Working hurricanes

[treevet]

Great thread, probably the best learning thread so far this year, and I'd like to thank you guys for all the knowledge and contemplation that's being discussed here.

I'm out of my league by a mile, and I know it, but I've gotta ask a few questions to hopefully understand better.

Alot of this discussion has centered around the time it will take for wall 4 to form and prevent further pathogen entry, but isn't how well wall 1 will block decay from entering the main stem a more important factor to the health of the tree as opposed to the health of the limb in question?

And isn't how wall 1 will respond primiarily determined by species?

Once the wind or ice has broken the limb the decay pathogens will begin their work regardless of wether we do nothing, node trim it, or make a larger cut at the stem.

So it seems that what we're risking is the growth that occurs between the node trimming cut and how much more new wood we'd have to wound if the limb was removed at it's origin several years later.

All the wood present at the time of wounding is subject to decay, correct? It's up to the tree to compartmentalize the decay as well as it's able. So if we node trim it, and it resprouts, but then slowly declines and dies, and we must return to make the larger cut at the stem, now we've got all the new growth since the original injury being wounded and subject to a greater amount of potential decay.

But if the tree can successfully compartmentalize the decay and successfully resprout and maintain growth, we may have kept the decay from reaching the main stem at all.

I'm having a difficult time seeing how either option could be correct ALL the time. So isn't it up to us to analyze the variables in each individual situation to allow the tree the best chances to keep the largest percentage of it's mass healthy over the longest term possible?

That is a very thoughtful post. Most noticeable is the fact that the very large, very much abbreviated stub will have to be removed later and the walls will have to be re established. Also the loss of potential woundwood that would have occurred in the interum if the parent cut was made initially. Also I do not agree with the correlation between sprouting and compartmentalization. I have seen many large diameter stubs incur decay regardless of the amount of sprouts or success of laterals and this is a vector into the main stem that would otherwise have been protected by wall 4, etc. and has not had the means to form them with the stub still attached.

I think a highly compromised limb/leader (12" by 10 foot lgth) will be failing regardless of sprouting and therefore the walls (or some kind of cone Sanborn describes) will be weak and failing/shifting in nature.

There are of course exceptions to every rule. But Sanborn and Meilleur are advocating leaving these giant stubs all the time and not monitoring them. I see that is unprofessional and irresponsible.

It reminds me of the new appearance on some of the forums by posters of advocating indiscriminant tree topping and calling it pollarding, 2 vastly different treatments.

"To keep the largest percentage of it's mass healthy over the longest term possible?" I think not as I said earlier that decay or structural risk can be a larger issue than physiological health if targets abound. If they did not, we probably don't get the call anyway.

 

[treevet]

Until foliage is photosynthesizing you have a drain on resources.

Wall 4 commences with callus growth, then the cells which align with the wounded surface differentiate forming a chemical boundary known as wall 4, remaining cells differentiate to their various purposes.

excellent post, fantastic diagram and pict.

 

[treevet]

Exactly, we are not trying to say stub it every time, just that collar cuts most of the time is not good tree.



Not really, the wall four was a side issue. As Dave keeps pointing out CODIT is a model. It is a four dimensional event taking place in this organic cylinder. That is, the 3 dimensions of space we see and time, so we espouse allowing more time and resources for the tree to recover from this catastrophic event.

Since the chemical reactions that make up walls 1-3 take energy; leaving as much dynamic (photosynthetic) mass near the wound will assist in making these changes. As Dave pointed out, wall four is more then wound closure; it is all the rings, or woody cylinders, that will form later in later years.

The old model assumes that no one will even look at the tree until the next catastrophic event. Our model adopts a philosophy of doing the least harm, and promote tree management over tree cutting. The arborist informs the owner that this is just the first step in a multi-year program; the next step may be in three to five years.

If the tree appears to have been stressed prior to the storm event, then maybe a recommendation for removal is the best route; but might be put off for a few years for the client to recover if insurance does not cover the this.

Another problem that we have not brought up is that when you have multiple wounds in a single column, there is a good change of them coalescing over time. this could be as decay courts, or as perpetual cankers.

This post is different than what I thought your opinion was. I agree with a lot of what is said here. Also a concession that removal (eek) may be in the cards in the future sometimes. I think Guy wants to leave the big stub and not monitor it most (over 90%) of the time.

 

[treevet]

We have discussed extensively the trees reaction to wounding and I thought I would venture a little info on the pathogen side of the equation......

SUCCESSIONS:

"Succession is an orderly sequence of microorganisms that invade a tree. There are no set patterns for successions. Many factors will affect successional patterns: tree species, wound type, wound position, wound treatment, time of year of wound, species of microorganisms in the area and their numbers, temperature and many other environmental factore.

Succession means that many microorganisms are associated in discoloration and decay of wood. Some pioneers may speed invasion, while others may slow its development. Microorganisms do not prepare a place for others. When they are able to colonize an area, they usually alter it to suit their survival. A habitat is where you can live and survive. A niche is the habitat, or portion of it, that has been altered as a result of an organism or organisms living in it. The alterations usually enhance the protection of the organisms., thus increasing the chances for the development of defects in trees. Experiments with inoculation of the fungus, Trichoderma harzianum showed that under some conditions, the decay process could be temporily stalled."

This is from Shigo's Modern Arboriculture.

I would choose to add to the end of the first paragraph the need for moisture because of it's importance. I have read where decay orgs will stall with lack of moisture and wait, because they have altered the shape and content (delignified wood) so it is capable to hold more moisture than previously and then they will proceed with abandon when moisture accumulates.

 

[Ekka]

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

Both cuts push out a lot more than 1 new shoot from 1 bud. Both cuts require returning to thin out the suckers and manage a strong one or two.

When I prune roses to a node I get one new stem growing, I can even determine the direction that stems grow by cutting to say an outward facing bud ... that's how you prune roses and things like hibiscus. I feel that the inclusion of the terminology "nodes" as a target point was introduced to satisfy the whims of a broad spectrum of horticultural people. Sure trees have nodes on pencil sized stems in the nursery however in large established trees where we are talking about cutting 4" dia+ branches the practice has been skewed to fubar to satisfy some academic reasoning..... not saying that nodes do not exist just that cutting to them evokes about the same problems and management as a straight forward topping!

Those trees in your pictures Guy look like round over topping jobs, those re-established canopies you see on the ice work trees same, argue what you like but I'm not the only skeptic. We are yet to be presented with a good sample of disected nodal cuts and topping cuts 3 years and 5 years afterwards, disected on both axis to see the difference.

In the recent storms here many eucs lost their tops, those where all leaders etc were broken were removed. What are you going to do, have 50 epicormic shoots growing from every cut to manage on a grand scale of 1000's of park trees?

I can see the use of this for crown restoration on selected trees but on a grand scale you might want to bring in an orchard pruning machine and clean cut the trees en-mass, end result would be about the same.

The sprouts you both herald as the decay savers only feed the vascular cambium, so the heartwood remains as unprotected as before. Sprouts do accelerate sealing of the wound though, so stub ends will grow over faster with sprouts than without, but many times sprouts die within 3 years too and you'll be left with a huge advertising sign "yo bugs, mega banquet here".

Sprouts also occasionally emerge near target cuts, it's suggested by many experts to leave them as they once again speed up the sealing process, however they do need to be managed, I'll see if I can get some pictures.

 

[treeseer]

Most noticeable is the fact that the very large, very much abbreviated stub will have to be removed later and the walls will have to be re established.

Fact? Consider the evidence of 2 big stubs that sprouted and are sealing. That is visible "fact". Please cite your reference.

I have seen many large diameter stubs incur decay regardless of the amount of sprouts or success of laterals and this is a vector into the main stem...
I think a highly compromised limb/leader (12" by 10 foot lgth) will be failing regardless of sprouting and therefore the walls (or some kind of cone Sanborn describes) will be weak and failing/shifting in nature.

We all have seen big leaders fail as part of whole tree decline; different animal than reparable storm damage. Please support your opinion. The reality is in the pics. The vector may be shut off. Your faith in the force of fungus, and lack of belief in trees' ability to wall off decay, is surprising, coming from an arborist.

There are of course exceptions to every rule. But Sanborn and Meilleur are advocating leaving these giant stubs all the time and not monitoring them.

Please cite your reference. That is not an accurate statement.

Guy wants to leave the big stub and not monitor it most (over 90%) of the time.

Please cite your reference. That is not an accurate statement.

...decay or structural risk can be a larger issue than physiological health if targets abound.

Every structure has risk, so that reference is not clear. As for decay, it is not inevitably infinite--trees can wall it off until they die long after, of other causes. Physiological processes-photosynthesis, metabolism, etc.--fuel, or don't fuel, anatomical changes. So, a species' genetically determined anatomy is not often the primary consideration.

"Wall2: Heartwood prevents inward progression of decay." To clarify: heartwood may resist decay somewhat (and not as well as sapwood in most cases), but often fails to prevent it. You've seen big branch wounds turn into coon hollows, right? Extra heartwood should not be exposed by excessive cuts. :chainsawguy:

As for more pics of dissections, below is a 3-year piece. I'll see if I can go up and sacrifice a healthy limb to provide 5-no, 7-year evidence. Read Arbor Age's next issue to see them.

Dave since you doubt JPS, attached pic is a cone-shaped wall of codit that was failing, so the branch had to be reduced further. Photosynthesis fueled tissue growth around and below that sprout. The second cut was made at a node that is 1. *Below the decay* and 2. faster to close, thanks to tissue that was added in the interim.

"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. see the second attached--the internodal break does not sprout at all; the stub dies back to the node behind it, while dormant buds release there. This growth is more vigorous and better attached than growth from newly formed buds in the internode would be.


ddhlakehound are you cool with this? :monkey:?

 

[Ekka]

You need to compare this picture to a same aged, same species, same sized cut picture of equivalent dissected topping cut (with a sprout) .... mind you to me it appears no different and if it's so called attachment to the pith was so crucial in determining it's superiority as a node it sure didn't make an iota of difference to decay and attachment did it!

If you dissected a normal stub cut the decay would look the same, your picture is a folly, proved nothing! :monkey:

Oh, I oriented the picture correctly so we don't all get a stomach ache. LOL

Now lets deal with the next picture.

Often when there's breakages branches do die back to the next branch etc.

Are you suggesting in this picture that all the branches marked with a red dot grew after the event? I suspect they were already there and the broken branch died back to that point, typical and normal.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

This looks like the decay patter of a heading cut. What I am referring to is the discolored wood found in a primary branch being naturally shed at the collar. I'm not having any luck finding citations, I think the seminar I saw the presentation at was several years ago.

Dave, I'm glad i found the words to convince you, was it just reducing the syllable count?

My reasoning all boils down to what is best for the tree now and what is best for the client and their overall situation. I was doing storm work; making my textbook collar cuts, and looking at the end results thinking that this cannot be good for anyone in the long term. Multiple collar cuts on the stem would result in a weakening of the stem.

It seems to me that no matter what we will have decay courts in the tree after reparation; consequently, it would be better to have the decay courts out on branches and limbs then in the trunks and stems. I never said that there would not be any decay resulting from a nodal cut, just that the tree would be better able to tolerate it in the long term.

Also a concession that removal (eek) may be in the cards in the future sometimes.

Severe storm damage often reduces the serviceable life (the SULE concept) of a tree in the landscape, it is my feeling that multiple collar cuts reduce this even further.

Why is an increased risk of trunk failure so much better then a risk of limb failure?

The problem with pictures is that it is dueling anecdotes, and we would not want to cut out the successful sprout formations to dissect as an example. Maybe in a few years Guy will have one that he will be taking down to show as an anecdote.

 

[Ekka]

The problem with pictures is that it is dueling anecdotes, and we would not want to cut out the successful sprout formations to dissect as an example. Maybe in a few years Guy will have one that he will be taking down to show as an anecdote.

Fortunately there was a man who did both to trees then did dissect them, till it's done all we got is talk ... and that is cheap let alone pass off some voodoo science and BS in ignorant magazines about it!

