Natural Pruning Targets--Dormant Buds at Nodes

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

treeseer

Advocatus Pro Arbora
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
6,904
Reaction score
368
Location
se usa
“Pruning properly done is one of the most difficult tree treatments. Every branch will be different…Rules are too absolute for Mother Nature.” (Dr. Alex Shigo, A New Tree Biology). It’s possible to rely too much on the “1/3 Rule” as a criterion for deciding how far back to reduce a branch or stem. Some call this Natural Target Pruning, and criticize any cut to a smaller lateral as a topping cut. It is time for this anti-topping passion to cool, and look at the 1/3 guideline in the larger context. Laterals are also selected for vitality, health, exposure, and angle of attachment. A larger lateral may not be a good choice if it is weak, diseased, shaded, or growing in the wrong direction.

Nodes are Natural Targets

In A New Tree Biology Dictionary Dr. Shigo tells us, “Pruning cuts that are made at nodes cause less injury than cuts made at internodes…A node is the position on a stem or trunk that was occupied by the terminal bud and its associated buds.” “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) Dormant buds in these nodes were formed long before, and have a vascular connection to the cambium. The adventitious growth from these preformed buds can result in strong new branches, unlike the adventitious growth that originates from newly formed, adventitious buds.

Pic #1 is of a dormant bud visible on the outside of a red oak tem. Pic #2 is an inside shot of the same spot, showing a pith trail embraced by compacted xylem. Tropical and semi-tropical species do not have such well-defined nodes, perhaps because their growing seasons are not as well-defined. On any tree, laterals are of course preferred pruning targets. Leaving stubs is an option when branches are broken and there are no laterals left.

If you see dormant buds at nodes in your area's trees, please slice them at that point to expose pith trails and post the pictures. If they are used in the ongoing research project, you will get attribution. Below pictures taken by Jim Scarlata, Manistee MI.
 
Last edited:
Guy,
You mentioned a larger context....
I think here the true larger context is the capitalist system in which we work.... I have to make a living and occasionally I Am asked to prune trees in a way which I don't like.... Or run into storm damage or situations where a branch must be removed because it is intefering...

In those situations my former perspective was to just cut the limb off with a proper target cut... After hearing your talk in Pittsburgh I have changed that and will always look for a way to cut back to a node.... leaving a stub which can be unsightly, yet is better for the tree than a cut on the main stem...

Our industry needs to realize the difference between topping, which as an optional pruning method is a terrible practice and cutting back to nodes which is preferable to entire branch removal, when situations arise where the branch must be removed...
 
Guy, typically the 1/3 rule is applied to a single lateral off of the parent branch.
what if you have two laterals off the parent branch, say within several of inches of each other, and while neither lateral is 1/3 the size of the parent branch individually, together their mass is more than 1/3.
could the two laterals combined be considered as satisfying the 1/3 rule?
and if so, how close together or far apart may they be?
I have used that criteria many times so as to not reduce the parent branch too far.
 
Mike Barcaskey said:
what if you have two laterals off the parent branch, say within several of inches of each other, and while neither lateral is 1/3 the size of the parent branch individually, together their mass is more than 1/3.
could the two laterals combined be considered as satisfying the 1/3 rule?
First, I don't think that's a rule that needs satisfying, but yeah I think angling a cut between two laterals can be a good cut, even if neither of them is clearly going to assume apical dominance. Check the heading cut on the Leyland cypress in the last Arborist News p. 60, for example.
and if so, how close together or far apart may they be?
I have used that criteria many times so as to not reduce the parent branch too far.
No set distance. As long as the wound can close and regrowth goes where it needs to, it sounds good to me.

"leaving a stub which can be unsightly, yet is better for the tree than a cut on the main stem..."

Dan, as long as the stub can turn back into a good branch over time, that's what matters imo. I'm not sure I see capitalism as the relevant context here--we'd have the same issues under socialism or a monarchy, wouldn't we?

I hope you guys are willing to find some dormant buds--they're all over on oaks--and slice some branches to show the pith trails.
 
Last edited:
Dan, as long as the stub can turn back into a good branch over time, that's what matters imo. I'm not sure I see capitalism as the relevant context here--we'd have the same issues under socialism or a monarchy, wouldn't we?

Guy ... this is an old difference of opinion....
You think that money has no influence on how or why you prune trees the way you do.... RIGHT??? You've got plenty of work etc....

I just shake my head
 
Can some-one please get some red arrows and stuff on the disected piece and show me what I'm supposed to be looking for?

Also, can we see some pics of node reduced branches over a period of time, I aint sold!
 
So, possible stupid question here but... when pruning, is the cut made through the node? ...just past it? ... somewhere else?
 
Ekka said:
Also, can we see some pics of node reduced branches over a period of time, I aint sold!


id like to see this as well. examing firewood size logs really isnt showing us how the tree reacts to this theory
 
Ok i have to be honest here.I have no idea what a node is.I looked it up and all i can find is info about computers.So if i could ask for some one to please enlighten me to what exactly a node is since its quite a hot topic lately.Not trying to be funny or sarcastic,just trying to catch up.Thanks guys.
 
What is a node?

