Why Topping? + Dead Wooding| Dead Wood

defex

I always wondered why people use Topping as a service here in California, I like to call it massacre. Anyways can anyone give me a valid point of why anyone now even think of topping trees?

Sean Freeman

The truth I'm afraid like so much in our world is lazyness...now I'm not writing about Utility companies that cut trees and other vegetation to protect their asset, and ours the supply lines....(although I am constantly frustrated by the impotence of local authorities to educate the public and manage these trees in relation to power properly..ie remove and replace innappropriate species and properly prune the others)

In Oz we generally call topping-lopping its the same thing....why do hacks do it? Well simply because its quick and easy, no big timber to work and process, no time taken trying to undertake target pruning or judge dose (not that any of them even understand what dose is)

Why do tree owners want this damage done to their trees? I think the vast majority of tree owners have no concept of tree biology, they just view trees as big versions of their little shrubs and bushes...so anything goes..again education is the answer but so long as LGA's and big corporate bodies continue to endorse lopping and topping that brick wall is long high and thick.

Its not all bad news very slowly and with numerous backward stepd things are changing, OH&S is beginning to erode the falsehood that anything goes, standards are steadily making inrodes into the realm of tree work even here in NQ.

newguy18

I have removed quite a few trees where just the top died in it but could just removing the dead tissue from the tree hurt it or would it in effect be like deadwooding.I'm asking only because i don't know and this has puzzeled me for some time.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Sean Freeman

Dead tops in any tree species is a very bad indicator, in effect the tree has lost the ability to continue to grow through the apical meristem...even in strongly decurrent species, this forces the system to re-establish a new leader, re-establish hormonal control over the growth of all tips....its incredibly expensive energetically and the tree pays a great cost for it...often the cost is too high and the debt increases and increases until it can no longer sustain even the slightest environmental pressure and the whole system collapses..the tree dies.

Removing deadwood (certainly older deadwood) does no harm to the tree....it does (if removed from the area) rob the ecosystem of essential carbon resources, and this is a big issue in many parts of the world USA Canada and Oz.
I tend to argue for less and less deadwood removal these days, without targets there is no reason to do it, and plenty not to. Where targets exist, or owners are insistant then yes cut only dead tissue, don't fuss too much about getting very close to natural targets since with older deadwood the tree has already created the chemical barriers between the non-functional and functional tissues.

newguy18

Thanks Sean I'll just stick to removing them.Around here if it doesn't have a target right underneath it nine times out of ten most people just leave them alone.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

treestyle

Sean,

You spoke about judging "dose".
I must admit that i don't know what you mean by that.

Thanks

Eric Frei

The amount of pruning (removal of canopy) the tree can sustain without negative impact.

Depends on species, age, vigour, location etc.

On very old trees often 5% per annum is suggested as maximum dose ... in an orchard it could be 50% etc.

The tree is a balanced unit, balanced between roots and canopy. Excessive canopy removal creates an imbalance which negatively affects the tree. New shoots (epicormics) are one reaction as the tree tries to replace foliage, you also have root problems plus pest/insect/disease problems that can arise.

Hope that helps.

__________________

treestyle

thanks Ekka!

Sean Freeman

Agree entirely with Eric's definition I was off looking at pics of ice storm trees (beautiful pics!)

Dose is one of those concepts that as Arborists we get better at judging it the longer we work with trees and the deeper we become envolved with the trees we work on. The longer the period of observation on the effects of all kinds of impacts on specific species in specific environments the better able we are to predict what potential impacts say a 20% reduction on one elongated scaffold limb on say Euc camaldulensis (to cross over to another thread!) will have.

Arboriculture is not an exact science we just don't have enough reliable data over long enough periods and our subjects are so very variable, the natives I work on interact with their changing environment very differently to the exotics, and even within the same State the trees (same species) Eric works on are often very different in form and structural integrity to those I encounter up here...Grevillea robusta is an example that comes immediately to mind, does very poorly here, have only seen probably 5 good reliable specimens in 15yrs up here, yet the same tree does visually very well in and around Brisbane...the further South you go the better it likes it...they look great along the banks of the Parramatta river.

Basic tree biology and physiology doesn't change no matter where you are but your understanding of how particular environmental conditions here you live and work effect the growth patterns and cycles of specific species will have a massive influence on how you interpret dose for each and every tree...I view dose as much as a measure of how much pressure a tree can sustain in the long term rather than applying it solely to the process of pruning...so that would include root loss through trenching, compaction soil contamination etc...alterations in water cycles, impervious cover etc...

I hope I have made at least some of that makes sense to you, and not merely made it more confusing!.

mdvaden

When in Los Angeles, a few weeks ago, I could see evidence of previous topping, but not a lot in the areas I travelled through, which was hit and miss.

But there was a little bit.

There are a couple of reasons for using the term in ads:

1. That's what the service plans to do a lot of.

2. They don't want to promote topping, but suspect that's what people might be looking for - not knowing what it really means.

But my guess is that most of the better arborists would not use the term "topping" in their ads at all.

Almost thought I'd get another chance to drive down this autumn to deliver a truckload of stuff to our daughter and her husband at Camp Pendleton, but the military men are going to arrange shipment. Oh..well..

Am really looking forward to visiting the big city again. When and if I get back there, I'd like to stay at least a week - not just a couple of days.

Eric Frei

Even the insurance papers for our business state "tree lopper"!

And they aint changing it, plus what we do is called tree lopping. That's pretty much ingrained in our language, from courts to media to Mrs Jones's backyard.

However on my website I have tried to use this term rather cleverly ....

Brisbane Palm and Tree Services| Qualified Tree Lopping| Arborist Reports

__________________

treeseer

Sean I think deadwooding is usually good for the tree. As for natural targets i e collars, they move out onto dead limbs, so the better criterion for a cut location is to avoid damaging stem tissue even if it is 50 cm out on the branch!

Sean Freeman

Guy, I am less and less convinced that the removal of deadwood is in the interests of the tree nor more importantly in the interests of the ecological community (if one exists) around the tree.
Sure there will be instances hen deadwood represents a significant risk to persons and property then remove it, but beyond that for me leave it be.
Tree owners often have very different views on what they wish to see in the canopy of their trees and this is something that requires careful discussion/persuasion people generally like clean branches and limbs all (or 90%) live foliage and no (very little) deadwood, and if they are prepared to pay for the time to remove it fine but I won't try to sell such a service to anyone.
The instances when deadwood represents a health problem to the tree are very specific and unusaul in my experience, where that would be the case of course there's no objection to its removal.

newguy18

Now i'm confused about pollarding.Is it good for trees or is it like an extreme form of topping?

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Sean Freeman

Every time we make a cut into living tissue we cause an injury to the tree...therefore all pruning (of live timber) is "bad" for the tree, the greater the volume of live tissue removed the worse the impact on the health of the tree.

No I'm not saying there aren't defendable reasons for pruning a tree, just that it is important that we recognise the impact of the cuts we make..irrespective of the intention.

Pollarding has its roots in European social history and the management of timber resources, it became a method of "managing" larger trees in restricted urban areas, based on a 24mth cycle of cutting it was to some an efficient and economical means to deal with regrowth. Is it in some way better than lopping??? Well if the tree being pollarded has been cut since a juvenile and has very well developed pollard heads then sure it is a more sustainable pruning regime than lopping and topping....unfortunately there are very very few examples of such long term pollarding, rather more common in all urban areas are trees that have been lopped and topped in a failed attempt to mimic the pollarding approach.

Is it better to have crap pollarding (really topping) or replace the trees...which given the budget problems all LGA's have would mean less trees, well each community should be involved in such decision making, for me personally I'd rather have fewer but bigger trees in the urban forest and have porper long term management built on worlds best practice, rather than what we have at the moment.....

treeseer

Sean, decay moves from branch to stem. /therefore decaying branches should be removed before stems get decayed.

Sean Freeman

Hmmm, Guy I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here, I must be having a thick moment or something, thats not really unusual.
I know you are not suggesting that the failure to remove deadwood from a tree will result in the branches and limbs being overwhelmed by pathogenic fungi, so I assume (probably incorrectly) that you are considering particularly poor compartmentalisers of individual trees in environmental conditions that have already pushed its energetic reserve to the limit and beyond....I thought I had already explained I was not trying to state some kind of absolute truism beyond that every cut we make is an injury? Specific trees and specific conditions require specific assessments and prescriptions....that is after all what an Arborist is supposed to be doing.

Deadwood does not always lead to decay spreading into the stem, or even beyond the branch protection zone, and even when in certain circumstances it does without targets it doesn't matter.....the other point I was trying to touch on (obviously failing) was that (sometimes)there is a whole lot more going on than just the tree alone, sometimes what is growing on and in the tree is even more important than the big woody stick.

Eric Frei

I'd like to throw my 0.02 into this.

Guy, when trees are on their decline cycle, or when trees are subjected to some tough environmental conditions they die back.

What happens is with stag headed trees they can die back, reflush and so on. Sometimes deadwooding back to targets means too much has to come off as the tips are dying.

The alternative is to cut to live tissue but all that happens is it slowly dies from there as well. Surely you have seen that, the tree in those cases is slowly pruned down, Where you cut to a live tissue becomes another dead spot a year later etc.

In cases like that, especially stag headed trees I certainly dont think it's in the trees best interest to cut off the dead as there's rarely if ever any wound wood grown just more die back. It would be debate-able that by doing so you are actually accelerating the decline process.

Sean recently went out west and worked on a old tough tree. I'll link in from that point onward where we both agreed leave it alone and then I took pics of my neighbours tree across the road which is stag headed and show the new flush coming on.

http://www.treeworld.info/8/northern...html#post11892

Also, I have been watching council prune down a declining Sydney Blue gum I recommended removal on 3 years ago. They keep cutting to live tissue, then year after year keep coming back. The tree is now half the size it used to be and looking real bad. They have to deadwood this one due to location but frankly ... waste of time and money as it is dying.

__________________

treeseer

While I agree we must look beyond the tree, in most cases I think that removing dead branches is beneficial to the tree. I have pics of pathogen spread right through the collar of an undisturbed specimens due to deadwood.

Only for reasons of screen value and high saproxylic wildlife value do I think it is good to leave deadwood. Josephine would have been even prettier with a crown cleaning. Yes my opinion may also be coloured by an aesthetic bias, but the facts remain.

eric i can't open a new window to see your pm due to popup blocker; pita sorry.

Sean Freeman

Alright then Guy, I'll admit that we can all find person examples of trees (perhaps even those we have categorised as strong compartmentalisers) where decay (fungi??) have breached the protection zone and chemical walls..these boundaries are not inpenetrable indeed their effectiveness is intimately linked to the health and vigour of the tree as well as the health and vigour of the pathogenic fungi.
Many of the wood decaying fungi I encounter...Ganoderma, Phellinus are the mein culprits....engage in mind boggling long battles with the host tree trying to trace the origins or root (sorry !!) causes back to any single factor seems pointless, what I am reasonably sure of is that the presence of deadwood resulting from normal branch senescence (outcompeted for light, compromised by conflict with other limbs rubbing through cambium) is not a big factor....and yes I know I may seem to be splitting hairs with you but from my perspective your arguement suggests that we should see millions of dying trees in relatively untouched wilderness...thats not my experience or understanding of the the observable ecology of virgin forests.

If it is the definition of deadwood that is weak here then lets explore that....maybe you are thinking of the large scale storm damage including ice storms that occur through major tracks of the Nth US, that would without doubt place extreme pressure on the energetic reserves of the affected trees, as well as exposing massive areas of tissue to oxygenation and the chances of becoming infection courts. These calamitous events effect wilderness as well as urban forest agreed, but they would fit into my caveat of specific environmental conditions surely?

I have spent many years removing every stick of deadwood from big trees in parks and school grounds because that what we did, it was expected the clients expect it the public expect it but ultimately 90% of that work (IMO) was unecessary and has had a negative impact on the critical carbon cycle that should have been going on in the soil....we should have spent all those hours (probably days and months) persuading the clients to increase mulched areas and treat soils to improve the soil food web. The loss of deadwood from almost all human impacted environments is having a serious negative impact on the diversity and function of those ecosystems....I know you know that Guy, so again I'm having a thick moment here, we must be talking at cross purposes???

Eric Frei

April 2005 it was when I took pics (pre digital for me) of the tree I'm talking about. I'm just going out there now th get some more pics.

__________________

treeseer

Well I agree with all that but I still deadwood for looks and the often marginal health improvement and yes for client satisfaction. The cycle is not broken but accelerated/anticipated if the chips go back under the tree.

It's the effect on birds and other wildlife due to loss of habitat that is also a concern. I've taken to cramming sticks in crotches here and there for nest sites. Clients like that idea when it's explained. O and hey you should not beat yourself up by saying all that deadwooding was unnecessary and you should have been selling mulch instead. One step at a time...

newguy18

Guy I know of one species of trees that I have seen spread fungus beyond the safe zone live oaks I see it all the time around here.Sean I agree with you to an extent if the tree has dead wood in parks,public places,etc then I'll deadwood it but in the middle of the woods then i leave it as not to disturb the balance of the forest.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

treeseer

Yes neighbor I see it on oaks in FL and NC and everywhere. Q virginiana and phellos and nigra and other reds too. And other species too. Maybe less in Australia?

Eric Frei

OK, been back out in the field, went thru all my old pics to do comparisons.

Here dead wooding was done purely for

1/ aesthetics

2/ safety

You can see in these pics where they cut back to it just died anyway. It may have for safety reasons been more prudent to cut back to dead tissue as close to live as possible but not remove live.... that way the tree retains a little more biomass and opportunity for a flush should one come on.

This is why in Sean's pics I was for not dead wooding. I see it as an accerleration of the decline process if live tissue were removed. And then in a few months time it becomes dead tissue anyway so not much gained ... however the naturally declining tree does have some chance of flushing if the conditions allow as depicted in my pics here.

I'll embed this one pic which clearly shows the story post pruning.... but definately look at the others.

Attached Thumbnails

         

__________________

treeseer

YOu are right; steep decline all right. That tree's roots seem to have been trashed, so pruning alone could not stimulate regrowth. It looks like it was a candidate for paclobutrazol and root invigoration. Now? That or replacement.

Apples and kumquats, Eric--different scenarios entirely.

Eric Frei

Those eucs were planted there but were planted prior to the intersection being made a lot larger.

The tree's had a lot of their roots cut for the newer wider road and the turn left lanes ... resulting in the trees sitting in a little island.

Then some under story planting, footpaths etc. Common scene, can take 10 to 15 years for them to slowly decline and they're pruned back to the stump.

__________________

Sean Freeman

I sad and repeated state of affairs across our state...great pics Eric wish I had such a good record of some of the trees near me, really well done for having the presence of mind to snap those in identical positions years apart

The roots are the key there and probably almost everywhere in our urban forest, as Guy alludes to there are measures proactive tree owners can take, cheaper too than the repeated pruning to death approach!

treeseer

yes when pics like that tell a story it may not be so hard to persuade folks to take the proactive approach.