Its commonly done down south all the time, not just with pines. Its done naturally in the woods from limbs dying and falling off. Naturally in pastures from cattle eating folliage back. Winter should be a good time to prune. Amount trimmed off should not exceed 25% of total foliage, 10-15% is a better target, but not always attainable.

The pro's for doing this : easier access under trees, improved access for mowing, frees up view, makes trees more fire resistant, allows improved ventilation.

The con's : lose view blocking foliage, lose windbreak effectiveness.

hi

'limbing up' trees .. in this case conifers ... is to your whim ...

the only caveat is proper trimming practice.. meaning no stubs.. but leave the branch collar ...

there may be some bug issues.. and will defer to +om about such ... and it might matter what kind of pine ....

now suck it up.. and go teach them a lesson ... they wont care.. as they have no feelings...

ken

Well I disagree that it is okay to limb up conifers to your whim. My neighbor has limbed up all the spruces and firs on his lot to a ridiculous extent, something like 15+ feet. Not only does it look incredibly ugly, but in the past 5 years, two of them have toppled because they have become so top heavy. The most recent one uprooted in Tropical Storm Sandy.

Pines on the other hand seem to have a natural habit of dropping their lower branches as they age, so it doesn't seem to be as damaging to these species.

I personally would not remove many lower branches for a couple reasons - 1) Privacy and 2) Once all the lower foliage is removed, IMO it looks bare and weird looking. The trunks look like a bunch of jail cell bars. And then what do you do? It's difficult to grow stuff under the canopy of larger pines. I have to laugh when people limb up a patch of pines, rake out all the pine needles, and try to grow grass (!).

Perhaps consider the option of thinning or removing some of the trees?

I actually like White pines limbed up to 8 feet or so - In the wild, they tend to shed their lower branches. I like the look of tall, wispy pines with few lower branches - I also leave the carpet of needles.

Not only does it look incredibly ugly, but in the past 5 years, two of them have toppled because they have become so top heavy. The most recent one uprooted in Tropical Storm Sandy.

===>>> apparently terrenes whim.. is not her neighbors whim .... lol ... all the power to both of them ...

but to suggest they fell over.. due to a HURRICANE.. because they were trimmed up .. might be a bit of a stretch ...

if you think of a tree canopy.. as a sail on a sail boat ... removal of such.. should remove some wind resistance ... and the bottom is usually the greatest size.. surface volume-wise ..

regardless.. they are your trees.. in your garden.. and your way.. whatever strikes you ... is OK with me ...

when i am offered such a decision ... i usually find the most hidden one ... and give it a go ... and if i do NOT like the end product.. well.. i skip the rest ..

if i really dont like it.. i apply the chainsaw at ground level.. and summarily end its life.. lol ..

and if i do like it.. i continue with the project ... to MY whim ..

ken

Oldryder, I see no reason why you should not raise your pines up to the 6 ft. level as you wish. I like pines both when treated this way and when not. As many have mentioned, in the closer spacing of the forest setting, they shed these lower limbs anyway.

There is one very good reason to remove lower limbs on pines and other conifers....if they are being grown for timber. By removing the lower limbs, the value of that trunk for eventual saw log use is heightened considerably. Less knots in the finished product. But that of course is not what you're after, it seems. In any case, prune away, and any time other than spring bud break will be fine. I like doing such tasks when it's not hot, if
I have the choice.

+oM

Could you define pine? Many folks use the term for any needled tree.

My whim is that it is ok to limb up pines on occasion.
Not so nice to limb up firs, hemlocks or spruce.

tj

I trimmed up all my pine trees so we could see out of our windows. It looks great! I trimmed up 8ft with a chain saw and the property is still very upscale. I grew grass underneath and it looks awesome!!! Old men walked by and said good luck when I was planting seed - well guess what? I have grass under my pines & it looks beautiful!

As Ken said, cutting the lower branches does not somehow increase the wind resistance of the upper branches. It marginally decreases the overall moment of force caused by wind on the tree. The trees did not topple because they were limbed up, they toppled due to extraordinarily high winds...they would have toppled regardless.

IN a natural setting they eventually loose lower limbs unless they are in the open. Some here lost branches 15+ feet up, and thats in a "natural" setting.

Also, Topping up branches to an excessive amount can and will cause trees to become top heavy and catch more wind, and fall over. Think of it as a sail, if the tree (pine in this case) had its pyramid shape/lower limbs intact, they would spread the force of the wind across the whole tree, making the wind even and less damaging. If they are limbed up too high, all the wind will catch on the top of the tree, and put forces on the trunk causeing them to snap, or even up root. This goes for decidous trees as well. Pruning your trees to look like lillipops will usually cause breaking. However if there are enough plants around the trunk to take the wind, it wouldnt be as big of a problem.

To make it simple...... Take a stick and put a large heavy "sail" on the top third. Take a second stick and put a heavy large "Sail" that covers the entire stick. What one would be more likely to break

This is primarily a question of personal taste, as mentioned above. IMO, limbing-up pines can look OK if you have multiple trees in a "naturalistic" layout or in groves. But when planted as individual specimens or in geometric rows, I don't think they blend into the landscape when limbed up (especially in suburban lots).

I have been limbing spruces up pretty drastically, but none has ever toppled over even in storms where other spruces has fallen. Norway spruces, 80ft high and more than 2ft in diameter limbed up about half way to the top. Trees that stand at the edge of the forest and I do it to let light in. Pines use to do it by them self, I have never seen a mature pine with branches all the way down to the ground

I'm so happy that noone cut the lower branches from this Silver Fir at a Meeting House in Maryland. If the lower branches are cut it becomes just another ho hum conifer like any other.

I'm so happy that noone cut the lower branches of this C of L in Maryland. The outline and integrity of the tree habit are ruined when the lower branches are deliberately cut.

The OP says he has 3 doz pines in front of his house. Are they in a row, are they in irregular groupings, are they pines (as in Pinus) If they are truly pines, and close together they will shed lower branches naturally in time, problem solved.

The negative thing about deliberately cutting lower branches from conifers is that if you are unhappy with the look, they will never regenerate new growth from below.

I think lower branches should be left on trees because photosynthesis takes place though the needles and leaves. In the wild, the bottom branches die of over time after the upper branches have grown and matured. When you cut the lower branches, photosynthesis is reduced and the roots have less protection from temperature extremes. I think the trees look much prettier & healthier in their natural state. I've seen where beautiful young trees had been stripped of their lower branches and looked more & more sickly as time went on. Trees left intact tend to look healthier and live longer.

I'm with Terrene and Diane on this one. I think limbed trees look incredibly ugly. Yes, eventually white pines lose their lower branches due to lack of sunlight I guess, but I let Mother Nature decide when that should happen.

I have a semi-weeping crabapple in my front yard that is a royal pain to mow under, but I would sooner cut off my thumbs than trim the lower branches. It is beautiful!

Funny.

My main species metasequoia is an open grown tree since it was a foot tall. I like the gnarly trunk and I have left the lower limbs on accordingly.

My metasequoia "ogon" maybe got more shad or maybe like the other ogon clones I have seen grew with fewer low branches. I like it.

Ha, I can enjoy them both. People who can only enjoy blondes leave a bar full of beautiful brunettes empty handed.

I only limbed up a small grove of Eastern Hemlocks which were underplanted with ferns and other woodland shade lovers (like huggorm mentioned above) and probably improved air circulation. But everything else, I let grow to the ground (Magnolia grandifloras, Metasequoias among others). Limbed up trees are more prone to animal damage (mostly deer rutting). Most of my trees are so dense there is no way for the deer to get close to the trunks.

My pines are Austrian and blue spruce. They all look better without the lower branches & like I said earlier in the post, I was able to grow grass under them just fine.

Manyof the comments are about liking a certain look. The tree will be fine. Do what U like. It's subjective.

I would raise the crown of a pinus without much fuss - might be less inclined with other conifers - abies would look...ridiculous. But in any case, didn't you say you had a few? So try pruning a couple of them - see how you like it, how the trees respond, how it looks overall? This is not one special precious specimen you are talking about here - have a go...in summer, usually, is when I do most of my evergreen cutting.

Just noticed that this is an old post - so did you do it?

A gardener at the NY Botanical Garden taught me something about limbing up the lower bare branches of conifers. They do it with the knowledge that these branches act as scaffolding that keeps the lateral branching shape of the branches above. When they are removed, the ones above will eventually droop. Now a drooping conifer can be a graceful thing of beauty, if that's what you're after..

Mine did not droop but they are also massive old trees, not small ones, perhaps this is why. (The trees were about 25yrs old when I took off their lower branches 10 years ago. )

Got to wonder if oldryder is still with this conversation....as it rages on.

+om

Removing the lower branches of trees reduces photosynthesis and the roots don't get protection from temperature extremes. The lower branches naturally fall off in forests when the trees have mature and upper branches have grown larger blocking out the the lower branches. The larger branches have produced more needles making up for the loss of lower branches. The trunks become wider as the tree ages. Cutting off the lower branches of young trees results in the trees not taking as much carbon dioxide to feed itself. In other words, the fewer needles, the less food it takes in.

Leaving the lower branches on the trees makes sense when it comes the tree's health and development. I personally prefer the natural look to the chopped up indoor plant appearance.

That is too much and the trees would look ugly and unnatural. The photosynthesis takes place through the needles and leaves of trees so when you cut off the branches, you are taking away their food source. In the forest, the lower branches fall off when the upper branches grow much larger producing more needles, making up for the loss of their lower branches. So actually, there isn't decrease in the photosynthesis. So this doesn't occur until the tree has matured more and the upper branches block the lower branches from the sunlight the lower branches die.

I did the pruning three winters ago, cut off all the branches up to about 6'. I am very pleased with the result; the trees create an area that is almost church like, a foot deep in pine needles, quiet and cool in the summer. When I give people a tour of my property I always drive thru the area and everyone loves it. It was a LOT of work.

Thanks for the update. If it worked for you, that's great.

Each to their own but it seems that people on this site don't understand biology or howphotosynthesis works. I had discussed this with my biology instructor in the past and he was in agreement and said people want everything regularly shaped. Why people want to have grass under trees to mow is beyond me. They aren't indoor plants They are outdoor plants exposed to different temperatures, , etc. I rest my case here.

I bought a home with an old pine tree. I love the tree! The previous owner butchered/trimmed the lower branches. It's about 50 years old I think, so the trunk is large. I have fertilized it and water only during droughts...It has new growth on top. Is there anything I can do for new limb growth??? Thanks for your help..

I like my pines limbed up some and spruce down to the ground.

There is no lack of any photosynthesis when a mature pine, specially something like a white pine, has its lower limbs removed!! That argument is a complete fallacy unless you remove a significant portion of the branch system. When it happens on its own it's a form of natural pruning so there is nothing particularly 'bad' or negative about doing so yourself....you are just accelerating the process.

Conifers - with almost no exceptions - do not regenerate lower branches that have been removed, either naturally or by man. Growth will always be focused on the top or where the apical meristem is located and to a lesser extent, on the branch or branchlet tips.

As noted, some conifers do this naturally - certain pine species and Doug firs - while others do not and are best left as is and not limbed up.

btw, a 50 y.o. conifer will not ever need watering or fertilizing unless in very unusual circumstances!!

Blue spruce readily regrows lower branches when limbed up, I've noticed. That's about the only conifer I've noticed that will do that, though.

I have never seen or heard of that happening with any type of spruce. Limbed up ones here just look like conifer lollipops!!

I'll post some pictures

I've take off a small layer of lower limbs on Baby Blue Spruce and Fat Albert. They seem fine and it actually looks like I need to do it again. I just feel like it drags on the ground and needs some space under. ??? I have a big Colorado Spruce that I'd like to trim under too? It's getting huge?

There is a absolutely no fallacy to my statement, as I said earlier this was discussed with my biology professor and he was in agreement. Humans don't speed up photosynthesis when they remove healthy branches from evergreens/fir trees. That isn't possible since the process takes place through the leaves and needles. The proper way to prune is to remove the dead branches and maintain the natural shape of the tree.

I just feel like it drags on the ground and needs some space under. ???

==>> actually ... given a big enough garden.. many conifer collectors specifically collect trees the 'skirt' ... that is.. grow to the ground and spread out ...

but then.. i have 5 acres ... and space for such ...

besides... once you lift the canopy.. you have to weed and mulch in the bare ground you created ..

all that said ... its your plants.. do whatever you want with them .. make yourself happy ... and who cares what the rest of us say .. or think ...

ken

btw:.. a horticulturist walks into a bar and sees a biologist .. and says to himself.. who cares ..lol ... and his friend says.. but hes a professor ... and the horticulturist says... so what ...

well this is an epic fail...lol: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=conifer+skirts&iax=images&ia=images

somewhat better: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pendulous+conifer+that+grow+to+the+ground+and+create+skirts&t=ffnt&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

do whatever you want to your trees ... ken

I have 5 50 year old trees in my small backyard, no acreage. One blue spruce was limbed up already when we moved in, its close to the house and the lower bedroom would have had no light if it had been left. It's up to nearly 10 feet which is probably more than I'd like. Another spruce was pushing the fence over, so I limbed it up 6 ft. The yard feels so much bigger now that I'm thinking of doing the other three as well, but I read that it could weaken the tree. We do have frequent windstorms, two severe ones already since we moved in four months ago. I do love the look of the fully skirted trees, but they are just much too big for the yard. I'm thinking of woodland underplantings to give depth and layers to the shade might help the popsicle look.

This spring I limbed up a half dozen cypress and cedars. When they were planted by the previous owner 15 years ago to screen the yard. Today we have good neighbors on that side. They have planted azaleas in the shared natural area. Since we have azaleas in our part of the natural area it made sense to limb them up so we could enjoy the azaleas in both yards

Part of the trees limbed up on the same side, and they were limbed up because I got tired of getting hit in the face when trying to mow around them.

The original owner also planted cypress and cedars on the other side of the lot. Today because of the neighbors with their chickens and several hundreds of cords of wood stacked in their messy back yard, those trees have not been limbed up. In fact we have been reinforcing the privacy screen with high growing flowering bushes to fill in the gaps in the trees.