How thick were the trunks at the point where they broke?

In the spring the now branchless trunks will likely force lots of water sucker branches to spring forth from the sides of its trunks, and maybe even send up some slender root suckers in an attempt to produce enough leaf producing structure for the roots to be properly fed this coming growing season.

From those two situations described above, it could take many years for either of them to regain nice looking main leader trunks. With the first option, you would also always be limited to keeping the lowest level of the canopy far enough below the present breakage level, so that the thickness of the old broken trunks would not show in the growing season, and look very awkward in comparison to the new slender upward growing and side growing branches that would be developing into the tree's new canopy.

Some people might suggest that in late winter, you cut the trunks down to about only 5-6 inches above the ground and while watering the tree during dry times in the growing season watch to see if the tree sends up new shoots, which can be retained to become new main leader trunks. As far as my opinion though, If the current trucks are 4 or more inches thick that close to the ground, I would worry some about the cut edges of those shortened trunks becoming easy entrance points for birch borers.

In either case it could take quite a few years before you once again see the tree return to the beauty it had previous to the ice damage.

If you are not patient enough to wait for the tree to recover from however you choose to corrective prune it, then simply remove the tree and plant a new one.

If you do think that you'd rather purchase a new tree, for using to replace the damaged one; just keep in mind the issue that any new tree planted could take about 3 years after planting to be established enough and to develop well enough that it no longer carries an appearance of a young fairly recently planted tree.

get at least 3 estimates from 3 different INSURED tree trimmers ... one should be certified ... he is the one who will give you good info on repair ..i personally dont think a remover needs to be certified ...

separate estimates for repair and for removal ...

and then snap us some pix.. so we can see and determine who has a good plan.. and who is trying to pay for his boat ...

but i have to warn you ... sever damage will probably require 2 to 4 visits from the preferred provider over the next 10 years ... removals one time cost MIGHT work out to your advantage ...

regardless.. i would start thinking about planting some replacements at the proper planting time ... so that they will have a head start on growing.. SHOULD the time come when removal is necessary ...

it really does NOT sound good ...

ken

Thanks all for your replies, I'm awaiting the photos that I took last week (yeah, real film that needs developing, imagine ...) and will post soon enough.

this weekend thawed things out a good deal and I see there are some (1-3) branches below the breaks, so maybe there is slim hope. dunno. the horrible bradford pears that I hate and wanted to get rid of are just fine, can you believe it ?

any thoughts on good trees taht grow FAST that will be able to withstand ICE storm ? I hear the Shantung Maple is rated high, anyone have experience with that ?

in my opinion.. STAY AWAY FROM ANYTHING THAT CLAIMS TO BE FAST GROWING .... most will be susceptible to storms.. and other plagues ...

you said these trees were 20 years old... and mentioned no problems in between ... it is very hard to plan for 'once every 20 years storm' .....

what do you want to do under your trees .... there are a multitude of trees.. which will NOT allow gardening under them.. and a few that wont even allow grass to grow under them [like some maples] ...

define all the variables you wish in a tree ... and then try to fit a tree to those

perhaps a new post to attract replies NOT related to the ice storm topic ...

ken

FWIW Ken, In my area at least it didn't matter allot. Slow and fast growing took massive damage. Any Oak you want to name, and Maple you want to name, blackgums, redbuds, etc. all took major damage. Surprisingly Chinese Pistache and Sycamore seemed to have about the least damage, though individual Sycamore's were totally destroyed. Also some medium sized sugar, red, and hybrid freemannii maples took relatively little damage. Same for medium Oaks. Almost all large specimens not matter the species has severe damage. Though almost all willows and birches took a complete beating. The fact that so many birches lean, seemed to be a compounding factor.

In this case, at least locally, it was just so much ice it didn't matter too much. Trees were damaged to lost completely.

Not recommending anything, just stating what happened locally. Just saying if it's bad enough, it doesn't matter much.

Birchtreeboy, please take this as intended-a very general statement-the one attribute of any tree that alone leads to stability beyond any other characteristic is possessing a strong central leader. Even among tree species already exhibiting the tendency to resist loading and/or wind damage, if said trees can be trained properly when young, ie. subordination pruning, to help maintain the single leader for as long as possible, this will help these trees more than anything else in this regard.

Subordination pruning involves the intentional heading back (To a lateral branchlet) of any stems which are growing vertically or partially so, which are not the stem selected as the main leader. Doing so allows more "juice" to go to the selected main leader and over time results in the best structure for that tree.

I am attending a three day conference (Wisconsin Arborists Association) which features, as one of the main speakers, Ed Gilman, who is one of the leading authorities on all things associated with tree care. When the conference is over, I'm going to be posting a link to Ed's website which I believe will be brimming with relevant info.

One of the topics which was covered yesterday, was the root systems of containerized stock. The news ain't pretty! Many of us here have discussed this before, so I'm not going to go in depth right now. But suffice to say, there is MUCH coming out of the research of Mr. Gilman and others which should be of great interest to forum members.

+oM

For the most part birch family trees live hard and die young, coming up in great numbers on burnt or otherwise severely disturbed sites and being thinned heavily by periodic ice storms and probably multiple other sources of mortality as the stand develops. Comparatively few specimens will be present in many kinds of old growth forest, and then mostly along streams and rivers where there is some sun getting in.

Clump birches splaying apart when grown with full light coming in from the sides is a chronic problem. In a stand of trees shading keeps the clumps reaching up.

According to a sort of editorial in Whitcomb's 2006 book ground-breaking research in ornamentals production has pretty much died out, with "new" studies to a large extent being reiterations of what has already been investigated. Prior to reading these remarks I had noticed findings being reported as though Whitcomb and others hadn't been on the scene prior.