Issues with Arboriculture

[Nickrosis]

OK, I'll be perfectly up front with this. I take issue with a number of common practices in arboriculture, even some of the services offered and performed by our own company.

I'm increasingly feeling that we should almost stop using tree health as a justification for many of the things we do, like pruning, and come face to face with the fact that we are working for people who want us to manipulate the trees.

Crown Thinning
Trees thin their own crowns, and if they have too much foliage, they shed it. When a leaf produces less than it costs to exist, the tree sheds it. Same with branches, same with roots. If we think that taking 25% out of a tree would really help the tree's health, some screws are probably loose. Yet, I see that all the time...by my own co-workers even.

The real purpose for this is often:
~Allowing more light to the lawn (red wavelength light, specifically)
~Giving the customer a sense that they are getting their money's worth
~Providing more work for the company

Deep Root Fertilizing
What is this? If you've ever ground stumps, you know roots are concentrated in the top 18 inches of soil, especially the top 6 inches. How will deep root fertilizing at 12-18 inches do much of anything because percolate through the soil at too deep of a level?

Fertilizing in general irks me because "professionals" say that a tree needs a swift shot of 32-0-0. And why? Because it's in urban soils, stressed, attacked by insects, blah, blah, blah. There's no soil test. There's no knowledge of whether or not there is nitrogen in the soil that's just unavailable because of pH. Maybe the tree doesn't need any nitrogen. But how do you know this by looking at the tree for a minute and half?

Planting
OK, there is a lot of bad information out about this, but I think we as arborists should be above all that. So many times, there are deeply planted trees out there and landscapers get blamed. But if arborists abdicate the role of planting, who are we to say anything? Yes, we should continue to work with the nursery industry, but in the meantime, we should be the best of the best in planting.

Excessive Removals
There is a thrill in doing a removal. I know that feeling quite well myself. But I think there should be a different and equally satisfying feeling in an arborist about preserving a tree. So many times, trees get removed with little or no effort to preserve the tree. Like Tom Dunlap's bumper sticker, "It takes 100 years to grow a 100-year-old tree." What are we doing for the future?

I love the industry, I had a great time climbing this week, but I think we need to keep asking ourselves what we're doing and why so that we can continually improve. Certainly the most frustrating elements to me is being part of a company that doesn't always do things properly. We can have the most streamlined billing process, but if we're not doing the right thing with the trees, what else matters?

 

[murphy4trees]

Nick,
There is some clarity... I've heard seasonned pros say that the pruning practices they prescribe have nothing yo do with money....

And funny how so many are still using NPK (even slow release) to make a tree grow... then when it gets stressed they use Cambistat to make the tree STOP GROWING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pruning is wounding.... but there are a lot of clients out there that just cannot hear that kind of thinking... its cost me several big jobs...

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Another one joins my cult, welcome.
Sorry Guy, you lost another.

Nick, your points echo things I've been saying for years.

 

[Joe]

.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

As I have been stating for a long time, we are skilled property management people.

Our purpose is to help the client and the tree to coexist. The professional will choose their clientel as to where in that spectrum they want to work.

In some situations low branching trees are what is needed. In some places trees with little taper and high branching is needed.

If we allow the tree to grow as if it were in the former, but really in the latter placement we are doing the customer and the tree a disservice.

The owner is thinking now we must assist tnem in thinking long term. What will this tree look like in 20-30-50 years? Often times this will mean managing low limbs so that they do not grow big, or that they can be removed at some future date without causeing the tree a lot of stress.

I've preached about NPK enough. We need other parts ov Mr Hopkins CaFe in the mix, and low N! Excessive terminal elongation is only desireable in small plants and has been shown to cause greaster suseceptability to problems.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Another one joins my cult, welcome.
Sorry Guy, you lost another.

Mike, I'm not sure about that.
You're in a cult of one since the anti-pruning guru abdicated; now no one's anti-pruning extremism matches yours. Nick's just temporarily fallen prey to the mistaken outlook that urban trees would prune their own crowns just fine on their own if us nasty humans just left them alone.

Urban trees live in the context of human influence. We can't look at them as if they're out there on their own. We manage them to deliver the most value. Removing unwanted and unneeded branches is part of that--yes MM we know enough to make educated judgments about what's needed, not perfectly but in most cases well enough to keep the tree healthy.

I agree with most of Nick's other points, and jps' response.

 

[Timothy M Walsh]

Nick et al,

I agree with your thoughts on this. We need to remember that as arborists we do things to trees for people for money. We should be doing something FOR the trees as we are doing something to them as Dr. John Ball says. The key, I think, is that we have a specific reason for every action that we do. We also need to be able to defend our actions based on the current, accepted science of the day. Remember, flush cuts, and wound painting were taught not too long ago.

From the tree's perspective, they don't NEED anything done to them. They need sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, space, a few associates, and some elements. They don't care if their limbs die, fall off and hit someone. They don't care if they block a view. They don't care if their leaves fall into someone's yard and cause them to rake. However, the people that pay us to maintain the trees do care if some of these things happen.

As arborists, we need to have lines that we do not cross. If you think that all removals are bad, then don't do removals. If you only want to remove dead branches when you prune, then do that. It is a personal decision, you have to make the determination of what you will do and will not do.

We also need to have lines that we do not cross when it comes to safety (you knew I was going to bring this up). Do you cut corners on safety as well as on proper tree care techniques?

At the end of the day I want to know that the trees and their people are a little better off because I worked on them. I also want to know that I did not put myself, my co-workers, the client and the general public at risk because of my actions.

Just my thoughts…

TMW

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

talking about tree feeding ..i'm not seeing enough mulched trees in domestic gardens..

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Originally posted by Timothy M Walsh
Nick et al,

They don't care if their limbs die, fall off and hit someone. They don't care if they block a view. They don't care if their leaves fall into someone's yard and cause them to rake. However, the people that pay us to maintain the trees do care if some of these things happen.


TMW

The anthropomorphisizing of plants allway makes me wince.

Urban trees need propr management of thier growth to ensure that they will fit the site over the long term.

So that they will not have weak unions that an ice or snow storm will break out 30-40 years down the road.

So that there are not roots that will interfear with trunk development.

So that large low limbs do not subordinate the lead stemas and casue the top to decline.

Most of the time that i have to make severe cuts to a tree it is because of poor past practices in management. Someone should have forseen the problem and corected it years ago. Often times this is not on trees where there has been no professional care, you can see cuts in the crown and rope marks in crotches.

 

[Timothy M Walsh]

John Paul,

Thanks for making my point, which was we need to do things to trees because we want them around us.

TMW

 

[dbeck]

Originally posted by Nickrosis

Crown Thinning
Trees thin their own crowns, and if they have too much foliage, they shed it. When a leaf produces less than it costs to exist, the tree sheds it. Same with branches, same with roots. If we think that taking 25% out of a tree would really help the tree's health, some screws are probably loose. Yet, I see that all the time...by my own co-workers even.

trees do thin their crowns. This is like clockwork in a forest situation where there are trees amongst trees getting shaded on all sides and competing w/ height to obtain sunlight.
Put that same tree on a boulevard w/o those neighbors and it will most of the time grow totally different. There is sunlight all around it and it grows branches all over. This seems to be a big cause of why trees can have poor structure over time. JPS mentions urban trees do need proper management to extend their utility potential. I can't agree w/ that statement more.
take a walk in a forest and take notice to some common street trees and note how different their form is. You may be surprised!
I am not saying turn all urban trees to look like forest trees, just try to understand there are diffs and in some cases, trees can be their own enemy.

 

[Nickrosis]

To be clear, I fully support pruning, fertilizing, planting, and removals. My concern lies with pruning in the name of crown thinning, any kind of deep root fertilizing, planting too deeply, and removing unnecessarily.

And I think most people who have commented so far agree with me on this. One misconception I think exists is that nearly all trees are forest trees. The only thing I could agree with is that all trees are Earth trees. I mean, they grow all over the place and often not in forests. There are trees growing out of rock faces, in the middle of fields, along the edges of forests, on islands... all over.

The managing of live tissue is done automatically by trees, but a tree is not capable of taking a step back and looking at the whole picture (FYI...I think anthropomorphism is great fun, actually). As arborists, we can see that power lines are coming up or that a truck is about to wipe out a limb. We know that a lower limb shouldn't compete with the trunk in size, etc. So we have a great role to play in caring for trees.

But I think it's important to be cognicent of the fact that most of the things we are doing are people-triggered. So we end up meeting the needs of people and trying to align it best with the interests of the trees. That's my take on pruning.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

most of the things we are doing are people-triggered. So we end up meeting the needs of people and trying to align it best with the interests of the trees.

Maybe so. Then again, even though our involvements may be people-triggered, they need not be people-aimed. Once an arborist gets involved, the tree's needs can be given as much or more weight as the people's.
(One option for a hazardous tree is to keep people away from it. And pruning (including crown thinning) to avoid failure, cabling and disease control benefit the tree first and foremost.):

Trees and people exist in symbiosis--we cannot live without each other. I think what you were saying is that tree companies can be anthropo-centric or arbo-centric, and if they choose to be so centered on people that they sell dubious services, in a way they are losing their soul or at least their direction.
:alien:

Advocata Pro Arbora!

 

[jmchristopher]

I agree with JPS, violently, almost.
We don't work for trees. We work for people. We strive for the best quality of interaction between them, but the relationship is inherently "un-natural"

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The problem as I see it, is when a tree is manipulated to conform to the needs of a person, is then interpeted by others to be what is in the best interest of all trees.
A good example would be topping. Trees were topped under powerlines or where ever to give clearance, then others interpeted this as proper tree care. Now we see people topping trees all over because it must be good for the tree.
Another good example is thinning. Thinning a tree to let light under it for a garden, instead of removing it, can be seen as proper tree care, then others start thinning trees because they saw Johnny tree service doing it. The ISA even has a discription of the process. Thinning trees is not tree care.
Same deal with fertilizing, some trees need fertilizer or soil ammendments. This gives license to Ghem-lawn to sell high N fertilzer to ever customer they talk to. We meet a customer that was having every tree in the yard fertilized with urea N 3 times a year, and every plant sprayed for insects, some insects that don't even exist in WI.
Over trimming is clearly the biggest health issue urban trees face, at least in WI.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by jmchristopher
the relationship is inherently "un-natural"

I disagree with this; violently almost.

If you take the view that people are unnatural, or separate from "nature", then you are right that their relationship with trees (or anything else) is unnatural.

But people are borne of the same process--call it creation, evolution, whatever :angel: --as trees and the rest of nature are. To call us "un-natural" is to create a false dichotomy and cuts people off from their roots.

Do you think we were bred from aliens :alien: who touched down on earth long ago? If not, then you know that humans and trees are part of the same web, so our relationship should be symbiotic and natural.

When people abuse trees, that doesn't prove anything but a missed educational opportunity. And MM, Over-raising is the big problem here, far worse than topping. Overthinning happens, but is less common and causes less injury.

 

[dbeck]

The problem as I see it, is when a tree is manipulated to conform to the needs of a person, is then interpeted by others to be what is in the best interest of all trees

Kinda like when a weekender takes one of your jobs because he will do it for 1/2 or less your price because he is doing it out of a pickup...he trains others that price is how much you should be paying for proper tree care. (had to say it)

Anyway, MM's last post said it quite well. All work we do sets an example. If you can't convey to the next person the diffs, you need to try harder, like maybe even walking away from a job because the work is the wrong thing to do. Although, there are some people who are impossible...

 

[Rob Murphy]

A good example would be topping. Trees were topped under powerlines or where ever to give clearance, then others interpeted this as proper tree care. Now we see people topping . [/B]

I went to a Hydro Village built when they constructed the Dams. Lots off th street trees in the village had been topped all sorts. Only thing was that they had underground power!!!

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
Over-raising is the big problem here, far worse than topping. Overthinning happens, but is less common and causes less injury.

Same here, lots of loins tailing. Unfortunately overraising is hard because you can't even buy a tree from the nursury that isn't already over raised, unless it's an evergreen, those for some unknow reason don't "have" to be over raised, they need to have branches so low the come up out of the soil. LOL!

 

[murphy4trees]

Do you think we were bred from aliens who touched down on earth long ago?

450,000 years ago to be precise... Came to earth to mine gold... do you know that there are ancient gold mines in south africa and rodesia that contain bedding material that has been carbon dated to 70,000 BC???

Human beings were genetically engineered as a slave race using alien DNA and a sub-human primate...
"Elohim (THE GODS) said let US make man in OUR image" And what did they do with him once they made him?.. put him to work in the garden...

So what do the tree of life and the tree of knowledge have to do with commercial tree care?

Read Zecharia Sitchin, foremost translator of the ancient Summerian clay tablets and mutli-talented scientist and researcher...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0939680882/qid=1082550707/sr=1-

AMazon review...
"The 12th Planet is perhaps the best written of Sitchin's Earth Chronicles series; full of example after example of ancient Sumerian passages, astronomical observations, archaeological finds, and technological coincidences supporting his theories. The price we pay for all this evidence is a bit of a dry read at times, but the ideas Sitchin proposes are more than scintillating enough to make up for the overtly scholastic tone of his text."