Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Article: Pollards, the forgotten art-discussion

    Po!la*d-a four letter word?

     

    One could be forgiven for thinking it is! I am almost afraid to mention the word in today’s arboricultural scene, but am I the only one who thinks it a little ironic that we now revere the very trees that where pruned in such a way we might now lynch those doing it? Is pollarding really to be considered the ultimate sin? Or is there just a lack of insight into the merits and de merits of each case, and a fear of retribution for going out on a limb and making the choice. At this time it’s a brave man that suggests “sensitive pruning” isn’t always the right approach. As a climber of 20 odd years I have done my fair share of old and veteran trees, and had to pollard (oops, blasphemy!) some for spurious reasons, not having been the one responsible for the job specification. If there is one thing I have gained through my successes and failures it is insight, a “feel” for the tree and its life from seed to senescence, its grace and ultimate glory as a grandfather of time.

    Thanks to the likes of Neville Fay and Ted green MBE the arb world is more enlightened on the whole subject of ancient trees and veteranisation, and the world seems to be awakening to a new understanding. We have come almost full circle, we grew a distain for harsh techniques and Hepting/ Shigo and others exposed the issues with poor pruning and treatments. A refined approach was born and some of us went on to become masters of the art in fine tip reductions in respect of this new knowledge. We stopped over lifting tree canopies and crucified the “over thinners” we mobbed the “purveyor’s of pollard”. While all this was going on a few of us “labourers” where reading up and taking notes, watching the debates and doing what we where told was the “best practice”.

     

    “I’m not suggesting we abandon this approach, preservation of amenity is a different game altogether”

     

     

    Now it is our turn to give some input to the debate, and I am certain there will be many “old school” climbers ready to join in. The one thing that is blindingly obvious to me is that very little respect is paid to the “experience factor” it is all well and good educating yourself and gaining a degree in arboriculture, but you can never learn from books what you learn by feel; and trees, though they may be the substance (paper) of text books, rarely are trees text book in nature. I mean no disrespect to the “consultants” but you really should pay more heed to the views and experience of climbers. The older climbers have a body of experience gained from a time when we just got on with it, rounding over, pollarding etc. We might never consider doing it these days but we know HOW to do it and how to do it well, skills that are being lost on a generation of climbers who only know the way it is today.

    What this will mean in a decade or two is that people with the very skills the veteran brigade seek to re learn will be lost, how hard can you prune? Where can we make that cut for the best compromise of vascular support and minimal dysfunction? Have we not learnt just how resilient trees can be? Decay and dysfunction are part and parcel of a trees old age, be that from natural progressive infections or via pruning wounds, they are the same end result so why fear them? I am sick to my teeth of being told I can not do this and I can not do that, when I have all my life proven time and time again that it CAN be done, but it has to be with “insight” I fear if we don’t settle the debate soon a whole gap will appear in the generations of veterans as the old ones die while we are all trying to “rediscover” the old ways. The Japanese have been “veteranising” for a thousand years, albeit on a different scale, the principles are the same. The art of producing a miniature ancient tree of visual stature and form is the same art required to recreate the ancient pollards and veterans of the medieval era. You just have to think BIG.

    I have seen some ridiculous attempts at re creating the pollard, and some pretty dire attempts at recession pruning, so bad in fact I doubt Mr X in his white transit with traces of tarmac could do a worse job! I can no longer remain silent walking the old deer parks and seeing trees unmulched unfenced and unloved, they are as much a part of our green and pleasant lands history as any building or monument yet they are left to fend for themselves much of the time despite all the current knowledge available. We need to re-evaluate the pollard fast and to think of pollarding as an option for those old trees considered for felling due to various defects, infections or even subsidence issues. I do not mean the way its done on LA budgets either for those thinking along those lines!

    Some people in the field are of the opinion that pollarding was carried out when the tree was young and while this may be true in today’s scene, it was certainly not the case in the medieval period or Tudor period. I am well aware that there exist few records of the pollarding of old. However the tree is a record of its life, it tells us like a book of a thousand pages what events took place in its life, and when. One only has to look at those old pollards of Burnham to see that pollarding was a brutal practice; the evidence is in the hollow centres. We only have to look at compartmentalisation to see how large the tree was when it was Pollarded. The now hollow stems are the new wood that formed over the dysfunctional core. While the living cambium continued to grow over the now dead part, the demons of D, death, decay and dysfunction (Shigo), moved in and had a tasty supper of lignin and/or cellulose.

