D Mc

How many of you can look back on your years of work, and recognize that one of the greatest dangers to a trees existence is old folks. Dave

That was a very good post, Mrtree. I would imagine that many will take a defensive stance in regards to this particular tree but I urge you to let the concepts of risk vs reward tumble around in your mind prior to a quick emotional response. It is too easy to misjudge what those that have been on site have concluded from just a picture because of the complexities. But there is no one group of people with more understanding of the workings of trees and their contributions than arborists. If we do not speak on their behalf, who will? Life will always be full of risk but as has been said "The quality of life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away". Dave

Below is a letter to the editor from Kevin T. Smith, Ph.D., in response to D. Slater's presentation on branch attachments. Strange format but hopefully you can read it. I tend to agree with Kevin. Dave Arboricultural Journal, Letter to the Editor, Page 1 of 3 Kevin T. Smith, 7 February 2011 The recent article “Towards a new model of branch attachment) 1 by D. Slater and C. Harbinson 2 (Vol. 33: 95-105. 2010) strongly criticizes the model of branch attachment described by Dr. Alex 3 Shigo in 1985. As I recall, my first glimpse of Shigo’s model was literally drawn on the back of 4 an airline cocktail napkin. He rushed into the lab that morning, in full flush of his “eureka” 5 moment. At the time, I was a postdoctoral researcher with Dr. Walter C. Shortle who was part of 6 Shigo’s team at the US Forest Service. The ball-point sketch showed the key elements of 7 overlapping branch and stem tissues, with the vasculature of branch and stem continuous only on 8 the underside of the branch. 9 10 For me, one crucial difference between the 1985 and 2010 publications rests on the distinction 11 between codominant stems (referred to as “forks” in the recent article) and branches. 12 Codominant stems arise from multiple buds at the shoot apex or the fusion of appressed shoots. 13 Branches arise from lateral or epicormic buds. Slater and Harbinson maintain that for 14 arboriculture, the distinction is arbitrary and solely determined by the relative size of the two 15 joined members. For them, the shape of the surfaces or “topological equivalence” is critical. I 16 agree that most of the mechanical load of a uniform column is borne by the outer circumference. 17 But the relative strength of the branch attachment is due to the overlapping stem and branch 18 tissues which are absent in codominant stems (E. Gilman. 2003. Journal of Arboriculture 29(5): 19 291-293). 20 21 Shigo emphasized that unlike the codominant stem crotch, the branch base contains constitutive 22 and inducible boundaries that facilitate branch shedding and resist the spread of infection. This 23 distinction is a reason to avoid tree topping and the removal of large codominant stems (which Arboricultural Journal, Letter to the Editor, Page 2 of 3 Kevin T. Smith, 7 February 2011 have no collars) versus acceptable pruning cuts to the outside of the 24 branch collar. Such “natural 25 target pruning cuts” as promoted by Shigo minimize injury to stem tissue and the loss of the 26 protection zone at the branch base. Distinguishing intact codominant stems from branches can be 27 difficult (A. Shigo. 1986. A New Tree Biology. Fig. 12-12). 28 29 The substantial difference in structure of the attachments of branches and codominant stems is 30 readily seen in dissection. Of course, the practicing arborist or student can’t dissect every 31 encountered union, but transverse and axial dissections of a few of each with proper 32 interpretation would make clear that the differences are not merely of relative size of the joined 33 members. 34 35 A complete point-by-point response to Slater and Harbinson (2010) is not possible in this space, 36 but that may not be necessary. Some of the difficulties come from simple language usage. The 37 recent article points to the obvious attachment at the upper side of a branch and stem as 38 refutation of Shigo’s description of the connection being exclusively beneath the branch. For 39 Shigo, connection always meant communication or flow. Back in the old days of wired 40 telephones, lack of a phone connection didn’t mean the absence of wires, just that no message 41 was flowing through them! The lack of connection described for the upper part of the 42 branch/stem union referred to the lack of flow in the plumbing of the wood, not the absence of 43 contact. 44 45 Other difficulties come from the artistic limitations of representing the 4-dimensional process of 46 growth at the branch/stem union in 2 dimensions. The “tail” to which Slater and Harbinson refers Arboricultural Journal, Letter to the Editor, Page 3 of 3 Kevin T. Smith, 7 February 2011 to in Shigo’s illustration is simply the growth increment 47 which is continuous and confluent 48 through the lower portion of the branch and the stem. Conceivably, that connection could be 49 drawn to the root collar, but would make the illustration unwieldy. Shigo had the illustration 50 drawn to show the length of connection along the stem axis to be in the same proportion as for 51 branch knots in decaying logs. 52 53 The biomechanics of trees has a lot to teach us and we have a lot to learn! We don’t have to 54 blindly accept old teaching just because of tradition. Nor do we need to jump on the latest 55 bandwagon that passes by. The challenge for the practitioner and the student is to understand the 56 biological context for the elegant mechanical engineering that enables trees to survive and thrive.

Dave, heed the warning that went along with that picture. For me, the adding of this ring worked very well. For others...not at all. It really depends on how your slack tending and advancement movements are incorporated. Also remember that even if this does work for you, it is still just a work around like some of the others, not the way this tool was designed to be used. Dave

For those interested in the history of their aches and pains should google "Cadre of the Mews". This is a new book written by my friend and mentor, Ed Hobbs, with a lot of fun anecdotes. I had actually forgotten just how many things I used to break and the trouble I caused. Hmmm, could be selective memory. But an interesting read, nonetheless. Dave

Glad to see this thread is still active. I would like to add a few more comments. There will be many doing this work that will desire to keep going. Many will find other ways to utilize their skills. We need to learn from our subjects and realize that as humans we are not less complicated. Damage that we create in our youth will take its toll. So when you are young and hardy is the proper time to be looking for easier ways to accomplish your work. Those little aches and pains you are able to deal with are what will come back and haunt you as you get older. Trying to fix these problems with supplements is like trying to reform a tree after the damage has happened. Prevention is much better. This is fine if you have already planned changing into a different aspect of the occupation. But a real bummer if you are planning on continuing climbing and are forced out by pain and infirmities. Another thing our subjects should have taught us. You can't keep gaining weight as you get older and expect to climb. When you reach a certain point in your life, you will lose muscle mass. If you are heavier at this point than you were in your prime, how in the world do you expect your body to function at the same level? I see it as a natural retrenchment allowing your body organs and the laws of physics to still function with the reduced muscle mass. Dave

There have been many good comments on this thread. But one that keeps repeating is that it is "just mind over matter". This is just not true. All of us age and no one is getting out alive. I have been a tree climbing arborist for over 40 years. Always have specialized in difficult and dangerous jobs. I still do difficult and dangerous jobs, but of my own choosing. I am not as physically strong as I once was, but can still accomplish what needs to be done in an efficient manner and dang near as fast as I once could. I can truthfully state that the basic climbing styles we were taught will, without a doubt, wear out your body. They focus on upper arm and body strength and you just cannot go day in and day out using those portions of your body for primary propulsion without developing excessive wear and tear and overuse injuries. There will always be the exception, such as the ones who can smoke heavily yet never have any smoking-related illnesses. But for the majority of us, this style of work will take its toll. If you have a mind to climb as long as possible, you need to incorporate the larger muscle groups; i.e., your legs, into your climbing system to distribute the wear and tear. That doesn't mean just entering the tree with a footlock or patin. There are many advancements in tree climbing work positioning. Most of these are focused on single rope technique yet there is great resistance in the young and the hardy to incorporating these energy saving methods. This is the time that you can benefit the most. Do some research. Stop wearing yourself out by using unnecessary effort to accomplish your job. Climb safe. Dave

Is anyone else using these yet? If not, try them. When Reggie first displayed these products on the forums I made a comment to him that I would be most interested when they became available. Well, further discussion produced the RC 2000 and RC 3100 with the request that I post stating my honest impressions of the items. For my operation, just myself and my wife, a small but capable lowering system is all we require. I have been a big fan of the PortaWrap III and have extensively used the Hobbs, so I know the pros and cons that each possess. This lowering unit is a classic example of the evolution of an idea. Reggie has also used these different devices, and more, and modified key points to produce a lowering device that has the blending of their finer points. He warned me that this unit doesn't really come into its own until you start getting into the bigger wood. Whereas I have not gotten to try that aspect of it yet, I don't want that to overshadow what it can do in normal, moderate-sized lowering situations. In a cottonwood trim we recently did, several of the limbs were over a structure and required precise rigging. The RC 2000, with its top attachment, allows us, IMO, far better control than the PortaWrap. It is a subtle thing but you don't always want maximum slack taken out of a line. In those situations having a top tie places the bollard at the ready for instant slack take up and corrections. I used a lightweight, 3:1 haul system on the top tie. Because my wife is not only small, but short, she needs a way to retighten the top tie that she could reach. This worked very well. Preloading the primary tie with the top attachment is more than just a convenience. It totally stabilizes the unit and the primary attachment. This has a greater stabilizing effect than you might think. A hitch-tied sling as an anchor point is incredibly strong and stable once loaded. Until that load is applied there is great opportunity for movement and even possible failure. So applying load directional force to the primary attachment has many mechanical benefits. When control needs to be precise these are important points. Even the large, strap-on units do not achieve this load directional stability on their primary attachment points. The RC 3100 is a very well made, lightweight pulley that does exactly what it was designed for very well. These units are VERY well built, easily capable of handling anything within the rope categories. Unfortunately we don't have a third person to take action shots, so I am linking the Stein link that has pictures and videos that are far better than anything I could produce. These are very fine and well made tools that improve upon what was previously available. Dave Stein USA

