Any trees *bad* for coppicing?

There are many posts here listing trees that coppice well ... are there trees that do not coppice at all?  

Hmmmm,

Silver Maple certainly will grow fast and actually coppice well, but the wood quality is among the worst.  It has a low heating value, a high water content and therefore takes a long time to dry out.  The wood itself is weak and subject to rotting quickly.  The seeds are generally a nuisance (though they will quickly reproduce so there is that).  They are a fast growing shade tree and are probably best for that single application.  But I would not use them for coppicing unless I had no other alternative.

Eric

Generally conifers will not coppice at all, while most deciduous broadleaf trees will.

But they need to be coppiced at an appropriate point in their growth cycle (not too old) or they may not resprout at all.

One of the big factors with long term coppice viability is what happens to the stool over the period of a few coppice cycles. Chestnut and hazel do really; they resprout vigorously from the stool. Others can succumb to stool root, and while they may coppice and regrow a couple of times, the stool may collapse after a few cyles.

Chestnut and hazel stools will coppice essentially indefinitely. In our woods we are managing coppice stools that are at least 400 years old, and potentially are contemporary with the roman presence in Britain. The Romans were the first to bring sweet chestnut to the UK.

Michael, I think that I have a different experience (or definition?) of coppicing with regards to conifers.

When damaged at the top, a pine (white pine/pinus strobus, in my area) will turn one remaining upper branch (or more) upward to become a new leader. I've also seen it with blue spruce and some sorts of Christmas tree fir.
There was a local man with a cut-your-own Christmas tree farm who would let you cut whatever tree, wherever you wanted. So, if you liked the top of a 14 foot tree, you could cut it 5 feet off the ground and leave the "stump" behind.
One year when buying a 16 foot tree from him, we found just such a tree over 20 feet tall, that had sent three equal leaders up from a stool 4 feet tall. We cut it and left a 2 foot stool behind...

My question for Mark would be: Could this a viable business model for a Christmas tree farm, versus the clear-cutting and succession planting model? Considering the size of the remaining rootstock, would a replacement leader grow to a market-sized tree more quickly than a seedling?
Not to mention the potential for pruning back some of the competing branches for other decorative uses...

Kenneth Elwell wrote:
My question for Mark would be: Could this a viable business model for a Christmas tree farm, versus the clear-cutting and succession planting model? Considering the size of the remaining rootstock, would a replacement leader grow to a market-sized tree more quickly than a seedling?
Not to mention the potential for pruning back some of the competing branches for other decorative uses...

There's a Christmas tree operation in my province, (British Columbia, Canada), that does essentially that. I don't think it's considered "true coppicing", because you have to leave branches below your cut point - the one you cut at 2 feet off the ground may not regrow a third time. Mark's book does have some info about the few evergreens that this works for. This might be a good small side business for a farm that's close to an urban area, as they could get a bit of winter income on a very local cycle. Offer to take the tree back after New Years and turn it into firewood and mulch!

Several years ago there were several threads about how Christmas trees have the tops cut out.  I did some research and found out that procedure is called "Crowning".

I am also very interested in both coppice and pollard so I looked that up.

Here is what Wikipedia had to say:

Coppicing is a traditional method of woodland management which exploits the capacity of many species of trees to put out new shoots from their stump or roots if cut down. In a coppiced wood, which is called a copse, young tree stems are repeatedly cut down to near ground level, resulting in a stool.

Pollarding is a similar process carried out at a higher level on the tree in order to prevent grazing animals from eating new shoots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing

The question asked are there "trees that do not coppice at all?"
All I have been able to find are which trees are best.

From experience, I would say Junipers and Cedars are not good candidates. Cut them at ground level and these trees do not come back.  

I've been fascinated by the fascination with coppicing here on permies. I'd never heard of coppicing (or pollarding) before spending time here. It just isn't a thing where I live in Kentucky. I've seen a lot of trees, from small to huge, cut off at the ground. Many just die, while some may put out new growth. I've noticed the new growth is almost always quite stunted, and often only lasts a few years at most before dying. Perhaps the timing, size, etc. just isn't right for them to survive, but I suspect it's the environment as well. We tend to have heavy clay soil, which is not particularly conducive to growing a lot of stuff anyway, and tend to have a lot of fungi and bacteria and high humidity. I suspect the rot happens faster than the plant can regrow and sustain its roots. So while I don't have specific species that would be poor choices, I would venture a guess that any species that are particularly susceptible to rot in your area, or maybe even soil borne diseases in general may be a poor choice. Maybe slow-growing ones may also be more susceptible to failure, but this is just conjecture on my part.

I've read that trees over a certain age are not good candidates. I don't remember it as being like an "off switch", but for some reason 35 years of age or older are much less likely to resprout is floating in my brain. The problem is that there are sooo... many different tree species and this could be affected by growing conditions where the tree is, that even if one were to experiment on some trees on their land, it wouldn't necessarily apply to a similar tree in a much different eco-system. Coppiced oak trees are sometimes cut on a 50 year rotation, but they are established as coppiced trees and the article didn't say when the first cut was done or whether they tried to coppice 50 trees for the first time at 50 years of age and only some survived.

Due to the availability of cheaper materials than coppiced wood for the last 70+ years, much of this sort of knowledge is lost. Unfortunately, there may be a certain need for "reinventing the wheel"!

Jay Angler wrote:I've read that trees over a certain age are not good candidates. I don't remember it as being like an "off switch", but for some reason 35 years of age or older are much less likely to resprout is floating in my brain.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that it takes buds to form new shoots. An older tree with thick bark is less likely to have buds so low to the ground. I would say pollarding would have a better chance of success on older trees.

Also, if a tree is old and big, it will have an appropriately sized root system. A few small shoots growing over a few years would likely not have the photosynthesizing power to support such a massive root system, which would likely start rotting away. That gets back to my perceived issue, rot outpacing the tree's ability to resist it and grow.

Jay Angler wrote:I've read that trees over a certain age are not good candidates. I don't remember it as being like an "off switch", but for some reason 35 years of age or older are much less likely to resprout is floating in my brain. The problem is that there are sooo... many different tree species and this could be affected by growing conditions where the tree is, that even if one were to experiment on some trees on their land, it wouldn't necessarily apply to a similar tree in a much different eco-system.

It does seem to vary a lot.  The redwoods around here that were 500+ years old and were cut send up new suckers that become trees, and many of these are now over 100ft tall - usually a cluster of five or ten or twenty trunks all together.  None of these anywhere have reached old age yet however, so we don't really know how they will fare in the long term.

Philip McGarvey wrote:It does seem to vary a lot.  The redwoods around here that were 500+ years old and were cut send up new suckers that become trees, and many of these are now over 100ft tall - usually a cluster of five or ten or twenty trunks all together.  None of these anywhere have reached old age yet however, so we don't really know how they will fare in the long term.

I'd heard that about redwoods! I wonder what will happen as the trunks expand and run into each other. I expect they'll mold together, but will there remain weak points and spots where disease will enter or will their base be wider and therefor the combined trees stronger than a single seed?  Do you know how the spacing works for the redwoods?

However, you use the word "sucker" - I'm thinking my recollection is that they formed from the roots, rather than the trunk, so technically not "coppicing". This tendency of some plants to put up new trees from existing roots - Seaberry (Hippophae rhamnoides) for example - can be both an asset and a curse. With coppicing from an open field, the planner gets to choose which trees and where they go, to provide spacing both for optimal growth of the sort desired, and ease of harvest. With suckering, Mother Nature does much of the "choosing"!

Gary Numan wrote:There are many posts here listing trees that coppice well ... are there trees that do not coppice at all?  

Hi Gary
Your question has largely been answered in a very general way here by a number of people. Basically most broadleaf (deciduous) species will sprout when cut (assuming they aren't too old and also get good sunlight), whereas few conifers will coppice in the true sense.

The big variable with conifers lies in how much you leave after cutting because as a few people brought up, there's a technique called 'stump culture' management that's used with many conifers that allows you to manage an existing conifer by cutting all but the lower 2-3 whorls of branches (or at least leaving some low branches) in place. I'll write a bit more on that in response to someone else's comment on the thread.