    I think there was two ways possibly three of pollarding, and certain that Arborist’s of the time much like the good ones today had a “feel” for their art. I am certain that a tree that had previously been un-pollarded would have had the two major lower limbs left on and been decapitated above this point. This guaranteed that the tree would continue to grow and survive the loss of its head, like the “monarchs without head” a form that is made perfectly naturally. We have to realise that in those times text books where the preserve of the wealthy, these where craftsman whose skills where passed on to a new generation of apprentices. They also had the luxury of more trees to make mistakes with, if one or two died it was no big deal, it made good firewood! Today if we gambled with one of say three oaks on a site we would be justifiably lynched if they was to die from such a brutal practice.

    Now going back to the monarch without head, I am certain that once good re growth was established and of much more slender proportions the now only substantial wood left was also highly desirable and those limbs originally left in place where now cut back to some re growth on their length. I am certain it was this process that created those extraordinarily wide shoulders or “pollard heads” we now see especially in the Burnham beech trees. This is also evident in the way the decay columns extend into the larger thicker sections of these old pollard heads.

    This brings me to the whole demons of D thing again, and I think we need to understand these processes far better if we are to re create our heritage trees for future generations to revere. Its an area of heated debate, and an area that is still to this day largely misunderstood and understudied. I hope to convince the sceptical of the role fungi play in the longevity of trees; this is a co evolutionary process that has gone on for millennia. I have a disdain for the word attack when it comes to fungi, and prefer to think of it as taking advantage of a situation. As with all natural organisms and systems they have a role and a purpose, they are essential and should not be viewed as an “enemy”

     

    I think there may have been a time in history, and not so long ago, when mans activities actualy enhanced Bio diversity, rather than eliminated it. We are losing our way, its time to re think our strategies.

    • Like 9


      Report Article

    User Feedback



    Recommended Comments

    I still think ancient forester ''accepted'' more, rather than actually new/understood more. IMO we know more these days regarding biology than we ever have...........

     

    The sooner we get back to nature and ignorance the better imo, naivety is is a great thing!!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What's changed, most of us on here still do.:001_smile:

     

    The difference being he Arthur circa Stone age-40 years ago, relied/depended on his trees, these days we have that hive of wickedness the multinational institution to fall back onto ie B&Q Tescos [if we want]

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    hamadryad I don't think you're the first to suggest that decay may have beneficial effects on a tree - I've heard in proposed in terms of removing wood so that the tree no longer has to expend energy to support/protect it. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it though. It sounds like the kind of thing Alan Rayner might say, though I'm not sure it was him.

     

    As for re-jigging the theory of evolution, I think you need to know the current theory (which isn't purely darwinistic) very well before you suggest changes to it. Also, you need to read around it too, because things you are suggesting may have been proposed in the past and been dismissed because the science didn't match up.

     

    As a quick aside, I think Dawkins chose a terrible, inappropriate term when he referred to the 'selfish gene'. 'Selfish' is a moral term that we attach to human behaviour, and genes do not have moral behaviour, any more than yeast has moral behaviour. If you read his book this is obvious, but Dawkins is a bit too much of a scientist sometimes and didn't see that plenty of people either wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it and would draw incorrect implications from the term 'selfish'. 'Self-optimising genes' would have been better (if less catchy) but even that is not correct because it appears to attribute intentions to genes, and of course genes don't have intentions any more than they have morals. The apparent self-optimisation is a product of reproductive processes that are, at their basic level, simply chemical reactions.

     

    Sorry, that's a rant I've done a few times recently and may not be directly related to the thread. I just get frustrated that so many people attribute moral behaviours to genes. It's outright nonsense.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    hamadryad I don't think you're the first to suggest that decay may have beneficial effects on a tree - I've heard in proposed in terms of removing wood so that the tree no longer has to expend energy to support/protect it. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it though. It sounds like the kind of thing Alan Rayner might say, though I'm not sure it was him.

     

    As for re-jigging the theory of evolution, I think you need to know the current theory (which isn't purely darwinistic) very well before you suggest changes to it. Also, you need to read around it too, because things you are suggesting may have been proposed in the past and been dismissed because the science didn't match up.

     

    As a quick aside, I think Dawkins chose a terrible, inappropriate term when he referred to the 'selfish gene'. 'Selfish' is a moral term that we attach to human behaviour, and genes do not have moral behaviour, any more than yeast has moral behaviour. If you read his book this is obvious, but Dawkins is a bit too much of a scientist sometimes and didn't see that plenty of people either wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it and would draw incorrect implications from the term 'selfish'. 'Self-optimising genes' would have been better (if less catchy) but even that is not correct because it appears to attribute intentions to genes, and of course genes don't have intentions any more than they have morals. The apparent self-optimisation is a product of reproductive processes that are, at their basic level, simply chemical reactions.

     

    Sorry, that's a rant I've done a few times recently and may not be directly related to the thread. I just get frustrated that so many people attribute moral behaviours to genes. It's outright nonsense.

     

     

    How about ''culturally selfish'' I like the sound of that.............:confused1:

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    hamadryad I don't think you're the first to suggest that decay may have beneficial effects on a tree - I've heard in proposed in terms of removing wood so that the tree no longer has to expend energy to support/protect it. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it though. It sounds like the kind of thing Alan Rayner might say, though I'm not sure it was him.

     

    As for re-jigging the theory of evolution, I think you need to know the current theory (which isn't purely darwinistic) very well before you suggest changes to it. Also, you need to read around it too, because things you are suggesting may have been proposed in the past and been dismissed because the science didn't match up.

     

    As a quick aside, I think Dawkins chose a terrible, inappropriate term when he referred to the 'selfish gene'. 'Selfish' is a moral term that we attach to human behaviour, and genes do not have moral behaviour, any more than yeast has moral behaviour. If you read his book this is obvious, but Dawkins is a bit too much of a scientist sometimes and didn't see that plenty of people either wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it and would draw incorrect implications from the term 'selfish'. 'Self-optimising genes' would have been better (if less catchy) but even that is not correct because it appears to attribute intentions to genes, and of course genes don't have intentions any more than they have morals. The apparent self-optimisation is a product of reproductive processes that are, at their basic level, simply chemical reactions.

     

    Sorry, that's a rant I've done a few times recently and may not be directly related to the thread. I just get frustrated that so many people attribute moral behaviours to genes. It's outright nonsense.

     

    Not at all that was all good stuff, probably the best reply post thus far. Your right to, but i am not trying to change a theory? i am just discussing that the pollard is a viable technique, should be more valued, that people have more skills than are credited to them by the academics etc and that trees pollard themselves with the help of fungi at their core.

     

    with regards to benificial fungi, ted green, rayner, Fay, Body they all have talked of it, but i cant read everything under the sun, it would take a life time, though i am working on it. However much of my observational thinking may well have been observed by others, but until someone puts a link or resource up here to say so i dont know, if that makes sense.

     

    I would love to sit and read the entire collection of rayner, dawkins and all on genes etc, but i must stp doing exactly that, i look into too much and get too little of a lot of stuff!

     

    so hence i am sticking to ancient trees and their relationships with fungi, in particular the major rotters, I am also trying to do a degree which doesnt leave much time for "personal" reading, and that kills me, as instead i have to read about nursery practice and healtha nd saftey regs etc rather than fungi eco system dynamics!

     

    you should go over to the inclusional thread with this, i am interested in what your saying of that there is no doubt.

    Edited by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    can i just ask, does everyone agree that we need as humans to change our thinking?

     

    dont read between the lines! as it states!

     

     

    Yes yes and yes............:thumbup:

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    howdy, i am glad you have a sense of humour, i think you need to realise that most of us arent against a pollarding, i think you should spend some time looking through monkeyd's threads over the last couple of years, i have only been on here for just over a year and i have had my eyes opened to diferent techniques, but i do have a mortgage to pay and if i dont do it someone else will, i certainly wont jepordise my reputation thats for sure. but the trouble with a private contractor doing monoliths, pollarding, very light reductions etc. our customers have a budget and there is the insurance side of things, i can guarantee to take the sail effect out a big sycamore if i pollard it but not if i trim 5 feet off it all the way round, and who wants a rotting stem in their back garden attracting bugs and fungis. i have spent a lot of time wondering why why why, now i am quite content on because it just is, i dont have the IQ to take in half the stuff anyway.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    English oak,amongst other species,was the backbone of early industrial revolution,as before then timber was grown and cut for boatbuilding,land transport and building.

    Coppice and pollard provided for the many structural forms now replaced by plastics,metals and concrete.

    As the comercial viability of timber declines due to 'new materials' and timber imports,these old 'working trees' are left to their own devices.

    It is my wish that they(coppice & pollard) were still worked and the produce used.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Paradise, When i say darwins theory is wrong, which is not REALLY what i meant but how it was took due to my over excited and somewhat emotional reply! what i measnt was that, whilst i appreciate the Selfish gene thing is of course twadddle, there are definate and very obvious truths in the theory of "Inclusionality theory of evolution" i believe it is more like "the theory of evolution by natural inclusion) bit of a mouthfull!

     

    The thing with dawkins is, he is as religous in his fervour for the darwanistic views as any of those creationists he seeks to disprove, Inclusional theory, is as much about a state of mind, as it is about a state of evolutionary, nieghbourly thinking.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

  • Featured Adverts

  • Topics

  • Blog Entries

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

Articles

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.