Topping Maple Trees

[commanche 2]

i had tree service in to give me estimate on 6 maples trees about 50 ft high or so.they said 1600 to remove 2 trees and prune and top 4 that were left and grind 2 stumps down.my question is , is it ok to top these remaining maple trees.i had 3 co. in for estmates and all said trees should be topped and 4th one said no.the trees are only 15 ft from my home all in a row.thanks

 

[Stumper]

If the trees aren't dead in the top and someone is trying to sell you topping you have called the wrong tree service. The fact that several tried to sell topping probably indicates that incompetence is prevalent in your area.(Sadly, in most parts of the U.S, the majority of tree service companies don't understand tree biology or simply do not care.)

 

[Old Monkey]

Topping trees is like giving someone crack cocaine. You'll make the trees weak and forever dependant on more pruning. Don't top them! Maples are also highly susceptable to sunburn, topping them will expose many limbs to sun causing the bark to burn and peel on the sun exposed side. At the point where the tree is topped, it will rot before new growth can cover the wound. They new branches will come out in a thick clump and none of them will be very securely attached. You will have breakage at the old topping cuts for years to come.

If however, your tree has already been topped in the past and the damage has already been done, you may need to reduce the crown above the old cuts.

 

[treeseer]

Read this: http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/topping.asp

Topping increases tree risk in the long run.

What does the fourth co. propose to reduce the risk that caused you to get quotes on tree work? Light thinning and reduction cuts <20% of the total foliage? If so, hire them.

 

[commanche 2]

you are right.not i tree i have seen here that is NOT topped.i see beautiful birch trees all topped.every company here tops your trees.we trust that they know what to do ,not us.they all say THOSE TREES ARE GETTING TALL.so, if it hurts trees you would think they would not do it.sadly, we dont know and trust them.

 

[ray benson]

We have one tree service here that is silver maple top happy. Biking and walking around town it is sickeningly obvious which trees he has hacked up. They look terrible and the survivors all have the distinct new growth that comes out in a thick clump, weakly attached.

 

[Tree Machine]

Saw users who top trees either have no conscience, or are literally ignorant. They're not thinking of the tree, or the client, only about their wallet. Sickening. It's really not a lot more work to do it right.

Commanche, I am so sorry for the disgraceful work going on in your area. There's an irresponsible person running a saw and a bucket truck, damaging trees all over town, and there's really no way to stop him.

We'd be happy to help get him on the right track if he would come visit here. However, you've got to want to do the work in excellence. The desire to care for trees and people first has to be there.

 

[Al Smith]

The whole scenario is rather ironic.They clear cut and bulldoze an entire area to build a housing project,of nice neat,sanitary homes.They then come in and plant trees to replace those taken out.After a period of time,they feel they must turn the trees into shrubbery,for some reason or another.Once they start with the topping,they never quit.What one person does,they all follow suit,"keeping up with the Joneses".It's really stupid,when you stop and think about it.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Read this: http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/topping.asp

What does the fourth co. propose to reduce the risk that caused you to get quotes on tree work? Light thinning and reduction cuts <20% of the total foliage? If so, hire them.

If a company came and proposed to thin and crown reduce all my trees, I'd keep looking, less than 20% or not. Crown reduction should only be considered as a dramatic last ditch effort to save a tree that has a major structural problem.
As for crown thinning, it plays no roll in improving tree health, with the possible rare exception of disease prevention in some conifers. Don't do it.
Keep looking until you find one that wants to do a crown cleaning, only removing branches that are dead or otherwise a problem for the tree or nearby obstacles. For each cut, there should be a reason, and even before cutting a branch with a good reason, the arborist should ask himself if the same objective can be completed with 1 or more smaller cuts farther out the branch.

 

[treeseer]

Crown reduction should only be considered as a dramatic last ditch effort to save a tree that has a major structural problem.
As for crown thinning, it plays no roll in improving tree health,

Mike, overall reduction or thinning is dramatic, and should be rarely done, I agree.

However...Making reduction (branch-shortening) and thinning cuts is routinely justifiable in the landscape. Let's not exaggerate :alien: them into overall crown work, ok? that's why 20% on an average tree, 10% for a mature tree and 5% for an old tree are useful guidelines.

"For each cut, there should be a reason, and even before cutting a branch with a good reason, the arborist should ask himself if the same objective can be completed with 1 or more smaller cuts farther out the branch."

YOu got that part totally right, anyway. :angel:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Guy, 20% is one fifth of the tree!
That dose is way to high for any mature tree, but you may be right when you prescribe a dose like that for a small tree, let's say up to 6 or 8 inch DBH (Diameter Breast Height), and perhaps ok for hardy fast growing species like willow or silver maple up to about 12 inches DBH. After that, dose needs to be smaller.
Are you saying you routinely remove one fifth of just a branch? That's not as shocking as one fifth of the tree, but reduces the long term outlook for the branch, about the same as it would the long term outlook for the tree, if one fifth of the tree was removed.
All this, only if there is a definite need to remove the branches, as I alluded to in my earlier post.
There also needs to be a definite line drawn between thinning cuts, and thinning a tree! Thinning cuts are fine. Thinning a tree is not (in most cases).
I love being asked to "thin" a Norway Maple, "so the grass can grow under it." You might be able to thin a tree into having enough light come through to grow grass, but it's not good for the tree!
I have two White Oaks in my yard, both about 18" DBH. If you came and suggested removing 5% of the living tree, you be leaving with a size 11 steel toe work boot in need of rectal removal.

