Probably root-bound, with correcting that needing to be done to assure a normal future.

A larch is a conifer. There is a conifer forum. ;-)

I just hadda say that. lol

There is a chance that the uprooting fixed the rootbound issue, if there was one, but being just a 7 footer there is also a chance it will gain enough rootmass on that side but I'd leave the stake for 4-5 years. Its not like it was a 30 footer coming undone.

tj

ROFLMBO, that was good!

Now ... if I could only remember what else Ken says ... why fight nature ... prune at ground level ... and be done with it ... you'll feel better with it gone ... why let the tree bother you ... it's just a tree (well something like that)

OK legal beagle brandon ...

i deserves all the newbie advice ...

now how about some real advice ....

the same thing happened in tornadic winds to a 15 foot crabapple ... but thats 250 feet up the driveway .. i can ignore that stake for decades ...

but the larch is one of a pair cornering the deck outside the front door ...

as of now.. i am thinking of cutting it to about 2 feet.. and training a new leader ... at that height.. it wont need the giant stake ....

conifers are trees.. and this is the part you forget.. but i care no where you post ... lol ...

all in good fun.. but i need some real answers ...

bboy.. and dan .. yes.. it was probably pot bound and improperly planted 10 years ago ... WHAT DO I DO NOW ... statements of fact do not lend themselves to resolution of the issue ... [if i only knew then.. what i know now.. i wouldnt be here...]

ken

Hey Ken,

I actually took the trial/training version of the Tennessee State Bar Exam (just the MBE part) a few years ago and did really well. If it weren't for those pesky essay questions, I could probable have gotten admitted to the bar.

As for your larch, I have no idea other than maybe bare-rooting it and correcting the defects. If it were mine, I probably really would just remove it (no kidding, this time).

I would consider putting a big flat rock on the side that pulled out to hold the rootball down.

But without seeing a picture ... I'm just guessing, ya know?

hmmm.. the bar exam.. the only bar i ever passed .... lol ...

there isnt a rock for 50 miles.. never seen a county like it ... the rock would cost me more than a darn replacement plant ... i cant believe how some of you peeps have the greatest rock collections for free.. and i have to pay money for dead weight ...

i know it has to go ... just fishing for ideas ...

and i know.. after 5 years of staking.. it is fer sure.. that the next wind storm will blow it over .. and i will have waited 5 years.. looking at an ugly stake.. only to have it tip over again ...

well default number one.. to the kids.. lead .. follow .. or get out of the way [cracks peeps up at the store]....

its gotta go ... which would be... lead by example ... wonder how many years it will take to suck it up and do it ... lol

ken

I would guess 2 years. I would consider some select pruning, and then stake tree back up-right and then water about 1' from trunk on side you want roots to grow. Every month move water out an additional 6". After year loosen the strings/rope a couple of inches. Next year loosen an additional inch. And then remove. But then what do I know about larches way down here.

Ken,
I can't say for Larch, but we have had a couple shrubs that the same basic thing happened to. In short they never rooted properly on that side again. IMHO, even it it re-roots on that side, it will always be less than it needs to be. Lets say this plant lost 30% of it's root system when it lost them on that side. So the plant must replace 30% of it's root mass. If all that was on the one side, then great, but that is not what's going to happen. Instead the SOS signal will go out to grow roots, all roots, until the 30% are replaced. But the replacement will be over the entire root system. So for that side at most you would have is 30% x 30%, or 9% of the root system in the area that had 30% of the root system before. Result an always poorly root tree on the side that lost roots, and almost certain eventual failure.

This ignores delays in rooting due to having to push new root buds from that side, while roots continue to grow on the rest of the root system, IF it pushes new roots from that side at all. From the trees POV, it has all these other roots that are growing that can just take up all the slack, and therefore no new roots are needed on that side.

So IMHO, remove it, and replace when possible, or go in a different direction.

Arktrees

thx scot and ark ...

this is a front door plant ... as i have said way to many times .... its a project for the back 4 acres...

i should have better things to do at the prime front door area of my house .... eh ...

does anyone else need to get really angry at a plant.. before they go sacrifice it to the tree gods???

i am getting really angry .. lol ..

ken

Going by the reasoning Arktrees put forward, what would happen if you cut around the thing's base with a shovel and cut the roots all the way around, so they'd all have to regrow, on all sides?

Kind of like what happens with ball & burlap trees, you know?

Would this work?

Richard.

Richard,
That's a very good thought, and may very well work if there are at least stubs left on the one side. It would be much like planting it over again. So are you up for a little experimentation Ken?

Arktrees

Cut it back and you will most likely wind up with a better, stronger tree.

Excuse my ignorance on Larches, but will they regenerate if cut back? Bald Cypress would, but other conifers do not do so very well.

Ken, it may take yrs. I have a similar problem w/a Japanese larch in a very windy spot-- now about 15' tall & 7 yrs old. First problem was girdled roots, but I've pretty much fixed that by cutting away the bad roots, topping the leader & cabling it for a few yrs -- it now has a massive surface root extending out toward the wind direction.

Still, just recently w/full foliage (and very soggy soil), a windstorm pushed it about 20 deg windward. I'm not going to do anything now, it's just gonna have to straighten out itself.

A nearby hybrid larch of similar size & somewhat taller is ramrod straight.

{{gwi:357413}}
My understanding is the OP is talking about weeping larch.
a pic is worth 1,000 words. I've never seen a substantial one that didn't lean. Larches are absolutely intolerant of shade, even their own. Nearby structures and vegetation cause them to lean towards the light. BTW the one pictured is solid as a rock, at this point staking is not an option. The sunny side of the plant has thick and full foliage.
Someone give us a pic of an established, weeping larch that is not leaning.

Two points. I have read that staking plants too tightly prevents natural rocking in breezes which is a process that rips roots and triggers expansion and so on, more firmly anchoring the plant. There may be an element of that here. Second point is I would stake it (if necessary) this year, and while dormant in early Spring, dig it up (not moving it, unless you want to, re-set it, and water it in as you would a new planting).