Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[skyhuck]

if we felled and replanted all trees instead of reductions, we would loose a hell of alot of large, irreplaceable structures across the towns and cities, and would be left with a load of freshly staked 10foot trees that probabally wont reach 40years.

sometimes imo its best to reduce trees if purely to leave the only 5ft diameter trunk for miles arround, just so someone can look at that girth and ask themselves 'what has that tree seen' and hey if a tree needs reducing on a regular cycle, why not, its money in an arbs pocket, food for their children, and a piece of furniture on the landscape. cost isnt a great deal compared to what would be lost-reduce a veteran oak/lime/beech ect once every 5 year? £500 a time? 2k for 20 extra years, 5k for 50 extra years of a beautifull sized tree has to be worth it-how much more co2 will that reduced tree soak up than a sapling? how many extra birds, insects, fungi will live off that tree compared to a sapling?

 

 

 

:congrats:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

:congrats:

 

I know i thought the same, no wonder all the big trees are slowly vanishing!

[David Humphries]

I know i thought the same, no wonder all the big trees are slowly vanishing!

 

 

 

Not on my watch they're not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[welwell]

Very very interesting thread. I'm in the middle on this one. Normally I wouldn't recommend reductions of large trees but as rightly pointed out earlier despite all the good and right advice we can give sometimes clients just want to keep the tree but have it smaller for more light etc etc. In my experiance this isn't wrong tree wrong place its wrong building wrong place. But I guess that's a whole other discussion!!!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Not on my watch they're not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

We will save em eah monkey!

[Dean Lofthouse]

:congrats:

 

????

 

Dont get what your applauding ??

 

You agree it is good to drastically reduce a tree and leave the customer with a massive flush of epicormic that they will ahve to deal with again and again, without explaining the options to them

 

Or you agree that we shouldn't fell every tree that needs reducing (which has never been suggested

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

????

 

Dont get what your applauding ??

 

You agree it is good to drastically reduce a tree and leave the customer with a massive flush of epicormic that they will ahve to deal with again and again, without explaining the options to them

 

Or you agree that we shouldn't fell every tree that needs reducing (which has never been suggested

 

Dean, no offence meant, just getting your day to day work right in my head!

 

Didnt you post your first reduction the other day? and if so what experience are you going on?

 

Epicormic shooting is as much about light penetration to the inner scaffold as it is to shock and a need to restore photo synthetic area. This is proved by the loss of a limb for whatever reason and the lack of epi production in a very well done and evenly foliated (shading partialy the inner scaffold) reduction.

 

I cant prove my theory yet, but I am convinced that the green layer under the corky bark is VERY sensitive to light, even through the bark, especialy in younger woody parts. i am certain this is one of the things that causes (sudden light through bark) the epicormic responses, not soley! before anyone jumps out of the bushes with a fact!

 

if a tree is left with JUST enough evenly space foliage on reduction, no inner part should get the full and lengthy exposure to full sunlight inhibiting the response SOMEWHAT, and also avoiding sunscald which NOONE has so far mentioned! Sunscald is a major risk in heavey reductions especialy to beech and limes, but even oaks can sun scald.

[Mesterh]

 

if a tree is left with JUST enough evenly space foliage on reduction, no inner part should get the full and lengthy exposure to full sunlight inhibiting the response SOMEWHAT, and also avoiding sunscald which NOONE has so far mentioned! Sunscald is a major risk in heavey reductions especialy to beech and limes, but even oaks can sun scald.

 

Hmmm dunno about that. I think you would have to remove a very small amount to not increase the amount of sun by a considerable amount.

 

I thought that the increase in epicormic after heavy pruning is just the tree increasing its leaf area since it doesnt really want to stay small and doesnt care about blocking any light out:001_smile:

Edited March 13, 2010 by Mesterh

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hmmm dunno about that. I think you would have to remove a very small amount to not increase the amount of sun by a considerable amount.

 

I thought that the increase in epicormic after heavy pruning is just the tree increasing its leaf area since it doesnt really want to stay small and doesnt care about blocking any light out:001_smile:

 

But you wouldnt get as much epi in the shade, or the stuff would pop up everwhere including tight forks, am i wrong? Epis are more numerous towards the cut ends, why? cos they get the most light, are you with me?

[skyhuck]

????

 

Dont get what your applauding ??

 

You agree it is good to drastically reduce a tree and leave the customer with a massive flush of epicormic that they will ahve to deal with again and again, without explaining the options to them

 

Or you agree that we shouldn't fell every tree that needs reducing (which has never been suggested

 

Who suggested not making it clear to the customer what the consequences would be???????????????

 

Maintaining a pollard is no different to maintaining a hedge, I have often told customers that if they insist on a major reduction they are creating a hedge on a stick, that will need to be maintained

 

My applause signify I agree with the very valid point made by Josh:thumbup: