One First Matter All
Mame
I have done some research on preserving deadwood on deciduous trees, and I'm seeing conflicting advice (no big surprise there). On the one hand, some folks seem to think that trees naturally protect themselves from truly "dead" deadwood by creating a barrier between the dead tissue and living tissue. This seems right to me. On the other hand, I have read that, unless the truly "dead" deadwood is removed, it will continue to infect the living tissue of the tree. This seems wrong to me.
This discrepancy would not pose a problem except for the fact that people in the second camp suggest applying a wood hardener to preserve the truly "dead" deadwood and prevent it from continuing to rot the living tissue. By contrast, if the people in the first camp are right, then wood hardener would seem superfluous because the living tissue would already protect itself from further rot, allowing the deadwood to naturally slough off the tree over time. Yet, people in the first camp still routinely advise applying wood hardener, in apparent contradiction to their own views on how tree chemistry works.
In addition, the first camp folks, if correct, would also seem to caution against carving or otherwise removing the deadwood because doing so (i.e., with a carving tool like a Dremel, say) would risk penetrating the natural barrier created by the tree to protect it from the rotting parts of the tree. Thus, carving out the deadwood would actually invite the very rot that, according to first camp folks, does not occur because of the natural barrier.
Thoughts on any of this? Am I just way off the mark? Is carving deadwood (1) a risk to the natural barrier between living and dead issue that, nonetheless, (2) is worth it because it improves the aesthetic of tree, despite the fact that (3) such carving necessitates the use of a wood hardener that would not otherwise be required because of the previously mentioned natural barrier?
Thanks for any input!
This discrepancy would not pose a problem except for the fact that people in the second camp suggest applying a wood hardener to preserve the truly "dead" deadwood and prevent it from continuing to rot the living tissue. By contrast, if the people in the first camp are right, then wood hardener would seem superfluous because the living tissue would already protect itself from further rot, allowing the deadwood to naturally slough off the tree over time. Yet, people in the first camp still routinely advise applying wood hardener, in apparent contradiction to their own views on how tree chemistry works.
In addition, the first camp folks, if correct, would also seem to caution against carving or otherwise removing the deadwood because doing so (i.e., with a carving tool like a Dremel, say) would risk penetrating the natural barrier created by the tree to protect it from the rotting parts of the tree. Thus, carving out the deadwood would actually invite the very rot that, according to first camp folks, does not occur because of the natural barrier.
Thoughts on any of this? Am I just way off the mark? Is carving deadwood (1) a risk to the natural barrier between living and dead issue that, nonetheless, (2) is worth it because it improves the aesthetic of tree, despite the fact that (3) such carving necessitates the use of a wood hardener that would not otherwise be required because of the previously mentioned natural barrier?
Thanks for any input!