It depends on what the container is made of. 10' tall in a container is pretty much going to guarantee frequent toppling if you don't have it tethered at multiple points (at least 3), or unless the container is large/heavy. Also, you should be sure that regular root work is in the plan if you want to prevent the predictable decline in vitality over time that you can expect w/o the mentioned attention. Al

I have grown a crape myrtle (the dwarf "Victor") for almost 10 years and hauled it in and out each year. Unfortunately due to the PM that would ravage that type every year (seemingly resistant to either the most basic baking soda solutions or actual PM drenches or sprays), it eventually had had enough (and I had had enough of it! lol) so I finally tossed it this past winter. I kept it in my darkish, cool (avg temp ~60° F - 65° F) bedroom each winter, it would drop its leaves and stay dormant, and then around February, it would start putting out new growth with the increasing daylength. The tricky part would be to try to ease it out in spring/summer and let the inside foliage adapt to the outside, but that is something that must be done with any plant that will go out in summer. Just like many many people overwinter plumerias, bananas, palms, tropical hibiscus, etc., there is nothing stopping you from doing the same with a crape myrtle. In the case of the crape, as a warm temperate shrub, if you have a cold, non-freezing spot (maybe an attached garage, shed, crawl space, or root cellar that stays cold but remains around or above freezing and up to the 40s or low 50s), then you could keep a potted crape in there during winter and bring it out in spring to resprout. Note that crapes bloom on new growth so there is nothing stopping you from doing major top pruning on it in late winter/early spring to keep the height in check. In many colder areas in the NE where they are inground or in more southerly areas with a freak frost or freeze, they may die back to the roots and resprout as a bush, but they bloom just fine just the same. In general, I will overwinter and grow tropicals/subtropicals indoors "as houseplants" (like my tropical hibiscus, DC banana, and coffee arabica) that will go out in summer, but for my marginal-when-potted temperates like the crape, and some others like my baby american beautyberry (or any baby shrub), my gloriosa lily, and some of my Salvias, I have induced dormancy in them and overwintered them in a cool dark spot, keeping them barely moist.