Kenneth Elwell wrote:Michael, I think that I have a different experience (or definition?) of coppicing with regards to conifers.

When damaged at the top, a pine (white pine/pinus strobus, in my area) will turn one remaining upper branch (or more) upward to become a new leader. I've also seen it with blue spruce and some sorts of Christmas tree fir.
There was a local man with a cut-your-own Christmas tree farm who would let you cut whatever tree, wherever you wanted. So, if you liked the top of a 14 foot tree, you could cut it 5 feet off the ground and leave the "stump" behind.
One year when buying a 16 foot tree from him, we found just such a tree over 20 feet tall, that had sent three equal leaders up from a stool 4 feet tall. We cut it and left a 2 foot stool behind...

My question for Mark would be: Could this a viable business model for a Christmas tree farm, versus the clear-cutting and succession planting model? Considering the size of the remaining rootstock, would a replacement leader grow to a market-sized tree more quickly than a seedling?
Not to mention the potential for pruning back some of the competing branches for other decorative uses...

l
Dang! I just wrote a long response and then accidentally left this tab. Ok, second try...

So yes, Kenneth - you're absolutely right. Again, this is what I know of as stump culture. And I've seen it many times in white pines following a damaged top/weevil damage.

And yes, this is an actual model for a Christmas tree farm that has precedent. In my book, I profile Emmet van Drieshe and the Pieropan Christmas tree farm in Massachusetts where they use stump culture to continue to produce Christmas trees and wreath making materials from trees originally planted over 60 years ago. https://www.pieropantrees.com/

Emmet seemed to think there isn't any reason why any conifer wouldn't respond positively to this management (assuming they're not too old, in relatively good health and get good sunlight).

Also, if you'd like your minds blown - check out the ancient Japanese technique used for a type of cypress/cedar trees called daisugi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisugi

Sooo cool!

Mark Krawczyk wrote:
Dang! I just wrote a long response and then accidentally left this tab. Ok, second try...

So yes, Kenneth - you're absolutely right. Again, this is what I know of as stump culture. And I've seen it many times in white pines following a damaged top/weevil damage.

And yes, this is an actual model for a Christmas tree farm that has precedent. In my book, I profile Emmet van Drieshe and the Pieropan Christmas tree farm in Massachusetts where they use stump culture to continue to produce Christmas trees and wreath making materials from trees originally planted over 60 years ago. https://www.pieropantrees.com/

Emmet seemed to think there isn't any reason why any conifer wouldn't respond positively to this management (assuming they're not too old, in relatively good health and get good sunlight).

Also, if you'd like your minds blown - check out the ancient Japanese technique used for a type of cypress/cedar trees called daisugi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisugi

Sooo cool!

Thank you Mark! My mind blown just by the first part of your reply... Incredible that they are near enough to me for a day trip (I'm in Eastern Massachusetts) and with nearly the same growing conditions, I'll be reaching out to them for sure!
Now my Christmas book list has grown even longer, your book, Emmet's books...

Jordan Holland wrote:I've been fascinated by the fascination with coppicing here on permies. I'd never heard of coppicing (or pollarding) before spending time here. It just isn't a thing where I live in Kentucky. I've seen a lot of trees, from small to huge, cut off at the ground. Many just die, while some may put out new growth. I've noticed the new growth is almost always quite stunted, and often only lasts a few years at most before dying. Perhaps the timing, size, etc. just isn't right for them to survive, but I suspect it's the environment as well. We tend to have heavy clay soil, which is not particularly conducive to growing a lot of stuff anyway, and tend to have a lot of fungi and bacteria and high humidity. I suspect the rot happens faster than the plant can regrow and sustain its roots. So while I don't have specific species that would be poor choices, I would venture a guess that any species that are particularly susceptible to rot in your area, or maybe even soil borne diseases in general may be a poor choice. Maybe slow-growing ones may also be more susceptible to failure, but this is just conjecture on my part.

Might these "stunted" trees be stunted because deer are eating them?