Removing a branch from a liquid amber/sweet gum - stability issues?

[kc_matata]

We recently bought a property, and we have a large liquid amber in our back yard. One of the limbs are overhanging the back of the house, and we're wanting to get rid of it.

Arborist A has advised us that he would not be able to cut the branch the entire way, due to stability/structural issues of the tree. He was concerned about the neighbours property, as there are also large branches (higher up) hanging over to the right of the tree. He has said he'd be able to cut it at the green line. The yellow arrow is pointing to a branch that had already broken off earlier.

Arborist B has said that he'd be fine to cut it off at the trunk, and there'd be no issues with the stability. He has said he'd be able to cut it at the trunk, where the blue line is. He also mentioned that if we cut it where arborist A would cut it, then it would sprout back within a year.

Ideally I'd get rid of the limb entirely, as I think it'd be quite unsightly with the stub - also, I've read that not cutting to the branch collar could cause decay to set in more easily? Also, I;m worried that leaving a stub that long could mean that it would later fall and hurt someone.

However, we don't want to kill the tree or damage it to an extent which would cause it to become a danger to others.

Would love to hear some thoughts from other pros!

 

[pdqdl]

I believe that the prevailing thought among some preservation-minded arborists is that a rather long stump is desirable since it will take many years for any pathogenic decay to reach the trunk if you leave a rather long stub.

That being said, they often resprout, leaving many rapidly growing branches poorly attached to the outer diameter of the stub. They grow shockingly fast, then break off five years later in an ice storm or a heavy wind.

Making a huge cut close to the trunk definitely exposes your tree to decay organisms sooner than leaving a long stub hanging out for later problems.

I think if your goal is long term preservation of the tree, then let the long stub remain for a couple of years. You will either see it thrive and grow more shoots at your house, or it will die. If it dies, then wait a of couple years and cut it off at the branch bark collar, having allowed the tree a couple of years to compartmentalize that particular stub.

If it thrives, you will still have a few years before you need to worry about the tree dropping a bomb on your house.

If money is the primary consideration, and fear of the big branch is you main concern, just cut it all off. Prior to making that decision, you might wish to consider whether or not the whole tree is making you nervous, and whether you wish to preserve it more than dispose of all the risk. In the final analysis, all trees are risky so long as they are reaching over something you value more than the tree.

 

[pdqdl]

By the way, why are you nervous about the branch? Have any of the arborists expressed health concerns about that branch?

The whole tree looks like it could easily hammer your house. If you are not aware of any special health concerns about that branch, I'd just ask Arborist A to thin that branch a bit to make it lighter and let it go with that correction. Or just whack it completely off, in the full confidence that you can save money to take out the whole tree in ten to 30 years when it starts looking much less healthy.

 

[kc_matata]

Thank you for the reply! The reason why we're nervous is because of how low it is hanging, and how close it is to the house. It's scraping the back of the roof where our solar panels are - we're worried that in any strong storm that it could fail, even just partially.

I'll ask Arborist A to remove the branch entirely - money is a problem, and if we do decide to do a development on the block 10+ years later, then we'd be removing the tree. It's given us issues already, finding that the roots have destroyed the stormwater system which we now have to redo.

I guess I was worried about his claims that it'll cause immediate structural stability issues, if we removed the branch now - but this doesn't seem like the case?

 

[kc_matata]

This is another angle of the tree - so the green line are the proposed cuts, with the red circled branch being what the arborist is saying will be unstable?

 

[pdqdl]

I'm not quite sure what "unstable" is. This isn't really "arborist" jargon, at least with respect to a tree's future health. That's just a little odd language to use, in my opinion. Perhaps that is just a peculiarity to an otherwise excellent arborist. Is he perhaps referring to too many branches left remaining on one side of the tree?
I wouldn't worry about that. Large pruning wounds? Definitely.

 

[singinwoodwackr]

I hate those trees. Roots get into everything, they shed branches with just about any breeze, drop those spiked seed pods everywhere.
I’d remove it.

 

[kc_matata]

Having a bit of a feeling that I've been duped/misled in my hurry to get things sorted for our renos. It's been cut now, and both workers that came (one on the ground, one tree climber/lopper) urged me to keep a part of the branch - they said that if I lopped it off to the trunk, any big storm could damage the tree and with the tree being "unbalanced" (their words), it would be a hazard to the neighbours. It's a bit of an eyesore.... the main issue with the overhanging branch has been dealt with for now.



Agree, although the shade is great and having the birds around is also wonderful, the roots have been a nightmare to deal with (stormwater/sewer drains) and the spiked balls have hit my head more than once.

 

[pdqdl]

It isn't your head that they hurt.
Should you ever take a stroll on them while barefoot, you will discover that they are in the same league of discomfort as Legos. Furthermore, they act like ball bearings underfoot, barefoot or not. If you walk on a thick stand of them while on a slope, you will quickly discover how uncomfortable they are to fall upon.