treeseer

Loggit's tree had fallen apart and the trunk looked a tad punky and besides that was many digressions ago. Let's continue talking about the tree in the park near Gerrit, since it was of a size where it seemed like there were more options than going back to the trunk. We can all do lines on that one, and have a jolly time comparing strategems and rationales, specs and objectives in ANSI parlance. I already gave mine away by specifying sizes of cuts but will get out the Paint- "brush" as well. Lurkers join in too--no entry fee! If these were all posted in 48 (?) hours, wouldn't we have fun!

I'm talking about crown reduction, not pollarding, and not teaching but saying. let's be nice and leave dear granny where she lies may she rest in peace. Seems pretty late to start a low pollard ideally even for a willow. why not get an arb to leave more tree structure and reduce the crown and the risk? Still looking for your lines there sir.

1. IMO weeping willows are not very well suited for pollarding to the extent you describe, because they tend to (re)develop hanging down and overextended lever arms, that will again be at risk of tear-out failures, which is not acceptable in an urban environment. I agree that tearout failures are not acceptable, so it seems the tree managers there have fallen behind on maintenance. These failures are minimized by periodic pruning. I forgot to mention the all-important feature of timing, sorry. Re-pruning is typically done when sprouting from the last pruning slows down, a sign from the tree that reserves are replenished so it can tolerate some to be lost. "So to preserve these trees, I would choose for the before documented Dutch way of pollarding. This way was started when tools and techniques were more limited. It seems to cost a good deal of lost value in terms of tree canopy benefits, as well as sacrificing a more numerous and diverse group of habitats for other organisms. So wouldn't more conservative pruning contribute more to the biodiversity of the urban environment than just one large hollow per tree down low? tony if you want to see lines maybe you could draw some original lines of your own on that tree to illustrate where you think it could best be pruned. Mine would be somewhere on the branch on the ground.

That damage we might call a "tear-out failure due to an overxtended lever arm" and prescribe reduction of those long branches back to lateral branches that are growing in a desired direction using cuts, judging by your image, of perhaps 6-12 cm. If no suitable laterals were available, then the cuts could be back to forks or nodes, growth points where laterals have been shed, but dormant buds remain. These would likely release, as might buds below the cuts, in response to light and hormonal triggers. Also obviously the tips of lower branches would increase in growth. All of this would train a lower and denser and more wind-resistant crown. So the pruning dose would be much smaller and much higher up than in traditional pollarding, with less sprouting. Now that we have equipment and expertise to easily navigate the upper crowns, more conservative management can preserve more tree structure for more time. This would also preserve a larger number and greater variety of habitats for the fungal and other associates that we all know and How would this pruning look from the modern, arboriculturally aware, forest ecologist's perspective?

Loggit, here's an example of how a younger one was done in the NE US. After much discussion the arborist went with a more random approach to cut locations than this approach, which tried to optimize structural stability, given proximity to houses and other litigious factors. PRESERVATION PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS Objective: Maximize structural stability and health of willow tree. Minimize decay, weak attachments, and heavy ends. Retain aesthetic value of trunk. Specifications: General: All pruning shall be completed in compliance with A300 and Z133.1 Standards. Methods: Remove all dead branches over 5 cm/2”. Reduce declining branches back to the first node that can close the wound, or support stable regrowth. Make no wounds over 10 cm (4”). Detail: Nodes shall be identified as growth points with lateral branches, visible buds (use hand lens), changes in taper, wrinkled bulges/collars, and other structures indicating bud protection zones. Reduce or remove rubbing or decayed or cracked or crowded branches to restore symmetry, minimize friction, and maximize collection of sunlight. Retain upright laterals and remove downward laterals. **Retain as many active buds as possible. Make no cut without a good reason.** Mulch to the dripline, adding more daylilies if desired. Keep the trunk flare visible. I see your tree has fallen apart, so this may not be that relevant to your case. I have heard you can get away with murder on willows, but it seems that the less that is cut, the less it will sprout, and the less decay and subsequent pruning needs will result. Existing hollows would be undisturbed, and adding mulch or better yet bordering the trunk with unchipped trimmings.

Plus, one more dollop; attached are the ANSI A300 pruning standards' how-to guide. ISA and thereby all its members subscribe to these. Judge for yourself how flexible they are--the example in bold is my own but the rest is straight from A300. The idea that pollarding requires internodal cuts does need clarification, starting with the definition of "internodal". What does it mean to you? ANSI A300 Pruning specs howto 110316.doc

Judas' ear? I had no idea--that is a bad choice. re buttocks, here is an australian interpretation for the public, and a more general one. I've seen microhabitats in hollows here; will try to get a decent picture of one. hama, your bait is stale and i'm not biting anymore. Troll over to the Restoration Pruning thread, or follow previous attempt at spoonfeeding: "See isa-arbor.com, June 2010 et al, no charge, and easily worth the cost!"

Well I totally agree with that! As for references, I only quoted Shigo to correct that misimpression. Too often people refer to "Shigo cuts" as if he only saw one right way. his collar cut is so oft-repeated, it has become something of a rigidified myth. He did see the need for flexibility, even from his limited terrestrial perspective. As for citing other references, those were my own looks at pruning, after 45 years and counting in the saddle. See isa-arbor.com, June 2010 et al, no charge, and easily worth the cost! They were all heavily reviewed, and indicate that ISA is also more flexible and comprehensive than it gets credit for. ISA-bashing is a bit of a hot button for me, so I confess to biting too readily at baited hooks. I agree that some ISA materials are too basic and limited, even limiting, but the more people get involved, as Neville Fay did with his excellent piece in the June issue, the better they will get. The studies referred to here at arbtalk sound well worth support from the Tree Fund, if anyone had the stomach for the details and paperwork. With only 25 years' experience, your youthful exuberance is understandable. Kids these days! It's my belief that with pruning, as with ecology, the best nourishment comes from a balanced diet: both academic references, and the Book of Nature. Just one opinion.

"Whatever method used, I must prefer the method that promotes the tree's growth of callus tissue, and self-optimization. this can occur along with hollows; no contradictions there. "if you do it right, you may be rewarded by an ectomycorrhizal symbiont, such as this Russula olivaceoviolascens, doing an only once documented trick : fruiting at 2 metres height from adventitious roots growing towards the inside and into the debris gathered in the open top of the pollarded or "beheaded" trunk of a willow" do it right, or just be living right--either way, That image and account gave me the most beautiful part of what has been a beautiful day. Your patience and persistence that provided the opportunity to preserve such rapturous glory may not have earned automatic credibility, but a stream of heartfelt gratitude flows forth through the e-ether. This far exceeds the gorgeous images of salamanders in redwood 80m up, for the relationship between Russula and Salix is a deep and direct connection. In the past, my first impulse when encountering "rot" in a cavity was to scoop it out and use it as fertilizer. Creating what might be better conditions for compartmentalization and root growth were the goals, but I've learned that drier is not always better for the wood, and roots can by otehr means make their own mojo. (how that translates into dutch i have no ideaaaaaaaa) if there is adventitious root growth and the hope of symbionts as you have illustriously illustrated, I see the folly of intervention, and am content to wonder, and observe. "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us. Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." Looking and Listening!

"well... like i said, pollard it (anti shigo method stylie, watch the ISA men cringe!)" No one needs to cringe, except maybe the underinformed and overopinionated. Are there references you can cite for this anti-Shigo/ISA rant? I thought not. here are some, fyi: Shigo 1986: "Ground pollarding for biomass or fuelwood is commonly done on species of alder or *willow* in Europe". Not much difference between ground pollarding and cutting back to sound wood at any level. ISA's Arborist News 2004: "...What looked like ugly stubs at first grew into attractive, safe and symmetrical portions of our valuable tree canopy. Some observers initially object to the sight of reduced branches because they are reminded of topping cuts. It may be time for the anti-topping passion to cool a little, so we can consider heading cuts without worrying about them looking like topping cuts. ..." ISA's Arborist News 2010: Reduction of tree crowns is largely misunderstood, due in large part to the anti-topping crusade that arborists have had to fight, to prevent that reckless and internodal pruning from ruining more trees. Formal research on crown reduction is extraordinarily difficult due to the immense variables, so one trend has been to repeat simple criteria, like the one-third rules applied to stem walls and branch diameter ratios. Research on structural pruning shows that the removal of one codominant stem will introduce decay into the other, so it should be reduced instead. Reduction slows its growth rate, subordinating the stem into a branch. Discoloration and decay is farther from the fork, protecting the remaining stem. Compartmentalization depends on species, the activity of the parenchyma cells, and the availability of stored material. Late summer crown reduction may elicit the best wound response. "oh and maybe leave the dead fallen limb as habitat." Coarse Woody Debris is heavenly; you should visit my landscape if you want to see deadwood habitat!

"Some final answers, because I think we've milked the cow dry by now, which I think is a typical Dutch expression." And a familiar one to this son of the Dairy State of Wisconsin, where you can smell the dairy air, or derriere, in a typical French expression. 1. It's not, only in this exceptional situation, otherwise we also have a lot of damage done to superficial roots, buttresses (this time right, right ? yes, "buttock" reminds me of Forrest Gump's war wound. "and trunk bases of urban trees by lawn and verge mowers. I am sorry to hear that "mower blight" is an international scourge. 2. I hoped, I had earned a bit of credit on the subject by now O yes a very large bit of credit, certainly. Maybe six bits! But automatic credibility, well, that would be incredibly unscientific, straining credulity for even the most credulous tree guys. Mooooooving back to whomping the willow, or chewing the cud.

Not so obviously imho!! Recommendations are a primary pitfall point and worth a rethink. Much better just to specify potential treatments and keep the decision ball in the owner's court. This from the last issue of ISA/UK&I Treeline's very general article on report writing. i thought it worthwhile but confess to some bias. To simplify this most difficult task, it may be good to set aside factors that are not always in the assignment: Budget is the clients’ concern; they determine what is reasonable to spend on their report and on their tree. If they ask for an estimate, carefully count all the hours needed to complete the job, but don’t provide a number until you both agree on the scope of work. If they don’t ask, there is no need to limit the job by voluntarily offering them an estimate. Allow the job to develop, providing periodic, often weekly, updates and invoices. If their budget has limits, your report will too. Limitations are an essential ingredient in every report. The process of determining what you can do starts with determining what you cannot do. List everything that may keep you from doing a better job—lack of time, money, equipment, information, expertise, and other resources all can hinder your performance. Your clients need to know this. Disclosing your limitations keeps you from being held responsible for any deficiencies that may be found in your report, and also keeps you from trying to do too much with too little. Recommendations are optional, according to the A Consultant’s Guide to Writing Effective Reports. When clients need information on clear tasks like pest control or pruning or root invigoration, you meet that need by listing practical management options, often in a table. Then the clients can choose which treatments to budget for. Sometimes clients want similarly specific directions on managing more complex issues, like managing the risk and benefits associated with large old trees, but don’t want to pay for the work needed to give them the details they ask for. Clarify what is needed. Your clients can understand that information is the goal, and they only need to learn about practical management options. Decisions on which actions to take remain with the tree owner, unless you decide that there are adequate resources to take on that responsibility, and is prepared to accept it. Clients do not get what they paid for when resources are lacking to make defendable`` recommendations. Don’t promise what you can’t deliver!

