Arborist struggles with struggling specimen

I believe that is a matter of perspective...consider Pando in Utah, or the 9000 year old spruce (root system) in Norway. Indefinitely from a geological perspective, perhaps not, but perhaps when compared to a human's lifespan.
 
Tucker943 said:
That tree is toast. Get rid of it, yesterday. Only a crook would take money with the idea of resurrecting that tree. Either leave it alone until it becomes storm work, or deep six the poor thing and start new.
Click to expand...


If you tell people you will bring it back to its former glory, you are lying. If you tell them the truth, that you're going to do things to prolong a still alive, no resurrection, tree, that was mistreated in many ways, you're offering an option.

Would be interesting to see it leafed out. We have only seen a little bit of the site. Perhaps planting another black locust (allelopathy might dictate this) nearby, if its a historical site, then do what you're going to do with the existing tree.

There are many, many trees that have had the same mistreatment. Ideally, they wouldn't have been, but in reality, they're out there. Could be par for course in that town (hope not). Who knows?

I agree with Thomas about it being more of a veteran tree (prematurely). I hope I can be doing that well at over 130 years old.

I wonder what it means to people in that town. People could have been married under it, played under it as a kid, etc. Surely, its not the ideal situation, but I'm just saying there is more to that tree to that town that we see on the internet.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
the tree in its summer glory is seen at the end of the vid. several options; harvesting and building something with the wood not a bad idea. all according to the objective, which is only determined in collaboration with the owner.

if we are to make predictions they must be based on similar experience or they are bs. if we are not assigned to predict then we should realise our crystal balls are quite blurry and stick to what can be done. False predictions, just like false promises, should be avoided. What sticks out in this case is 1 Overpruning sped decline and 2 the bottom half of the tree is being ignored.

Reduction of tree crowns is largely misunderstood, due in large
part to confusion with reckless and internodal topping. Reduction
does remove some photosynthetic potential, but the remaining leaves
can increase their energy production, and new leaves are formed
per need. Formal research on crown reduction is almost impossible
due to the large number of 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 the
removal of a large codominant stem will introduce decay into the
other, so subordination is preferred.

Reduction slows its growth
rate, subordinating the stem into a branch. Discoloration and decay
is farther from the fork, protecting the remaining stem. Compartmentalization
also depends on species, the activity of the parenchyma
cells, and the availability of stored material. Late summer
crown reduction may elicit both a favorable wound response and
more manageable regrowth.

Retrenchment first referred to soldiers who retreated back to a line
they could defend, where landforms and supplies allowed them to
dig in and fight anew. This concept relates very well to declining trees,
so before cutting any branches to reduce the size of the canopy, visualize
the new canopy outline. The objective is to make reduction cuts
so that branch tips are left intact on the new, smaller canopy.
 
An excellent pruning guidelines manual can be viewed here: http://www.forestry.uga.edu/outreac...g Manual Arboritecture monograph pub08-13.pdf

I enjoyed listening to the author of that, Dr. Coder deliver a talk on proper pruning practices at an Ontario Chapter ISA conference a number of years ago. He is an excellent speaker who
can keep your attention!
Another name / thought that crossed my mind on the same subject of what this particular tree has endured over the years, is Cass Turnbull's (of Plant Amnesty) article in an old TCIA magazine called "Is Drop Crotch Pruning Topping?" She made a good case, and it has stuck in my mind over the intervening years, even though many readers may be inclined to dismiss her as just a shrub person.
 
RopeArmour said:
See, it is not a dog or human and it obviously isn't shot.
The analogy does not apply when it comes to trees.

Trees do not have a biological clock.
I am sure even if there was no money there would be plenty
who would put their name and biz name on it.
Sheet in your back yard and you lose biz especially if you condemn a significant and valuable tree.

Please, Look past the dead wood and IMAGINE
the old soldier who can still sound his trumpet!:)

back against the wall
sound out to all
never to forget
the fallen.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhh OK. You got it.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
An excellent pruning guidelines manual can be viewed here: http://www.forestry.uga.edu/outreac...g Manual Arboritecture monograph pub08-13.pdf

Nodal pruning, proportions, great stuff! Saw this in 2007(?) at ISA int'l.

I enjoyed listening to the author of that, Dr. Coder deliver a talk on proper pruning practices at an Ontario Chapter ISA conference a number of years ago. He is an excellent speaker who can keep your attention!

Imagine following him on a program. rather humbling.

Another name / thought that crossed my mind on the same subject of what this particular tree has endured over the years, is Cass Turnbull's (of Plant Amnesty) article in an old TCIA magazine called "Is Drop Crotch Pruning Topping?" She made a good case, and it has stuck in my mind over the intervening years, even though many readers may be inclined to dismiss her as just a shrub person.

That was a good article, where it pointed to harm done like the walnut got. Her latest rant in the PA newsletter unfortunately missed the point on A300 standards, and was based more on an aesthetic bias than science. She is an excellent shrub person, but if any non-climber wants to present on tree pruning, it helps to have a background and intellect like Coder's.
 
Probably a safe bet to say that Alex Shigo would have no longer viewed that tree favourably, having lost it's "dignity".
I wonder what Coder would say about keeping it around, given it's current declining state? I think there is a downward spiral involved here, and at some arbitrary point in time, a general consensus will surely be reached that it's removal is both justified and necessary.