Joe, those are some very well put together handouts. With all that great information, I was a little disappointed that no mention was made of working the tree with SRT as opposed to just access. All of the same benefits of economy of movement can be achieved while working the tree SRT. Both a walker system and a RADS system, with the proper tools, can be used for working trees in a very safe and efficient manner. Dave

Don't mind at all, hama. In fact, I don't mind you doing the heavy lifting at all! In the first pictures the two large trees are of the same era. When planted, the planting philosophy followed an orchard pattern....rows upon rows of trees. Tight plantings with very little space. I don't believe the radical twisting could have happened very late in life due to the magnitude of the twist. On the last picture, the trees are oriented north and south of each other. The prevailing winds are out of the southwest. Winds rarely come from the east as your arrow indicates. As long as you are working on this, perhaps you could answer the causal of the grain pattern in a Populus deltoides. It was an indistinct, typical straight trunk poplar on the outside. When split, I noticed this over-active, creative cellular flow. This is actually not that uncommon...but I just don't know the cause. I look at these and similar natural occurrences in the tree world and am amazed at what I do not know. Dave

The first three photos are obviously of the same tree. The fourth photo is with the twisted tree in the background. The foreground tree that is straight is same species and age. The fifth photo is from a different location and hard to see but the trees are about 30 ft apart, each one rotating in a different direction. Dave

Sorry this took so long, David. But here are a few more. They are all Acer saccharinum, silver maple. Dave

Hama, I find this blanket diagnosis of the fermentation type fluxing to be more than a bit disturbing. How did you come up with this? I know things can be quite different in different countries, and this is why I ask. Here, fluxing is "classic" Sinclair, Diseases of Trees and Shrubs, be it bacterial slime flux, associated with wetwood (foul odor): "...the anaerobic or hypoxic nature of most wetwood and the toxicity of some of the bacterial metabolites in it prevent or retard decay of wetwood by fungi in living trees." or alcoholic, frothy flux, fermented and pleasant smelling, not associated with wetwood: "It occurs where microorganisms ferment sap in creacks and other wounds in the bark and cambial region....often emits a fermentative odor, and persists only a short time in summer." A seasonal condition and can be associated with stressed trees. But is by no means a death sentence here. Are things really that different over there? Dave

This is the best I have at the moment, but I'll try to get some closer pictures next week. Species is Acer saccharinum, silver maple. These trees are prone to this development and there are several scattered around the valley. Though not as pronounced as this one. Dave

These trees apear to have something in common. Dave

Yes, please do. What was shown is a field test that proves what you already know. Temporary housing will not recreate a balanced system. Dave

Without life, death would perish. You are right to be concerned by the loss of life forms within the forest. Careful thought must be given if a remedy is to succeed or merely postpone the inevitable. All too often our efforts focus on the symptoms. Dave

Wow. Great example of man's fumbling ineptitude in recreating the beauty and flow that is nature. Not your work David, I hope. Dave

If you have a small aluminium friction-saver ring, you could try this. Works for me, but test it with your setup to ensure it works for you. Dave

Soil Foodweb Sorry, this can be a bit tedious reading and I linked the wrong section. The above link is more to the point. Dave

Oh, yes. One thing I noticed about the most recent picture is that the nicely arranged cuttings from the deadwood reduction had been reduced to just one small section. I know I have mentioned this in past posts, but the diversity of the decomposing matter needs to be maintained. As we know, trees are self-optimizing as much as possible. But this tree, in the condition its in now, is doing well just to survive, let alone supply significant amounts of soil exudates. I know you know all this, but for others who are interested in this thread, should find this link informative. I find this explains the complexities here very well. The balance of the soil organisms is this tree's best bet. Soil Foodweb Dave

Still here, David. Sorry for not participating more but I learn so much more from listening than talking. Quick side note: Sylvia just passed the ISA - Board Certified Master Arborist exam. I'm quite proud of her. She is the first one in Montana. Dave

Thank you for that. I have long ago stopped trying to predict what a tree can or cannot do but that only adds to the fascination and desire to understand the mysteries surrounding them. Dave

It depends on the type of SRT. A sit-stand setup can indeed develop a lot of bounce but a rope-walker setup is generally very smooth. Dave

There is some logic to what you are saying, Dean. Picture this: you can remove every leaf off of a tree by hand (or an insect defoliation) and the tree will respond with normal growth replacement. That would be a 100% reduction if basing this theory by leaf surface. If you remove all of the apical buds or remove live wood comprising more than your 30%, you will probably have exaggerated growth patterns or epicormic growth. It is good to keep in mind that many of these are not hard and fast rules. Just guidelines that are species and situation specific. Dave