1. Simple, by mowing and removing the grass twice a year and the second time about a month before the fruiting season of the ectomycorrhizal macrofungi starts and using low weight mowing machines. The verges are 2-4 metres, and the canal banks, including the slopes, are 4-8 metres wide. Dose and timing of treatments, nice! In the US the root/mower interaction is a big issue for trees; how is this handled? 2. I know, that's why it took me 35 years of field research to get a bit of a notion of the dynamics of and succession in tree species specific ecosystems and tree species specific life cycles. Or did you mean to say, you want the terms shortened to : the tsssp of tsse including the tsssfw and the tssem ? The length is fine; it's the degree of specificity taht I am still working on. 3. As long as my DVD on the MTA-method, including the concept of the Tree Species Specific Ecosystems of indigenous trees, is not published, because of (©), I'm not "spilling all the beans" in advance. fair enough. "So you'll have to take my word for it, that tree species specific succession of tree related and/or dependend organisms in tree species specific ecosystems, which have evolved over hundreds thousands of years, is rather determinate and resistent to alteration or adaptation, provided, the circumstances do not suddenly and/or dramatically change with the effect of completely unbalancing the ecosystem. The sudden/dramatic = unbalancing yes, that speaks to dose and timing. How determinate is the big question. Trees resist some alterations more than others, certainly. They can also adapt to some changes more readily than others. As far as simply taking anyone's word for anything...that does not sound very scientific. I'll get the DVD, and see. "Why else do you think most of our often "exotic" urban tree species, which go without their natural habitats and ecosystems, never really thrive in our managed concrete and polluted environments and lead such a poor and short "pot plant's" life ? Could it be, because they even after decades following their introduction, can't fully adapt to an unnatural situation extremely different from "the green green grass of home" ? No doubt about that, though many species that are native to local forests also fail to thrive in non-native urban soils and conditions, where some exotics do better. "And yes, of course I am speaking in a broader scope, i.e. a forest ecological context, where trees are the main provider ("sugar daddy") of the entire forest ecosystem with a multitude of other organisms depending on them. Right; I thought that your forest ecological scope was worth clarifying. 4. Nice one , though incomplete, as it considers a tree to be a highly independent individual organism without implicating a forest ecological or tree species specific ecosystem viewpoint. Oh I doubt del Tredici meant to exclude associates, or considers a tree to be a highly independent individual organism. His work on trees as part of urban ecosystems shows high awareness of that. I agree that the forest ecosystem viewpoint is essential for this arborist to consider, but for me the dominant viewpoint remains the individual tree. That tree is also highly dependent on its site and its owners and community and stakeholders and management and its current unnatural ecosystem. Restoring as much of its heritage, including the tsssp of tsse including the tsssfw and the tssem, as practical is always the goal, as with the exemplary low-disturbance mowing regimen you describe. So the arboricultural and the forest ecological viewpoints are two spheres that overlap, and should overlap a great deal more. But if, in anyone's approach to tree care, one viewpoint dominates--contains the other entirely--then perhaps something is being missed.

1. I have monitored a lot of parks, broad verges of cycle tracks or (dirt) roads and canal banks in semi-urban aereas and assessed how f.i. middle aged beeches went through all the tree species specific successive phases of tree species specific ectomycorrhizal macrofungi, such as Amanita, Tricholoma, Russula and/or Lactarius species and boletes. There even is a Dutch canal bank with beech, common oak and a lot of red oak with so many rare spine fungi (Hydnaceae), that it's now under protection of a strict regime of mowing without damaging the fungi, mosses or trees and it is forbidden to park in between the trees to prevent compaction. Sounds good, but how can mowing not damage fungi that fruit in the grass? How wide are those trees' mulched areas? Also, it's rather hard to follow "...tree species specific successive phases of tree species specific..." Yes these natural processes sound good to preserve where practical. 2. And if an urban tree is not in good health and you don't know what the problem is, nor how to solve it, go back to its original habitat Positively, yes, find out what the tree evolved in, or "grew up with", and mimic that to the extent that is practical. "and tree species specific ecosystem to find out what the tree species needs to thrive and go through the successive phases of its tree species specific life cycle. Do tree species really have a specific life cycle? This sounds determinate, whereas my understanding was that trees' lives are indeterminate. Can't trees successfully adapt to changes around them, rather than requiring one defined pattern of interaction with one defined set of associates? That's what all this reference to specificity sounds like to me--am I interpreting that correctly? Or are you speaking in a broader scope, referring to the tree as a component of an ecosystem, and living and dying within that larger perspective? del Tredici: "In trees, physiological and developmental aging operate independently. They can be simultaneously embryonic and senile, resulting in a form of ecological immortality. It is this potential for immortality that makes trees so fascinating to work with."

Thanks again; we are getting very close now. 1. ...I don't think the lime root has the strength to compete with the oak trunk to such an extent, that it will damage or kill the oak. Probably not, it appears from here. 2. (removing conks) would intensivy the decomposition of the wood by the mycelium to short or long term compensate for the loss of the annual or perennial reproductive organs, Clients who are concerned about spores sometimes tie bags around them. If the bags do not kill the conk then this seems ok. 3. ... how would the Dutch term "wortelaanzetten" of "wortelhalzen" have been understood and interpreted ? as "stops warts" 5. In The Netherlands, for urban trees (beech, lime) we prefer to use jute or burlap. Same concept; makes sense. 7. ... mimicking their natural habitats and tree species specific ecosystems as much as possible will certainly not harm them. Totally, dude. That was not hard at all! I'll check those references and query per need. That was not hard at all!

