Vista pruning. Topping?

southsoundtree

So I'm interested to hear what you all have to say about what some people call vista pruning.

I had a guy call me as he has waterfront property on Puget Sound in Washington State, USA (near-ish to Seattle). He has a 60' minorly terraced drop from his yard to the beach below. On the upper edge he has a wild rose hedge that has grown out over the void by about 2'. Down below are alders, alnus rubra. These trees grown in disturbed areas. They grow quickly and relatively weakly. The only generally live around a hundred years in natural settings give or take some years. The fail quite often.

What he wants in a vista pruning/ some might call topping. He also wants the roses cut back so that they don't topple under their own weight and leverage, tearing off the top of the bank. Similarly, large trees on the edge of the cliff/ down the face of the cliff might likewise tear away at the slope when they rock back and forth in the wind---- or so I've been told, which seems to make sense to me that they could weaken the very edge.

Does it make sense to greatly reduce the trees that will grow up into his view, which he naturally wants to keep clear? Those highest up the bank are younger and shorter than those that are lower. The lowest may not even be able to grown up into the view. Is it better to prune to a good lateral than to tell him to find someone that will just cut at anywhere with a pole pruner or brush cutter.

Glad to hear what people think is a good, real-life option for this situation.

TreeSpecialist

This is a problem I run into every week.

The folks with the views have the money to open them up.

They pay handsomely for the house with the view and are taxed accordingly.

The trees wind up be secondary to the property.

I try to get clients to consider complete removals is the view is paramount.

Otherwise we do crown reduction pruning which becomes job security.

(I stop short of tree topping. If that's what they want, we press for complete removal of the tree or we don't do it. )

Most trees reduced properly grow even more vigorously right back up into the view.

When possible, I prefer to open up small "view windows" through trees although the client usually dictates what they expect from "view enhancement pruning."

__________________

southsoundtree

I agree that in most cases full removal is better than heavy reduction or randomly placed topping cuts. There isn't really a better species to plant in its place that will be able to be planted on a super steep slope exposed to all the salt air.

This is a case where Alders will grow right back up to replace the hypothetically removed alders. The slope stability is in question. Full removal would surely be negatively impacting the slope.

Any other ideas??

TreeSpecialist

Slope stabilization can be had with a variety of small trees and shrubs.

Brush/ logs left from the alder removal placed perpendicular to the slope will also serve as soil retention devices.

Placed well and neatly, this material will help terrace the slope allowing for additional understory plants to take off or be planted.

While I have observed alder on my many trips to the northwest and elsewhere and as a woodworker, I prefer building with it, I'm not familiar with it's growth habit (rate of growth.)

Alder is frequently cut around the world as a "coppice" - cut close to grade and allowed to stump sprout. (See Coppicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a picture of a recently cut , multi-stemmed alder .)

A stump sprout will serve well for soil stabilization while providing the view the client needs. Re-cutting the stumps every 3rd or 4th year will keep the view open while maintaining the slope.

As an arborist, its not very satisfying work but falls under the heading of "job security."

__________________

Eric Frei

Glad you guys sorted it coz I get a lot of this too.

Right tree right place.

Trying to keep a 100' tree to 30' is always a challenge.

Even the ole reduction cutting to target isn't the best as many times you are cutting main stems which dont have the same compartmentalization strengths as say collars. Then the lateral you cut to will try to assume apical dominance and bla bla bla same ole story.

Good luck, it's a tough job for an arborist to do.

__________________

treeseer

TS has the plan.

To eliminate confusion, read the standards and bmp's. Consider the species. Coppicing (cutting to the ground and managing regrowth) is legit. So is severe reduction. Topping is internodal and predetermined not in regard to tree health and is never good. But some unusual options are.

treestyle

i'm not advocating topping, however in a storm it's not uncommon for the top of a tree to tear out. naturally the tree will deal with the lose and produce new growth in response (epi cormic). in the wild this epicormic growth is ok, no targets and so what if the epi cormic growth fails it's natures way.

if the trees are in an unkeept (natural) area, if they are not are not in full public view then maybe this time it is acceptable, their may be beneifts to topping, removed material can be left at the base of tree providing habitat for all sorts of ground dwelling critters. maybe the epicormics will fail in the future? no target who cares? maybe the tear out will create hollows for tree dwelling critters.

i think we as arborists need to be adaptable to different situations and YES follow the standards 99.9% of the time, this maybe the .01% of the time where not following the standards can be acceptable and benefical to the tree owner wanting the view, benefical to the soil fauna and flora recieving beaut organic matter from tree material left on site, and good for critters looking for habitat. not good for the tree i agree, but it's not unusual to see a tree naturally occuring with some sort of top defect or damage.

seen this bloke talking bout recreating storm damage, by top cutting branches and tearing them past the collar! i thought he was crazy and totally regardles of the standards and all the steps forward the arb industry is taking. however time has helped me to understand that in the right situation we need to be open to left field style thinking, and start to expand on our current knowledge and understanding.

i don't know if i properly portrayed my initial point, but atleast i might receive some interesting feed back or criticism?

if you do "reduce" the tops of these trees i think it would make for an interesting study to fully document it with photos, what the benefits may be. and of course the negative effects on the tree however why it may be okay in this situation and how the "topped" tree is going to continue positively interact with the natural system. maybe climb up install pull rope, then come down to the height you want to reduce to, put in half cut come down then pull the top out leaving a massive tear! yeah do that!

Eric Frei

Here you go.

AIE - TrunkLine - Coronet Pruning


And from this post in this thread.
Help stop school tree topping

A trees natural response to broken parts is growing new shoots near the wound. It's natures way of trying to create balance between root mass and canopy mass, the foliage feeds the roots who in turn provide the raw resources for the leaves etc, a cycle.

This occurs in eucs easily, other species not so good like say pine trees (radiata, elliottii etc).

This is fine and dandy in the forest, if those new shoots become 50' branches and fail again .... so what, it's mulch on the forest floor and the cycle happens again. The risk to the tree of growing these shoots is that they "might" blow off later and the return is all the foliage/food it will bring. In a forest there's also natural shielding from other trees, the wind plays less havoc.

In an urban environment this regrowth is totally unacceptable. The risk is too high to have failing tree parts around people, cars etc. This is what target cutting does, reduces the probability of shoots growing. In urban environments trees are far more exposed in far more hostile soil conditions, we mow the lawn clearing all the mulch/leaves, have competing plants, hard surfaces that restrict water etc etc. Trees do it a lot tougher and adding wounds and extra failing parts isn't wise, sometimes trees just dont have the energy reserves to cope with the treatment and roots die, tree's get termites/decay and hollow etc.

How you manage a genuine bush forest and urban trees can differ. Also remember that seldom will you see forest trees with ALL the limbs busted off, usually it's one here and there, like in your pics topping cuts of the entire canopy, and most are that dumb that they make flat cuts too.

__________________

treestyle

thanks for the coronet post Ekka