Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1899-11-17
Aarifaltnral.
Close Root Pruning Of Fruit Trees.
From Farmers Bulletin No 1O3.

From Farmers Bulletin No. 1903.
For several years method of root
pruning much at variance with COM
monty accepted methods has been
strongly advocated in certain quarters
Although for some time the new views
gained little credence, the advantages
Of the method over older ones we're rep
resented as being so great and the re-
suits claimed for it so surprising that
horticulturists could not be other than
interested in tests Of its practicability
The method consists 10 cutting back
a transplanted tree to practically no
root at all or at most to a mere stub,
shortening the top proportionately. The
tree thus becomes to all intents and
purposes a cutting. There is nothing
essentially NEW" about this method.
Interest in it attaches to the proposition
that its possibilities in practice have not
been fully understood.
The advantages claimed for this
method are that it gives better tree
with a root system consisting Of several
strong roots which penetrate into the
moist depths of the soil and securely
anchor the tree instead VI spreading out
near the surface. Moreover, with the
root pruned to club, it is no longer
necessary to dig large holes in trans
planting. A mere dibble hole is suffi-
cient.
The method has been quite extern
sively tested both North and South
Tests were made at the Maryland Sta
ton on large scale. About / 900 trees
of various kinds were planted. At the
end of the first season peach trees the
roots of which were unpruned had
made a greater, but less even, growth
than those that were pruned. Root
pruned pear trees made better growth
in all respects than unpruned trees. In
the case OF apples there was little if any
difference between root-pruned and un-
pruned trees. Root-pruned plums OUT
grew their checks. Tho Mahalcb cherry,
red cedar, and California privet did we'll
under the treatment. Black Tartarian
cherry on Mazzard roots, Norway spruce,
hemlOck, and Lawson cypress did not.
Altheas STATED slowly. The general
result Of the tests was very encouraging
to the advocates of close root pruning
A series of tests was made by the
Georgia Station, mainly with the peach,
but including also the apple and cherry,
with results indicating that peach trees
pruned by this method twill live and
flourish in this section even in stiff clay
soil and under adverse meteorological
conditions. This statement may also be
extended to cover apples and cherries !"
The Alabama Station planted peaches
and pears on hard. grsvelly hillside
having stiff clay subsoil, with the result
that at the end of the season mo in
creased vigor was observed in the root
pruned trees, but, on the other hand,
no disadvantage could be detected, and
the conditions could hardly have been
more severe" The New Jersey Stations
have also tested the method with salts
factory results.
The method was tested at the Indiana
Station. The season was considered
exceptionally favorable. 1.-THE result
of this experiment showed that the
peach tree was capable, after being de-
prived Of all its roots and branches, of
producing magnificent root system
and top to correspond. The dwarf
pear, standard pear, German prune. and
Early Richmond cherry came next in
order, the latter making very little root
development on the pruned trees"
Not all tests, however, have resulted
fayorably. Of twenty-five apple trees
PLANTED at the Nebraska Station in the
Spring of 1896, only ten were living at
Inc end d September in the same year,
aud vof5 few Of these showed any salts
factory yioAs "A or yigor. OF the check
trees, some ma, g the roots cut back
only about Ono-half and others untrim-
med, not one died Fro.p tests made 81
the Missouri Station witb lie apple, i
was concluded that ''the Injury cause
by too close root pruu,ng Is QUO tina
trees DO not outgrow if they 10 not d.
outright. The hero,,
pruning advised by our Southern neigh.
Dor seems to be unadapted to our con
ditions. The mortality among our treel
is too great"
From the results of all the trials thu
far reported, it is evident that this prac
tice of close root pruning neither merits
unqualified approval nor deserves sweep.
ing condemnation As might have
been expected, species vary greatly in
their ability to endure severe root prun.
ing. Among cultivated trees, probably
those which experience the least i'll
effects are the peach and pear. On the
other hand, the persimmon is tree to
which this method probably would moi
be applicable, as it is liable to die il
very much of its long taproot is cut
of.
The critics of this method have at.
tributed much Of its success to condi.
tons Of soil and climate. Or this point
the evidence is very unsatisfactory -
Sfringfellow, the most ardent advocate
of the method, working at Galveston
with the favoring conditions OF warm
porous soil and high annual rainfall, hal
obtained remarkable results { ON clos,
rooN pruning but the Georgia and Ala
bs..a Stations have also obtained salts
factory results under the adverse condi
tons of drouth and poor, hard soil -
These results certainly contradict tn,
statements Of certain critics. that tn,
method is successful only under favor
able soil and meteorological conditions
Again, nearly all Of these successor
we're achieved in the Middle and South
ern States. The outcome under equal,
unfavorable conditions in the Nortl
might be different in fact, at presen