Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant

Ekka · 3rd October 2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTS247

Is the pic in post #13 an example of the cut being to flush and causing dieback?

No, it's a typical conservative cut on a poinciana which rot easily and people are afraid to go to target. Many times you will see on certain species stubs die back to a spot which is pretty much the target cut.

Here's another example, and if you were to target cut this branch and went to where the woundwood roll is you'd have been pretty spot on.

treeseer · 3rd October 2008, 10:37 AM

Good picture, good message. Not enough light reaching the stub to keep it alive.

Bernard Keays · 15th December 2008, 10:17 PM

Sean,

I was reading with interest your points on pruning cuts. I normally prune between your blue line and Ekka’s red line. This gives me a margin of error so when I'm a little off target I can stop, make an adjustment and quickly biscuit off that last piece to Ekka’ s red line. This works for me and its better than flush cutting. In your photo (DSCF795SI), I can see three distinct layers. A dead stub, a discoloured section and inside the BBR appears normal. If I was pruning this, I would prune close to my black line like when your deadwooding to an extended collar.

JayD · 16th December 2008, 08:34 AM

I think the best way of determining a correct target cut is to firstly follow the given text on correct target collar cuts, Once this is done then you go back at certain intervals and monitor the healing process, a nice evenly formed callous indicates a good cut, similier to a dougnut, our last picture, the tree is still talking to us in its own way, note where it's dieing back too.

JayD

Ekka · 16th December 2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Keays

If I was pruning this, I would prune close to my black line like when your deadwooding to an extended collar.

Hmmm, dont agree.

Why?

Co-dominants aren't collars for starters.

Secondly, the original cut was way high, result, die back no regrowth.

Thirdly, area between black line and blue line is regressing (dying back).

The opportunity of any closure here lies in a cut to sound tissue capable of the task, reducing die back and "stubs" of deadwood as homing beacons for pathogens.

Had the correct cut have been made in first instance on this specimen we may well have been looking at a picture of some closure not a bug fest. Knowing where to cut confidently seems to be an obscurity to most arborists shying to stubs as insurance in case they get it wrong.

Picture after picture showing the evidence that it's not in the best interest to do so, go for gold, it's gold for a reason and well researched by Shigo.

Codominant stems aren't collars, cutting to target allows the other stem to provide sufficient resources to the location for closure, seen it thousands of times, and yet again in this picture.

Bernard Keays · 16th December 2008, 10:06 PM

Ekka,

I enjoy reading these treads as they test my knowledge and understanding...

Co-dominants aren't collars for starters. Would you prefer to call it a stem bark ridge.

Secondly, the original cut was way high, result, die back no regrowth. Agree

Thirdly, area between black line and blue line is regressing (dying back). Agree

The opportunity of any closure here lies in a cut to sound tissue capable of the task, reducing die back and "stubs" of deadwood as homing beacons for pathogens.

Had the correct cut have been made in first instance on this specimen we may well have been looking at a picture of some closure not a bug fest. Knowing where to cut confidently seems to be an obscurity to most arborists shying to stubs as insurance in case they get it wrong. Agree.

Picture after picture showing the evidence that it's not in the best interest to do so, go for gold, it's gold for a reason and well researched by Shigo. Codominant stems aren't collars, cutting to target allows the other stem to provide sufficient resources to the location for closure, seen it thousands of times, and yet again in this picture. Agree

If I could just draw on Bob's comments from another thread...

Originally Posted by Underwor
What are your thoughts about leaving a long stub, so that the tree will start to compartmentalize near the proper place for a cut, while the entrance for pathogens is still a long distance away. The theory is that this starts the process while the pathogen is a long way from the tree's heart so to speak, then you cut off the stub. It also makes the proper place to cut the stub easier to see, since the remaining stem will have started to grow around it in a year or so, leaving a very definite ridge. Of course, this is more labor intensive, but it might be something to consider on your higher end customers, who take a deal of interest in educating themselves as well as caring for their trees.

I think bob has something here. The problem is most of us won't return to finish the final cut.

As far as my pruning cut is concerned...when confronted by someone else's poor pruning rather than rewounding an old wound I have opted to just remove the dead stub and let the tree do the rest. This is my intrepretion of AS4373.

7.2.2 Deadwooding (D)
Deadwooding is the removal of dead branches. The minimum diameter and location of branches to be removed shall be specified (see Figure 3).

7.3.4 Pollarding (P)
Pollarding is a specialized pruning technique that establishes a framework of branches ending in a knob of buds and vigourous shoots. Trees are cut back to just above the same point every 1 to 3 years resulting in the production of multiple shoots. When removing shoots, pollard heads should not be injured. Cuts should be made as close as possible to the swollen collars that surround each shoot (see Figure 6).

My experience has been based on pruning camphor laurels and London plane trees in Toowoomba.

Ekka · 17th December 2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Keays

As far as my pruning cut is concerned...when confronted by someone else's poor pruning rather than rewounding an old wound I have opted to just remove the dead stub and let the tree do the rest. This is my intrepretion of AS4373.

Right, however you agreed that the beneath the "black line cut" is die back, so in effect the trees way of handling the situation is healthy tissue back at the red line is going to have to try to occlude the stub and have a lot more work to do than if it were cut to minimum the blue line but preferably the red line.

I've also written about deadwooding, especially when a large branch is dying back.

I mentioned that in drought and tough times cut just outside the healthy tissue regardless of the "target". And that in boom times cutting to target or into healthy tissue would be better.

Recently I had to dead wood but also address habitat, so cutting off hollow dead limbs to target was not best interest but leaving them as a 1' stub allowed a balance between habitat creation and the dead wood not falling.

treevet · 17th December 2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Keays

If I could just draw on Bob's comments from another thread...

Originally Posted by Underwor
What are your thoughts about leaving a long stub, so that the tree will start to compartmentalize near the proper place for a cut, while the entrance for pathogens is still a long distance away. The theory is that this starts the process while the pathogen is a long way from the tree's heart so to speak, then you cut off the stub. It also makes the proper place to cut the stub easier to see, since the remaining stem will have started to grow around it in a year or so, leaving a very definite ridge. Of course, this is more labor intensive, but it might be something to consider on your higher end customers, who take a deal of interest in educating themselves as well as caring for their trees.

I think bob has something here. The problem is most of us won't return to finish the final cut.

7.3.4 Pollarding (P)
Pollarding is a specialized pruning technique that establishes a framework of branches ending in a knob of buds and vigourous shoots. Trees are cut back to just above the same point every 1 to 3 years resulting in the production of multiple shoots. When removing shoots, pollard heads should not be injured. Cuts should be made as close as possible to the swollen collars that surround each shoot (see Figure 6).
[/COLOR]

Shigo says that a branch that is dying back should be left if safety is not a consideration because as it dies it moves its stores of carbs back into the main stem

Recently read in Schwarze's work or somewhere that when leaving a long cut back branch for the purpose you mention that you are just increasing the substrate as a vector for pathogens and they can build up a hell of an attack when the final cut is made.

In other words "you're damned if you and damned if you don't".

As far as "pollarding".....I think you omitted an extremely important aspect of the process. Trees should be started on pollarding only when very young, otherwise it is not pollarding, but rather just plain old "topping".

Ekka · 18th December 2008, 06:55 AM

Couple of quotes from earlier posts back at page 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Freeman

The situatiion with codominants is more complicated because there is no branch protection zone, you are always going to be exposing stem tissues to oxygen ingress and subsequent dysfunction, the angle of the cut relates more to the attempt to reduce the epicormic growth response trying to clearly establish the remaining stem (no longer co-dominant) as the apical growing point. Its one of the hardest things to succeed with especially when the codominants have been allowed to reach the size they are in your photo. It is far better for all if they are pruned out when much smaller.

If I were the climber or bucket guy making the final cut I'll be honest my finishing cut would have been the blue line.

Attachment 460

Mainly because it doesn't look like there is significant bark inclusion (at least on the side we can see) and I would want to reduce the surface area of wood tissue cut as much as possible, whilst reducing the likelihood of epicormic sprouts forming and perpetuating the hormonal confusion wiithin the tree as to which part is the leader.

SF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwor

In post #6, your red line is just below all the new sprouts from latent buds. Am I right in saying that on an older cut, such as this, which you might be "cleaning up", these sprouts might be an excellent indicator of where the enzymes that control the bud opening are getting to from the remaining top growth and where the circulation system is lacking those from the old cut off top? (Nasty sentence, but I hope you get the idea). If this statement is true, then this shows the limit of the area where the wood from the remaining trunk will start in its quest to cover the resulting wound. This would make Ekka's cut more preferable to the one described later at a slightly higher position, even though the wound would be larger. It should seal with out having to go over a small dead triangle which may develop below the higher cut. Did I properly confuse everyone?

Ekka · 19th December 2008, 01:35 PM

Driving around yesterday I spotted this cut, it's a big one too at 50cm along the major axis and 25cm along the minor.

Now I took the pic out of my phone so the quality is not the greatest but you'll see what I am on about, the tree is a Cadaghi. The cut was a little too low on the right hand side however if you went around the back the BBR was lower so I could see the call made. Also realise that the wound wood thickness exacerbates the cuts size at time of pruning.

With regard to Dave's continual battle with academia ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by treevet

Shigo says that a branch that is dying back should be left if safety is not a consideration because as it dies it moves its stores of carbs back into the main stem

Recently read in Schwarze's work or somewhere that when leaving a long cut back branch for the purpose you mention that you are just increasing the substrate as a vector for pathogens and they can build up a hell of an attack when the final cut is made.

In other words "you're damned if you and damned if you don't".

Don't feel damned, ever.

Think about it very carefully. Leaving a crappy 1' stub because you aren't confident where to cut and then side with some BS about reallocation of resources (not saying you do personally but some do) .... what percentile to the tree is the drop in the ocean resources you are caring about? Minuscule, negligible, so small that it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things however the potential negative effects far out weight the positive.

We also talk about dosage, amount to prune off in one hit. We all know reduction is preferable and so on however this thread is about where to cut, target cutting, whether that be removing 1 limb/branch/stick or many, IMHO leaving stubs is just a folly or practice of people either incompetent, ignorant or managing the tree for other aspects such as habitat or rejuvenation.

treevet · 19th December 2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

Driving around yesterday I spotted this cut, it's a big one too at 50cm along the major axis and 25cm along the minor.

Now I took the pic out of my phone so the quality is not the greatest but you'll see what I am on about, the tree is a Cadaghi. The cut was a little too low on the right hand side however if you went around the back the BBR was lower so I could see the call made. Also realise that the wound wood thickness exacerbates the cuts size at time of pruning.

With regard to Dave's continual battle with academia ....

Don't feel damned, ever.

Think about it very carefully. Leaving a crappy 1' stub because you aren't confident where to cut and then side with some BS about reallocation of resources (not saying you do personally but some do) .... what percentile to the tree is the drop in the ocean resources you are caring about? Minuscule, negligible, so small that it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things however the potential negative effects far out weight the positive.

We also talk about dosage, amount to prune off in one hit. We all know reduction is preferable and so on however this thread is about where to cut, target cutting, whether that be removing 1 limb/branch/stick or many, IMHO leaving stubs is just a folly or practice of people either incompetent, ignorant or managing the tree for other aspects such as habitat or rejuvenation.

