Reductions.

[button1803]

What is the limit guys you would reduce a tree too with a reduction in mind?

 

some people on a course i attended said 30% reduction max. is this a good rule to follow?

 

the tree in question i have looked at is a horse chestnut, not massive, about 40ft tall with more spread than anything.

 

Its covered a street light and over hanging the footpath and over an 'A' road too.

customer said he would like a 50% reduction on it.

we have only spoken on the phone, have drove past and i think 50% is going to be very drastic.

 

Would you reduce a tree to 50% or to what %, and how well do horse chestnuts cope with such heavy pruning?

 

thanks guys.

[combined tree services]

In short my advice would be to try and have a look at a coppy of the new BS3998 standards , recent findings have shown that previously many 15% reductions were infact more like 50% reductions because the system many of us have used for gauging % when it comes to reducing trees was way off .

 

Im sure this is something thet AA Tecide will be able to explain in far more detail then me and will make much more sense . It is well worth geting to a BS3998 update if the AA are running one near you

[MattyF]

50% reduction on beech down to kretz and gano, its down to the tree and whats required to insure survival...

http://

Chestnuts respond well to heavy pruning IMO , not so great in wound response but if a pruning regime is kept in place after a hard reduction and the customer wants to retain a dangerous tree I don't have a problem with doing it.

[combined tree services]

50% reduction on beech down to kretz and gano, its down to the tree and whats required to insure survival...

http://

Chestnuts respond well to heavy pruning IMO , not so great in wound response but if a pruning regime is kept in place after a hard reduction and the customer wants to retain a dangerous tree I don't have a problem with doing it.

 

but would you reccomend such a heavy reduction on a nchestnut right beside a main road ? . also would you reccomend such a reduction if the tree was not in a condition to the Beech in you post ?? . sorry if i sound a little harsh , its not intended im genuinely interested

[MattyF]

Not on beech but I have pruned h chestnut hard, 60% in cases and they have survived and flourished, only ones I have killed have been to badly gone with phytophera and it was a last ditch attempt, I would never of course walk in to a garden and say that tree needs cutting in half but if permission has been granted and the client can't be talked out of mutilation I would not have a real problem with doing it on certain species.

[David Goss]

30% is the usual maximum for a reduction, any more and you are getting into topping territory. A lot of people get confused by what a 30% reduction actually is and its difficult to explain on paper but what IS easy to explain is what a 30% reduction Isn't.

A 30% reduction is NOT (lets say) a 100 foot tree taken down in height by 30 foot which is how this is normally understood by the customer.

What it actually is, is 30% reduction all round the crown of the leaf area maintaining the shape of the tree but reducing the sail and weight.

Reducing a tree any more than this is normally only done if there is a danger of failure due to fungus or other damage to the structure of the tree.

[combined tree services]

30% is the usual maximum for a reduction, any more and you are getting into topping territory. A lot of people get confused by what a 30% reduction actually is and its difficult to explain on paper but what IS easy to explain is what a 30% reduction Isn't.

A 30% reduction is NOT (lets say) a 100 foot tree taken down in height by 30 foot which is how this is normally understood by the customer.

What it actually is, is 30% reduction all round the crown of the leaf area maintaining the shape of the tree but reducing the sail and weight.

Reducing a tree any more than this is normally only done if there is a danger of failure due to fungus or other damage to the structure of the tree.

 

See i knew someone could make sense of what i was trying to explain

[David Goss]

See i knew someone could make sense of what i was trying to explain

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi all, my quick 'twopenneth worth'...if i may.

 

3 possible scenarios to a 30% reduction on your 100ft tree:

 

1. Tree (height) reduction = 100ft down to 70ft

 

2. Tree (linear/radial) crown reduction = 100ft down to 79ft

(tree has, for instance, 30ft clear stem, i.e. a crown height of 70ft, therefore 30% of 70ft = 21m hence 70-21=49 + 30ft(clear stem) = 79ft)

 

3. Tree (volume) crown reduction = 100ft down to 93.6ft

(tree has, for instance, 30ft clear stem, i.e. a crown height of 70ft, therefore 12% (BS3998 cited linear equiv. to 30% crown volume reduction) of 70ft = 8.4m hence 70-8.4=63.6 + 30ft(clear stem) = 93.6ft)

 

SORRY, I hope the above figures are correct AND it makes, at least some,sense....couldn't think of an easier way to explain....Tony (S.)??????

 

Bottom line the BS3998 indicates that 'ordinarily' one should not remove more than 1/3rd of the foliage bearing material in any one hit and neither should any pruning wound size exceed 1/3rd of the parent branch or stem.

 

IF however you need to deviate from this 'recommendation' then you need to have clear justification for so doing, i.e structural tree issues / subsidence mitigation / 'young' tree (high vitality).

 

The next BS3998 seminars (£50...+VAT) are 6th & 7th Sept. at Stoneleigh Park (Warwickshire, just south of Coventry) and Capel Manor (Enfield, N. London) respectively. See Overview - Arboricultural Association for further info. Hope to see you there.

 

Cheers all..n sorry yer still 'ed scratchin'..!

 

Paul