Large Red Oak?

[Diver1]

I have a very large red oak growing at the ege of a field. The tree must have been a seedling when Mosses was a pup. Its 5.5'DBH. The tree is healthy and in good shape, the first limbs start at about 15' from the base. One of these limbs which is over 20" in diameter has broken off and is hanging by some highly stressed fibers. Most of the weight from the limb is suported on the ground by the end. when it broke off it split some of the bark and sap wood away from the trunk from the limb down to the stump.

Now i have no problem removing the limb, but my question is what if anything should i do with the splinterd portiong of the trunk?

Also there are other limbs of the same dimenshions should i be concerned that they will do the same thing?

Any help would be apreciated.

thanks

 

[topnotchtree]

There are sprays on the market that say they help the healing of such wounds. But, most here will tell you not to use them. They seal off the wood, sealing in moisture,and creating rot. The tree will recover better just left alone. Should you worry about other limbs falling too? Pretty much only the big guy upstairs can answer that one.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

1. Remove any loose or dead wood or bark from the wound, leaving a smooth surface for the tree to close over.

2. Invigorate the roots (low N fert, weed, mulch, irrigate when dry) on that side of the tree to speed codit.

3. Yes branches fail due to excessive end weight. Look for signs of incipient and potential failure and shorten branches that are in danger of failing. It's better to remove 10% of a crown than to have nature remove more.

Get a professional arborist in who knows Phytophthora and other rotters that can kill the tree without you ever knowing about it. These cannot be treated if the trees are not inspected.

http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/mature_care.asp

http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/insect_disease.asp

 

[DadF]

I think Brundi calls it "sudden branch drop" where you have an overly mature tree that will drop a branch for no reason. It can't keep up with the growing weight of the branch and breaks off. Guy is right about the weight reduction and if the tree is really wanted then maybe some cabling would be order.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

If you remove the weight of the broken limb, and you're not sure what to do next, just wait a couple of years. When you return it will be more clear what is dead and can be removed, and what is alive.
Some folks will get in there and start cutting away the splinters and trying to make a certain shape with the remaining bark, but they are cutting into wood that could stay and making the injury larger than it needs to be.
If you wait and see how the injury starts to heal, it will be much more obvious where to cut, if you need to at all. The splinters will have decayed enough to just rub your hand across them to make them fall out. If htere are areas that need to ber cut out so the tree can grow over the damaged area better, this work can be done then too.
As far as Guys pro-prunning retoric, I disagree. Removing growing parts from a tree only stresses it causing resources to be moved from things like branch strengthening, to replacing lost foliage. In years to come, the limb will be as big or bigger, only not as strong. At the same time you create pockets of decay at every cut making new entarnce wounds for insect and other malicous orginisms.
Crown reductions (and topping) should only be considered as last resort methods when liabilty is a major factor. Know that when you start these actions, you are comminting youself to a high maintanence program for as long as the tree lives. You are also exposing yourself to more liabliity than just removing the tree.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Originally posted by DadF
I think Brundi calls it "sudden branch drop" where you have an overly mature tree that will drop a branch for no reason.

He named it, but he didn't say what caused it or how to predict it.
If you can't predict it or say why it happens, you can't prevent it.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
As far as Guys pro-prunning retoric, I disagree. Removing growing parts from a tree only stresses it causing resources to be moved from things like branch strengthening, to replacing lost foliage.
WHen end weight is removed, much less need for branch thickening. Small end cuts seal much more quickly than the stem wound that could have been prevented by one reduction cut. On a 5.5' dbh red oak, rapid growth from reduction cuts is just not going to happen, Mike. The tree is NOT higher-mtc as a result, but lower mtc.

Crown reductions (and topping) should only be considered as last resort methods when liabilty is a major factor. You are also exposing yourself to more liabliity than just removing the tree.

THis is irrational fear-mongering; not what I'd expect from a tree-hugger.
"Remove it or get sued!" is what I hear you saying. Reduction does not belong lumped with topping; because you repeatedly do so I wonder if you know the difference. Even in northern climes they are very different.
Yes DadF is right about cabling; sounds like a good idea for this tree that would eliminate the need for some reduction. Sudden Limb Drop is a term older than Brudi. Limbs suddenly drop because they are too heavy; making them lighter acts to prevent it.
ps I do agree with Mike's caution about trimming wounds; it's best to only take what is very obviously dead at first, then wait for the tree's response and follow that.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

If I follow your logic, I get topping =crown reduction.

Here's how (tounge slightly in cheek):
First, you say crown reduction is carefully and selectively making proper thinning cuts to reduce weight, and/or to make the tree or limb shorter.
Then you say cuts really don't need to be proper thining cuts if you can get away with smaller heading cuts. I take this to mean heading cuts can be ok if you do it in small doses, or doses that would be smaller than if you deep drop crotch.
So, I am on a job where the homeowner wants his tree to be shorter, because it's hollow and tall hollow trees have to be shorter (we've discussed this until my head spins (and I dissagree, but for arguements sake, we'll assume it's so)). Johnny treeowner want me to do deep drop crotch cuts, but using my new found knowledge, I tell him some smaller heading cuts will be better, so I top his tree.

 

[DadF]

Here we go again....this is nothing but clearifying semantics and butting heads.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I agree, this is ground cover in the past, but what am I to do, only leave one side of the story told?
I feel Guy is talking more about specific, intermintent cases of a tree needing crown or branch reduction, and in some cases it is sound aboriculture. But in some of his responses it sounds like he's painting with a broad brush and saying all tree almost need it.
Without my commnets, Diver1 might have gone out and reduced every limb on his Oak, fearing they are all too long and heavy.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
it sounds like he's painting with a broad brush and saying all tree almost need it.

I'll work on narrowing my brush. NOt almost all trees by any means, but far more than you see the need for, largely because I'm in zone 7 and you're in what 4?

Re Diver's tree, I've seen too many succumb to rot after big limbs rip off to cry Caution too loudly about shortening limbs on it.

More details about selective heading cuts:
December 5th, 2002 was a day that will live forever in tree infamy in Raleigh, NC. An inch and one-quarter of ice put a crushing load on the area’s arboreal resources. Huge limbs dangled like Damocletian swords, grotesque ornaments greeting their owners.

Contractors were told they had to cut every broken branch back to a substantial lateral, called “Natural Target Pruning” or “Shigo Cuts”. They were also told, following FEMA guidelines, to remove trees with 50% crown loss. But obeying the first rule would remove so much more crown; many trees would get removed that could be restored. FEMA’s policy was to pay by the ton of debris. “Rules are too absolute for Mother Nature”—Alex Shigo. It was time to set aside those Cliff’s Notes versions of arboriculture and read the directions, the ANSI A300 Pruning Standards.

ANSI A300 5.7.4.1, “Restoration shall consist of selective pruning to improve structure…of trees that have been severely…damaged.” 4.20, “heading: 2. Cutting an older branch or stem back to a stub in order to meet a defined structural objective. 5.5.6, “Heading should be considered an acceptable practice…to reach a defined objective.” A recent magazine article on drop-crotch pruning says that making deep reduction cuts is like topping, but defensible after storms. The article further states heading cuts are wrong for shade trees, but in a previous article the same author advocated heading cuts on fruit trees. In vine, shrub and fruit tree pruning, bonsai, pollarding and other arboriculture, heading cuts are routinely made. So is it always wrong to leave a stub in a big tree?

