rule of thumb

[bogiemsn]

Is there any rule of thumb among arborists as to how much (percentage of crown) of a tree can be removed without affecting the health of the tree? The tree in question is a large (20" DBH) mountain ash.

I realize this question may be overly broad, if so please let me know what questions I should be asking.

Thanks.

 

[oldirty]

something along the lines of no more than 30% of the tree should be taken in a cutting session.

 

[tomtrees58]

yup about 1 /3 tom trees

 

[treeseer]

Is there any rule of thumb among arborists as to how much (percentage of crown) of a tree can be removed without affecting the health of the tree?

Anywhere from 0% to 100%, depending on vitality, age, species, timing (now sux cuz the leaves are forming), aftercare, site conditions,

et cetera.

20-33% is a common range people throw out but that means little imo.

 

[md_tree_dood]

You should not prune out more than 25% of live branches per season

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Anywhere from 0% to 100%, depending on vitality, age, species, timing (now sux cuz the leaves are forming), aftercare, site conditions,

et cetera.

20-33% is a common range people throw out but that means little imo.

Surprising answer, but i guess covers pollarding, seasons, storm reparation etc.? But as a rule of thumb of general, day to day..

i'd say in regular season, to look at the leaves/ this year's growth as about the only 'dynamic weight' that is feeding the rest of the enterprise (which as years go on is more and more static weight, that must be fed by the dynamic eventually the dynamic can't keep up, and a downward spiral starts). So, to me 20% is fair, 25% starting to push it, 30% pushing this edge hard. We can of curse take more, but i think that gets outside of the realm of a 'moderate maximum' of health on most occasions. Just because the adaptive wonder survives, doesn't mean that the range is maximum, just that the range is somewhere before failure.

To me, a tree is an orchestration of life; even the earth below it a soil sea. Many times i compair it to an aquarium. Lots of lessons there! "Harsh" water changes can harshly alter the formula balance, and once't again; 20-25% comes up to leave enough good behind to carry the whole and recover/recoup. So, this echos to me, across this broad range compairitson; than many forms of life (logically), are best left in that 75-80% remaining biology to carry on and re-populate to self equalize supply to need. This is to feed, stabilize, displace infectious activities etc.

 

[treeseer]

Surprising answer, but i guess covers pollarding, seasons, storm reparation etc.?

And a lot more. 20% off some old trees will send them into that decline spiral. Young trees lose 100% from bugs or pollarding and come back fine.

The qualities--vitality, age, species, timing (now sux cuz the leaves are forming), aftercare, site conditions, et cetera, are much more important considerations than any numerical quantity, which are SWAG's (s...wild-a.. guesses).

There is no science to support these %'s, is there?

:monkey:

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Nope, just a soft walking mode and imagery in respects to dealing with charged life(s); and to perhaps pull to that side and awareness to help offset some of the other extreme to a more center balanced whole. Fair point about the compensations of a young's life force being so strong, as to persevere thru, perhaps at sum points because of less of the 'static'/non-dynamic mass needs supported?

But, on the other hand; outside of specialist activities and awarenesses; as a rule of thumb, that 90% could follow 90% of the time, and to go moderately within a safe error margin, advance the whole by taking a visible stand against practices that don't treat a tree as a responding life form; i think these imageries and nos. are fair guides; to at least start at in room 101?

 

[tree MDS]

And a lot more. 20% off some old trees will send them into that decline spiral. Young trees lose 100% from bugs or pollarding and come back fine.

The qualities--vitality, age, species, timing (now sux cuz the leaves are forming), aftercare, site conditions, et cetera, are much more important considerations than any numerical quantity, which are SWAG's (s...wild-a.. guesses).

There is no science to support these %'s, is there?

:monkey:

Good post! It broadens the thought processses with regard to the old rule of thumb.

It think its the arborist's job to prescribe how much is safe to remove based on each individual tree, in the same way a doctor writes a script.

Example: stressed trees= deadwood and hardly any green, etc. etc.