The scientific community have stringent testing to ensure that there's real evidence, I feel Guy is off in la-la land full of BS for most parts and selling that like snake oil to the next gullible editor.

Trunk failures, lets talk about it. Honestly, how many do you see where the trunk snapped? You'll see blow overs and bell failures but a fair dinkum the trunk snapped is rare, real rare .... we had a few here though, the wind was so bad it snapped solid euc trunks up to 2' dia clean, doesn't matter how good your tree is if wind like that hits. Our ironbark eucs have the same weight m3 as your heaviest oaks, but they're 3X stronger .... woods aint woods you know, they're all different.

 

[treeseer]

ddh, how does this look to you now? And to the lurkers out there--please do not let the namecalling, bad manners and fighting tone here keep you from posting. First, consider the source; water off a duck's back; sticks and stones, you get the idea. I am interested in hearing from popcorn munching arborists whose approach to arboriculture is free of personal agendas. pm is okay.

The point of the last pic was to show that even in a heading cut that was too far out and had to be reduced after 3 years, the decay only moved down 3" in that time. Look at the bright white sapwood below that sprout--codit battled long and hard, while resources/reinforcements were assembled further back, in the next line of defence. This is the same process as retrenchment pruning done for veteran trees in the UK.

My reasoning all boils down to what is best for the tree now and what is best for the client and their overall situation. I was doing storm work; making my textbook collar cuts, and looking at the end results thinking that this cannot be good for anyone in the long term. Multiple collar cuts on the stem would result in a weakening of the stem.

It seems to me that no matter what we will have decay courts in the tree after reparation; consequently, it would be better to have the decay courts out on branches and limbs then in the trunks and stems. I never said that there would not be any decay resulting from a nodal cut, just that the tree would be better able to tolerate it in the long term.



Severe storm damage often reduces the serviceable life (the SULE concept) of a tree in the landscape, it is my feeling that multiple collar cuts reduce this even further.

**Why is an increased risk of trunk failure so much better then a risk of limb failure?**

Why indeed?? No reason, or rhyme. Plus, the risk of stem failure is only one downside to creating multiple large wounds. There is the effect on the entire tree system as it scrambles to use its stored resources to wall off decay in all that exposed heartwood.

But a lot of those resources are now firewood, because someone thought the 1/3 Rule had to be obeyed. So the starving tree system spins into decline.

The problem with pictures is that it is dueling anecdotes, and we would not want to cut out the successful sprout formations to dissect as an example. Maybe in a couple years Guy will be having one to show as an example.

O it will have to be this year that a restored end, maybe two or more, will be sacrificed. I have a couple in mind that the trees can afford to lose, that were pictured back in 2002. Stringent review is good--the attached was reviewed by several university PhD's, a few of whose names would be very familiar here.

I just finished moving an unrelated paper through journal-level review. 7 pages, 20+ citations down to the page number, 9 pics. The process is demanding but necessary to resolve the healthy skepticism that is still out there. So healthy skeptics are invited to contribute, here or offlist.

 

[treevet]

Fact? Consider the evidence of 2 big stubs that sprouted and are sealing. That is visible "fact".

"Wall2: Heartwood prevents inward progression of decay."

As for more pics of dissections, below is a 3-year piece. I'll see if I can go up and sacrifice a healthy limb to provide 5-no, 7-year evidence. Read Arbor Age's next issue to see them.

Dave since you doubt JPS, attached pic is a cone-shaped wall of codit that was failing, so the branch had to be reduced further. Photosynthesis fueled tissue growth around and below that sprout.

Guy you continue to confuse closure with compartmentalization. Let's see the interior or top of those 2 samples. Better yet, when you climb up to inspect "closure" of one of one of your giant stubs .....have your gm send up a resistograph and prove my point. You spend way too much time writing mag articles if you haven't noticed closed wounds with mass decay beneath them. An even bigger issue, as I have mentioned countless times, it the cracks associated with these end cuts in both ring shakes and radial cracks. Another issue will be the structural integrity of the attachment of these adventitious sprouts you are so proudly farming.

