treeseer

Does not look like a concern. Strength added.

Thank You David! I've waited for years to see that evidence. As Gary says it's not overpoweringly vigorous, but it's a start! I'm still inclined to cut to nodes, as was done here in 2002; pic taken 2010. Sprouts from dormant buds are bound to be better anchored; this one held up 200#! I'd have been in a bad way if it had failed. Yes drying would be a primary consideration with epicormics, as light may be for endocormic (from dormant buds) sprouts. But this 'stub' is in the lower part of the crown, facing east. It may get a little midday light. What would be exciting would be to add some 'scientific' cuts to buds into your experiment. I'm not sure I understand how "On assessment, this branch had no buds to prune it back to..." I see a lot of nodes with evidence of buds on the other branches. The branch in the pic just had bulges to aim for, but it worked out well on that beech branch.

Applying heat to the lesions with a blow torch after cleaning them is effective. Cambium grows rapidly as a result. Try it.

See columns 1 and 2 from this poster shown at ISA Intl last year. Response Growth after Pruning Compartmentalization Rules!.pdf

The burls show some sign of vascular discontinuity but that is seldom an issue. Root damage pics show orange 'scar' tissue so the tree is responding well to the damage. Any loose dead bark should be carefully removed and the area rinsed for diagnosis. From all the pics I see no signs of concern over stability. If there are, a light reduction <10% off the ends with cuts <5 cm should allay them

Good call; crazy to call for removal after seeing pics; incomprehensible before. Defensio ad absurdum. So many places to reduce back to. Some soil replacement might help.

Looking again, I see where a lot of tips were taken back. The tips are the 'whips' so it'll twist much less. :thumbup1:

Yes from the position and form of the cracking it does look torsional. It may be superficial so yes good not to be alarmed about it. 2nd pic looks much like the first. It is good to see that lower left limb was retained, though it looks a bit awkward at present. Tree form still looks way lopsided/asymmetric. ?? If it is after pruning then it may have been too light to prevent future torsional damage. This of course viewed on a 17" screen, from X,XXX km away, and it might have been raining on the day of the 2nd pic...

Or a bark-eating fungus.

How far is it from the house? Maybe it could be reduced to remove/reduce any perceived threat, and to spur interior growth to enable future reduction. Here's an account of decayed street trees reduced and retained. 2 ft of fill on a TPO tree? The officer may well have an opinion on that abuse. Mature Willow Oaks Managed with Specified Crown Reduction.pdf

Thinning the top half can help stability. Improving soil speeds CODIT.

Great looking trees and work. Looks like the resi is reliable, and well worth the wounding if it settles all concerned without great loss of crown value. How typical are failures of grafts like this?

More like a burr aka burl. No sign of another agent at work, as in a gall. Not so unusual for meristematic tissue to grow in a bundle like that on trunks; why not roots?. When you dig around perhaps you will see downward growing lateral roots coming off the burl. At any rate this should be considered a positive feature until proven negative. Theories on damage and infestation may fit this case, IF evidence points in those directions.

A picture of the root collar might help. Bleeeding lesions? Odd pattern of dieback. Maybe a spill of some sort?

Catalpa, like Tilia or more so, is tremendously tough in its outer wood, and can stand with 90% hollowness. When a tree loses heartwood, that's like flushing the toilet. Light reduction pruning reduces leverage and risk.

I was just paraphrasing Neville, so thanks for not killing the messenger. But I absolutely agree. In my work it's ALWAYS someone else's money, and (mostly) someone else's liability. not sure what's being said there. ? I do accept some transfer of liability when I provide information and list management options, which tell people what they CAN do with their tree. I accept a lot more liability if I decide to assign myself to make recommendations. Recommendations tell people what you think they SHOULD do. It's not just semantic.... Of course owners want definite solutions, and firmly stated opinions from us. They want to transfer as much liability to us as they can. But we should think carefully before taking on that liability. Boiling down decisions into keep it or kill it is a false dichotomy, known as a fool's choice. Given the uncertainty surrounding supplemental support, arborists need to inspect trees more closely before making any conclusions or suggesting management options. There is much we can learn from the tree’s own natural support system, before we impose any treatments. “Form determines dynamic response, so it’s time to tune into tree architecture.” Ken James told the group. “Much of the scientific data available is based on forest trees, but much of it is not applicable to exposed urban trees. The answer is predetermined by the tree.” As much as James knows about tree biomechanics, he does not make recommendations to his clients when consulting about trees. “I just report information to the client” he said. “I let them figure out what to do with it.”

This type of pruning is not understood well in the US because people confuse it with coronetting and fracture pruning. As I understand it, smaller cuts made to growth points lead to faster closure and controlled rejuvenation. Fracturing and coronetting and other intentional wounding, even if they saved all the baby whales and the koalas too, will never be generally accepted in the US. Bore cuts in branch ends for cavity nesters are not invasive, so they are an easier sell. One company advocates rip cuts, but only on dead trees

REGENERATING HOLLOW TREES FOR LIFE | TreeBuzz quip, maybe they're talking about PARTS of trees regenerating, as often happens following a proper dose of retrenchment pruning. Chris does that sound about right?

Much much less pertinent, as you suggest, if specified cuts are <3-4". Vitality is a big factor, as is exposure to sunlight and/or nicking to release dormant buds. Etc. The terminology is a bit different in the US--bracing = rodding, for instance. And a tree with a rod still moves (is dynamic, literally). At any rate, steel limits movement much more than polypropylene, so its use fits cracked forks, which get worse with movement. I hope that makes sense. "The problem with PTI and other methods of tree inspection is you could justify tree removal in pretty much everycase if you were to push hard enough." I agree! Use of the TRAQ system for example has condemned many a valueable tree. I find that the more inspection is done, the more options open up.

Thanks--I stand corrected!

Removing those entire limbs seems to have made the tree lopsided, and top-heavy. Consider just reducing limbs to achieve the goals of reducing windsail, or clearing neighbors' yards.

Rejuvenation of a tree’s physiology slows down its aging clock. This is best seen in trees that grow on stressful environments, like mountaintops. Among trees, some adversity can promote longevity. Recovery from damage enhances dignity in veteran trees, as they demonstrate endurance. “Pruning does it by inducing the growth of younger meristems, shortening the internal transport path, and balancing shoot load and activity with limited root activity and support. 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.” Peter del Tredici of Harvard University (Cambridge, MA),

The notion that reducing a branch or tree inevitably weakens it is an unproven theory. Photosynthesis is far too complex to reduce it to 'number of leaves = amount of photosynthesis'. Proper reduction often leads to rejuvenation, as shown so well on this forum. "would it not still be a flexi brace though unless install as a rigid system using a steel rod?" Excellent question. Yes of course there is always movement from wind, even with a steel cable. This can be minimized by using more than one, or in extreme cases by adding a rod, as you describe. There is however NOT movement from stretching and springing back. Dynamic cable is properly specified to allow this dynamic movement, which of course is good, when the forks are not cracking.

Paul, let's consider: Movement is likely to worsen the condition of the fork. Several here have (correctly I think) noted this. Dynamic bracing material is designed to allow movement. Static bracing material (steel) is designed to limit movement. Which material best suits this splitting fork? Beyond this are other factors: steel lasts 30+ years with little or no maintenance steel requires a 1/4" hole for a 3/16" cable that will provide 9000# of support O and I agree with 10 Bears; calling for a fell seems ridiculous.

What part of the tree do you think is at risk of failing? The woundwood around that hole may well have compensated for strength loss from the natural (and in some ways beneficial) process of interior decay. "Woodworms" aka larvae, are eating dead rotten material. What evidence is there that the rot is spreading into living tissue, and increasing risk? Clearing for the wires reduced the load and risk. Your camera and your analysis seem focused on a hole. Perhaps looking at the whole site, with adjacent trees reducing exposure to wind etc., will calm your concerns. If not, then reduce the tree's height 15%, and risk 50%. Fay was right-- focusing on defects, real and imagined, creates risk entrepreneurs.