Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I have sussed that fom you

 

Still a link their I am sure though, for some contraversy:001_rolleyes:

 

It isnt controversial to me, common sense that pruning is and has its benifits, manged trees simply live longer and pruning also alleviates much of the tensions trees and people generate, sorry I mean that people have tensions with their trees not trees having tensions with people! lol

 

we have been pollarding for a zillion years and wether anyone agrees or not, reduction, pollarding, all forms of reduction have been done to manage trees also provide materials for fuel furniture and food for stock animals, even provide boundary hedges to keep the stock in. for anyone in this line of work to say that pruning, specificaly reductions and pollarding is a crime or an old and outdated practice with no good scientific or common sense reasoning to justify it just says to me that they do not have a broad undertsanding of a tree and its purpose within our highly managed and manicured landscapes, nor the imense benifits those managment principles produce to habitat creation and diversity.

[Dean Lofthouse]

for anyone in this line of work to say that pruning, specificaly reductions and pollarding is a crime or an old and outdated practice with no good scientific or common sense reasoning to justify it just says to me that they do not have a broad undertsanding of a tree and its purpose within our highly managed and manicured landscapes, nor the imense benifits those managment principles produce to habitat creation and diversity.

 

Wow...that is a very arrogant, elitist and sweeping statement if ever I've seen one

 

All anyone has said in this thread is that heavy pruning is worse for the tree than if it were left alone and that topping or HEAVY reductions are not good practice in an "Urban" enviroment simply because they produce weak unions and for that tree to be kept in a safe condition it MUST be managed, and you and I both know full well, they never are managed properly.

 

I drove past a church yesterday with every one of it's roadside tree topped drastically, each had about 20 years new growth with big pockets of rot and hollows at the base of each new growth, please dont have the arrogance and audacity to tell me that is better for the tree than if the tree had been left alone or that it is safe to the public in an urban enviroment

 

Trees do better left alone

 

If we want a product out of them then we multilate them to force them to produce as in coppicing which is a way to force vigerous new low down easy to reach source of wood all for human benefit NOT the trees

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Wow...that is a very arrogant, elitist and sweeping statement if ever I've seen one

 

All anyone has said in this thread is that heavy pruning is worse for the tree than if it were left alone and that topping or HEAVY reductions are not good practice in an "Urban" enviroment simply because they produce weak unions and for that tree to be kept in a safe condition it MUST be managed, and you and I both know full well, they never are managed properly.

 

I drove past a church yesterday with every one of it's roadside tree topped drastically, each had about 20 years new growth with big pockets of rot and hollows at the base of each new growth, please dont have the arrogance and audacity to tell me that is better for the tree than if the tree had been left alone or that it is safe to the public in an urban enviroment

 

Trees do better left alone

 

If we want a product out of them then we multilate them to force them to produce as in coppicing which is a way to force vigerous new low down easy to reach source of wood all for human benefit NOT the trees

 

Dean, the overall opinion being cast is that reduction is a bad idea, this is absolute rubbish, reduction is a perfectly valid excercise in tree managment. I NEVER said Pollarding was a viable technique within the dense urbanised environment, read back!

 

And arrogant? not really, just confidence in my opinion, and that is a very different thing all together.

 

I dont like the way many seem to asume a "perfect world" is achievable, one where we leave trees to "get on with it" and be eu naturel, we dont live in this perfect world, we live in one where tree manangment is a vital part of keeping the interests of humans and trees in a state of compromise.

[Dean Lofthouse]

 

And arrogant? not really, just confidence in my opinion, and that is a very different thing all together.

 

.

 

I personally found your statement insulting, it is put across in a way that says anyone who disagreed with your opinion on this thread didn't have an understanding of trees, your opinion is correct and anyone opposing your opinion simply has no understanding of trees.

 

I can take pictures of tree round here that have been "reduced" an Ash in particular which looks like a dogs backside now, in two or three years what was cut off has regrown and it is now back to it's original size and shape but has now got ten times more outer foliage and branches so increasing it's surface area to wind forces

 

The owner of that tree probably has no intention of having it reduced again because he's sat there thinking he paid all that money for a reduction and within short space of time the tree looks no different so hes not going to waste money and have it done again.

 

Now we have got an Ash tree that looks horrible with epicormic sprouting in it's outer crown that now has a windloading factor far greater than it was previously and with weaker unions on the pruning cut which incidently have a lot more end weight to contend with.

 

I dont like the way many seem to asume a "perfect world" is achievable, one where we leave trees to "get on with it" and be eu naturel, we dont live in this perfect world, we live in one where tree manangment is a vital part of keeping the interests of humans and trees in a state of compromise

You are yourself assuming a perfect world in which everyone manages their trees to a schedule and maintains their trees to the book.

 

Your wrong Tony, simple fact is they top and mutilate their trees then some poor sod has to come along in twenty years time and anchor into weak attachment points to try and bring it back into control.

 

Pollarded trees in the past usually didnt need climbing because they didnt have targets underneath, they just laddered up into pollard head and crashed everything out, nowadays we have to acheive high anchor and lowering points and lower and rig things off in sometimes difficult situations.

 

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

You are yourself assuming a perfect world in which everyone manages their trees to a schedule and maintains their trees to the book.

 

Your wrong Tony, simple fact is they top and mutilate their trees then some poor sod has to come along in twenty years time and anchor into weak attachment points to try and bring it back into control.

 

These two points are a bit silly, because at the end of the day our role in this is to be the "experts" and provide advice and do the work and WE are not responsible for the actions of tree owners who employ un proffesional workmen.

 

I am discussing proper tree care, not mutilation and malpractice.

[Dean Lofthouse]

You are yourself assuming a perfect world in which everyone manages their trees to a schedule and maintains their trees to the book.

 

Your wrong Tony, simple fact is they top and mutilate their trees then some poor sod has to come along in twenty years time and anchor into weak attachment points to try and bring it back into control.

 

These two points are a bit silly, because at the end of the day our role in this is to be the "experts" and provide advice and do the work and WE are not responsible for the actions of tree owners who employ un proffesional workmen.

 

I am discussing proper tree care, not mutilation and malpractice.

 

In your role as an expert do you tell the customer that hacking their tree is good for the tree and is a benefit to the tree, do you explain to them the light benefits will only be temporary and they will end up wiuth an increased crown density should they choose not to stick to a rigid regieme of pruning and re-reducing, do you also explain to them the increase in wind loading once the tree reaches its previous crown size should they choose not to prune back

 

Didn't think so

 

We all do our reductions and we all do our toppings for the customer and very rarely because the tree is faulty or we wish to reduce the wind loading on a structural weak point.

 

But I simply cannot grasp or get into my head your theory that it is for the benefit of the tree and we are ingnorant or lacking in knowledge to assume otherwise because we have been mutilating trees for thousands of years.

 

Trees have been managing before humans even trod this soil and they haven't done too well since our introduction into the eco system

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

In your role as an expert do you tell the customer that hacking their tree is good for the tree and is a benefit to the tree, do you explain to them the light benefits will only be temporary and they will end up wiuth an increased crown density should they choose not to stick to a rigid regieme of pruning and re-reducing, do you also explain to them the increase in wind loading once the tree reaches its previous crown size should they choose not to prune back

 

Didn't think so

 

There wouldnt be a weakness or increased windload on a PROPERLY reduced tree dean.

 

We all do our reductions and we all do our toppings for the customer and very rarely because the tree is faulty or we wish to reduce the wind loading on a structural weak point.

 

By default, careful reduction increases wind resistance due to the tree being optomised according to natural failure rates like your bones about 1-4 to 1-5 in other words a leg or limb is 4-5 times the strength it needs to be to bear its wieght alone, to allow for stresses. When we reduce a tree we reduce stresses and as a consequence leave a structure designed for heavier loads to remain intact.

 

But I simply cannot grasp or get into my head your theory that it is for the benefit of the tree and we are ingnorant or lacking in knowledge to assume otherwise because we have been mutilating trees for thousands of years.

 

It is for the benifit of the tree because i) managing a tree at a given size stops it becoming a bigger problem and having an undesirably large set of pruning wounds to get it back to a "sensible" size. ii) reduced hieght width and leverage decreases windloads, this is a well documented and researched fact, with even lapsed pollards only now beginning to fail and die after 100plus years. iii) a shortening of the transport distances and ramification and increased leaf area for a given size is physiologicaly better for the tree.

 

Trees have been managing before humans even trod this soil and they haven't done too well since our introduction into the eco system

 

There are many that would beg to differ, and in only recent times has mans influence become significantly detrimental rather than benificial. This is also just repeating your perfect world scenario, where trees do not have to co exist with us and in our human and overbearing shadows.

 

 

Bottom line is as long as you have an ole in your backside, trees will be reduced, pollarded, managed and it is down to us to make the best job of it and ensure a safer urban tree stock, and one also as free from human conflicts as it is possible to encourage.

[Dean Lofthouse]

 

There are many that would beg to differ, and in only recent times has mans influence become significantly detrimental rather than benificial. This is also just repeating your perfect world scenario, where trees do not have to co exist with us and in our human and overbearing shadows.

 

 

Bottom line is as long as you have an ole in your backside, trees will be reduced, pollarded, managed and it is down to us to make the best job of it and ensure a safer urban tree stock, and one also as free from human conflicts as it is possible to encourage.

 

What are you on about ??

 

What perfect world have I mentioned ?

 

Co- exist ?

 

I reduce trees, I have never said I dont.. ?

 

Ensure a safer urban tree stock ?? Yes I agree

 

I dont see what your arguing here ?

 

I'll simplify

 

My points:

 

Trees manage perfectly well without us

 

Pruning trees (unless you are trying to save an ailing tree ) is for our benefit and not the trees.

 

Heavily pruning / pollarding / topping trees can create a MORE hazardous tree than leaving it well alone.

 

My points are quite simple and not in a perfect world scenario

[Danavan]

All I was saying is that overall reductions of trees is imo not the way to keep our balance with our enviroment.

 

To prune a tree to relive stress off of areas that mite pose a theat to us or property is the way I would like to work more with trees in our urban enviroment.

 

I can see good reason to reduce trees which will enable the tree to co exist with us.

However I don't like the practice of reductions to gain more light & a smaller tree in areas with pleanty of space. This sort of aproch only causes probs in the future. I'm sure we have all stressed to cliants on the importance of regular management after a reduction, but I have been to countless re-reductions 5 or more years to late because the cliant has moved of just forgoten about the trees needs until a branch lands on the neighbors fence!

 

I don't disagree with reductions, but only to be used as a last resort! Their are pleanty of other options alot of the time.

 

As for pollards & coppice work I veiw this diferantly as the tree management is on going & can provide eco systems that may not be found in trees of the same spp.

 

From what I have been told from people who have worked out their, the German mind to pruning is more toward strucural management ect.

Full tree reductions are rare, if done this is practiced on street trees & well managed.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

There is overwhelming evidence for the longevity of pollards, a beech will at 300 years be in a state of senessence and terminal decline, but pollarded a beech can and will attain up to 500 years of age. This sample is from Epping Forest, it cleary shows a stable crown despite the pollarding being lapsed by at at a guess 50-60 years, maybe a bit more.

 

 

Large cuts can be made even on beech which are notoriously poor at coping with reduction, but it is a trees state of vitality and vigour that determines its capacity to deal with wounds, not so much its genus. There are trees that do not do well when heavily pruned and do indeed produce weak unions, willow poplar for example, but Oak, beech horbeam can all be reduced/pollarded hard and be left to thier own devices for decades even a century before major problems and weak unions form.

 

I would aslo add at this point that those weak pollard unions would not fail if they was reduced! it is the extension and wieght on the lever arm that produces the failure, wind loads are not the major player, but a contributer to the bulk density of the timber and its effect on the lever arm. a denser lower profile from reduction avoids that situation, and hence is benificial to tree longevity.

 

Note in this image the wider section surrounding the hollowed wound point, the axiom of uniform stress, balanced to compenstae, and as strong as the stem above it and below it due to increased diameter, similar to the Bottle Butt phenomena

Edited April 3, 2010 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad