Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[Dean Lofthouse]

so are you suggesting that all my work above is 70% reduction? or even 1 of those jobs, none of which are over 40%?

 

 

Oooh you are sensetive Tony !!!!

[Mesterh]

so are you suggesting that all my work above is 70% reduction? or even 1 of those jobs, none of which are over 40%?

 

I beg to differ there. Post 4 looks way over 40% to me.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Oooh you are sensetive Tony !!!!

 

LOL, just asking!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I beg to differ there. Post 4 looks way over 40% to me.

 

shall go see, probably the lime though?

 

I think its the dense hornbeam your refering to, if so, probably a wee bit more but certainly not over 50% foliage reduced, maybe 8ft hieght wise?

Edited March 15, 2010 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

thin ice, v thin ice. There is a fair amount of conflicting research on this matter, but i post primerily to expand on deans post.

 

90% of the time reductions result in weak unions. The larger the wound-stem ratio diamiter the weaker the union, the wounds really do have to be miniscule to stregthen the tree & some of the reductions in your photos will have inherent weak points needing cyclical pruning to prevent branch failure.

 

I missed this post before.

 

I will endevour to provide photgraphic evidence and samples to back this reply up at a later date BUT for now...

 

You are misguided, if you knew how a pruning cut that is properly made develops arond the occlusion and makes new growth also around this point, you would know full well that as according to the axiom of uniform stress a tree will adapt this union to have negligable weakness, comparable to any other union within the trees form. In any case a shortening of the lever arm reduces leverages, and in a case of a poorly produced union will most likely self thin as aposed to allowing the tree to grow unhampered and fail at the scaffold union. This is a much higher risk scenario with more serious consequences, as well as the potential for serious decay fungi to enter the core structure at such a larg wound/failure point on the main stem

 

There are MANY more arguments for reduction than there are for removal, or even thinning.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

It is vital to stipulate that there are certain trees that are poor when reduced for the aformentioned issues/reasons, willow, poplar, for example. However most trees pruned corrrectly, which I should not need to state! for we should all be aware and working to BS 3998 as a minimum. However, there is a clear consensus that pruning cuts are bad news, even for an educated arborist!

 

So, beech, supposedly poor response to pruning wounds and not reducing well? Photos-

 

Educated arborist, I hope you find these educational!

 

Dean lofthouse, note the lack even of epi scars or shhots iether dead or alive at the reduction point! Is this still conjecture?

 

 

 

[Dean Lofthouse]

Topping cuts

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Topping cuts

 

But that isnt BS standards is it!

 

Im going to get the standard out and check but Im pretty sure it would eliminate two cuts of that dimension from being made close together.

 

What about your views on my photo post above of the beech stem that had been pruned?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Eventually, I've got the opportunity to contribute AND I've found the thread (100 lines Paul must try harder with computers!)

 

Obvioulsy there's been an awful lot of good contributions to this thread and I've just read the beginning and the end so I'll start by offering an AC assessment/audit of the works presented (BUT I will caveat this by saying whilst the photo's are very good you can never see everything until you've got the example in front of you, which obvioulsy I haven't. That said as well as having the 'example' in front of us on an assessment if there are 'before' and 'after' photo's, importantly taken from exactly (or more or less) the same point, this can be extremely useful and inform the audit process (NEBOSH 'anorak' speak!)

 

Reet, so where do we start on an assessment (I hope this works):

 

1. Check the auditing criteria:

2.3 Crown reduction (MANDATORY)

• appropriate spec (from contractor)

• conforms to spec

• correct cuts

• correct finished result

A specific ‘amenity type’ crown reduction operation is to be observed, i.e. 10-15% with the ‘rule of thirds’ applied unless otherwise specified.

Accords with current BS3998 and European Tree Pruning Guide.

 

1.1. Can't really comment on the spec as not available = assumed yes!

1.2 As above in 1.1

1.3 Correct cuts (in terms of position, angle, size, accuracy, cleaness etc.) = again difficult to accurately assess without observation at closer quaters but the only thing I would readily comment on is, as I refer to it, the 'relationship of size' between the 'parent' (or removed) branch and the secondary (or retained) branch, i.e. 'the thirds rule' (meaning, the retained branch is at least 1/3rd the dia. of the removed branch...SORRY, "granny, eggs n sucks" again!) Whilst accepting this is not alwasy possible, Silver Maple is difficult and perhaps Beech to a lesser extent, it would appear from some photo's this hasn't always been achieved.

This 'rule', as I refer to it, isn't include in BS3998 but is referred to in the Euorpean Tree Pruning Guide (ETPG), which I think is an excellent 'handbook' for tree pruning BUT very expensive as such..approx. 15 Euros (I think) and, I believe, a generally acknowledged and accepted rule. Whilst BS3998 1989doesn't state it specifically the illustration at Fig.2 supports this and it is included, in text, in the 'draft' BS3998.

The BS3998 actually doesn't help tho by saying prune back to a side bud (or branch) which seems to conflict with this principle.

Bottom line crown reducing back to 'twigs' often results in them failing and being 'blown off/wind thrown' and, effectively, leaves 'inter-nodal' cuts = deemed porr practice.

 

1.4 Correct finished result = difficult to say without having more infomration. was the objective to crown reduce maintaining the tree's original natural shape OR was it to reduce to reshape, i.e. to a potentially encourage a slightly difrerent form. Perhaps, with the Beech trees, their natural broad spreading habit has been changed to become more rounded and condensed. The Atlas Cedar ('neck on the line'!) has certainly been reshaped losing its natural form...but then what else can you do with a species with such a distinct form?

 

So what would the outcome of the audit be 'NO' (below standard), 'YES' (at standard) or 'GOOD' (above standard) = YES/GOOD with some advisories offered along the above lines.

 

This post may have missed the point, be irrelevant (hopefully not totally) or be 'on the money', so to speak, but I'm sure I'll find out very soon...gudon'yas!

 

Cheers all..

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

SORRY ALL...don't know what happened but I went in for an 'edit' before posting and it just disappeared...aghhhh...200 lines!

 

What I also meant to include was that we would also give serious consideration to the circumsatnce surrounding the pruning and if, for instance, it was a heavy reduction because of structural defects or subsidence mitigation etc. this may be accpetable (provided it braodly followed the standard principles and practices) BUT we would always require to see at least one 'amenity type', as I refer to it, reduction.

 

I also wanted to say "gudon'ya" to Hamadryad for having the confidence to post the photos to have them, efcetively, scrutinsed by your 'peers' BUT that's how we learn and improve/raise the bar and this way everyone benefits in that process.

 

Again I 'take my hat off' to Arbtalk for facilitating this and you guys/guyesses for collectively contributing = as MonkeyD said recently this is 'THE Tree Community'!

 

Paul