The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1900-01-27
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 ad-
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 n
of September in the same year, and
very few of these showed any salts
factory growth or vigor. OF the cheek
trees, some having the roots cut back
only about one-half and the other IN
trimmed, not one died. From tests
made at the Missouri station with b
apple it was concluded that "the In
jury caused by too loose root pruning
Is one that trees do not outgrow II
they do not diet outright. ,
The heroic pruning advised by our
Southern neighbor seems to lie TN
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 i'll 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 is 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 I'M
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 We're
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.
Much field work is still necessary to
determine the limits of applicability
Of this method.
The method consists in cutting back
q t%ransplanted tree to practically no
root at all, or at NEST I a mere stub.
shortening the top proportionately.
The tree thus becomes to all intents
and purposes a cutting. There is moth
ing essentially new" about this
method. Interest in 1t attaches to the
proposition that its possibilities in
practice have not been fully under
stood. The advantages claimed 70.
this method are that II gives a 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 OF
spreading out near the surface. More
over, with the root pruned to a club.
It is no longer necessary 10 dig large
UOAS6 Al SA000PAoASAA6 a AASAS NI0UAS
hole is sufficient.
The method has been quite extern
sively tested both North and South.
Tests were made at the Maryland sta
ton on q large scale. About 1000
trees OF various kinds were planted.
At the end Of the first season peach
trees the roots Of: which were ul-
nv,,noH nod unadns n Ornafor hilkr mt al
even, growth than those that were
pruned. .Root-pruned pear trees made
a, better growth in all respects thar,
unpruned trees. In the case Of apple
trees there was little If any difference
between root-pruned and unpruned
trees. Root-pruned5plums outgrew un-
:pruned. The Mahaleb cherry. red
eedar and California .privet did well