Understory vs. Canopy trees

[Karris]

I live in a condo with amazing views in the winter of a pond with an upspout fountain, a greenway with a creek running through it.  Being on the third floor I can leave all my windows open in the summer.  The white noise of the falling and rushing water is amazing.  Add to that hoot owls and crickets and frogs it's delightful.  The only problem is that in the strip of greenway that has grown into a lovely natural forest there is so much vegetation I can't see the sources of the white noise in the summer.  There's always a bit of frustration.  When I can hear it, I can't see it.  When I can see it, I can't hear it.  I got permission from the HOA board and had my son remove the branches of a couple of understory trees blocking my view of the creek.  I now have a glimpse of it in the summer which has greatly lessened my frustration levels.  

There's a big diversity of opinion from other residents.  Those on the ground floor don't want to lose any vegetation.  They like their privacy screen.  The ones beneath me were pitching a fit as I removed some vegetation I thought I had their approval for. 

Some of those on the upper floor just want the woodland area mowed down entirely so they can have their views.  I want both.  I analyzed that it's just several understory trees (slippery elm) growing directly on top of the root of the canopy trees (black locust) that might fall on me one day.  Would it be a sensible policy for our woodland management to work at removing the understory trees competing too closely with the canopy trees along the perimeter?  

We own these woods.  They have been totally neglected for 30 years.  By and large the result of that has been magnificent, IMO.  I called in the city arborist and he advised we remove the non-native invasive species.  I asked him if the canopy trees along the perimeter being so crowded compromised their strength and he said no.  I think he was answering a different question. I think he thought I was asking, is a stand of trees being very close, as they are in nature, compromised in withstanding strong winds. 

I'm asking, does an individual canopy tree do better if it's allowed ten feet of free space between it and another tree?  Will it be stronger and safer in terms of falling on a building bordering it (about 20 feet away)?  I'm on the HOA board, so I could influence things.  I think we can all be happy if we work together on intelligent, responsible policies. I'm not talking about removing all understory tree.  Just those very close to the roots of the canopy trees on the perimeter.

[Mick Dempsey]

Can you provide pictures?

[Karris]

Sure

[Karris]

This is more of a close up of the slippery elm that's on the roots of the black locust.  The middle of the bottom photo above is the understory tree part of that cluster of black locust trees.  In the top photo above you can see how it's the slippery elm that's covering the view of the creek when it's leafed out. 

[Mick Dempsey]

To me, looks like a load of crap as an understory, clear it all and leave the decent size trees.

[Karris]

I'm hoping I can muster an argument that it's responsible to limit overcrowding the roots of canopy trees near buildings.  It seems like common sense to me, but other people heard this arborist say it didn't matter.  I'm hoping someone with an equivalent title can back me up.

[monkeybusiness]

From the pictures posted I’d suggest your issue is one of aesthetics, not tree health. 
Some people will like the wildness and privacy that they are subsequently afforded, others want a more manicured view.

Good luck finding an acceptable middle ground - it might be easier to move to a property you don’t have to share with others though (someone in your block is going to end up unhappy in your current situation however this plays out). 

 

[coppice cutter]

14 hours ago, Karris said:

They have been totally neglected for 30 years.

What you mean is, they have been free from human interference and nature left to do it's own thing for 30 years.

 

I have a young woodland of my own which occasionally people ask if they can have a walk around. The first thing I tell anyone so inclined is to remember that it's a natural area which I leave to do it's own thing as much as is possible, it is not a garden. And anyone who ventures out in to it expecting a garden like experience will be disappointed because nature does things very differently to how we humans would generally prefer.

 

Your wooded area has gone through a well-documented cycle, from stem exclusion where canopy trees dominate to the exclusion of pretty much all else, to understorey initiation where the canopy trees become tall enough to allow light in below and an understory develops.

 

If you want to clear all or part of the understorey away and leave the canopy trees then that's fine, but be aware that without continuous and ongoing management of the understory in future, either they or something else will just grow back to make use of the light that's now available.

 

There's no right or wrong in this, either you leave it alone completely, or deal with it in a way that achieves what you wish. Going down the route of "we have to do it this way because it's what's right" could leave you with egg on your face because that's just not how management of such an area works.