Leaves are food factories for plants. This food, carbohydrates, is used to power various metabological processes. Some is stored, largely in the roots. The reestablishment of the root system is rightly considered the most crucial need of a newly transplanted tree. From this then, it follows that leaving (;-) ) as much foliage on the plant at this stage as is possible will aid in the development of more roots. There is a hormonal influence as well. Chemical messengers in branches send a signal to the roots to grow and multiply.

The only pruning I'd normally recommend at planting is broken branches or an obviously co-dominant stem.

+oM

How does one judge how much "top" is enough to match the roots anyway? Sounds like crude guesswork. The tree can regulate it's growth by using the leaves to absorb energy to grow the roots the first year. The gardener can help by regular watering until the tree has become established.

Why would mutilating the top leader(s) of a tree help a tree recover from the stress of transplanting? What types of trees are you saying that this would be good for? Why just the top branches and not the lower branches?

Noki, our replies must have passed each other in the mail. The concept of balancing root loss by removing a part of the tree's crown is just one of many long-held, and by now, long-debunked notions relating to treecare. There is no basis for it which is why educated pros haven't done it for decades by now.

+oM

Femrite nursery advises its customers who plant their bare root trees to ignore the advice on not pruning the trees. They do not advise top pruning though, unless the tree has already been top pruned by them to produce a better crown.

They advise that their trees' side branches be pruned back, either by 1/3 or 1/2; depending on the particular tree's condition to be planted.

You can read up on the reasons for their suggested planting policy if you pull up their website at www.femrite.com and click on the option for listing their catalogue.

boy .. she/he said: But if a tree is already leafed out

if the tree is already leafed out.. the odds of success are greatly reduced... and it probably doesn't matter what you do to the branches ...

i know that sometimes, in an emergency .. leafed out trees need to be moved...

but it should NEVER be done.. if it can be avoided .... presuming this is not potted stock .. or pre-prepped stock ...

Guelph is zone 5/6 .. move your trees WITHOUT leaves in late October .. or as soon as the soil is workable in spring [late march thru 4/15, or so]... since it freezes solid up here in winter ... at least 6 weeks prior to leaf formation ...

NEVER move a leafed out tree ... IF YOU CAN AVOID IT ....

i know you probably know this.. but maybe some lurker needed the lesson ....

i sum up the others comments with the following... more leaves.. means more food.. means more vigor.. means more root growth.. means faster 'establishment' ....

ken

Femrite Nursery's suggestions and reasoning are directly from the old train of thought. Before a lot of the new information about shoot to root ratio was understood and before a lot of modern studies were conducted, the information they present was reasoned to be correct. Research has now shown that basically what Tom said above is how woody plants actually respond. Overall the resulting transplant shock and recovery time is greater when pruned as described in Femrite Nursery's catalog. The plant can self compensate through various mechanisms much more effectively than the planter/runner can. I bet in a few years, they will catch up and update their information.

Oops, "runner" should have been "pruner".

The dang spell checker changed it, and I didn't catch the change.

It is no surprise that Femrite challanges the current most up todate teachings how to prune or not.

Femrite must have plenty experience with the way they dig their trees and process them for bareroot shipment. It may be by trial and error that they have settled into their beliefs about how best to handle their trees. They are in the business to make enough profit to continue growing trees, As such, I highly doubt they would give bad or untested advice; just because they want to be stubborn and resist the ever changing new techniques.

My opinion of the most upto date reports on not pruning newly planted trees, is that the idea is most likely correct is some situations, and maybe not so much in others.

For me, then, there is also the nagging realization, resting in the back of my mind, telling me to not hold too seriously with most of the latest realively, newly promoted methods; seeing that in only a short time period away, new moves may begin to advance the concept that the "Do not prune, when planting" advice is not as good as some other new technique being promoted for that day and time.

Remember how convincing the trendy advice on pruning tree branches is concerning not cutting into the branch collar of established trees when pruning? Today, it is easy to find such new techinqes explained and drawn out on many web sites. Yet more recently, reports arose and discussions have occurred, over tests which have proven, that in general, branches which are pruned away at points on the tree which cut off a slight amout of the branch collor along with the branch; actually spurs the tree to heal over the wound much more quickly than otherwise cutting just outside of and taking no branch collar tissue with the prune.

The only reason I can think of not to prune after transplanting is that you don't want to.

I handle 3-4000 bare root trees a year, perhaps twice that many container and balled. If it's a container tree or otherwise balled, I prune only if I deem it necessary; ie, drastically crossed branches, something broken, or otherwise improves the appearance of the plant.

When it comes to bareroot, I prune as a matter of course, not only the roots, but also the branching. After doing this and not doing this, there is one other reason I have developed for not pruing...one year, my hand swelled up to the size of a softball.

The next year, it was pneumatic pruners.

While it is true that sometimes, the latest and greatest new ideas turn out to be less than originally thought, the OP was citing the idea that the top and the roots must be brought into balance by removal of some of the top to make up for lost roots from transplanting. Most of us can support the idea that obvious structural problem branches, broken ones, or competing codominant stems may well be taken care of right at planting time, which is what I said above, by the way. The "old" idea of restoring this "balance" is not supported by any research , nor is it advisable when one understands tree physiology. That is the erroneous concept I was addressing.

The research indicating better wound closure when branch collars were cut into dealt only with wood quality when trees are harvested for lumber. To jump from this to indicting the whole target pruning concept is, in my opinion, a serious misreading of the intent of that research. And as in that discussion here a while back, I marvel at how badly trees have been self-pruning all these millenia-right outside of the branch collar. I highly doubt trees are trying to be "trendy" in shedding their branches in this manner. Nor do I think that several decades worth of research by Shigo and others was geared towards becoming trendsetters.

+oM

Sometimes resistance to change can be beneficial, but more often it just leaves you behind.

When ideas are studied and tested at many locations by many educated people over a significant period of time, chances are they learn something about what they are doing. A nursery's unscientific speculations don't hold too much weight over years of research in my book.

Well, I thought we had covered the topic of the new research on pruning and cutting into or not cutting into the breanch collar. But since it has come up again, I feel the need to set the record straight. Tom is right in saying that a major concern of the article I posted about several months ago was producing more high quality wood. But he still misses the point that the voluminous research cited in the article showed that there was no objective scientific research whatsoever supporting Dr. Shigo's natural target pruning method--in fact, there was a great deal of research showing that the natural target pruning method is not the best method. Near the end of that discussion when Tom said that he would ignore this article and all the research it was based on and continue to prune as he always has, I conceded that the natural target method of pruning was not going to do any harm in most, if not almost, or even virtually all of the situations where he and other arborists would use it on ornamental trees. But the article did make clear that some cutting into the branch collar will stimulate faster callus growth, and that wound occlusion would occur faster even when the area to be occluded was somewhat larger due to the cut into the branch collar. This is true whether the trees in question are grown in a forest plantation for wood production, or if grown in a person's yard for aesthetic or wildlife values, etc.

As for Tom's assertioon that trees prune their own branches at or just outside the branch collar, I see little or no evidence to support that. Both dead and living branches break off trees at various points. Of course the branch collar is much thicker than the branch itself, so mechanically it would be more difficult for a branch to break off with part of the branch collar attached. But this does sometimes happen in breakage due to storms. With some species of trees such as white oak, a dead branch will persist on the tree for many years and the branch collar will continue to grow out on the dead branch forming a kind of sleeve that sometimes can extend a foot or more from the trunk. Eventually the branch will break or rot off at the point where the sleeve ends, or sometimes somewhat inside the end of this sleeve. These do not break off at or anywhere near where the original branch collar ended.

OK, as for the topic at hand here. If there is severe root loss, some reduction of the foliage part of a tree will improve survival. I have dug many trees up from the woods during my more than 60 years of tree transplanting, and I learned the hard way that in situations like this where it is very difficult to get a good root ball, some fairly severe reduction of the foliage part of a tree will enhance survival greatly.

But if a tree is nursery grown, properly dug and balled, and then planted without undue disturbance or other specific circumstances, there should be no reason to do any extensive pruning at transplant time.

--Spruce

A lot of information here, but not much of it deals with the original question.

If we take the case of a tree, that is leafed out, and it now looses significant root mass due to a move - why would keeping all of the leaves be a good thing?

Here's my logic. The loss of root mass, especially the feeder roots which are normally cut off, results in a major reduction of water being transfered to the leaves. No water - no food production. Keeping leaves that do not have anough water to function will not produce food for the tree.

Now each leaf starts to dry up, and soon the plant has no leaves.

By removing some of the leaves, you now have a situation were the reduced water supply might be enough to keep the remaining leaves working.

I moved a number of larger trees and shrubs two years ago, after most things were leafed out - free from someone redoing their landscape - no choice of timing the event. I top pruned some items, and all of these are doing well including a fairly large cherry tree that had almost no roots after transplanting. Several of the shrubs, but not all, that got no pruning, have died. Not a scientific study, but given the lack of a good explanation for not cutting back in this case it seems reasonable to continue with the practice.

Note that I am not talking about trees transplanted in spring or fall - without leaves. In these cases the tree can control it's own leaf growth.

madtripper:

I agree completly with everything you say, and have had the same kind of experiences. Perhaps there is one relatively small point where I would disagree.

First, yes, absolutely right--if a tree is under severe moisture stress, the foliage is not going to add strength to grow more roots. In fact, the severe moisture stress will very likely kill the tree, or at least weaken it and use up its stored reserves so it will grow very weakly for at least two or more years.

The one point where I would disagree to some extent, is about a tree that has not leafed out yet. Yes, if a tree has not leafed out yet, the tree can compensate for the root loss by having some buds fail and/or some leaves come out smaller than they otherwise would. But we should not over estimate the ability of a tree to make an adjustment so quickly in the amount of foliage that will leaf out. A tree that is dug when it is dormant, is still "programmed" to produce the amount of foliage that it was prepared to produce based on the growing conditions the previous summer and fall. If when a tree leafs out and it begins to wilt, some of the foliage should be removed. In several previous posts I gave detailed instructions for how to do this without impairing the basic structure and growth potential of the tree.

--Spruce

My referrence to trees' shedding of branches was to self-pruning-that is, the shedding of branches which have become too shaded to maintain their own metabolism, let alone, add to the trees carbohydrate storage. I should have thought it was clear I was not speaking of branches broken off in storms or by other mechanical forces which, of course, are not something the tree is doing, but something that happens to the tree. As to the assertion that there is little evidence that they shed these branches in the immediate vicinity of what we call the branch collar, I guess it is hard to respond to something where we appear to inhabit different planets! In fact, when "deadwooding" some species of trees, that is, removing dead wood from the interior crown of the tree as a normal part of pruning, it is common practice to simply strike the dead branch, or pull it, with sufficient force, and depending on species, the dead branches will simply rattle their way out of the tree with no sawing required. And yes, what is left is the branch collar. What else can possibly be concluded from this but that the tree was making the line of separation at this branch collar? As to the oak example, if one views these same "sleeves' a sufficient number of years after the branch came off, there will very often be a hollow area which does indeed extend back a ways. And if the branch collar has been expanding around the dead branch, and if the branch falls off at some point along this yearly expanding collar, that hardly argues for the point that branches do not fall off at the branch collar, but actually supports the idea! Neither me, nor anyone else, ever said that the branch collar was statically defined at some arbitrary point in the tree's development. It is as dynamic as any other living part of the tree.

I'm thinking that I probably wouldn't have said I was going to "ignore" that, or any other research. That just doesn't sound like something I would have said. But I did make it clear that I see it as a disservice to disseminate incomplete information to a public which may largely be composed of non-experts, who now having this partial information, may then go on to do damage to their own, and others trees.

Finally, I was remiss in not noting, in the OP, that this was a tree to be moved at an improper time-leafed out. I suppose it may be the case that if you are going to move deciduous stock when leafed out, and yes, I've had to do this in the past, there may be an advantage to removal of some transpirational tissue to try to cut back on water loss. This is not based on anything more than gut feelings and the experiences others have cited here. But in any case, it amounts to following one bad practice with another.

+oM

The whole question of transplanting does bring up the case where, if the tree (we're talking trees only I suppose), is of an age and has its roots firmly established, it should not be transplanted in the first place. Moving a tree that has endured in the same space for more than 8 years is recommended to be not carried out.
If the tree's life so far consists of less than 5 years, it may be possible to move it without any endangerment since the roots may yet have not established themselves to any great degree.
I suppose that depends on the tree.

Now away from trees, when we plant hedging material, it is customary to prune back 1/3 the foliage to promote growth sideways and to assist the lesser amount of roots having to feed such foliage.

Since in most cases, when transplanting is done--root loss is a given....and depending on just how good the volume of plant removed with roots to match, then it is also a given to cut back the amount of foliage to assist the roots not having to feed so much above them.
But, that brings up the question ..."should you bother a tree while in full leaf"?

Tom:

I am so sorry we live so far apart--I would love to invite you for a walk in the woods together to observe some dead branches and how they eventually fall or rot off trees. Contrary to what you see, what I see is that when a branch dies it begins to fall away from the ends--the thinner and weaker parts fall off first and gradually, often as not, a stub of several inches or just a few feet is left. This may fall off or may just rot off, sometimes leaving a hole inside the old branch collar. There is usually no clean shedding of branches at the branch collar, except for some smaller branches on some species of trees. I see little or no tendency generally for a trees to shed branches at the branch collar. If I were to describe how trees shed dead branches, I would say that they more regularly shed them outside the branch collar leaving stubs. Different species have some different tendencies in this regard.

For one example, I ask you the next time you are in a red pine forest to look at the stages of branch shedding. You can do this easily by observing individual trees and seeing how the lower branches that died several years ago are being shed, and then looking up the tree to see the earlier and earlier stages. You will see how the tree sheds its branches from the ends. In the last stage, there is no shedding as such, but the final stub just rots away and underneath the last bit of rotten wood that falls off is a kind of plug of resin impregnated wood. There is no abscission layer or anything faintly analogous to it at the point where a branch meets the branch collar.

After a tree sheds a branch completely, all of the dead wood will be gone, unless there is a hole in the tree where the last stub was, and this shedding stops, quite naturally, where the tree has living wood, which will not rot until it dies. Maybe this looks like the tree shed its branches at the branch collar, but this is an illusion. All that has happened is that the dead wood of the branch all eventually fell or rotted off, and it did so up to the point where the tree has living wood on the trunk and/or the old branch collar.

--Spruce

Spruce

This is a semantic discussion. Your endpoint, a branch stub remaining on the trunk, has not yet been "shed" by my terminology, shed being a term I used for the sake of brevity. We both, of course, understand this to be a varied process, dependant on species, environmental phenomena, etc. I reread the original study earlier to make sure I didn't miss anything. It is an eye-opener, yet the strongest point it seems to be making is that for some species, for certain management objectives, flusher cuts can yield good results. So much of it is vague. There is, for instance, no definition of the difference in what is termed cutting into the branch collar versus outside of it. A large part of the literature cited was pre-target pruning research so there is no particular reason to think this was the actual technique used. A wide range of stubs could be included under "outside of the bc".

I've felt for a long time that we arborists are still a little too like a veterinarian that would consider dogs and cats to be pretty much the same thing, and therefor use the same treatments on both. Sometimes it works, but eventually you're going to be wrong. I for one look forward to the day when there is more species-specific (;-)) information available to help guide mgt. techs. I do see the immediate applicability of the ideas summarised in the report in situations like pine plantations at typical stocking densities, where, depending on species, the die-back of lower branches may proceed much faster than the disintegration of these branches. In such stands, the small size of branches removed and the relatively low likelihood of pathogen invasion may well warrant the use of fairly flush cuts.

+oM

Tom:

There are not many people more interested in caring for and protecting trees than you are. As for the pruning issue here, I think the natural target pruning method for ornamental trees, etc. is really not that bad. It is certainly better than leaving stubs when pruning, or making "flush cuts," except on some kinds of trees in some situations. When I prune my own trees, and I have a lot--more than 100--young ones that I am pruning up as they grow, I will modify what I have been doing fairly modestly. Instead of following strictly the margins of the branch collar, I will make cuts more vertical, cutting into the branch collar mostly only at the lower part where if it were left in its entirety, a large knob would remain. In other cases I will cut into the branch collar only 25% or so at the most. Some branches on some kinds of trees have inordinately large branch collars, such as some lower and older branches on beech trees, and cutting too much into these massive branch collars would make little sense to me now, without some convincing research. OHara himself warns against indiscriminate flush cuts.

A much more important issue in my mind for the health of ornamental and street trees is the rot that enters large wounds from pruning off large branches and from scrapes that knock off large sections of bark from the trunks. You have seen many times my posts about using liquid copper fungicide to treat these wounds, so I wonÂt repeat all that here again. But if you are ever on vacation or in this area for any reason at all (or why not make a special trip!) I hereby invite you to come and have a tour of my timberland, most especially to look at the trees I have been treating with this fungicide, and how even the most "horrendous" and massive cuts I made on mostly pine and spruce trees (rot susceptible woods) have no sign of any rot after as much as 20 years. My e-mail is available to members of these forums.

If I remember right you are a member of one of the arborist/arboriculture societies and attend meetings? It would be wonderful if you could see what my "experiments" are showing, and spread the word that the kind of rot that infests trees so commonly does not really have to happen!

--Spruce

Moving a tree that has endured in the same space for more than 8 years is recommended to be not carried out.

Recommended by whom? In all my years as a practicing horticulturist, this is a statement I have never seen in print or in practice. Granted, it is harder to successfully dig and transport a well-established tree to a new location but it is done all the time - in fact, many companies make a practice of specializing in large tree transplanting, as 3" caliper trees (and larger) of various species are often spec'd for commercial plantings or large landscapes. And most of these are field grown trees.

Do you have any documentation for this assertion?

gardengal:

Ah yes, wonderful, I have an ally on another issue that has been a point of contention in this forum. If anyone wants to move a large tree by him/herself, I say that he/she is nuts, or wants to do a really massive amount of work. I have reported previously how I struggled once to move a couple of 8 or 9' Norway spruce trees. I was completely successful and they are doing fine and are still much, much larger than any of the smaller ones I planted at about the same time, and growing at least as fast. They did, however, need an extra year of establishment time because I did not have good equipment for the move and did it all by myself. There was a bit too much root loss!

Anyway, no tree is too large to move, except some really massive redwoods or something. On the TV program "Maga Movers" they had a show about moving a really large mature live oak tree. I wish all of you could have seen that program! At the Longwood Gardens in Delaware--SW of Philadelphia--a number of years ago they planted two really large Norway spruce trees either side of the main entrance to the big conservatory there. I did not see these until a few years after they were moved, but they must have been 60 feet tall and two feet in diameter at the time of the move. And they are really, really nice looking NS trees growing just fine!

And in the Tyson's corner area outside Wash DC they have two mall complexes. Surrounding these malls they planted rather large trees--mostly maples and oaks. They are doing just fine, really fine.

But to move really large, long established trees, one has to have expertise and the proper equipment. If I could have afforded it, I would not have planted all the really little trees I have planted at my new place in Winchester. Heck, I am almost 69 years old--I want trees NOW!

--Spruce

Bending this thread ever more off-topic;-)

Spruce, yes thank you, I really do care! For a long time, say 10 years, mine was the only really progressive voice in the organization where I work. Then there was an influx of new faces, all of whom were graduates of UW-Stevens Point Forestry School. These people knew what's up, but I was dismayed to see the vengeance with which they pounced on the whole tree paint issue. Sure, I knew it was bogus to still be using the stuff, but there's more to tree care than just knowing asphaltic wound dressings were not so great. Anyway, finally, through critical mass, and the above-mentioned overzealous tactics of a few people, we discontinued that practice. But.......in my mind, this has never meant that NO wound dressings of any kind will ever be useful. After your postings on your invention, I've often thought that here perhaps is a direction to take. I can't help but wonder if the top research people at ISA couldn't be persuaded to do a study on its efficacy. Also, perhaps an organization more involved with production timber stand mgt. where the wounding of nonharvested trees is still such a problem.

I'd love to see your timber stand area. Truth is, any extra resources (As if there are any) at this point are being pooled towards an acquisition of land in one of the counties just north of where we live, for the purpose of establishing a tree farm. I love the work I do and feel that we benefit the community with our programs, but I need an outlet where I can grow the stuff I really like, many of which are large growing conifers and their broadleaf associates.

I noticed that statement about the size of trees to be moved, but was confident one or the other of you would catch it;-)

+oM

Yes Tom, we need research. After the discussion of Professor O'Hara's article I exchanged a couple of e-mail with him asking if he knew of anyone who would be interested in such research, and he had no ideas for me. I talked to people at the U of MD a few years ago and had no luck.

I have given the instructions for what I do several times, but my specifications for the concentrations, application method, and frequency of reapplication are based on just a little experience--I have no adequate data to support them. But what I have done is working really well, and because I just want to save my trees now, I am unwilling to take risks with my trees to research the limits of other methods to see what is really needed or really best.

For anyone reading this who is interested, just search the site for "liquid copper fungicide" and you can get the instructions. And for the discussion of Professor O'Hara's article just search "a serious challenge."

And Tom--maybe sometime in the future I will see you here--I would look forward to it.

--Spruce

Spruceman:

You said:

"Yes, if a tree has not leafed out yet, the tree can compensate for the root loss by having some buds fail and/or some leaves come out smaller than they otherwise would. But we should not over estimate the ability of a tree to make an adjustment so quickly in the amount of foliage that will leaf out. A tree that is dug when it is dormant, is still "programmed" to produce the amount of foliage that it was prepared to produce based on the growing conditions the previous summer and fall."

This is something I have always wondered about. How adaptable is a stressed tree? I have seen trees abort buds early on. I would assume leaves could be made smaller in times of stress.

Any real evidence that this really happens?

Mad:

Well, just my informal observations of transplanted trees, which may be no different from yours. I would guess that producing smaller leaves is more common or more of a factor than aborted buds, but I don't really know for sure. In addition the growth shoots are much reduced. And maybe even if a bud opens, it may produce fewer leaves. If it is an oak tree where the number of leaves is more or less progammed into the bud, some may not fully open. With other kinds of trees where the number of leaves produced depends very much on the conditions during the current growing seasons, much fewer leaves will be produced.

Also, we must be careful about observations of bud failure. I often see a lot of this on healthy trees that have not been transplanted. So if we see it on a transplanted tree, it may not be because of adaptation to transplant stress/root losss.

With conifers were there has been substantial root loss or other causes of transplant shock, I can't say I have seen bud failure, but the needles are often much shorter and the shoots don't fuly extend.

--Spruce

A very important reason why trees (and shrubs, jeannie) should not be pruned to 'compensate for root loss' is that the auxins responsible for new root initiation are located in the buds. If the buds are eliminated, those auxins are then utilized in the production of new vegetative growth. This sequence of events is the exact opposite of what is in the best interests of the plant.

This is true for woody trees and shrubs of all sizes.

Trees and shrubs send their carbon resources to those areas in most need. In the case of a freshly dug plant, we WANT those photosynthates to be shunted to the crippled root system where new roots will grow at an amazing rate. Unless, of course, the top has been pruned heavily enough to stimulate a response in the other direction!

Rhizo:

Have patience with me for a while on this, if you can--I want to do a bit of speculating on the interaction or relative importance of a number of factors.

On the most simple level, if the "root auxins" are in the buds, then IF, and this is my speculative "if," we believe that a tree may have too much top to be supported by a very small amount of roots, then would it be better to wait until the tree has leafed out? At that point the tree opened its buds, and if any bud is left, it is a very undeveloped one for the next year. Of course I know that some kinds of trees as soon as they unfurl one leaf reveal a continuing well developed bud underneath.

I guess my question would be the same even if we are not talking about transplanted trees and trying to reduce excess transpiration, what I call "transpirational shock" or severe wilting. If we have any tree we want to prune for any reason, and feel that the root development is the most important consideration, that pruning should be done after the tree has leafed out? My unscientific thought would have been to prune before the tree opens its leaves because that would spare the tree the unnecessary use of resources growing leaves that would be removed anyway.

Well, I have further "if's" I would like to ask about, but maybe my "if's" will depend partly on your answer to this first speculation.

--Spruce

If we are talking about properly grown and maintained field trees, then there is a much less chance that a fall/winter dug plant will suffer upon transplanting. EVEN though a great deal of the root system will remain in the field. (Assuming that water is available to the plant.) The ideal scenario would be to wait for the growing season to assess the damage, if any. Of course, pruning out dead, damaged, crossing, etc., branches should be done at any time.

A good pruning job won't stimulate the kind of excessive vegetative growth that we associate with 'topping' and 'compensatory pruning'. I do all of my detail pruning in the winter, when I can see what the heck I'm doing. ;-)

You know that it's perfectly normal for a transplanted tree or shrub to have reduced growth for a while. How long the plant is affected is determined by a zillion factors, such as health and vigor of the plant, soil type, species, size, climate, and how it's been maintained at the nursery. Establishment time is measured in months and even years (for those huge transplants). That's another subject, but I think that it's associated with what we are all talking about here. Take a look at the attached article.

I'm not sure if I've remotely touched upon what you were wondering about.....have I?

Well, partly, but not really directly. I have said before thaT properly dug and planted trees should not need any routine pruning when transplanted. In fact, I agree with those who say it reduces the tree's ability to become established and grow roots. I am just trying to learn more about the extreme cases where there is excess shock of one kind or another, mostly excessive loss of roots. Your statement about the auxins really caught my attention and I want to learn more.

Maybe I will add here just one more, perhaps relevant, observation. I have been propagating willows and poplars from cuttings off and on for about 35 years. Several times in this forum I have shared my procedures for doing so. One step in my recommendations has been to remove all buds from the cutting except for one or two at the top, and then to bury the entire cutting except for the top inch or so with the buds. OK, here is my observation--I sometimes leave one bud, sometimes two. If I leave two, that is twice as many buds as one. But these cuttings as far as I can observe establish themselves and grow just about the same--I don't see any advantage to having two buds over one. I am not sure what this may or may not say about the growth of roots relative to the number of buds removed or not removed from transplanted trees.

Could it be that buds and their production of auxins is like what happens when a man loses a testicle--the other takes over the function of the lost one and the testosterone levels remain the same. Could it be that although a plant may need buds to produce and store the root auxins, the loss of a portion of the buds would not significantly reduce the auxins, at least not so the reduction would impair root growth?

Well, forgive me if I am trying to ask a question that is too technical for me to understand. I was for a while a botany major in college and never lost my interest in how plants grow.

The article is interesting--I agree with the conclusion that more studies are needed. As someone who has planted trees for over 60 years, my experience is that if a larger tree can be transplanted properly, it will stay well ahead of the smaller trees. In fact, as I described in my first post under this topic, the larger Norway spruce trees I planted about 6 years ago were not even planted properly, and I would estimate that over the 6 year period they have grown almost exactly as much as the smaller ones I planted at the same time. At most they took just one additional year to become established and may have lost about 4 inches of growth as a result. They may have regained those 4 inches and maybe a bit more (I have not taken precise measurements) due to the trees being a stronger strain. I selected them to transplant because I thought they were of a superior strain.

Of course any study of transplanted trees must consider what species is involved--I would be surprised if a comprehensive series of trials would show the same results for all species.

--Spruce

Myself, I plan to adhere to the latest advice offered through up-to-date websites like Online Seminars for Municipal Arborists, where I first read about not reducing trees for a planting.

Except I will remove defects that if not removed while, say, 1/2" diameter now, end up being removed at 1" diameter in 2 years.

It's probably fair to say though, that I have no personal proof that crown-reduction at planting or transplanting is less beneficial, because I've never lost a tree transplant.

Even back around 1986, the Dept. head of PCC's Landscape Tech program gave me a free 25 foot tall Weeping Giant Sequoia, and that made it too.

It was tap-rooted through a hole of a huge metal pot, and I ended up having to move it on an 85 degree day from Troutdale, across Portland to Beaverton - BARE ROOT.

Root mass on the tailgate, canopy across the truck cab and an "X" brace strapped to the bumper, with the tip bouncing around about 7' in front of the vehicle.

Also sprayed with anti-dessicant and wrapped.

Anyway, the one thing I did not do to that one, was crown reduce it in any way. Just simply moved it bare root on sunny summer day cross-town, erected and cabled it into place, and filled the hole with a near mud solution.

It survived of course.

As far as the recommendations versus the idea that leaves may or may not be needed, there is also the consideration that crown reduction does not remove just leaves. It removes wood, cambium, etc..

A birch transplanted to our home last summer survived, but shed 1/2 of it's own leaves, particularly the bigger older leaves farther down the stem. So in a way, it crown-reduced itself, but just leaves. And sometimes trees will be good teachers. It may be nature's way of showing that leaf reduction is not a bad thing, if it will do it itself.

I have a feeling that there is going to be a difference in the recommendations between "planting" and "transplanting".

M. D. Vaden of Oregon - The Tree Guy

Well, just a couple more thoughts/observations. I think there is very, very little difference between my ideas about transplanting and yours or others who may seem to have disagreed with me when I recommended reducing crown size in SPECIAL cases. Even with the Norway spruce trees I transplanted where I said I did not really get enough root and had other difficulties, I never even considered reducing the crown (they were not dense anyway).

As for the root auxins. I did a little reading and it is not buds as such that produce and store those auxins, but apparently the growing apical meristem tips and the leaves as well, so pruning before or after bud break may not make any difference. But the auxin issue would seem to add to the argument that reducing crown size of transplanted trees is not a good idea. I say "seem" because the factors involved in plant growth are complex and considering any one or two factors only can lead one into errors. On the most simple level, if a tree is under really severe "transpirational stress," I have more than a little suspicion based on my experience, that some reduction of the foliage area can enhance survival chances. I have lost some trees I have tried to transplant in the past, but much fewer in recent years. I have had trees wilt very severely, but after cutting off some of the foliage, wilt much less, and then ultimately survive. If a tree is small enough, I have always preferred to rig up some shade, and that has been successful. But of course in no instance do any of these observations constitute real scientific data. Some of the trees I "saved" may have survived anyway.

--Spruce

More non-science here, but it's seemed to me for a long time now, that conifers of size move more successfully than broadleaved trees. I'm talking pines, spruce, arbs, and such as opposed to your maples, ash and oak. I've always considered this to be due to these common conifers having even more shallow root systems than their broadleaved brethren. Any other thoughts on this?

+oM

p.s. We moved a twenty-some foot concolor fir late this fall. Too late, in fact, and with too small a ball. Political reasons. I'm going to be pi**ed if that tree doesn't make it or declines. Probably the nicest fir of it's type in town, in that size range, and moved into what amounts to a very large pot, surrounded by concrete. Yes there are Christmas lights on it now. ;^)

+oM

Tom:

Well, conifers can sometimes be a problem. Actually it was about 40 years ago that I first started to think about trying foliage reduction in special cases. I bought two 4' plus white pines with rather large root balls. Too heavy for me to lift. In the process of getting them to the planting site I shook up the root balls a bit to much. These trees had been sheared and were very, very dense. They both died. At the time I thought I should have thinned out the foliage a bit, but didn't.

Since that time I have thinned trees out like that if I have had any doubts. Two years ago I bought a nice looking Colorado spruce that had very, very dense foliage. When I took it out of the pot I found out it was planted in sand and had almost no roots--just little stubby main root branches with no small or fine roots. These roots didn't nearly extend even to the edges of the pot. I thought about taking it back, but said, "heck," lets see what I can do." So I very, very carefully thinned out the foliage--I must have removed something more than half. But I did it in a way that made it look natural--like I had not done anything. This tree actually survived, but the extension of the new shoots was less than 1/3 of what it should have been, and the needles were very, very short. I strongly suspect I saved this tree.

I think conifers can be at special risk in fall (or very early spring) planting because they have to carry their foliage through the dry winter winds. And the two white pines I described above were planted in early March in the mountains and may have suffered from the late winter conditions. But in a similar circumstance now I would't hesitate to reduce the foliage. Those trees were exceptionally dense--so dense they looked very unnatural. And then the root ball was simply shaken so much the roots were very loose--not good.

--Spruce

I gotta laugh a little, Spruce. By doing that pruning, you're in effect restoring a bit more attractive "natural" growth form to these trees! So it seems to help but tree condition is still marginal? Talking about B&B conifer failure, yes, it is as if there's some cascade of events and then that plant is pretty much doomed no matter what. And I agree the Fall and Spring drying winds can be especially problematic. BTW, I'm close to pulling the trigger on eighteen acres. I'd like to solicit some specific discussion with you on various aspects of what I'm going to be trying to do. Can we message on here, or how might I contact you? Actually, now I think of it, right here on this or conifers forum would be good too. I'll get back on it tomorrow.

+oM

Yes, set up a new topic. Pamchesbay has started some interesting ones about what she is doing with her place, and many of us have learned a lot from all the discussion and varied input. And there have been some others which I can't specifically now remember the originators of.

I have had my place for about 37 years and it has been wonderful--more people should do what I have done and what you are planning to do. But a lot of people don't really know what an experience it can be--all the things one can do to enrich and beautify a piece of land. And also important, if one gets the right kind of land, the investment can be fabulous.

--Spruce

Yes, the Pamchesbay one was great. We both made contributions there. In the next few days, I should be able to find the time to start a new one.

+oM

wisconsitom...

You might consider using an anti-dessicant on that twenty some foot tree you moved, when warm weather returns.

M. D. Vaden of Oregon

Thanks M. D. We've got several gallons of 'Wilt Pruf' concentrate in our chemical room. We never really use it anymore as it doesn't seem to make any difference. The idea behind it seems a good one, but again, in actually useage, we've not seen any benefit.

+oM

Tom and Spruce: I've been reading this thread and learning new things, as always.

Tom, I hope things go smoothly with your land purchase. You've wanted to do this for a long time. You'll never regret it.

From a selfish perspective, I hope you'll continue your discussions on the tree or conifers forum. You will never know how many people are reading and learning (most without commenting).

Take care,
Pam

Hi,

I recently had my back yard landscaped. I have a Sissoo and a Chinese Pistache that are leafy from the ground to the top. Can you advise me on when I should prune to about the first "Y" or 5 feet up?

Thank you,
Bill
Phoenix, Az.

On 12/29/07 in this thread Spruce wrote:

"If when a tree leafs out and it begins to wilt, some of the foliage should be removed. In several previous posts I gave detailed instructions for how to do this without impairing the basic structure and growth potential of the tree."

I have searched and am unable to find those previous posts.

We purchased and planted an approximately 6' B&B Tricolor Beech in mid-March. It has been mulched, well-watered, and is planted in partial shade. It looked great until it leafed out last week. It is wilting, looks better in the morning than in the evening, even though our temps have been fairly cool. I have dug down into the root ball and it is wet all around. It is planted on a slope, so I don't think overwatering is a problem. I am convinced the root system is not large enough to support the foliage now that it has emerged, and reducing foliage without trimming branches sounds like it could be the perfect solution.

Spruce, could you, or anyone else that has this information, either direct me to the previous posts, or reiterate the suggested method of reducing the foliage without pruning? I assume it involves more than just indiscriminately plucking a number of leaves from each branch??? I would greatly appreciate your input, as I believe after reading the above post that this is exactly what this tree needs. It has a beautiful shape and branch structure and I don't want to do any pruning.

Thanks in advance!!! I don't want to lose this tree!

Kim

Kim:

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Well, here are my recommendations for trees that are under too much stress
because of excessive root loss/disturbance during transplanting. Basically the method is to thin out some of the less important and badly placed or badly
formed branches. And if that doesn't remove very much, there are other things you can do without really harming the appearance of the tree.

First, normally when a young tree is growing, it is a good idea to look for anything that if left to grow will result in poor structure. These are the first branches that should be removed. Obviously, if there is a double leader, remove the lesser one. Next, if there is a large branch (of course if the tree is only six feet tall the term "large" is relative) that has a narrow angle to
the trunk, prune that out or just shorten it somewhat if it seems necessary to maintain a balanced full crown.

Next, if there are any branches that are crossing each other, prune off the smaller one. And next, if there are two branches close to each other, especially if one is just above the other, prune off the shorter one.

Now, if you have done all these things, and you still have not removed very much foliage--say less than 20%, here are a couple more things to look for. If the interior of the crown is very full--lots of branches and lots of twigs, you can very selectively, prune out those that seem weak or unimportant to the general healthy appearance of the tree. For example, if a branch has a lot of side branches with a lot of leaves, you can take out every third one--again, taking out the smaller less healthy ones.

And finally, if any branches seem to be significantly longer than almost all of the others--usually just one or two may be like that--you can shorten them a bit, cutting them at points where there is a twig that if left to grow will grow to replace what you have cut off in a year or two.

Finally, I want to emphasize that I don't normally recommend cutting back any top of a transplanted tree, unless in circumstances where the top leader is
excessively long and without side branches--usually because of excessive fertilizing, and crowding, in the nursery bed. But your tree is only 6 feet tall, so I don't see that as an issue here.

Well, again I apologize for not seeing this earlier. But if your tree is wilting during the day, but recovering at night, you may not need to do much pruning, if any. I think in your situation I would watch it carefully, be
careful not to overwater--or underwater--and see what happens. If the wilting gets progressively worse, then prune.

Please let me know if you got this reply in time to do any good--and how the tree is doing.

--Spruce

Your rational is outstanding, I thought of snipping off the leaves, not the buds, I should have done this 3 days ago. The tree we transplanted is 13 feet tall. I never lost a tree when transplanting in Wisconsin, some were even taller. I live in Northern Minnesota now, so now it's trial and error, great that I have 20 acres to play with. The wind is taking it's toll on the leaves, I am thinking about getting a ladder to trim up to the buds. If I fall off the ladder, it's my penance for disrupting that red Maple.

Sharon, what advantage do you imagine yourself to be gaining by moving such large trees? Reason I ask is because A) It's making you want to do foolish things. and B) Study after study has shown no advantage to moving large transplants, and that smaller stock actually settles in quicker and in most cases overtakes the big ones after just a few years.

I started "transplanting" itty-bitty trees on land I own....we call them seedlings, lol, in 2008 and the largest are now 25 ft. tall. What more would one want? Start small and reap big rewards.