Opinions, cuts for wildlife/ natural look

t s said,

The best way of doing this is to fell the tree completely and leave it on the ground to decompose the remaining stump has a chance to regrow as well,moving that access platform in with its wide stabilising base probably does more eco damage than any benefits gained by wrecking the canopy,talking about faffing about .

 

I also would have thought that to introduce a maore natural efeect it would have been better to leave the tree`s branches to fall of, then rot by themselves. I just don`t see it is a practical way to increase biodiversity. Surely in a natural environment there would be many different branches and fallen leaves, along with dead plants all in varying degrees of decomposition.

This is an interesting subject. How does having material all at the same degree of decomposition aid wildlife? And does it benefit wildlife in actual fact. Doesn`t it put trees at risk of developing like Dai says canker or anything else which then, because of close proximity to other newly damaged trees, risks damaging or even killing the entire community of said trees.

At first glance it feels more logical (for an oxymoron that`s as good as it gets) just to leave the whole area alone and allow nature to takes it`s course. Trees lose their branches at their right time that way.

I don`t know, it`s a bit too early in my learning about the flora of the British Isles to say for sure, but to be on the safe side I think I`d shoot them still and leave their bodies to decompose, thereby acheiving the aim anyway.

 

TS, Ive got to be honest, I'm still not converted. To me it looks unsightly and goes against everything I have ever been taught regarding pruning cuts. The cynic in me would also say that it would appear to be a method of perhaps prolonging a job to get the maximum ££ out the customer, having once or twice tried chainsaw carving I know just how slow this sort of thing is.

A lot of the tree work I do is specifically in private woodlands and mostly if something is showing signs of decay and in a risky position then my preferred option is to just fell and most likely log it up for firewood or to sell on to a wood turner or get someone in with a portable mill.

In the case of a tree of visual or sentimental value to the owner then i would suggest getting in an arb consultant to assess then in then if they deem pruning Will be sufficient I would pass the work over to the climber I use..... Not a cornet cut in sight!!!

I can understand the benefit of leaving dead wood etc and when I was with the contracting firm, on FC jobs selective standing dead wood would be left, we even had to strap a dead bough onto a live tree once at a nature reserve to encourage woodpeckers!!! However cornet cuts and fracture breaks are to me taking things to Farr in attempting to replicate nature.

 

Not sure on this one
I have some empathy with Treesurfer, but Progard strikes a chord with what he says in his first paragraph above
I acknowledge that some trees have limbs which have to be removed for public safety (dying wood) and I can see fropm a visual aspect that these types of cut can be more pleasing to the eye, and have beneficial effects for biodiversity and wildlife
However, if it is the ratepayer who is footing the bill then I baulk at the idea
I rather fancy the machine for getting you up into the tree though ..... Treesurfer or Progard going to buy one? Or do I have to put it on my Christmas wish list? :D:D:D

 

All I can add is what little I have seen around my area.
We have a largish park which is said by many people to have been neglected for years. Now a posh developer has been allowed to move in and build exclusive retirement housing.

They say they want to maintain the country atmosphere and will be "managing" the woods to encourage wildlife.

This has involved cutting down dead and some living trees, these are either sold or piled up into heaps supposedly to encourage insect life, thus supporting bird life.

The woodpeckers are now homeless, and bat boxes have been put into some trees, presumably because the bats now have no natural roosts.
The woods are now very quiet, the foxes have lost their cover, and I only see rabbits.

They want wild life but on their terms, it MUST not look untidy, even the piles of dead wood are wired in place.

As to hacking trees to make it look like the elements have caused it, sounds like a greenlight to every council in the country, to chop away and just say they are helping the enviroment.

They must think we are really thick.:skp:

Nature is its own conservationlist if its allowed

 

Why remove an entire tree from an ecosystem when it can safely remain standing and encourage further improvement of the microhabitat? Also, felling a mature veteran oak will not make the stump regrow. Platform work can be substituted with climbing if it is safe and practical.

Of course, fracture pruning is carried out on the individual merit of the tree in question. It's a case of the right tree in the right place. A suitable assessment of the tree and it's environment is undertaken first before going ahead with the work.

Why on earth would you completely fell a tree when removal of the dangerous limbs in question will reduce the risk of failure and subsequent damage? It is a relatively new technique, and as such, it will always come under scrutiny from folks. Thirty years ago it was seen as correct procedure to prune branches flush against the trunk, to fill cavities with concrete and paint over wounds. All these practices are now withdrawn due to their damaging nature. Tree work is constantly evolving as arborists, consultants and scientists discover more new information about trees.

Where the tree's visual aspect comes into play then it's obvious that you wouldn't use coronet cuts in someone's garden. As I stated previously this work is often carried out in woodlands, country estates and rural fields where the rips and tears are part of every day life of trees. A native woodland is full of broken, dead, dying, diseased trees and the plants and animals that live off them. In short, native woodlands are a mess. It's only when we interfere and remove the things that we deem as unsightly that we are more happy with the woodland. To me, it's the woodland that has been cleaned up that is unsightly and false.

 

TS, My example is Private estate/small woodland, not gardens.

In many cases the owners would rather take down the tree whilst it has some timber value than leave for time and nature to kill / uproot it. They are also often too tight to pay out for pruning or dead wooding.

There is also the perceived risk of damage to fence lines, other trees, buildings etc. In most cases the catalyst for removal is evidence of gandorema or the loss of large limbs.

 

I go along with that thinking myself.

But why, in those circumstances do you need to cut back, why not let nature do it itself?

 

t s said

I did not advocate cutting an entire tree down for no reason trees should only be cut down if they are diseased or dangerous and unless the diseased tree is likely to be contageous to other trees then leave it to rot,any trees that have damaged limbs through nature should be made safe by cutting off cleanly and again left to rot as part of the ecosystem.