Richard Harris is or was a professor emeritus at UC Davis and his book is based on careful research by many scientists, including studying pruning wounds and measuring the speed of healing and comparing the results of pruning at different seasons.
There has been a great deal of research on this subject, actually, partially because it isn’t terribly complicated or expensive to do- to measure how long it takes the wounds to close.
What is complicated is variations of climate and species, but the conjecture of a single man who hasn’t even performed research, let alone include the research of other scientists is not very conclusive to me.
I have witnessed the results of apple trees cut to nothing but huge stubs next to the trunk that could barely recover a fraction of the foliage after an entire season of growth that was lost- and yet ten years later are larger than when they were completely butchered. .
This is the kind of thing people do who inherit trees on a property they only bought for the house.
A weak tree is easy to kill, but a strong one can be very hard to kill- even when you cut it to the ground.
Sometimes we get a snow here in early fall and the tops of trees snap so violently it is like a war zone. Huge wounds are torn into the trees and major parts of their canopies are lost, and yet they almost all survive the abuse.
I hear stories of orchards in hurricanes where the entire canopy is blown off trees in late summer, and the trees survive.
When Drew talks about pruning cherry trees in the summer, he’s talking about what commercial growers do to thousands of trees that their livings depend on. The trees on Mazzard require aggressive cutting- year after year- in summer.
If this was damaging to their survival it would be well known by now.
However, everyone puts very high value on their own anecdotal experience, even though correlations can often be coincidental, even multiple times and even when there is a very logical explanation of why the relationship could exist.
Researchers do exactly the same thing with their research, of course, but they have more data, which presumably makes it more difficult to be tricked by coincidence, but there are always logical leaps involved with interpreting research, and those leaps can land you on mistaken conclusions. This tends to make the public even more trusting of their own anecdotes when they hear repeatedly of research that contradicts previous research.