The silver messenger. (Challis, Idaho) 1890-1912, 1900-04-24
Close Root Pruning Methods.

From Farmers Review: For sew
eral years a method of root pruning
much at variance with commonly ac-
cepted methods has been strongly adj
vocated in certain quarters. Not all
tests, however. have resulted favor
ably. OF twenty-five apple trees planted
at the Nebraska station in the spring
of 1896 only ten were living at the end
of September in the same year, and
very few Of these showed any salts
factory growth or vigor. OF the check
trees, some having the roots cut back
only about one-half and the other un-
trimmed, not one died. From tests
made at the Missouri station with the
apple it was concluded hat 1.-The in
jury caused by too loose root pruning
is one that trees do not outgrow If
they do not diet outright. .
The heroic pruning advised by our
Southern neighbor seems to be I'M
adapted to our conditions. The NOR
tally among our trees is too great"
From the results of all the trials
thus far reported it is evident that this
practice of close root pruning neither
merits unqualified approval nor de-
serves sweeping condemnation. AS
might have been expected, species vary
greatly in their ability to endure Sc
we're root pruning. Among cultivated
trees probably those which experience
the least ill effects are the peach and
pear. The critics of this method have
attributed much of its success to con-
ditions of soil and climate. On this
point the evidence = very unsatisfac-
tory. Stringfellow, the most ardent
advocate of the method, working at
galveston with the favoring conditions
OF a warm, porous soil and high an
nual rainfall, has obtained remarkable
results from close root pruning; but
the Georgia and Alabama stations have
also obtained satisfactory results un-
der the adverse conditions of drouth
and poor, hard soil. These results
certainly contradict the statements of
certain critics that the method is sue
cessful only under favorable soil and
meteorological conditions. Again,
nearly all of these successes were
achieved in the Middle and Southern
states. The outcome under equally I'M
favorable conditions in the North
might be different; in fact, at present
the evidence points in that direction.
Muc field work is still necessary to
determine the limits of applicability
OF this method.
Inc method consists in cutting back
d transplanted tree to practically no
root at all, or at most to a mere stub,
shortening the top proportionately.
me tree thus becomes to all intents
ana purposes a cutting. There is moth
ing essentially new" about this
method. Interest in it attaches to the
proposition that its possibilities in
practlce have not baen fully under
stoou. The advantages claimed for
thls method are that it gives a better
tree with a root system consisting of
several strong roots which penetrate
inoo the moist depths of the soil and
securely anchor the tree instead OF
spreading out near the surface. More
over, with the root pruned to a elub
II Is no longer necessary to dig large
noies In transplanting. A mere dibble
hole Is sufficient.
me metnod has been quite extern
s,veiy tested both North and South.
tests were made at the Maryland sta
.ioh on a large scale. About 1000
trees OF various kinds were planted.
AT the end of the first season peach
trees the roots Of which we're un-
pr1hed had made a greater, but not so
even, growth than those thar were
pruned. Root-pruned pear trees made
: pet'er growth in all respects than
unpruned trees. In the case of apple
trees there was little if any difference
between root-pruned sud u%npruned
trees. Root-pruned plums outgrew nm
pruneu. The Mahaleb cherry. red
CEDAR and California rrivet did wei