V.T.A symptoms "the chatty trees"

[treeseer]

... doing a combination of fracture pruning (ripping growth points off) and conventional pruning to see which works best and go from there.

 

" doing a combination of fracture pruning (ripping growth points off) and conventional pruning to see which works best and go from there."

 

It'd be interesting to know what is meant by "conventional pruning". Here in the US there is some general agreement on what that means, but the devil, and the disagreements, are in the details. Our ANSI Standards switched from "cut back to a branch >1/3 the size" to "cut <25% at a time", but people still swear by the '1/3 Rule".

 

Also, there's not been much evidence that fracture vs. nodal pruning is of benefit to tree structure in most cases. Nothing from Burnham Beeches shows a reason to start fracturing. Unless I missed some pictures or accounts?

 

For accounts of nodal pruning that is considered unconventional, see the last UK issue of Arbor Age magazine, Mike O'Ryza and the Vexing View.

[David Humphries]

Also, there's not been much evidence that fracture vs. nodal pruning is of benefit to tree structure in most cases. Nothing from Burnham Beeches shows a reason to start fracturing. Unless I missed some pictures or accounts?

 

 

Guy, keep an eye out for an article/review by Helen Read in a forth coming Arboricultural Journal (the international journal of urban forestry). It will discuss (among other things) the findings of a study between traditional axe cutting techniques in the pollards of the Basque region, versus the effects of restoration whilst using a chainsaw.

 

You may find that of interest.

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Guy, keep an eye out for an article/review by Helen Read in a forth coming Arboricultural Journal (the international journal of urban forestry). It will discuss (among other things) the findings of a study between traditional axe cutting techniques in the pollards of the Basque region, versus the effects of restoration whilst using a chainsaw.

 

You may find that of interest.

 

.

 

I would hope that the method was not assesed entirely on trees like the last photo? doing half the tree in one style and the other half the tree in another is not a fair assessment of the effects, too many variables would way into it and swerve the data IMO.

 

In the last image the axe method is used on the smaller diameter branches and on the sunny side, while the chainsaw used on the bigger diameter shady side, not a fair control IMO

 

BUT I love Helens work! for the record:thumbup:

[David Humphries]

BUT I love Helens work! for the record:thumbup:

 

 

The record actually appears to suggest that from this and past comments on this type of work,

that YOU actually don't love Helens work

 

 

 

But that's your perogative

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

The record actually appears to suggest that from this and past comments on this type of work,

that YOU actually don't love Helens work

 

 

 

But that's your perogative

 

 

.

 

 

Just because I have a few issues with one or two aspects does not mean I view it all that way David.

 

Having an opinion IS my perogative, if that opinion on a few factors is taken as an overall negative perception I cant really apologise enough for THAT and that alone.

 

 

 

but thanks for the insight, it was enlightening.

[treeseer]

"Guy, keep an eye out for an article/review by Helen Read in a forth coming Arboricultural Journal (the international journal of urban forestry)."

It will discuss (among other things) the findings of a study between traditional axe cutting techniques in the pollards of the Basque region, versus the effects of restoration whilst using a chainsaw."

 

David, I will hope to see a copy of that somehow. I subscribe to other international journals and publications of urban forestry--the AJ while well respected is not THE singular one, and i dare to suggest that some well-reviewed and worthwhile looks at this type of work may be found elsewhere. I found the Arbor Age piece interesting, but confess to some bias there, which is my pRerogative (before/in lieu of asking, literally).

 

I've read an earlier account of that work in the ISAUK&I magazine, and found it interesting from an historical re-creation perspective, sort of like watching 21st century bear-baiting. As far as useful scientific conclusions, I have to agree with Tony that the findings of such a study have to account for all the variables.

 

Comparing 30 cm chainsaw cuts to big rips shows that beeches are good at forming adventitious buds than oaks etc. If the study looks at decay and saproxylics as a goal, I have to wonder what kind of urban forest this will be practiced in. For the record I've read Helen's vet tree mgt work all 9(?) chapters, and i do have some questions about it--maybe the same as Tony's, maybe not. I wonder how far on or off the mark you find the below from an earlier issue of Arbor Age:

 

Damaging trees for habitat is extremely controversial. Its application in urban areas is limited to areas where exposure to people and property – targets – is low, and the value of specified wildlife is high. In Sweden and England hardwood branches are sometimes ripped and blasted, and sliced and diced with branch ends shaped like little crowns. One justification for this “coronet cutting” was the hypothesis that more exposed cambium would result in more sprouting. Subsequent observations at Burnham Beeches and elsewhere, however, have indicated otherwise. This mutilation might be favoured, or at least or tolerated in those two countries, because crowned royalty are still part of the political environment.

 

Another aspect to intentional wounding is the ecological environment created for highly specialised beetles and fungi that rot the wood. It has been hypothesised that these organisms not only coexist with trees, but that their coevolution implies trees’ codependence, on the very organisms that decay them! This concept may be counterintuitive or it may be logical, but a review of the literature shows the jury is still out. Likewise, surveys documenting the rarity and value of these organisms are neither comprehensive nor conclusive. Critters are critters, no matter how small, as Dr. Seuss’s Horton the Elephant might say, but accounting for all those beasties must be a daunting task!

 

In England, “The government's recent proposals to sell the forest estate cast a harsh spotlight on the serious protection loopholes” reports the Woodland Trust. If trees are managed for fungus and insects, that could bring mycologists, entomologists, ecologists and other natural allies more actively into the battle for tree preservation. It may be a coincidence, but politics has been said to cause strange bedfellows. When tree health and safety are not the primary objectives, arboriculture gives way to vegetation management. Trees are indeed a part of larger ecosystems, but favouring other species over trees seems very different from arboriculture that facilitates the coexistence of trees with people.

Edited February 26, 2012 by treeseer

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I am pretty well cheesed off at the suggestion I am anti ecology arboriculture or one persons work in that arena, especially as that suggestion comes from a guy I thought I knew and knew me.

 

I have some opinions as to what is being done out there in this arena, I dont like the way some of the most valuable trees are being "experimented" on, sound arboricultural practice would be more suitable in retention of these trees, the habitat is not going to suffer because of standard and recognised working practices.

 

I think that we SHOULD be using standard pruning operations to maintain structures, and focusing time,money and energy on advancing the real health issues to the longevity of these ancients via better rhizosphere managements, for that is where most of the issues are in these sites IMO, not least of which is the compaction, and loss of mycorrhizal association via both compaction and by nitrification or acidification.

 

I would like to see Neville Fay publish an updated standpoint on his retrenchment paper, for one thing, for that is core to all tree managements.

[treeseer]

"...I dont like the way some of the most valuable trees are being "experimented" on, sound arboricultural practice would be more suitable in retention of these trees, *the habitat is not going to suffer because of standard and recognised working practices.* I think that we SHOULD be using standard pruning operations to maintain structures, and focusing time,money and energy on advancing the real health issues to the longevity of these ancients via better rhizosphere managements, for that is where most of the issues are in these sites IMO, not least of which is the compaction, and loss of mycorrhizal association via both compaction and by nitrification or acidification."

 

Tally ho! * * What looks like butchering vets in the name of experimentation for more wee beasties is a bit hard to take.

 

"I would like to see Neville Fay publish an updated standpoint on his retrenchment paper, for one thing, for that is core to all tree managements."

 

Last June he had one in Arborist News, but likely a more general look than what you (or I) would like to see. The topic's under exploration on at least 3 continents; the upcoming Arbor Age will contain one more stumbling step on that path, to follow up on the previous attempt.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"...I dont like the way some of the most valuable trees are being "experimented" on, sound arboricultural practice would be more suitable in retention of these trees, *the habitat is not going to suffer because of standard and recognised working practices.* I think that we SHOULD be using standard pruning operations to maintain structures, and focusing time,money and energy on advancing the real health issues to the longevity of these ancients via better rhizosphere managements, for that is where most of the issues are in these sites IMO, not least of which is the compaction, and loss of mycorrhizal association via both compaction and by nitrification or acidification."

 

Tally ho! * * What looks like butchering vets in the name of experimentation for more wee beasties is a bit hard to take.

 

"I would like to see Neville Fay publish an updated standpoint on his retrenchment paper, for one thing, for that is core to all tree managements."

 

Last June he had one in Arborist News, but likely a more general look than what you (or I) would like to see. The topic's under exploration on at least 3 continents; the upcoming Arbor Age will contain one more stumbling step on that path, to follow up on the previous attempt.

 

I dont disagree with these methods for habitat creation on NEW young trees in the habitats surrounding these old vets, but to continue to try and recreate it on a tree that has already provided the very habitat locally is a no brain-er for me.

 

Turning a lapsed pollard around only requires simply reduction and retrenchment methods, add some soil amendments if required, lay some mulch down and deter footfalls and grazing damage.

 

I would like to see exeriments done to see if fresh mulch can re adress the over nitrified situation and then as it matures buffer fluctuations, as I am convinced applications of FRESH woodchip mulch will do so. It has long been said that fresh mulch is bad, but nitrification is far worse.

[David Humphries]

Your judgement on this (and perceived offence) is too often based on snapshots Tony.

 

You really need to read the entire script before drawing conlusion.

 

Too rash imo.

 

& that's what gets you misunderstood.

 

 

Take that as advise or however you want to read it, I know how it is intended.

 

.