Go and look at a small branch or twig - wherever you see a lateral branch/twig coming off, where it is attached - that is a node. The 'blank' space in between is an internode.

Also, wherever that lateral branch or twig arises, there is a bud tucked in there as well, so, if that branch 'fell' off, was cut off, whatever, then there is the potential for a new branch to grow from that site when any apical dominance is reduced ( by pruning or otherwise)

What these chaps are saying, if I get it right, that a reduction cut to a 'blank' node, i/e a suppressed bud that has been there all the time, has the potential to grow out into a well attached branch as the bud tissue has it's origins deep into the tree. - Did I get this right??
 
l2edneck said:
Ok i have to be honest here.I have no idea what a node is.I looked it up and all i can find is info about computers.

Hey, you did type in node not nerd didn't you? :laugh:

This link is one of the best for showing stuff like this and the differences between dicots and monocots

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...odes&start=40&ndsp=20&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

Palms are monocots, no nodes there mate.

But, and this is my BIG THING.

When you cut back to a node on a size-able branch >4" dia, do you get just one decent branch growing or a festoon of stuff as depicted in my many pics of lop jobs?
 
TreeCo said:
Two or three years later the 'best' of this 'festoon' of sprouts needs selecting by an arborist to remain and most of these other sprouts need removed.
Did you think I'd let you get away with this one Dan?
The only "need" is the need for an arborist to use his saw and make some money. A large branch that is stubbed back, has huge battles to fight. It needs plenty of ammo, and it needs the ammo at the battle field, if it's going to win the war. For a tree, the ammos are the products of photosynthesis. How's photosynthesis going to happen when you're up there cutting most of the leaves off?!?

...their ice storm damage fared far worse than those trees that had not been touched by an arborist....not been touched by an arborist!
Seems consistent with my comments, doesn't it?
 
TreeCo said:
The only sprouts that would need attention would be those that would be structurally weakly attached and 2 or 3 years is too soon.
I agree too. at first I thought restoration work should be 3 and 6 years after heading damaged limbs. Now that i look at them 3 years later, I'm thinking that 5 and 10 years later may be a better cycle on these mature willow oaks. I'm still restoring a few (and reducing a few to have pieces to dissect) this winter though.

Formation of codominants and overcrowding Requires some followup restoration thinning and subordination. Like any pruning, it should not be overdone, but the tree can afford to lose some leaves when it has an overabundance.
 
This is an interesting suggeston, that a tree can have too many leaves or branches. How about roots, can a tree have too many roots?
I can see removing shoots that are causing structural problems for those shoots which will become permanent limbs. But like you say, that is in years to come.
 
Mike Maas said:
This is an interesting suggeston, that a tree can have too many leaves or branches. How about roots, can a tree have too many roots?
I can see removing shoots that are causing structural problems for those shoots which will become permanent limbs. But like you say, that is in years to come.
"Overabundance" does not mean "too many', it means "more than enough":)

So Mike can you dissect some bur and black oak nodes, and other northern sp.?
 
TreeCo said:
I think you've got it right but there is not a twig or lateral branch at dormant (latent) nodes. These dormant nodes were formed when the branch was a twig....and have been carried along with the growth of the limb and are present in the cambium and the pith trail is evidence.

Right, that's what I thought, as someone said, with tropical/sub tropical wood, there is not a lot of visible evidence of where a dormant node is. I'll keep my eyes open.
Interesting debate. Needs pictoral evidence of this kind of cut done a few years ago and the resultant growth/callusing.
 
Mike Maas said:
This is an interesting suggeston, that a tree can have too many leaves or branches. How about roots, can a tree have too many roots?
I can see removing shoots that are causing structural problems for those shoots which will become permanent limbs. But like you say, that is in years to come.

In my experiance it can be species dependant too, along with age of the tree.

If you have a tight bunch of sprouts that have some "basal" conflict, it seems to be better for the tree in the long run.

This is of course anicdotal and mostly gatthered from years of working with apples, silver and norway maple.
 
John Paul Sanborn said:
If you have a tight bunch of sprouts that have some "basal" conflict, it seems to be better for the tree in the long run.
This is of course anicdotal and mostly gatthered from years of working with apples, silver and norway maple.
Yeah documenting this restoration pruning--thinning and subordination of sprouts--is really tough to do. Getting pictures that show it clearly is hard, but I'll be trying again when the leaves are off this winter.

Proving the benefits, with so many variables at play, harder yet. The best way is to dissect the branch ends, but that defeats the purpose of the work. That's why I was looking for pictures of pith trails in other species. :help:
 
OK, inspired by this well-timed thread I took a look at some of the branches I pruned from a maple on Monday. I found what I think were dormant buds--Nodes, and sectioned them to see if I could find pith trails. This is what I came up with...

Node1.jpg


Node2.jpg


So, is this what you guys are talking about or am I all wet?
 
Yeah those are them all right. Very nice pictures. :popcorn: I think I'll want to barter some time with you and your camera next week.

If the top of a limb is broken, it's often best to cut back to one of those nodes than to take the whole limb off. This is specialty pruning for special cases, not everyday work. Also, on lower branches you may not get the response you want due to shade.
 
Back
Top