Search results for query: *

I think the big difference is here you are topping part of the tree so another part of the tree can take over/resume dominance in the tree. Theoretically, and more so on small trees, this can lead to a BETTER structure with a stronger canopy, whereas topping does the opposite. love nick

From the pic- I agree with sotc. If looks were the concern, leave it alone. It looks fine the way it is. If it were my tree, I'd be happy to subordinate the 2 you marked in yellow. Makes sense. love nick

Frans, regarding the age of the tree...most of the trees we plant are ones that will be decurrent when mature. For the first ten years of their life, we prune them to have excurrent structure to encourage proper scaffolding branches and all that jazz. I know that as these trees mature, they...

Guy, good thinking. I was thinking the same thing. I'm thinking Willie needs to go out and get us some pics! love nick

I'm just shooting from the hip here...but... You are right- most of what we call "bad" unions DON'T fail. BUT we do know that there is a higher rate of failure among bad unions and strong unions. When I see a bad union, I never say there is a high chance of that failing- I just point out that...

I say go for it. Tell them that the tree is gonna look a little funky afterwards, but explain to them WHY. Is the intention to eventually remove the other 2? Can you you remove 1 now? I know I haven't seen it yet, but the math makes sense. love nick

Arboromega asks a good question. In my job, these days I am usually pruning trees that are 5-20 years old. Grown most often from crappy nursery stock. Though some of the pruning is to remove broken or crossing branches...I put most of my energy into creating some form of a central leader in a...