Raise or reduce whats your beef?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

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...

 

The further away the leaves are to a woody portion the harder it is to secondary thicken, its why over lifting and over thinning are such bad specifications/practices.

 

Its a point well documented and researched, and easily observable in the field too.

[Amelanchier]

Uh huh yep the oldest branches are often near the bottom which provides a short carb pathway to the roots, which is why crown lifting is bad for veterans and why stem and basal epi is more important than most CS units give it credit for. We know that.

 

My point is that an aesthetic rule does not necessarily correlate to a phsyiological rule. Hence the willow example. The same could be said for trees with a low wide habit such as Persian Ironwood. Take a third off the bottom and you've removed quite a bit of foliage.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Uh huh yep the oldest branches are often near the bottom which provides a short carb pathway to the roots, which is why crown lifting is bad for veterans and why stem and basal epi is more important than most CS units give it credit for. We know that.

 

My point is that an aesthetic rule does not necessarily correlate to a phsyiological rule. Hence the willow example. The same could be said for trees with a low wide habit such as Persian Ironwood. Take a third off the bottom and you've removed quite a bit of foliage.

 

 

For anyone who doesnt know The perotia's form (very decurrant) "the persian ironwood" a very nice tree in the right setting. good reference too Tony!