Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Trees do sometimes need me to prune them.

 

Otherwise they would they would be sent to the great firewood pile in the sky.

 

Okay pruning no matter how much or little it is, isnt any good for the tree but I bet the tree would prefer it to being felled.

 

I've saved a few trees that would have been doomed but sent more to there grave though!

 

i left my last position due to the number of large fells we was doing in the built environment, now a fell is rare.

 

NOW, you lot tell me whos doing the right thing?

[educated arborist]

some do quite alot of takedowns, but most are plant & replace. Iv'e managed to plant many, many more than ive cut down, Planting 20 various extra heavy standard conifers next week as well as 20 4m tall beech. Plant and replace can often be a better option than big reductions IMO but it typically is a larger initial outlay for the client.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

some do quite alot of takedowns, but most are plant & replace. Iv'e managed to plant many, many more than ive cut down, Planting 20 various extra heavy standard conifers next week as well as 20 4m tall beech. Plant and replace can often be a better option than big reductions IMO but it typically is a larger initial outlay for the client.

 

And what about the loss of diversity/habitat?

[Treeson]

just made my way through all the posts in this thread and have been enjoying the discussions and squabbles. Great looking reductions -I like the way the overall shape is maintained.

[Rod]

heres a little one i did a while ago

[Rod]

bigger one 20-30 reduction/thin

 

dont think i have a whole set of pictures from one spot:confused1:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

The best for mof reduction, whilst young and minimal prune, good job:thumbup:

[Rod]

The best for mof reduction, whilst young and minimal prune, good job:thumbup:

 

cheers

 

my fave reductions are cherry or similar trees that have been badly done/pollarded in the past i love re shaping and thinning them back to some sort of tree like existance, removing phototrophic shoots and the like

its a good sence of satisfaction when it looks (all be it slightly thin) like it will be a nice tree again.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I was under the impression that wind action is what thickens branches and trunck with reactive growth and they wont grow bigger than there exposed positions will allow, thats why we see stunted trees in exposed positions.

 

The only need for reducing is for humans

 

"but trees that have been pruned (mostly) last longer on average, withstand more decay and produce safer trees"

 

...and I disagree with reducing makes safer trees. It doesn't, it produces weak unions

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I was under the impression that wind action is what thickens branches and trunck with reactive growth and they wont grow bigger than there exposed positions will allow, thats why we see stunted trees in exposed positions.

 

The only need for reducing is for humans

 

"but trees that have been pruned (mostly) last longer on average, withstand more decay and produce safer trees"

 

...and I disagree with reducing makes safer trees. It doesn't, it produces weak unions

 

Does it Dean? produce weak unions? What reducing? or pollarding?

 

Pollarding agreed, BUT cyclic pollarding will and does prolong, FACT