I vaguely remember hearing or reading something sometime, along the lines of a 33% loss of canopy being a reasonable threshold to consider removal and replacement. Just an arbitrary percentage, or valid?
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
The only consensus that matters is the one between owner/manager and arborist. The rest of us are just Bozos on the bus, looking out the windows. Who asked us :?

'I vaguely remember hearing or reading something sometime, along the lines of a 33% loss of canopy being a reasonable threshold to consider removal and replacement. Just an arbitrary percentage, or valid?"

50% is thrown around too. It depends--some trees handle 100% off just fine, others spin down if they lose 5%. Valid maybe to use thresholds as a place to start thinking. Trouble is, people too often use thresholds as a place to stop thinking. Better to listen to the tree and the owner imo.

sotc, you read that? All about Rules as defined by 1 person, and "The Beast", and old A300 text spun into the great wide open. Nodal pruning per Shigo and Coder is dismissed as "arboricultural jargon to justify a top job" andonandon. No alternate views accepted, so now brace yourself for Part Deux--yikes! :evil:
 
Can you clarify? I just got back from the academy, I need you to define the scope! :D
 
If an error in judgement is made, perhaps better to make it out of an abundance of caution rather than aesthetics and sentimentality! A threshold of "common sense" is telling me that tree ain't very happy, and struggling with this particular struggling specimen may be an exercise in futility.
 
Sure the tree is on it's way out. Who is the one responsible for the tree and any risk it poses? I am sure there will come a time when even if the owner wants to retain the tree but the arborist no longer feels it can be retained safely, he will tell them. If they want to keep it beyond that he can only walk away. One man's junk is another man's treasure, obviously someone in charge of the tree sees value and an arborist feels it is safe enough to be retained for the time being.
 
I think maybe the someone in charge of the decision making process feels guilty that his forefathers contributed to the present day state of this goblin. But he just can't pull the trigger cause emotion is overruling common sense.
 
Just because an arborist feels its good to leave it doesn't mean that arborist is right. Perspective is everything in this line of work and our perspectives vary. Which can be a good thing. I myself view that tree as a back alley abortion. But, the more I look at it, the more I see limited end weight on the remaining leads. With that said, my guess is that it isn't as much of a limb failure risk. Walnut can be funny though. Ive seen the wood fail very easily during dry periods. Black walnut anyways. Im not well versed on other varieties. Ive put a few English walnuts on the ground and to be honest, misidentified one until I was making the face cut. Looked like what we call rock oak in this area. Another 30 year tree vet on the job with me felt the same. It was a no brainer. Set a line up around a fair sized lead and ran the line to a truck. Tightened up. Started the face cut and as soon as the saw touched the wood I was like "This is NOT oak!" The wood told me right away I messed up and that this was walnut. Set a whole new line in that tree around several leaders instead of just that one.
 
I just watched the video again. Get rid of that tree. That is nothing but a hazard, and will get worse with time. I take back my statement about the limb weight. I was wrong. The arborist involved needs to pop his head out of his ass. I get so annoyed with these "anti removal" CA's. There comes a point when its time to think rationally and put an edge on your saw and get busy. Saving and preserving trees is where its at. I talk so many people out of removals each year. Im not a "Just cut em all down" sort of person. But the day I start acting like a flake and lose sight of the fact that Im the guy people rely on to make sound decisions about when a tree needs to go, I hope someone slaps me.
 
Do you not see that the arborist is not the person making the decision? Or he shouldn't be anyway. I don't make that decision for my clients.
 
The arborist is the person influencing the decision making process. For better or worse.
And when money is involved, there may (or may not be) a conflict of interest or impaired judgement on the part of the arborist. I fail to see this arborist as being impartial and unbiased.
 
I see that Willie. I didn't take that arborist as being completely realistic in his own perspective though.
 
And you feel yours is? I am not saying he is right or wrong, just discussing but if you can make a judgement from a video and not much background, is it possible you are biased? I find it interesting to think about, Nick and I talked about this and I remembered him doing a project 8 or 10 years back that I blew off as a waste. He still drives by that tree often, the new owners are enjoying it and it's history.
 
Of course I feel mine is Willie. Don't we all. A video is all I have as a gauge. Im guessing that deep down, you know Im right. I understand you are being objective and pitching all angles for the sake of thorough discussion. I get that, and enjoy it. But I also know you aren't far fetched or out of touch....
 
;)
We all feel we are objective, maybe I got this from old monkey, questioning the details. ..
 
Did I miss something in the video? How come the soil mounding over the root collar hasn't been addressed? That seems like a no brainer, if you want to do anything positive for that tree get the soil off the trunk of the tree I wonder why that wasn't done a long time ago?

jp:D
 
When I was at the City the mentality was that if the tree had defects it should be replaced, almost like a sterilization. I didn't agree and still don't as any old tree is going to present significant 'issues' especially an old tree in an urban environment. You just can't replace the benefits of old large trees so why not put the effort into saving specimen trees if the risk can be managed and tolerated? I agree it's not the most attractive tree I've seen but it looks far better to me than a row of 2" caliiper bradford pears....

jp:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top