what are the benefits of a tree reduction?

[showoffsummer]

Sounds like a simple question, but in my third week of my uni course my tutor was slagging off every type of reduction and I disagreed, then he asked my then what situation would benefit from a reduction? (to cut a long story short with my two and a bit years experience of arboriculture I went blank!)

 

So I told him I would get back to him on wednesday with some answers!

 

help!!!

 

from what Ive seen on here hama's reduction thread shows some amazing reductions and you seem like a expert so I would love your and everyones opinion!

 

cheers ciaran glyde

[Dan Curtis]

I don't particularly agree with all reductions as there are many that don't seem to have a justified reason. But...there are imo legitimate reasons to do them. Hazardous/overweighted decayed trees. Reducing windage on recently exposed trees. And this may seem a bit apathetic but I'd rather reduce a tree for no reason than take it down for even less of a reason. Of course there's also the tv reception to think of:sneaky2:

[Adam Bourne]

There is no wrong or right to this question mate, its all down to tree health, size and location, percentage of reduction and most of all good tree management,

 

If a reduction was in place on a tree where there were no safety factors involved i,e in the middle of a field or woodland then why would you????.

 

Then on the other hand if it was in close proximity of us destructive humans then it would come down to tree health, size and all our professional minds to make the right decision,

 

if the tree was in decline or showing signs of crown failure then to reduce it could be one of its best chances of survival, then it still stems down to how much how regular.........(good tree management)......

 

or you could just tell your teacher because it pays the bills.....

[combined tree services]

was your lecturer speaking from purely an arboricultural point of view or a risk and amenity point of view as well ? there are many situations in which a reduction is doing some good to a tree - for instance a large multi stem'd tree with a week union that is showing signs of potential failure would benifit frm a reduction rather than a fell !!!! but i guss realy depends on what exactly your lecturer meant by reductions not being good for trees

[alex_m]

We do alot of LA reductions, either whole tree or one or two limbs to take weight off potentially dangerous limbs over footpath, roads, gardens, schools etc.

The only real reason a tree needs to be reduced is that it's in the wrong place. You can't change that, you have to just accept it and either reduce it or remove it, or in some cases leave it alone.

If it wasn't for trees being in the wrong place we wouldn't have alot of work, which is sad.

[Stephen Blair]

not much to take away, you get to go back next year and do it again, and the following years for ever until the tree falls down from poor management:biggrin:

[Ross Smith]

Good thread, will be interesting to hear what the BIG boys have to say.

[RobRainford]

not much to take away, you get to go back next year and do it again, and the following years for ever until the tree falls down from poor management:biggrin:

 

or someone undercuts you and fells it for the wood!

 

 

There are a couple of reasons i can justify a reduction for, however it is totally dependent on the situation the tree is in

 

Open grown trees need no reduction or work, the same goes for trees in the middle of a woodland, the only work that should be carried out on trees in woodlands is only necessary work i.e. tidying up failed limbs/trees or reducing the weight of hazard beams. These should onl be done if necessary, as a woodland is an eco system and failures of trees should be seen as recycling and not the trees getting old and knackered and dangerous. A tree is only dangerous if there is a target!

 

 

A reduction to a tree in a heavily used public area is perfectly justifiable imo. If the tree is showing some signs of stress or weak unions then reduction of these heavy parts or even reducing the leaf area of the tree to reduce transpiration rates and decrease water loss would be beneficial, especially to trees in town centres!

 

reducing wind loading is a good reason, nobody wants their prized tree falling to bits in the wind and bashing their stuff, so reducing that can be justified.

 

Trees dont really want to be reduced, they optimise against the stresses they are experiencing and grow tension and compression wood where necessary to withstand these pressures, however a hazard beam can be caused by a sudden change in wind direction and not just heavy loading.

 

I can understand your tutors view on no reduction is necessary though!

 

theres an exam question and answer in this thread somewhere

[David Goss]

As most have said already it is completely dependant on the location, health, hazardous branch unions of the tree and potential targets that would justify a reduction.

[MattyF]

Most of my reductions would be for wind sail on trees that are over high risk targets like over mature trees or veterans that are defective and removal is not an option.

Of course many people want them done for light but any reduction like this is always going to require maintenance in future... It's not a cure for the problem and should be made clear to the tree owner... The harder the reduction unless the tree dies!! The heavier and denser the regrowth, maybe that's the point he's trying to make?