pruning honey locust

Rugged made
Wesspur
shop deals on amazon
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Mike, you make a good case for leaving lower branches intact. And I agree, to a point. However, in the real world, not many of my clients have acres of open space in which to allow this type of growth. Most of the trees I prune are on small residential lots with houses, driveways, sidewalks, playsets, pools, plants, etc., etc., etc. nearby. We often get called in to elevate these trees away from these structures. It would be unrealistic to expect theses clients to leave branches that are hitting their house, car and whatnot. Where trees and people co-exist, you cannot always do what is best for the tree. There has to some compromise.
I also agree with JPS about subordinating for future removal. (Gilman is the best). Unfortunately, it is often difficult to sell long-term tree care to people who expect INSTANT results. As an industry, this is something we need to work on.
 
Treedude14,
Thank you for your comments.
I know about the real world. Where folks get confused, is just because the tree over the house has to be raised, that doesn't mean every tree on the lot has to be raised to that same height. In fact, that tree over the house could just be lightly raised, and only on that one side. While we are talking about that tree over the roof, why not lightly subordinate that branch and save it, instead of stripping it off completely?

Nobody has explained to me why evergreens are allowed have lower branches, almost always, but diciduous trees can never have them.

I realize some people like lion tailing trees, they think it looks good or whatever, that does not make it good for the tree and should NOT be reccommended as a standard course of action.
It does not look natural, it is not what's best for the tree.

Admit it, you guys walk on the job and cut every branch you can reach from the ground.

Don't do that any more.
 
The example trees you give both conform to the area they are in.

If the ash was in a clients front yard and they waned it raise up, what would you advise them to do. They want an unubstructed veiw to the street except for the trunk. They just moved in last fall and want it done profesionaly.

Go back to the first message and my reply, no where have I advocated street pruning to every tree. My reply was to a person wanting "prune the tree way back". Mybe I should ahve said "if you want to remove large low branches..."

Not every tree can look like the oak you picture with a 60 foot canopy spread at ground level.

Now lets say that a small oak was planted a few years ago 10 feet from an old victorian style house. What are we going to do with the low branches on it?

Or the above honeylocust is planted next to a deck, as a limbthat is 50% of the trunk circumfrance going out a few degrees above parralel with the deck at 6 feet?
 
I'm not telling you where that tree is, you might cut off all those lower limbs.

You asked:

"If the ash was in a clients front yard and they waned it raise up, what would you advise them to do. They want an unubstructed veiw to the street except for the trunk. They just moved in last fall and want it done profesionaly. "

I ask: what if you replace the words "raise up" with "top out"?

Will you explain to them how it affects the tree or just whack off the branches. Will you convince them to leave the branches every time? No, but most of the time.

Next you assked:

"Now lets say that a small oak was planted a few years ago 10 feet from an old victorian style house. What are we going to do with the low branches on it? "

I would train the limbs away from the house with small, proper prunning cuts. I would not simply remove every lower branch.

Then:

"Or the above honeylocust is planted next to a deck, as a limbthat is 50% of the trunk circumfrance going out a few degrees above parralel with the deck at 6 feet?"

These trees are the easiest trees to directionally prune, subordinate.

Some lower branches need to come off, but not most. And when they are removed, it's usually not for tree health, it's usually unskilled arborist taking the fast and easy way out of a problem by "stripping it up!"
 
Dude, you're using silly hyperboly too much. I'm not saying "strip the branches all the way up". Never have, never will.

We are basicly saying the same thing. In past posts I've advodated subordination with the possiblity of removal or leaving the branch as a futur options for the home owner. I vae convinced people to leave large low limbs over structures this way too.

Subordination and directional pruning? Didn't I say that allready??

I am still saying if a low limb needs to come off, do it in stages, when ever possible. Not all at once. If a tree needs to have a structure that requirs no low branching then the low branches need to be controled so that they do not develop any girth to keep the future wounds as small as possible.

>>I'm not telling you where that tree is, you might cut off all those lower limbs.

As for that FY2MF:D. I'd never poach a job an anyone. Wait a while to edit that please :D
 
Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn

>>I'm not telling you where that tree is, you might cut off all those lower limbs.

As for that FY2MF:D.
Click to expand...

:D :D

Mike, you need to get over your bad self. You're talking to the best of the best here. IMHO;)
 
:blush:

Mikes a good guy, I've talked to him at several conferances. I think he likes goading me from time to time.

His area has a lot of those big oaks he pictured. I've done work for Greg Good (the GRCS guy) in the Dousman area, and when I was running a crew for the local TC/CL branch. You can get into trees on some of those old properties and transfer from crown to crown without coming down til your hungry, or it's dark.
 
I didn't mean this to be a personal attack on John, I never worked with him, so I can't comment on his work. I am picking on him, in this thread, because he said:

"Low branches should be reduced to stunt then and removed at a later date."

This may be a mis-statement by John, but it makes it sound like there is some benifit to the tree, to remove it's lower branches. This is a common misconception. Another common misconception is it's good for the tree to remove small inner branches, so let's put them together and call it over trimming.

I have seen lots of other tree trimmres work, and over trimming is the number one mistake that 90% of them make, IMHO. Yes, even some of the highly reguarded companies I see at the conferences have crews that are routinely overtrimming. Things may be different outside the midwest, but this is the case here.

Over trimming takes place at the bottom and center of the tree. It takes place here because, for the unskilled arborists, these are the places they can easily reach. Perhaps those inner branches interupt their climb. Once many of the inner branches are removed, the remaining look out of place(to the untrained eye) and are stripped out.