No battle here.....was just referring to the conjecture on the forum in regards to leaving a branch (you are going to remove) with a long section and take it off in segments in the hopes of instigating compartmentalization to prevent entrance of pathogens (if the compart. does in fact have a delayed reaction.....I think not). Just making conversation and referencing "real experts" that do the actual research. I have no prob making a natural target cut and cannot see what the over analyzation is all about.

Ekka · 19th December 2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treevet

I have no prob making a natural target cut and cannot see what the over analyzation is all about.

Bernard Keays · 20th December 2008, 10:56 PM

Ekka,

Obviously you’re very passionate about pruning and I am too. We probably need to agree to disagree. However I do feel for small branches the blue line and red line is so close the difference is probably negligible but on the larger pruning cuts it’s critical. Sometimes we make mistakes. I tend to make them when I’m tired. I find by being more conservative I can adjust my cut if I need to. I like to biscuit a few pieces off till I get as close as I can to the red line. However if I feel I am going to cause more harm than good I might leave it between the blue line and red line. As far as bob’s comments are concerned, I’m not sold on it either. I just think he has something. What I do is reduce a branch by a third say with the intention to remove it at a latter stage. I think this is useful on young trees where we are trying to promote good form. Or on more mature trees rather than creating a large wound, we may reduce a number of branches to manage a mechanical restraint. This may be repeated over a number of years. I have probably digressed a little here but I think it is important to tailor our treatments to the tree in question rather than on the process.

Ekka · 21st December 2008, 07:22 AM

Sure, no argument there on reduction etc. Always avoid a cut back at the trunk if it's going to be a big one. And dont shoot for the final cut location in one hit just in case you get a tear or error etc. I too stay around 0.3m out then whip off the last bit or like you have a few shots at it.

Angles from front/back also vary and what might look great one side is a little out the other at times.

The thing is in all your cuts you aim for target not stubs, you too agree on that. What I was harping on about is that leaving the 1' stub etc isn't doing the tree favours and if the reallocation of resources debate is used I would say the significance of those resources is so miniscule that it wouldn't change a thing in the grand scheme of things and pose a larger problem for compartmentalization and regrowth.

treeseer · 21st December 2008, 08:14 AM

Great discussion here and I totally agree with the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

leaving the 1' stub etc isn't doing the tree favours and if the reallocation of resources debate is used I would say the significance of those resources is so miniscule that it wouldn't change a thing in the grand scheme of things and pose a larger problem for compartmentalization and regrowth.

I agree this does ring true for the small-medium stubs, but when large leads have to come off I am all for it due to the reasons of resources and mechanical stability and mainly to see a collar form. At UNC campus a couple years ago the crews left 10+ ft 3m stubs on leads ~18 in /45 cm diameter. I'll get an image next time there.

Eric your strict approach to target-seeking is best guideline in most cases, but not a rule for all--“Rules are too absolute for Mother Nature”—Alex Shigo.

Ekka · 21st December 2008, 08:40 AM

So they left 10' stubs which were 18" dia ... lets see what happened then.

Be interesting to see if the target remained in the same place as already known.

Also sprouting on those stubs would be necessary to keep them alive, if that was the intent and using the distance from the trunk as a buffer sure ... that's understandable. That then falls into the rejuvenation criteria, inciting a new crown on that branch.

"Mother nature is a very consistent rule maker"—Eric Frei 2008

treeseer · 21st December 2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

So they left 10' stubs which were 18" dia ... lets see what happened then.

Be interesting to see if the target remained in the same place as already known.

Also sprouting on those stubs would be necessary to keep them alive, if that was the intent and using the distance from the trunk as a buffer sure ... that's understandable.

Nope, no sprouting on these; they were in decline; that's why they were cut. I've left 10" stubs 10' long after storms on higher vitality and they resprouted, but not until 2 seasons had passed.

treevet · 21st December 2008, 10:21 AM

I agree with Eric. Much larger substrate for pathogens to get involved and mount an attack (already mounting an attack on the interior). Make the right cut and move on (sure that would come from Shigo as well).

willem · 22nd December 2008, 08:14 AM

I've posted this in another thread, but it think it's neccesary to repeat it hear. I worked for a company which has done experiments withs leaving stubs. The idea was to get the compartmentalization done before the pathogens reach the mean stem. We left stubs when the diameter of the branch was bigger then 20 cm. The stubs had to be able to survive and sprout again, in this manner they could fight of the pathogens. I've seen examples from these experiments with Aesculus hippocastanium and they were very succesful in creating a complete full compartmentalization before the pathogens reached the main stem. No further advancing of pathogens when compartmentalization was completed.
Normally these species has big problems with wood decay because of stem wounds.
When conducting this method of pruning you have to keep some things in mind.
The species has to be able to keep the stubs alive. Leave the stubs with as much length as possible (> 1 meter).
Use this method in case of emergency. For example when you have to cut of that big branch because someone planned to build a new shed next to a tree.
Don't be afraid of people who tell you the job isn't finished and be prepared to have to explain your actions again and again.

treevet · 22nd December 2008, 09:15 AM

I am doubtful as to the veracity of these "experiments" as the trees would HAVE to be dissected to show compartmentalization or lack of. Were there controls? Can we see the data? I am rather sure that you are confusing closure/woundwood with compartmentalization.

Let's keep in mind, that lack of decay does not indicate lack of discolored wood which is dead wood and has no storage capacity.

treeseer · 23rd December 2008, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treevet

the trees would HAVE to be dissected to show compartmentalization or lack of.

Has anyone else used increment cores to document response?

I'm working with reading these under the microscope.

Willem don't be insulted by Dave; he has a healthy skepticism.

was this the work published by Dujesieffken (sp?) et al?

treevet · 23rd December 2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treeseer

Eric your strict approach to target-seeking is best guideline in most cases, but not a rule for all--“Rules are too absolute for Mother Nature”—Alex Shigo.

"Do not leave living stubs. Living stubs have no defense system. Many organisms attack dying tissues and spread into the tree. The worst problem for man or trees is to be alive but have no defense system. Do not do it to trees"

Alex Shigo, pg. 61, "Tree Pruning, A Worldwide Photo Guide" ("Alex Shigo dissected over 15,000 trees with a chainsaw")

Galbee · 23rd December 2008, 06:39 AM

Shigo has taken our industry further than any one before him, he has given us more information than the average person can absorb and with that was a truly great and inteligent man, but he is not the be all and end all of tree biology, his works are a starting point for us to follow on from, people have to do further experiments to test theories and find new ideas; this way we will truly know the biological workings (as far as we can understand) of trees and plants, we as a species naturally ask questions and experiment; when we stop doing these things we stop evolving.
if everyone from this point just followed shigo's work to the letter, not questioning, experimenting and evolving in 100 years we would be no further forward in knowledge and maybe worse of for it, this site is full of great information let us keep finding new ways and be the best we can be.

willem · 23rd December 2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treevet

I am doubtful as to the veracity of these "experiments" as the trees would HAVE to be dissected to show compartmentalization or lack of. Were there controls? Can we see the data? I am rather sure that you are confusing closure/woundwood with compartmentalization.

Let's keep in mind, that lack of decay does not indicate lack of discolored wood which is dead wood and has no storage capacity.

No data to show you, you have to trust me on this one. I can show you pictures of branches that are still attached to the tree (I'll take some pictures tommorow). The branches I was talking about were cut of about tree years after the first pruning cut. To have look inside them they were cut in half and we could see a complete compartmentalizationproces. Wound closure was also visible at the pruning cut.
This was no scientific research but practical research with this method beeing used when pruning.

willem · 23rd December 2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treeseer

Has anyone else used increment cores to document response?

I'm working with reading these under the microscope.

Willem don't be insulted by Dave; he has a healthy skepticism.

was this the work published by Dujesieffken (sp?) et al?

Who is Dujesieffken?

Ekka · 23rd December 2008, 06:58 AM

Thanks Willem, pictures would be great and I love to see pictures.

One of the biggest problems of this type of research is time, like even for Shigo it took years to get the evidence ... make cuts then wait 7 years to disect, maybe longer etc.

Dave I recall seeing pics in his book, comparing cuts. I recall the comparison of flush cut but not stub cut, can you find some?

treevet · 23rd December 2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbee

Shigo has taken our industry further than any one before him, he has given us more information than the average person can absorb and with that was a truly great and inteligent man, but he is not the be all and end all of tree biology, his works are a starting point for us to follow on from, people have to do further experiments to test theories and find new ideas; this way we will truly know the biological workings (as far as we can understand) of trees and plants, we as a species naturally ask questions and experiment; when we stop doing these things we stop evolving.
if everyone from this point just followed shigo's work to the letter, not questioning, experimenting and evolving in 100 years we would be no further forward in knowledge and maybe worse of for it, this site is full of great information let us keep finding new ways and be the best we can be.

Bologna

You don't re do the experiments that were already done correctly. You take the knowledge from where he left it. Redundancy is a waste of time. You need to crack a book or two Galbee.

PS. Experiments have to be completely scientific and that takes time and proper procedure.

treevet · 23rd December 2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treeseer

Has anyone else used increment cores to document response?

I'm working with reading these under the microscope.

Willem don't be insulted by Dave; he has a healthy skepticism.

was this the work published by Dujesieffken (sp?) et al?

Increment cores would not give sufficient data. You are turning scientist on us now Guy?

Galbee · 23rd December 2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbee

his works are a starting point for us to follow on from,

yes dave thats why i put this, I have read lots of books thank you and regularly review, but i find debating with people over shigo gets a bit like religion and thier different bibles touchy and a feeling that you need to tip toe around the subject because people get so passionate, i wasn't saying re-do experiments that have already been done but look for different ways, if someone finds something worth following up whilst doing field tests then thats when it needs to be followed up in a scientific way; otherwise beaurocracy and emotions get get in the way.

newguy18 · 24th December 2008, 12:17 AM

I'll have to agree with Dave,pick up where Shigo left off,just like the burl debate,if one of my trees had a burl,i'd go out and remove it,with a chainsaw and see how the tree reacts,probabley would take a few years,but as time progressed the pics and notes taken might help future generations of arborists.I've found that very little is actually written in stone in this industry and things are constantly changing.

3rd October 2008, 10:37 AM	#62
treeseer Former Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SE USA Posts: 821	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant Good picture, good message. Not enough light reaching the stub to keep it alive.

16th December 2008, 08:34 AM	#64
JayD Moderator - Sponsor Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,435	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant I think the best way of determining a correct target cut is to firstly follow the given text on correct target collar cuts, Once this is done then you go back at certain intervals and monitor the healing process, a nice evenly formed callous indicates a good cut, similier to a dougnut, our last picture, the tree is still talking to us in its own way, note where it's dieing back too. JayD __________________ Level 4 Arborist

16th December 2008, 10:06 PM	#66
Bernard Keays Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Glasshouse Posts: 195	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant Ekka, I enjoy reading these treads as they test my knowledge and understanding... Co-dominants aren't collars for starters. Would you prefer to call it a stem bark ridge. Secondly, the original cut was way high, result, die back no regrowth. Agree Thirdly, area between black line and blue line is regressing (dying back). Agree The opportunity of any closure here lies in a cut to sound tissue capable of the task, reducing die back and "stubs" of deadwood as homing beacons for pathogens. Had the correct cut have been made in first instance on this specimen we may well have been looking at a picture of some closure not a bug fest. Knowing where to cut confidently seems to be an obscurity to most arborists shying to stubs as insurance in case they get it wrong. Agree. Picture after picture showing the evidence that it's not in the best interest to do so, go for gold, it's gold for a reason and well researched by Shigo. Codominant stems aren't collars, cutting to target allows the other stem to provide sufficient resources to the location for closure, seen it thousands of times, and yet again in this picture. Agree If I could just draw on Bob's comments from another thread... Originally Posted by Underwor What are your thoughts about leaving a long stub, so that the tree will start to compartmentalize near the proper place for a cut, while the entrance for pathogens is still a long distance away. The theory is that this starts the process while the pathogen is a long way from the tree's heart so to speak, then you cut off the stub. It also makes the proper place to cut the stub easier to see, since the remaining stem will have started to grow around it in a year or so, leaving a very definite ridge. Of course, this is more labor intensive, but it might be something to consider on your higher end customers, who take a deal of interest in educating themselves as well as caring for their trees. I think bob has something here. The problem is most of us won't return to finish the final cut. As far as my pruning cut is concerned...when confronted by someone else's poor pruning rather than rewounding an old wound I have opted to just remove the dead stub and let the tree do the rest. This is my intrepretion of AS4373. 7.2.2 Deadwooding (D) Deadwooding is the removal of dead branches. The minimum diameter and location of branches to be removed shall be specified (see Figure 3). 7.3.4 Pollarding (P) Pollarding is a specialized pruning technique that establishes a framework of branches ending in a knob of buds and vigourous shoots. Trees are cut back to just above the same point every 1 to 3 years resulting in the production of multiple shoots. When removing shoots, pollard heads should not be injured. Cuts should be made as close as possible to the swollen collars that surround each shoot (see Figure 6). My experience has been based on pruning camphor laurels and London plane trees in Toowoomba. __________________ Bernie

20th December 2008, 10:56 PM	#73
Bernard Keays Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Glasshouse Posts: 195	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant Ekka, Obviously you’re very passionate about pruning and I am too. We probably need to agree to disagree. However I do feel for small branches the blue line and red line is so close the difference is probably negligible but on the larger pruning cuts it’s critical. Sometimes we make mistakes. I tend to make them when I’m tired. I find by being more conservative I can adjust my cut if I need to. I like to biscuit a few pieces off till I get as close as I can to the red line. However if I feel I am going to cause more harm than good I might leave it between the blue line and red line. As far as bob’s comments are concerned, I’m not sold on it either. I just think he has something. What I do is reduce a branch by a third say with the intention to remove it at a latter stage. I think this is useful on young trees where we are trying to promote good form. Or on more mature trees rather than creating a large wound, we may reduce a number of branches to manage a mechanical restraint. This may be repeated over a number of years. I have probably digressed a little here but I think it is important to tailor our treatments to the tree in question rather than on the process. __________________ Bernie

21st December 2008, 07:22 AM	#74
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,789	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant Sure, no argument there on reduction etc. Always avoid a cut back at the trunk if it's going to be a big one. And dont shoot for the final cut location in one hit just in case you get a tear or error etc. I too stay around 0.3m out then whip off the last bit or like you have a few shots at it. Angles from front/back also vary and what might look great one side is a little out the other at times. The thing is in all your cuts you aim for target not stubs, you too agree on that. What I was harping on about is that leaving the 1' stub etc isn't doing the tree favours and if the reallocation of resources debate is used I would say the significance of those resources is so miniscule that it wouldn't change a thing in the grand scheme of things and pose a larger problem for compartmentalization and regrowth. __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

21st December 2008, 08:40 AM	#76
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,789	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant So they left 10' stubs which were 18" dia ... lets see what happened then. Be interesting to see if the target remained in the same place as already known. Also sprouting on those stubs would be necessary to keep them alive, if that was the intent and using the distance from the trunk as a buffer sure ... that's understandable. That then falls into the rejuvenation criteria, inciting a new crown on that branch. "Mother nature is a very consistent rule maker"—Eric Frei 2008 __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

21st December 2008, 10:21 AM	#78
treevet Monument Status Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Posts: 2,373	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant I agree with Eric. Much larger substrate for pathogens to get involved and mount an attack (already mounting an attack on the interior). Make the right cut and move on (sure that would come from Shigo as well).

22nd December 2008, 08:14 AM	#79
willem Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: the netherlands Posts: 169	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant I've posted this in another thread, but it think it's neccesary to repeat it hear. I worked for a company which has done experiments withs leaving stubs. The idea was to get the compartmentalization done before the pathogens reach the mean stem. We left stubs when the diameter of the branch was bigger then 20 cm. The stubs had to be able to survive and sprout again, in this manner they could fight of the pathogens. I've seen examples from these experiments with Aesculus hippocastanium and they were very succesful in creating a complete full compartmentalization before the pathogens reached the main stem. No further advancing of pathogens when compartmentalization was completed. Normally these species has big problems with wood decay because of stem wounds. When conducting this method of pruning you have to keep some things in mind. The species has to be able to keep the stubs alive. Leave the stubs with as much length as possible (> 1 meter). Use this method in case of emergency. For example when you have to cut of that big branch because someone planned to build a new shed next to a tree. Don't be afraid of people who tell you the job isn't finished and be prepared to have to explain your actions again and again.

22nd December 2008, 09:15 AM	#80
treevet Monument Status Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Posts: 2,373	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant I am doubtful as to the veracity of these "experiments" as the trees would HAVE to be dissected to show compartmentalization or lack of. Were there controls? Can we see the data? I am rather sure that you are confusing closure/woundwood with compartmentalization. Let's keep in mind, that lack of decay does not indicate lack of discolored wood which is dead wood and has no storage capacity.

23rd December 2008, 06:39 AM	#83
Galbee Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,189	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant Shigo has taken our industry further than any one before him, he has given us more information than the average person can absorb and with that was a truly great and inteligent man, but he is not the be all and end all of tree biology, his works are a starting point for us to follow on from, people have to do further experiments to test theories and find new ideas; this way we will truly know the biological workings (as far as we can understand) of trees and plants, we as a species naturally ask questions and experiment; when we stop doing these things we stop evolving. if everyone from this point just followed shigo's work to the letter, not questioning, experimenting and evolving in 100 years we would be no further forward in knowledge and maybe worse of for it, this site is full of great information let us keep finding new ways and be the best we can be. __________________ In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king

23rd December 2008, 06:58 AM	#86
Ekka Admin - Dip Arb & Hort & Seldom Wrong Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,789	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant Thanks Willem, pictures would be great and I love to see pictures. One of the biggest problems of this type of research is time, like even for Shigo it took years to get the evidence ... make cuts then wait 7 years to disect, maybe longer etc. Dave I recall seeing pics in his book, comparing cuts. I recall the comparison of flush cut but not stub cut, can you find some? __________________ TAS Training & Assessment Services\| Arb and Hort Training available here Free Online Tree Value Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online TPZ and SRZ AS4970-2009 Calculator by TreeWorld Free Online Tree Surface Area and Tree Volume Calculator by TreeWorld Free Tree and Green Industry Deep Link Directory ... Yes, I also SEO (Optimize) and build websites that fly high in Google Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist, Tree and Arborist Reports \| Project Arborist

24th December 2008, 12:17 AM	#90
newguy18 Part of the Furniture Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: orlando,fl Posts: 5,204	Re: Pruning cuts - collar, collarless and co-dominant I'll have to agree with Dave,pick up where Shigo left off,just like the burl debate,if one of my trees had a burl,i'd go out and remove it,with a chainsaw and see how the tree reacts,probabley would take a few years,but as time progressed the pics and notes taken might help future generations of arborists.I've found that very little is actually written in stone in this industry and things are constantly changing. __________________ Have your say join us today. I ship USA saws out of the USA old schooler

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode