Pruning Paradigm: Eternal Truth?

treelooker

Treehouser
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,013
Location
NC
http://tcia.org/digital_magazine/tci-magazine/2013/10/index.htm#?page=46

The author is a gifted authority on shrub pruning but with trees it's all about the 1/3 rule, The Heading Cut Concept. However, this falls apart when you think about it.

No one can answer the question: Is it really important to leave a lateral that can assume the terminal role? If so, why?

What if there is no 1/3 sized lateral? Do you have to cut back to a small lateral or bud, or do you have to cut the whole tree down? Turnbull favors the latter, destroying the tree asset rather than questioning this paradigm. Is that the right thing to do?
 
I'm my opinion a terminal lateral is important to assume that role, but cannot agree that if it cannot be accomplished with the 1/3 rule the tree should be removed. Why for me is what I want to see is a full healthy tree, but time can make it so on its own.
I would rather keep the asset so yes question the paradigm! Species would/should play a role as we all know.
I look forward to others answers as I know I fall short on scientific understanding and length of time in the field. Things still surprise us humans daily why not how a tree adapts.
 
Definetly Question the paradigm.

When the situation allows one to conform with the paradigm, life is good. But in other situations, its not the end of the world to bend the rules that need bending. We've all seen certain trees that have been poorly pruned for who-knows-what reasons, and yet they are fine a few years down the road, and have long lives

It depends on the tree and the situation. Sometimes removal will be best.
 
Agreed.. You have to look at each case separate. Look at the entire scenario with all things considered, tree health, client needs, location, targets, benefits of each option........... Try to balance it all out.
 
I will add that I did read through the Morphogenics book that was offered here and see a lot of the premise behind his thinking. The uptake and production of food can be drastically changed due to a situation like Guy describes. In my mind and reading of the e-book the tree knows what it needs and grows accordingly. We are mere assistants attemting to help and do what helps. In some cases the tree, in some human perception.
It is a fine line.
Thanks for making me think Guy:thumbup:
 
Every tree is different. The situation must be looked at as a whole. My work does not strictly conform to an ISA publication. 98% of it does. But there's a time to put the books away and use judgment and experience to come up with the best possible solution.
 
Sometimes I wonder if we should be touching trees at all except to remove dead or dying ones or taking out some big deadwood that is a clear hazard. I'm on the fence about a lot of arborist practices
 
Page, The longer I teach in the arboricultural field the more I agree with your statement. If we look at how established trees are growing in the urban environment as compared to similar sites in the local woodlands and pastures, there is often little difference. I think that most of the work that needs to be done is with the environment, soils in particular, to allow the trees to grow to their best ability. The balance of the needed work is as you say large deadwood and removal of those that have become deceased or hazardous based on the social environment in which they are growing. The local birders give us heck if we cut down even a pretty rough tree if it is in a remote part of one of our parks.

I still think that we should be doing things for trees, not to them. This is the biggest change I see in the past 46 years in the industry.

Good thread.
 
Most urban tree work is for people.

I do view work at my house, canopy raising.

Made 'habitat' tree that is mostly for my viewing, as there is lots of forest around.

Prune my trees back so they don't rub my buildings.

Prune my fruit trees so for fruit production, and to keep my chip truck space open.

Some cutting work is for the the structural benefit of trees, as individual organisms, to live with less chance of splitting, with less decay, and possibly for a longer time.
 
Back
Top