Some people! beech reduction, too much?

[Nick Watkins]

Isn't there an app for this?

 

Take a picture of the tree on an iPad, stand next to the customer and draw a proposed reduction line around the tree, educate them as to what would be best for the trees health etc. If they are happy with this then crack on, if not then re-draw to their spec.

 

Once finished compare the saved picture (with pre-agreed reduction line) to the finished job, if it's off spec then you cocked up, if it's bang on the money then only an idiot could complain.

 

Simples.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

4 questions machine-gunned; shoulda looked at your sig line about Reactions!

Internodal sprouting is not as stable or efficient as sprouting at nodes, from what I've observed in oaks anyway. Nodal sprouting at or near the cut promotes closure and lessens decay; typically a good thing for the tree.

 

Retrenchment first referred to retreating soldiers finding a line they could defend, and digging in to fight anew. This concept relates very well to declining trees, so “Before cutting any branches to reduce the size of the canopy, visualize the new canopy outline. The objective is to make reduction cuts so that branch tips are left intact on the new, smaller canopy…Sometimes as little as a 3 to 6 feet (1-2m) reduction in height can add a great amount of stability to a large tree”, for trees with strength loss at the base. This effect is confirmed by thousands of Tree Statics tests in Europe and, recently, in North America.

 

Older trees strain to pull water to their periphery: “Water and minerals are transported tangentially through intervascular pitting, vessel distribution and vessel diameter. Movement of water and nutrients through pathways is affected by pressure; pits will close if pressure drops”.

 

Retrenchment makes more water available and redirects growth to a lower, consolidated crown. This pruning also redirects hormonal growth regulation, often resulting in reiteration and rejuvenation. This process has been likened to a king being overthrown, allowing the rise of several dukes and earls.

 

Reiteration is any shoot that repeats the basic form of the tree. Like new stems arising from stumps, reiterations in the crown are often extremely vigorous, so they make logical targets to cut a branch back to. However, when they arise perpendicular to the parent branch, their structural stability may be compromised. Cuts at right angles can also result in a “hollow elbow” type of decay, so cutting at the next good node may be better.

 

A reduction in diameter indicating a node can be felt more than seen, so running both hands along the branch is a vital step in understanding what to do with it. Dr. Shigo’s mantra, “Trees must be touched to be understood,” is too often forgotten today. Trees are living entities, so we can feel for more than form with our manual examination.

 

Repairing internal function is the goal of our work with damaged trees; restored shape is just a sign of renewed health. Form follows function, as other artists know. What other signs of tree health can we sense, to guide our work? Thermal images show concentrations of heat in trees, which may indicate internal functioning.

 

Rejuvenation of a tree’s physiology slows down, or even reverses, its aging clock. This is best seen in trees that grow on stressful environments, like mountaintops. Among trees, adversity promotes longevity. Damage can enhance dignity. "Pruning does it by inducing the growth of younger meristems, shortening the internal transport path, and balancing shoot load and activity with limited root activity and support. In trees, physiological and developmental aging operate independently. They can be simultaneously embryonic and senile, resulting in a form of ecological immortality. It is this potential for immortality that makes trees so fascinating to work with."

 

OK?

 

I didnt get past the first bit last time, was really short on time, so lets just address these points one at a time? firstly, just a little niggle with 2 points in the first paragraph one a minor the other a major so.....

 

O.k essentially I agree (first paragraph) but would prefer for language accuracy that decay be replaced with "dysfunction" mainly because it is a miss perception and continues the false impression that CODIT is about the compartmentalisation of decay, which it is not. An updated version would see this now called CODIT as the "compartmentalisation of DYSFUNCTION in trees" as oposed to the old model including the "demonic" D for decay. secondly, epicormic from bark as opposed to nodes is not strictly less stable, but it is less well tapped in to the vascular system, which in stressfull (drought) conditions leads to poor stabilisation of vascular pathways and re plumbing.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[treeseer]

"prefer for language accuracy that decay be replaced with "dysfunction" mainly because it is a miss perception and continues the false impression that CODIT is about the compartmentalisation of decay, which it is not. An updated version would see this now called CODIT as the "compartmentalisation of DYSFUNCTION in trees" as oposed to the old model including the "demonic" D for decay. "

 

Tony I'll agree that decay is misperceived as Demonic. As for what the D should stand for, Gilman cites Rayner and the rest in citing Dryness as the chief agent of Dysfunction, which is itself rather hard to define. We could also call the D Damage, or Dessication, but since Decay is the agent that causes wood not to be wood anymore, its Demonic status is not all that ridiculously exaggerated, in some contexts. Like you, I'm happy to work with and retain some heavily decayed trees.

 

Recalling the parable about the 5 blind guys who tried to identify an elephant by pawing pachydermal parts:

 

Q: How is a gullible young arborist assessing a hollow tree based on drilling its trunk like an old blind man assessing an elephant based on touching its trunk?

 

A: One calls it a snake, the other calls it a removal, but they both call it wrong.

 

"secondly, epicormic from bark as opposed to nodes is not strictly less stable, ..."

 

Stronger sprouting arises at nodes, from dormant buds that lay waiting. These were originally accessory buds, formed when the terminal bud was set at the end of a one-year old twig. Dormant buds are carried out in the cambium as the branch expands, still connected to the core by pith trails, sometimes called bud traces. These pith trails are held fast by compacted xylem in the core of the tree, providing for the new sprout a thin but very real structural attachment to the tree's core.

 

That's why growth from dormant buds is technically speaking endocormic (inside the core) rather than epicormic (outside the core). As a climbing arborist, I do not think you will doubt the strength of wood fibers!

 

Anything else in there worth reviewing?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"prefer for language accuracy that decay be replaced with "dysfunction" mainly because it is a miss perception and continues the false impression that CODIT is about the compartmentalisation of decay, which it is not. An updated version would see this now called CODIT as the "compartmentalisation of DYSFUNCTION in trees" as oposed to the old model including the "demonic" D for decay. "

 

Tony I'll agree that decay is misperceived as Demonic. As for what the D should stand for, Gilman cites Rayner and the rest in citing Dryness as the chief agent of Dysfunction, which is itself rather hard to define. We could also call the D Damage, or Dessication, but since Decay is the agent that causes wood not to be wood anymore, its Demonic status is not all that ridiculously exaggerated, in some contexts. Like you, I'm happy to work with and retain some heavily decayed trees.

 

Recalling the parable about the 5 blind guys who tried to identify an elephant by pawing pachydermal parts:

 

Q: How is a gullible young arborist assessing a hollow tree based on drilling its trunk like an old blind man assessing an elephant based on touching its trunk?

 

A: One calls it a snake, the other calls it a removal, but they both call it wrong.

 

"secondly, epicormic from bark as opposed to nodes is not strictly less stable, ..."

 

Stronger sprouting arises at nodes, from dormant buds that lay waiting. These were originally accessory buds, formed when the terminal bud was set at the end of a one-year old twig. Dormant buds are carried out in the cambium as the branch expands, still connected to the core by pith trails, sometimes called bud traces. These pith trails are held fast by compacted xylem in the core of the tree, providing for the new sprout a thin but very real structural attachment to the tree's core.

 

That's why growth from dormant buds is technically speaking endocormic (inside the core) rather than epicormic (outside the core). As a climbing arborist, I do not think you will doubt the strength of wood fibers!

 

Anything else in there worth reviewing?

 

If I was certain how to read what you wrote and understand it with the intent YOU set it out in I would reply, but making an assumption based on a little confusion and an unclear idea of what that all implies would result in trouble!

 

make your points again for me Guy.

[treeseer]

Tony, my purpose isn't to make points like lines in the sand to debate but rather to explore areas of common agreement with folks who do similar work. Refining my understanding based on others' thought and experience is what I'm after.

 

The "points" in the article such as they are can be found in the paragraphs. Started them with R's because many of the words do. The only specific response to the Retrenchment bit was from a bloke who wanted attribution for the "coinage" of the term to go to a friend who mentioned it at a pub. Okaaayyyyy...

 

It's in American English so somewhat understandable i hope. You're right it could be more focused, but that is a work in progress, which is why I seek the example and experience of others....

 

Like an after shot of your beech reduction!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony, my purpose isn't to make points like lines in the sand to debate but rather to explore areas of common agreement with folks who do similar work. Refining my understanding based on others' thought and experience is what I'm after.

 

The "points" in the article such as they are can be found in the paragraphs. Started them with R's because many of the words do. The only specific response to the Retrenchment bit was from a bloke who wanted attribution for the "coinage" of the term to go to a friend who mentioned it at a pub. Okaaayyyyy...

 

It's in American English so somewhat understandable i hope. You're right it could be more focused, but that is a work in progress, which is why I seek the example and experience of others....

 

Like an after shot of your beech reduction!

 

I didnt read the article Guy, not yet, so I was refering to my reply to your post not the article, just wanted to be certain what you was saying or getting at.

 

A follow up shot of my beech in this thread is going to be taken as soon as I relocate the road. One things is certain it will be looking dandy this year! all that rain

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

2 years later, this is what it looks like now

 

 

[David Humphries]

Bit of context.........

 

Is the client happy?

 

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Bit of context.........

 

Is the client happy?

 

[ATTACH]115410[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]115411[/ATTACH].

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

 

Dont know didnt knock to ask, just thought I would post a shot as I drove by yesterday

[morten]

Excellent work Hama,

 

You did exactly what the guy asked for and made a very good job of it.

 

+1