Trees "calculate" which branches to drop based on data they gather as they grow. A competent and experienced arborist knows how to read the tree and simply safely cut off the branches that the tree was already intending to drop so that it doesn't fall on your house or whatever. Inexperienced arborists often ignore this key dendrology fact and may totally butcher your tree. In the process they can create an even larger risk of a tree falling over onto your house during a storm

It's called cladoptosis (basically self-pruning) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladoptosis

EDIT: since I'm on the topic of bad tree trimming, NEVER TOP YOUR TREES https://www.arborday.org/tree-resources/dont-top-trees

I'm an arborist since 2022 in the UK and yes, never top trees. But...

There's three scenarios that come to mind in which it's somewhere between "acceptable" and "totally fine for some reason".

One, it's conifer hedge (the types popular in the UK) as these typically respond very well to being topped. It's what makes them a nice tidy hedge. I'm specifically referring to hedges above 3 meters in height. If you ever worked a hedge like this you'll quickly realise the topped stems are the platform to work off. These hedges can be maintained like this for years. For some reason, topped hedges are completely fine with being topped.

Two, it's either topping or removing. Arguably neither is ideal, but some retention is better than no retention. Topping puts the tree on senescence pathway and gives the ecology time to transition from alive to dead and dying. Whereas removal just makes the local fauna get confused about where the tree went.

Three, veteranisation in woodland settings. If there's a distinct lack of standing deadwood and age variation in a population of species in a given woodland NVC type, the topping and verteranising could be a positive management approach on a sample of trees.

This advice is very specific to the UK and especially on point three to the NVC woodland types. Generally though, prune properly at the correct locations, using proper technique being mindful of the structural loads and balancing of the tree. Topping generally, "because reasons" isn't an ideal approach at all.

> Topping puts the tree on senescence pathway and gives the ecology time to transition from alive to dead and dying.

Is this why the council recently topped a tree on my road that's been breaking up the pavement? We thought they were cutting it down since they dug up all the tarmac around it, but they just knocked the top off, taking something like 98% of the leaves with it, and then put fresh tarmac over the exposed roots. We've been puzzling over that for a week...

>NEVER TOP YOUR TREES

they do it where I live because the branches bang against apartments' windows when it's windy. I don't think there's another low-maintenance solution.

Coppicing or pollarding are both well-historied techniques that can be used to keep trees growing short. They differ significantly from topping and require a lot of expertise. They also have to be started when the tree is young

This is often not useful advice, as it is common to acquire responsibility for a tree than has been badly managed. The GP's link actually gives a solution for this case: pruning more accurately over a slightly longer period.

More generally, I've found as the maintainer of a building that while mainstream practices (of property generally, not specifically trees) often undershoot good practice, heritage techniques are often impractically expensive, and function more as a status signalling mechanism than really as a way of doing better. Even more generally, economy-wide; there is a tendency to criticise the mainstream but then promote expensive, semi-artisanal products and services, which while better, simply offer an escape valve to pressure for reform. Better techniques can only benefit the populace as a whole if they are cost reduced under the discipline of serving the mass market, not just offered as a premium version for the well-to-do.

Well I agree it'd be ideal for our society would be organized in such a way that effective semi-artisanal trades are cheaper than practices that do more harm than good.

The real advice I should've given was to construct protection for a window or hire a certified arborist to do a proper thinning of the canopy. But I wanted to remain on the topic of interest dendrology info

Fascinating! Where is this data stored? I love the idea of a Tree DB queried via TreeSQL.

It's basically a decentralized algorithm involving sugar defecits, auxin signalling, calcium flooding whenever cells stretch (due to gravity or wind), and ethylene release.

Trees can use all these signals to know which branches are being shaded or dealing with a lot of wind, which side it's being pulled towards more, etc.

Trees also optimize for their overall wind profile. Dropping branches that cause it more drag than they are worth in the sugar they make. The lower their wind profile, the lower the risk of the whole tree being uprooted during a storm.

When humans cut the wrong branches, it throws everything off balance.

Because they B-Trees?

>NEVER TOP YOUR TREES

Kind of annoying when all the fruit is several meters out of reach

I'd like to grow bonzai. I have zero prior knowledge. I suppose what you mention applies. Would you happen to have any good resource that applies to bonzai science please?

Imo the title here buries the lede: we've known that trees form tension wood in response to external stress. This study claims to find that trees will form it in response only to their own curvature, independent of external factors even including gravity. They compare it to proprioception. That's neat!

Let me take this opportunity to remind HN readers - Posture & Hydration Check!

Or: drink when you feel thirsty and change your position when your back gets tired.

Yes, the science has moved to "drink when you're thirsty" a long time ago and it's annoying how many people believe drinking 3 liters of water per day is a key tenant of human health.

(most of) Our bodies are quite good at telling us when we should drink more water. You should never be forcing yourself to drink

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-mi...

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/313389

All that being said, I'm not sure GP was necessarily endorsing the idea that you should drink a certain amount of water a day. I read it as a suggestion to pull away from the screen and listen to your body

But why? unless it’s a copious amount of water like a gallon or more in an hour or two or something insane like that what is the problem with drinking water? I would assume it would just have positive effects.

> "You can become dehydrated if you take in too little. And you can actually cause problems, such as exercise-induced low sodium or hyponatremia, if you take in too much," says Dr. Sara Filmalter, a Mayo Clinic family physician. "So the general rule of thumb at this point among physicians is to drink to thirst."

I've often read (sorry, no citations handy) that by the time you notice / feel thirst, you've already been dehydrated for some time. And chronic (mild) dehydration is much more common than hyponatremia. I'll always err on the side of drinking water whenever it occurs to me (and deliberately starting my morning with 16-20oz on waking) instead of waiting to feel thirsty.

Some folks' interrupts are buggy, so they resort to polling.

ADHD hyperfocus disables most interrupts.. very task efficient, at the expense of all else :/