The damage from this exceptional storm clearly called for exceptions to these rules. Following ISA’s motto of “Science, Research, Preservation”, we reexamined pruning protocol. Preserving trees was the goal; preserving branches was one means to that goal. It is said that pruning rarely benefits the health of the tree, so when in doubt we pruned as little as possible. First came the understanding that “Topping is done internodal; proper crown reduction is done at nodes, OR at crotches. So the first separation must be nodes—good, internodes—bad.” (A New Tree Biology, p. 458)

WINDTHROW, DECAY AND SUNBURN

If removing the damaged branches back to the center of the tree will remove large amounts of weight from one side, this could increase the potential for uprooting. According to Claus Mattheck and Helge Breloer in the Body Language of Trees, a lopsided crown reduces the soil friction with the tree’s roots on the side where weight has been removed. If the weight has been removed from the windward side “The crown shape and the wind then combine forces to lift the pruned side of the crown, so reducing the normal stress and indeed perhaps transforming it into tensile stresses (i.e., lift!). When this happens, the effective sliding surface between the root-ball and the ground is so severely reduced that the tree blows over far more easily.” So after storms reduce one side of the crown, the weight conserved by cutting to nodes instead of drop-crotching works to retain the tree’s hold on the soil.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

And more:
Avoiding decay is another good reason to make nodal cuts just below the storm-caused wounds. As Schwarze, Engels and Mattheck remind us in 2001’s Fungal Strategies of
Wood Decay in Trees, large wounds on trunks are unlikely to close before they start cracking and become “motorways for decay-causing fungi and bacteria.” racing into the heart of the tree. Now more than ever, our strategy must be to minimize the size of wounds, the infection courts that we leave behind. Another reason for retaining branches that Nature topped is sun injury. “…when trees are suddenly exposed to direct sunlight…The bark cambium is affected and the outer bark plates are flattened” (A New Tree Biology Dictionary, p. 109) These injuries are slow to seal because the tree’s interior bark is very thin. Also, the sun dries the tissue at the edge of the visible injury so it cannot callus effectively. Like a big pruning cut on a stem, sun-damaged bark is an infection court that may never be sealed.

If we are called upon to restore a tree damaged years before, we would find sprouts from latent buds already established. Do we remove the entire leader or thin the sprouts? The tree has produced the sprouts to restore the crown on its own. Removing entire damaged branches defeats this natural regrowth and takes needed resources away from the tree. A compromise is often best, removing the worst of the decayed and cracked wood, but leaving vigorous sprouts.

Restorative heading cuts are not random and predetermined, as topping cuts are, but selected according to biological criteria. Some nodes are only growth points where leaves grew out of the bark. When released, they will put out relatively weak growth that is only attached to the bark. Terminal nodes contain buds associated with a terminal bud. The following characteristics can make terminal nodes good natural targets.

BUMPS, BULGES AND WRINKLES

BUMPS on branches can indicate locations of nodes. Preformed lateral buds, complete with scales, are tucked into some of these bumps. Sometimes visible to the naked eye, they are ready to assume apical dominance. Inside some of these buds, pith trails into the heart of the parent are enclosed by compacted xylem. Research is needed to establish how well this deep grip attaches the growth from these latent buds. But after this storm the best targets had to be chosen, and the tree’s response managed. Bumps caused by galls or cankers or other diseases will, on close inspection, differ greatly in appearance. These conditions indicate an inappropriate location for a heading cut; the target must be sound wood.


BULGES just before a decrease in diameter are often target indicators. A cut just outside a bulge will retain more symmetry and structure. If drop-crotching exposes the remaining branches to more stress and strain, will the tree be safer than if heading cuts were made? As Karl Niklas noted in the Tree Structure and Mechanics Proceedings, “When exposed by the removal of neighboring stems, previously sheltered and mechanically reliable body parts may deform or break even under wind conditions that are ‘normal’.” The damping effect of limbs, thickened by torque, tends to hold undamaged branches in place.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Pg 3
Avoiding decay is another good reason to make nodal cuts just below the storm-caused wounds. As Schwarze, Engels and Mattheck remind us in 2001’s Fungal Strategies of
Wood Decay in Trees, large wounds on trunks are unlikely to close before they start cracking and become “motorways for decay-causing fungi and bacteria.” racing into the heart of the tree. Now more than ever, our strategy must be to minimize the size of wounds, the infection courts that we leave behind. Another reason for retaining branches that Nature topped is sun injury. “…when trees are suddenly exposed to direct sunlight…The bark cambium is affected and the outer bark plates are flattened” (A New Tree Biology Dictionary, p. 109) These injuries are slow to seal because the tree’s interior bark is very thin. Also, the sun dries the tissue at the edge of the visible injury so it cannot callus effectively. Like a big pruning cut on a stem, sun-damaged bark is an infection court that may never be sealed.

