Question about Pin Oak

[Kneejerk Bombas]

According to your logic, Dada, it's worse to get poked in the eye by a low limb, than to run full speed into a solid tree trunk? I guess i never considered the statistic possibilities between concussions and eye poking. In fact, I never considered the infinite number of human injury possibilities associated with each type of tree growth pattern and tree species.
Having climbed in a few Pin Oaks, I'd say they do present a significant hazard, because they have strong, brittle branches that tend to be pointy and grow at right angles.
Perhaps, you're right, the best option is to remove the tree.
Why do the new exotic pests like the EAB go after the eye friendly, big soft terminal budded, trees like Ash???? Why, oh why, couldn't they kill the pointy terminal budded trees like Pin Oak, or how about Buckthorn? Talk about killing two birds with one stone! Buckthorn's terminal bud is often a thorn!
We can't even start to talk about a Hawthorne...a 15' tree that has thorns that will pop a truck tire. Try and trim a Hawthorne safe!

 

[treeseer]

ok Mike, time to mellow out. I'm the original low-branch lover, especially for that species, but this yard has not the room for it. Your logic on thorns is quite thorny tonight. :deadhorse:

You also told the guy to throw out the wood frame around the mulch area. Why? I like to have timbers out there for the kids to sit on while they check the mulch bed for wiggly things. It also separates trees and turf, which is alway a good idea eh?, quite nicely.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Just teasing Guy. But in all seriousness, I do not like random talk of removing low branches, any more than random talk of removing high branches.
How would you react if I recommended a crown reduction on this Pin Oak?

I don't like the box because it is almost always added after the tree is planted. So we start out with a tree that is planted too deep, then some number of years later a box is installed that raises the grade another 8". How's the tree doing now?
I see it all the time, death by box.
The size of the box is also unsettling. What, the tree is only going to be 2' wide, and with no flare?

They say planted trees last an average of 6 years, so I guess we're right on schedule.

 

[treeseer]

I do not like random talk of removing low branches,

This talk is not random; it is specific--raise the branches enough to facilitate movement around it by children without undue risk of eye-poking. This can be achieved by reducing, not removing, some of the branches.

I don't like the box because it is almost always added after the tree is planted.

Well duh, how could the box be added before the tree is planted? I think Dada was right about the cornflakes--you are railing against industry practices that we abhor, but this pin oak seems well tended (I'm guessing the black wrap is off by now) and has a better future than many urban trees. Let's save the rant for trees that are truly abused--you won't have to wait long, right?

Dan thanks for the patrience and the pictures. It would be really neat if you could post a followup later on, and let us know how it's growing.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

This talk is not random; it is specific--raise the branches enough to facilitate movement around it by children without undue risk of eye-poking. This can be achieved by reducing, not removing, some of the branches.Well duh, how could the box be added before the tree is planted? I think Dada was right about the cornflakes--you are railing against industry practices that we abhor, but this pin oak seems well tended (I'm guessing the black wrap is off by now) and has a better future than many urban trees. Let's save the rant for trees that are truly abused--you won't have to wait long, right?

Dan thanks for the patrience and the pictures. It would be really neat if you could post a followup later on, and let us know how it's growing.

Last time I went on the "leave lower branches" rant, I asked a question that never got answered. Perhaps now that I have the attention of the "protect eyes at all cost society", I can get an answer to it:

Why is it that evergreens get to keep there lower limbs, while deciduous trees have to have them cut off?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Not tot take away from the important question I just asked, but the original question was about cracks in the bark.
The first possibility is normal expansion of the trunk diameter is causing these furrows to develop. They will eventually become the course texture you see on mature pin oaks.
The second possibility is sun scald. A disease caused by sudden exposure of smooth barked trees to sunlight that it was not getting before. For example if you cut lower limbs off. :deadhorse:

 

[Canyon Angler]

Why is it that evergreens get to keep there lower limbs, while deciduous trees have to have them cut off?

Maybe because conifers make prickly lollipops? :hmm3grin2orange: And because Christmas trees are SUPPOSED to have branches to the floor?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Here's a picture of one of my favorite trees. Trust me, I had my saftey glasses securely strapped to my head. There are more dangerous eye pokers on this tree than any ten average trees combined. Even then, I stood way back to take the picture.

 

[treeseer]

Nice tree Mike--a macrocarpa? Elmore's got nice pics of a ginkgo sweeping the earth, and we've all seen pics of live oaks (like the ones the MS hiway crews bulldozed after Katrina)

Down here some people are dumb enough to raise magnolias, leading to a 365 days per year litter nuisance. Even the needled evergreens get raised by and large. There are many bad reasons for limbing up trees, but one good reason is lack of space. Like for instance dan's yard.

This drum--or horse--needs beating in another thread.:deadhorse:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Who's Dan? Mike's yard looked like it had enough room to let the tree grow normally, that is, without raising it up.

Yes, the tree in the picture is a big ol' Burr Oak, Quercus macrocarpa.

As for beating my drum, many folks don't know they can and should leave the lower limbs. Most feel that if they can reach it with a saw, it should be cut off. This is one of the reasons I hate the new gas powered pole saws. It's invention and marketing is responsible for a lot of ruined trees.
Tree diseases include things like, improper planting depth, topping, lawn mower damage, and soil compaction. As I observe trees day to day, I see a lot of over pruning. Unnecessary crown raising is at pandemic levels.
Dada's knee-jerk reaction was to suggest cutting, like every tree needs crown raising (except evergreens, of course, everybody knows they don't get raised).
You walk around and cut every branch you can reach, that's trimming, right?

 

[treeseer]

Sorry Mike, you ae not Dan (but you knew that).

MM I agree with everything you said, expecially the bit about power pruners and giraffe pruning, but not the part about Mike's yard being big enough for a Q palustris to sweep down. I just don't see that.

I agree with Dada about shortening those limbs that are at eye-poking level (yes I'll use that phrase even tho you will no doubt try to "poke" more fun at it) They are temporary because the yard's size seems to call for walking room under the tree.

I also agree that the bark texture looks like normal adolescent transition from smooth to coarse.

 

[Menchhofer]

It is absolutely hilarious to sit here and read this thread especially the "lower limb" discussion. Made my day.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Glad we're here to entertain you Steve.
That's only half the goal though. Did you learn anything?
Do you raise all deciduous trees? How about evergreens?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Here's an interesting site, by Ed Gilman: http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/qualitytrees/TrunkCaliperDev/LowBranch.html

He almost gets it. First he talks about nursery trees and the importance of low branches, how they benefit trees, and how to keep them as long as possible, but then he falls into the trap, and indicates they should to come off. Oh well, it's a start.
I like pictures 3,4, 5, 8, 10, and 17. Beautiful trees, then he cuts them.
The final conculsion (goals), all trees are street trees, and all trees need lower canopies removed. What a load of crap.

 

[treeseer]

The final conculsion (goals), all trees are street trees, and all trees need lower canopies removed. What a load of crap.

Mike, thanks for posting that page, and looking closely at the recommendations. Ed does NOT say all trees need raising to 8 or 15 feet, just MOST of them. He does mention that some landscape trees can have low limbs sweep to the ground. i think that shortening and retaining lower branches is a huge step in this advice to the nursery industry, and allows the buyer to make the decision if and how far to raise limbs. Let's be fair here, ok?

I had the same problems with other pages in his site, where the need for raising is assumed. ISA's brochures on pruning stated the same assumption, and I agree that most trees do NOT need raising to the extent described. If you can express your reasoning, dispassionately and without exaggerating, and offer constructive suggestions, I think the authors will consider your points.

If you put false words :taped: in their mouths and indulge in name-calling, don't expect a fair hearing. A spoonful of vinegar does not make the medicine go down, as Eliza Doolittle might say..

 

[Menchhofer]

Mike...it was not the information that seemed funny..it was simply how you delivered it...very entertaining......

Yes, we do elevate some trees and evergreens, but most generally we try to subordinate the limbs instead of removing the entire limb. While it is true lower limbs do benefit the tree, in an urban environment it is not always practical.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

While it is true lower limbs do benefit the tree, in an urban environment it is not always practical.

The arguement goes like this: the lower limbs are good but sometimes they have to be removed.
Then: the lower limbs are good but most of them have to be removed.
Next it goes: I don't know your situation, but start removing the lower limbs.
Finally: remove all lower limbs.
This flawed chain of logic gives us nurseries that produce this:

It's hard to tell from the pictures, but the trees look like Birch, and with structure like this they are doomed to a life of expensive imidacloprid treatments just to keep them alive. That, or fairly quick death by borers.

 

[treeseer]

The arguement goes like this: the lower limbs are good but sometimes they have to be removed.
Then: the lower limbs are good but most of them have to be removed.
Next it goes: I don't know your situation, but start removing the lower limbs.
Finally: remove all lower limbs.

Thank you Mike for sharing the worst-case, but all-too-common scenario. Your previous post showed us the best-case scenario for nursery growers, shown on Gilman's excellent site.

The question is, how do we make the best-case scenario common instead of exceptional?

 

[Dadatwins]

Thank you Mike for sharing the worst-case, but all-too-common scenario. Your previous post showed us the best-case scenario for nursery growers, shown on Gilman's excellent site.

The question is, how do we make the best-case scenario common instead of exceptional?

Maybe I will start including a set of safety glasses with all my tree installations from now on and attach those Do not remove under penalty of law tags that are on sewn onto matresses and pillows to the lower limbs.

Best case scenario will be very hard to come by with most growers programed into doing the same thing over and over. Similiar to wire baskets on tree balls, there is enough evidence to say they should be removed or not used at all, but everyone still uses them, and they are hardly ever removed by many installers. Like the old days of painting wounds, it will take time and education to change the way trees are grown and harvested, but eventually it will change, hopefully. Probably not soon enough for Mr Mass so we can listen and be entertained by his rants.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The question is, how do we make the best-case scenario common instead of exceptional?

I suggest we make rude, insulting, hyperbole filled posts on the homeowner forum.

I forgot to give credit to Dr. Gilman for the picture in the last post. He used it as an example of quality nursery stock, because of the excellent structure, and I used it as a one for bad stock because the lower limbs were removed.
The ANSI pruning standards say something about leaving at least a third of the foliage on the lower half of the tree. The stock in the picture misses that percentage by a bit, with about zero percent of foliage on the lower half. In the nursery's defense, pruning standards are different for them.
The nurseries are motivated to remove lower limbs for a few reasons I can think of. First, it's a lot easier to grow a lollipop. Cultivating between rows, transplanting, shipping, everything is easier.
Second, the bigger customers are often municipalities, or developers and they want lollipops. As pointed out, street and park trees often need to be raised.
Finally, the ignorant public doesn't know better. They drive down the road, look at the median strip and see lollipop after lollipop. That must be how they are supposed to look.
That said, Dr Gilman (on his excellent site) does a good job of pointing out how a superior nursery plant can be grown, if the lower limbs are left intact. He seems to miss the point however, that the goodness can continue as long as the limbs are left.
I would argue that lower limbs can be left on deciduous trees as often as they are left on evergreens, the only difference being, peoples perception of what a tree should look like.