Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

The Arboricultural and Economic Benefits of Formative Pruning Street Trees

C.M. Ryder and G.M. Moore
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 2013, 39 (1) 17-24; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2013.004
C.M. Ryder
Cameron Ryder, Senior Consulting Arborist, Homewood Consulting, 23 Worrell Street, Nunawading, Victoria, Australia 3131
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
G.M. Moore
Gregory Moore, Ph.D. (corresponding author), Senior Research Associate, Burnley College, University of Melbourne, 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond, Australia 3121,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Summary of the number of trees assessed.

    SpeciesCount
    Corymbia citriodora48
    Platanus × acerifolia104
    Pyrus calleryana79
    Quercus palustris65
    Ulmus parvifolia52
    Total348
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Tree form definitions.

    RatingDefinition
    ExcellentA clear, strong, and straight leader firmly rooted in the ground.
    A good level of taper up the stem, and a wide-angled branching structure with even arrangement vertically and radially.
    GoodA clear leader, possibly slightly crooked or weakened by laterals, even spaced branches, and no major faults in the canopy.
    FairA clear leader, with a possible lean or kink. Asymmetries in the canopy or branch arrangement and possible a slight lean.
    PoorNo clear leader, with possibly multiple leaders, leaning or a lost leader. Heavy canopy asymmetry.
    Very poorNo leader or multiple leaders. A heavy lean possibly with very strong canopy asymmetry. Tree may have been vandalized.
    Candidate for replacement.
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Structural defect definitions.

    FaultDefinition
    Codominant stemsStems “Equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems or scaffold limbs....” (Harris et al. 1999) Recorded if it occurred anywhere in the main stem, either low or high on the stem.
    Included barkWhere bark is turned inwards at branch junctions instead of being pushed out (Harris et al. 1999), resulting in the branch or stem being weakly attached and prone to fracturing (Shigo 1991; Smiley 2003). This may occur anywhere in the canopy from small branches to codominant stems and stem should be pruned back or the whole tree removed.
    Low branchingCanopy lift required. Branches low on the stem of a tree that has established or branches encroaching on the road or pathway. The removal of low branches earlier rather than later reduces the wound on the trunk. If branches were encroaching on paths or roads, they were also canopy lifted. These were listed as a fault to be pruned.
    Epicormic shoots“Sprouts upon the trunk” (Shigo 1991). They are not well attached to the trunk or stem and can present a hazard by breaking when they get larger.
    SuckersNormally arise from roots at or below the soil surface. They are often shoots from rootstock to which the tree was grafted. Suckers can be vigorous and are not the desired cultivar.
    Broken branchesBranch may not completely break off and continue to grow with a weak point becoming a danger. Broken branches were pruned.
    Broken stemsMain stem is broken. Most of these trees needed replacement due to the structural defect that existed.
    DeadwoodDeadwood in the canopy requiring removal. Usually coincides with a low health rating.
    Rubbing or crossingBranches rubbing against each other wound, which not only weakens the branch but provides an open wound for entry of pathogens. Removal eliminates the weak point; the tree can heal over quickly and the integrity of the tree is not compromised. Rubbing branches were pruned.
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Average price for arboricultural labor. Currency is represented in Australian dollars.

    BusinessPrice
    Company A$65/hour per person
    Company B$71.50/hour per person
    Average$68.25/hour per person
    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Height, caliper, structural defects, and the average number of pruning cuts required for all trees.

    Mean height (m)Mean caliper (mm)Mean number of pruning cut
    SecateursHandsawPole pruner
    All species4.3102.90.91.92.2
    Structural defects as a percentage of tree sample
    Codominant stemsIncluded barkLow branchingBroken branchesRubbing branches
    All species68.440.218.114.412.4
    Structural defects as a percentage of tree sample
    Epicormic ShootsBroken StemDead WoodNo structural defects
    All species2.92.31.122
    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Height, caliper, structural defects, and the average number of pruning cuts required for each species.

    SpeciesCorymbia citriodoraPlatanus × acerifoliaPyrus calleryanaQuercus palustrisUlmus parvifolia
    Number of trees sampled48104796552
    DimensionsMean height (m)4.34.63.75.23.8
    Mean caliper (mm)71.1124.770.9132.6100.1
    Number of pruning cutsMean secateurs0.60.71.50.41.4
    Mean handsaw0.32.91.90.43.2
    Mean pole pruner0.24.01.91.41.7
    Total average cuts1.07.65.32.26.3
    Structural defects as a percentage of species sample numberCodominant stems18.7544.260.866.292.3
    Included bark16.743.336.73.134.6
    Low branching8.310.623.141.317.3
    Rubbing branches2.12.916.520.013.5
    Broken branch(es)4.216.35.110.89.6
    Broken stem2.13.80.00.03.8
    Epicormic shoots0.01.93.81.53.8
    Deadwood2.11.00.00.00.0
    No structural defects60.43.825.321.53.8
    • View popup
    Table 7.

    Time trials.

    TypeNumber of cuts madeBranch size range (mm)Average branch size (mm)Time taken to prune (s)Average time of pruning (s)
    Secateurs109–1612.85–138.0
    Hand saw2619–9336.511–9024.8
    Pole pruning259–4817.6816–5326.12
    • View popup
    Table 8.

    Total time required for each species per tree.

    Time average per tree (seconds)
    SpeciesSecateursHandsawPole prunerTravel and inspection time (s)Total time (s)Total time per tree (hr)
    Corymbia citriodora4.66646.255.41583652.33220.0145
    Platanus × acerifolia5.923272.355103.750436218.02860.0606
    Pyrus calleryana11.949648.102549.366236145.41830.0404
    Quercus palustris3.44649.2336.80043685.47680.0237
    Ulmus parvifolia11.076879.327545.000836171.40510.0476
    • View popup
    Table 9.

    Travel time between trees (seconds).

    RepetitionTime taken (s)Average time (s)
    1606
    2585.8
    Total5.9
    • View popup
    Table 10.

    Total cost for each tree species. Currency is represented in Australian dollars.

    SpeciesTotal time (hr)Cost per tree ($)
    Corymbia citriodora0.0145$0.99
    Platanus × acerifolia0.0606$4.13
    Pyrus calleryana0.0404$2.76
    Quercus palustris0.0237$1.62
    Ulmus parvifolia0.0476$3.25
          Average Cost$2.79
    • View popup
    Table 11.

    Ninety-five percent confidence interval for the cost of pruning each species. Currency is represented in Australian dollars.

    SpeciesCountMean costSE mean95% CI
    Corymbia citriodora48$0.990.0808$0.83, $1.15
    Platanus × acerifolia104$4.130.185$3.77, $4.49
    Pyrus calleryana79$2.760.224$2.32, $3.20
    Quercus palustris65$1.620.091$1.44, $1.80
    Ulmus parvifolia52$3.250.248$2.76, $3.74
    • View popup
    Table 12.

    Projected costs assuming an inflation rate of 3%–5%. Currency is represented in Australian dollars.

    Year3%4%5%
    1$44.59$44.59$44.59
    20$78.19$93.94$112.68
    • View popup
    Table 13.

    Total cost for two formative pruning cycles for trees that have been formatively pruned prior to delivery from the nursery. Currency is represented in Australian dollars.

    Year3%4%5%
    1---
    4$3.05$3.14$3.23
    7$3.33$3.53$3.74
    Total$6.38$6.67$6.97
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 39 (1)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 39, Issue 1
January 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Arboricultural and Economic Benefits of Formative Pruning Street Trees
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
The Arboricultural and Economic Benefits of Formative Pruning Street Trees
C.M. Ryder, G.M. Moore
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2013, 39 (1) 17-24; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2013.004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Arboricultural and Economic Benefits of Formative Pruning Street Trees
C.M. Ryder, G.M. Moore
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2013, 39 (1) 17-24; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2013.004
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Arboricultural Labor
  • Cost Benefit Analysis
  • natural target pruning
  • tree management

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire