King Garden Designs, Inc. | 914-907-0246
King Garden Designs, Inc. is a boutique landscape design company located in New York. Charles King Sadler, King Garden Designs founder, enjoys creating and enhancing the beauty and vitality of landscapes through thoughtful design, professional implementation and ongoing care.
Member American Society of Landscape Architects, Member American Boxwood Society, Member European Boxwood and Topiary Society and ISA Certified Arborist TRAQ
King Garden Designs are experts at successfully performing structural pruning for your developing trees; ensuring they grow into safe and sustainable mature trees; thus beautifying your community, campus, corporate headquarters or institution. We utilize Native plantings and drought tolerant plantings.
We meet to discuss your goals, timing and budget during your street tree pruning consultation.
Master Plan, Street Trees, Garden Design, Garden Care, Expert Pruning, Landscaping Services, ISA Certified Arborist Assessment, ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, Expert Pruning, Cloud Pruning, Landscaping Consultations, Landscaping Property Over Site, Landscape Design, Property Care, Landscape Maintenance.
Landscape and Garden Design for Westchester County, NY; Putnam County, NY, Dutchess County, NY; Fairfield County, CT; Bergen County, NJ
Best Landscaping Based In Westchester county, Bergen county, NJ; Fairfield county, Dutchess county, Putnam county, Litchfield county, New Haven county, Berkshire county, Hampden county, Hampshire county, Franklin county and beyond including:
Amagansett, Ardsley, Ardsley Park, Armonk, Atlanta, Barney Park, Bar Harbor, Bedford, Bedminster Township, Bellaire TX, Block Island, Briarcliff Manor, Bridgehampton, Bronxville, Charleston, Chappaqua, Cold Spring, Cornwall, Cornwall-on-Hudson, Croton Falls, Croton-on-Hudson, Danbury, East Hampton, East Northport, East Quogue, Fairfield, Fishers Island, Garrison, Glen Cove, Great Barrington, Galleria TX, Greatneck, Greenburgh, Greenwich, Harrison, Hampton Bays, Hartsdale, Heights TX, Hudson, Huntington, Irvington, Katonah, Kent, Larchmont, Locust Valley, Litchfield, Matthiessen Park, Martha's Vineyard Island, Mamaroneck, Montauk, Millbrook, Mohegan Lake, Mount Desert, Mount Desert Island, Mount Kisco, Nantucket Island, Nanuet, New Canaan, New City, New Paltz, Newburgh, North Salem, North White Plains, Northport, Norwalk, Nyack, Oakland, Old Greenwich, Oyster Bay, Piermont, Pittsford, Philipse Manor, Pleasantville, Port Washington, Pound Ridge, Purchase, Purdys, River Oaks TX, Quiogue, Ouogue, Ramsey, Red Hook, Redding, Rhinebeck, Ridgefield, Ridgewood, Riverhead, Rowayton, Rye, Rye Brook, Sag Harbor, Savannah, Scarsdale, Sharon, Shelter Island, Shinnecock Hills, Smithtown, Somers, South Salem, Southampton, Water Mill, West Harrison, West University TX, Westhampton, Westhampton Beach, White Plains, Wilton, Wyckoff, Yorktown Heights
Atherton, California (San Mateo); Cherry Hills Village, Colorado (Arapahoe); Scarsdale, New York (Westchester); Hillsborough, California (San Mateo); Short Hills, New Jersey (Essex); Old Greenwich, Connecticut (Fairfield); Los Altos Hills, California (Santa Clara); Bronxville, New York (Westchester); Darien, Connecticut (Fairfield); Winnetka, Illinois (Cook); Great Falls, Virginia (Fairfax); Glencoe, Illinois (Cook); Indian Hill, Ohio (Hamilton); Highland Park, Texas (Dallas); Piedmont, California (Alameda); West University Place, Texas (Harris); Greenville, New York (Westchester); Kentfield, California (Marin); Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (Bergen); Ladue, Missouri (St. Louis); Indian River Shores, Florida (Indian River); Westport, Connecticut (Fairfield); McLean, Virginia (Fairfax); Travilah, Maryland (Montgomery); Montecito, California (Santa Barbara); New Albany, Ohio (Franklin); University Park, Texas (Dallas); Paradise Valley, Arizona (Maricopa); Rye, New York (Westchester); Larchmont, New York (Westchester); Lake Forest, Illinois (Lake); Town and Country, Missouri (St. Louis); Inverness, Illinois (Cook); North Caldwell, New Jersey (Essex); Palm Beach, Florida (Palm Beach); Wolf Trap, Virginia (Fairfax); Los Altos, California (Santa Clara); Palos Verdes Estates, California (Los Angeles); Hinsdale, Illinois (Cook); Wellesley, Massachusetts (Norfolk); Franklin Lakes, New Jersey (Bergen); Southlake, Texas (Denton); Rumson, New Jersey (Monmouth); Potomac, Maryland (Montgomery); Riverside, California (Fairfield); Orinda, California (Contra Costa); Bellaire, Texas (Harris); Malibu, California (Los Angeles); Upper Montclair, New Jersey (Essex); Lawrence, New York (Nassau); Woodbury, New York (Nassau); Alamo, California (Contra Costa); Tiburon, California (Marin); Irvington, New York (Westchester); Long Grove, Illinois (Lake); Glen Ridge, New Jersey (Essex); Mill Valley, California (Marin); East Hills, New York (Nassau); Pepper Lake, Ohio (Cuyahoga); Chevy Chase, Maryland (Montgomery); Tenafly, New Jersey (Bergen); Darnestown, Maryland (Montgomery); Oak Brook, Illinois (Cook); La Cañada Flintridge, California (Los Angeles); Briarcliff Manor, New York (West Chester); Saratoga, California (Santa Clara); Ridgewood, New Jersey (Bergen); Leawood, Kansas (Johnson); Key Biscayne, Florida (Miami-Dade); Summit, New Jersey (Union); Manhattan Beach, California (Los Angeles); Chatham, New Jersey (Morris); Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey (Bergen); Blackhawk, California (Contra Costa); Bethesda, Maryland (Montgomery); Pelham, New York (Westchester); Colleyville, Texas (Tarrant); San Marino, California (Los Angeles); Bernardsville, New Jersey (Somerset); Coto de Caza, California (Orange); Hawthorn Woods, Illinois (Lake); Orono, Minnesota (Hennepin); Floris, Virginia (Fairfax); Pinecrest, Florida (Miami-Dade); Greenwich, Connecticut (Fairfiled); Lake Bluff, Illinois (Lake); Greenwood Village, Colorado (Arapahoe); Beverly Hills, California (Los Angeles); Harrison, New York (Westchester); Garden City, New York (Nassau); South Run, Virginia (Fairfax); Glen Rock, New Jersey (Bergen); Lexington, Massachusetts (Middlesex); Rye Brook, New York (Westchester); Wilmette, Illinois (Cook); Menlo Park, California (San Mateo); Palo Alto, California (Santa Clara); Cos Cob, Connecticut (Fairfield); Western Springs, Illinois (Cook); Fort Hunt, Virginia (Fairfax)
STructural TREE pruning expertise
King Garden Designs are experts at successfully overseeing the structural pruning for your developing trees; ensuring they grow into safe and sustainable mature trees; thus beautifying your property, community, campus, commercial property or institution. It is important to perform structural pruning at planting time, removing any defects before tree develops further.
Many shade trees in the forest grow straight, tall trunks as they compete with neighboring trees for sunlight. In the landscape, however, the abundance of sunlight all around the canopy encourages trees to develop multiple, competing trunks or leaders. This type of structure is susceptible to mechanical breakage and can reduce life expectancy. But trees with one dominant leader and small well-spaced branches, like trees in the forest, are less likely to suffer this type of mechanical failure. The dominant leader structure also makes trees better able to retard the spread of decay within the tree.
Structural pruning in the landscape aims to develop the strong tree structure we see in the forest. Structural pruning selectively favors a single, dominant leader by suppressing competing leaders using reduction cuts. Reduction cuts shorten stems back to lateral branches at least one-third the diameter of the cut stems. Because future growth is forced into the unpruned leader and growth on pruned branches is suppressed, the ratio of branch diameter to trunk diameter (referred to as aspect ratio) becomes smaller. The small aspect ratio makes the union strong (See: details of aspect ratio). Structural pruning on shade trees should occur regularly when the tree is less than about 20 inches trunk diameter to establish good form early. It is normally performed every few years to gradually encourage more growth in the selected leader. Proper structural pruning should be performed on most tree species that become large at maturity to promote longevity, decrease future maintenance costs, and reduce conditions in the tree that could place people or property at risk.
There are six main strategies in executing a structural pruning program. These include the following:
- Develop or maintain a dominant leader
- Identify lowest branch in the permanent canopy
- Prevent branches below the permanent canopy from growing upright or too large
- Space main branches along a dominant trunk
- Keep all branches less than one-half the trunk diameter
- Suppress growth on branches with bark inclusions
Prune to maintain a dominant leader (one main trunk) by reducing the length of or removing competing leaders. This typically means shortening the longest branches with a reduction cut. Ideally, reduction cuts should be no larger than 2-3 inches diameter on poor compartmentalizers and 3-5 inches diameter on good compartmentalizers. (See: details of decay from reduction cuts). Larger cuts can cause significant decay Do not allow branches with included bark to grow too large because they could split from the tree. This is accomplished by shortening the branch. Regularly reduce the length of low vigorous branches and limbs that will be in the way later and have to be removed; typically this means shorten all branches originating from the lower 20 feet of the trunk. Strive to prevent all branches on the tree from growing larger than half the trunk diameter. Older trees can be pruned in a similar manner to create or preserve good structure.
We utilize the ANSI A300 (Part 1) Pruning Standards for our pruning and trimming operations.
A300 Pruning standards recognize, but are not limited to, the following pruning objectives:
- Manage risk
- Manage health
Structural Pruning: Improves branch and trunk architecture promotes or subordinates certain leaders, stems, or branches; promote desirable branch spacing; promote or discourages growth in a particular direction (directional pruning). Proper pruning also minimizes future interference with traffic, lines of sight, or infrastructure, or other plants; restores plants following damage; and/or, rejuvenate shrubs.
Provide clearance, such as to: ensure safe and reliable utility services; minimize current interference with traffic, lines of sight, infrastructure, or other plants; raise crown(s) for movement of traffic or light penetration; ensure lines-of-sight or desired views; provide access to sites, buildings, or other structures; and/or, comply with regulations.
- Manage Size or Shape
- Improve Aesthetics
- Manage Production of Fruit, Flowers, or Other Products
- Manage Wildlife Habitat
Advisory Notice - Certain pruning practices are not acceptable and can injure trees:
- Topping: The reduction of a tree's size using heading cuts that shorten limbs or branches back to a predetermined crown limit.
- Lion's Tailing: The removal of an excessive number of inner, lateral branches from parent branches.
- Rooster-Tailing: The over-thinning of palms, usually by removing too many lower, live fronds.
Seven Main Types of Tree Pruning
Structural Pruning - Removal of Excess Growth and Defects
Pruning To Clean - Remove Dead, Damaged or Broken Limbs
Crown Thinning - Reduction In Canopy Density
Crown Raising - Removal of Lower Branches
Crown Reduction - Thinning/Reduction of Upper Canopy
Utility Pruning - To Ensure Safe, Reliable Utility Service
The Reason to Expand Urban Forests: Our Health
Source: American Society of Landscape Architects; https://dirt.asla.org/2017/10/06/the-public-health-case-for-investing-in-urban-trees/
A new research report from the Nature Conservancy argues that for just $8 per person, the U.S. could maintain and then significantly expand the tree canopy of American cities, an incredibly cost-effective investment in public health.
While high-profile urban tree planting campaigns like New York City’s get a lot of attention, most U.S. cities have experienced a decline in their urban forests, with a loss of about 4 million trees each year, or about “1.3 percent of the total tree stock.” The Nature Conservancy builds the case for recommitting to expanding our urban canopies for health reasons, instead of just letting them slowly diminish.
The many benefits of trees are well-documented: they clean and cool the air, combat the urban heat island effect, capture stormwater, mitigate the risk of floods, boost water quality, and, importantly, improve our mental and physical health and well-being.
According to the report, the U.S. Forest Service and University of California, Davis found that “for every $1 spent in Californian cities on tree planting and maintenance, there were $5.82 in benefits.” Another study found that for every $1, benefits ranged from $1.37 to $3.09.
In particular, urban forests can help catch harmful particulate matter in their leaves and reduce “ground-level ozone concentrations by directly absorbing ozone and decreasing ozone formation.” High levels of particulate matter and ozone can trigger asthma and cause other respiratory problems. Planting trees to deal with these issues in New York City alone could result in $60 million in health benefits annually.
Researchers are more closely examining how trees fight air pollution. In Louisville, Kentucky, Green for Good is now testing a “vegetative buffer” at the St. Margaret Mary Elementary School designed to filter the particulate air pollution coming off a nearby heavily-trafficked roadway. Initial results show that “under certain conditions, level of particulate matter were 60 percent lower behind the buffer than in the open side of the front yard. Among the health study participants, immune system function increased and inflammation levels decreased after planting.”
A Harvard Nurses Study found a 12 percent reduction in all-cause mortality for those who lived within 250 meters of a high level of greenness. And an exciting study now underway will look at 4 million Kaiser Permanente members in Northern California with the goal of determining if there is a relationship between healthcare use and the proximity and amount of nearby tree canopy.
Despite all the great research, the news still hasn’t reached the general public or even arborists. This is reflected in the fact that average U.S. municipal spending on urban forestry has fallen by more than 25 percent since 1980, to around $5.83 per urbanite today.
If the 27 largest American cities instead reinvested in their urban forests, “planting in the sites with the greatest health benefits (the top 20 percent of all potentially plantable sites in a city)” the cost would be around $200 million a year. Maintenance funds would also need to increase. The total gap between current realities and this needed reinvestment in our communities’ health is only $8 per person — so in a city of one million residents, $8 million.
Trees just get a tiny share of municipal budgets. But with these arguments backed by numbers, the hope is a relatively cheap investment in trees for public health — which would also result in so many gains in livability and property values — can win greater support.