Hello again Rhizo_1, I did far more reading today than I had planned (not a bad thing, lol). While none of the research that Ive come across was be any means complete or definitive, I did gain several insights to my own practices as well as those of the retail nursery industry as it pertains to "tried and true" methods regarding the transplanting of trees and shrubs. One article, regarding planting "myths and urban legends", detailed the myth that the pruning of woody plants stimulates their growth. Apparently, the overall re-growth of copiously pruned woody plants is less than that of non-pruned ones. That is, pruning doesnt "encourage" growth. It just cues dormant buds to begin growing. Getting back to the subject at hand... I found it interesting in the article regarding the California live oak, Quercus agrifolia, that they had decided not to include the higher initial mortality rate of non-pruned trees in the over-all 10 year study. With the removal of these initial deaths, the bias toward statistical data "for" survival of non-pruned trees was significantly higher than for that of the pruned trees. In this study, both the growth rates and gains for trunk growth and top growth were measured at regular intervals and it was found that the pruned trees, while recovering differently and at differing rates, did in fact show substantial recoveries using "old fashioned" methods. The full details and results cant truly be given at this time, as the "non-pruned" trees have only been in the ground for 5 years, whereas the pruned trees have come through the full 10 year trial period. Although, comparing the 5 year periods, the unpruned group has shown more growth in the girth of their trunks with negligible top growth gains, whereas the pruned group has shown negligible growth in their original girth, yet substantial growth rates of new branches to the point of being near recovery of their tops while also having become nearly established. When factoring in the initial numbers of trees, including the early "shock deaths", there is a higher percentage of survival amongst the "pruned" group of oaks. Reading between the lines is something that I have learned over the years as the most prudent way to weed through such a vast sea of snake oil remedies as well as urban mythologies. Even in the article you linked, there were several practices that were/are very difficult to swallow in any practical sense and give little reason to break from tradition. The "new" recommended practice of administering 1 to 1-1/2 gallon of water, per inch of trunk diameter, per day for the first two weeks after transplanting, every other day for the next three months and then once per week for the remainder of the establishment period is not only excessive, but a task that is quite impractical for most of us. From a purely financial aspect, it is nearly insurmountable... Aside from the watering bills it would incur, if we were to discuss a professionally planted landscape, residential or commercial, youre looking at maintenance fees for the full 3-5 year establishment period for #5 to #15 sized (container) landscape plants. I hope youre not taking this personally, Im just addressing the issues that I see with using a completely opposite planting strategy based on incomplete studies and inconclusive evidence. After all if you look at the over-all results between the two groups, the only thing gained "after initial transplant shock losses" in a ten year period is, as they say, a "push". The whole point of the old method "is" the higher success rate of a larger overall percentage of transplants, which includes surviving initial transplant shock. Thats something that the current evidence has not shown for "non-pruned" transplanting. I also have to add that fungicides had to be added as "part of the process" in order to overcome the fact that copious amounts of water were used to establish the "non-pruned" trees, as well as microrhizzae inoculations. The main point that was reinforced for me, was that the loss of too much root AND top was detrimental to the plants chances of survival, as both the roots and stems store carbohydrates, loosing to high a percentage of "both" was essentially like emptying the cupboards and starving the plant. I firmly believe that when it comes to plants, as well as any other living creature, balance is the answer. This balance was described very well in the article put out by the University of California, Davis, which was looking in to the viability of transplanting fully mature native (CA) live oaks to reestablish ecosystems in newly built urban communities. At the end of the study, both the higher costs as well as the substantial losses and high labor requirements were deemed to involved. In other side by side comparisons, the reactions of pruned vs unpruned transplants were exhibited as having differing rates of recovery "in differing areas at different times". Pruned plants recovered their "rate of growth" quicker, as the balance of root mass to top growth were reached sooner. The unpruned plants top growth was "suppressed" until their roots had regrown to match, which by the way, was measured over a similar amount of time comparatively. Again, this would be considered a "push", if it were not for the demonstrated over-all higher success rate of the plants that were pruned. One point that does seem apparent as being important in any context, is that over pruning can be detrimental in most cases, transplanted or established. I know that I recommended "thinning" to compensate, but I certainly did not mean to sound as though I was recommending butchering. I always start with broken, crossing and dead branches, then thin to a main scaffold system. My newly transplanted trees and shrubs are always kept to a foliated framework that, while reduced by percentage, is still that of the original plants structure, form and over-all size/shape. I certainly dont water at excessive levels, as the vast majority of the plants I plant on our 13 aces are sufficiently distanced from a water supply. So the question then becomes, why would anyone adopt a new system that advocates not pruning transplants and watering at much higher volumes and rates of frequency, when the old system of thinning and modest watering volumes at a lower frequency continues to produce high establishment rates and lower initial mortality rates? If it helps you to understand me, as well as my motivation, I cant recommend something to consumers that I cant back up in practice on my own place. Just out of curiosity I may just try out your proposed method starting tomorrow and see how four newly dug trees survive in a side by side test.Two groups of two, one group will have a pruned and an unpruned tree that will be watered at the recommended "higher rate and frequency", the other group of one pruned and one unpruned will be watered at the typically recommended rate as I normally use. Should be an interesting study. Lord knows there are plenty of trees that require relocation from my woods to my front yard. Gives me a good reason to check on the ginkgo I transplanted to the lower part of my property three weeks ago. ;) Regards & best wishes, Dan

I really think your tree will be fine. Luckily the tree has partially leafed out, and that stem coming out toward the top will take over and become the dominant leader. Gluing or taping will not work. By some chicken wire at a home supply store and create a cage around the tree. Secure the wire cage together and fasten it in the ground with some metal hooks/spikes and you're good to go.