I didn’t mean to disappear for so long…I had some really unfortunate family issues come up, they are cleared away for now so back to something I enjoy. The first and second pictures are my basement farm, I took the pictures in the spring, many of the plants were in the process of moving outside to take advantage of the natural light since it is of much cheaper than artificial. I’ve been growing kale and some peppers all summer but for the most part until the fall I just start things here to move outside later. I’ve been using T5 and CFL bulbs for quite a while, but when I wanted to expand I found that the “3Watt” (note the quotation marks) LED lights, assuming their life was even 50% of rated, were very price competitive. I bought the two round black lamps in the first pic , they are “180Watt” “Full Spectrum” lamps and draw about 100Watts of actual electricity. Their Red:Blue Ratio is 5:1 and while I don’t remember the actual specs they were listed as 9 Band lights and do have white chips. They did a fantastic job, I got stronger and more compact (less leggy) plants, and though almost two years later a couple of issues have come up (see Footnote) I would quite happily buy these again. The rectangular white lamps came next they are “300Watt” (Actual is 190+) lamps and I am much less happy with them, they have a Red:Blue Ratio of 9.5:1 and may be good for dope growing where you want lots of buds but they don’t produce as much leafy green stuff as the “weaker” lights. That disappointment started me in to looking at what I could do making my own. The next picture is a pile of various experiments, some outright failures, others close but not exactly what I wanted. Out of all that came the current usable version, I’ve made two identical lamps, using 60 “3Watt” chips each, 12 bands and a Red:Blue Ratio of 4.5:1 (not including the UV chips). They draw about 120Watts actual since the drivers produce a constant current of 650mA. The frame is a pair of commercial grade cookie sheets and the chips are attached by ½ inch 4-40 machine screws. There are two cheap fans running to cool the unit and the temperature tops out around 15 degrees F over ambient. They have been running reliably since March. The next iterations will be attempts to jam more chips onto each cookie sheet, 90 chips seems reasonable, but I want to push the limit. Footnote.. They (The UFO style 180 Watt lamps) have not lasted as well as I would have hoped, a couple of the chips have burned lenses (I think because there is no airflow between them and the glass) and I have just lost half of the chips on one of the units. This is the second time for this but since like the first it is one of the chips that has died it is an easy fix. I plan to put a tutorial on the “instructables” website explaining what is going on inside these things and how to fix them when they die.

Just to be accurate, pruning doesn't promote growth, in fact, the practice is a setback to growth and the lost potential can never be regained. Pruning temporarily alters the growth habit of the plant by interfering with the balance of growth regulators. Once the growth regulators regain their natural balance, the plant reverts to it's former growth habits. Now, just because I said that pruning sets back growth and the lost potential can't be regained doesn't mean I think pruning is bad. I mean, I DO think bad (inappropriate) pruning is bad, but appropriate pruning is good .... even when you're pruning roots. For the most part, I'm not interested in growing a plant unless it can be pruned or otherwise manipulated into a form that is both evocative and natural in appearance, so I'm a strong proponent of getting rid of what doesn't look good or pruning in order to produce a desirable outcome. If you want growth low on the trunks, you need to get the plant healthy and prune fairly hard while the plant is growing well - in summer. If you're interested, we can talk in more exact terms, but the generalities would go something like this: * Get the plant outdoors as soon as temps allow so you can get the plant started on the road back to good health. * Get and keep your watering under control until after you repot, when your soil should do 90% of the regulating - removing that burden from your shoulders. * Get started on a good nutritional supplementation program and stick to it. It will be VERY easy once you repot into an appropriate medium. * Don't prune until after you've repotted into an appropriate soil and the plant is pushing new growth. * Once you see new growth after repotting, prune back hard. * Force the tree to become full by constant pinching. Whenever a branch has 3 or 4 leaves on it, cut it back (pinch it) to 2 leaves. You'll get a new branch from the axil (crotch) of each leaf. When these new branches have 3-4 leaves, pinch back to 2 leaves again. No branch should ever have more than 4 leaves and no branches should have older leaves dropping off unless there is a branch in the leaf axil. If you start planning now (and you live in the Northern Hemisphere), you should be able to have your plant back on track by August. Al

The first thing that comes to mind is, as gardengal suggests, too little light. There is, however, something of a paradox in what you describe. In general, azaleas, if they are to bloom well, need more sun than rhododendrons. High dappled shade from limbed up oaks ought to provide excellent conditions for this and any other rhododendron. The leggy growth habit may be a characteristic of this particular variety. I'd try pruning back a small number of the inner branches to see if new growth sprouts well. If it does, more pruning. can be done in the future.

