Tree Health
Research into trees and the ways they operate has boomed in recent years, contributing enormously to how we interact with, appreciate, and care for them.
Practices that were deemed 'best practice' 20 years go have often been shown to in fact have detrimental effects on trees and lead to more risky situations than existed in the first place. Topping, flush cutting, lopping, 'harsh pruning', wound painting, uplifting - all of these common phrases are examples of cultural norms that persist but have been shown categorically to be detrimental to tree health.
A healthy tree is much more likely to be able to deal with the rigours of life, as (in over-simplified terms) the more leaves a tree has the more capacity it has to generate energy, which it then uses to consolidate its position, respond to forces (wind, gravity etc.), produce more growth, and reproduce.
When more than 30% of the foliage is removed from any given healthy branch, it is typically pushed beyond a threshold and will respond in predictable ways: either by producing numerous, poorly attached new stems which rapidly grow to re-fill the available space and re-establish the lost energy production factories (leaves); or by dying back to the next available branch or stem.
Both of these options are, from the tree's perspective, undesirable.
If, instead, we remove less of the branch, and remove it carefully back to the point at which two branches or shoots unite (called a pruning cut among arborists), we can reduce the weight of the branch, redirect the growth in a more suitable direction, and not force the tree to delve too far into its stored energy reserves.
Much better.
This is the definition of pruning, and is the established standard for tree care in most of the developed world.
There are some exceptions to this rule of thumb, but they are few and far between.
As a professional arborist, I work with the tree where I can, to ensure that clients and trees both cop a good deal. If a 30% reduction isn't enough to address the issues or concerns you have, other options can be discussed.
Another field of research that has made huge progress in recent times is mycology - the study of Fungi.
It's now clear that trees, like almost everything in nature, rely on a complex web of relationships with an enormous range of flora and fauna for their health.
While science is just tickling the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fungal and bacterial relationships with trees, it's been shown that trees benefit so much from these relationships that they can barely function without them. Encouraging a diverse microbial population in the soil our trees grow in is an effective and ecologically responsible means of facilitating tree growth.
Ways to do this are, luckily, easily achieved. Just look at what happens in nature, and replicate it.
In almost all forests, a layer of leaf and twig litter is quietly decomposing on the ground. Most of us don't live in forests, but it is still possible to create a comparable situation for your tree by either: mulching regularly (once yearly as a rough guide), or, leaving the tree and all the plants beneath it to their own devices (on the proviso that what is growing beneath it isn't a vine which is smothering the tree). Mulch can provide the habitat necessary for soil-generating microbes, and it acts as both a slow-release fertiliser and a water conserver.
Using common, non-organic fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides is often an effective way of managing problems in the short term, but each of these is likely to harm soil health if used repeatedly. Promoting soil health may take time to produce obvious results, but it is the only approach I endorse which is effective as well as environmentally responsible.
If you are interested in promoting your trees' health, get in touch and we can arrange a meeting.