Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Effects of Pruning and Fertilizers on Establishment of Bareroot Deciduous Trees

Steve Shoup, Rick Reavis and Carl E. Whitcomb
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) June 1981, 7 (6) 155-157; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1981.037
Steve Shoup
Department of Horticulture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Rick Reavis
Department of Horticulture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Carl E. Whitcomb
Department of Horticulture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Bareroot deciduous trees of 11 species were planted with 0, 15, 30 or 45% of the tops removed immediately following planting. A total of 528 trees were evaluated over a 2-year period. Top pruning had no effect on survival or initiation of growth of any species except pecan which was slightly slower to break buds when the tops were not pruned. Likewise, adding fertilizer to the soil surface following planting had no detrimental effect to survival or initiation of the 6 species tested. There was no advantage of the indiscriminate pruning of tops of bareroot deciduous trees at planting time and pruning more than 15% of the top appeared to be detrimental to the structural development and natural form of the species. Apparently the moisture stress from leaving the entire plant top intact is offset by the more rapid development of a supporting root system from the additional carbohydrates produced.

Top pruning of bareroot and balled in burlap (B&B) trees at planting time is nearly a universal practice. The most common explanation offered for this practice is the need to balance the top with the roots lost at time of digging. Likewise, the recommendation to not fertilize newly planted trees or shrubs during their first growing season has been widely publicized. As with many general gardening recommendations, little or no experimental evidence exists to support either of these practices.

An experiment was set up in the spring of 1978 to evaluate effects of pruning and fertilizing at planting time of six bareroot deciduous species; pin oak, Quercus palustrls, redbud, Cercis canariensis; Bradford pear, Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’; Hopa flowering crab, Matus spp. ‘Hopa’; Summit green ash, Fraxinus Pennsylvania ‘Summit’ and Kwanzan cherry, Prunus serrulate ‘Kwanzan’. All plants were 6 to 8 feet tall, dormant, bareroot stock when planted on March 16, 1978. Treatments were removal of 0, 15, 30 or 45 percent of the plant height before the spring flush. Trees were fertilized or not fertilized at time of planting with 4 lbs. of N/1000 sq. ft. using a 10-20-10 analysis dry fertilizer (1742 lbs./acre) applied to the soil surface following planting. All treatments were replicated 12 times in a randomized complete block design. All trees were planted in a sandy loam soil and watered thoroughly following planting. Spring rains were accommodating, but after June 20, no further rain fell during the summer. Drought stress was allowed to progress sufficiently to defoliate some trees before any supplemental irrigating was done.

A second study was started on March 20, 1979 to confirm the findings from the previous season. Treatments were 0, 15, 30 and 45% removal of the crown of the dormant bareroot trees before the spring flush. However, no fertilizer treatments were used. Tree species were: red delicious apple, Maius domestica ‘Red Delicious’; Keiffer pear, Pyrus communis ‘Keiffer’; dwarf Alberta peach, Prunus persica ‘Elberta’; Stuart pecan, Carya illinoensis ‘Stuart’ and Arizona ash, Fraxinus velutina. All trees were planted in a sandy loam soil and watered thoroughly following planting. The experiment was replicated 12 times in a randomized complete block design.

Pruning or fertilizer treatments had no effect on initiation of growth or survival of any of the tree species planted in 1978. Out of 288 trees planted 242 or 84% survived. Numbers of basal suckers on Bradford pear and crabapple increased significantly when tops were pruned back 30 or 45% (Figure 1). Pruning in excess of 15% reduced the visual quality (natural form and branch development) of all species.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Hopa crabapple trees with 0, 15, 30 or 45%of the top removed immediately after planting. Note the suckers on the 30 and 45% pruning treatments. Pruning or fertilizer treatments had no ef feet on initiation of growth or survival of any of the 6 species tested.

All species planted in 1978 made similar flushes of growth during the spring of 1979 regardless of pruning treatments. This suggests that all trees had recovered from the initial transplant disturbance and assumed normal growth. Except for some unnatural branch development from the severe pruning treatments, all plants were similar in size and vigor at the end of 2 growing seasons. Fertilizing at planting time had no effect on tree growth the first growing season and was only detectable as darker foliage color the second season This was not surprising in this instance since the fertility of the field was high. The fact that no detrimental effect of the fertilizer could be detected is important in light of the widespread recommendation that no fertilizer be added at Planting time. In good soils such as those used in this study adding fertilizer at planting has little impact on plant growth.

Pruning treatments had no effect on survival of any of the species planted in 1979. Pecans broke buds slightly earlier when pruned 15% compared to no pruning. Plants pruned 30 or 45% developed slightly more branches as a result of more bud breaks as compared to the unpruned trees. At the end of the growing season, all leaves were stripped from the dwarf Alberta peach and Kieffer pear and weighed fresh. Weight of leaves per tree were similar regardless of the pruning treatment. The fact that all treatments had similar quantities of leaves at the end of the first growing season suggests a rapid recovery of the tree from the severe pruning treatments. There appears to be no advantage to pruning at planting time and pruning more than 15% of the top appears detrimental to the structural development and natural form of the species. These studies sug gest only corrective pruning should be recommended since excessive pruning reduces visual quality, increases suckers on some species and does not aid in establishment or survival.

Initial root development of newly planted bareroot trees is supported by carbohydrates stored within the stem and root tissues. As soon as top growth begins, however, total carbohydrates within the plant are rapidly reduced. When a portion of the top of the plant is removed the leaf surface area and the capacity to replace carbohydrates used in the initial flush of growth is also reduced. Apparently the moisture stress from leaving the entire plant top intact is offset by the more rapid development of a supporting root system.

This study supports the hypothesis that the most important factor in transplanting is the internal condition of the plant when it is dug. All the lavish precautions such as soil amendments, “root stimulators,” top pruning, and other practices are unlikely to help an unthrifty plant and a thrifty plant doesn’t need it.

Thanks to Ozark Nurseries, Tahlequah, OK, for providing the trees used in this study.

Footnotes

Listen
  • ↵1 Graduate Research Assistants and Professor of Horticulture, respectively. Journal Article #3799 of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station.

  • © 1981, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 7, Issue 6
June 1981
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Pruning and Fertilizers on Establishment of Bareroot Deciduous Trees
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Effects of Pruning and Fertilizers on Establishment of Bareroot Deciduous Trees
Steve Shoup, Rick Reavis, Carl E. Whitcomb
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jun 1981, 7 (6) 155-157; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1981.037

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of Pruning and Fertilizers on Establishment of Bareroot Deciduous Trees
Steve Shoup, Rick Reavis, Carl E. Whitcomb
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jun 1981, 7 (6) 155-157; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1981.037
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Urban Trees and Cooling: A Review of the Recent Literature (2018 to 2024)
  • Aerial Imagery as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Tree Retention: Applications, Strengths and Challenges for Backyard Tree Planting Programs
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire