Are these trees dying?

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
The extent of the damage from the drought may not be fully seen for years, just like trimming the crown of the tree.
All crown trimming does not constitute "damage" by any definition of the word; sneaking that allegation in to a drought post does not fit and does not fly. What you said about root dieback is true, but your rant on crown trimming is not.
Tom, how do trees in an arborist’s lawn go unwatered during the worst drought in years?

How does a plumber's sink leak? Do all the dogs in the pound get full vet care? Many trees in my 8 acres go undertended; I call it a trial by stress. The fittest survive, and thereby prove their worth to grow on. I'm sure Tom has other jobs besides irrigationist.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Guy answered the MM's question poetically, I'll respond practically.

I was out of town for a few days and came home to wilted trees. I watered them overnight for two nights and the leaves are full and perky. This will be an early fall clean up in the yard.

Also, I am trying to see how the trees will grow with minimum maintenance.

Tom

The cobblers kids go barefoot
The tailor's kids go naked

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
All crown trimming does not constitute "damage" by any definition of the word; sneaking that allegation in to a drought post does not fit and does not fly. What you said about root dieback is true, but your rant on crown trimming is not.

If I understand you, removing branches from a tree is not bad, in fact, I think you feel it benefits the tree to some extent. I ask about the roots because I always think about the relationship between roots and crown. I figure if it's good to cut limbs, perhaps it's good to cut roots.
Is it damage to a tree if a trencher digs past a tree and removes about ten percent of the roots? In this hypothetical case, let's assume the tree does not die, or lose a lot of limbs from the crown due to dieback.

What if the tree is perfect, should I still remove some crown?

Next I get to thinking about how much of each needs to be trimmed. Should I take 10% of each the roots and the crown, each year, or just the crown?

Maybe I should spread it out over three years. Perhaps do the roots this year and the crown next.

This theory of yours is new to me, so be paitent with all my questions.

What if you take the prescribed amount of the tree, then the wind blows and takes more off, is that damage? If it is, then is the trimming the damage, or the wind fall?
What if that same tree gets a new owner who decides to build a new house and the soil gets compacted and the roots cut off, then is the original trimming "damage"?

What if the tree was a mature tree and the crown reduction just pushed it over the edge, and it spirals to its' death in a few years, is it damage then?

Will a tree who just had a crown reduction be better off in the event of a drought, with all the root damage we agreed about? Will the wounds from the crown reduction compartmentalize effectively with the stress of losing foliage and roots to this hypothetical drought?

Opps, I forgot, crown loss does not stress a tree, as long as proper thinning cuts are made. As you answer all these questions, don't forget to say exactly how much, too big tree crowns are, so I can start removing the proper amount from those I work on.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
If I understand you, removing branches from a tree is not bad

Don't worry Mike, I'll be as patient as you were
What I said was "All crown trimming is not bad". Sorry I phrased that so poorly; let me move one word. What I really should have said was "Not all crown trimming is bad"; that would have been more precise, and maybe have prevented your misunderstanding. What you read was "All crown trimming is good", which as you thoroughly pointed out is as silly as saying "All root damage is good."

The truth is, some root damage, like that you inflict as your airspade peels the skin off those roots, is not bad, because it intervenes in the root system to make it function better as roots branch out at the wounds you make and regrow into the compost that you inoculate the soil with
This is EXACTLY analogous with light reduction cuts in the crown; some short-term damage to small-diameter parts is proper to improve the growth and long-term health of the larger system.

Does that make sense yet? Are we communicating?:angel:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

You contend that some small amount of crown reduction is not good for the tree, but it may be better than not doing the crown reduction in some cases? An example might be a hollow Basswood, is that right?

Even though it removes leaves and stems, and causes injuries and possible infection sites, it might be better to go ahead and do it if you feel it might stop a worse event like a catistrophic collapse. This may mean regular visits to the tree to repeat the reductions, and each reduction may need to go lower, higher, left or right (depending on which way you started). That's better than the tree falling on the customer or his house, right?

That makes sense, I guess. Instead of an injury being caused by a tree, you do a slow, steady removal of the tree, from the top down, up, left or right (agian depending). It would give you a chance to enjoy the tree for x number of years while you slowly remove it.

Where I get lost is when you say all trimming isn't bad, because sometimes it's required to trim a tree. Then turn that around and say a trimmed tree doesn't have additional stresses compared to an untrimmed tree, that may be compounded by a drought or other events down the road.

 

[treeslayer]

So whats the proper depth for a rootball? for example a 4-6" caliper sycamore with a 3" rootball? my neighbors landscaper said 1/3 in, 2/3 out.
I think he got it backwards, but thats why I'm asking, cause I'm thinking again.

My neighborhood is full of trees "sitting" on the ground with big mulch beds, and roots everywhere ( pin oaks, willow oaks, etc..)

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Mike,

What purpose does your baiting, hyperbole and sarcasm serve? I know that you're intelligent enough to understand that blanket statements have holes in them.

Take a minute to think about the purpose behind the decision to remove a live, healthy part of a tree. Have you read through the proceedings from the "Tree Structure and Mechanics" conference? You need to get an understanding about how trees react as bio-mechanical entities. They aren't entirely biological nor mechanical. Making biological decisions that protect the tree mechanically are justified.

In your "Perfect Tree" example, justify doing root/crown removal. Instead of posting some conjecture, give a reason. If the tree is perfect, it will be able to withstand the summer's drought and be in good enough shape to get through the coming hurricane too, right?

Come back to reality, neighbor

Tom

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by treeslayer
So whats the proper depth for a rootball?

"Rootball" is a meaningless concept biologically:alien:
Find the flare and plant it there. See www.isa-arbor.com/consumer/planting.html. Also see,,,/mulching.html and DON'T make volcano shapes unless you want them to blow up in your face later on.

and mm I second td's note on the uselessness of sarcasm; it kills any chance we have toreason out our differences

 

[treeslayer]

I ask a simple question....

good site, though. I got the right answer easily. thanks.

for most people the rootball is the big thing wrapped in burlap on the non leafy end of a tree when they buy it.

Thanks Guy

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by treeslayer
for most people the rootball is the big thing wrapped in burlap on the non leafy end of a tree when they buy it.

That's what it is, but the top of it is not what you match to grade when planting; the root flare is. Simple answer!

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Ok, no sarcasm, just for this post, and it won't be easy.

When roots, bark, stems, or leaves are removed from a tree, by arborist, wind, disease, insects or man it is bad. This badness (I only promised no sarcasm, not good grammer) can be, and is, compounded by other stress factors.

That's my point, period.

If I were to say trenching past a tree will damage roots and be a stress for the tree, I doubt I would get one arguement. But if I say removing part of the crown of the tree causes stress, I'm hit with a storm of objections.
Both, trenching past trees and crown reduction, can be good for the tree in some cases, we all know that. I worry that most people don't know that trimming is a stress factor.

In recent years, we have a better understanding of this, hence the reduction in the maximum % the industry recommends removing. The problem with a blanket % is that each tree has different levels of stress factors already in place before the trimming, and what is more disturbing is in urban settings, and rural forests too, we don't know what the future stress factors will be.

As an example, let's say there is a mature tree and one limb is hanging low and looks out of place. The owner has asked you to remove it to level out the crown. You don't feel it will kill the tree, so you remove it. The following year, a trench is cut past the tree to install a gas service line, and wouldn't you know it, the worst drought in 10 years.
If the ground was tore up from the gas line and the drought in full swing, when the owner asked about the limb, you would surely recommend leaving it.

Even with a very good understanding of biology and mechanics, it's hard to say whether or not trimming is bad. This is why I get worked up when Guy, JPS, or anyone makes these blanket statements that trimming is not all bad.
I think we (arborist/educators) need to say, trimming is the lesser of two evils, in some cases.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Ok, no sarcasm, just for this post, and it won't be easy.

I get worked up when Guy, JPS, or anyone makes these blanket statements that trimming is not all bad.
.[/i] [/B]

Thanks Mike, much better. I really meant not all trimming is bad; sorry for not being clear. I agree with everytihing else you say.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Originally posted by Tom Dunlap
Mike,

What purpose does your baiting, hyperbole and sarcasm serve? I know that you're intelligent enough to understand that blanket statements have holes in them.

It keeps me from reading them, maybe that is the intent.

Rational debate is a good thing, but much of what he has been posting has been kneejerk bombast that intentionaly blows others statements out of proportion.



I'll wait til we can sit across from each other and talk. He's a much more pleasant person, in person.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

You guys are awful critical of my style, but in my defense, I don't go too "kneejerk bombast, baiting, hyperbole, and sarcastic, until I've been pushed by some nit pick or snide comment from the peanut gallery.
Some of you could spend a little less time blasting nice guys like Brian and I, and spend a little more time contributing an original thought once in a while.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
Hey!!! don't go dragging me into this mess!! Why, you... you.. kneejerk bombaster!!

And all this after Mike and I made up! Boys, boys, time to put this thread to bed now. See you in the morning.:angel:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Brian, you were the first one the peanut gallery started in on in this thread, that's why Mike brought you in.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
When roots, bark, stems, or leaves are removed from a tree, by arborist, wind, disease, insects or man it is bad. This badness can be, and is, compounded by other stress factors.
That's my point, period.

kb, if this is your basic premise, I can see why we disagree so much, because it is wrong. To start with, trees shed rooots, bark and leaves all the time. Are they doing bad things to themselves when they do? Is it bad to cut off a dying or severely infected branch?

The bigger problem here is the idea that stress is bad; it is NOT. Stress is necessary for growth. Distress, or strain, is bad. I think Shigo used these terms this way, as many in the medical world do. Trees are adaptive mechanisms that grow through all kinds of natural changes. We can't treat them like crystal figurines that are damaged by the slightest touch or loss of tissue.

ps I thought the large moderator was very immoderate and small and way out of line with his "kneejerk bombast' allegation. Hope your mom's basement is cozy.

 

[coffeecraver]

Trees that look like that in May, and are two different
types, (healthy one week prior were green and lush.

Looks like it could be pesticide related, from drift
although girdleing roots could have done this damage

 

[wysiwyg]

Just thought I'd follow up on this thread. The trees pictured at the beginning of the thread have leafed out just as well as they have in past years, with no appearant outward effects from the early leaf drop last fall. I'm hoping the abundant rainfall (8"+) around here during this month gave them a good head start to maintaining their long term health.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Glad to hear the good news. Hope they keep growing well.

WE had a wet spring and many things that looked iffy last year came out well. Then 1-2 hot weeks and they don't look too good anymore. See www.treesaregood.com Treat them well.