Elephant Ears Wired Shut

[treeseer]

The crack in the elephant ears is a bit bothersome; especially since a Liquidambar with BIG ears just failed, breaking much of this Q phellos. I had flagged it in my report from a month ago, but they did not call to schedule the prescribed cabling.

 

Given this history and the 2 houses under it, I will be cabling above this fork tomorrow. $80 in materials (which should last at least >30 years), one hour's extra time while I'm up there anyway, finishing the pruning works; very affordable insurance.

 

Cabling is way cheaper and long-lasting that pruning. Also it preserves the asset, instead of cutting much of it off. A no-brainer really.

[ben lightfoot]

Will you be reducing any weight off as well as cabling? I always thought the two went hand in hand? Also be nice to see pics of the entire tree, looks a good one

[treeseer]

"Will you be reducing any weight off as well as cabling? I always thought the two went hand in hand?"

 

Ben, yes, US standards call for any pruning to be done prior to cabling. But pruning is not always needed. On this one a little came off the ends, but just to placate the aging and worrisome neighbor.

 

first pic shows excessive reduction by neighbor's hack (who spiked up the tree)--note cambial dieback behind this big cut. Rot of course will follow; bad news for tree and owner. 2nd pic shows sprouts at a node, tree response to that overpruning. Next 3 show tip reduction with pole clip--keeps a full crown whilst lessening strain on the bad fork.

 

Much better for tree and client to reduce this way. Less is more, large cuts are avoided, unless the client's objective is to encourage fungal decay. I seldom get that request--do you?

[David Humphries]

Out of interest Guy, why cabling and not bracing ?

 

Does the 'ANSI A300 Tree Support & Cabling Standards' weight toward one or the other, or is it on a tree to tree basis?

 

 

 

.

[treeseer]

David, that is a good question, and you anticipated the answer. The A300 does not get that specific in its guidance, so yes it is tree-to-tree. The ISA BMPs call for a rod if there is an open split. In retrospect, adding a brace rod may well have been a better choice.

 

Maybe I'll call the client and let them know there really should be one, and pop it in later this week. I'm okay with the small cable in there now, but after growth resumes, it may not be long before more support is needed. That bark inclusion is bad enough to warrant the rod, "to reduce the risk of two...leaders spreading apart or moving sideways..." (ISA BMP).

 

Again, excellent catch--many thanks!

[Paul Jenks]

Are you meaning a rod at the inclusion to hold it together or one placed further up above the fork?

Our experience with rods above the fork is that the fork inclusion may blow apart as the tops of the two stems come together in strong winds.

 

We have also bolted inclusions together with some degree of success though the client needs to be aware of the ongoing management requirements and the need for a crown reduction at the time of bolting.

[treeseer]

"Are you meaning a rod at the inclusion to hold it together or one placed further up above the fork?"

 

Paul, on this one, I'd look to install it above the fork, at a distance ~1-1.5x the diameter of the leader above the fork, which is the guidance in the standard.

 

"Our experience with rods above the fork is that the fork inclusion may blow apart as the tops of the two stems come together in strong winds."

 

Oh dear, that would be embarrassing. If "...the tree had a split or large amounts of included bark below the junction...then at least one rod below..." (ISA BMP) This fork's not bad enough to warrant the 2nd rod imo.

 

"We have also bolted inclusions together with some degree of success though the client needs to be aware of the ongoing management requirements"

 

True, but this is frequently overstated. Every urban tree has ongoing management requirements. "Periodic inspection" is what you may be referring to, and is the US standard. This can be met in part by the owner sending images of key points, so arborist visits can be several years apart.

 

A new book on oaks says annual looks are required, which is not true. We are dealing with steel that has a long SULE safe useful life expectancy.

 

"... and the need for a crown reduction at the time of bolting."

 

This is on a per-tree basis. The steel is there to sustain and conserve the crown, so contributions are not lost. Light pruning is typically advisable, but heavy >5% reduction is seldom needed ime if the support is designed right.

 

The how-to is in the BMP, only $8 US. Lots of how-not-to in the attached--sadly the TCI archives over 2 years old are no longer freely viewable.

TCIA Biomechanics, Science, and Support Standards 2010. pix 2 more.docx

[Paul Jenks]

Cool, thanks.

The point about client awareness of ongoing management is that we, as in AAAC, have to give our clients information and advice as to the likely future ramifications of reduction works. Ignorance, (the clients'), is no defence, though as professionals we have a duty to keep them informed, so if they decide to do nothing about a tree that has been bolted together and heavily reduced and it subsequently falls to bits, we have done our bit.

 

I will say at this point, bolting trees together is by no means a common occurence and is only used in extremis when the client desperately wants to keep a tree.

 

And I'm totally with you on the per tree basis.

[treeseer]

Thanks Paul, the guidance seems to be approximately the same here.

 

"The point about client awareness of ongoing management is that we, as in AAAC, have to give our clients information and advice as to the likely future ramifications of reduction works."

 

Yes when reductions are hard and decay will likely result, that is esp. important. That's a big reason to favor lighter reductions imo.

 

"Ignorance, (the clients'), is no defence, though as professionals we have a duty to keep them informed, so if they decide to do nothing about a tree that has been bolted together and heavily reduced and it subsequently falls to bits, we have done our bit."

 

Right, here the notification is a "should"; i do not know why it's not a "shall"; maybe that is a change worth suggesting to the subgroup, as that standard is up for revision this year. Scheduling Inspections "shall" be the owner's responsibility, of course.

 

"I will say at this point, bolting trees together is by no means a common occurence and is only used in extremis when the client desperately wants to keep a tree."

 

This is really basic tree work, and the liability is easily managed, if the standards are followed. It's lack of gear and esp. lack of familiarity that keeps it from being commonly done. That's why getting to know BMPs is key to being able to manage valuable trees.

 

'And I'm totally with you on the per tree basis."

 

Yes, it's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking one size of tree care can fit all trees. Gotta keep the thinking cap on.