Boxelder woes

[Ekka]

Hi

I've just finished an intense seminar on these exact things, and as one of the speakers was your own Jill Pokorny from the US I'll report the specific's in her documents on this specific fault and tree.

Boxelders common found defects are decay and branch breakage in mature trees. The wood is quickly decayed.

Cracks in the main trunk are bad enough, but even worse when the crack extends to the ground and roots (I magnified your photo). The origin of the crack is a weak branch union, this is a shear crack ... high risk, and with the low resistance to decay in this species the tree is on it's way out.

Cabling may very well extend the life of the structure but will not prevent the decay. The cabling will also lure the tree into a false sense of security so it will grow bigger. Even if you bolt and cable this tree the crack doesn't glue together or bond. Only the new growth around the outside of the crack will be able to cover the crack up and bring stability back to the tree, but you'll have decay in trunk and a poor structure, with possible ongoing maintenance cost of pruning and cable adjustments.

Logic prevails, eventually the tree will have to come out, doing it now is cheaper than paying for cabling and then doing it later. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. There is also significant targets within the striking range of the tree in the event of failure.

I'd certainly recommend removal and get a bid on cut down only, it's usually 1/2 price, and felling is the cheapest method so check out that back fence.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Hi


Logic prevails, eventually the tree will have to come out, doing it now is cheaper than paying for cabling and then doing it later. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. There is also significant targets within the striking range of the tree in the event of failure.

I'd certainly recommend removal...

Using that same logic, any tree should be removed. It's always cheaper to remove a small tree, in fact, cheaper yet if you don't ever plant one in the first place.
There is great value in going to these educational seminars to see these "experts". One problem I see is the excitement some arborists feel when they take the information in, like they just re-invented the wheel. Now everything you know goes out the window. You need to understand the ideas you were presented need to be buffered with what you know and further added to what opposing theories offer.
As I said before, there is no reason this tree can't be made as strong as it was before. If the tree is an asset to the owner, saving it should be offered as an option. If it were my tree, it would not come down.

 

[Ekka]

Using that same logic, any tree should be removed. It's always cheaper to remove a small tree, in fact, cheaper yet if you don't ever plant one in the first place.

Come on Mike, that statement is illogical. I was referring to the shear crack, it's origin, the probability of decay, future maintenance and targets within striking distance .... then drew my conclusion. If you find that evaluation illogical then too bad because it's the real world.

Your theory, because that's what it is, is not a certainty, or would you offer a guarantee? A guarantee of a full recovery and no failure.

Where do you draw the line? Euthenasia, pull the life support plug after so many days, or keep this wretch breathing till your emotions are satisfied?

I'm interested, where's your line Mike?

 

[Stumper]

Ekka, If it were mine I would also choose removal and plant a better specimen in a good location. However, In Mikes defense/to redirect you to his point...... Consider-most trees with obvious defects such as bark inclusions, decayed heartwood, hollows etc. do not fall down prior to death. We see the defects that can lead to failure-that have led to failure in other trees we have worked on -and the alarm signals flash. It is important to remember that defect ridden tress have already stood for years and will likely stand for years more while seemingly excellently structured trees occassionally fall down. 0% chance of failure and trees in the landscape aren't compatible terms. Reasonable risks are what everyone needs to keep as a goal. A few cables can bring a 'high risk' tree that has made it thus far back into the reasonable risk category. :angel:

 

[treeseer]

Mike and Stumper are right, preserving the tree can be the responsible thing to do. So can removing and replacing it. Owner's comfort and budget etc call the shot.

What bugs me is the opinion that the owner got early on, that these trees are "weeds". We all should know the good and bad about each species we work on, but we shouldn't be passing along our biases as scientific fact.

I dislike white oaks because they are the overdominant species in my land, but I don't dis them to everyone. Tree owners are counting on objective information from us.

I pruned a 40' high and 50' wide boxelder last winter, in excellent condition.

Stumper would you really remove that tree if it were your yard? that looks like a tenement building in the background that you'd have a gorgeous view of.

 

[Stumper]

Seer, If that yard were my yard...... I don't know-I might cable shortterm with a plan for starting a nother tree and later removal. What I actually said was if it were in MY yard. -thinking about the yard around the house where I currently live. I have several Locusts an English Walnut, A small orchard (3 Plums, 4 Apples, 1 pear ,1 Apricot and 1 Peach) a Spruce, an Aspen, 2 Russian Olives Junipers, Forsythia, Spirea, Currants, Mock Orange, Rose of Sharon and roses. I removed two Arborvitae when I moved in that were hazardous( They made it impossible to see traffic when exiting the driveway) and I removed a Silver Maple 2 years ago because it was poorly placed and wasn't what I wanted. There is no place for a Boxelder with defects in MY yard. Kenn(Outonalimb) and I pruned a nice Boxelder last week-biggest I've ever worked on- probably 70 feet tall about 30"DBH. Generally the boxelders I work on are just a mess.-Which I can improve but I can't fix everything that has been let go 20 years after it should have received remedial pruning.

 

[treeseer]

" If that yard were my yard...... I don't know-I might cable shortterm with a plan for starting a nother tree and later removal.

Often, remedial treatments are intended for short term bu tthen the removal plan is forgotten as the tree recovers.

"There is no place for a Boxelder with defects in MY yard.

If my yard had that view of that building I'd screen it any way I could, and I wouldn't remove and replant becasue the wait would be too long. I look at every screening tree with an open form as a prop for manageable vines, to add more screen. But that's just me; I like privacy.

" I can't fix everything that has been let go 20 years after it should have received remedial pruning.

Nobody can; we all have to deal with neglected trees, and make the most of them that we can. removal is the final step for all trees, but if they can deliver worthwhile contributions at an acceptable risk and cost, why rush it?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Stumper, if it were your only tree, or your English Walnut, would you still remove it? I think not.