Thanks for challenging my suggestions toronado. so I'll dump everything out of my head. And you can sift from my distorted thinking, which came up with answer for posted question. From personal observations, I was able to learn that by installing an already larger caliber tree in locations where younger bare root or seed germinated organisms suffer from too much shade. Shortens time required for new planting to develop into large shade tree filling in hole left behind by loss of old growth tree. And rather than purchasing open grown tree, one would want nursery stock that has been grown in close proximity to surrounding trees. Biggest plus is that older stock continually pruned for apical dominance producing one strong main leader, could begin filling in void up in mature forests opened ceiling...once new tree acclimated to its new conditions. (Like going back to grammar school, after already in high school) I am speaking from what I have been lucky to see, as rich folk from Riverside and River Forest Illinois plant new trees over past years, in shaded locations surrounded by old growth 180-375 old Oaks and Hickories. Plus there's those dummies who plant large Sycamore without looking up to see, its right under crown of Burr Oak standing there for last 220 years. So I have seen how expensive 14+ old Nursery trees surrounded by shade and competition, can thread the hole into open sky, by elongating main trunk. Like submarines periscope rising to surface, or a skyrocket shooting straight up and exploding its crown, once above other neighboring trees. As a citizen Dendrologist, determining final ages of over 15,000 felled trees over my lifetime. I have continually observed how nursery stock planted when age 6-7, commonly requires two or three years to get over transplant shock. Then begin producing normal growth rate again, once acclimated to new conditions. Physical evidence being girth measurement of first 2 or 3 growth rings after planting, which are usually so thin. One always needs to remember that those several rings are many times present, but difficult to separate from each other. Which in the end could be missed when counting stump rings to determine trees final age or when planted. And the reverse goes for Ash, which declines from EAB the most during trees last three years of life. Evidenced by three, or four thin final year growth rings. Important to know when trunk injecting already declining Ash, in order to determine proper depth of drill hole into sapwood. Ironically trunk ring size of damaged Ash can also increase, by production of Epicormic sprouts which add to secondary growth rate. That's also huge reason to keep trunk shoots retained on already rotting out trees, since newest outer grown rings only structural support not rotted out. So one would thing large Nursery stock planted when 12-15 years old, would suffer even more shock than 6-7 year old one. Yet age rings say otherwise, as commonly only one thinner growth ring produced first year by 14 year old plantings. And magazine thin, compared to paper thin produced by 6 year old transplants. Sometimes when there are no visible changes in growth rate, one could assume said tree was wild volunteer grown. Another difference between wood grown during Nursery years, and wood grown after transplanting. Is color and texture all the way down to pith year. Granted many of these examples I had learned from, were produced from methods utilized over a century ago. For example ones planted by FL Olmsted or Jens Jensen from 1880's to 1920's, with rootballs excavated manually and delivered by Horse and buggy. A crazy example is how downtown in Chicago's loop, forestry got smart by installing huge new 14+ old trees. Rather than continuing to replace 6 year old examples which all inevitably die by age 12. So 14 old trees survive 12-14 years, but girth put on after planting is paper thin every year till death. So thin, I use pin to help count rings. Digging wider hole and need for machinery to install big tree would be at expense of forest rhizosphere, and could be enough to cause problems with existing old growth trees. As germinator of native old growth produced tree seeds, and as TreeKeeper, planter of bare root and fabric bag stock all under five years of age...I get to be part of the debate whether sapling age trees prove they are better than B & B plantings, by surpassing them in growth rate and size by time both reach age 12. So its a euphoric feeling when seeing a five year old tree I had grown and planted, look exactly like an older high caliber Nursery produced tree. And knowing my tree would also be worth $300 now. On the other hand, the B & B trees I begin structurally pruning after city contractors install. Get noticed by residents who remark how big these trees are getting, or look how fast its growing. And what's my Ancient Chinese secret...while unpruned trees spin their wheels and waist time and resources on producing round headed multi leader open grown crowns. Pruning for apical dominance causes my trees to "Hook up and run". Along with heading back temporaries to keep removal cuts small, that also add girth to trunk. But the biggest cheese of all is...everyone can watch as my good structured trees just look better and better each year. Which answers the question, did settlers who planted todays historic trees realize they would become something special when their trees were still young. I get the impression that todays municipal arborist continually crown lift public trees every four years, thinking someday they will look like communities last few old elms that still survive. Which are totally branchless until main trunk of structured elm diverges into multiple limbs. But in reality most historic old trees that survive today because of their apical dominant structure, had either been pruned so during past era's when common required practice. Such as old 120-135 one trunk Silver Maples, that outlived most Silver planted to replace diseased elms. Or like great numbers of Elms planted in post victory year 1945, were leftovers from depression era that had been germinated between 1929 and 1933. And finally planted. Ironically those would be last of America's apical dominant street Elms, as by 1950-1960. Municipalities no longer pruned young trees for structure. Evidenced by todays 60-75 year old surviving American Elms, representing species last planted generation. Those are the ones which resemble double leader Silver Maples which required removal of one major stem because of inclusion and bad attachment. 1950's were also last era of apical dominant Sugar Maple, Honey Locust, Norway Maple and Green Ash.