Does this tree look safe or needs "reduction"?

[Tom Dunlap]

Brian,

I thought that this was a "discussion" forum. This is one definition of the word:

discussion
n 1: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with
some particular topic; "the book contains an excellent
discussion of modal logic"; "his treatment of the race
question is badly biased" [syn: treatment, discourse]
2: an exchange of views on some topic; "we had a good
discussion"; "we had a word or two about it" [syn: give-and-take,
word]

You politely answered my question about the "75%" It cames from observation, fair enough. That's the way we learn a lot of things.


Care to discuss the rest of my questions? I've never worked in Florida so I'm basing my observations on other areas of the world. I do see a lot of bad or unnecessary tree work being sold. But one way to change that is to discuss observations.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Mike and Brian, perhaps you want to tell Dr. Gilman why he is wrong. I know firsthand that he is open to input from arborists in the field if they have something useful to say.

If Gilman came here and said the best coarse of action for the pictured tree was a one time crown reduction, done by going 2/3s of the way up and working the tree with a pole pruner, then yes, I would disagree with him.
For the sake of argument, lets say the reduction took off 4 years growth, in four years, you'd be right back where you started. And what is the reference for exactly how much reduction will make the tree safe? You can say by removing four years growth, that will allow that branch union to stand up to 50 mph winds. Well what winds will it stand up to now, before reduction? It's hard to put a number on it, isn't it? So if all you can say is it look weak, then how much stronger will it be in say 10 years, if you take off 4 years growth today. Any crown reduction is going to need maintenance. That's why it was choice #5.
I've read Gilman's site, and heard him speak on several occasions, and never got the idea that such a high a percentage of tree problems can be solved with crown reduction as you seem to advocate.
I do reduction work all the time, but you have to know the limits. Look at the picture on the page you linked, think Gillman is going to try to reduce that tree out of it's problems? I hope not.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The 75% figure is what I have observed in my 20 years in the field, observing trees every single day, everywhere I go. Also looking at and evaluating jobs bid and sold by companies for which I've worked, and by evaluating jobs on which I've been asked to bid.

The qualifier for me is that a large % of tree workers do a large % of over pruning and improper pruning, while a small % of tree workers do a large % of good work.
My observation is it's closer to 90% of the work I see is improper pruning or too high a dose. And trust me Tom, that's a conservative estimate.

 

[Bodean]

Thank you all for discussing this and displaying a slice of experience and theory.
The tree looks good and I feel will not pose a problem for maybe 5-20 years.
For that, next year a lite thin with deadwood removal is prescribed.
I only posed this post as to spark discussion.
I agree with Mr. Squirrel in that roughly X% of trees are trimmed for the homeowners needs. Tree Care or Tree Business, though as arborists we are translators. We bring the homeowner and the tree into agreement on what needs to be done and what can be tolerated by the tree. The tree advocate. Homeowners want miracles done to their trees sometimes, save it, slay it, make it grow over here to block the neighbor. Y'all've heard it before.

D

 

[Bodean]

topping is a lollipop.

directional pruning or reduction so as to train the tree to avoid an immovable object (house, hotwire).

Viewprune to confine the tree to the acceptable limits of the homeowner. Use BMP's to lower tree stress.

D

 

[Bodean]

Tree is mature enough that a light reduction will not spur massive sprouting.

At what size, age, or level of maturity must the tree be so as not to release latent buds into "turbo growth"?

When will a tree realize that it must submit to my training and not grow anymore? Death?

D

 

[treeseer]

At what size, age, or level of maturity must the tree be so as not to release latent buds into "turbo growth"...The tree looks good and I feel will not pose a problem for maybe 5-20 years.
For that, next year a lite thin with deadwood removal is prescribed.

Any age, depending on the species and size of cut and vigor and species ...
Big question is species and you have not provided that yet. Maples vary tremendously. Can a doctor treat an unidentified disease? I was almost treated for lymphoma once when I really had leukemia. If I'd have died, that doctor would be out megabucks. I surely am not sending any referrals her way.
If you can't identify the tree, might you be committing malpractice here?

"For the sake of argument, lets say the reduction took off 4 years growth, in four years, you'd be right back where you started."

Milke, this is overly simplistic and not true at all. When a branch is reduced, regrowth occurs at every active growing point in the tree. This results in a form with less sprawl and less prone to breakage.

Gilman (go through his pruning powerpoint; it is excellent!): "The objective of structural pruning is to develop good sustainable branch and trunk form in shade trees by making pruning cuts in the canopy at strategic and planned locations. On many trees structural pruning can be taught as a three step process: step one – locate the stem that will make the best leader; step two – locate those stems and branches that are competing with this chosen leader; step three – decide where to cut these competing stems back to. **Subordination or reduction of competing stems is one of the most important techniques to use to develop good structure in shade trees**.

The right hand stem of the double leader (the double leader originates about 10 feet off the ground) was reduced in length to slow down its growth rate so the stem in the upper left could become the dominant leader. It normally takes about 25 years of pruning every 3 to 5 years or so to develop good structure in a large-maturing shade tree. "

3-5 years is a good guideline for repeat visits to prune for structure. A small investment to grow a large asset.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Keep in mind that we cannot prune a tree to health, we can only remove the bad stuff. If we cut out a bunch of strong, healthy stuff then we hurt the tree. Justify every cut.

I have to disagree with this, because we can train trees to grow better in the long term if we use pruning as a management tool.

This particular tree it would be difficult, because it was left to do it's own thing for so long. As said a typical maple with tight codm unions and a dense canopy.

I'll stick up for Guy too on reduction cuts, they are far better then topping because you have a node present. Yes you have a higher probability of decay, but by redirecting the growth patterns and reducing vigor in a section of the tree you can allow the other sections to grow faster and out compete the codominance.

If one is pruning trees on a one visit fashion, then these management practices may not be well suited for buisness. But if you provide a long term management service, then they will fit well. You can make a few large cuts on codoms, and then in a few years manage the new sprouts so they fit the growth of the tree and do not end up interfearing with the stem you are trying to get to grow into a dominant leader (multiple leaders are not bad either BTW).

Yes, pruning is wounding.

Yes there are arborists out there that follow good basic prunig, but still are just cutting wood for the client.

But judicious pruning is a good tool, and often the only tool, to manage a tree to live to it's potential age.

 

[Bodean]

It's a silver maple.

D

 

[Tree Frog]

What about dynamic cabling with the cobra system?

 

[treeseer]

"It's a silver maple." Well why didn't you say so? Structural pruning on those every 3-5 years is Standard Operating Procedure here. More often means smaller cuts will work, better for the tree. This we can know by observation, and have confirmed by authorities like Gilman. "What about dynamic cabling with the cobra system?" Higher cost and mtc. Besides, why install something artificial when the tree can respond to LIGHT pruning according to its own needs. Plus, squirrels are known to nibble on them.

The Search function here works well: http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=21060&highlight=reduce+silver+maple

As you can see we've had this chat before. Reminds me of the joke about convicts who memorized and numbered their jokes so they'd just have to say ""37!" to crack everybody up.

The trouble with Observation as a primary info source is the fact that it's skewed by the biases of the observer. At least mine is. That's why it's key to get backup info from scientists like Gilman to qualify one's opinions, as a reality check.

 

[rebelman]

fascinating. I say just give the crown a cleaning, looking for the occasional reduction cut. Mulch the tree in large circle past the dripline. Pruning cuts made at the collars. No spikes. This generally satisfies all parties.