Pruning problem

[SINGLE-JACK]

Here's and example of a pruning problem I see alot. I have to remove the branch (sucker?) on the left. There is no well defined "collar" to cut to. So, what is the best final cut to make to minimize stress on the main stem (right), to offer the best chances of recovery and if possible callus over the wound?

 

[treemandan]

I would slice it as low as possible with a downward angle away from the trunk.

 

[ChipDoogle]

I agree, downward angle as far down as possible without getting into the main trunk

 

[TreEmergencyB]

i would cut it as low as possible but becareful not to make to much of an angle as it will make the wound larger in size..

 

[lego1970]

I was told by a local forrester that on something like that cut it low as possible and flat across. He said the goal was to keep the overall surface area of the cut as minimal as possible. He's well respected in the area, so that's how I do it nowadays. Before I would of cut it low and put a slant on it.

 

[randyg]

Flat cut or slant, it will die and decay either way. No way to cut it so it will heal.

Like to see more info on the flat vs. slant angle...

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Short easy answer: Cut where you would expect to see a collar, as close to the tree as you can without injuring the trunk.

Long hard answer: Removing a co-dominant stem is best done in stages over a long time. One would do repeated thinning cuts on the side being removed. Space the cutting over a number of years. This will slow the growth while the other half grows normally. As time goes on and the reduction cuts are done, the small stem will become subordinate and develop a collar. It will become smaller compared to the other half.
It could also become shaded and slowly die on its own. If this happens the tree will have set up strong barriers to decay and the final removal cut will be easy, just cut off the dead wood.
If it lives on, the stress put on the limb from cutting will signal the tree to set up those barriers to decay, so when you eventually make the final cut, it will be similar to a naturally shed limb.
Even if you don't have a number of years, if you have one year, do some hard trimming on the limb, wait a year, then do the final cut.

 

[SINGLE-JACK]

Short easy answer: Cut where you would expect to see a collar, as close to the tree as you can without injuring the trunk.

Long hard answer: Removing a co-dominant stem is best done in stages over a long time. One would do repeated thinning cuts on the side being removed. Space the cutting over a number of years. This will slow the growth while the other half grows normally. As time goes on and the reduction cuts are done, the small stem will become subordinate and develop a collar. It will become smaller compared to the other half.
It could also become shaded and slowly die on its own. If this happens the tree will have set up strong barriers to decay and the final removal cut will be easy, just cut off the dead wood.
If it lives on, the stress put on the limb from cutting will signal the tree to set up those barriers to decay, so when you eventually make the final cut, it will be similar to a naturally shed limb.
Even if you don't have a number of years, if you have one year, do some hard trimming on the limb, wait a year, then do the final cut.

Thanks, Mike! This is the kind of solution I've been looking for. I've tried several methods over the years, including the other cuts mentioned, without any long term success. I'll try your "long hard answer" methods.

Good post,
Jack

 

[treeseer]

I'll try your "long hard answer" methods.

Good idea; that can be an excellent learning experience. opcorn:

For once I agree with Knee; painted picture attached. There is a faintly visible sunken line that looks like the place to cut.

Gilman and Grabosky did some work with maples--in the ISA journal-- that agreed with that forester's opinion; equal discoloration no matter if cuts were flat or sloped. Interesting, but I'm not sure that discoloration is a reliable indicator of future decay, or that 3 years is enough time to give results that can make arboricutural Laws, or even guidelines.

What species, how healthy, is site shady, moist...? Some will die back at an angle, to that sunken area, and some will callus at the cut wherever it is.

 

[SINGLE-JACK]

Good idea; that can be an excellent learning experience. opcorn:

For once I agree with Knee; painted picture attached. There is a faintly visible sunken line that looks like the place to cut.

Gilman and Grabosky did some work with maples--in the ISA journal-- that agreed with that forester's opinion; equal discoloration no matter if cuts were flat or sloped. Interesting, but I'm not sure that discoloration is a reliable indicator of future decay, or that 3 years is enough time to give results that can make arboricutural Laws, or even guidelines.

What species, how healthy, is site shady, moist...? Some will die back at an angle, to that sunken area, and some will callus at the cut wherever it is.

My best guess; it's a healthy Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii) about 20 years old. It receives moderate sun in a small coppice of other species with well drained rocky soil near a gravel lane in Western Maryland, 1200' alt.

However, this type of pruning issue (extremely tight Y's) have always been a challenge. Some species do seem to respond better than others. About five years ago, I had a Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) with a co-dominant stem. I removed the lesser stem using the typical three cuts with the last cut made very much like your noted picture. (BTW thanks very much for your notes.)

I revisted the site this summer and found the tree appeared heathy but the callus was progressing slower than I expected. Within the callus the old stem was rotting and now catching water. Perhaps a Black Gum simply needs more time but I do not consider it a success.

So, I'm looking for a more reliable methods for removing co-dominant stems.

 

[VL07]

It looks like included bark all the way down, so make a horizonal cut as low as possible and it should just pull away from the main trunk. Nothing is connecting it.

 

[arborist]

It looks like included bark all the way down, so make a horizonal cut as low as possible and it should just pull away from the main trunk. Nothing is connecting it.

That's what i see as well here.

Generally,Id agree with this cut.But it does appear to be included bark all the way down.
If left cut high in this particular case,it would be like leaving a stub (it would never heal,only rot off over time,and could leave the main trunk open to decay and disease meanwhile.)

 

[treeseer]

It looks like included bark all the way down, so make a horizonal cut as low as possible and it should just pull away from the main trunk. Nothing is connecting it.

I agree about the apparent codominance going to the base, but how can you cut it all the way off without cutting into the other stem?
And what size wound are you leaving?
And are you SURE they are not connected?

"So, I'm looking for a more reliable methods for removing co-dominant stems. "

You and the rest of us too.

 

[arborist]

I agree about the apparent codominance going to the base, but how can you cut it all the way off without cutting into the other stem?
And what size wound are you leaving?
And are you SURE they are not connected?

"So, I'm looking for a more reliable methods for removing co-dominant stems. "

You and the rest of us too.

You need to be very careful,and cut very slowly.
Do not cut all the way.I prefer the use the small climbing saw for these particular cuts.
But you start,by cutting right into,like you will be removing a small trunk,as if the other main trunk was not there.
However,only most of the way.In this particular tree,cut until you have about a 1/4 of an inch to go.
Stop.
Now use your Peavey,to gently pry it off.IF you cut far enough,it will go "snap" and your done (you may want/need to cut off two little slivers on each side with your hand saw if it didn't brake clean.)

as for,what size wound are you leaving,
None.
Simply the couple inch high trunk.But no new scaring is introduced to the main trunk here.Being included bark,is already a wound.Once removed like any other pruning for removing included bark,the healing can begin.

Id be extremely surprised if these stems are connected.
Very certain here imho.

Again though,like you advised is generally best and most often used.
This is a little bit more rare.But iv removed many like this.Particularly in red maple around here.
Whenever they look like this,this is the method used with great success.

 

[treeseer]

ok good planthe peavey method can work, IF there is no inclusion. also cutting a notch and pulling it over can work. but in both cases if there is inclusion there needs to be chiseling to avoid damage. not hard just aggravating.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Generally,Id agree with this cut.But it does appear to be included bark all the way down.

It's your opinion the inclusion goes all th way down on both sides. So you think this is a seperate tree, not codominance.

If left cut high in this particular case,it would be like leaving a stub (it would never heal,only rot off over time,and could leave the main trunk open to decay and disease meanwhile.)

Your doing a removal, the small tree is dead, the large tree is unaffected.

Once removed like any other pruning for removing included bark,the healing can begin.

What will heal, the removed tree, or the un-injured larger tree?

If left cut high in this particular case,it would be like leaving a stub (it would never heal,only rot off over time,and could leave the main trunk open to decay and disease meanwhile.)

Since you don't think there is a vascular connection between the two trees, how is some dead wood going to open the other tree to disease?

Seer's theory, which I don't beleive for a second, is stubs rot faster than cuts closer to the tree. If you buy into this, leaving a stub will cause this small tree to disappear faster, so the main tree isn't "open" to disease longer.

Gilman and Grabosky did some work with maples--in the ISA journal-- that agreed with that forester's opinion; equal discoloration no matter if cuts were flat or sloped. Interesting, but I'm not sure that discoloration is a reliable indicator of future decay, or that 3 years is enough time to give results that can make arboricutural Laws, or even guidelines.

When wood decay fungi enter wood, it discolors. What else can be said.

So, I'm looking for a more reliable methods for removing co-dominant stems.

Just like with any limb, the size of the limb and the health of the tree will determine the damage done by removal.
The best answer is not removing them, it's better to subordinate them, cable them, or find other solutions.

opcorn:

 

[treeseer]

opcorn:

Keep dangling that bait, MM. I may bite this pink board, before too long...

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I just figured since you want to cut this one close, you must have changed your theory on pink boards. Otherwise, you'd leave it stick out a ways to speed rot. LOL!

opcorn: