any chance that is nearly the size of a one gallon pot ????

flip pix left .... to see dax 3 pix ...

you ought to link the guy in the conifer forum with this ..

ken

Ken,

I purchased a 2-gal plant and the upper portion of the plant was definitely 2-3 gallon size (very, very, nice.) It did arrive in a #2 but as you clearly saw, these roots were of #1 size.When I removed the plant from the container, the soil from the bottom half simply fell off.

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say:
"flip pix left .... to see dax 3 pix ... "

Dax

Actually there is some validity to this IMHO. Roots self graft all the time below ground. This can often been seen at the surface level of very large old trees. For these trees, the roots just self graft and life goes on. If the roots circle below the level of the flare, then the root circling back around on itself (below the flare) is nothing more than crossing as they do while spreading out, and self grafting.

Now I do not think it is completely clear cut all the time, but I do make cuts across the top of containerized plants for this reason, and make sure everything above the flare is stripped away Lastly I plant on the high side, and the top most small roots or rootlets tend to dry and die away, reducing the threat of girdling.

Arktrees

Would it be ok in the long run with spiralling roots below the flare? -Probably but not certain

Does that excuse the poor structure of the twisted roots? - NO - probably is not good enough in my book for a new full price purchase - when I kill something, I want to know it was my fault and not some deformity that came with the plant from the get-go - if a "bargain bin" buy, I can surely live with the roots a mess if the deal is sweet enough

A tree can girdle itself below the rootflare and/or below the soil line. Though I have seen some argue that the roots will fuse together.

Eitherway as those roots get larger it can and will potentially choke itself out or may not stablize itself properly.

What species plant are you showing us?

See I don't like that sh)T. That twisting is not like anything I grow myself and if it did occur in one of my own pots, I'd throw it in the woods, lol.

I simply don't want to risk anything. That garbled knuckle as far as I know may send another root up high enough that it stops at the soil line just below the flair and circles and whammo, it's all over with. I did intend to say that it's not cut and dry about girdling "only" above soil. As far as I see things, that upward root I'm theoretically describing will choke the tree just like in that photo at the link where the elm had twice the diameter above the soil as what laid just beneath.

Will I'm showing an Acer triflorum.

Dax

Roots grafting back to other parts of themselves or to other roots varies with the type of plant. This supposed "self-correction" can not be relied upon to happen in all cases or, IMO, to nullify the potential for trouble.

Just as many others have stated, this type of deformity is something that would concern me at planting. I've personally seen examples of trees with kicked roots (J-roots) perform much less vigorously than others similar trees planted at the same time without the compromised root system. I have seen scientific studies that broke both ways. I've seen large studies (especially related to conifers) that concluded that there was very little to no negative effect of J-roots and L-roots. I've seen studies for fruit trees that indicated a strongly negative effect of J-rooted plants. I've seen farmers throw out the seedlings / small trees with J-roots, at planting.

So, what makes the difference or which trees are effected and which aren't? I don't know, but like, Dax said, it would make me toss and turn at night to think that I had just planted a tree with a significantly compromised root system and didn't do everything I could to correct it or get the three replaced.

Just to clarify. Dax I in any way consider the triflorum Maple in your images "acceptable". That root system is beyond ridiculous. I would almost bet that I know where it came from too. Seller would be getting an earful from me, and potential backcharge, and that includes for shipping cost. Instead, I was trying to point out that it is not always as hopeless as it appears, and that proper cuts along the top of the rootball can be just as important.

Just the same I would do what I could to save it for my own education, and if I were successful, it would become a very nice tree for someone. Lastly, once out of the confining pot, no roots should grow upward unless they encounter another object that forces them upward, or anaerobic conditions.Response to gravity tends to pull roots downward, while response to lack of oxygen pulls them upward toward the air. If there is enough O2, then down they go toward gravity and water. They simply will not just grow upward unless there is a lack of O2, or obstruction (as in a pot).

Arktrees

Yes, Arktrees, I realized that too after I wrote describing my theoretical. I'm glad you set the record straight.

The seller was very good to me. The second tree sent I pulled (4) thick roots apart and guided them each away from the others, equidistantly. It too was going to be a self-grafted root-system but I was able this time to stop that from occurring at least during initial establishment. What may happen after that is now a much remedied course.

The plant above the grower said to keep. Prior to planting to a temp bed, I made a single cut and removed 98% of the roots. Let me say "THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY." Must of us know never to remove more than 1/3 of the roots or the wood at any one time. I saw no other choice. If it should survive, I won't dig it up for a minimum of 5 years. I may still cut some of the wood back to offset for the occurred loss of roots. I thought about doing so at that time, but decided I would make up my mind up later. That's the right thing to do... find a couple 3-5 buds at the base, cut above, and allow it to rejuvenate from there.

It's no different from grafting and knowing how much of the understock to keep or remove to remain balance with the amount of root mass.....especially so when grafting small scions onto larger seedlings.

Dax

Should have continued to say that after the wood is cut back to 3-5 buds and assuming those buds elongate producing new growth... I'll then cut those new juvenile shoots while they're in the beginnings of softwood growth stage to only a few inches appx. each away from the original, remaining trunk. Doing this will halter any unnecessary stress directed at the roots to feed/keep alive the above, and stimulate growth back toward the roots, only.

Dax

I wouldn't cut topgrowth back, especially when planting this time of year. IF the tree makes it past some of the initial shock, there will be no advantage to cutting back the topgrowth and lots of disadvantage to doing so. Removing top growth will reduce food production, redirect resources away from root growth, and greatly slow establishment. I guess it's a gamble either way, but I think the odds are better if topgrowth is not cut back.

Yep: growth of new roots is fueled by energy stored in stems, and prompted by opening of terminal stem buds in spring.

Carl E Whitcomb's Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants book has a chapter entitled Top Pruning at Planting Time - No Support for an Old Practice.

I did that to a dawn redwood this past spring and it failed miserably. Not sure if it was due to the root surgery or the cutting back of the plant.

it just goes to show...

in a world where people criticize Dirr and laud Whitcomb, that opinions and a#$ho#es have more in common than anyone wants to believe.

If you don't know how to prune bareroot material, you shouldn't. Whitcomb does not. If you know how to prune bareroot material, and prune some and don't prune some, as a control, you'll never again suggest anything by Whitcomb.

Here's my basis of making this statement: I plant, from bareroot, somewhere on the order of three to five semi trucks of material a year, at an average of 1000 plants per truck. I prune bareroot, both root and branches, and should I ever be pinched for time and have to forego pruning the branches, I always regret it.

Then when I read what Whitcomb has to say, I go, no sh*%. He sets up his methodology in such a way that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and others call it groundbreaking research.

strob, what nursery do you work at or own? 5,000 bare root plants on an annual basis is a some serious production.

strob,
Glad to have you here for some real world production side experience. I personally always welcome learning about the other side. Helps me to better understand.

Arktrees

If you know how to prune bareroot material, and prune some and don't prune some, as a control, you'll never again suggest anything by Whitcomb

Really? Since all of the many trials I've read Whitcomb's descriptions of used controls, I wonder how your statement fits.

Or maybe your point is that you find out with the not pruning that the not pruning backfires, and you wish you had pruned - instead of using part of the batch as a control.

Sometimes with rants it can be hard to tell what is being said.

I do know that I am tired of topped deciduous stock being presented here or shipped to me. A rare hawthorn I had here for years never got over the topping and got pulled out; a crab I've had here long enough for it to be fully established and growing vigorously is growing even more all over the place than many kinds of crabs do anyway because it was topped.

What I am talking about is arbitrary top pruning, as Whitcomb calls it, and not selective pruning.

As for Dirr's publications, if you don't know what is wrong with some of the things he says, then you don't really know the subjects he is saying these things about.

This post was edited by bboy on Wed, Nov 13, 13 at 15:00

I am not sure that planting a lot of trees is a valid metric to establish knowledge. Thousands of doctors in the past used bloodletting systematically to treat their patients and I am sure most of them would have sworn by that method. Now we know that was wrong.

As a scientist, I am somewhat skeptical of any absolute statement of certainty, as it typically indicates anything but certainty.

Whitcomb doesn't make those, at least without presenting the evidence beforehand. As for me, I was inclined in the direction of different methods for specific operations years before I started reading researchers like Whitcomb and Chalker-Scott announcing that it looked like those same directions - more or less - were the way to go.

Things like taking the soil off at planting, pulling the roots open, mostly leaving the top of newly planted stock alone and so on.

Yet despite my intuition and inclinations I kept planting intact soil balls with undisturbed roots (until I finally saw it recommended against) in particular because everyone knew that was the way it was done, and you know, surely something bad was going to happen if it wasn't done that way.

I'm glad I checked back.

Thanks for the knowledge.

Dax

Dax,

I hope you took "after" pictures of your root pruning. It would be interesting to see what you did. Also, it would be really cool if you tell us what happens in the long run (especially if you have those "after" root pruning pictures so we have something to go on). You might even let us know what you decided to do, so far as top-growth pruning goes. Normally, top growth pruning on a tree with a decent root system is a big no-no, but with the severe pruning you had to do, it's hard to tell what will happen (with or without topgrowth pruning).

Hi Brandon,

I left the top. I would've waited till late winter/early spring, however I'm glad I know better.

I didn't think to photograph the one remaining root. It's as described on my first post that began this thread. At this point, all I can say is that it's planted in the ground and in a temporary bed that sees sunlight the last 2 hours of the day.

To imagine what root is left is look at a new pencil or bic pen and imagine that is the root in both thickness and length & imagine the last 3-4 inches as a clump of fine root hairs, the same width of 3-4" max. The tree itself is probably 20-24". I never measured it.

......thanks guys.

Dax