words mean things.. so i will help in your learning curve ...

thru pruning.. you can make a shrub into a tree FORM ...

but you cant make it a tree ...

every single word means something ... and when you start learning to use them properly.. half the battle is won ....

e.g. if you tried to google tree .... i bet 40 million hits later.. you will find a 'shrub pruned into tree form' ....but if you used that term.. you will get where you want to get to.. eh???

now.. that said .... the whole point of flowering shrubs.. is to eyeball those gorgeous flowers.. but if they are 8 feet in the air... you will be missing a big part of the reason for the flowers... i can not conceptualize not seeing that flower in macro..

can you do it.. sure.. its all between you and your pruning shears ... but SHOULD YOU DO IT ... i wouldnt ...

wegalia.. on the other hand.. with its grand arching branches... i just dont know how you could do it .... but you go for it ... if you want to try ...

which brings me to the bottom line.... there has to be the first guy to do it.. and there never will be.. unless someone tries.. so if this is your passion.. you knock yourself out ....

good luck.. we like teaching here on GW.. so come back often ...

and start browsing the tree forum .... if you want to learn about trees.. rather than shrubs ....

ken

ps: there aren't many things you can kill outright thru pruning ... so just buy some high grade pruning shears.. and go for it [the only exception are some of the conifers]

My view of the words 'shrub' and 'tree' is completely different (maybe opposite?) from Ken's. I think of the two terms as representing regions of a continuum of plant sizes and forms. These regions often have overlap, and are certainly not exclusive. Also, plants frequently don't limit themselves to our desire to define their "typical form". My personal experience and the materials (books, articles, scientific papers, etc) I read seem to support my view. In my experience, Ken's views on this particular subject are definitely outliers in the horticulture world.

Here's a good example. Michael Dirr is probably the single most widely recognized author on the subject of trees and woody plants. His book, Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, is often referred to as the "Tree Bible". That book is absolutely filled with descriptions of various species of woody plants described as "a shrub or small tree" (i.e. the plant is commonly seen in both forms).

you know brandon.. i specifically left out MY DEFINITION of a tree... to avoid rehashing this debate we had before ... a couple of times.. if i recall ... let it go man ... lol ... so as to further OPs learning curve .... without the hardcore distracting them .... with old debates ....

anyway ... many of the things you see ... that are in tree form .. are grafted at height .... google: grafting plants on a standard ... see link ... crikey.. more concepts and words of art ...

yes.. you can do it in your yard.. but it might take 5 to 10 years to get there.... but the pro's can cut that down to a few years.. thru grafting.. and growing standards ...

keep learning..

ken

ps: the old debate???? its my position that there is a reason that GW has different forum [the: words mean things idea] ... and if a newbie is looking for info about one thing.. but calling it something else.. then perhaps they can learn more.. by visiting other forums... which was then turned into a metaphysical debate on such .... and dont get me wrong .. it was interesting ... debate always is... but.. again.. words mean things .... and that is why various forums.. have various names .... in other words.. i am defining the language.. and brandon [my very good GW buddy] wants to argue plant physiology .... and it is very entertaining to watch ... except for the fact.. that we are arguing two different topics.. and really never get anywhere.. lol ....

Here is a link that might be useful: link

Are there other shrubs that can be grown as trees?

Of course -- many shrubs can be trained in tree form. And many that are perceived as being shrubs (or are most often shrubs under cultivation) become trees in the wild.

Alternatively, many trees can be grown in shrub form.

I agree with Brandon that the thousands upon thousands of species and cultivars of shrubs and trees all lie on a continuum from divaricate shrubs to single-trunked tall trees.

Some more in the middle of the range start out shrubby and CAN become trees with time (Arbutus unedo, for example). Some trees can be kept in shrub form (Prunus caroliniana is an example). In some genera, a particular cultivar may have a propensity to grow one way or the other (Biloxi crape myrtile can become a gorgeous tree to over 30 feet tall; Zuni will likely never reach those heights -- maybe 12 feet tops)

Varieties of azalea, weigela, rhododendrons, etc?

Not so much, but it depends greatly on the cultivar. Azaleas and Weigela have very strong shrubby tendancies. I have a variety of azalea in my yard that gets no more than 2 feet tall, but will spread to 5 feet. Try training THAT into a tree. LOL! A bonsai tree, maybe.

I trained a weigela into a standard and it looks great for a few years, but the constant pruning was tedious. Some plants just have a tendancy to be what they want to be.

This post was edited by dave_in_nova on Fri, Aug 2, 13 at 8:33

Cotinus, Physocarpus, Photinia, Sambucus are some that might be hardy where you are. Physocarpus particularly is a fun one to grow in multi-trunked tree form as the bark is lovely and eye-catching even in winter when the leaves are gone. It's fun to play around with multiple specimens - I have some that I coppice, some trained as multi-trunked trees and some that I leave alone.

Sara

I'm so glad I posted my question here. You guys have given me a ton of information to work with. Re: the "tree"/"tree form" distinction, I appreciate both perspectives; in the future I'll try to use the term "tree form" and "shrub form" where appropriate.

If anyone here is still following the thread, have you tried training a mock orange to grow in tree form? What were the results? How about forsythia?

Caning shrubs like forsythia or philadelphus tend not to make great candidates for training into a standard or tree form. The fact that they produce multiple stems form the root crown, even when very young, limits your ability to select a single "trunk-like" stem for training purposes.

That's not to say you can't do it - only that it takes some very careful selection for the proper specimen to begin with and some diligent and attentive training thereafter. When training a shrub into a standard (tree) form, the earlier you start, the easier the training and the better the results.

Pretty much any multi-stemmed shrubs can be trained into a tree-like form (not a standard - that refers to a single trunk) provided the shrub itself grow large enough. All this requires is the selection of the best basal stems to provide structure and the removal of all lower shoots and branches to the desired height.

Small trees have also been produced by nurseries by grafting shrubs onto single stems of related trees, for instance cotoneaster onto mountain ash.

Ken, when you say, "you can make a shrub into a tree FORM...but you cant make it a tree", I disagree with you! When you follow that with, "every single word means something ... and when you start learning to use them properly.. half the battle is won", I think yeah...but then why aren't you using the words properly (or at least in ways that would agree with customary usage)??? I'm not trying to annoy you, but I do disagree with your understanding of the topic.