Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[arbclimber]

Very little IMO, its "topped" trees that have the weak attachment and large wounds that struggle to seal and compartmentalize.

 

On a "proper" reduction you cut back to a branch of at least 1/3 the size of the branch removed, so not much fast weak regrowth.

 

Skyhuck,

 

I dont get it, what do you mean when you say cut back to a branch of at least 1/3 the size of branch removed. Sorry, I must be being thick cos noone else has asked but it makes no sense to me.

[Ian Flatters]

Skyhuck,

 

I dont get it, what do you mean when you say cut back to a branch of at least 1/3 the size of branch removed. Sorry, I must be being thick cos noone else has asked but it makes no sense to me.

 

Rule of a third. When reducing branches back you should not reduce to a branch which is less than a third of the diameter of the branch you have just cut.......

 

Hope this helps:thumbup:

[arbclimber]

Rule of a third. When reducing branches back you should not reduce to a branch which is less than a third of the diameter of the branch you have just cut.......

 

Hope this helps:thumbup:

 

Many thanks target trees, I was right I was just being a bit thick.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Well, as requested by mr lofthouse, a couple of reductions both before and after the initial reduction and 2 full seasons after in the third image.

 

Not quite the ball of epicormic one would expect?

 

The trees have not rapidly replaced the lost foliage, merely ramified its outer structure increasing buds without rapid extension growth or great flushes of epicormic growth internaly.

 

I rest my case, for now!

 

 

 

[Dean Lofthouse]

...and before you know it you have ten times as much foliage, ten times as many branches all of which will grow at an increased rate

 

If it was done to reduce sail, then you have made the problem ten times worse

 

If it was done to allow light in the you have given them a temporary fix but in the long run made the problem much worse.

 

Then when it comes to re- reducing it will take ten times as many cuts and be more hazzardous because you have also removed the high anchor.

 

Please do tell.... were the reductions for the benefit of the tree or the tree owner, because quite frankly, I fail to see what benefits are for the tree unless the tree is being re-trenched to reduce sail area because of a fault or weakness

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

...and before you know it you have ten times as much foliage, ten times as many branches all of which will grow at an increased rate

 

If it was done to reduce sail, then you have made the problem ten times worse

 

If it was done to allow light in the you have given them a temporary fix but in the long run made the problem much worse.

 

Then when it comes to re- reducing it will take ten times as many cuts and be more hazzardous because you have also removed the high anchor.

 

Please do tell.... were the reductions for the benefit of the tree or the tree owner, because quite frankly, I fail to see what benefits are for the tree unless the tree is being re-trenched to reduce sail area because of a fault or weakness

 

I guess at some point one has to decide wether the person asking you the question is ever going to be satisfied with your answer. In this case, it is clear that you have your opinion, and I have mine, keep it coming though dean, your forcing me to have a good old think about this argument.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I guess at some point one has to decide wether the person asking you the question is ever going to be satisfied with your answer. In this case, it is clear that you have your opinion, and I have mine, keep it coming though dean, your forcing me to have a good old think about this argument.

 

[Danavan]

No befor:thumbdown: But not much to go on spec wise!

Happy with what I did though. An amazing tree for it's age & compaction & limb removal history!

[Mesterh]

Well, as requested by mr lofthouse, a couple of reductions both before and after the initial reduction and 2 full seasons after in the third image.

 

Not quite the ball of epicormic one would expect?

 

The trees have not rapidly replaced the lost foliage, merely ramified its outer structure increasing buds without rapid extension growth or great flushes of epicormic growth internaly.

 

I rest my case, for now!

 

 

Looks to me that those trees have been reduced before in the past.

 

In fact I would bet on it.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Looks to me that those trees have been ruined before in the past.

 

In fact I would bet on it.

 

You are right, but I would have used less strong terminology