Advance Poinciana. Recently transplanted

Tilia

"tree farm" funny thought- its a bit like a tree abattoir; raised, slaughtered and delivered to your door.

Treedoc

You make many valid points. What we don’t know what was said but if the seller asked what budget he had the deal may well have been limited to what has occurred.

Perhaps I am missing something. Both you and Shaun have said move the tree with an appropriate sized root plate and full canopy. That is clearly the best option when it is possible but what should you do if that is not possible?

I am guessing from the size of the trunk that the tree would have been about 7- 8 metres high and would have had a canopy spread of about 12 metres.

Perhaps things are different in QLD but we are limited to a maximum height of 4.5 metres (5 metres with permits and a surveyed route). Would you cart it standing upright or lay it down? Clearly you would need to lay it down otherwise you would need to cut it to a 2.5 metre high stump.

Now this creates a problem for the canopy because it will need to be tied in from 12 metres down to about 4 metres. Perhaps that could be done but I seriously doubt it so what we would need to do to get the tree down the road is to prune all the branches to a 2-metre radius from the centre of the trunk (not ideal but better than what was done I agree). This would leave us with a little under 10% of the original canopy.

The DSH (DBH) looks to be about 40cm. With a full canopy an ideal root plate would have been about 4 metres and a lift weight of about 16-18 tonnes. At about a 12 metre radius from the edge of the curb to the centre of the hole you would need a 200 tonne crane if you were going to stay on the road. However by my calculations the biggest root plate you can get down the road must have one side or a radius of 3.5 metres so we could get down to 90tonne crane with its wheels on the nature verge (not good but a saving of $10,000 on crane costs.)

Now lets look at the dollars Establishment and lift cost of say $4,000 for a 90 tonne crane. Freight from QLD of $1000 (allowing for loading and unloading time). Lets assume Shaun’s calculation of under $10,000 for the transplanting and planting (way under the normal price for a 3.5 metre diameter root plate in Sydney Canberra and Melbourne). Then of course the guy selling the tree would want something for it. Lets say $2000

That is a total of $17,000 for a tree with only 10% of its crown left and an almost full sized root plate. Yes this would be a better quality job than the $5,000 he probably paid for the tree, delivered and installed. Is 10% of the canopy worth spending an extra $12,000? Not likely!

However guys it is not one of those good quality transplants shown elsewhere on this site. To move the tree in with a full canopy would require a heavy lift helicopter. Delivery costs would exceed $80,000 with the transplant costs on top. Res ipsa loquitur. This tree would never have been moved with a full canopy.

You are correct. Perhaps the best option would have been to purchase a tree in a 3000-litre container and have it delivered and installed for about $6-8000. I never argued against this. My only issues have been that he was not given any help on the care of this tree, that there was no basis for legal action and that there was not a more effective way to get this particular tree to this site.

No, it is not some pedantic legal argument. It is a simple statement of facts.

Lastly I have seen trees that have had most of their leaves and roots cut off every year for several hundred years. These trees appear to be perfectly healthy. They are of course bonsai. All that I have been suggesting is that perhaps we could learn from some of this and that their might be times when this is the most cost effective option even when including the cost of ongoing maintenance. Of course I might be wrong but if we reject the suggestion outright then we will certainly never know.

Mark
PS if we had the budget we would all move trees like the one in the attached image.

For Tillia. If he ate the tree I would agree with you! I just have issues with the fact that there are trees alive today in the UK that were moved this way hundreds of years ago. Not sure that I would want to eat beef that was hundreds of years old or every eat one whilst it was alive:-)

Attached Thumbnails

 

pcarborist

fraud.

__________________
parkcityarborist

Sean Freeman

Mahk, (Par pare refero) you are correct I did write...

"1) Removing any live foliage from a tree being transplanted for a long time now has been rejected as acceptable practice"

when what I should have written was...

"1) Removing large volumes of live foliage from a tree being transplanted for a long time now has been rejected as acceptable practice"

Removing live foliage from trees to be transplanted is NOT best practice.

Mahk...I was being deliberately mischievous with the dig at you about the cost

I would hope however that you and your company can concieve of other options than a chainsaw for the management of difficult sized canopies during transplants....how did you put it?



Whilst we are beyond the rectangular prism Mahk, some companies that actually do specialize in tree transplants (as opposed to the likely identity of this rather well known Qld company!) manage to source their trees from locations much closer to the client's property than a distant tree farm

Once again Mahk....Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor seems to apply.

That is just not true, those that did offer opinion did so, as requested on what we saw in the pictures......

From post #5 26th Oct 2008
Not sure what it is you are trying to argue here?


There have been a great many trees needlessly destroyed across the Gold Coast today because they were moved in this way, and continue to be moved this way with the false claim that it is an acceptable method.

The ones that have survived (and yes there are examples) have committed so much stored carbohydrate resource that they are ideal candidates for fungal or insect colonisation.

Their chopped root systems are able to re-establish healthy structural support and we have seen numerous windthrows as a result.

Over the years many have been dumped into public parks and open spaces (with the best intentions by council)....and of course who do you think pays for these trees as they decline and fail with disturbing regularity?.....

Well after all trees fall over without any specific reason just ask any good structural engineer

Tilia

taking things a bit literaly, hence why i said funny thought.
poincianas in England? wow, learn something every day.

Treedoc

Firstly let me say I rechecked the threads and there was no advice provided by any other party on the care of the tree. Secondly the only advice provided was that the work was poor quality (which we agree) and that there may be a basis for legal action (which we now agree was probably incorrect).

I think the crux of the discussion however is in your quote above.

In the earlier days the foliage was cut to minimise transpiration.

The reason that the industry stopped removing the foliage from trees was two fold. Not only did it look better but also we found (surprise surprise) that when both the roots and the canopy were cut the growth rate after transplanting was significantly reduced for a number of years.

We all agree that when premium dollars are being paid for a tree you want the tree to be as big and as full as possible and to be subject to as little stress as possible.

You are again correct in saying that it may have been possible to find a suitable large tree, in the new subdivision, close enough to the planting site such that the tree could be moved without heavy pruning or lopping.

Of course this would add to the price considerably as you would need to spend time sourcing a suitable tree (say 2 days at $500) plus buying the tree from a tree owner who may want a heavy premium for it (or they may hate it and want it removed). Then of course the front yard would need landscaping as opposed to the tree farm which just needs levelling. Again this may have been unaffordable.

Ultimately my point was and still is that there are times when the appropriate option may be to undertake such ghastly lopping when moving trees. By way of example I recently went to a botanical garden in Thailand. There were several large bottle trees on display. These could not be sourced locally and had to fit into a container to be carted. I have attached a photo of them.

I know that you are a man of great principle and would have told the gardens to get lost. I would have supplied them and talked to them about how to care for them. Am I less ethical? I don't believe so. It is certainly no less ethical than pruning a tree that doesn't really need pruning (at least 90% of all pruning) or removing a tree that doesn't really need to be removed (at least 30% of all removals). Often we make decisions to best meet our customers needs.

Oddly enough those of us who are old enough may recall this being done to Brachychiton for fodder. You may also be interested to know that the trees were not later removed and there are trees out there that have been cut for fodder literally dozens of times. Not the best practice but tell that to the livestock.

I accept that you have moved a few trees so perhaps you may relate to this. A colleague calls you up with a large Port Jackson fig that is about to be removed. You look at the trunk and it is 1.2 metres in diameter. You realise that you can’t get the whole tree down the road but you would love a beautiful architectural form like the trunk outside your office window. The tree company offers to reduce the tree to just a trunk and the builder offers to dig out the trunk and transport it to your office. You need to unload it and plant it.

Is this wrong? Should the tree simply be destroyed because it can’t be transplanted with the canopy in tact? If a person is willing to pay thousands for a man made sculpture is it OK for him to pay a similar amount for the sculptural form of a trunk?

You may be interested to know that there are places in Asia that have every tree moved off site when land clearing takes place. Perhaps this is poor quality tree work but I some how find this far more redeeming that chipping every tree. It may not be the best quality tree work but it shows a respect for trees as being something more than mulch.

As you know Shaun, just like you, we would always prefer to move a tree with full canopy. Unlike you I see a place for trunk transplants and I certainly know how to care for such tree in the long term. I think that in our zeal to separate ourselves from lopping and past ignorance we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

It is not that I prefer this type of work, it is simply that there is a place for it and if we discount that possibility altogether then I think that is equally unprofessional as adopting this standard of work as the preferred option. What makes us professionals is not that we never do this sort of work but rather that we can appropriately discern when it is an inappropriate option.

Mark

Attached Thumbnails

 

Eric Frei

I do not agree with this as I have mentioned before the client was not given all the information to make the best decision.

When the client is fully aware of the implications, options, alternatives then fair enough to a degree.

Take this one step further, I would say 90% of the requests for pruning here are for topping/hatracking/lopping. You know, can you make this tree half size, can you give it a shaping so it looks like a big apple on a stick? To progress with the same ideaology it's better to have a lop job than no tree. If it's OK to transplant a stump then why not also have stumps without transplants?

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Treedoc

Eric you said "I do not agree with this as I have mentioned before the client was not given all the information to make the best decision." Of course that is simply an assumption.

We were not given enough information to determine if a case could be mounted. It is not negligent to omit to advise a client of everything rather it is a breach of the Trade Practices act to misrepresent something. Unfortunately we do not know if this is the case. In any case the original post did not ask this of the group.

You could argue that the behaviour was unconscionable but I think that you would be hard pressed given the widespread use of this practice worldwide and the fact that no other financially viable option existed for transplanting this tree in this situation.

I do understand your fear of this leading to lopping. There are however some significant differences. The primary one is that in general there are pruning solutions that achieve the same or better outcomes with no adverse side affects. It is clear that you could clearly articulate this to your client and therefore a suitable and indeed better option exists.

In the case of transplanting a large tree as we have see there may be no alternative to significant reduction other than scrapping the tree. For example how would you have moved the bottle trees to Thailand?

How do I feel about having a lopped tree transplanted to my front yard (yes I do have 1)? It is not a concern for me. On the other hand I just did a quick check and I have transplanted literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of trees onto the property. I wonder if the critics here have put their money where there mouth is? It is easy to say what you would do if in reality you never do anything. When was the last time you decided that you wouldn't cut a tree down but rather you would bring it home and cared for it? What do you do when its your buck on the table.

Again I am old enough to remember contractors lopping trees under wires and then balance pruning the other side of the street (lopping to make both sides look as bad). Many of those trees now form significant avenues in Sydney. I grew up learning how to rectify these problems and we both know that is not a particularly difficult task.

Should we lop trees? Of course but only if no better option exists. What should I do to a Ficus that burnt back in the frosts, the Eucalyptus burnt by the fire, or that had all its branches broken in the storm or the Harpullia that got Phytophthora and lost the outer 50% of its canopy? Should we cut back the dead and torn tips to epicormic shoots! Should we make non-nodal cuts? Physiologically is that not identical to lopping? Certainly is! And if the person loves the tree and is willing to put the effort in to save it then doing this would in my opinion be ethical

Sure lopping is normally not the best option but sometimes it is. Failing to tell the customer that is just as bad as not telling them that lopping the tree to transplant it will result in some undesirable side affects. I accept that for many tree companies the fear of lopping is so great that they would rather ignore those options and deprive the client of correct information and the opportunity to make the choice.

Lastly how do we go if we charge a client to cut down a tree when they could have been paid to have it transplanted from their property or had it removed for free? Is that wrong?

Mark
PS This image is of a lopped Ficus with a few hundred grafts at the end of the stubs to create a mature topiary in less than 3 years. Enjoy the evil of this work ...

Attached Thumbnails

 

Sean Freeman

Well thanks Mahk, but it more likely I would have pointed them your way

Don't know... I don't know you Mahk, just know "of you"

Thats true, only a few

Already answered this one Mahk......look back through the thread

22/01/09
Yes I suppose in some sense it does...however tree protection during construction does not preclude the process of developed Mahk, it merely acknowledges the importance of trees as a site constraint and requires that they be incorporated at the concept stage of the process not some minor irritation to be brushed aside when everything else has been designed.....I suspect that you know this VERY well, but the discussion point is fine and I'm engaged.

Mahk this is the biggest problem with your arguement...to suggest that the motivation of this "tree farm" or others of its ilk is to provide cheap alternatives to clients once in a while when no other option is practicable is ridiculous (and again I suspect that you know this very well)

I have the displeasure of witnessing their workmanship across the GoldCoast, and do find it troubling that your mental gymnastics deliberately or not attempt (unsuccessfully IMO) to provide Post factum justification for their substandard efforts.

pcarborist

Call me dense but I just don't get it. The contractor (Mark?) obviously went through alot of trouble to move the tree i.e. pruning the tree, disposing of the greenwaste, rigging the tree, digging up the tree, transporting the tree, hand (?) digging a hole to install the tree, transporting a crane to the jobsite, using the crane to install the tree, hiring help to assist in the entire process. And the argument is cost? Why not do it right in the beginning and use a treespade? One person one machine.

__________________
parkcityarborist

Treedoc

Hardly call you dense for not knowing or understanding how a tree spade operates given that there are so few here in Australia. Again these are good tools if used correctly and I believe at this point I speak with more authority than anyone else on the forum (I own 4 and work for a company that owns and operates 12 including the worlds largest).

The largest street registered Tree Spade in Australia is a TS84. It digs a 2.1metre diameter root plate and lays the tree over the cab. This means that the canopy of the tree over the cab needs to be tied into about 1 metre diameter. That doesn't really work for a Poinciana and as all the branches would need to be cut off to achieve to load the tree.

The second thing is that these machines (there are two here and a third is on the way) are not designed to operate well on steep slopes since they have a truck under body. Essentially planting the tree in the spot shown in the image is similar to asking a full concrete agitator to back up to that spot. It wouldn’t even attempt to do so!

This is a case of seeing a better way but actually finding out the better way cannot be done... It is very easy to do the impossible in your imagination, just ask a child.

And no I am not the contractor nor do I know who he was or really care. You can be sure however that it was not me because given defamation laws as they are in this country I would be seeking a portion of Eric’s wealth along with written retractions from a number of other posters on this site.

All good questions and thoughts and certainly worth voicing.

Mark
PS Here is an image of a tree spade to help you see how it lays the tree over the cab

Attached Thumbnails

 

Treedoc

That is a fair comment. I don't get to see this sort of workmanship in Sydney all the time. It seldom occurs and I guess what you are saying is that in Qld things are a little bit more red-necked. I think if things were a little more like they are here in Sydney where a transplant is done like this for appropriate reasons every few years then you might not be so hostile.

For us the issue is not the lopping of transplants but that construction companies, having seen a big transplant done, believe that any idiot can do it and in order to prove that theory they seek to do it themselves along with increased mortality. The client ends up paying the contractor 60 or 70% of the cost of having the tree moved professionally, then pay for the removal and a small little replacement tree. Overall the client pays as much but get almost nothing.

You know it reminds me a bit like prohibition. It didn't stop the use of alcohol, there will always be alcoholics and nearly everyone, alcoholics included, knows what is unacceptable use of alcohol. What it took was not prohibition but education about the responsible use of alcohol and yes even then it is still misused. Seems to me that lopping is much the same, often misused but with a rightful place when used correctly.

Lastly the assertion that lopping shortens the life of trees is not necessarily true. Last time I checked it was in fact a recommendation made by Mattheck to extend the life of a tree with structural problems and removing all the foliage from trees is a much-practiced art in Europe (pollarding). Perhaps these people (Mattheck included) simply don’t know as much about trees as the Qld arborist.

I am attaching a shot of tree planting in China. Clearly this is not great work but given the budget constraints this was the most cost effective way of greening China (see ISA conference proceedings, Hawaii 2007). It is a hard choice … significantly more trees growing to maturity but requiring some care or far fewer trees requiring much less care. It is a hard choice ... for me at least.

Mark

Attached Thumbnails

 

Galbee

you are obviously a very experienced person in this field but personally I dont see why that hole couldn't be dug by hand by two men therefore not requiring a tree spade to access the hill. the crane would easily put that tree in place no tree spade required.
i have studied horticulture in britain and have been running a sucessful landscaping business for twelve years. on more than one course the subject of pruning before moving was brought up and consequently the disadvantages were found to completely outway the advantages by alot and this has been understood for many years now, we dont practice the hard pruning on any plant or tree before removal and transplantation and get a 99% plant and small tree success rate.
i understand how the machinery works and understand that moving large trees is difficult but it's not impossible by any means, yes the wallet of the client defines the services you can provide but if i delivered that tree to a customer i would be a laughing stock and the companies reputation would fall through the floor.
in the past I have bought 25 foot trees from a nursery in lincolnshire and got them delivered around the country in a 40 foot truck some of these have been planted in areas that you can only get man power and a crane, none of these trees were hard pruned, the trees were protected from the crane attachments and out of 40 trees 1 died which was replaced. the client gave me repeated business over many years and passed my name on to many acquaintances. reputation is everything and i believe this this person didnt get the service he paid for or deserves.
on the subject of pollarding this is done to city roadside trees that are generally on bus routes they are pollarded from a young age and kept that way for many years and that is the only reason they are cut like that the upkeep of pollarded trees to local auths is alot higher per tree than the country roadside trees which are generally left alone and is not an ideal way of treating them.
Garry

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king

Treedoc

Garry,

You could indeed supply an even larger tree, without the canopy, to a client and gain appropriate respect for doing so. It will largely depend on the circumstances and facts behind the job. The people who complain may not matter at all. In fact they usually don’t otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Moving a large tree with a full canopy down the road can be impossible depending on the structure. Given the short growing season in England it is understood that this type of transplanting sets the tree back for a longer period. For an Englishman who may not be use to the form of a Poinciana I have attached an image below. Their normal form is to develop a broad fairly flat canopy. It doesn't matter how you orientate the tree a larger specimen will not fit down the road.

That said I am sure that there are many trees today in England that were in fact moved this way. The work done between John Evelyn (Sylva 1664) and Sir Henry Steuart (The Planters Guide 1832) has given you a number of your oldest plantations. Not ideal work but somehow it works.

Remember I am not suggesting that this be adopted as the norm. I am suggesting that if you want a big trunk this is the only way. To say that a person cannot have a trunk moved seems rather obscure when I consider the number of tree men (myself included) and in fact towns that souvenir pieces of large trees (logs and stumps) back to their properties to display. These pieces are subject to the same risk of decay, insect damage and so on.

Given a few years with basic care in a warm environment these trunk transplants will often out perform smaller trees.

Perhaps I am wrong but I think that a competent arborist can successfully and fairly easily maintain a large trunk that is transplanted. No one on this site has said that they couldn't do it and 50% of the street trees of Sydney show that at least some arborist can do this work.

Is it ideal? No! I would agree that a naturally selected endemic species is the most ideal ecologically. Should this sort of transplanting be the basis for public smear campaigns and lynchings? I certainly hope not. Is more education needed? I think so but not just of the public and the "loppers". We as a profession need to be constantly questioning. It was only a few decades ago that I was expelled from the Tree Surgeons Guild for not painting cuts. Is painting cuts always bad. Certainly not! Remember we need wisdom combined with science, not a whole pile of prescriptive rules.

Mark

Attached Thumbnails

 

Sean Freeman

I seem more often than I would like to get drawn into cricular conversations that eventually lead nowhere in particular...sometimes it is interesting for others who read them...sometimes it is not.

Since I am assuming Mahk understands the concept of host-pathogen relationships (I'm fairly sure he does) it is being loosely discussed in threads elsewhere I won't enter into a long discussion as to why making cuts into structural roots is one of the worst practices you can undertake on a tree...it seems well and truely established not just by recently published excellent work but by work undertaken in the 1950's and 60's.

It is to state the obvious (yet seems to require repeating over and over) that for a great many of us it is not legitimate to sell at a profit tree works that fly in the face of known and established understanding of tree biology under the guise that they are anything more than substandard practices.

Simply because trees today as they have for centuries, demonstrate remarkable abilities of persistance in refusing to totally succumb to both biotic and abiotic pressures does not provide justification for the continuation and promotion of known sub standard practices.

Perhaps you were able only to produce an arguement of similar strength to the one you have been promulgating here in defence of stump transplants.

Seriously though.....I don't think anyone has suggested that if a client wishes to spend money on lopping and chopping a tree, ripping the stump out and dumping it into a hole the other end, that they shouldn't have the right to do so.....

and if you and your company Mahk wish to undertake such works (since there is just no other way) good luck to you.

Its actually what most of the people I know do, clearly some of the answers we find are somewhat different to yours

I wouldn't necessarily disagree...however honesty would be the starting point IMO.

Treedoc

Again there are many too young to remember but Alex Shigo was basically told he was a fool on his first visit to Australia and the Tree Surgeon's Guild recommended that members should not see him on his second visit because he knew nothing about trees. I am guessing that if this blog was around back then, that he would have been called all sorts of names. We need to be careful to look at our past when we contemplate the present.

I find it fascinating that after 38 years since my first transplant I am far better educated, have the experience of thousands of transplants and yet I am less dogmatic. When I saw what was being done in Hawaii and Asia I was keen to see how these trees performed, to reason out what I was observing and to apply that information. Fancy being so arrogant that we think that we have finally reached ultimate wisdom. I think because I have seen more changes than most and that certainly makes it easy for me not to be so certain that there is one perfect and ideal solution.

In all of this, the person I feel most sorry for is the householder, who not only made a decision to buy a trunk rather than a tree but that he was greeted with the pious self-righteousness that he received rather than been given sound arboricultural advice. Yes he may have been better of buying a small tree but he didn't. Yes the tree farm could have sold him a smaller one or even sold him a seed but they didn't.

Yet I will say it again any arborist who couldn’t care for a tree like this really shouldn’t be in the profession. Like it or not this sort of damage happens to trees from all sorts of natural causes and if all that we can recommend at that stage is to cut the tree down we are a pitiful and frankly an incompetent lot.

We could have provided good sound advice on having the tree cared for by professionals as it grows back and by building good relationship with the tree owner had he come to a happier understanding of the matter. If I were the tree owner I would want good feelings about what I had just done, instead we made him feel like he was a complete fool. Well done!

I have noticed that a similar thing happens here when it comes to pricing work. Some arborists are so crass as to suggest that anyone who charges more than they do is "ripping the client off". Rather than build a profession based on respect these people make themselves to be judge and jury.

The irony of it all is that "Timex sells a cheap watch but Rolex doesn't give a damn." Those that are cheap from my experience are often cheap in more ways than one. Like it or not “you cannot provide exceptional service unless you make exceptional profits”.

Amongst my friends are many who started life as a tree lopper and who have changed, not because I made them feel like crap. It is true that I have been critical of many who espouse that they do premium work and then do work far below that standard but I have always been prepared to do that one on one. Unfortunately as can be seen here there are many who would rather make disparaging comments behind peoples backs

It may well be that the tree farm is a company that says it is the best and then does the job poorly. I cannot say nor do I need to know and like it or not none of us were privy to the discussion between the buyer and the supplier. If I knew that they were such a company I would take the time to communicate directly with them. Smearing someone publicly is certainly not professional.

Unfortunately we may never know the outcome of the tree. I can only guess, due to the silence, that no one was engaged as an expert in this matter. The tree farm is unlikely to have given any discount. The legal profession would not have been interested in even trying to run such a frivolous matter. The only person that has lost in every way is the guy who purchased the tree since he now feels, incorrectly so, that there is no hope for this tree.

The grove of trees in the attached image was moved here about 10 years ago. Many were moved in just as trunks. To my untrained eye they looked like they were dealing well with the complications of having been lopped. Do you really believe in structural optimisation? Sure know I do!

Mark

Attached Thumbnails

 

Treedoc

I am aghast at the simplicity of this statement. Perhaps I have it all wrong so let me explain and you can point out where I have made a mistake. Firstly as Alex Shigo suggested we need to first define our terms.

By a structural root do you mean the anatomic definition; a woody root, that is all roots apart from the absorbing organs or do you mean and engineering definition: a root that provides direct structural support for the tree (since there majority of the woody roots provide no support for the tree.)

If you meant the first then you would be aware that every transplant involves cutting woody roots. Yes this does result in the loss of most absorbing roots but these are highly ephemeral often coming and going in a matter of a few weeks.

If you mean the second then you won’t be surprised to know that none of the roots required for support of this tree were cut. Yes its true since the tree was standing up without support or bracing of any type.

Even more surprising is that new growth always starts with the roots first (I know you were awake in that part of the class). As a result of the thigmomorphogenic responses the tree continues to develop new compression and tension roots in response to the forces applied to the newly growing canopy.

The reason why cutting roots results in less decay than an equivalent sized branch is very simple to understand. I am happy to explain this for you if you need but I suspect that you already know why. Likewise the forces on tree roots are much lower than the forces that act on branches (something to do with gravity and leverage isn't it?)

Now if by cutting structural roots you mean that moving a tree with a 2.5 metre trunk with a 5 meter by 5 meter root plate is cutting structural roots you are probably right. This would result in cutting as close as 1.2 metres from the trunk of the tree on 4 sides. Clearly this has got to be disastrous but yes you know I am setting you up.

The Buckland Yew was in fact more than 850 years old when it was moved in 1880 in exactly this manner. I recently purchased some historic images of it taken in 1900 ... it still looked good then and with the exception of an overweight limb that had failed it still looked pretty good in 2006.

When do you think it might fall over or die from this gross abuse? Should we rush over and remove it? The Poms will hang you! Who says that we don’t learn from history?

Sean, I truly wish that you were in one of my classes. You have such a keen mind and you pose such interesting perspectives and are not prepared to accept ”because I said so” nor are you afraid to be wrong. I do genuinely find it refreshing. You may find it easier to seek first to understand then to be understood than to seek to bring me down. I am more than happy to be wrong and to learn when I am treated with respect. Again that is something that for some reason is sadly missing on this blog.

Just as a simple point the host pathogen interaction generally states that neither the host nor the pathogen will win out all the time. If one wins all the time then it will inevitably loose. It is a bit like you and I. We both need to have something in it for us to continue and as a result we both survive.

Yes sometimes the decay will win but it is far less frequent than we would expect and certainly less frequent than decay occurs above ground. Less than 10 years ago any tree with decay was removed. Now that we understand structural optimisation and Risk of Harm this has all changed. Fortunately the same is true underground.