 

[Tree Machine]

Guy, 20% is one fifth of the tree! That dose is way to high for any mature tree

Mike, I didn't hear 20% of the tree. I heard <20% of the total foliage. It went something like this:

Light thinning and reduction cuts <20% of the total foliage

I know your intent is good, but your consistent overexaggerations cause me to wonder if you've been taking lessons from my wife

For each cut, there should be a reason

And for this, there is no disputing whatsoever. Indiscriminate cuts are the work of hacks. Pro's know what they're cutting, why they're cutting and what will be short-term response and long-term result.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

TM, I saw the video of you taking 35% out of a mature tree, so I'm not quibbling about whether >20% is not the same as 20%. If he had said >15% I would have said it's way too much.
What was the ISA thinking when they prescribed a set percentage that is ok to remove? Depending on all kinds of factors, the correct maximum that can safely be removed from a tree is between 0 and 100% of the above ground part of a tree. Without knowing all the factors, you can not narrow it down any more than that.
One of the hardest factors in determining an acceptable amount to remove, is what will happen to the tree in the future. Will there be any root loss, trenching, compaction, drought, disease or insect stress, (just to name a few things)? I sure would like to know where those crystal balls are sold. You and Guy must be keeping the source a secret.

 

[Old Monkey]

15%, 20%, 30% or what have you. I don't think anyone is that accurate at assessing what percent of the foliage they are taking off. As a rough idea numbers are great but humans are not that precise especially when it a judgment of volume and not linear height. I bet even your best trimmer has an error of plus or minus 10% when it comes to volume of green foliage.

 

[Stumper]

T
What was the ISA thinking when they prescribed a set percentage that is ok to remove? Depending on all kinds of factors, the correct maximum that can safely be removed from a tree is between 0 and 100% of the above ground part of a tree. Without knowing all the factors, you can not narrow it down any more than that.

Mike, I have to acknowledge that you are absolutely correct but I have a theory about ISA and ANSI 25% rules. Until a person has worked on/examined a few hundred(thousand?) trees the ability to gauge how much is too much is very limited. A blanket rule of not over 25% is imperfect but it serves a couple of purposes.A. Topping and radical reduction are out. B.It is somewhere in the region that will seldom lead to death for the tree. One guy will cut 15% and put on the brakes. another will cut 'til the 35% point before stopping. For centuries the rule of thirds was used to guide people-a few species like roses and grapes had recommendations of removing 2/3rds. Most woody plants received a recommendation of "Not More than one third".Were those the right percentages in most cases? No, but they were non-lethal doses in most cases. When I first read the 25% rule I thought-They are being conservative because most people can't gauge ratios well." I still think that is true but I see the merits of smaller pruning dosages more and more.There are cases where coppicing is appropriate. There are cases where an appropriate pruning of a young specimen will go over 25%. There are also cases of overmature, declining trees would be best left with every leaf and over 5% foliage removal would be malpractice.The vast majority of trees will withstand 25% foliage removal. Best treatment? perhaps not-but it gives the beginneror amateur a stopping point short of stump grinding.

 

[Tree Machine]

The tree you saw in the video was definitely pruned heavier than my liking. It had two previous and seperate incidences of limbs snapping off under their own weight. Minor tip pruning would have resulted in accelerated growth of the remaining parts of the limbs (which is good), and over time an overall increase in weight.

My choice, mildly contested by the client, was to NOT prune the tree in July, but let it recover from the recent self-mutilation. My recommendation was to wait until the deep of Winter. In February, reduce the crown consistently all over so in the Spring, resultant growth will be even, and long-term, the crown will be symmetrical, balanced, thick and lush, and should have a future absent of further snapoffs.

Part of the strategy for this reduction was to decentuate the big void in the crown left by the earlier limbs snapping off. This area of lost crown wasn't very apparent in the video.

Sweetgums, I feel, do better with this treatment than their limbs self-ripping off the stem. Cabeling was also not a very good option.

I agree, though, that particular reduction was drastic. Thanks for keeping me in check.

 

[Ekka]

Tonight is fight night live in this four way no holds barred tussel. Grab your ring side seats and lets see who'll prevail. Tonights contestants are ...

Treeseer vs Mike Maas vs Stumper vs Tree Machine

Who's your money on?

Find out if drop crotching is topping, or if thinning is lions tailing, and perhaps we can introduce the wild card later, stay tuned!

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

As we discuss the effects of crown reduction, several post have considered what is a lethal dose. What a lethal dose is, to me anyway, is relatively unimportant.
If you go up a 60 year old tree and take out 19%, then revisit it a year later and it is still alive, are you satisfied the dose was reasonable?
To make a human analogy, the chemicals we spray on trees all have a Lethal Dosage number, and I also consider that relatively unimportant. I'm much more concerned about the long term effects the chemicals have. The chances I'd somehow be exposed to a lethal dose is very low, the chances the chemicals could cause cancer in the long run are quite high. This long term health risk is my main concern.
Similarly, with large doses of foliage removal, the chances the tree will die immediately are low. The problem is the downward spiral of tree health that can be initiated; lessening of photosynthates being created, use of starch reserves, root loss, decay at cuts and at the point of root loss, introduction of insect pests and disease, adventitious re-growth that requires future repeated cutting, and on and on.

 

[Ekka]

1st man out of his corner is Mike Maas delivering a stunning blow ... all cuts are bad cuts leading to a downward spiral ... well we will see some strong retaliation to that low blow I expect.

Although I'm running commentry I have been to orchards and without pruning your fruit would be pretty ordinary and I don't think that farmers are that stupid that they'd kill their crops and their income ... lets see what the experts have to say.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I didn't say all cuts, I said, "large doses". Big difference.
Also introducing topics like fruit production, lumber production, forest management, pollarding, topiary, and other "specialty" trimming, only serves to confuse the topic, especially in a homeowner forum.