Cut the leader with the weakest limb structure out now while tree is young. This will encourage new growth on remaining leader and get it on its way toward filling in. It may never fill in perfect but in the long run you will be glad you did correct a problem that was going to confront you down the road. You answered your question. It's still young and will fill in. Go for it.

Dave

THanks Dave.
Should I cut the second leader all the way back to the bottom?

That's my recommendation. Anybody else want to chime in?

Dave

Thanks again Dave.
Any other opinions before I go out with my loppers?

take a deep breath .. and cut it completely out..

think of it this way .... you have roots for two plants... and when you take out half ... you will have twice as much ..

but for the transplant.. lol ...

on second thought.. since they are recent transplants.. they need all the green they have.. to regenerate the roots system ... ergo ... plan on doing it next fall ... so as to give it time to 'establish' before you remove part of the canopy ...

good luck

ken

PS: if you did it already .. dont worry about it ...

Thanks ken,
Nope, haven't done it yet. Just waiting for all the experts to weigh in. :)
Okay.....here's something to consider. I think my husband really whacked the root system when he dug this one up. So maybe it would, after all, be better to cut back the 2nd leader now, so as to balance the top with the roots??

Duh! I just realized, Ken, that your suggestions was to leave the top so it could help the roots grow faster.
I guess I didn't realize it worked like that. I mean I knew the tree needed roots to grow the top better, but I didn't realize that the top helps the roots grow faster. But I guess it is the tops that harness the energy, right?
Okay.....I'll do the deed next fall. If there's a bad ice storm this year, I don't think its big enough to split yet.
Thanks.

You could just shorten the competing leader a bit, just enough to make it lose out in the race to be the main leader in the future. Or even (if it is still thin and flexible enough) bend it outwards with some bonsai wire to try and convince it to become a branch.

Resin

Are we kidding here. So much to do about a simple process of extra leader elemination. With the weak leader gone. Nothing is going to grow on this conifer through the winter except the root system if they wern't all chopped off in transplanting In the Spring when growth potential begins above ground all new energy will go to the remaining leader for better growth potential then trying to supply food for both leaders. Get out the Felco pruner and wack that sucker off.

Dave

Dave

Too much discussion here. I go with Dave--"whack it off now." But, of course, cut it carefully right at the base. Sometimes, if you leave a bit of the leader you are cutting, it will try to re-grow with the vigor that a tree would if it were trying to re-grow its only leader after it were cut off. I have seen this happen.

Also, as for reducing the foliage too much after transplant: actually this would be a good thing. I go with those that say transplant shock is reduced when there is significant root loss if you also reduce the foliage to balance it. I have seen people in this forum say this is not so, but I have been transplanting all kinds of trees for over 60 years (literallly thousands and thousands) and have done it both ways many, many times, and my experience has shown me without any doubt left (although without controlled scientific experiments) that reducing foliage where there is a bit too much root loss in transplanting, can ensure better survival and better recovery time.

Your tree is very small--in three years or less no one will be able to see any sign whatsoever that a second leader was cut off. Enjoy your tree without any concerns whatsoever!

--Spruce

trees are trees.. conifers are trees ... ergo rules as to canopy reduction in trees SHOULD be the same for conifers ...

the 'old school' thought was to reduce the canopy by 1/3 after transplant ... to reduce stress on the truncated root system ...

the 'new school' thought is more green.. means more food .. which means more power to produce new roots to establish faster ...

pick one.. your choice .... we can argue about it until the cows come home .. whatever that really means ....

if hubby butchered it in transplant.. it really isn't going to matter .....

6 of this.. half dozen of the other .... DO WHATEVER PLEASES you .. and quit worrying about what 'the experts' say .... after all .. they [and i don't mean us]... cant even really decide if canopy reduction is good or bad ...

as Dave said.. at a minimum ... chop the top of the leader off ... and decide later about the rest of it .... we want to establish a single leader ASAP ...

ken

Cut the weaker of the two completely off (at the base, yes)

Dax

i meant chop off the leader of the SECONDARY leader .... let the better side of the tree ... establish dominance now ... worry about the rest of it now or later .. your choice ...

ken

Ken:

Maybe the cows have come home! Well, I would not routinely cut back the foliage of a transplanted tree UNLESS the root loss was severe. And by "severe" I mean much more than is usually the case when a tree is transplanted. I agree completely that full foliage should be left because it does help the tree grow faster, roots and all. I have planted somewhere between 135 and 150 trees on my new place in Winchester in the last four years and have cut back on the foliage on only one conifer and maybe two fruit trees. Now the poster of this topic did not say the root loss in transplanting was severe, so in this case I may have misspoke if I suggested that in this case foliage reduction was necessary.

I guess my point is that whether or not the root loss was severe, there can be little harm in cutting this second leader (trunk) out completely and immediately, and quite possibly some benefit in more than one respect--delaying for a year or two will mean a larger cut, there will be no postponement of the tree filling out naturally, and the tree's energy will be focused on the single leader sooner.

But this tree is so young that you could handle it in a number of ways and have it turn out fine in the end. If this tree were 15 or 20 feet tall and had a double trunk, then I think we would have to be more careful (argue more?) about what should be done.

--Spruce

Thanks for your input everyone.

It seems like the chicken-or-the-egg thing. You need green top stuff to help the roots, and yet you need enough roots to support the green stuff on top. It seems to me that if you have too much on top, and not enough on the bottom, you risk weakening the top. I guess if I screwed up, I'd rather err on the side of having too many roots for the top portion.
I also thought that roots grew more on their own.....from what they took from the soil, rather than from the leaves on top. Is that wrong?
Anyhow.......I'm going to cut the whole second leader off and call it a day.

spruce. . you love debate .... and apparently i cant let it lie .. or is that lay .. lol ...

if you kill a tree .. it wont bother you at all ... same with me .... but we do things at the proper time [which 90% of losses are caused by doing this type of thing in July or august] . ... and we just do it ... what will be will be ....

but when the novice asks .. i think we both like to give them reasons of why it should be done.. and why it shouldn't be done .... etc ... we like sharing/teaching ...

so be it ...

as i said.. 6 or this.. half dozen of the other.. since it was done at the proper time of year ... and even if hubby did a crumby jog ... odds are.. because the timing was correct .. that it will survive ...

AND IT REALLY DOESNT MATTER IF SHE PRUNES IT NOW OR LATER.. ALL OR A LITTLE ...

FRANKLY .. THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM LINE.. WITH A 4 AND 8 YEAR OLD... I WONT REMEMBER NEXT YEAR TO COME BACK AND DO IT ... SO I WOULD HAVE DONE IT AT TRANSPLANT ... AND I WOULDNT WASTE ANOTHER MINUTE WORRYING ABOUT IT ... IF it dies.. so be it ...

keep up the good [or God's] work sprucey ...

ken

Ken:

I am a bit of a missionary/teacher--actually I spent my whole working life as a teacher!

I am especially a missionary with my thing about copper fungicide (off topic here I know) --I just hate to see beautiful trees get infected with fungal rots when there is an easy preventative. As for most of the other things we discuss here, I do my best to be helpful, but I don't see much, if any bad advice being given here by any of the regular contributors, although I disagree from time to time on some particulars.

And I ask for advice myself rather often and have been really happy with the responses.

Anyway, we are all working hard to help this world have more beautiful trees!

Catherinet:

You ask: "I also thought that roots grew more on their own.....from what they took from the soil, rather than from the leaves on top. Is that wrong?"

Yes, that is wrong. You have to look at a tree as a kind of balanced double system. The soil provides an anchor for the tree and also water and nutrients. But the water and nutrients by themselves do nothing for the tree without the energy from the sun and the elements in the air--the carbon dioxide and oxygen (which the tree absorbs and uses when it is not producing its own by photosynthesis). The tree lives by the sugars and other organic products it produces by combining what it gets from the soil and from the air, using the energy from the sun. These organic products are used to grow both the top parts of the tree as well as the roots.

Imagine you are a worm or a mole--you would see the roots as the "tree" with the support for them coming from the above-ground parts, which from that perspective you wouldn't see and which would be exactly like roots in that they provide the support for the underground parts (now your "tree"). As you know, if the top part is cut off it dies, but the roots also will die, unless of course the top parts re-grow from sprouts using energy (organic products) stored in the roots.

--Spruce

ahhh ... lion king i think ... elton john .. THE CIRCLE OF LIFE .... lol ...

so to work from what i started with ... if you severely remove the canopy ... and severely remove the roots [as in transplant] ... you are severely reducing the engine to re-establish vigor to the tree .. the engine being the big circle of food and nutrients ... to regrow the roots .... to regrow the canopy ....

and again .. many a university horticultural class is still arguing about whether you should trim the canopy to offset root loss ...

geez.. the discussion is circuitous also .. lol ... ken

PS: i bet the original poster will never forget all this now.. lol ...

Well it did stir up an interesting thread and I suppose we are all better off for it. We are all put together the same but thank God we all don't think the same. The Forum is a great place to gain knowledge and debate the interesting topic of conifers.

Dave

Thanks for that explanation Spruce.
I cut the 2nd leader off today. Being the insecure person I am, as soon as I whacked off the remainder of the 2nd leader, I had a panic attack. That was alot of green to cut off......maybe a little too much. But we'll see. I talked to it real nice, and gave it a pep talk, and I think it will be fine.
Now, come next spring, I don't want to fertilize it, right? Maybe just some more superphosphate?

ahhhh - just toss some 10-10-10 on it if you feel like doing so. Otherwise leave the dang thing alone.

I'm glad it's over. Now it WILL die!

Actually the more you abuse it, the more likely it won't die!

See ya, take care -

Dax

Don't fertilize, or if you must, something very gentle and slow--just a little miracle grow, or maybe a little (and I emphasize "a little") osmocoat (sp?). Fertilizer just after transplanting can increase the transplant shock. Definately don't fertilize now--wait until spring if you do. Conifers have to carry their foliage through the harsh, drying, winter winds. Fall and winter fertilizing can increase browning and can possibly kill the tree.

In two or three years you can fertilize without the same risks.

--Spruce

Thanks Dax and Spruce. Time will tell. (with a little sweet talkin' along the way).