Cutting Trees Back

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22402, 24 April 1936, Page 11 (Supplement)

Cutting Trees Back

rrHE nrt of lopping or cutting back of large trees is not nearly so widely understood as it deserves to be. It is only necessary to go through the suburbs of Auckland to realise what mutilation can bo carried out in the name of pruning or lopping in the average garden. Limbs are hacked oft ruthlessly, and miserable !op-sided objects are left, where onco were beautiful trees. The accompanying illustration is from a brief sketch made of an awful example of what not to do, seen quite recently." The most frequent mistake that is ,mado is that of cutting back branches regardless of their capability of making fresh growth. For example, the fork-like stumps left at the top of the main branch in the sketch are too old to produce more than weak brushwood. It would have been far better to have cut this tree back to a point just above

work of growth. If a large branch must be removed, it is essential to cut it back in such a manner that a younger one, preferably growing in approximately the sumo direction, is left to take "the place of the old member. It should always be kept in mind, that the inoro aged the wood, the lower is its vitality, and the less likelihood there is of its producing good, new growth. In a general way the natural habit of the tree should not bo interfered with, and pruning should only take the form of keeping; branches within such bounds as are inseparable from the position in which the tree is planted. It is far better to prune trees a little every year than to leave them uncut season after season until ruthless lopping back becomes unavoidable. Inquiries aro frequently received as to what pruning should be given to young ornamental trees. The answer is simple. They should be thinned, and if necessary shortened a little, but not drastically cut back. It is not in the least necessary, or even advisable to adopt the complicated systems of prun-

+he uppermost of the smaller lateral branches, for if these had in turn been shortened by one-third, something of the original symmetry of the tree would have been preserved, and the younger growth would have produced plenty of sturdy new shoots. Strong and plentiful development of the new wood is necessary to afford the gardener scope for reforming the head in the shortest time. There were, doubtless, thinner side growths further up the two principal branches, and these might have been preserved as a basis for the new frame-

ing used by the fruit grower, when dealing with ornamental trees. Leading growths—that is to say, the shoots that will ultimately become the main branches —may be shortened by about one-third, without destroying the symmetry of the tree to any appreciable extent, while straggling side growths and any that tend to crowd the centre of the tree, may be similarly restricted, or even removed. With every rule there are exceptions, and conifers of pyramidal habit would naturally be spoiled by the removal of the leading shoot. The only important non-coniferous tree to come into this class iis the lovely silver birch. No matter how carefully it is done the

Mistakes Made in Careless Pruning

removal of the leading shoot will tend to spoil the beauty, and these should bo left to grow until they reach a height beyond which they cannot conveniently be allowed to grow. Then, and then only, should they be topped to prevent further extension. Large cuts should, whenever possible, be made either vertically or sloping in such a manner that the face of the

wound is protected from rain. Flat cuts inevitably collect water, which in time tends to cause decay. Nor is it wise to saw off large limbs quite flush with the main trunk, though it is equally harmful to leave a long stump. In all such cases the cut should be made about two inches from the main trunk to allow the cut to heal cleanly.