Remember that as soon as we modify the canopy we alter the forces on the tree and therfore the extent of the structural roots. (Again this is simple maths and I asume that most readers understand the principal behind this even if they don't understand the physics).

Mark

Attached Thumbnails

 

Sean Freeman

Oh dear rather like Dougal on the magic roundabout I wish Zebedee would arrive and wisk it all away....

Honestly Mark if I were interested in "bringing you down" I would have approached this thread in a completely different manner

When I am in a position to cease being wrong and cease learning then probably I will be dead, or at least have stopped caring enough to take the trouble to read write and communicate with others who have taken the time and trouble to advance our profession throught the work they undertake then publish

Yes and you are right it was lazy of me to use the term so loosely....I could go back through your posts..but that would be very petty

What I intended to convey was the absurdity of considering breaching stem tissues within roots that make up the root crown, when it is not necessary.

I'll pass that news onto Francis Schwarze....

That'll be news to those who have read more than the covers of Shigo's works let alone the very well quoted research done by P Raimbault and his team in the mid to late 1990's

It would be fun but I'm not sure it would be for you

Okay...now IMO respect is something that people give others in different ways and at different levels.

None of what I have written in this thread Mark is about me winning or you loosing...I honestly don't care that you Mark ??????? believe in the the points you have presented thus far to support your position.......only IMO your arguement is not valid, and statements like and do nothing but undermine for me any credability you might have from your personal experience.

I have as always on the forum written everything in these threads without any unkind intonation in my mind as I type...I don't know you Mark only "of you" I make no assertions as to what sort of person you might be...I only address what you have written as I understand it, based on my limited and faulty (though hopefully always improving) grasp of tree biology and how best to apply that knowledge to assist others.

Eric Frei

It is not an assumption, again, answered here.

Well Mark, that sort of sums you up well doesn't it?

It's probably making your skin crawl that people can post away whatever they like, make comment, and you dont run the place. Something that I've sensed as a little stone in your shoe since you arrived.

__________________

TrevMcRev

Oh OK, i'll bite!

Interesting points both Mark & Sean.

Mark, as you've already pointed out, you have vast experience in tree transplanting. And I have heard of you and your work prior to your involvement in this discussion on TreeWorld.

I think if i read between the lines (or instead of the lines) I understand where you are coming from. I believe you are well aware that this was not an ideal method of transplant, but just should not be discounted as a possible method of transplant.

Yes, many trees have been moved this way & lived to tell the tale. I'm sure many have not been so "fortunate" too.

As Sean implied, trees do have a remarkable ability to survive, despite our interference.

But that doesnt really make much of our interference right.

Trees really dont need arborists. People who want trees to fit in with their own ideals need arborists.

Mark, i must say this honestly, being aware of your experience, when i saw you joined treeworld I thought "Great! Another talented arborist that can share their thoughts and experiences with all members - remembering there are many lurkers who read lots and post little- this will be interesting"

You've put a lot of effort into opposing this thread so far, and it seems to be your only involvement on the site so far.

Seeing as transplanting is such a passion of yours, how about starting a thread of your own, sharing some of your experiences, showcasing some of your most interesting projects, share your methodologys, your wins, your lessons, transplanting or otherwise.

One thing though... For myself atleast, if not the majority of readers, please limit Latin speak to botanical names, as much as i am always open to learning, I am not about to run off and look up uneccessary Latin phrases just to get through a post on here

Trev

__________________

Total Tree Care - Melbourne Arborist Reports & Consulting,Tree Pruning & Removal | Elm Leaf Beetle Treatment Melbourne

www.treegear.com.au - Australia's Best Value Arborist Supplies

FREE shipping for TREEGEAR Members-Join here

Sean Freeman

It is a fair point Trev, so let me explain what it gets my goat and causes me to react...

The school I was sent to took classics very very seriously, I have a real love of latin, although freely admit it is a dead language

It really really annoys me when people include latin phrases as if it adds weight to their arguement...it does not, also they very very rarely congugate the verbs properly, get the order wrong, and generally make a mess of the original intent.

Yes I know it makes no sense that I then insert my own diatribe in latin...I apologise to all Mark included...but trust me my old classics teacher would have had a real giggle

Treedoc

I too apologise. My teachers of classical Greek and Hebrew filled me with a love for language and a better understanding of English. As you wisely point out none of these is the subject of this forum.

I will desist or translate if the phrase is best included for technical reasons. Fortunately we deal with the legal profession and there are a number of standard Latin phrases that they use. Being familiar with them helps.

Mark

Treedoc

I find it quite refreshing that people have a dissenting opinion. I find it unfortunately Australian that we deal with that by slinging mud or engaging in the tall poppy syndrome.

