I feal that it is up to the practicing arborist to choose the best coarse of action for the tree.

After a closer look at the picture I would not take at the blue lines or the red. There are other very acceptable points on the limb to reduce to. Further out on each limb where they bifurcate would be another reasonable choice.
On the lower limb reducing to the blue line would be too drastic and would almost certainly cause some form of stress/disease/infestation.