Copper beech tight fork/union question

[Twentyeight Trees]

Hey guys, 

 

I came across something that I’d like some more opinions on (please). I was doing a very quick inspection of some old pruning wounds in a copper beech. We were due to fell said tree and the LPA TPO’d it, understandably - it’s a very nice example and it’s recovered from pruning exceptional well for a beech. 

the first fork is included and rather tight. it’s had the natural brace removed, which I believe will allow the union to stabilise itself over time. the crown has also been reduced, can only assume to reduce weight/sail area.

 

my plan for this is to reduce crown again and monitor union….Does anybody have any other suggestions for said tree or do I just need to stop being so bloody anxious!
 

Thanks

tim🌳

 

 

[Dan Maynard]

2 hours ago, Twentyeight Trees said:

the first fork is included and rather tight. it’s had the natural brace removed, which I believe will allow the union to stabilise itself over time.

 

That does look tight but no elephant ears, can't remember the post now but was the theory that the natural brace causes the tight union to form and so should be left in place? Once removed the union is more vulnerable. I did at the time think more to this natural brace theory and not sure it all makes sense yet.

 

I felled a TPO ash last year which the TO agreed fork looked dodgy and it was near the house, ultimately TO would have to agree to anything drastic in this case too. Otherwise you're on "prudent management" as you suggested, seems fair to me. Or indeed if failure is not reasonably foreseeable then do nothing.

 

[Twentyeight Trees]

Thanks for the reply Dan. 
 

My theory for natural braces came from https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/Conference17/WED-07-Dr-Duncan-Slater.pdf 

 

in a nutshell a natural brace stops the movement within the union, the friction would divide cells and create a ridge. If natural brace dies then the union is heavily compromised…. On the flip side of the natural brace doesn’t die/fail then it’s supporting the union…… 😩

 

all very interesting stuff! I’ll email the TO tomorrow. 

 

[Andrew McEwan]

4 ton flat braid loop with no pre tension is probably what'd I be considering, then you can monitor it with a backup, but just an idea having not seen it in the flesh.

[scottythepinetree]

18 hours ago, Twentyeight Trees said:

Thanks for the reply Dan. 
 

My theory for natural braces came from https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/Conference17/WED-07-Dr-Duncan-Slater.pdf 

 

in a nutshell a natural brace stops the movement within the union, the friction would divide cells and create a ridge. If natural brace dies then the union is heavily compromised…. On the flip side of the natural brace doesn’t die/fail then it’s supporting the union…… 😩

 

all very interesting stuff! I’ll email the TO tomorrow. 

 

There's a related article in the most recent (I think) copy of Arb Journal. There's more solid data supporting the idea that natural braces cause included bark. This Powerpoint is a little weak though. It seems to be an opinion survey, with a suggestion that the opinions of those who disagree with the narrative (should a study even have a narrative?) are doing so because of their level of experience. "Respondents’ level of experience was related to different answers to questions 5 and 12".

I'd be interested to see some long-term studies on this.

[jfc]

DO NOT REMOVE natural braces in bark included unions.

I don't know how you read Slater to think he was recommending removing them.

They are what is holding the stems together.

J.

[Steve Bullman]

I  definetly wouldnt have removed that. In a young tree when its only just forming then yes, but not in a mature tree. IMO this has the potential to create a similar effect as if you were to remove the bordering trees of a plantation.

[Thesnarlingbadger]

The natural brace being removed would concern me massively. I wouldn’t like to remove the tree either. A 20% crown reduction and a brace might be enough to hold of the problem for a while but it will be a problem at some point in the future and with it being close to buildings I’d be worried.

[Dan Maynard]

OP didn't say he removed it, but that it has been removed.

 

Slater's the bloke, yes. I'm still not completely on board, I look at the ash trees round here with tight unions and I don't see any natural braces at all. Maybe the theory works better in beech but we don't have much of that.

 

[Twentyeight Trees]

I haven’t done any maintenance to this tree yet. If you look at the natural brace in the photos you’ll see it was removed years ago, the clean edge to it looks like it was pruned out rather than naturally removed. 
 

Don’t panic I’m not a remover of natural braces, I was just curious to hear other peoples opinions on them.