Hi debhawks. Not sure what you want from that tree, but it is really only a small tree that is about as wide as it is tall. This means that removing the side branches like you propose might make it look like a lolipop with a weak trunk more succeptible to wind or snow damage. A small tree with a rounded shape usually means it will be exactly the shape you have, and that is the definition of many crabs. Cutting the side branches might encourage water sprouts.

Also, your statement that the far right branch is 10-12 inches in diameter must be in error. The whole trunk on a mature Thunderchild is usually about that.

before i go anywhere with this..

i want to know why????

whats the plan.. stan.. or deb i should say ...

ken

It was suggested by a poster in the design forum where I posted regarding my front landscaping.

I then happened to be at a park and noticed all the trees had such great shape and have been very well pruned and kept up and were beautiful.

We used Thunderchild specifically for it's columnar growth. It's placement is out from the corner of the house in front.

I get what he meant as it feels too "bushy" below.

Does that help?

For the record, DH disagrees with removing the right limb.

@ Dzitmoidonc, You are correct re; the size, it's much smaller. and my idea is NOT a lollipop tree

Deb, you can do so. You don't "have to" do so, but you can. Trees are resilient beings and the removal of a branch or three is something they are programmed to deal with. Like someone said, you may well end up with more suckers later, but they too can be dealt with.

The only caveat I'd mention is to go gradually. It may be okay to take two limbs off now, above factors considered, but with any tree, the ideal is to remove lower branches (If this meets your goal for the tree) over time, one or two this year, one or two the next year, etc.

Do with it as thou wilt. Unless you really go nuts, taking off too much foliage-bearing branching, the tree will accomodate your actions.

Having said all that, my personal preference in crabs is for the varieties that end up wider than they are tall. That's just the look I happen to like with this group of trees.

+oM

its wider than tall. because its a full sun tree.. planted in too much shade ...

its predictability is ruined by its circumstances ...

if it were me.. i would prune up all the trunks.. to the height you want ... especially on the right.. and then see what i have ...

being prunus.. i agree. taking that large one.. will lead to a lot of advantageous budding.. and you might be creating more problems than solving.. by taking the large one ...

frankly.. in situ.. with all the ground cover.. i like the form as it is.. i dont know why you have other expectations ....

i hate to say it.. but i am with hubby on this one..

go find something else to fixate on ...

ken

What do you think now?

We've removed the horizontal limbs and a few others, and we've decided to wait a year or two and see how it shapes up. At this point it seems to remove the far right branch would make it "lollipop" shape.

DH wants to truncate midway on that branch, as that's the one growing kinda laterally, so it will send new branches upward, I say no.

It is in full sun.

There was a ninebark behind it that we're renovating to see what happens with that, so that corner looks much cleaner now anyway.
Ninebark can go if it doesn't shape up!

Hmm, sounds like something to say to an ex!
{{gwi:357881}}

Appreciate all the input!

Keep in mind too the recovery that trees undergo following substantial branch removal. It's not going to look the same in two years. There will be lots of new growth and that growth will make it look more graceful than it does now.

+oM

oh my

i can not believe that is the same tree.. from a different perspective.. its not in shade at all .. lol

but unfortunately.. it is about 20 feet TOO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE..

i would ====>>>>> GET RID OF IT ...

its totally overwhelming the corner of the house.. from an aesthetic point of view ...and no amount of pruning.. is going to make it fit there.. ever ...

its the front of your house.. you can do much better .. and you got at least 10 or 15 years out of it.. time to divest ...

ken

I agree with Ken. This tree is not adding to the beauty of your property at all. The house would look a million times better with the tree removed.

Omg. What a different angle!

Hmmmm.....does it belong that close to the house. Probably not idealy but is it causing any harm? Not like my home where white ashes were overhanging the Mustang and the bedrooms.

If you took this photo lying on your back near the tree, there might not be a problem. But, if the tree is really past the 2 story mark on the house, maybe a chainsaw prune should be considered.

If you have a block foundation (as opposed to a poured foundation), you might have a problem. If you are getting algae on the siding, you might have a problem. If the leaves are clogging the gutter, you do have a problem.

If the tree has sentimental value, you could try rooting one of the shoots and planting it farther from buildings. If the tree was planted by former owners and is kept for the spring blooms, you really should consider cutting it. Don't try to pull the roots out though, because you could damage the foundation.

Uh, Ok guys......I love the forums and appreciate getting all the different perspectives. And you just never know what you're gonna hear!

I think the pix angle is misleading, Not touching the house and it won't get any wider, I'm hoping just fuller.

