Seeking advice for pollarded eucalyptus

[treevet]

There are some comparisons to be made to the Boa07 tree and mikewhite's trees although at first glance there would appear to be non.

First in both cases there was a perception of danger or threat to a target. It was either by the homeowner/treeowner and/or the arborist.

Secondly there was a treatment agreed on by both parties and action was taken to mitigate or eradicate the problem.

Thirdly in both scenarios there is the question as to whether the treatment purchased and completed rectified the problem, did nothing or was neutral other than the fact that money was collected/paid out, or whether the treatment increased the problem or threat to the target.

With Sean's tree are we going to have children and others now under this tree with confidence the threat has been eliminated? Has the threat been eliminated? Some of the larger sections may be captured if failure occurs but many will not. Will the other limbs that are secured be pulled in directions that they are not "built" to withstand (reaction wood) causing failure rather than preventing it. If metal supports are used like in any cables limbs travel in new directions now that they are cabled but they cannot come off. They cannot move as far, cannot detach if properly installed.

In the case of the TOPPED Eucs....These old trees now have to go into defense taxing a veteran tree as Boa07 put it. Also epicormic sprouts will occur from adventitious buds within the cambial zone from all the wounding. These sprouts have weak unions and as they mature along with the certain decay from the less than perfect defense system we will have a new threat from these 2 trees in short order.

What has been accomplished by these treatments other than a false sense of security and an exchange of payment and service? Maybe a new ownership of liability switching from the tree owner/steward to the arborist who likely did not receive enough payment to take that liability under his or her wing.

 

[treeseer]

Dave, I don't think that anyone claimed to eradicate or eliminate the risk. Rectified, perhaps, but only temporarily; trees like all infrastructure need maintenance.

We'll see if your prediction of the tree Mike posted comes true. I think it will do well, if Mike contracts with the owner to restoration pruning in 3-5 years.

"These old trees now have to go into defense taxing a veteran tree as Boa07 put it."

Those are not vets, still young eucs imo

"Also epicormic sprouts will occur from adventitious buds within the cambial zone from all the wounding."

Some newly formed adventitious buds may form and sprout, yes. But so may some preformed dormant buds, which are anchored to the core,so the growth from them is endocormic, much more stable.

"These sprouts have weak unions"

Not the endocormic sprouts. Restoration pruning removes codom sprouts so the unions are stronger, and reduces some, retains some. Check Gilman's book or webpage on this; in his recent talks based on considerable research this is what he's saying.

"and as they mature along with the certain decay from the less than perfect defense system we will have a new threat from these 2 trees in short order."

SOME decay is certain, sure, but there is branch protection anatomy and chemistry at those nodes. You and I are not euc experts, but what would YOU have done with those trees?

 

[Boa07]

I guess inevitably I'm going to respond to Dave's suggestions.

there was a perception of danger or threat to a target

Yes there was, on the part of the council (tree owner), however the installation of the fall arrest system was a solution aimed at appeasing the concerns of council (concerns I did not share based on the tree risk assessment) whilst critically avoiding the kind of cutting shown in mikewhite's picture.

It is my continual experience that risk of significant harm from the failure of trees or their parts is grossly exaggerated and skewed in the minds of the general public, and by a great many Arborists.

I am happy for the tree to have the system there not because I believe failures are a significant threat to the well being of kids and adults under the tree, but because it means the tree will continue to be managed with an emphasis on improving the health of the soil and root environment...something that would not be possible otherwise.

I truely believe as a profession we have some way to go to get the message out to the general community just how crucial larger older trees are to our health, physical and mental and just how critical it is to retain established trees within urban areas in a manner that ensures their future healthy growth.

Looking from the outside the USA seems to have some of the best science in relation to the services trees provide down to a level of detail we are truely envious of here in Oz. There has also been a huge amount of hard work that has been going on for more than two decades disseminating the benchmarks of minimum protected soil volumes required for large spreading canopy trees.

It is kinda interesting when you consider that this particular tree has been impacted by the construction of a facility that is specifically designed to enable the general public...by and large young people....to expose themselves to heightened risks of sprains, fractures and brain trauma. I'm pretty sure there are no signs advising of the importance of PPE for these activities, there are certainly no pads installed on the edges or posts that are part of the facility.

Don't misunderstand me, I am comfortable with, and agree with the council building such facilities, I even think it is fine that they do not have the advisory notices etc...and yes potentially the tree does have parts that if they were to fail could potentially seriously injure park users...but risk management should IMO be focussed on the worst case scenario for an established target, that is most likely to occur (based on a documented risk assessment).

I certainly agree entirely that the threshold of what risk is acceptable or not shold be clearly understood and acceptable to the owners/managers of the tree/s in question....But I always try to ensure that this is based on a recognition of the value of the services established trees provide to us all, and the very low risk of serious harm or death that trees actually represent here in Oz or in the USA or in the UK.

 

[treevet]

Are you able to limit your liability by wording in the contract Sean. We can do this here but it is still able to be contended in a court of law and it is not absolute. What I am trying to point out with some of my comments is that we become very capable in identifying high risk situations but the negative side of this is when we try to mitigate them we can never take all the risk out and will become a target if injury or property damage occurs. The only absolute is to take away the target or the tree. We stand more liable if this appeared to be the best management practice and we failed to do so.

Can we see the situation under the canopy in a picture.

 

[jefflovstrom]

DANG!- Base cut and end this thread!!! Arr
Jeff

 

[treevet]

DANG!- Base cut and end this thread!!! Arr
Jeff

Go back to your beard thread Jeff. :kilt:

 

[treeseer]

We stand more liable if this appeared to be the best management practice and we failed to do so.

Exactly, so we don't fail to follow standards so we sleep well at night after cabling trees, right, Dave?

Totally agree, Sean. We should see more padded poles, and less butchered trees.

O and, what do you think you would find if you were able to aerially inspect the crowns of the trees in Mike's pic 5 years from now?

 

[jomoco]

O and, what do you think you would find if you were able to aerially inspect the crowns of the trees in Mike's pic 5 years from now?

You'd find 35-40 foot long weakly attached secondary growth, that OOMT and others in this thread believe they can maintain safely without reduction pruning, but rather selective thinning cuts and dynamic cobra cabling?

I ask them for examples of useful dynamic cabling and get a course in some funky failsafe branch weaving course to protect kids in a skate park?

WTF?

jomoco

 

[treevet]

On the list of options, that was not the worst. It looks like most of the cuts were aimed at nodes. I would not call it wrong

Regret nothing--right on! It would take a while, with moans and groans, for me to prune a tree like mike showed. But it would still be fun!

Not the worst option???? It would be fun to top a tree????? Aiming at nodes????? Some of the protection capabilities of collar cuts?????

No regrets?......You should be ashamed of yourself Guy

 

[Boa07]

Can we see the situation under the canopy in a picture.

View attachment 123645

View attachment 123646

 

[jomoco]

View attachment 123645

View attachment 123646

Do you agree that your euc has been hacked at some point in it's past Boa07?

jomoco

 

[Boa07]

Try reading what has been previously posted, it'll save everyone time.

 

[jefflovstrom]

Go back to your beard thread Jeff. :kilt:

Not my thread
Jeff

 

[treevet]

View attachment 123645

View attachment 123646

That looks like a typical park or zoo tree one would find in my city, just different species.

 

[jomoco]

This has been a very interesting thread to me. I never knew that that topped trees can be safely maintenanced without reducing them again, through selective pruning and dynamic cabling!

Heck I never even knew dynamic cabling had any useful application whatsoever outside of fruit orchards period!

Boy the things I've learned in this thread!

jomoco

 

[jomoco]

That looks like a typical park or zoo tree one would find in my city, just different species.

Look at the second lowest branch on the left side TV, at about 20 feet out from the trunk, it changes from an 8-10 inch leader into a plurality of 2-3 inch leaders at one spot, a sure sign of being headed back at some point in it's past. This means the growth actually over the skate park is weakly attached secondary growth!

Now a mature topped tree like that can be safely maintained on an annual reduction pruning schedule with no problem, with a very low risk of failure. But that's not what Boa07 has done here, he sold them on a funky failsafe, rather than the standard annual safety pruning a veteran arborist would have recommended for a high traffic pedestrian tree, particularly one with secondary growth over the target area.

jomoco

 

[treevet]

If this an opportunity to review some thoughts in this thread for contention I would like to add that you cannot without conscience TOP a large mature tree and somehow find "nodes" hidden in the large wood where the large cuts are made. And at this mysterious location there does not exist the same protection zone both chemical and physical that exist when removing branch material from stem material with a ntp cut.

The sprouts generated by wounding are NOT a blend of epicormics and "endocormics" and somehow you just discern which is which and remove the former in this "restorative" pruning that makes TOPPING now ok, acceptable and even desirable. The tree's defense is not unchallenged just because the tree is not a "veteran" tree. Disease is not held in check because of future esoteric pruning.

Worthy of note while on the topping subject is that when tops are remove the roots that normally get their food from the tops begin to starve. Opportunistic diseases such as wilts and plane tree canker and root rots begin to enter into the equation (dynamic equilibrium) at this point.

 

[treevet]

Look at the second lowest branch on the left side TV, at about 20 feet out from the trunk, it changes from an 8-10 inch leader into a plurality of 2-3 inch leaders at one spot, a sure sign of being headed back at some point in it's past. This means the growth actually over the skate park is weakly attached secondary growth!

Now a mature topped tree like that can be safely maintained on an annual reduction pruning schedule with no problem, with a very low risk of failure. But that's not what Boa07 has done here, he sold them on a funky failsafe, rather than the standard annual safety pruning a veteran arborist would have recommended for a high traffic pedestrian tree, particularly one with secondary growth over the target area.

jomoco

I don't see this as a hard and fast rule, the annual pruning after severe cutbacks. Many variables make the decision as when to make the corrective pruning. I can see annual inspections that Sean mentioned he intended to do.

 

[ddhlakebound]

On the list of options, that was not the worst. It looks like most of the cuts were aimed at nodes. I would not call it wrong, especially without a "before" pic.

It would be really cool if you could take pics annually from the same spot and document response. Obviously there is a lot of confusion about euc mgt, with all us geniuses here having all this disagreement.

Regret nothing--right on! It would take a while, with moans and groans, for me to prune a tree like mike showed. But it would still be fun!

Not the worst option???? It would be fun to top a tree????? Aiming at nodes????? Some of the protection capabilities of collar cuts?????

No regrets?......You should be ashamed of yourself Guy

To me, this is where the slippery slope of node trimming goes bad.

It's easy for me to agree that node trimming to maintain the skeleton and dynamic mass of a storm damaged tree is the right thing to do, but these trees have been topped.

They may have hit some nodes on some of the branches, but that does not appear to have been the trimmers goal in cut placement. Granted, we don't have the before pic to make any assessment.

To me, thats a good ole round over, with all the cuts height targeted. Sure, it could have been worse. They could have taken off 100% of the foliage instead of 75%, they could have left no laterals where they left improper ones.

Saying it's not the worst option is sort of a left handed compliment, where I feel like we should be saying that what they did was not in the top 3 options.

Trimming previously hacked trees is one of the most difficult things arborists deal with, because most of our options have already been taken away and the damage has been done. But thats part of what makes things interesting, isn't it.

 

[jomoco]

I don't see this as a hard and fast rule, the annual pruning after severe cutbacks. Many variables make the decision as when to make the corrective pruning. I can see annual inspections that Sean mentioned he intended to do.

I'll grant that an annual pruning schedule would only apply if the client was doing his best to decrease his liability, short of cutting the tree down because it had been topped previously.

A 2-3 year pruning schedule is within norms for some species of topped trees, certainly. But certain species, like say Erythrina caffra, outside their natural environment in Africa, and in a man made commercial environment in SoCal, being fed prodigious amounts of fertilizer and water, will be lucky to last one year without falling apart during the summer growing season.

And eucs in that same environment can and do go a bit wild too.

jomoco