Yeah, that can be tough when it's progressed to this point. I know of plenty of flowering crabs I've pruned over the years having the same situation. So, all you can do is make a choice which branch to cut back or remove completely-to get rid of the rubbing stuff......or....and this is only for low-growing ornamental trees.....live with it. After all, what's the worst thing that could happen here? Sometimes, I'll leave a rubber like that rather than ruin the shape and structure of such a tree. But again, we're not talking a 90 ft. maple here, just a low, squatty ornamental tree.

+oM

Something definitely should be done if the tree matters to you. Branches rubbing like this is a big welcome mat for pests and disease. The simplest way to deal with it in most cases is to remove one of the limbs.

I've looked and looked at the pictures and can't tell for sure exactly what's going on in them. For instance, in the second picture, it looks as if the lower of the two rubbing branches may have been stub-cut at one time. Maybe it's just a weird bend coupled with the angle at which the picture was taken. I just can't tell. Also, is that small dead branch growing from the lower limb? In either case, the dead limb should be pruned out properly.

Ha--it does look like one of the branches was stub-cut, doesn't it? I hadn't noticed. It was not--it just bends suddenly. I will try and get clearer picture tomorrow.

My issue is that when I held the branches apart, it looks like they are equally bad where they abut. So I wasn't sure if I had to prune both. I would prefer to save at least one, but is there a way for me to deal with the wound?

If you remove one of the branches, the tree will take care of the wound (if it can). If rot is not present (again, hard to tell from the pictures), things will begin improving immediately and you'll probably be able to see a noticeable difference by late next summer.

Here is another angle. I can't tell about rot. I am thinking of pruning the bottom branch. It is slightly thinner. What do you think?

i cant really tell anything from these pix ...

whichever you choose ... one trick is to make multiple cuts .... start removing weight from the end .... so the last cut... can be made easier.. and without tearing into the bark at the trunk ...

first pic ... whats the flecking on the main trunk ... that goes up into the branch that nearly points to noon??? .. if lichens.. fine ...

a sawzall with a tree blade would make easy work of this... otherwise a tree saw ...

where are you.. and how old is this plant ....

ken

The dogwood is at least 20 years old. Zone 6b. The flecking peeled bark.

if self peeling ... it bothers me ... watch next spring.. and see what the vigor is.. of that branch .... wouldnt surprise me if its in decline ...

wonder what the lifespan of Ds is?? ... anyone??? .. i am sure there are very old ones ... i am asking in regard to trees in the lawn in suburbia ... perhaps improperly planted.. etc ....

it might be an overly mature tree.. and IT MIGHT BE TIME to consider removal and replacement ... maybe in 5 or so years ...

in the mean time ... its a great tree to learn how to prune on .... etc ...

whatever the problems.. its not hungry.. fert is not an option ...

ken

A healthy dogwood growing in a good environment (above and below ground) can live for 60, 70, 80 years and it wouldn't be unusual at all.

HERE'S A PICTURE of a stunning specimen (RIP) that resided in the City of Huntsville Botanical Garden until it was felled at the age of 120.

HERE'S ANOTHER SPECIMEN , reported to be the oldest and largest known dogwood in the country.

Again, based on (lots of) experience, for such small, low-growing trees, there's relatively little harm in just leaving it be. We're not going for perfection here-if we were, such matters would always and in every case be dealt with before they get to this point-but just what's reasonable and likely to matter. As such, this doesn't make the cut (buh dum bum) in my opinion. On the other hand, if one or the other rubbing branch can be removed without ruining the plant's structure and aesthetic appeal, then go for it. But just not a big deal either way. Sure, sure, rot can be the result of such wounding, but even there, it's not the kind of wounding that leads to heart rot any time soon. And heart rot is the type of decay that can move upward and downward fairly rapidly in a tree, not surface abrasion like this.

+oM

Cut off all of the one side branch coming across from the right in the one picture to interfere with the other branch which is above it where they cross. Then leave the tree alone - Kousa and other flowering dogwoods are only spoiled by pruning, due to how they branch. Especially when the specimen being cut on is 20+ years old.

can live for 60, 70, 80 years and it wouldn't be unusual at all.

==>>> good to know ...

ken

"HERE'S ANOTHER SPECIMEN, reported to be the oldest and largest known dogwood in the country."

I'm not sure about the oldest age claim. The VA Tech tree age guideline list the average life expectancy of Cornus florida as 125 years, so the Matthis Family tree would not seem "all that old" at around 170 years old. I haven't seen any other specimen of this particular species reported to be of a record age, so who knows.

The claim of this tree being the largest is odd. The current champion is 67' tall (compared to 31' for the Matthis tree), has a crown spread of 66' (compared to 48' for the Matthis tree), and comes in at 174 points (compared to 157 for the Matthis tree). The trunk circumference of the Matthis tree is exceptional, but the rest of it's measurements aren't so much for around here.

Which species are you talking about?

The tree in Rhizo's link (the Matthis Family tree) is a Cornus florida. Other dogwood species grow even larger than Cornus florida, but surely the claims regarding the Matthis tree were not meant to include other dogwood species. If so, the claims are even more inaccurate. Maybe at one time, the Matthis tree was the known champion (if so, it would have been due to the trunk circumference), but it's not now.

The tree in my picture--in our front yard--is a hybrid of some sort. They were planted all over our development when the houses were built some 20 years ago and, unlike "real" dogwoods, grow fairly well in an open yard in full sun.

It looks like a Cornus kousa to me. The bark is the main clue as well as the branching pattern, not like Cornus florida at all.

Mike

There may be some confusion here because we are talking about different things (kinda got side-tracked, I guess). My last couple of posts were not about Enmnm's tree, but about Rhizo's link. I think the topic came up merely because we were talking about dogwoods, generally.

In regards to the Matthis Family tree, I saw a couple of sources that ID'd it as Cornus florida, so I assume that's what it is. I really never saw pictures sufficient for me to positively ID it, independently.