Opinions/options?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Sorry to jump on this thread, but I have just been asked to look at this tree that dropped a large limb two days ago, it has failed due to included bark union and a lot of lateral weight, and taken nearly 50% of the main stem with it, leaving one very large vertical leader, and one of to the left (currently unaffected by tear) it is tpo but was going to recommend removal as a sensible reduction would not remove much weight or all affect, and it is over a garden in a new estate with big children's play area, reading this thread do people think I am being too hasty, I just feel although it's not too bad at the minute, root will now set in

 

hit it back hard all over to good growth points leaving as much leader/foliage as you can and see how it develops over ten years

[David Humphries]

....David, in response to your question, would your recent vid of the oak in the field getting coronetted be considered a light ruin or a hard prune? The size of the cuts (20 cm?)and amount of green lost seemed to guarantee the spread of heart rot, which is all good if saproxylic habitat is the primary goal.

Maybe the difference is that Ruining takes away natural structure and viable defenses that the tree can Retrench back to, while Pruning preserves the growth habit, structure, and the tree's ability to manage the associates.

 

I think Mark has cleared up your misunderstanding of his statement

 

But you bring an interesting point to the table regarding the term 'ruin'

 

I tend to believe that any time an arborist interacts with a trees form we ruin its natural design for our own purposes. Sometimes that can be a good outcome for a tree. But more often than not it's us bending our will on Mother Nature.

 

The majority of the tree population I help manage is urban forest, what I end up inflicting on them (much like the wind, pollution, compaction, climate change, invasive pests and disease & reduction due to demand for space and light) is just another attack and stress on the trees natural biomechanical form.

 

To varying degrees we tend to kid ourselves that we are actually some god like being and can mould a tree to fit our perceptions of how we believe a tree should look and behave.

 

Of course our contemporaries are progressively teaching us how to limit the damage we inflict on them when we make that decision to alter natures adapted design of the tree, but ruin natural design is what we are doing.

 

We alter energy levels, hormone distribution, water and nutrient assimilation, flower and seed production, and inflict wounds on various parts of the tree.

 

So in reply to your question posed to me and the oak tree you referred to above, the answer is................both !

a light ruin and a hard prune

Just because my will was bent on taking on natures design for that tree to sate my tree managerial lust and desire for stoping it falling apart and losing habitat, biodiversity and my idea of its aesthetic form in its landscape perspective.

 

 

 

 

.

[treeseer]

Ok fair enough.

 

Tho I am not buying the whole barrel of "ruin natural design is what we are doing." grog. I have seen too much work by good crews like yours that preserves the natural growth habit, form, and design, by limiting cut size and % off etc.

 

But then client anxiety and 'erring on the side of caution' etc. etc. come along and rear their ugly heads.

 

Arborists can indeed be godlike enough to trust the tree enough to retain its basic structure, in most cases...

[treeseer]

Ok fair enough.

 

Tho I am not buying the whole barrel of "ruin natural design is what we are doing." grog. I have seen too much work by good crews like yours that preserves the natural growth habit, form, and design, by limiting cut size and % off etc.

 

But then client anxiety and 'erring on the side of caution' etc. etc. come along and rear their ugly heads.

 

Arborists can indeed be godlike enough to trust the tree enough to retain its basic structure, in most cases...

 

In sooth, it looks sometimes like the objective there is often 50% saproxylic habitat, 50% tree benefit retention. In the US ime it seldom gets beyond 90% tree, 10% beasties......