Working hurricanes

[John464]

But a bucket can seldom get 360 of a tree so climbing is needed too.

a bucket truck may not be able to get 360 the tree but a spiderlift with telescoping upper and lower booms very often can when working in small yards

 

[Mapleman]

Maple, I'm agreein gwith most of what you are saying, but 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, but formed a collar to cut back to, where there was none before. You gotta think in tree time, not how it looks after you first cut it...and the story about leaving a hazard makes sense only if the branch does not sprout. It does not hold up when you think about how long it takes a limb to rot; and the more it sprouts the better it will seal.

Back to the first good node, always!

JPS sorry but lost a bunch of pics in computer crash incl those with your smiling face.

The April 2003 TCI piece was the best article on heading back storm damage. Too big to attach here, but you cna find it in their archives. attached is the ISA version, and gilman's recent work in the same vein..and also a recent one looking at nodal vs. internodal pruning.

TS,

I'm agreeing with you too. The thing to remember is me and Treevet are from up north. The growing season is shorter than where you are, so hardwoods don't sprout out the way they do in say, the Carolinas, Florida or California. I can get away with stubbing a strom-damaged soft maple, but no way a sugar or a northern red or white oak.

It's a fine line we have to walk, and sometimes it gets down to a gut call. If I'm working a tree over playground equipment far from my home turf and I know I won't be getting back to check on that big stub I'm thinking of leaving, I'll nail it. However, if the HO seems like he's with the program and will do followups with CAs, then I may be more of a mind to leave the stub, hoping it will generate new growth.

If a tree is a fast growing species in a warm climate and it's really wrecked and gonna need all its juices to compartamentalize, then rather then making a huge cut back to the collar, I'll stub cut it, give it the Father Sarducci blessing, and inform the HO to keep an eye on it. I don't think there are hard and fast rules here as locale, tree species, and amount of damage comes into play. That's what is so great about this biz, it ain't ever the same...

 

[treevet]

I agree, Mapleman, it is a fine line. Discretion comes with education, research and observation.

I think sometimes we confuse "sealing" "closure" with compartmentalization. I have seen many judiciously left stubs that have sprouted in abundance carry decay back into the parent stem. This is the main thing we need to avoid. A branch collar can begin to form with a stub instigating it however I doubt if compartmentalization on all 4 walls begins until the stub is ghandi.

Stubs are a big stick of candy to fungi.....from Alex Shigo.

 

[Mapleman]

I agree, Mapleman, it is a fine line. Discretion comes with education, research and observation.

I think sometimes we confuse "sealing" "closure" with compartmentalization. I have seen many judiciously left stubs that have sprouted in abundance carry decay back into the parent stem. This is the main thing we need to avoid. A branch collar can begin to form with a stub instigating it however I doubt if compartmentalization on all 4 walls begins until the stub is ghandi.

Stubs are a big stick of candy to fungi.....from Alex Shigo.

I like that--"ghandi."

 

[oldirty]

until the stub is ghandi.
.

what do you mean? you have pakistani climbers that want to kill the most peaceful stub on the tree?

(booooo. bad joke)

 

[Mapleman]

what do you mean? you have pakistani climbers that want to kill the most peaceful stub on the tree?

(booooo. bad joke)

OD,

That's okay, you're batting one for two with that "woody" stinger you got off yesterday. I'm in Cal about to head East after a trip up into the redwoods. Let's rendezvous in the near future.

 

[oldirty]

OD,

That's okay, you're batting one for two with that "woody" stinger you got off yesterday. I'm in Cal about to head East after a trip up into the redwoods. Let's rendezvous in the near future.

sounds good man.

 

[tree md]

OD,

That's okay, you're batting one for two with that "woody" stinger you got off yesterday. I'm in Cal about to head East after a trip up into the redwoods. Let's rendezvous in the near future.

I vacationed in Sanoma, County back in 07. My aunt has a place at Sea Ranch. We drove up into Mendocino County, Gualala, through the wine country and into Redwoods forest. I got to see a 60 year old climber piece out a Redwood at Sea Ranch. He put on quite a show. I had footage of a large crane job I did on my video camera and shared it with him and talked to him awhile. I told him of this website and invited him to join but I don't think he's ever got on the web.

Hell of a trip. One of the most beautiful places I've been to.

 

[treevet]

If you're a treeman you gotta visit the redwoods. I took my family there years ago and it was incredible.

Why is there so much storm damage? Trees were taken out of the forest setting and they lost protection and evolved into different architecture IMO and others.

 

[treeseer]

I have seen many judiciously left stubs that have sprouted in abundance carry decay back into the parent stem. This is the main thing we need to avoid.

Exactly--that is why removing back to the parent is usually wrong, because that wound hollows out the parent far wider, faster, and more inevitably than reducing back to the first good node.

Maple I hear you on climate--Gilman's zone 9 experience has to be translated to apply to zone 7, and zone 7 experience for you in zone 4 or whatever. But the basic principles and processes are the same--decay rots stems more than branches because there is more heartwood. So avoiding the exposure of heartwood is indeed a hard and fast rule, from Canada to the Caribbean.

I've seen trees in Minnesota and WI recover from topping, and succumb to decay from removal cuts. "Stubs are sugar sticks--Don't leave them" is often good advice, when regrowth is unlikely to be adequate. But Shigo was not talking about damaged limbs, so that cannot applied as a general rule, or it is dogma like the 1/3 guideline/"Rule".

 

[treevet]

Exactly--that is why removing back to the parent is usually wrong, because that wound hollows out the parent far wider, faster, and more inevitably than reducing back to the first good node.

BUT.....glad we agree to use the one third rule as a guideline for predominance of decisions. You are wrong on the Shigo interpretation. I have been with Shigo when we discussed storm damage. Dogma goes both ways (your fave word).

Like Mapleman said ....it is a thin line and decisions must be judicious, a lot is at stake.

Afterthought.....leaving large stubs when repairing storm damage on the side branches is not much different than lateral topping.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I do not mistake wound closure for compartmentalization, it is the fourth component of Shigo's model.

What many forget is that his studies were from a very long time ago, and there are others who have built on his legacy. Gilman's studies show that compartmentalization is facilitated by proximity of dynamic mass. Since having leaves near the wound helps the compartmentalization process, ergo a sprouting stub should compartmentalize better then a collar wound on a trunk.

Guy's anecdote with topping vs limbing is a good example, the smaller cut near a node will flush out and "feed" the chemical changes that constitute the other three barriers in the CODIT model.

I recall in one Shigo's writings that he conceded the option of leaving stubs might be better for the tree, but that it is impractical for a tree worker to return and trim all the stubs out. My library is in the attic, so I cannot dig though and find the chapter and verse.

 

[treevet]

I do not mistake wound closure for compartmentalization, it is the fourth component of Shigo's model.

My library is in the attic, so I cannot dig though and find the chapter and verse.

Time to take the books out of the attic and dust them off Sanborn. The 4th wall, the barrier zone is a separating boundary between wood present at the time of wounding and wood that continues to form after wounding.

"Closure and compartmentalization are 2 different processes" Tree Pruning, Shigo, Pages 22 and 23 (along with a myriad of other excerpts in his other books).

If Wall 4 was woundwood then trees would be falling all over houses, streets, people etc., while waiting for closure/sealing but too late to stop opportunistic decay causing microorganisms.

Heartwood is not a non reactive tissue (excuse double neg). It discolors and forms discolored boundaries when penetrated by wounds. (Shigo) This is why I can see the transition area between the NTP cut that has/had no living tissue forming a barrier zone that resists the spread of decay separating the wood present at the time of the wound from the new wood. There are other components to this zone.

A great amount of the older literature contains a great amount of useful information. Being unaware of the older literature has led some people to making the same old mistakes and for others, it has meant the attempt to rediscover the wheel. (another Shigo quote)

I think a couple of phrases such as "Shigo's research" and "Gilman's studies" are worthy to note. Is anyone doing research of the nature of Shigo anymore that takes years and even decades to decipher?

 

[treeseer]

Heartwood is not a non reactive tissue (excuse double neg). It discolors and forms discolored boundaries when penetrated by wounds.

This process does occur, to some extent. But it is rarely enough to avoid heartrot and hollowing in many large cuts--we have all seen huge, fatal hollows from big branch removal. Hence the need to avoid large cuts, hence the need to make smaller cuts, even if they are back to a place where a lateral has been shed long ago.

glad we agree to use the one third rule as a guideline for predominance of decisions.

We never agreed on that. The 1/3 GUIDELINE is 1 of at least 8 factors considered, along with:

1. Foundation. Cutting back to 100% sound wood is preferred. Some decay is tolerable if it is being walled off on the inside by black lines of wood preservative, and on the outside by callus—“scar”--tissue.
2. Vitality. Color, brightness, quality of buds, and growth rate show vitality.
3. Size of wound. The smaller, the sooner it will close and the less it will decay.
4. Thickness of “collar” at branch defense zone. The more incipient callus tissue there is, the sooner it will close.
5. Angle of attachment. A large lateral growing at a 90 degree angle may develop a “hollow elbow”, and not be very stable.
6. Angle of cut. Sloping cuts capture less spores, and shaded cuts are less likely to crack and decay.
7. Space to grow into and mature.
8. Size. One-third the diameter of the parent branch is a common guideline, sometimes exaggerated into “The One-Third Rule”, but size does not always matter more than the other criteria.


"...proper crown reduction is done at nodes OR crotches. So the first separation must be nodes-good, internodes-bad." (A New Tree Biology)

tv if you check the archives here you will see all this hashed out years ago, with Mike Maas in your role.

Diligent aftercare is desirable, but not necessary. ALL these predictions of annual/biannual maintenance needs are exaggerations made by people who do not prune trees. One visit five years later addresses most of the restoration needs of fixing codoms and sprawl. Get the tree owner to sign off on that, do it right that one time, and let the tree take care of the rest.

 

[tree md]

This has turned into a very good thread. Most educational discussion I have read on here in some time. I'm enjoying the discussion. opcorn:

 

[treevet]

I've had 10' long stubs 12" dia come back fine--well, okay, anyway. I've had others not come back well, but formed a collar to cut back to, where there was none before.

and gilman's recent work in the same vein..and also a recent one looking at nodal vs. internodal pruning.

Very entertaining filibuster above, your previous post. But, what I am referring to is the opinion you put forth above.

A 10 foot STUB that is 12" diameter is my issue as a candidate to be left in the canopy. IMO it is a magnet for successions of decay causing orgs and they will likely have more access to the structural parent LEFT rather than removed in a more timely fashion (so compart. can begin immediately).

You like to quote Gilman........"In addition, if you cut back a stem to a living side branch less than 1/3 the size of the cut stem or if you cut back to a bud, then the cut is considered a "HEADING CUT"

.....HEADING older tissue is not recommended because it can initiate decay and cracks in the cut stem and ruins tree structure." (pgs 56 and 59, An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, 2nd Ed., Edward F. Gilman

PS. I have played this role and you have played your role in this and many other rehashed threads as well. It is what we do.

 

[Bigus Termitius]

This has turned into a very good thread. Most educational discussion I have read on here in some time. I'm enjoying the discussion. opcorn:

you beat me to it..

 

[oldirty]

indeed. its good to hear this knowledge coming from some of these guys and i thank you for the effort.


ok. serious question. what would be the difference between a topping cut and limb getting torn in half from wind or broken in ice?


i mean from what i am reading and the pics storm "reparation" and topping look awfully similar.

please help this simple mind wrap itself around that question.

 

[treeseer]

ok. serious question. what would be the difference between a topping cut and limb getting torn in half from wind or broken in ice?

serious answer: When the limb is torn by a storm, the arborist's role is to restore the crown by the best means possible. First step is crown cleaning, removing damaged tissue back to the first good node.

When an undamaged limb is topped with that same cut at that same node (for the sake of argument), there is no biological difference to that one branch. IF all the other limbs are topped, the tree has a harder time recovering than if a storm breaks some. Storms typically leave more crown than toppers.

When a damaged limb is cut back to its origin, the arborist avoids making a "heading cut" while she takes away resources that the tree has stored for its use, and opens a much larger wound, and "ruin(s) tree structure" far worse than nature did.

Look again at the exposed pic, and show me where you think the cuts should be made. Cmon Dave you can work Paint. Hint--all those "heading cuts" are completely closed or nearly so after five years. All "Rules" aside, this proves the ANSI standard, that heading cuts can be proper.

Note that Gilman does not impose the "1/3 Rule" on damaged trees--normal rules do not apply to those abnormal conditions.

"Sprouts should be allowed to grow for several years without pruning so energy reserves can be replaced!" (Gilman's website) Note that this truism contradicts that "you gotta get back early and often" nonsense.


http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/restore.html

http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/stormsdetail2.html

Attached are 2 pics of big (>12" at the base) broken limbs that came back well. They did not sprout for two years, but now are growing out, and, fueled by photosynthesis, are closing the cuts FAR better than wounds at the origin would be able to, because they would be fueled only by depleted reserves.

The "sugar stick" scenario applies better to branches that died naturally, with a collar that is bypassed. If compartmentalizaton (i spelled it out just for you tv :angel: ) is taking place at the cut end of a damaged branch, the sweetness throughout is still protected from decay.

If codit fails, the limb is further reduced, maybe to the origin, at the 5-year cycle. The tree takes this time to reallocate stored resources, and the goal is for the cut to be made before rot accelerates.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

If Wall 4 was woundwood then trees would be falling all over houses, streets, people etc., while waiting for closure/sealing but too late to stop opportunistic decay causing microorganisms.

I should have said that closure is part of wall four; that being all the new xylem produced after the wounding event.

i mean from what i am reading and the pics storm "reparation" and topping look awfully similar.

As guy says there is not difference, if all cuts are equal. They both utilize a trees natural response to stem/limb loss. The only difference between a cut and a break is that the cut is cleaner, and has less surface area for the potential wound court.

Proper pruning takes into consideration the way a tree grows, in the case of "reparation" pruning, then we want to allow the tree to grow as it naturally would under the conditions without adding the additional stress of lopping every broken branch back to origin.

If codit fails, the limb is further reduced, maybe to the origin, at the 5-year cycle. The tree takes this time to reallocate stored resources, and the goal is for the cut to be made before rot accelerates.

This is the basis of my reluctance to make every cut a collar cut. Most stubs will flush out to some extant, adding to the available energy for the chemical changes that most of CODIT really is. Very few species will drop these stubs in less then five years if the tree sheds them from lack of production. Once the cut is made, the tree is stuck with that wound; if the tree "wants" to shed it, then it can compartmentalize the limb in a more natural way. Some recent studies have shown that the CODIT event actually extends farther out into the limb then the collar, discolored wood in a cone shape.

That all said, it is is just a few limbs that need removal, and there is sufficient dynamic mass near by, I see no need to set the customer up for another visit. That is, unless you will be there in 3-4 years anyways as part of your normal pruning schedule.

For the past few years I have been leaving stubs on large limb removals when on my clients revolving accounts, especially in older trees that are in a state of dynamic equilibrium where we are concerned that any pruning may shift them into senescence.