Crown reduction article - Your thoughts?

[White Noise]

6 minutes ago, MattyF said:

Aye but what happens when the structural metal rots ?

 

6 minutes ago, MattyF said:

Aye but what happens when the structural metal rots ?

I did a study / trial  back in the late 90s .  Staked trees v unstaked trees .   The later produced more vigorous root growth and a substantial difference in trunk girth when compared to there staked siblings only  a few years later . 

[White Noise]

Just now, White Noise said:

 

I did a study / trial  back in the late 90s .  Staked trees v unstaked trees .   The later produced more vigorous root growth and a substantial difference in trunk girth when compared to there staked siblings only  a few years later . Sorry  read your reply wrong ....

 

[PDizzle]

13 hours ago, RGB said:

Not saying its the case here, but I have read a lot of articles in the past and have often walked away with the distinct feeling that the article writers will write anything they can think of just to try and make a name for themselves

I get the impression that's what this is all about. Some points he makes kind of make sense but the article seems to come across as mattheck is wrong and I'm right! 

He says there's no evidence but how long do we need to wait for the trees to show evidence of this theory? And how do we even prove that evidence? 

 

I agree that the smaller whippy branches have a large part in dissipating energies from windload but I imagine most professionals carrying out end weight or crown reductions will not Pollard the branches or leave stobs, there should still be enough left on the tree to cope with windload. 

 

But then I'm not a scientist and I'm just looking at this from a logical point of view... 

[Gary Prentice]

11 hours ago, White Noise said:

 

I did a study / trial  back in the late 90s .  Staked trees v unstaked trees .   The later produced more vigorous root growth and a substantial difference in trunk girth when compared to there staked siblings only  a few years later . 

An adaptation to stress/movement.

[Khriss]

I think some of this has merit ( in a rush out this morning so will read thoroughly over weekend ) Air Damping is an actual component of trees behaviour - hence that big solid tree yr dismantling - suddenly becomes a wobbley stick - when yr sectioning the trunk down , I hope Herr Mattheck covers some of this on Weds , K

[Gary Prentice]

13 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

Looking at if from a different way, I assume the same applies to a tree that naturally sheds a limb or two? Does it mean that those trees become even more likely to fail?

My thought on this is that is that parts of the canopy are more prone to failure, due to new increased wind forces caused by the loss of a shed limb, initially. If the tree has good vitality and is able to adapt by growing additional supporting wood the potential for failure then decreases with time.

 

Reduction of a limb to reduce dynamic loading then raises the issue of how much. Enough to reduce dynamic load or too much that reduces the photosynthetic capacity and slows the growth of new supporting wood!

 

I'm yet to make my mind up whether to totally change my thinking after reading all of this though. 

 

[Gary Prentice]

7 minutes ago, Khriss said:

I think some of this has merit ( in a rush out this morning so will read thoroughly over weekend ) Air Damping is an actual component of trees behaviour - hence that big solid tree yr dismantling - suddenly becomes a wobbley stick - when yr sectioning the trunk down , I hope Herr Mattheck covers some of this on Weds , K

You could always ask!  I'll hide behind you, while you tell him that Frank Rinn say he's wrong! 

 

 

[Vespasian]

just thought I'd add my own opinion on the matter..

 

I've always believed tree's should be left well alone unless they need chopping down for whatever reason..   millions of years of evolution went into their design after all..   pruning tree's back for whatever reason can't help but have a negative impact on a tree's ability to cope with stress..

 

Then again I don't do things like reductions, I only chop them down, so I don't have any reason to debunk the evidence in the vids or go against my own gut feeling held over the years..  

 

I think people should think more along the lines of chopping down tree's when they reach a certain height to weight/mas ratio in relation to their surroundings and not worry about reducing them otherwise... 

 

In a nutshell, if a tree's to big for where's its at, then chop and start again..    

[Gary Prentice]

6 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

 millions of years of evolution went into their design after all.

But during those millions of years it didn't matter if a percentage failed to grow to an age where they ensured the continuation of the species. 

 

Now, when there's a target rich environment with urban trees, even a very low failure rate may not always be acceptable.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Gary Prentice

[Gary Prentice]

5 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

In a nutshell, if a tree's to big for where's its at, then chop and start again.

Yeah, big trees are dangerous