The lower branches are always under attack. Consider the reasons carefully. My least favorite reason: the branch is hard to mow under. Go back and look at my list in the middle of this thread. Think about the trees' health. Think about the character and beauty of the Oak I showed.

My second least favorite reason for removing lower limbs: They grow that way in the forest. This is just silly, yet it was brought up in this very thread as a defense for lower limb removal.

I say 90% of lower branches removed, even by so called skilled arborists, do not need removal. These cuts hurt the very trees we are hired to improve.
 
Is that a bur oak Mike? This is a savanah tre that has evolved (or was created) to gow in an open fashion. Put a sugar maple in the same situation and it would not look so grand at that stage in its life.

Trees are real property, we need to balance what is best of the tree and what the client needs.

Training a tree to be high branching is not going to deform them. IM(not so)HO there is no reason to have all trees low branching in a landscape anyways. We can take a trees growth habits survival stratigies and assist it to become a tall healthy long lived plant.

>>My second least favorite reason for removing >>lower limbs: They grow that way in the forest. >>This is just silly, Yet it was brought up in >>this very thread as a defense for lower limb >>removal.

Lack of natural branch sheding is a cause of low limb structural problems in forest stand native trees grown in the open. Allowing large groups of low limbs to stay on the tree can effectivly girdle the above stem by out compeating them and cutting off water and nutrient (sic) conduction, causing decline in the center top. In most situations we mwould want to remove some low branches and subordinate the remaninder, and maybe remove some more at a later date. this should be concideed corrective or trianing pruning just as controling an included codom stem.

Where am I being silly? :jester:

As for my initial post, it was to a partuclar question of heavy pruning, with a links on proper pruning.

there are acidemic publications out there depicting heading cuts (read "long stubs") on low branches to maintain leaf mass in the trunk area, while controling branch diamiter.

Whay should the tree put resourses into a part of the system that will probibly be hacked off by someone else a decade or so in the future? Planning the trees mature structure is part of the arborists job.
 
Poor zjs........

I believe if I were to take a drive to IL/WI border, I would find zjs in his yard planting a new 15' MARBLE PILLAR in the place where that honey locust was stripped of all it's pride. I agree with both your ideas on the subject, in fact you both sound like professionals, but I think the dog is dead. FLATFILER


Keep it simple feller's.....................Works for me!!!!!


Maybe this will ease the tension..........
 
What a DOLL!!! what an outfit!!! Nice left-handed saw, too :confused: I know, who's looking at the saw? :D
 
What, thats why i buy the magazines:confused:.

I used to ahve a sub to Easy Rider. People would not belive I got it to look at the bikes. :rolleyes: I'd buy penthouse if I wanted to look at chicks! Now i got a computer!;) Al learing smiley would do better there. eyebrows bobing up and down.
 
Flatfiler, the dog isn't dead.

I'm having fun here, back to the subject.

JPS wrote:

"Put a sugar maple in the same situation and it would not look so grand at that stage in its life."

I disagree, Sugar maples are beautiful open grown trees, but require lower braches to protect their roots and trunk in this environment, as you know they are understory trees. They have thin, shallow roots which don't stand the hot sun beating down on them, guess what, low branches make shade.

JPS also mentioned that whorled branches may enlarge and girdle a trees trunk. I am not saying all structural problems must be ignored below 15'. I would recomend repairing problems early.

Low branches are not a structural problem, they benefit the tree in many ways.

JPS also asked:

"Where am I being silly?"

Your logic that forest trees shed most of their lower limbs, therefore all lower limbs should be cut off homeowner's trees... that's silly.

Using that logic, the girl in that last jpg has really big boobs and everyone likes her, I should get big boobs and everyone would like me.

Here's a good one:

"Whay should the tree put resourses into a part of the system that will probibly be hacked off by someone else a decade or so in the future? "

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't a limb put resources into the tree?

Try to think of a limb like a seperate tree, if you will. When you are deciding how to trim a branch, do you automatically remove everything for 6 to 8 feet out that branch?

Let's use your arguements:
If you look at branches in the forest they often don't have lateral branches for the first 6-8 feet.
Those branches might whorl and girdle/kill the branch.
The new homeowner might not like them and the tree will have wasted resources growing them, only to have them removed.
Some species grow with branches like that.
It could be codominant.
Conclusion:
All the books are wrong, liontailing is good!

When a skilled arborist trims a tree it becomes a thing of beauty. For me the beauty lies, in part, in knowing that the tree was trimmed for long term health. Trees which are raised up, like a forest grown tree, and then grown in the open, are put in a very stressfull situation with poor long term prognoses.

There are valid reasons for removing limbs, and we all know these reasons, being low is not a valid reason to remove a limb.
 
Mike and John,
Thanks for the discussion. Bottom line, as arborist you both are careing for living organisms. And I love the passion from both sides.

I agree with Mike - the nursery industry produces ugly trees. And with John we have to work with what we are given.

LEAVE THE LIMBS! (as much as you can).
 

Similar threads

D
Pruning
Replies
10
Views
558
alanbaker
A
RemiYardAlex
Acer rubrum pruning
Replies
4
Views
358
pdqdl
pdqdl
andrew wood
Best Time to Prune New Purple Leaf Plum Trees (Prunus Cerasifera)
Replies
4
Views
1K
thenne1713
T
M
Oak tree decay/hollow
Replies
13
Views
2K
leaf
L
E
Straighten a tree; establish a tall trunk
Replies
4
Views
895
edlank
E

Latest posts

Back
Top