It's a maple tree for heaven's sake.......it doesn't have a central leader. I'm not sure how it got into everyone's head or why it is such a widespread concept that every tree MUST have a central leader. It depends entirely on the species. Many trees, including most conifers, do have a growth habit that produces a central leader or dominant growth point - an excurrent growth habit. Other species, including a great many shade trees, produce a wide, rounded crown that does not feature a central leader but rather a number of codominant growth points - a decurrent growth habit. With decurrent species - like maples - it is counterproductive to the long term growth of the tree to encourage a central leader when none exists. Dan has the right approach - decurrent growth trees do need some early structural pruning/training to develop a good balance and placement of scaffolding branches and to avoid situations that can result in occluded joints but to encourage the development of a "central leader" in a species that does NOT develop a central or single leader is a waste of time and effort.

Thanks all. Some very good points raised, and questions asked. I think that to provide necessary context for this project-and whaas, you'll totally get this-the absolute number-one issue is buckthorn. Before we even pick up a shovel, we have to decide if we're going to try to tackle that issue, and if so, how. We're looking into grant money as I know this is an expensive proposition. And my son, of whom I'm very proud, runs his own software business and simply could never find the time to tackle this on his own, or even with the old man's help. Then on to the trees, the fun part. I am very intrigued by the AF comments. I may have to re-evaluate. I've said it here before but AB is def. not a plant-it-and-forget-it tree. Maybe in semi-shade in amongst other trees, it might actually behave a little better, but you all know how bad the v-crotches, included bark, etc can be with this cultivar. So, if AF is even just a bit better in that regard, it would be worth it. Can't remember if I said this already, but the real prize will be if we ever get the site in sufficiently manageable condition for some native conifers, most notably tamarack and N. white cedar. But of course, for those to amount to anything, we need sunlight! Given the preponderance of green ash already here, many of them in poor condition, openings can and will be made. In the meantime, and because there's so much shade, my mind drifted to maples. The site being utterly unsuited to sugar maple, I went to freemanii. And truth be told, there's a dearth of red fall color, so any that we could add would be an aesthetic bonus. Thanks for the nice and useful comments. This thread is turning out better than I thought it might! +oM

From what I can see, I wouldn't, but of course you have to live with the tree. I don't see any aesthetic drawbacks to doing what I suggested because the two branches we're talking about will emerge so close to the main leader that they will 'read' as originating from the main leader. I have several maples in the landscape and a couple of dozen in containers. I prune healthy trees any time I feel like it - usually with a purpose/plan, but with no regard to 'bleeding'. I recommend late dormancy pruning for two reasons. Branches that need pruning and o/a form are much more visible - the future growth habit of the tree more readily discernible, and the chance of disease spread is reduced greatly. The healing of any pruning wounds is more rapid in spring/early summer than at any other period in the growth cycle, so for me, that clinches the case for late winter/early spring pruning. I've never seen a case documented where 'bleeding' affected the long or short term vitality of an Acer, much less a documented case of a tree 'bleeding to death'. I often suggest that if the sap flow is a concern - wait until the tree appears to be resting after the spring growth flush has matured. There should be very little bleeding then. You can also make a case for late dormant pruning from an energy management perspective. What sense does it make to prune the growth off immediately after the tree has spent nearly all its energy reserves to build it. If you prune BEFORE budswell, the tree will move energy from the roots into the remaining organs and not the parts you intend to remove. Al

Here is another idea regarding staking of trees. "The tree needs to be tied between 2 stakes in a way that it can still sway in every breeze but not be blown over or snapped in half. " "The idea is to use the minimum stake and tie possible so the tree trunk can move in the slightest breeze and flex its “muscles.” Much like a human arm in a cast, if you keep a tree immobilized, it’ll lose strength. But if you let it bend and flex, it’ll become strong. Then you’ll be able to remove those stakes entirely within 18 to 24 months" Beautiful tree btw ---- from this article staking trees