And if it's done in such a way that the future growth of the tree covers and conceals the scar by growing over it, as is typically recommended with trunk chopping, that should render the problem moot.
Except that willow does not typically produce callus that closes wounds like oack, beech or maples do.
Trunk chop is nothing more than cutting down. It is not some mystical techique that stimulates trees to close wounds.
Mystical, no, but it certainly has some measure of technique to it. If it doesn't work, then why is it so widely recommended? I get that you get your jollies by being condescending and informing everyone new to the forum how wrong they are, but come on. Saying "No, it won't work" is nowhere near helpful. Stating the difficulties is.
Trees universally grow along a similar pattern, producing new cells from the cambium; just because they don't produce a prominent callus doesn't mean they don't grow.
We're talking about utilizing the plant's own processes to replicate a naturalistic look without resigning to a large, flat chopped-top that may or may not actually die off entirely due to a lack of sap flow between it and the top branch. Your very argument that willow bark scars easily and has a poor healing process is, in fact, an argument against the passive resignation you're advocating because that means you need to do
something to work around the limitations of the tree's innate processes.
