We had a honey locust planted last year in may. It has a 3"diameter trunk and is approx 15' tall. The tree looks like it has never been pruned with many branches very uneven. Also, a few branches did not produce leaves last yr, probably because of digging out of rootball. I would like to prune the tree way back to give it a good shape. Can you tell me how much I can cut off and when is a good time to do the pruning. I live in midwest at Ill/Wi border. thanks ZJ
pruning honey locust
- Thread starter zjs
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
treeman82
Addicted to ArboristSite
You can probably prune the tree now. Otherwise prune it in the summer time. Pretty much when it is not either producing or shedding leaves. As a rule of thumb you should never remove more than 1/3 of the growth of a tree at one time. I believe that you are talking about water sprouts on the tree and that is common with honey locusts. If you prune those off now they will be back in a few years. You may want to either attend a local discussion being held on pruning at which you can ask questions, or you can call a qualified arborist in for consultation. Probably the cheaper route would be the seminar at which you will learn other useful information anyways.
Jay Banks
ArboristSite Operative
Also you don't have to remove every thing now. Prune out the higher offending branches wait a year and watch the tree. Then prune a few more next year.
I take several years to train young trees by removing several branches at a time. Plus it gives you time to become more comfortable with pruning.
I take several years to train young trees by removing several branches at a time. Plus it gives you time to become more comfortable with pruning.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
ZJS, take a nice digital photo and we will make little lines where you should prune. I'm serious.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
Just click on browse(after reply to this post, and you type your message), find the picture in your computer and press open.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
I got the idea from my brother in law, a boat mechanic. He got a call and was talking to one of his buddies on the phone. I overheard him saying, " OK now hold the phone on the left side of the motor...a little closer... a little closer, Ok, now back to to the right side...
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Low branches should be reduced to stunt then and removed at a later date.
Here are some links on proper pruning.
Here are some links on proper pruning.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
I disagree. Lower branches should not be removed, unless it is absolutely necessary. For example, if a branch is growing into a road, and no matter how hard you try, the state will not close the road and divert traffic.
Lower branches on a tree are good. Think about a spruce tree, you would never think about going around to all your spruce trees and whacking off the lower 6' of branches, so why do we do that to our deciduous trees?
I would encourage you to make a nice mulch ring aroud the tree a leave the lower branches alone.
Should we make a list of benefits of lower branches?
OK, I'll start.
1. They poke the lawn boy in the eye, when he tries to ram the tree trunk with his machine.
2. They shades the root zone.
3. They reduce soil temperature extremes.
4. They encourages soil micro orginisms.
5. They helps maintain soil moisture.
6. They reduces compaction, by keeping people and machines off.
7. They reduces competition from grass or other plants that would occupy that space.
8. They help develop proper trunk taper.
9. They add to food producing biomass without creating as much sail effect on the tree as higher limbs.
I'll stop now, but not 'cus I'm out of reasons, just though others might want to add to the list. I challenge you to go under a spruce tree in the heat of the summer and poke into the soil a little with your finger, you'll see.
Lower branches on a tree are good. Think about a spruce tree, you would never think about going around to all your spruce trees and whacking off the lower 6' of branches, so why do we do that to our deciduous trees?
I would encourage you to make a nice mulch ring aroud the tree a leave the lower branches alone.
Should we make a list of benefits of lower branches?
OK, I'll start.
1. They poke the lawn boy in the eye, when he tries to ram the tree trunk with his machine.
2. They shades the root zone.
3. They reduce soil temperature extremes.
4. They encourages soil micro orginisms.
5. They helps maintain soil moisture.
6. They reduces compaction, by keeping people and machines off.
7. They reduces competition from grass or other plants that would occupy that space.
8. They help develop proper trunk taper.
9. They add to food producing biomass without creating as much sail effect on the tree as higher limbs.
I'll stop now, but not 'cus I'm out of reasons, just though others might want to add to the list. I challenge you to go under a spruce tree in the heat of the summer and poke into the soil a little with your finger, you'll see.
Last edited:
DDM
Addicted to ArboristSite
And if you dont think Mike knows what hes doing
ask to see Some of his Work........
Sorry I had to....
Later,
David
ask to see Some of his Work........
Sorry I had to....
Later,
David
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Low branches that may be codominant should treated as "temporary" branches. I'm not advocating inmmidiate removal, but if they will be a future obsrtuction then remove them while sitll small.
What is the long term goal of the plant in the landscape? Will it conflict with traffic in 10 years? Structures?
We need to train trees for their mature size while they are still small. Subordinate over time then remove when the limb is a small size compared to the trunk.
Now as for twigy growth, I'm all for leraving it on a young tree. maintain it so that it does not get any dominace though.
Gilman says that the average time for training a tree for form should be around 25 years.
If we have a tree that we want to be 15 feet before branching, whay allow the ones at 5 feet to gain any size?
That all said, I'm all fo leaving a tree to branch out low, if that is the desired mature form. Just maintain the low branches so that they dont achieve dominancer or effectively girdle the main inner stem in maturity.
What is the long term goal of the plant in the landscape? Will it conflict with traffic in 10 years? Structures?
We need to train trees for their mature size while they are still small. Subordinate over time then remove when the limb is a small size compared to the trunk.
Now as for twigy growth, I'm all for leraving it on a young tree. maintain it so that it does not get any dominace though.
Gilman says that the average time for training a tree for form should be around 25 years.
If we have a tree that we want to be 15 feet before branching, whay allow the ones at 5 feet to gain any size?
That all said, I'm all fo leaving a tree to branch out low, if that is the desired mature form. Just maintain the low branches so that they dont achieve dominancer or effectively girdle the main inner stem in maturity.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
First, lower branches are not usually co-dominant.
Second, if a co-dominant limb is subordinated, then latter is small compared to the trunk, why remove it?
Third, , if I don't want branches for the first 10 feet, and my new tree is 11' tall, your not suggesting...Yikes!
Second, if a co-dominant limb is subordinated, then latter is small compared to the trunk, why remove it?
Third, , if I don't want branches for the first 10 feet, and my new tree is 11' tall, your not suggesting...Yikes!
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Temporary branches Mike. I'm saying we donot remove them right away, but maintain them so that they do not get any real size relative to the trunk.
I'm using the latest definition of co-dom. A barnch that budded out the same time as the main lead. The pith is connected and it has no colar, no protective zones. The tissue is essentialy the same as the trunk.
We arborists need to see what the clients long term desire for the landscape is and help the tree to fit that so that a 10 inch limb will not need to be removed later init's life.
Hmm, where is it growning? can we control it away from there with subordination and directional pruning? Will it be knocking foreheads in 10 years?
And once again, do it in stages. Not all at once.
Then again, if the client want's a hasta bed under it then we just control the vitality to ensure they dont become "wolf limbs".
I'm using the latest definition of co-dom. A barnch that budded out the same time as the main lead. The pith is connected and it has no colar, no protective zones. The tissue is essentialy the same as the trunk.
We arborists need to see what the clients long term desire for the landscape is and help the tree to fit that so that a 10 inch limb will not need to be removed later init's life.
Hmm, where is it growning? can we control it away from there with subordination and directional pruning? Will it be knocking foreheads in 10 years?
And once again, do it in stages. Not all at once.
Then again, if the client want's a hasta bed under it then we just control the vitality to ensure they dont become "wolf limbs".
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
I'm using the latest definition of what's best for the TREE.
If an arborist is planting a tree, it shouldn't have co-dominant limbs, take it back to the nursery. Second, why are you planting it where it doesn't fit? Third, if it's just shade for the hostas, who cares?
What's got me going here is you initially recomended training lower limbs for removal, no information was given that they needed to be removed. That is the mentality that way too many people have about trees. How would you have reacted if I said you have to train the tree for future topping?
There is no more reason to remove bottom limbs than top limbs.
If you think about it, a topped tree can be repaired, a stripped up tree cannot. You cannot glue those branches back on the bottom, nor will they grow back.
Sure you can come up with example after example of reasons you want to remove all the lower branches, like, it might become codominant, it might poke you, it might scratch your car, or you want to rotto-till to plant hostas, but none of these reasons include TREE HEALTH.
When I see these trees I call them lion tails, lolly pops, head on a stick, or just plain ugly. I would never set out to make them look this way.
If a customer says to cut off a lower branch because it pokes him while he mows his lawn, I nicely explain to him that I can do that, but it's not what is best for the tree( see some reasons above). I might recommend he simply enlarge his mulch ring a few feet beyond the branch every few years. I might explain the beauty of a tree with a open grown form. Most folks want to do what's best for their trees, they just don't know better.
If an arborist is planting a tree, it shouldn't have co-dominant limbs, take it back to the nursery. Second, why are you planting it where it doesn't fit? Third, if it's just shade for the hostas, who cares?
What's got me going here is you initially recomended training lower limbs for removal, no information was given that they needed to be removed. That is the mentality that way too many people have about trees. How would you have reacted if I said you have to train the tree for future topping?
There is no more reason to remove bottom limbs than top limbs.
If you think about it, a topped tree can be repaired, a stripped up tree cannot. You cannot glue those branches back on the bottom, nor will they grow back.
Sure you can come up with example after example of reasons you want to remove all the lower branches, like, it might become codominant, it might poke you, it might scratch your car, or you want to rotto-till to plant hostas, but none of these reasons include TREE HEALTH.
When I see these trees I call them lion tails, lolly pops, head on a stick, or just plain ugly. I would never set out to make them look this way.
If a customer says to cut off a lower branch because it pokes him while he mows his lawn, I nicely explain to him that I can do that, but it's not what is best for the tree( see some reasons above). I might recommend he simply enlarge his mulch ring a few feet beyond the branch every few years. I might explain the beauty of a tree with a open grown form. Most folks want to do what's best for their trees, they just don't know better.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
I'm talking about tree healt too, long term.
Most trees in nature shed their lower limbs over time naturaly.
I'am not advocating whloesale removal of all low limbs at once. Veiw them as temporary parts of the tree that need to pe managed.
A stem branch does not become co-dominant, it is when it is formed. The structure of it's wood. It is part of the trunk. But I am not only talking of codom branching.
The post we origionaly were answering was talking about removing a large mass all at once. I'm advocating doing it slowly and adding reasons for it. I'm not talking about a tree I planted, even hypotheticaly, I' talking about young trees in general. We need to go beyond rubbing branches and tight unions if we want our clients property to be viable in the landscape for decades.
How many times have you cut off a branch that should have been removed years ago?
We as practitioners need to think in the long term. Not just in the frame of the plants current needs, but it's relationship to the clients future needs.
Most trees in nature shed their lower limbs over time naturaly.
I'am not advocating whloesale removal of all low limbs at once. Veiw them as temporary parts of the tree that need to pe managed.
A stem branch does not become co-dominant, it is when it is formed. The structure of it's wood. It is part of the trunk. But I am not only talking of codom branching.
The post we origionaly were answering was talking about removing a large mass all at once. I'm advocating doing it slowly and adding reasons for it. I'm not talking about a tree I planted, even hypotheticaly, I' talking about young trees in general. We need to go beyond rubbing branches and tight unions if we want our clients property to be viable in the landscape for decades.
How many times have you cut off a branch that should have been removed years ago?
We as practitioners need to think in the long term. Not just in the frame of the plants current needs, but it's relationship to the clients future needs.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
JPS wrote:
"Most trees in nature shed their lower limbs over time naturaly. "
Yes John, in the forest they have to grow this way to survive. Open grown trees keep and use their lower limbs. Tell me what happens when we do lot clearings and leave one mature tree, it falls over because it's a lions tail. It has no trunk tapper. It's designed to grow in the shelter of the forest. Why must you try to make all trees conform to YOUR idea of a proper looking tree, a lollypop growing out of a vulcano(see picture attached below).
Next John asks:
"How many times have you cut off a branch that should have been removed years ago? "
Almost never. My employer has an innate ability to inform customers what is best for their trees. We don't top trees or strip off lower branches, unless we are removing the tree. Sure there are structural issues in a tree, but we are talking about lower branches here .
Don't tell me that that lower branch grew there for 60 years with no problem, and now that JPS is there with his saw the branch has to go.
I've answered your questions, now answer mine.
Who decided, and why is it that all lower branches must be pre-managed for removal?
Do you also pre-manage lower braches for removal on an evergreen like a spruce?
"Most trees in nature shed their lower limbs over time naturaly. "
Yes John, in the forest they have to grow this way to survive. Open grown trees keep and use their lower limbs. Tell me what happens when we do lot clearings and leave one mature tree, it falls over because it's a lions tail. It has no trunk tapper. It's designed to grow in the shelter of the forest. Why must you try to make all trees conform to YOUR idea of a proper looking tree, a lollypop growing out of a vulcano(see picture attached below).
Next John asks:
"How many times have you cut off a branch that should have been removed years ago? "
Almost never. My employer has an innate ability to inform customers what is best for their trees. We don't top trees or strip off lower branches, unless we are removing the tree. Sure there are structural issues in a tree, but we are talking about lower branches here .
Don't tell me that that lower branch grew there for 60 years with no problem, and now that JPS is there with his saw the branch has to go.
I've answered your questions, now answer mine.
Who decided, and why is it that all lower branches must be pre-managed for removal?
Do you also pre-manage lower braches for removal on an evergreen like a spruce?
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
No tree of John's will ever look like this!
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
Sorry, downloaded wrong jpg and can't delete it.
Skip this post.
Skip this post.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Want to Sell PAIR OF VINTAGE POULAN / CRAFTSMAN CHAINSAWS, MODEL XX & 2000- Latest: Supercharged86