define reduction

[Ross Smith]

Try it and see. In my experience people find it easier to envisage 2m (or 6ft for example) off the outermost parts of the tree than a vague "20%".

 

I think its easier to work to as well. I.e., just get up there and take 2m of every bit!! Done.

 

The cut diameter bit shuts up those people who for some reason assume that you're going to hack large limbs off at the main union to achieve your goals.

fair enough will give it a blast.cheers tony

[Mr Ed]

Just tell the customer - 'I'll start cutting and you say 'when''

[Ross Smith]

Just tell the customer - 'I'll start cutting and you say 'when''

quality

[Tully]

Just tell the customer - 'I'll start cutting and you say 'when''

 

 

Yep.That's when they will stand there and not say a thing hoping you'll keep going to the ground.

[benedmonds]

Try it and see. In my experience people find it easier to envisage 2m (or 6ft for example) off the outermost parts of the tree than a vague "20%".

 

I think its easier to work to as well. I.e., just get up there and take 2m of every bit!! Done.

 

The cut diameter bit shuts up those people who for some reason assume that you're going to hack large limbs off at the main union to achieve your goals.

 

I disagree, I wouldn't take 2m of every bit that's going to look like a very unnatural tree.

 

I take a different approach more like the Reduction Via Thinning as described by David Lloyd-Jones

http://www.arbornauts.com/articles.html

 

Or drop crotching, which will result in larger (but fewer) wounds, lower in the canopy but a more natural looking tree.

 

Stating that your not going to cut over a size is to restrictive. You end up with thick diameter branches high in the crown that's not natural..

 

I agree percentages can be a little fluffy but once your in a tree you need a degree of fluff as trees often lend themselves to being cut at a certain point and that might not be at 2m.

[Buzz]

I disagree Ben, If you take 2mtrs of every branch the tree will have exactly the same crown shape just smaller.

 

This is how I did all my reductions. As soon as you start trying to "improve" the shape of the tree that leads to the scenario you suggest.

 

I to prefer reduction via thinning it's just hard to convince the client lol !

[Amelanchier]

I disagree, I wouldn't take 2m of every bit that's going to look like a very unnatural tree.

 

I can't put it any clearer than Buzz did...

 

I disagree Ben, If you take 2mtrs of every branch the tree will have exactly the same crown shape just smaller.

 

This is how I did all my reductions. As soon as you start trying to "improve" the shape of the tree that leads to the scenario you suggest.

 

I take a different approach more like the Reduction Via Thinning as described by David Lloyd-Jones

http://www.arbornauts.com/articles.html

 

Or drop crotching, which will result in larger (but fewer) wounds, lower in the canopy but a more natural looking tree.

 

I don't think I've ever done a reduction that was different in any way to the ideas proposed in RvT... I find it hard to imagine a reduction that wouldn't involve some thinning.

 

Stating that your not going to cut over a size is to restrictive. You end up with thick diameter branches high in the crown that's not natural..

 

I agree percentages can be a little fluffy but once your in a tree you need a degree of fluff as trees often lend themselves to being cut at a certain point and that might not be at 2m.

 

No-ones going up the tree or standing next to the chipper with a tape measure, they're approximate by the nature of trees but its a context thing. If I'm writing a spec for someone else to follow (which I do quite a lot), I don't want them to have too many options. I don't want fluff and fudge, I want exactly (or near enough) what I recommend.

[Andy Collins]

Surely, if its written in the way Tony has stated above, it cannot be mis-interpreted by anyone, from the applicant, to the man in the tree doing the prune. I think this is the whole point. As soon as it starts getting fluffy, the spec gets misinterpreted, and this is where problems (esp with TPO trees) can arise.

[Simon Rotheram]

I find it easier to quote a reduction of a specified dimention "reduction by up to 2-3m of branches to suitable growth points to leave a flowing branch line"

 

It gives you a certain amount of flexibilty with customers as trees are all different shapes and sizes you may take 30% off the top and only require the tips reducing to keep the shape.

[benedmonds]

I still disagree, when I'm reducing a tree, that you'd give a 2m specification. I may well cut the longest branches 3 or 4m further back inside the crown. But I would try to leave branches from within the crown that reach where I want my new outside of the canopy to be uncut.

 

Lateral limbs are pruned where they join large diameter side branches.

 

The center leader is cut back to a large diameter secondary branch so that a modified leader remains.

 

This does not change the direction of growth. It encourages stimulation of the apical growth point.

 

That is very different to taking 2m off every branch. I am not trying to "improve" the shape of the tree. I am pruning the tree so that hopefully it doesn't look pruned. Taking a set amount from every branch you can see the cuts at the end of each branch. My way the cuts are less obvious within the crown of the tree. I also believe that the tree responds better as the cuts are in the shade and less likely to send out watershoots.

 

It is very difficult to write a spec which says do this, which is why I like the fluff. It is also more art than science and takes a lot of skill and feel for the tree. Most tree surgeons can't/don't do it. But it doesn't mean it isn't better.

 

Also if you write a spec which says 2m this and 100mm that, some TO straight out of college or nosey neighbor will get out a tape measure.