Software
Houzz Logo Print
upperbaygardener

a graceful exit for a doomed Hemlock?

10 years ago
last modified: 10 years ago

OK, here's the sitch. My largest hemlock is maybe 55' or 60' high. It was beset by adelgids when I bought the house and probably would have died in a few more years. I treated it with Merit, twice, and 2007 and 2008, and they've never come back. A little fertilizer helped the crown recover some density. Never the less it had lost one whole side of its lower branches because it was shaded out by a stupidly placed weed tree, and it looks pretty hideous from most perspectives. I don't want to have to use Merit/generic imidocloprid again (and may not have the chance in a few years) so I'd slated it for removal in the next five years anyhow. I've planted things around it to continue to shade the rhodies & other BLEs I planted to the north of it.
What happened is some storm in the late summer or fall caused a large branch about 1/4 of the way down to snap off. So, it's got a potential "widowmaker" hanging in it. BUT, I didn't realize the tear went right into the trunk. This winter, the fact that the trunk had such a tear has apparently made the entire 1/4 top of it die off. Yes the whole top crown. As bad as the tree looked before, now it's really starting to look bad.
Here's my crazy idea. For the next 3-4 years, I'd really still like to the have the shade of its major lower branch, which leans toward the north: it seemingly strongly diverged away from the trunk, about 6' up, about 20-25 years ago, to get away the shade cast by the weedy maple. Since my tree guy always charges more to bring in the big boom trunk, I'm thinking, just do this: have him remove the top 3/4 of the tree. Completely. Leave about 12'-15' of the trunk, including the big diverging branch and 2-3 typical lateral branches. Yes, this will look like crap for a few years. But no worse than if I do nothing and the top 15' of a 60' hemlock is bare. This will allow more time for various shade giving species to continue to fill in the area. When I'm ready to remove it, I can do it myself because I won't need a boom truck to come in there.
Worse possible outcome I suppose is that the main side branch, arcing to the north in a curved form, will at some point collapse, now that it isn't sheltered by the crown. But it is by far the thickest branch on the tree. I just don't see that happening barring a microburst or something.
Thoughts?

btw will try to post a pic this weekend

Comments (8)

  • 10 years ago

    I see no problem with your plan, David. Why not eek the most out of it you can, especially since it is only you you've got to please, and perhaps, a mate. In any case, I'd say go for it. Incidentally, there is a large old house on the UW-Madison campus which entire yard serves as a horticultural wonderland and is part of the campus, called The Centennial House. At any rate, I was there a few years ago and at that time, there was still an enormous old European larch which, its entire top having died (Lightening maybe?), they simply cut everything off except the lower few tiers of living branches. Now again, I haven't seen it in a few years, but at that time, it actually still looked alright. Interesting in fact. I say do it.

  • 10 years ago

    Even a dead stump has immense virtue from a wildlife point of view - maybe use it as a living support for a climber.

  • 10 years ago

    It's usually better, IMO, to leave something instead of complete removal. Hemlocks have a good amount of regenerative abilities, at least if left alone by the adelgids.

  • 10 years ago

    Your plan sounds well thought out.

    The only negative I can think of is you might have to pay the tree removal guy a little more for two visits to the same tree.

  • 10 years ago
    last modified: 10 years ago

    Here is an overview of the branch I plan to keep.


    Sorry I don't have a wide angle lens so it's not as good as it could be, but it gives you an idea. I took this crouched as low to the ground as I could go, so it looks higher than it really is. The branch leaves the trunk at about 5' high. The top of the waterspout is probably about 12'-14' off the ground. (the trunk is just to the left of this picture) You can see there's another lateral branch from the trunk, crisscrossing the area, but it sweeps down to the ground, so I'll probably just remove it. It's the horizontal, in fact slightly upsweeping branch coming off the top of the waterspout that provides high shade. I'd forgotten that years ago the top of this waterspout cracked and fell off in a storm. The cut is clean, I fixed it standing in my Kubota FEL bucket.

    Tornado, I can probably take care of this myself when time comes to completely get rid of the tree. The trunk at almost 3' in diameter is difficult to remove with a smaller chainsaw, but it can be done. I've done something similar before. If the trunk is only about 12' high at that point, I just have to make sure it falls the right way...i.e., not on me!

  • 10 years ago

    Yup, use proper felling technique. While I seldom wield a chainsaw anymore here on the job, I still cringe at the amazing and amazingly bad methods folks use to drop stubs when removing trees in their yards. I mean come on...there's an internet if you're really that clueless! Beaver-chopped, all manner of goofy things you see out there, my favorite is how some folks seem to think your back cut is some slanting thing so that when the drop is done, there remains a wedge of wood on the back side! Hilarious, so long as nobody gets an ambulance ride out of the deal. I'd imagine you'll know better, David.

  • 10 years ago

    Professional cutters never have a raised wedge on the backside. Never. It's the first sign of an inexperienced chainsaw user. They think it helps the tree fall the 'right way' and if it goes the 'wrong way', that wedge will prevent it. LOL

    Using a ladder than is not tied to the tree is another sign. I haven't used a ladder in years, but when I did, it was tied to the tree.

    When the wedge is removed on the lower side of the face cut it's called a Humbolt cut. That leaves the butt of the log square and adds to the length of the log when being measured for price. I cut wood for my firewood and don't bother. My wedge comes out of the trunk, not the stump.

    Mike

  • 10 years ago

    Indeed. For that matter, if we really want to get into this....the bore cut has taken over as the ultimate in controlled felling. With this technique, which BTW would only be used on large-diameter trunks, the notch is made in the usual, proper fashion. Then, the feller bores into the trunk on the backside, but leaves a "control strap" of intact wood on the very back side of the cut. This way, the entire cut is made in 100% safety that nothing unexpected will happen, say should there be a pocket of rot on the interior, etc. Finally, when all is ready, no buses full of nuns and crippled children is coming...the back strap is cut, releasing the stub. Anyway, I don't really use the bore cut, but our guys that actually do the big tree work these days shifted over to that more than ten years ago. Me, I'm a firewood maker these days if I've got a saw in my hands. We do have several 90-ft. green ash to drop in my son's woods, benefits of EAB. Shouldn't be too bad.