Working hurricanes

[ddhlakebound]

I see you have joined the "imagine your own outcome scenario, regardless of established scientific research to the contrary club". You are right ....it is not all about how the tree looks today, it is about decay decay decay........

"You'd rather attempt to confine the decay to the limb (by leaving a huge stub)"......dream on. Why don't we just leave stubs on all pruning cuts, live or dead in your fairy tale world. Why???? research has proven decay will enter the stem.

Trees deserve BETTER care than Mother Nature gives them in the woods. Why.....??? Because of TARGETS. Why else?? Because we have brought trees out of their natural environment and caused them to evolve into a different structure (decurrent) that poses a threat to these targets, esp. when decay is involved.

We don't leave big or little stobs on regular trims because we have better options available to us, but in cases of storm damage most of our options have already been taken away. We're left trying to find the least destructive, most beneficial option.

I haven't joined any clubs, and in some cases the collar cut could be the better choice.

But I also think in some cases node trimming is the best option available. How can we possibly apply any given rule to every tree in any situation?

Different species handle damage, regrowth, and compartmentalization differently. I don't believe that most times the "big stob" will decay into the main stem. Sometimes it will. I think alot of what's going to happen depends on species. Perhaps species isn't as important as I feel like it is....lots of variables to account for.

But sometimes the main stem will decay with the collar cut too. So what are we losing or risking by leaving more material on the tree to aid regrowth? It seems to me we're only risking the growth that happens between the node trim and the future time we may have to make the cut back at the collar. Am I wrong on this?

If we're successful, the tree gets all the benefits I mentioned in the post above. If we're unsuccessful, and decay is moving down the limb, we still have the option to make the collar cut before decay reaches the main stem. (Provided the tree is getting regular checkups.)

Ever remove a previously topped tree with pockets of decay at the points of the internodal cuts, that still had a solid main stem?

A big collar cut is as assured of decay as a big long stob is. If the tree is going to be monitored in the future, what is the downside of allowing it to keep as much dynamic material as possible? Especially if it's only over grass, fence, or driveway....I'm up in lots of trees that don't have high value targets.

I haven't read most of the materail cited as evidence in this thread, but even so, many of you have read and cited the same materails and arrived at decidely different conclusions. Is this simply a difference in attempting to manage for the best possible outcome, and attempting to manage to avoid the worst possible outcome?

 

[treevet]

Nice spike wounds too. Prob ok in this day and age tho.? (and thread). The fungi will likely be decoyed away from the spike wounds and decay from the big decay loving candy bar (stub) will never be able to enter the stem (because we don't want it to?).

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Nice spike wounds too. Prob ok in this day and age tho.? (and thread). The fungi will likely be decoyed away from the spike wounds and decay from the big decay loving candy bar (stub) will never be able to enter the stem (because we don't want it to?).

Heck the fungus is already in the stem, cut the tree down.

So if you have thirty of those limbs broken in the tree, you just cut them all off to a nice textbook cut? And that is good for the tree?

If that is the only broken limb, then I am on board with you. There is a good collar, and the limb:stem ratio is not all that huge. My stand is where the tree has been damaged catastrophically, or the wound is so big it will likely become a decay court.

Once again, it is easier managed in the limb then in the stem. Mitigation, repair and restoration is not a one shot deal if you are practicing tree management. To me a strict adherence to NTP can be as bad as topping.

I've seen many raise and gut jobs that had technically perfect collar cuts: no rips, not tears, and finnish cut from the bottom. Only that every cut's a large limb that is a major percentage of the stem face.

 

[Ekka]

What next, a standard on stub cuts? For certain diameters a certain length stub decided by species?

I have already laid the gauntlet by saying the regrowth and management of it is no different to topping, Vet you got a pic with a round over in the background ... looks like Guy's crap. It's also a typical management routine for topped trees to do what guy is doing with his node stuff, no different.

