Opinions on this reduction

[Chris5128]

My first reduction on my own. It's a sycamore. Any advice on what I can improve on in the future is appreciated.

[alex_m]

It's an ok reduction, you have left alot of growth on. but try to stick to the thirds rule (the remaining growth should be a 1/3 of the width of the branch you cut) and also don't be afraid to cut a small branch right off if it isn't adding to the shape or if you cannot achieve a decent growth point. for example to achieve a 1m reduction, often a 2m branch has to be cut off.

[treesrus]

looks a bit cluttered in places, don't be afraid to take a few limbs off back to a main branch. look for crossing branches, overlong but thin branches

[Chris5128]

There's a smaller sycamore in front of which is hard to make out in photo. Just right of center which could be the cause of the clutter. With the smaller bits my reasoning behind that was to get the maximum amount of leaves possible. Cheers for the advice

[MattyF]

looks a bit cluttered in places, don't be afraid to take a few limbs off back to a main branch. look for crossing branches, overlong but thin branches

 

 

I'm all for the cluttered look then especially on sycamore , better than a load of epicormic buds shooting out because there's not enough foliage and plenty of new light hitting dormant buds and exploding a load more for good measure.

But that's my opinion think you did a very good job Alex's advice on the one third rule is spot on.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

My first reduction on my own. It's a sycamore. Any advice on what I can improve on in the future is appreciated.

[ATTACH]149169[/ATTACH]

 

Hi there, credit to you for posting and looking to improve

 

This reduction wouldn't accord with BS3998 as the general principle of not removing more than 1/3rd of 'foliage bearing material' appears to have been exceeded. Further, as others have said, ideally the secondary growth you prune back to should be at least 1/3rd dia. of the branch you're cutting.

 

Overall it appears a little hard in places and because no suitable growth points are present, and Sycamore can be challenging to reduce anyway, some of the cuts are 'inter-nodal', i.e. between nodes/buds/shoots, which is akin to lopping (NOT that I would call this lopping but just to be aware.)

 

Lastly, of course we didn't see the spec, in terms of reduction by how much, so it may be spot on!

 

Hoping the above to be of help and good luck with the next one.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[treeseer]

"...This reduction wouldn't accord with BS3998 as the general principle of not removing more than 1/3rd of 'foliage bearing material' appears to have been exceeded. Further, as others have said, ideally the secondary growth you prune back to should be at least 1/3rd dia. of the branch you're cutting."

 

I find these 1/3 guides (not Rules) to be without scientific basis, and utterly confusing. "In order to select a branch for removal, the diameter of the final cut should generally not exceed one-third of that of the parent stem or branch." Shouldn't this be "...the remaining lateral should..."? It makes no sense, either way.

"Specifications for a percentage reduction are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc."

 

"Overall it appears a little hard in places and because no suitable growth points are present, and Sycamore can be challenging to reduce anyway, some of the cuts are 'inter-nodal', i.e. between nodes/buds/shoots, which is akin to lopping (NOT that I would call this lopping but just to be aware.)

 

Lastly, of course we didn't see the spec, in terms of reduction by how much, so it may be spot on! "

 

I agree, without a 'before' shot and without the job's objective or any specifications, it's hard to understand what's going on. Most of the cuts seem to be in the same artificial arc; some could be deeper, some further out. Internodal is always to be avoided. The remaining shape does not look as natural as it could.

Edited February 18, 2014 by treeseer

[Chris5128]

How would you avoid internodal and still keep the curve? Sorry for ignorance haven't done courses yet so never been taught??

[born2trot]

I think as a previous poster has said it still looks a bit cluttered to me i would personally have thinned it out a bit more back to the main limbs , the thirds rule is almost impossible to stick to imo , nice job ..

[martwizz]

For your first reduction, I think you did well.

 

How did it go? Did it take longer than you thought? Did you get much hung up? Have trouble getting out to the sides? Did you start at the top or do the sides first? Tell us more about it