If we are called upon to restore a tree damaged years before, we would find sprouts from latent buds already established. Do we remove the entire leader or thin the sprouts? The tree has produced the sprouts to restore the crown on its own. Removing entire damaged branches defeats this natural regrowth and takes needed resources away from the tree. A compromise is often best, removing the worst of the decayed and cracked wood, but leaving vigorous sprouts.

Restorative heading cuts are not random and predetermined, as topping cuts are, but selected according to biological criteria. Some nodes are only growth points where leaves grew out of the bark. When released, they will put out relatively weak growth that is only attached to the bark. Terminal nodes contain buds associated with a terminal bud. The following characteristics can make terminal nodes good natural targets.

BUMPS, BULGES AND WRINKLES

BUMPS on branches can indicate locations of nodes. Preformed lateral buds, complete with scales, are tucked into some of these bumps. Sometimes visible to the naked eye, they are ready to assume apical dominance. Inside some of these buds, pith trails into the heart of the parent are enclosed by compacted xylem. Research is needed to establish how well this deep grip attaches the growth from these latent buds. But after this storm the best targets had to be chosen, and the tree’s response managed. Bumps caused by galls or cankers or other diseases will, on close inspection, differ greatly in appearance. These conditions indicate an inappropriate location for a heading cut; the target must be sound wood.


BULGES just before a decrease in diameter are often target indicators. A cut just outside a bulge will retain more symmetry and structure. If drop-crotching exposes the remaining branches to more stress and strain, will the tree be safer than if heading cuts were made? As Karl Niklas noted in the Tree Structure and Mechanics Proceedings, “When exposed by the removal of neighboring stems, previously sheltered and mechanically reliable body parts may deform or break even under wind conditions that are ‘normal’.” The damping effect of limbs, thickened by torque, tends to hold undamaged branches in place.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

4th and last page; you asked for it MM.

photosynthesis and the tree will decline. Diameter growth may suffer if the live crown ratio…is reduced to 40 percent or less. Reduction in diameter growth slows down wood production and the closure of wounds (The Practice of Silviculture). For this reason, growth regulators may not be appropriate for trees with large wounds.

Canopy conservation is the ultimate reason for minimizing crown losses. When nature radically removes portions of our tree canopy, it’s up to the arborist to save what’s left. Trees are dynamic systems. The more of the tree we conserve, the more present and future benefits such as clean air and water we will conserve. As measured by American Forests’ CityGreen software, our urban tree canopy delivers high value that should not be removed without a very good reason. One mature willow oak can recycle over two hundred gallons of water per day. Restoration of damaged trees benefits the tree, the tree owner and the community.

In the Years to Come

Aftercare is often very easy but it is important to communicate to the clients and stakeholders that the restoration process requires additional work to complete. The dominant sprouts can be trained to become the new branches. Removing the weaker and poorly placed sprouts will make room for the best. These dominant sprouts can be shortened if they are too rangy, and side branches can be thinned if they are too crowded. On mature oaks, every three years seems about right. Some branches that were headed back in 1996 after Hurricane Fran just got their second thinning. They now have three strongly attached, natural-looking branch ends to carry on the growth of the tree.

What looked like ugly stubs at first grew into attractive, safe and symmetrical portions of our valuable tree canopy. Some observers initially object to the sight of reduced branches because they are reminded of topping cuts. It may be time for the anti-topping passion to finally cool a little bit, so we can start to consider heading cuts without first worrying about them looking like topping. Is there any good reason for adhering to simple specifications if that means carving bigger holes in damaged tree canopies, and risking imbalance, decay, sunscald, and anchorage loss?

For the cost of three pruning jobs, the expense of removal and replacement can be avoided. So if air masses collide over you this and crush your canopy, you can guide your trees’ restoration by heading for better form.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The text you posted talks mostly about storm damage repair. Much of which I agree with.
The last page has some interesting contradictions, are the first and second half written by two different people?
First it says:
"Diameter growth may suffer if the live crown ratio…is reduced to 40 percent or less. Reduction in diameter growth slows down wood production and the closure of wounds."

I like the idea, but where he came up with 40%, I don't know. Any loss of crown will slow wood production.

Anyway, then it goes on to say:
"Canopy conservation is the ultimate reason for minimizing crown losses. When nature radically removes portions of our tree canopy, it’s up to the arborist to save what’s left."

More good stuff, but the next paragraph lets me down with:
"Removing the weaker and poorly placed sprouts will make room for the best. These dominant sprouts can be shortened if they are too rangy, and side branches can be thinned if they are too crowded."

What happened to crown preservation???
I have seen many broken limbs left to do their own natural repairs. They start off with many small branches shooting out of the end. Soon some become dominant, while other slowly die off.
The end result of not cutting is nearly the same as the prunned result, except those smaller branches that slowly die off, on the unprunned tree, have had a longer time to contribute to food bank and also have more time to compartmentalize the point where they are attached, before they die and fall off.

This brings up a major point we disagree on. You contend that a weak and or slowly dying limb is a drain on the tree, while I think as long as it's alive it contributes to the tree. And even after it dies it is serving a purpose. Because "wounds on trunks are unlikely to close before they start cracking and become motorways for decay-causing fungi and bacteria racing into the heart of the tree" before the tree can set up effctive barriers.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Here's a bad picture of a dead limb. You can see where I tapped the bark to see the best spot to make the cut.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

This shot shows that even though the limb was dead long enough for the bark to be mostly loose, it still had not finished dying.
This cut is into living tissue and the heart of the tree is now exposed.

 

[MasterBlaster]

The pics are too small, Mike... I can't quit see 'em!

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Sorry about the size, how about how the camera focused on the ground way behind the tree?

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
"Diameter growth may suffer if the live crown ratio…is reduced to 40 percent or less. Reduction in diameter growth slows down wood production and the closure of wounds."

I like the idea, but where he came up with 40%, I don't know. [/B]The above is a quote from forestry research.

I have seen many broken limbs left to do their own natural repairs. They start off with many small branches shooting out of the end. Soon some become dominant, while other slowly die off.
You're right in saying that nature usually sorts things out ok. The trouble comes when sprouts are codominant, leading to poor attachment and the risk of future splitting. That's when thinning is needed; certainly not always.

This brings up a major point we disagree on. You contend that a weak and or slowly dying limb is a drain on the tree, while I think as long as it's alive it contributes to the tree. And even after it dies it is serving a purpose. Because "wounds on trunks are unlikely to close before they start cracking and become motorways for decay-causing fungi and bacteria racing into the heart of the tree" before the tree can set up effctive barriers.

Dead branches on trees are channels for decay even more than a collar cut. Yes dying branches are sending resources back to the rest of the tree, while also sending decay in the same direction. To cut or not depends on the relative importance of the resources and the decay, where to cut depends on the same plus the quality of the node or collar.

Glad (most of) it makes sense to you. Sorry I left out a page and copied one twice, but you get the idea. I was afraid to put all 4 in one msg for size's sake. The text is mine except for the quoted references.