Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35(6): November 2009 LITERATURE CITED American National Standards Institute. 2008. American National Stan- dard for tree care operations-Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Pant Maintenance-Standards practices (Pruning). ANSI A300 (part 1). New York: American National Standards Institute. Bredenkamp, B.V., F.S. Malan, and W.E. Conradie. 1980. Some effects of pruning on growth and timber quality of Eucalyptus grandis in Zululand. South African Forestry Journal 114:29–34. Clark, F.B. 1955. Black walnut responds to pruning. Journal of Forestry 53:362–365. Downer, A.J., M. Shaw, and D. Pittenger. 1994. The effect of pruning on branch growth in two oak species. HortScience 29:550, Abstract #815. Figure 5. Diameter ratio of codominant to leader measured at the base of each stem at pruning (year 0) and in three subsequent years for four pruning severities: 0, 25, 50 and 75% TPS. Within each year, numbers followed by the same letter are not statisti- cally different at P < 0.05. Eisner, N.J., E.F. Gilman, J.C. Grabosky, and R.C. Beeson. 2002. Branch junction characteristics affect hydraulic segmentation in red maple. Journal of Arboriculture 28:245–251. Funk, D.T. 1979. Stem form response to repeated pruning of young black walnut trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 9:114–116. Gilman, E.F. 2003. Branch to stem ratio affects strength of attachment. Journal of Arboriculture 29:291–294. Gilman, E.F., and S. Lilly. 2008. Best management practices: pruning, second edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL. Gilman, E.F., J.C. Grabosky, F. Masters, and C. Harchick. 2008. Prun- ing affects tree movement in hurricane force wind. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:20–28. Grabosky, J.C., E.F. Gilman, and C. Harchick. 2007. Use of branch cross sectional area for predicting pruning severity in young field-grown Quercus virginiana ‘Cathedral’ in Florida, US. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6:159–167. Figure 6. Trunk diameter 30 cm (12 in) from ground at pruning and in three subsequent years for four pruning severities (0, 25, 50 and 75%) from one codominant stem. Note: Within a year, bars with the same letter are not statistically different at P < 0.05. diameter ratio between pruned codominant stems and unpruned leader and should result in a stronger structure. Results may be different for different species and climates, and for larger trees. CONCLUSION Pruning reduced growth in linear proportion to amount of fo- liage removed on pruned codominant stems. This resulted in a reduction in size of the pruned codominant stem relative to the unpruned leader stem. Growth slowing effects from higher pruning severity lasted longer than for lower pruning severi- ties. As much as 75% or more of a codominant stem can be re- moved without killing the stem on young live oaks pruned in this study. This provides guidelines for growers producing lead- ers when structurally pruning shade trees in a nursery, and for arborists pruning young trees in landscapes. It could also ap- ply to younger outer portions of the crown of older trees where most structural pruning is conducted to resist storm damage. Acknowledgments. Thank you to the TREE Fund and GreatSouthernTree- Conference.org for funding of the project. Hanley, D.P., C.D. Oliver, D.A. Maguire, D.G. Briggs, and R.D. Fight. 1995. Forest pruning and wood quality of western North American conifers. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Contribution, No. 77. Kane, B., R. Farrell, S.M. Zedaker, J.R. Loferski, and D.W. Smith. 2008. Failure mode and prediction of the strength of branch attachments. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:308–316. Langstrom, B., and C. Hellqvist. 1991. Effects of different pruning re- gimes on growth and sapwood area of Scots pine. Forest Ecology and Management 44:239–254. Neilson, W.A., and E.A. Pinkard. 2003. Effects of green pruning on growth of Pinus radiata. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33:2067–2073. O’Hara, K. 1991. A biological justification for pruning in coastal Douglas-fir stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 6:59–63. Pinkard, E.A., and C.L. Beadle. 1998. Effects of green pruning on growth and stem shape of Eucalyptus nitens (Deane and Maiden) Maiden. New Forests 15:107–126. Rom, C.R., and D.C. Ferree. 1985. Time and severity of summer pruning influences on young peach tree net photosynthesis, transpiration, and dry weight distribution. Journal of American Society for Horticultural Science 110:455–461. Singh, K.A., and F.B. Thompson. 1995. Effect on water potential, tran- spiration, regrowth, 14C-photosynthsate distribution and biomass production in Alnus glutinosa. Tree Physiology 15:197–202. Smiley, E.T. 2003. Does included bark reduce the strength of codominant stems? Journal of Arboriculture 29:104–106. Smiley, E.T., and B. Kane. 2006. The effects of pruning type on wind loading of Acer rubrum. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:33–40. 285 ©2009 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2009
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
