Hi,

I'd like the revisit the multiple-tree-to-one-hole plant (Dave Wilson, et al) strategy.

I feel that MORE then 2 trees to a hole is a bad idea if you can avoid it - the poor aesthetics and the fact that you have all of the mutual, central over shading.

Lets say that you had room for a 3/4 full-size (minimally pruned) tree, but needed a male and female, or two different cultivar-varieties... in my case, two American persimmons to total 24' wide and pruned to 16' height, then I would recommend planting the two trees side by side separated by only 6'. You would cut all of the branches in between the two. The reason I wouldn't do less then 4' is because the very side branches which are closest to the opposite partner will need to spread and will not being meshing as much with one another.

I've seen tall, healthy oak trees planted next to a tall building 4' away; all of the branches facing the building wall have been cut or died-off.

Now, of course, this is fine in nature and the trees would just grow taller and thin. But since these two fruit trees will not be surrounded by other trees, they will not reach as readily toward vertical growth - not only are they free from outside competition (outside of the mutual 1/2 competition), but you would keep them pruned low, they should grow bushier. I mentioned this to Jerry Lehman and he agreed that, if this worked out and might, the lateral branches will just grow a bit longer and if more brittle, could be supported by a frame 10' from the 2 trunks.

I wouldn't do this with 3 trees(or +) in a small hole on account of the fact that, i wish i could word the following more clearly without effort: being 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 all branches are of course going to mesh with eachother. This would work if the trees were spaced far enough apart, but not perfectly.

What do you think?