It is amusing to me that you have the audicity to quote Shigo's model portion of "wall 2" (although you screw up the part where it says "resists" decay and insert your own word, "prevents" decay) but you do not have the respect of the discoverer of the whole process by repeatedly misusing his term "codit" and are indignant in regards to me correcting you about it. No respect......a plethora of arrogance tho.

As I have mentioned numerous times, I have no issues with leaving stubs to nodes on storm damaged trees if they are smaller diameter and in the 1/3 rd rule range (yea I said it and Shigo uses it and so does Gilman) but you make up your own rules and give your own brand of scientific evidence (lol). Shigo dissected over 15,000 trees with a chainsaw in his research and most of them longetudinally which had never been done before. He discovered the way branches were attached to trees in 1985 and this led the way to all these breakthroughs in knowledge.

I believe what JPS quoted about a cone shaped wall but feel it will be rendered a moot point when the giant stub will inevitably have to be removed and boundaries broken or the entire tree cut down because of your bad decisions.

 

[ddhlakebound]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what to think. I can see positives and negatives on both sides, especially across the vast diversity of species being dealt with and discussed worldwide.

The point I keep coming back to in my mind is that trees have been taking care of themselves (compartmentalizing) before chainsaws, before handsaws, even before humans were doing anything with them besides picking up fallen dead wood for clubs and firewood.

There are lots of mature trees that have suffered major injuries from nature and survived without any human influence. In some of them compartmentalization failed completely and they're totally hollow, (given enough time and failed codit, all the heartwood and sapwood that was present when decay began is gone) but still adding new strong wood to maintain the structural integrity of the tree. (I see these as one step from total failure, as virtually any new wounding can open the small outer ring of strong supporting wood to new decay and finish the tree.)

In others codit has worked, leaving the stem or limbs with voids and hollow spots, but generally sound and strong. As I understand it, (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong), the tree basically has built in engineering systems to grow new wood at these points that is stong enough to support the loads they will be required to bear long term.

The question is, do these engineering systems the tree uses leave the stem or limb weaker than it was, and how much weaker?

I'm leaning firmly towards leaving as much material as possible when the tree appears to have the vitatality needed for regrowth, and the sunlight to allow the limb to maintain its growth. It's the action with the least finality, and leaves us with future options for further management.

I need to shell out some bucks and do alot more reading on the limited evidence in print. And I'm REALLY wanting to get back up a certain red oak I node trimmed in late feb/early march '07 as a result of mid limb ice damage to the whole north side of the tree.

I'm lacking in the experience department, I simply don't have the years in that most of the principals in this thread do, so I'm questioning everything I can, and trying to reason things out.

 

[treevet]

What I am referring to is the discolored wood found in a primary branch being naturally shed at the collar.


Multiple collar cuts on the stem would result in a weakening of the stem.


Severe storm damage often reduces the serviceable life (the SULE concept) of a tree in the landscape, it is my feeling that multiple collar cuts reduce this even further.

Why is an increased risk of trunk failure so much better then a risk of limb failure?

My primary role in this debate all along has been the issue of leaving a giant (best way to briefly describe) that Meilleur advocates leaving as a general practice (thought you concurred) as opposed to biting the bullet and doing the right thing and remove it now with a ntp cut and let the tree do its thing and stave off infection.

Leaving the giant stub has nothing to do with the tree shedding the branch naturally at the collar IMO. The stub will be dying, cracking, attracting fungi and insects and looking dog ugly until, as I have seen a thousand times in my 4 decades of pruning, it will inevitably have to be removed. I would venture to say (without proof ofcourse) that I have logged in many many more hours in the canopy of trees than anyone involved in this discourse. This may ruffle a few feathers but the truth is the truth. Also logged in, to date, approx. 30 years of involvement with Shigo, reading his books, attending countless seminars including the week long Boone, NC, annual seminar in the woods with 25 participants, 25 microscopes, and Alex Shigo, where trees were wounded and we viewed them under microscopes as to the tree's reaction to the wounding in the walls after dissecting them. Even been out to dinner with the guy with a couple of other students. Miss him alot. Can't get my Shigo fix anymore my wife was accustomed to as she worked for Delta and I could fly for free. Discussions like this help sooth the savage beast tho.

Anyway, sorry for the filibuster, I want to say that I am not advocating "multiple collar cuts" but just one in favor of leaving a giant stub. I think leaving it increases the likelyhood of catastrophic trunk failure (assuming the presence of high level targets.....why are we there otherwise) by being a vector of a build up of decay that the collar cut will have to face when the stub has to be removed later.

 

[jefflovstrom]

What happened with the Hurricanes?
Jeff

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

The stub will be dying, cracking, attracting fungi and insects

My point is that so will the collar cut. In severe storm damage you will often end up with several of these massive wounds in the trunk.

Honestly, how many do you see where the trunk snapped?

Quite a few actually, we have a cyclicality of high wind events here that allow the weakening of the stem and enough top growth to get a good height of pressure. My reasoning for not seeing more of it is that a reasonable person can see that decay in the hot-spot is grounds to call a tree-cutter in to remove it.

Another study, that I remember from a seminar, but cannot cite directly; noted that a large percentage of this wounding patter also weather to form a "case hardened" shell on the face of the cut, with wet wood decay on the inside. This was a muni' UF oriented talk that recommended an automatic removal SOP after storms when there was a certain trunk:stem diameter (should I put RATIO in there, or does the colon suffice?). This was for the sole purpose of getting the removal onto the emergency budget, since statistically these trees would need removal in around 10 years.


My view is that with nodal pruning as part of a management program one can trim the failed end back to another clump of sprouts. Quite often the supposed failure is only near the end of the cut limb; with the compartmentalization succeeding just a short distance back.

Even on silver maples I have only had to make a few cuts to get back to "good wood". Cottonwood is another story, going back to the species part of the discussion. Though the latter seems to discolor farther back, I'm not sure if the decay is all that problematic. I just had to err on the side of seeing "good wood".

as I have seen a thousand times in my 4 decades of pruning

Well I've been working trees for over two decades, and started reading: Shigo, Pirrone, Harris et. al. over fifteen years ago. So I do think that my opinions well informed.

I do think that Al was, and still is, very important to the industry and science. It is just that people take what he wrote and head it dogmatically. Try talking to plant science researchers and tell them that minerals and elements are not nutrients. It does not go over well.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

What happened with the Hurricanes?
Jeff

The season will start soon Jeff, and with global warming, you might see them in your back yard in a few years.

 

[jefflovstrom]

Not here, John
Resectfuuly, Jeff

 

[treevet]

Well I've been working trees for over two decades, and started reading: Shigo, Pirrone, Harris et. al. over fifteen years ago. So I do think that my opinions well informed.

I do think that Al was, and still is, very important to the industry and science. It is just that people take what he wrote and head it dogmatically. Try talking to plant science researchers and tell them that minerals and elements are not nutrients. It does not go over well.

I think you are extremely well informed. That was mainly directed at Guy.

Accurate scientific research that yields truth is timeless.

Prior to meeting Shigo at Arborage 1 in 1980, I read Pirone's Tree Maintenance and Diseases and Pests of Ornamental Trees daily until the covers wore off. I think at last count I have around 70 arboricultural texts in my library. Amongst many others, I think Francis Schwarze 2 texts (1 brand new) are a must have for discussions of this nature. This stuff is like buying the best chainsaws and climbing gear, etc. ISA puts out a great catalogue of wish lists of books like the Sherrill catalogue of gear. I have most of them.

Happy Memorial Day, fellow ex Marine.

 

[Ekka]

The point of the last pic was to show that even in a heading cut that was too far out and had to be reduced after 3 years, the decay only moved down 3" in that time. Look at the bright white sapwood below that sprout--codit battled long and hard, while resources/reinforcements were assembled further back, in the next line of defence.

Again, this means absolutely nothing unless you compare apples to apples. Over here some of our trees as a dead stump sitting in a paddock for 3 years will show no decay. Also in that picture do note the difference on the side that didn't have the sucker, not much difference was there.

There is the effect on the entire tree system as it scrambles to use its stored resources to wall off decay in all that exposed heartwood.

Wow, bit melodramatic isn't it? You like doing that dont you.

Scramble it's resources to ward off decay ... what a load of BS. About the only wall that uses any resources is the new growth. You also dont understand how trees allocate their resources as it's a well known event trees actually place more emphasis on growth than defence.

The first thing trees try to do is replace lost foliage and they'll try to grow that anywhere they can. After storms you'd be wiser treating the injured trees with Cambistat to slow their growth and invigorate their root systems.

Do you know the hierarchy of how trees allocate resources?

3 Pictures below taken yesterday, the storm even was November 2008, winds so strong that all the leaves on the trees turned brown, the leaves natural abscission zone was broken. Of course some trees were broken and some were not. Also lots of consistent rain so trees were well resourced for recovery (best rains for years!).

Lets take a look at what trees do.

In the picture above the tree closest in the foreground had the trunk snapped off, a few branches off to the left remained .... tree is dead now simply lost too much. Now the tree just behind it had all the vertical branches broken off and one branch off to the left remained. It lived and note what it's doing ... growing masses of foliage.

Now in the above picture these trees wweren't broken much however they did lose all their leaves, take a look at the regrowth all over them.

Here's a close up, note the growth. Now which one is from a node? Or are they all from a node?

It's very apparent the first thing a tree has to do is grow foliage.

 

[treeseer]

What happened with the Hurricanes?
Jeff

Hey JPS I think he's talking hockey...Man, the series with NJ then Boston just took it out of them, legs, heads and hearts. No energy to meet Pittsburgh head on. It was a good season though.

The stadium is just 20 minutes away but I don't think I'll see Game 4; people in black and gold will be waving the brooms!

"I think Francis Schwarze 2 texts (1 brand new) are a must have for discussions of this nature."

:agree2: That's why I sought out his first book and reviewed it for the journal in 2002. The attached was peer-reviewed, so i pretended to sound informed on what it was about. Guess they were all fooled, huh?

Schwarze, Engels and Mattheck remind us in 2001’s Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees, large wounds on trunks are likely to crack and become “motorways for decay-causing fungi and bacteria.” racing into the heart of the tree. Trees rely on suberin (a fungus-inhibiting corky material) to form a barrier zone. In our increasingly acidified atmosphere, more of that suberin may be dissolved. Callusing cambium can lose its protective function, just as desuberized dogwood leaves are exposed to lethal anthracnose.

Now more than ever, our strategy must be to minimize the size of the infection courts that we leave behind. Or is there another interpretation that you could inform us of?

His Diagnosis book came out early last year. See page 121--fungi colonize only if the tree lacks barriers, and can't form barriers. Barriers are present at nodes, aka Branch Protection Zones, right? 6.2.2 on page 122 of the Diagnosis book: Sapwood has a lot more defenses than heartwood. Moral: Don't expose heartwood needlessly. Or is there another interpretation that you could inform us of? If so, you could include it in your review--the world is waiting for one to be done!

re Resistograph on the restored ends--I've gone you one better and taken increment cores--no misinterpretation of instrument readings when the core of wood is in your hand. I have pictures but they did not get into the attached article on devices. They are being held for later publication, sorry.

Many arborists still passionately embrace the “1/3 Rule” as the be-all and end-all criterion for deciding how far back to reduce a branch or stem. They call this “Natural Target Pruning”, or the “Shigo Cut”, and decry any cut to a smaller lateral as a "topping cut". It is time for that anti-topping passion to cool. “Pruning properly done is one of the most difficult tree treatments. Every branch will be different…Rules are too absolute for Mother Nature.” (Dr. Alex Shigo, A New Tree Biology).

"I'm leaning firmly towards leaving as much material as possible when the tree appears to have the vitatality needed for regrowth, and the sunlight to allow the limb to maintain its growth. It's the action with the least finality, and leaves us with future options for further management."

Common sense.

"I'm REALLY wanting to get back up a certain red oak I node trimmed in late feb/early march '07 as a result of mid limb ice damage to the whole north side of the tree."

No rush, but take a camera up with you, okay? Red oak, weak codit? We'll see.