Thanks Guys! D

I stopped by the tree forum because of another issue but want to make a couple of points. Some of the advice already given here is from a horticultural or arboreal perspective: the tree is thought of as THE important object. It denies the primary purpose that the tree serves: to be PART of a landscape... an artistic statement... a subordinate decorative object that adds character and interest--"dressing"--to the house... much as one would place a picture on the wall or a lamp in a particular location on the inside of the home. It is not intended to be a horticultural object grown for it's own sake like one might grow a solitary tree in a park or a tomato in a vegetable garden. It would be much more appropriate to think of this tree as one thinks of a neck tie for a man's wardrobe... not worn so we can see its entirety, but so that what we do see contributes positively to the well dressed man's overall image. The fact that 75% of a neck tie is hidden from view is immaterial. Likewise, growing this tree for a 360* view would be 100% against its designed purpose. What matters is that plants help promote the best presentation of the surrounding property. If it requires a contortion (as an espalier) or a horticulturally unusual juxtaposition (as a one-sided plant against a building) the plants will not care. They have neither thoughts nor feelings. In this particular case the tree is trying to help make the house look less like a large naked box sitting suddenly and abruptly on top of the ground. It's trying to ease the architectural transition to the outdoor world. It cannot do this well from a distance. The question posed for this thread is not really one of horticulture; it is foremost a question of art.

When it comes to pruning, I'm not sure why extreme delicacy and caution is so often urged. The fact is, that this tree could be cut down to three feet height and by the end of the summer, half of it would be back in place. It wouldn't be as tall, but it would be thicker, fuller and have a better spaced trunk system. For the most part, the trunks would sort and space themseves uniformly like a giant bouquet... and such a form would not be an unpleasant looking object. It might be just what the house is asking for, but I'm NOT suggesting such drastic pruning. I'm suggesting that working with the trunk system already in place and making the best of it is a reasonable goal. I'm also suggesting work that doesn't need to "go slowly" or be delayed. It can all be done now and in 20 minutes with no unmanageable consequeces.

Pruning is not the act of placing branches where one wants them. It is the act of removing them from where one doesn't. Since removing existing growth encourages new growth elsewhere, one merely hopes that it appears where it's wanted and can remain. It's wishful thinking to suppose that the tree itself will know where it should be growing branches and trunks in order to please the homeowner's need for an artistic landscape. It is the homeowner who should be dictating to the tree what is allowed and what isn't, in order to achieve the art form that best displays the house, and displays best against the house.

Though the trunk system here is a modified combination, it's multiple trunk portion dictates most of the pruning decisions. Multi-trunk small trees look best with trunk spreads that are between 45* and 60*. The range is arbitrary. It's just what I've personally concluded after comparing hundreds of trees. And part of it depends on the tree's ultimate size and location. Generally, the larger a tree will become, the more fitting a narrower spread becomes. If space is tight, a wide spreading tree may become an obstruction. There's flexibility. Someone's different view of what a proper spread should be would not be in competition with mine; it would just be their different view of an artistic statement.

Since this tree is already in its "teenage years" (in "tree terms") we'd not focus on radical changes, but just bring the trunk spread within an acceptable range, seeking to attain balance. The tree should should appear to be standing upright and not leaning strongly in one direction. Second, I'd give an overall trim to the top of the canopy for the purpose of attaining a relatively uniform dome shape; upper growth is currently leaning leftward. If greater control of size and increased canopy density is desired, trim to the "optional limit of canopy." (This "limit" is not ultimate, but is only advice about pruning now.) Third, I'd limb up all the twigs and branches that fall below the bottom of the desired canopy height. For a growing tree, a horizontal line established at 50% of the height is a good rule-of-thumb. See illustration below. It will allow for raising the canopy annually until the desired ultimate height is achieved... at no less than 8' or 9' ht. for the bottom of a canopy in typical situations.

Notes about the illustration: I'd remove the trunk labeled "A." It creates an unbalanced, right-ward lean to the overall trunk mass. (See the sillhouette comparison.) Removing it brings the mass into better balance. Additionally, the same trunk is set at a low angle (approximately 45*) from vertical. As it grows and gets longer it has no choice but to get heavier. The added weight will pull it downward. It's not only conceivable but is entirely likely that it will be low and wide-spreading enough to obstruct adjacent passing space in the lawn. There is no reason to be purposely growing an unbalanced obstuction. If cut today, one would endure the work of a 2" dia. cut. If one waits until it becomes a problem before removing it, one may be making a 6" dia. cut (and corresponding wound) and disposing of 80 lbs. of yard waste instead of 8 lbs. There is no reason to wait for unpleasant news to be guaranteed.

In the bottom illustration, remove all twigs and foliage below the green line unless it is a desired new trunk (more vertical than 45*) in the process of forming within the accepted range of trunk spread.

If the homeowner decides to accept my advice, hopefully, she will report back with an updated photo showing the result.

{{gwi:357882}}

I get it and see exactly what you mean. I think we got a little off topic in the post. I wanted to remove the rt branch but was unsure. Hope I can get DH to see the vision.

If I use a pole pruner to trim off the canopy, does this encourage thicker growth such as in a shrub?
That would help me in making decision about canopy height.
If I thought it would, I would opt for the trimming more version.

I'm curious to see in which places all this new growth will be.

Thank you for the the time you took with all the details. Hope to post pix when trimmed.

BTW- Which part of Fla are all those trees dying?

Trimming at the top of the canopy is essentially a "shearing" operation and, just as with a shrub, will increase the bushiness of the canopy. It will look more refined. If you do it once and no more, future growth will revert to the appearance of natural growth. But periodic very light trimming just to refine the canopy shape, but without shearing, will have little effect other than to refine the overall form of the canopy.

Future growth urged by trimming will probably be split between some growth at the site of the pruning (especially if it gets much light) and other growth at the top of the tree (where it is getting the most light and wants to grow naturally.)

Sometimes, if pruning is heavy, it may encourage such rampant new growth that the freshest portions of the trunks & limbs may have a hard time supporting it. The problem is solved by reducing some of the new growth and consequently, it's weight. Here, this potential problem could be circumvented before it arises by pruning limbs to the "optional" tighter pruning. Then there wouldn't be as much new weight for thinner parts of the limbs to carry.

The dying trees I mentioned were just off of I-4 between Tampa and Lakeland. I saw others between Dover and Valrico.

Yardvaark, I don't know how much experience you have with apple trees, and the crabapple acts like an apple (M. domestica). Pruning the top on an apple tree ("shearing") results in watersprouts, a zillion of them. Imagine 50 whips up to 4 ft. long, growing out of the top. To keep them incheck, you have to prune the top every year thereafter. Furture growth will never revert to anything near normal, instead every year brings a new crop of watersprouts to prune. These whips also break from the stub with every wind storm, every snow storm. The result is a wholly disfigured tree with ends on the branches that look like witches brooms. This is ok if you are in an orchard and want to keep the trees short and you don't care what they look like, but in a residential setting, it promotes diesese (fireblight) and increases the amount of pruning you have to do forever.

Removing the lower branch on the right as Yardvaark suggests is the way to go. However, I wouldn't trim the top. First off, it's hard to do for the average homeowner and you have to do it again in a very short time. It would be fine to do on a different type of tree and in a climate that has no snow. Zone 4, no matter where it is, has snow and has to be taken in to account. Sure the Crabapple has no leaves in winter, but the increased twigs caused by top trimming would catch a lot more than if it weren't trimmed.
Another mistake I see here quite often is pruning a Crabapple like it was a fruit producing tree in a commercial orchard. The more you prune a Crabapple, the more you have to. What's wrong with letting it go natural and only pruning out the 'problem' branches?
I agree with Yardvaark, that treating the tree as art is preferable, rather than treating it as an individual specimen. Too often we look at the hood ornament instead of the road.
Mike

Here is a link that might be useful: My garden

While I can appreciate Dzitmoidonc's opinions, I cannot agree that his observations are correct or without exaggeration. And his claim seems to be illustrating a different scenario than the one presented here with a tree of this age and the intensity of proposed pruning. The idea of lifelong witch's broom from a single canopy pruning is not a realistic. Genetics and sunlight play a much larger role in the shaping of a plant than a one-time relatively modest pruning. It's the rule not the exception that in horticulture any claim produces contrary claims. Pick up any two books on the subject and see it in print. The GardenWeb forums are rife with contrary opinions. Sometimes good follows bad. Often, bad follows good. The reader is left to sort it out and make sense of it.

There's little need to compare crabapple to a similar species when the behavior of Malus floribunda is well known. I grew up and earned a degree in horticulture in the Midwest where crabapple was THE predominant ornamental tree. Graduating at the top of my class didn't mean as much for learning about the crab's habits and behavior as did the summer job of shrub and small tree pruning that put me through school. After going on to earn a degree in landscape architecture--finishing one year early and graduating cum laude instead of taking the full five years--I was routinely able to enjoy serious study of plant form. While mostly working as a landscape architect since then, I also worked for several years in landscape management for a major university where one of my responsibilities was overseeing the pruning of large and small trees by in-house staff and by private contractors. During that time, not only did I have to freedom and resources to experiment with various pruning techniques, styles and methods, I was able to implement major changes in the way pruning was carried out... to a greatly improved appearance of the campus. It's not as though I'm showing up here offering advice with little knowledge about the outcome. Horticulture IS complex so it's easy to see why there are differences of opinion. It's also necessary to look beyond the immediate and the obvious.

It is not as though anyone comes out of the womb understanding the purpose or methods of pruning. It takes learning and observation. I can remember at the very beginning of the learning not fully comprehending the instructions of one author and wondering why they were contradicted by the instructions of another. The best teaching was direct observation over a period of time. Later, as a design consultant to hundreds of homeowners (among other things) I was regularly asked the question, "When is the best time to... (insert question about pruning 85% of the time... and a question about fertilization 15% of the time)... ? After a point, it became obvious to me that the general public has not only a great lack of knowledge about pruning but that they have a great fear of it, too. That the default state of affairs is not too much pruning, but LACK of it, so it goes that damage and disfigurement to woody plants by LACK of pruning far outweighs that caused by pruning too much. The tremendous widespread fear of pruning already exists and adding to it is not an advantage. Dispelling fear and mystery of it is what the fields of horticulture and landscape design need if we expect to elevate understanding and appreciation of them on a widespread scale.