Raise or reduce whats your beef?

[combined tree services]

yes thats starting to make more sense now lol , i really must try to remember more of what a learn and read lmao

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

yes thats starting to make more sense now lol , i really must try to remember more of what a learn and read lmao

 

I think the best examples of the phenomina are sycamores that have been lifted. all the cuts often do coalesce and Polyporus squamosus finds this scenario particulary tasteful.

[combined tree services]

I think the best examples of the phenomina are sycamores that have been lifted. all the cuts often do coalesce and Polyporus squamosus finds this scenario particulary tasteful.

 

yes i have seen a sycamore that was crown lifted probably ten years ago and now is in need of felling due to the presence of Polyporus Squamosus.

[Mark Bolam]

I would leave one big 'pruning' cut all right....

[combined tree services]

I would leave one big 'pruning' cut all right....

 

roughyl 1/2 inch from the ground by any chance ????

[Mark Bolam]

Top of the class Dave!

[Ian Flatters]

Seven of nine, and her two sisters Angelina Jolie and megan fox are round for a coffee morning! happy days!

 

All dressed in their finest underwear.

[Amelanchier]

Interesting enough (or more likely not) I've been re-reading the draft revision for BS3998 as part of a plan to future proof my reports etc.

 

The section on lifting includes this excerpt:

 

"9.7.1 General

Crown lifting should if possible be phased over a number of years, with a view to providing some opportunity for physiological and mechanical adaptation to the resulting wounding and branch removal. Crown lifting should be avoided or minimized in mature or old trees if possible, since it can increase the probability of stem failure. If it cannot be avoided, it should preferably involve the removal of secondary branches or branch shortening rather than branch removal, provided that the desired clearance can thereby be achieved. The choice of these options should take account of factors including the size, growth potential, branching habit and shade tolerance of the tree.

 

NOTE 1 If crown lifting involves the removal of branches which form a substantial proportion of the lower crown of a mature or old tree, the resulting wounds on the main stem are likely to become the seat of extensive decay, which could eventually lead to mechanical failure. Failure could also become likely in the short term, since branch removal can cause an immediate impairment of mechanical properties.

 

Crown lifting that involves the cutting back of branches to the main stem should preferably not result in the removal of more than 15% of the live crown height and, unless the objectives change, should not be followed by further crown lifting (except in the case of a young tree undergoing formative pruning, see 9.5), which would increase the effect of wounding on the main stem and the impairment of mechanical properties.

 

NOTE 2 For example, if the stem of a 20 m high tree is branch-free to a height of 5 m, it could be crown lifted to a height of 7.25 m."

 

Useful? So assuming our imaginary Euc is has a current clearance of 10ft we could lift it by another 9ft before we start to instigate problems...

 

To answer the OP question - I'd recommend a lift. Reducing Eucs is like running on the spot.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Amelanchier
formatting my cut & paste

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Final lifting hieght should not be more than one third the the total hieght of the tree, whatever the "details" highway clearance is another matter but it is a general rule of thumb, and of asthetics, any more and the tree becomes less pleasing astheticaly, I.e a third of the total hieght could be a clean trunk with thwo thirrds above foliated, this has visual balance.

 

It also avoids the carbohydrate distrubiton problems.

[Amelanchier]

Final lifting hieght should not be more than one third the the total hieght of the tree, whatever the "details" highway clearance is another matter but it is a general rule of thumb, and of asthetics, any more and the tree becomes less pleasing astheticaly, I.e a third of the total hieght could be a clean trunk with thwo thirrds above foliated, this has visual balance.

 

It also avoids the carbohydrate distrubiton problems.

 

I agree with you on a point of aesthetics, but I can't see that a visual proportion based rule of thumb has any relation to the carb transfer of the vascular system.

 

Of course this aesthetic rule should be applied with caution to some species especially those with a weeping habit. Its entirely possible to keep your visual balance and remove all but a handful of branches at the top with your average weeping willow...