If node reductions are good enough on damaged trees then it might be OK on other trees, I'm losing my city views ... 1/3 off please but since there's no foliage or laterals in that 1/3 off ... "nodes" will do.

We have a wolf in sheep's clothing here.

Mark my words, the wheel has turned 180 degrees, what is old is new again. I showed in Guy's pic that the ever valuable bond to the pith means nothing, was rotted.

Nodes on 15" branches.

I took pictures of a development site and posted them up on my forum, Guy was the only person who was OK with the crap cuts, everyone else said it wasn't on. What were those crap cuts, simple, cutting off both sides of a co-dominant so you got a weird long stubbed limb with a triangle shape on the end growing 20 sprouts, he said that was OK too.

He sure seems to miss the documented annual evidence along with video .... seems a little "skinny" in the facts department for a man trying to revolutionize pruning.

 

[treeseer]

...where the tree has been damaged catastrophically, or the wound is so big it will likely become a decay court.

Yes of course no one ever said this method is for everyday pruning; to suggest so is off base. I'm sorry I have no experience managing damaged eucalypts. They are different--one method does not work for all species. Everyone should know that by now.

Once again, it is easier managed in the limb then in the stem. Mitigation, repair and restoration is not a one shot deal if you are practicing tree management. To me a strict adherence to NTP can be as bad as topping.

Yes all true.

TCIA was kind enough to reduce the file size of the original article so it can be attached. If anyone wants to take the time please look it over. I'm glad to respond to any serious comments that apply to it; no time to reply to cursing or fighting or sarcasm.

 

[treeseer]

attached is Ed Gilman's brief view on this. Also see his pubs ENH 1036 and ENH 1054 for expanded views, free for the downloading. *All 3 recommend heading cuts* in these circumstances that JPS describes.

:agree2:

:notrolls2:

 

[treevet]

reducing branches rather than removing is better in most cases, in all species. white oak red oak red maple pecan sycamore etc. etc.

I've had 10' long stubs 12" dia come back fine--well, okay, anyway. I've had others not come back well,

Did you say you only stub off occasionally Guy? Not here.

 

[treevet]

attached is Ed Gilman's brief view on this

.

I read the publication you linked and do not find evidence to support your premise that very large stubs should be retained. In the previous paragraph on heading cuts he describes the desire to leave 2/3rds of the original lateral, but at no time does he advocate leaving, as common practice a stub that has become in the area of only 1/3 of the initial limb like your 10 foot 12" stub you describe.

Also see his pubs ENH 1036 and ENH 1054 for expanded views, free for the downloading. *

All 3 recommend heading cuts*

You are using unspecific references to support your premise.

PS Also in that art. Gilman is quoted as saying in regards to nodes "they are SOMETIMES visible". I mentioned this as my opinion many posts ago.

 

[treevet]

Exactly--that is why removing back to the parent is usually wrong,

we starting to sound a little like a future tree topper

 

[treevet]

Yes but the more tissue, especially heartwood, that is exposed, the more rot will happen.

This has been one of your main points through the thread in your favor IYO Guy. Well with a ntp cut on the side of the parent stem, you are exposing sapwood and not heartwood (of the main stem). You correctly only remove branch tissue and not parent stem tissue.

On the big stub cut you are obviously exposing your heartwood.

Let's take a look at this cut of your Guy. When the woundwood rolls into each other down the road we will get opposing pressure and cracks IMO. Weakened structure and vector to main stem.

 

[ddhlakebound]

.

I read the publication you linked and do not find evidence to support your premise that very large stubs should be retained. In the previous paragraph on heading cuts he describes the desire to leave 2/3rds of the original lateral, but at no time does he advocate leaving, as common practice a stub that has become in the area of only 1/3 of the initial limb like your 10 foot 12" stub you describe.

PS Also in that art. Gilman is quoted as saying in regards to nodes "they are SOMETIMES visible". I mentioned this as my opinion many posts ago.

I read the referenced article too, and clearly saw what I perceived as evidence for large stubs to be retained.

Canopy cleaning
also includes smooth pruning cuts behind broken branch stubs to
allow new tissue to develop properly and close over wounds.

Stressed trees need to access energy stored in their limbs in
order to recover. The storage compounds are necessary for the tree
to sprout, produce new leaves, and defend itself against organisms
that cause decay. It is better to leave the tree looking unbalanced
and misshapen than to remove large portions of the live canopy at
this time. Shaping can be done later as part of the restoration
process.

Heading Cut
A heading cut is made at a node along the stem and leaves a stub.
A node is the bud area from which a branch sprouts, sometimes
visible as a line around a stem or a slight swelling. When there is not
a live lateral branch present for making a reduction cut, a heading
cut is a better choice than removing the branch since removal of
large limbs can take away too much live wood, causing decay and
disrupting canopy balance. This can result in poor health or tree
failure in the years to come.

All three quotes are fairly clear that removal of too much dynamic mass is detrimental to the tree.

The difference in interpretation is striking again.....What are the factors that are causing these differences in interpretation across the board?

 

[treevet]

Now more than ever, our strategy must be to minimize the size of the infection courts that we leave behind.

Pls note enclosed pict....IMO a typical 12" short length stub left of the main stem

suckers didn't do their job?

It is time for that anti-topping passion to cool.

That is the quote I have been searching for that resulted in going thru the thread.....Did you really mean this Guy?

 

[treevet]

I read the referenced article too, and clearly saw what I perceived as evidence for large stubs to be retained.







All three quotes are fairly clear that removal of too much dynamic mass is detrimental to the tree.

The difference in interpretation is striking again.....What are the factors that are causing these differences in interpretation across the board?

The difference is striking in your opinion.. You seem stuck on the giant stub as retention of dynamic mass and I see it as waning mass and a sink for opportunistic successions of decay causing organisms. I do not see the tree that has lost relatively substantially less mass than this "giant 1/3rd of it's former self" stub as being in this compromised state (yet).

 

[treevet]

I read the referenced article too, and clearly saw what I perceived as evidence for large stubs to be retained.







All three quotes are fairly clear that removal of too much dynamic mass is detrimental to the tree.

The difference in interpretation is striking again.....What are the factors that are causing these differences in interpretation across the board?

Gilman likely referring to these size stubs, not the 12" dia very short decayed stub pictured earlier.

 

[treevet]

http://www.shigoandtrees.com/docs/Publications list.pdf

Here are some of the publications of Shigo if anyone wants to research them.

Most of the people we read refer Shigo's work and research. Interesting to see Gilman using Shigo's analogy with money to energy being attained, stored, used, lost etc.

 

[Ekka]

Meilleur-folie cut

Since my previous post has been removed here we go again, rebadged version to suit American sensitivity.

Introducing the all new, highly self-acclaimed and world's most innovate pruning cut.​

The French origin Meilleur-folie cut, the link translates this cut to the English version.

In the event that the Meilleur-folie cut fails you have many choices, you could ...

* Call it a pollard, this is a really good one actually and bluffs most.
* Argue it was endocormic growth not epicormic and was bonded to the pith before it decayed and crushed the Beemer.
* Blame the shade for it dying.
* Blame the species for it not sprouting (like pine trees).
* Blame the paint manufacturer for the scald.
* Say you were learning and wanted to play safe.
* Say you were providing time for the tree to show you the correct cut.

So you can see overall you'll always be a winner with an excuse, and HAVE TO REVISIT THE TREE.

Here's a picture I took today of a Meilleur-folie cut, is this the way your tree care is heading? :monkey: Please let us node.

 

[treeseer]

The thread was about reducing and restoring catastrophically damaged limbs in northern hemisphere hardwood species. How does a pic of small lateral stub on a eucalyptus address the topic?

Kind of like showing an elephant's hangnail to a polar bear doctor. Sorry for the confusion but thanks so much for editing out the scatological descriptor. :yourock: A true gentleman ; now to work on the scholar part...

Darn Americans don't want s**t in their sandbox; stuffy old spoilsports--good clean fun eh wot! Do they still do dwarf tossing for manly fun in OZ? We still have dogfights here, in 2009, though we do toss star NFL quarterbacks in the slammer for a year hard time for bankrolling them.

o yeah trees--here is a pre-restoration pic of the top of that oak 5 years after. Closure rate ~1"/year, no decay evident. As you can see-- if these sprouts get restoration pruned *ONE* time, five years after, the remaining structure will be acceptably sound for the long run.

That client has contracted for a followup pruning in 2012, when the tree will need deadwooding anyway. Those ends will get light pruning but they will not *need* much if anything.

Case closed; see you with the big lower stub pics in a week or so. :biggrinbounce2:

 

[Ekka]

The thread was about reducing and restoring catsastrophically damaged limbs in northern hemisphere hardwood species. The pic of small lateral removal on a eucalyptus does not address the topic.

Well, that's strange ... you didn't start the thread but decide it's purpose, geographical location, species and anything else that suits your BS. :hmm3grin2orange:

In Australia we call these cyclones, same deal. And that limb on that euc was stub cut after a cyclonic event. Also then, why do you insist on pedalling your BS in Australia then? Heck you even wrote ...

So avoiding the exposure of heartwood is indeed a hard and fast rule, from Canada to the Caribbean.

Gene-driven Anatomy by itself rarely makes or breaks the decision imo.

in all species. white oak red oak red maple pecan sycamore etc. etc.

But had the audacity to write that I'm disadvantaged because of our trees .... appears to me you're inconsistent and rather assumptive especially when one of the pictures I posted was of a non Australian tree. :deadhorse:

"There doesn't appear to be much difference in the regrowth from a nodal cut to an inter-nodal cut IMHO."

ok--when you are unfamiliar with non-Australian trees, that is one more disadvantage.

-------------------------​

Darn Americans don't want s**t in their sandbox; stuffy old spoilsports!

LOL, they better hurry up to see the trees too at the rate the parks are being "Terminated", seems "text book" practices aren't found in fiscal management either. :hmm3grin2orange:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...n-the-trees-face-the-big-squeeze-1693375.html

If you want to look at the world's tallest tree up close, then don't delay – unless you have an utterly irrational faith in the financial sanity of the state of California. The giant redwood tree, standing over 370 feet, is to be found in Humboldt Redwoods Park, one of some 200 state parks due to be shut under the ever more desperate attempts of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor.

-----------------------------------​

Case closed; see you with the big lower stub pics in a week or so. :biggrinbounce2:

The case is far from closed, going by your theory as long as topping cuts close then it's a job well done. Also those cuts aren't on some large limb. :deadhorse:

 

[Ekka]

tv, post your pics of your 12" stem wounds that callused over. then we will have something to talk about.

Whilst I'm not TV I have something to talk about alright, making sure these readers get to see the full picture not just what you ram down their throats.

Now lets see, hm-mm this one even exceeds your 12" gauntlet.

And where is the tree? Oh in the middle of a playground.

And again, not by chance or deceit here's another.

And it's totally sealed over.

 

[treesandsurf]

Aren't we talking about a pruning method that is used for very specific situations?; where there is large lateral limb failure and used as an alternative to removing back to the trunk to fit into the pidgeonholed 1/3 rule? :deadhorse:

If our studies don't lead us down the path towards understanding the depth of our ignorance, then we're not studying hard enough!

In this situation, BMP in my book is to take as little biomass from tree as possible and let the arborist follow the tree. If no new growth resprouts, tree has communicated that all is lost for that limb and it's time to go. It costs money to make biomass; don't drain the bank accounts to appease the Dr.'s and the 'rules'. :help:

jp