when was it planted?

if this is its first year.. i might not prune it until next year.. let it use all energy to grow a root mass ... rather than cutting off half the energy producing canopy ...

ken

This tree is actually in it's 4th year. It was a small transplant that I retrieved from a neighbor. I planted it in the fall and the first spring it got bit by a late frost and died back almost to the ground. That first summer it recovered all of the height it lost in the die back. The next summer it grew decently, and last summer is when it developed the improper leader growth.

Do you think it would still be best to wait another year before pruning

to see what it will do or should I go ahead and prune it now?

I took a couple of additional pictures today. I think these might actually capture the improper leader growth better than the previous pictures.

Pretty small tree? What, about 4-5 ft. tall?

You can prune branches up until they get almost 2" in diameter. So I agree with there's no hurry.

Any pruning now will cause the cuts to bleed.

After leaf buds open, the tree won't bleed. Not that it hurts anything. Just unsightly.

Like ken mentioned, leaving it alone will allow all the winter buds to send out branches and leaves. The Leaves photosynthesize and make food for the developing roots this season. The more leaves, the merrier. :-)

btw ... do not add TREE FAQ to a post.... as we can not respond to those posts ... i had to report this so they could remove the FAQ ... so you could see responses ...

the only question left... is when to time the cutting on a tree that bleeds ....

ken

I agree with whaas. No particular reason to wait before dealing with conflicting leaders and I also would favor the smaller center stem over the more vigorous lefthand shoot.

If the heading back of the left side stem is all that you plan to do, you can do so whenever you like. The bleeding or sap run is a perfectly natural response at this time of year and is of little concern at all to the tree. And one small cut is not going to be a big deal -)

I can remember quite a while back, when ken told me to 'make that one cut that makes the most difference' in the final goal of pruning.

What whaas suggested would be that 'one cut'. It will slow that renegade competing leader and make the next pruning session in a year easier and better for the tree.

Thanks whaas!

:-)

this is where pix fail ... since you didnt put any marker in them ... in one pic it looks like the left.. in another it looks like the right one ...

standing in front of the tree ... and stepping around it ... 8 different view points ... i would leave the one that is the straightest ... even if it was a few inches shorter than the other ... in 50 years... that loss of a few inches wont matter ...

or tie something to one of them.. and add some more pix ... north .. east.. west.. south ...

ken

I agree with the above who say don't wait to make a cut. Waiting will only make things more of a problem to take care of later. It's an easy fix now.

It's always kind of a shame to have to remove vigorous growth. The top buds on that branch appear at least double in size of the other branches and the original leader. If you opt to keep that as the leader, it looks like you would probably want/need to stake it straight. But even then you will have a hitch in the trunk that will be there until the trunk fattens up a good deal over some years. Would that bother you? If it would, choose the reduction cut method and keep the original leader.

The good news is that there is no wrong choice here.

Thanks everyone. Based on the feedback here I'm thinking I'll try to do subordination cut on the vigorous overgrown side branch and if the tree will shift focus back to the original trunk. Hopefully the weather will be agreeable and I can get to that in the next few days before spring has a chance to get going.

I've read about subordination pruning but still have a hard time determining when the over-vigorous side growth should be entirely removed vs using subordination pruning. The feedback here is extremely helpful. Thanks again!

Subordination pruning will cause the branch to create a branch 'collar' over the next season or two. When you finally remove the entire branch, you cut the branch and leave the collar which aids the tree in closing or encapsulating the wound.

Branch collars aren't as important with small, twiggy branches as they are with larger ones. Your tree is small enough you could remove the entire branch now and not have to worry about wounding the tree again in a year or two.

The upside of subordination pruning is the remaining branch will put forth leaves this season, making it's contribution in feeding the roots, yet giving the undisturbed branches and leader a chance to 'take over'.

The tree doesn't care a whit that a main leader would be cocked to the side, or if it is central and purely vertical. Neither does it care that there are secondary and tertiary leaders coming along as competition. It is only the human masters that care about this stuff. But it is telling you that it favors one particular trunk to be the main one by sending the preponderance of energy to it. I would listen to that message.

If a straight-trunked, single leader tree is the end goal, then to achieve it, at some point not too far down the road, every branch but for one, the one that is to be the central leader, will be removed. The branches are young and flexible enough that any one of them could easily be "molded" into the straight and vertical central leader position. It would make sense to pick the strong one since it is obviously where the main growth is already directed. Just tie it to a 2x2 pointed stake driven firmly into the ground in order to make and keep it straight and vertical. After a year or two, the trunk will hold its shape and the stake can be discarded.

My thought regarding whether to leave the other branches on or to remove them, is that neither option is really wrong. This dilemma is the one of focusing on form vs focusing on growth. More branches and leaves = more growth ... but we already know that in the end, it will all be removed from the finished form because it is growing in the wrong place. It will neither be a part of the adult tree trunk or of its canopy. Keep in mind that when X-amount of foliage is removed, 70 - 80% of X quickly regrows from the already established root system. Personally, I think it's worth the sacrifice of 20 - 30% short term size reduction to get the form established early in youth, such that all growth from that point onward is headed in a more correct direction (straight, single trunk.) Keep in mind that after the removed foliage is quickly grown back, that the tree will continue to grow ... because it's growing season. By the end of the season it will probably be 120%, or possibly more, of what it is now, with the problem of "who's the leader" having long been solved.

Any knottiness of the young trunk caused by removing a cluster of branches at its base is a non-issue. This will automatically disappear in short order as the tree heals and gains size.

That the tree has been in place for 4 years and is only this size (I understand that it froze back once) makes me wonder if you give it supplemental water and fertilizer, both of which are important in the early years. If you either don't, or are skimpy with these things, I'd give them a try and see if you can get some improved growth out of it, as by my standards, it's going too slowly for what it should be doing. After it's up and running, you could cut back.

Thanks everyone for your input. I decided to go with the branch that the tree was favoring instead of the original straighter leader. I put a stake beside to straighten it. It didn't come out perfectly straight but here are a couple pictures of what it looks like. Thanks again for all the input:

When that tree is 6" diameter and the lowest branch is 6 ft. off the ground, you won't hardly remember anything about this except keeping the future trunk fairly straight up and down.

You probably want to look into 'Structure pruning' a couple/three years down the road. :-)

what did you use to tie the stake?? .. it looks like rubber ... and im not sure if it is good ....

retie the leader every month or so .. and look for damage under such .. if any... lets find something else to use ...

its not a tie once and forget about it forever thing .... by readjusting it every now and then ... you end up ahead ... maybe its like adjusting braces every few months ...

i dont like that the stake isnt plumb ... but i suspect the tree is pulling it over because you tied it so high on the stake ... you might want to look around this summer.. and find a larger one ...

ken

Daniel, I had the same occur with a few trees over the years, including a maple. I hated to remove the strong dominant leader despite the crook left in the stem. I went ahead and basically did exactly what you had there and in a few years time, the thing was pretty well straight as an arrow. I had also used rubber ties btw. Later, nip off some of those lower unwanted branches from time to time as the summer progresses. If you have deer, do consider placing strudy protection around the maple, the buggers can really mess up a young tree!