Thanks Gerrit for your reasoned response 1. This will never happen as these trees are part of an extensively managed woodland. And I would prefer putting up a sign (not to the trees of course ) explaining the public what the phenomenon is all about and why it should be left in peace. Depending on the woodland manager's objective, that could be done. Or, the intervention could be done and interpreted with a sign. I agree signs on trees can be harmful. 2. Sure, but in this case this is an aspect of the ecology of a woodland, so the outcome of the competition will be respected, which - of course - could be different in an urban situation with a private owner. Yes, thanks. "And I think your worst case scenario will not happen and the groom and his much younger bride will be married happily ever after, But if they do not graft, or "consummate" that marriage, then it may not be all that happy...but structurally speaking, intertwined plants can be mutually supportive, yes. in another example, if the tilia girdles and deforms the oak, and subsequently dies, that could be bad for the oak. " or the oak will adopt the lime as his son, sharing water with him and nutrients coming from ectomycorrhizal symbionts associated with both tree species. Trees are not always at war or in territorial conflict with one another, they out of mutual interest often invest in co-existence as is seen in many types of mixed forests without a single tree species dominating all the others." Yes, even in the city we can persuade owners to invest in facilitating coexistence between plants that may compete in one sense, and encourage tolerance and appreciation of these natural arrangements. 3. Which is obvious as part of their reproductive strategies, but under these circumstances, the air will be "filled" with an abundance of airborne spores, which' presence will probably be heightened by a factor 1.000+ compared to "normal" circumstances. If that is the natural state that the manager wants, fine. If less decay is desired, perhaps the conks could be harvested before opening? Or could that intervention prompt panic fruiting? 4. In my experience, the root tissue and/or dead wood of Tilia species is not very resistant to infections with spores or rhizomorphs of its main attackers, a single hit of a buttock or superficial root by a lawn mower will sometimes do the "trick". Besides, regeneration of or compensation for a cut mayor root takes too long for the tree to go without infection of the wound and survive on the long run, as sealants in this situation will not be applied. Superficially above and underground present rhizomorphs of necrotrophic parasitic Armillaria species can detect regrowth of damaged roots and buttraces by the growth hormones secreted by the tree from a distance of up to one metre and "grow", i.e. stretch towards the wound in a straight line with a speed of up to one metre a year while using dead wood (wood chips) as temporary food sources and stepping stones. In a research project I witnessed in the national forests of Bavaria, while I was monitoring plots in other forests with German collaegues, all damaged spruce roots in the one meter wide and 50+ centimetres deep tyre traces or "furrows" left behind by wood harvesting machines were colonized by rhizomorphs coming from aside within two years. All true, though furrows are such extreme disturbance, that colonization may be a very extreme example. Your English is excellent, but language is funny--'buttock" also refers to that part of the body which is sat upon, so the image of a root damaged by a buttock is humorous. Tilia is underused in my region, but I do know it to be a weak compartmentalizer. One vicarious experience I had with Tilia was in the attached, from ISA. It may show that, even if I occasionally see a girdling root where a dead branch lays, I can also see where human intervention can be quite damaging! On the other hand, the proper use of standards, and the sharing of examples such as the use of rattan to simulate forest shade, can make for tree-friendly intervention. This also relates to the original post (!) in that the removal of sprouts before their time is a bad thing. 5. In my forest ecological view, woodlands and forests always should be "managed" according to the dynamics of tree species specific ecosytems. And the management of urban trees can profit much more from the knowledge of forest ecology then is the case in today's common arboricultural practice. Yes, very much so. Forest ecology and arboriculture do overlap a great deal, but Arboriculture can also benefit from more knowledge of meteorological phenomena, and aspects of human activity, and other influences. So while there is overlap between forest ecology and arboriculture, not all of one subject coincides with or even influences the other. But given evolution, forest ecology is very important to be informed on, and apply where practical. I am keen to learn more about your view of the dynamics of tree species specific ecosytems. I still have questions about how specific they are, and whether the specificity that is observed in forest ecosystems is deterministic; do urban trees require the same associations in the same pattern to function well, given their non-forest environment? I can see the benefit of mimicking nature to the utmost practical extent, and look forward to learning more about ways to do more of this over time, in other threads. 6. No, so let's leave it at that and return to the original subject. Thank you for acknowledging that the proposed standard addresses that concern. Even if it was not entirely serious, a reductio ad absurdum of sorts, it is still important for standards to apply to all situations. As for returning to the original subject, when Mr. Loggit re-pollards that willow, I hope we do! Dendro 9 Tearing Tilia.pdf

Thanks to Mr. Loggit for correcting my misidentification of that coincidentally concentrically curving branch. I admit that I was wrong in that guess. Thanks also to Mr. Rover for trying to cool the digging dialog here, and accurately observing the difficulty in admitting erroneous observations (like mine)and judgments and conclusions. This has gone way beyond pollarding a willow, but I'll reply to Fungus' response to the Tilia root contacting the oak stem. - both trees are standing close to a compacted dirt path without possibilities to send out roots to collect water at that side, even though the Tilia tried to penetrate the soil from the trunk base with three ill-developed roots. OK, knowing more about the site helps. Yes, the 3 downrights are ill-developed compared to the circling portion that constrains aka girdles the oak buttress. They could develop better if conditions along the footpath improved by 'fixing" in hama's term the aeration and biological and other conditions - the lime root is not strangling or girdling, it just touches on and around or "embraces" the base of the oak at and above ground level. today's loving embrace can be tomorrow's strangulation. Many human marriages gone bad attest to that. As the two trees grow in diameter, how can conflict and constriction not occur? - grafting will not happen as both tree species are mutually incompatible for merging cambium and bark because of major genetic differences. yes that seems obvious. also, most girdling roots of the same tree seldom graft to their trunks, due to tissue incompatibility. That thin-barked magnolia SGR was over 16 cm and pressing on the buttress for half a century, but did not graft. - pruning the root of the lime would implicate cutting it off from its mayor water supply basin, a loss which can not be restored on the short run, if it can even be compensated for at all i would suggest fixing the soil might allow the 3 downrights to make up for some of the loss, and new roots can form elsewhere too. If the timing is righ--the end of the growing season, like now, that will help, but not having seen it in person hinders further comment or judgment. -and removing soil doesn't prevent this type of "girdling" roots to (re)develop, because they (for the greater part) stay above ground without penetrating the soil. I agree, so I did not say "prevent", but said Keeping soil off that area would *discourage* infection, and regirdling. some arborist monitoring will be useful. - besides, the surrounding woodland is invested with M. giganteus, A. ostoyae, G. australe and K. deusta, so what are the chances, the wound will not be infected with spores or rhizomorphs from close by, even though the soil is removed ? Again, new info can change things. Not being a bookie, I am not going to lay odds on that. I always assume spores of decay fungi are swirling around, so I try to minimize wounding, and slant cuts for minimal exposure. Applying a sealant to minimize infection might be considered as well. Also, root tissue is generally more resistant to infection that branch or stem, plus a young tree may be even more resistant. But reasonable precautions can still be taken. - I don't see how your "option" fits in a forest ecological approach to trees being very complicated organisms interacting with one another and with thousands of other organisms, which are part of the dynamics of their tree species specific ecosystems. Here I must be bold enough to suggest an alternative viewpoint: I never claimed to be taking a forest ecological approach, but that does not mean I'm totally ignorant about ecology. An arboricultural approach should incorporate the awareness that there are associations and interactions between trees and other organisms. (Some of those interactions are determined by the trees, as they exude material through their roots, right?) I understand that a forest ecologist's approach might observe the dynamics of all these interactions and look at the tree as a small part of an immense tree species specific ecosystems, and be less interventional. sometimes this approach fits the objectives of tree owners, but many times those owners want objectives to be met that call for a reasonable level of intervention. Even if two plants can go on co-existing and even sharing some ectomycorrhizal symbionts for many more years to come, if one plant (say, an oak) is bound to be damaged by another plant (say, a tilia), and that damage might interfere with the owner's value in or enjoyment of that plant, then an arborist can perform treatments to reduce the conflict. This may not be a forest ecologist's preference, but most tree owners that I work for are in urban sites, and prefer their chosen plants' performance optimized. I believe this can be done responsibly if the arborist is paying attention to the ecosystem: which does not require that her work is dominated by the forest ecological approach. There are other factors at play, outside of forest ecology. See the difference? Both approaches seem valid. I'm not saying that you are wrong. -What would you do with roots of different trees below the forest floor, if you found them in close contact by "embrasing", rubbing, crossing, girdling or even merging, together forming a complex root system connecting trees standing together at close range ? Prune them or cut them off, because it is "good arborist practice" as well ? Hmm that seems like a "digging" question in more ways than one. But I will reply, because I am a nice guy: Only where diseases such as oak wilt can be transmitted might that pruning be reasonable. Under the ground, roots are left free to interact without intervention, hence as said before, 83.6.4 Roots that cross other roots outside the buttress area should be retained. That clause seems to address your concern. Any others?

caveat: note the date on this first. it may have nothing to teach this advanced audience; just sharing experiences. it was written mainly to justify "heading cuts", cutting to nodes, what was termed at the time a 'PREPOSTEROUS TRUCKLOAD OF TRIPE". only a tangential/background interest to Rob's proposed line of research. After the Storm from TCI Magazine April-2003 small.pdf

Thanks Gerrit, it was clear all along that you are here to freely share your expertise. I will continue to ask about what I do not know, which is considerable, about fungi and the interactions that trees have with biological associates. Your photographic documentation is first-rate and extremely instructive! Your encyclopedic knowledge of other associated organisms is so broad that it is hard sometimes to apply it to my day-to-day work in the urban forest, but well worth the effort. Please don't take offense if some of the conclusions that you suggest are not clear to this working arborist. I'm better off for being better aware of the complexity of life that can interacts with the trees that I manage (or that manage me!) All good from here! Now out to shorten some trees for a better view.

Fascinating subject! I agree those bumps are bundles of meristematic tissue, often associated with ray cells. Yes often dormant buds are visible with a hand lens or even the naked eye. "Endocormic" I will take the blame for coinage, 2002. I've tried to get it into glossaries but just get funny e-looks when I suggest it. Refers to growth from dormant buds, which are connected to the "corm" via bud traces aka pith trails. Distinct from epicormic growth from adventitious (newly formed) buds. Cassian Humphreys in 'australia used it later, referring to epicormic growth covered by layers of new tissue, so it became endo- written 4 articles related but i won't bore the audience with those. hard- and softcore isa folk have them. cassian's observations pub. 2008 were in australian arbor age mag. Nice pics of growth from ax wound. not for every tree or species. re the op, suggest also light tip cuts along with the nicking strategies to force budbreak. pic is on q phellos 1 year after heading cut after storm damage. buds broke on their own; bending during storm may also have been a factor.

haha when i chose the smiley i only saw the flags not the gun--not my intent! nothing here to blow brains out over but cannot edit; over 10 minutes; o well. I totally accept the graft/weld in limbs and in fact force them through scraping and bolting. but there are times limbs or roots rubbing are good and times when they are unlikely to be good. i think that understanding could be covered more in the article--i'll let you take on that rewrite. It is in the standard--how would you improve that? in my area pinus taeda dependably graft but quercus and acer and magnolia not hardly at all; attached. don't shred that one please; it was an early effort. what established viewpoint are you talking bout? Pruning SGRs (not SCRs) is grrrradually catching on but not routine by any means ime. many or most usa or aus tree guys seem to pay little mind to that part of the tree, nor even use a chisel. so loggit, is that a branch or a root laying there? Dendro 1 Grandiflora.pdf

Tony I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Where is that tilia root grafted to that quercus buttress? If that means increasing stability, I agree. that fine line is negotiated by guidelines and other common sense, hopefully. 1. Had not planned on an updated quite yet. 2. It is not molestation; i ain't no pedophile. 3. Being prudent by following these guidelines:83.6.3 If a root is thicker than 10% of the trunk diameter and girdles less than 10% of the trunk, retention should be considered 83.6.4 Roots that cross other roots outside the buttress area should be retained. 83.6.5 Species ability to graft root tissue to stem tissue shall be considered 83.6.6 Exposure and pruning in spring and early summer should be limited to protected areas such as the north side of the trunk 83.6.7 Pruning cuts should be made back to non-girdling lateral roots where possible 83.6.8 Damage to the trunk and buttress roots shall be avoided Don't these work to avoid your concerns? Yes when these are older and welded, yes. When younger, maybe best to prune for better structure, like branches Please clarify; enlighten me.

A friend related this, which addresses the question in an indirect but entirely valid way: In our area of high and dry Ponderosa forests, one of the uses of dead limbs on these trees is the foundation for the development of reindeer moss. Reindeer moss This lichen is able to live and multiply in areas where ground development is limited by consumption. Taking years to develop into large masses, the now brittle dead wood will snap from wind or snow load. The nutrient rich lichen is then able to be utilized by many ground-based organisms which are "essential" to the forest.

OK, Graham notes that woodpeckers will find other sources, including standing dead trees. I see a lot more woodpeckers on live trees, but am not familiar with GS and GL. "... a long list of species of macrofungi, which start their recycling and pioneer bark and wood decaying activities long before the branches fall off, i.e. there's a complete, partialy tree species specific ecosystem with its own successive order up there, which continues its work once the branches are on the forest floor, which often triggers them to fruit for the first time." I agree that their life cycle comes to fruition, literal or figurative, on the ground. How long, if at all, would these dead branches have to be on the tree to serve their role in this observed order? And are any species reliant on dead branches in living trees for their existence, or do they just use them because they are there? "are you happy to take our word for it that deadbranches are as vital a part of the habitat as just about any other tree part? With all due respect, it seems unscientific to take the word of anyone, no matter how much they are revered, for anything. Any statement that broad and speculative seems to call for some skepticism. Facts are preferable. "If we put a list of JUST the fungi together in order of the diameter of wood they prefer, it would take years if not a lifetime... Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees? "and then you could start on the invertebrates by wood diameter preference... Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees? "and then all the higher organisms that rely if only in part on that wood/fungi/insect relationship and ratio. Are any endangered by removal of dead branches from living trees? Just asking a basic question about basic food chain mathematics

I agree; pics 1 and 2 show no intervention would be reasonable. The facts portrayed illustrate that pruning the Tilia root just past the 3rd downright lateral (center of image) would remove the most severe girdling on the oak, while conserving the Tilia, and training it to develop compatibly with the oak. Keeping soil off that area would discourage infection, and regirdling. Goodness no, an arborist would look for reasonable compromise, not kill-or-live scenarios. Pruning the main root at the right place and time, with other treatments, would of course not kill the little thing. Such a hasty, fatalistic viewpoint does not seem very relevant to arboriculture. Attached is a peer-reviewed chapter on this general issue (from what hama calls a "hardcore ISA man"), just 3 years old. Below is a portion of a proposed standard for managing these situations--note "shall" and "should". Arboricultural thoughts on either would of course be most welcome. 83.6 Root pruning: girdling roots 83.6.1 Roots that contact the trunk or a buttress root should be considered for pruning 83.6.2 Girdling roots should be visible on all sides before pruning is planned 83.6.3 If a root is thicker than 10% of the trunk diameter and girdles less than 10% of the trunk, retention should be considered 83.6.4 Roots that cross other roots outside the buttress area should be retained. 83.6.5 Species ability to graft root tissue to stem tissue shall be considered 83.6.6 Exposure and pruning in spring and early summer should be limited to protected areas such as the north side of the trunk 83.6.7 Pruning cuts should be made back to non-girdling lateral roots where possible 83.6.8 Damage to the trunk and buttress roots shall be avoided 83.6.9 If more than one large girdling root is present, pruning in stages should be considered. 83.6.11 Excavated soil and fine roots should be incorporated into the outer rootzone as soil amendments LBG III Managing Stem-Girdling Roots1.doc.pdf