Will this maple grow more branches?

[brylande]

I've got these two maples that are growing near each other on a peice of land I bought. I was thinking of cutting down the one on the right and keeping the straight one so that it may grow better. However, there isn't a whole lot of branches on the inside where it was butting up against the other tree. If I cut the one on the right down, will the one on the left sprout new branches fairly quickly or will it forever be only a one sided tree? Thanks

 

[suaf]

They look attractive and in a natural state. I like them the way they are, and my guess is you will be less satisfied by removing one as the other will look sickly on its own. At this point, they resemble a double trunk tree since they are so close.

 

[Wales]

removing one of the trees will have an effect on the other.
1.It will increase the sunlight on the remaining tree which could cause "sunburn" for a better term to the bark.
2. It may cause the tree to sprout epicormic branches, numerous small branches along the trunk, as a reaction the the increased light.
3. The removed tree has also acted as a wind barrier to the inner tree and removing the tree will increase the chances of wind snap / damage.
I could go on. I agree with suaf , removing the tree would not solve your problems and it would not be as aesthetically pleasing.

 

[treeseer]

I agree with the others; it's better as it is. If the left one had to go you could guy branches over to fill the gap over time, but that'd be a lot of needless work.

wales' reason #3 may have some validity; how about a pic of the main fork on that right-hand stem? It looks like a potential crack there.

 

[begleytree]

Oh, the pretty flowers and butterflies......

What I see is a couple of junk scrub trees, the one on the right looks like a stump sucker, and the left one is a volunteer. Silver maples are weak trash trees. Sure, on a distant hillside in fall they're kinda pretty, but in your backyard, PITA. seed pods sprouting out of your gutters, and limb failures in nearly every storm.
I'd recommend removal of both. If shade is desired, have them topped to @ 20 feet as a precurser to removal while a more desireable tree is getting established, then remove whats left.
I seriously doubt any arborist would recommed leaving a silver maple in such poor condition as the one on the right in someones' yard. I clean broken limbs out of these junky things everytime the wind picks up.
I wouldn't have one anywhere near my home.
-Ralph

 

[Sheshovel]

I don't agree with the above,that tree has adds value to the property .ANY tree adds value to property.I think it should be left as is mabey remove the small trunk on the right side sticking out.Other than clogging up the gutters on the dog house I don't see that it is in any position to cause problems.I think it is worth keeping them both.

 

[pinus]

It seem for me that the removal of the right tree(s) is reasonable only in the case if you want to open perspective to the distant landscape or it is damaged seriously. In another case you will get a "big hole". Leaf trees are recovering better than conifers, but the left tree is very oneside branched being able to fill up the hole caused by the removal of the right maple(s).
V.

 

[treeseer]

a couple of junk scrub trees, the one on the right looks like a stump sucker, and the left one is a volunteer. Silver maples are weak trash trees. ,,,have them topped to @ 20 feet as a precurser,,,these junky things ,,,I wouldn't have one anywhere near my home.
-Ralph

Begs, dude, did you get knocked on the noggin by a silver maple branch when you were young?

That is one mean string of arborphobic epithets. If branches are falling when the wind blows, it needs to be pruned. You may have heard of it. That's a process in which a person enters the tree and selectively thins or shortens branches so they ar eless likely to fail.

the topping as a precursor idea has several flaws, the worst of which is when the house changes hands and the new owner doesn't know about that 'precursor" thing and lets it grow. 20 years later it splits apart and crushes Fido or Susie. the arbor phobic treetopper may be held liable; wouldn't that be a nice way to enter retirement, drained by a lawsuit?

Ralph you're the only treecudder on this site who's recommending removal. o and every tree not planted by humans is either a volunteer or a stump sprout; are they all bad?

brylande, please send a picture of that fork, and don't mind the immoderate raving of our friend Begley. He's had a bad day it seems; tomorrow never knows.

 

[begleytree]

Guy, no bad day. I can't believe a BCMA would recommend keeping an undesireable species so close to the house, with several obvious flaws. The RT tree is a stump sucker, with 2-3 leads growing up to split out due to included bark. The one on the left has a healed spot near ground level, but we all know how well maples compartmentalize in zones 1+2 right? Even if its fine, it's still not worth keeping.

I would not advocate keeping a pair of flawed undesireable trees, and constantly throwing money at them. The owner is much better off, imo, to remove them in favor of a more suitable tree. A hazard tree doesn't add value to your property, it detracts.

Yes, I saw the dogbox, am I the only one who saw the greeen tarp draped over the back deck/porch railing? Those are usually attached to homes.

I may have not been the most tactful poster on this thread (odd, 'cause I deleted 2x that much before posting) But I am darn sure being the most honest.

And I guess leaves fall straight down in everyones area except mine. Odd, 'cause around here, they blow around for acres.

I doubt anyone here loves trees more than I, but theres a place for all of them. The wrong tree planted in the wrong place is what keeps arborists in buisness. I was just trying to inject some sanity into this thread, and save the owner some hard earned money, or at least re-direct it towards more fruitful endevours.
-Ralph

 

[treeseer]

OK Ralph maybe this is a difference in depth perception. I'll bet you a nickel that tree is over 30' from the house, 20' from the porch.

O and no matter how many times you say "undesirable", that doesn't make every A. saccharinum undesirable. Besides, whose preference counts, yours or the owner's? Species bias is just a lighter shade of arborphobia. Most tree pruners/managers could make that tree an asset well worth keeping, unless I'm blind.

 

[begleytree]

no matter how many times you say "undesirable", that doesn't make every A. saccharinum undesirable.

Thats true, but we aren't talking about every silver maple, we're talking about this one, or 2. I keep trying to bring you back to the point that not every tree out there is suitable for the average backyard. I will agree that in general these trees are beautiful, But the location proposed would make these 2 trees a marginal, high maintence investment.

"The Silver maple grows rapidly and has been much planted as a shade tree, but is less desirable than many other trees because of its brittleness and susceptability to insects and fungous diseases"
Ohio trees F W Dean, Ohio university press, copyrite 1953, page 105

" The silver maple is much more easily grown from seed than the red maple, but it has a far more irregular tree top. The limbs branch low on the trunk, and these limbs grow very long, giving the tree a loose head of great height, and great horizontal spread. The small branches curve downward, and the twigs are held erect. The wind twists and breaks these great weak limbs, or wrenches them loose from the trunk. It is dangerous to have these trees near the house, for wind and ice storms are constantly snapping off branches large enough to break windows, or knock down chimneys as they fall."
The children's library, Trees J. rodgers, copyrite Doubleday, doran, & co, 1909, 1913 pg 157.

I thought I'd include the second book, as children in the early 1900s were expected to know this information. Yes, they're old books, my passion, and I'll wager the silver maple tree hasn't changed an iota since publication.

Most tree pruners/managers could make that tree an asset well worth keeping, unless I'm blind.

Without a doubt, but at what price? And wouldn't that money be better spent on a more suitable tree? Or a tree better suited for the area it occupies? Isn't that what we're really debating here? The suitability of a silver maple with obvious defects in close proximity to valuable structures?

I realize an arbo can be held liable for actions taken which harm the tree, or result in property damage, but what happens to the same arbo if they tell the owner to leave them alone, and those trees later cause property damage? That wasn't a loaded question, I honestly don't know the answer, though I suspect I do know what that answer will be when provided.
-Ralph

 

[treeseer]

I will agree that in general these trees are beautiful, But the location proposed would make these 2 trees a marginal, high maintence investment.

The location is not proposed, it is there already. my point is not the subjective beauty, but the contribution per dollar per year. The arborist should give the numbers on both options, pruning and care vs. removal and replacement; it is up to the owner to decide what is marginal. Replacing a 40' tree takes time, and time is money.

I'll wager the silver maple tree hasn't changed an iota since publication.

No, but climbing gear and pruning knowledge sure have. I too see a lot of value in old books--we as an industry have forgotten some things. But we have learned things too.

what happens to the same arbo if they tell the owner to leave them alone, and those trees later cause property damage?

If the arbo says that in absolute terms, they are exposed. If they are paid for the opinion, they are even more exposed. That's why I 1. Include a disclaimer with reports and make no guarantees, and 2. Carry Errors and Omissions coverage in my insurance.

I realize this species has earned contempt in your region, but I see that as a (lack of0 management issue.. In GA TreeCo had a huge one just a few feet from a fragile old farmhouse. In NC I maintain several by reduction pruning every 3 years or so, and they are fine and their owners are quite satisfied toho the trees are near the house.

 

[begleytree]

The location is not proposed, it is there already. my point is not the subjective beauty, but the contribution per dollar per year. The arborist should give the numbers on both options, pruning and care vs. removal and replacement; it is up to the owner to decide what is marginal. Replacing a 40' tree takes time, and time is money.

By proposed, I was referring to the fact that at least one of them is on the chopping block. Placed there by the new owner.

I realize this species has earned contempt in your region, but I see that as a (lack of0 management issue.. In GA TreeCo had a huge one just a few feet from a fragile old farmhouse. In NC I maintain several by reduction pruning every 3 years or so, and they are fine and their owners are quite satisfied toho the trees are near the house.

Well, there you have it. We're finally down to it, and it's numbers. One arborist sugests keeping the trees and spending money on the maintence of same, and another suggests spending the money on removal and replacement.

Now, as it always was, it's up to the owner to decide their desires.
-Ralph

 

[treeseer]

Ralph, I agree. Given the option of much less than a hundred per year to maintain, or several hundred and many years to remove and replace, most owners will choose the former.

 

[brylande]

Gentlemen, thanks for all the help so far. The tree is almost 100+ feet from my house and about 50 something from my poleshed. It is kind of out on it's own where my yard butts against the bean fields. I have some old silver maples that are 40+ feet away and I know that within 10-20 years, they are going to have to come down. I want to start planning for that day by getting the current trees that are around there ready so that they will be large gracious trees like the ones i currently have once i cut the old ones down. I know i could plant some other species, which i am doing in other areas around the yard, but these silver maples are already 10-15 years old so that is a nice jump start, that is why i don't want to remove both of them.
I've attached a pic of the stump area of the right one. It does have numerous suckers that were not cut by the previous owners. Is it safe to trim those off without killing the tree? How about the sucker on the left tree?
How are these two trees going to look in 30 years when they are a lot larger and so close together?

 

[treeseer]

numerous suckers that were not cut by the previous owners. Is it safe to trim those off without killing the tree? How about the sucker on the left tree?
How are these two trees going to look in 30 years when they are a lot larger and so close together?

Maybe remove the 2 smallest weakest twistingest trunks CAREFULLY so the others are not wounded. The other trunks, with a little care, will look great as they mature.

I saw a big maple and a big oak so close their trunks were touching.

They were fine, and looked pretty cool.

 

[rbtree]

What do you think about the third small trunk, Guy? It appears to me that it will always be weak. But if it were removed, the canopy would be unbalanced. Cabling it down the road would be good, but likely in this setting not be cost effective...?

 

[brylande]

I have no problem removing the small third trunk, as long as it is safe for the tree. It would be nice to have just two main beams. If I remove the twisting suckers, what would be the best way to cut them from the base (angle, flush, etc.)? If it is advisable to remove the third trunk, should that be done at a different time than when I cut the other suckers off so as not to over stress the tree?

Thanks again!

Bryan

 

[treeseer]

Roger not sure which 3rd small trunk you mean; if it's the one that goes off to the side (move that bulldozer, willya!), then it could be removed or reduced.

Re cutting angle, send a pic of the attachments and maybe someone here can show you with red lines.