People are free to say what they think unfortunately it would be good if they thought before they said things. Less emotional response and more objectivity wouldn't hurt.

It seems that sledging is OK within reason if it is aimed at anyone else other than Eric. Clearly because he owns the site he has the ultimate say. Of course he uses that to treat others in a way that he himself appears not to like. Clearly those are his rules and this board is his so he can do as he chooses.

Until now I certainly have not made any comments on Eric’s running the site and I have spent an inordinate amount of time suggesting that we look at things from more than one perspective. Where Eric gets the opinion that I wish to run the place from is beyond my understanding. Certainly not something that I have ever indicated or even aspired to do.

In fact I have never even make any comments about what could be done to improve the site. I can only assume, based on the number of disparaging posts here that Eric entered our relationship with some deep-set presumptions. Frankly I think that is a shame but it’s his choice.

Eric, it must be wonderful being absolutely certain on everything and to be sure of who I am and what I am like before you ever got to know me. I unfortunately am less sure of many things as I get older. That is what lets me believe that at the core you are probably a really caring and generous individual who is genuinely concerned with the profession way above yourself.

Treedoc

Trev,

You are spot on and for this reason we should show a bit more understanding in the way that we comunicate over these matters.

To correct one point however only a few of these tree need ever fail as is the case with all transplants. Nearly all trunk transplants will need some corective pruning but as I have stated that is something that we should all be prety good at performing.

Sadly one of the nicest trees I ever moved was moved with a full canopy. It had one stem fail (about 25% of the canopy) at an included junction about 8 years after it was move and the arborist engaged said that the only option was to remove the whole tree.

Treedoc

OK so maybe this is something that I have wrong but I think that you may have misunderstood the impact of pruning or hormonal activities in the tree.

Correct me if I am wrong:
Germination starts with root initiation,
Spring growth starts with root development
Flushing after rain in Eucalypts starts with root development and
When I propagate a cutting it starts with root development and a trunk transplant is a huge cutting.

I cant think of a single stage that this is not the case. The reason relates to the role of root growth in the production of hormones. I can explain that in more detail if you need but I am guessing given your breadth of reading that you are more than versed in this matter.

When you remove the canopy and retain the roots (such as in pollarding of a mature tree - Raimbault’s work) the tree may not have adequate canopy to sustain existing roots and it is true that in this situation canopy growth does occur and in fact we can often see decline of some of the root system. Clearly when sufficient roots exist to supply the needs of the tree and to allow for current growth then there is no benefit producing any more roots. Until that stage roots are formed as a priority over canopy growth.

Perhaps bonsai should be a compulsory interest of every arborist!

Sean, if you think I may be correct on this matter I am happy to look at several other significant errors that I believe may exist in your response. If you feel the error is still mine however I will take the time to get my stuff right first and will not raise them. You be the ultimate judge and I will respectfully bow to your learned opinion!

Mark

Sean Freeman

Mark I do understand what you are getting at re the hormonal control aspect...I will go away and ponder this...ie read my texts!

Treedoc

Let me know if you think I am wrong and if you can point me to any specific article or section of a text that would be helpful.

Thanks

Mark

Eric Frei

The below quote from Mark ??????? Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:40:20 -0500.

__________________

shaun05

Eric,

I think that canopy growth is stimulated by a hormone produced in the roots. I have an article coming out on this in Arbor age at some stage in the future. You are right in referring to ???????'s earlier post pointing out that pruning the canopy slows recovery. This is not new, as ??????? points out, this has been the source of Bonsai for ages. Obviously the response is different if the roots are not cut as in the case of Raimolt's work (cited by Freeman) . As Shigo made clear on a number of times it is all to do with dose and timing.

I think you are right when you said "Do realise that a trees appetite for survival is near infinite, even in death the seeds do germinate, roots can grow suckers and the oldest living tree on earth is but a sucker yet carries the label of the world's oldest tree due to genetic bonds to the root stock." This sort of work is exploitive, in fact transplanting is generally that way.

I also believe that Freeman was correct when he said "So my point is this....for me if someone has a business that offer tree relocations and they lop and chop the tree they move as standard practice fine so long as they are open and honest with their clients about just what it is they are offering them." This honesty means that an arborist would generally find it impossible to sell lopping of a tree as a desirable way to prune a tree that wasn't being moved and that the tree the owner liked. Of course every pollard first starts as lopping so this could be an exception in some instances.

Eric Frei

Yes, cytokinins.

There's usually a cytokinin auxin balance.

__________________