Static & dynamic mass (Mass energy ratios)

MTS247

I'v heard so many explanations of this, and seen it used as an excuse for some interesting pruning.

Now it’s obviously based around young trees being mostly “energy” and very little mass.
And mature trees as being mostly “mass” and having limited energy to support that mass.

But I’d like to give some “theory’s” I’ve heard.

Mature eucalypt with “large” limb over target. Typical urban tree, a little stressed.

Option 1: Remove limb along with any stored energy, and create large wound in trunk.
Justification: removing lots of energy but also lots of mass so it’s not that bad.

Option2: Reduce limb a “little” this would remove “energy” and still leave a lot of mass.
Justification: I’m only taking a little off so it’s fine

Option3: Significantly reduce limb, this would remove stored energy but no large wound on trunk.
Justification: No large trunk wound. But significant mass left to support.

Option4: Remove limb in stages over a few years, still causes large trunk wound.
Justification: Reduces stress on tree, but still creates large wound.

Option5: Reduce limb and try to “shut down the limb” and make final cut when the limb dies.
Justification: Sounds good, not sure if it actually works.


Yes I am switching between limb removal and reduction, but what is best for the tree?
What do you tell young players in the game?


This “tree” is completely hypothetical but is a pretty typical situation in every day arboriculture.

And yeah yeah, i know its hard without a pic and it depends of the tree and health and species, but I’m generalising

Eric Frei

Hey, you missed that node option that Guy Meilleur goes on about, also what about the stub advocates and letting a bunch of epicormics sprout?

We have a long thread here, went south for wall 4 for some time, read that, at least it aims for scientific validation.

longer cuts on poor compartmentalizers| CODIT WALL4

Ask yourself this.

How much is stored in heartwood?

How much is really stored in that limb considering it's only the current years shell that's active?

In the time delay of not making the target cut in the first instance how much larger is the wound going to be and how much wound wood occlusion have you prevented?

What are the decay resistant properties of the tree concerned?

What is the wound to trunk dia ratio?

What is the probability of the wound occluding?

Will a reduced limb be shaded out and die anyway?

Some real life examples of large cuts sealed over, don't forget ... wound wood is stronger and more decay resistant.

Attached Thumbnails

     

__________________

Knotahippie

Looks like some cracking into the trunk on that first pic...

Here's the kind of thing I see alot. Many trunk wounds, much decay. Half of the tree died...over the house. One of the more sketchy removals I did for a friend a couple days ago.

Move slow and soft as church music!

Attached Thumbnails

   

Sean Freeman

To try and stick with your original question....and your scenario....

Every cut into tree whether NTP or not is an injury, the larger the diameter of the cut the (potentially) worse the long term outcome for the tree.

It comes down to understanding DOSE, and the reason why understanding dose is so important is because that concept includes all of the variables that should be considered before deciding on what (if any) cutting is to be carried out.

Eric has given you a good list to begin with, seriously there is no simple rule that can be applied to your questions...try to question over simplifications of what are quite subtle and complex interrelationships, especially that between trees and wood decay fungi....

Understanding the trees in your environment and the other organisms (positive and negative) that interact with those trees is essential to be able to give good advice and make good decisions as an Arborist.

One last thing......really REALLY try to get a firm understanding of what the assessment of risk of significant harm from trees or parts of trees is, and how to undertake such documented assessments.

There are numerous reputable and recognised courses and seminars relating to tree risk assessment, if you can afford the time and money try to get along to some of them, or study the literature.

Bob Tooley

Before I throw this out, I've already put my helmet and flack jacket on...
This is strictly an un-proven theory that has floated around for years, but has never really taken root in any fact-based applications:

Lacking a central nerves system and brain, trees communicate injury by the release of hormones and the larger the wound, the more tree-wide involved the communication system becomes. In general (and theory), the release of too many hormones can cause the entire tree to biologically function on a unbalanced scale, and in some cases,... shut itself down.
It would almost seem realistic to say, the number of smaller wounds which would equal the same hormone release factors as a single larger wound, would have the same impact on a tree wide basis. I suppose it could be compared to a human body's release of healing-cell factors for dealing with a shotgun blast -vs- one hole from a .44 mag. wound... the body (and possibly the tree) can go into 'shock', not just from the blood-loss, but also from the rapid release of the healing hormones....

OK..........shoot now !

Eric Frei

Bob,

It's OK to hypothesize.

It's when people blindly believe you need to worry.

__________________

Bob Tooley

I've found a number of 'known facts' which are later disproved, and result in us having to look in other directions to find the 'real' facts, and it's almost become a point where these now 'known facts' should be renamed to read..."present facts'.

Research is defined as..."seeing what everyone else is seeing, but thinking the way no one else is thinking".
Some people view these attempts to dispel facts as a way to prove others wrong, but the real point is to be able to have just one more piece fit into this little-known puzzle so we can move toward making other pieces fit. I've had some people say.. science is arrogant,.. and generally I hand them a Q-tip...of course they ask what it's for, it's to remind them to;.. "Quit-taking- it-personal"...

One 'known fact' you hear often related to is,.... "if you girdle a tree with a chainsaw, it will die". I have a one-hundred year old white pine which was vandalized due to a property dispute during a major road construction ten years ago which has disproved the 'fact' by not only surviving the girdling, but also by flourishing in spite of the (present)'fact' the extent and localized damage done by the construction project would have certainly, and otherwise.. killed this tree...

Along with making facts 'concrete', another thing I disapprove of is the use of the words; "always" and "never" in almost any topic materials... We haven't reached the point-of-perfection where we can allow someone to post these type 'stop signs'.. which we aren't 'allowed' to proceed past... it stops progress,.. and often says more 'about' the writer then it does 'for' him, or his information.

MTS247

I agree with bob, It wasn’t that long ago that we knew the world was flat!


I think it’s safe to say that most research into pruning, pruning reactions and arboriculture in general has been on European or American trees.

How many of the “facts” in current arboriculture are transferable to eucalypts, and other genus for that matter?

I’m not trying to upset anyone, and I’m not Shigo bashing. Just trying to get some discussion going.

Bob Tooley

I knew Alex when he worked for the Maine Forest Service and have my own opinions of the man and the material. Clark Granger (pathologist)...warned him of the use of 'cementing-in-time' terms and ideas, because we were going through some heavy-duty changes and research understandings in the 1960's where virtually 'everything' was being re-thought. (IMO...does the idea of a male Martha Stewart sound too extreme ?)

Much of what we are being 'fed' from research which digs too deeply into this, and other subjects, is..'pure science', but pure science doesn't exist in the real world due to a huge numbers of environmental variables which weren't applied into the 'classroom' formula...

No one really gets 'bashed' in research,...we don't have to make excuses for a single thing that happens naturally or in nature, but we do have the responsibility to understand what happens, as well as how to apply the best procedures to each individual situation based on their unique individualism.
Sometimes it's necessary to apply an old method and at others, a more modern understanding...along with sometimes having to combine both...
The point I'm trying to make is not to become 'stuck' in someone elses mud.

Eric Frei

Like this?

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Bob Tooley

Do you guys do what I've seen so many people do up here with winches mounted on trucks ? Here they mount them on the front bumper... !
I thought the idea of a winch was to pull you out of trouble...not further into it. I'd mount one on the rear bumper,...but that's me...

Eric Frei

Most people want to get ahead in life not go backwards!

__________________

Bob Tooley

To go back to MTS247's original post, I think the best solutions are derived from the simple understanding of exactly what a 'tree' is rather then trying to come at it from a complex, sometimes, mis-understanding. And, to keep your topic question open for even controversial discussion.

Following the natural "Law-of-Orders", any part of an organism that can reproduce itself holds the higher position within the individual organism. In the case with trees, this would be the root system...cut a tree down and the root system will produce new shoots, but the cut off trunk and limb structure won't root by themselves...(except in vegetive-propagation..limited to select plants/trees). The first thing to emerge from a seed is also the root, (a seed is it's own individual organism), so for all intent and purposes,...the most important part to the actual tree's design are 'upside down' to the way human's perceive, and see tree 'values'. In theory, the root system dictates to the tree as the 'demand', and the tree functions as the 'supply', for biological purposes, even though the root system may be the route for the raw materials...

Though I haven't really addressed much in this post, I want to present this portion to your topic question in hopes it might point out where some very important principles of simple tree design are being overlooked....and left out of the final static/dynamic mass formula...

To be continued:

Bob Tooley

One problem with book writing, and universally applying the information, is in the interpretation of the tree's differing locations and growing cultures. The 'only' thing that puts a tree into a specific 'family' is through the function of the flower. Your "oak" tree may require a completely different culture then my "oak" tree might, because the only thing they have in common is their flowers design and how they pollinate, etc.,.

To support this point,... consider the zygocactus, common Christmas cactus, and a desert cactus... The zygocactus requires jungle shade, moisture and high humidity...as well as it being epiphytic, and growing in trees or on rocks. The desert cactus requires dry, sun and etc.,...yet they both reside in the cactus family... So trying to grow 'all' cactus by providing the same culture isn't going to work well, because only their flowers function the same... This holds true for many orchids as well as other apple/rose-type, name-sharing family trees and plants...

When published information states; 'This is how to grow oaks'... the question becomes;...'who's oaks ?'...
Books written in the US and Europe may contain some information useful with Australia's trees, but no one is going to know your trees better then you do.