I'm deliberately only moving two or three foot trees so I can avoid cutting off roots. Regardless of whether it is just another root...it is currently the majority of the tree's root system. If I find a way to keep it, I have a tree with massively more feeder roots then a tree I could mail order. If I cut it off, I have the equivalent of a two dollar mail-order tree with a tiny stub of a root supporting a two foot trunk.

Taproots are tricky to discuss because once you use the phrase it seems people's eyes glaze over, they stop reading the rest of the post, and they start repeating the "taproots are not magic" mantra regardless of whether it has anything to do with the exact question being asked.

For the situation that you describe I would use post hole diggers and dig a deep hole.

I like this link, read the text on this pageGo Native Tree Farm

And then there is this when discussing planting trees with tap roots:

"First, dig a hole 8-10 inches in diameter, 18-20 inches deep. Once
the hole is dug, scar up the sidewalls of the hole. This will ensure
that the soil has not become packed against the wall. If soil does
become too packed, an impermeable wall could form causing a bowl effect.
This bowl will hold water and possibly damage the root system.

Next, cut the taproot to fit the hole. Be sure to plant the tree at
the same depth that it was at the nursery. Research has shown that by
cutting back the taproot to around 18 inches, fibrous root growth will
be stimulated which is important for nutrient and water uptake. Make
sure to trim back all lateral roots so that they fit inside the hole." (Nobel Foundation website)

Most tap rooted trees do not maintain those deep roots throughout their life span any way. I would be far more concerned about stimulating the development of a lateral root system and associated feeder roots than I would be about maintaining a tap root, specially with such young trees. Bare rooting and cutting back the tap root is not going to impede their growth and development any more than leaving the tap root intact. Provided that this transplanting is done at a appropriate time.

So, the majority opinion is to cut the taproot at 18 inches to stimulate the growth of lateral roots?

My objection to this was less from the perspective of "taproots are sacred" as "preserving as much root mass as possible is a good thing and will help the tree survive times when I can't water it".

I am a little troubled by the fact everyone assumes the sapling already *HAS* lateral roots. (Not always the case, in my experience).

This issue comes up more often when transplanting trees then when I buy trees from a nursery. (If the tree was grown in a pot the taproot will usually twine around into a solid mass...bagged & burlapped trees of course had most of the root system amputated.

The taproot is more of an anchoring necessity and can be a handy energy store but I am afraid I tend to not even make the effort to keep a taproot intact on removal, never mind preserving it to transplant. It doesn't appear to make much difference as long as the newly planted tree is firmly planted, because lateral, fibrous roots will very quickly grow to support the food and water requirements. If I am really together, I might undercut the taproot in year one and trench around the tree to limit side roots, then lift the plant the following year when it really will have a nicely fibrous root system. Of all the things that have to be considered moving a hefty plant, the taproot is usually the least of my priorities...but educate me - I am still a bit of a novice on the tree moving thing - I could be doing unknown damage 10 years down the line because of slack digging out.

eta - not trees, I know, but I have moved some bloody great roses which, because they are often grafted on canina laxa, have a whopping taproot which often runs sideways and a few titchy, tiny little ineffectual looking feeder roots - I still whack the root off and just water the thing like a lunatic for a couple of months - generally survive, albeit a bit resentfully for a season.

I'm possibly stating the obvious but for those who don't know for sure, here is a pic of a taproot system, the tap root being the leader and deepest reaching root. No tree that I planted ever survived UNLESS I dug a hole deep enough to accommodate the taproot. Taproots, like on young pecan trees, can be at least 2 ft long. I will try to dig about an 18" hole, then dig an additional 9-12" with a post hole digger, just to accommodate taproot. I guide the taproot into the narrow hole and accommodate the rest of the root system, by spreading evenly in the bigger hole. You'll burn some good calories planting a young tree with a deep tap root, even if soil is nice and moist, like in rainy fall and spring.

FWIW, the website I referred to above was specifically talking about pecans but broadened their comments to include all tap rooted trees. Since a tap root is primarily an anchorage structure and bears little responsibility for providing the tree with nutrients and soil moisture (except in extremely arid climates where the tap root can be a water seeker), I have a hard time imagining how cutting off a tap root at a reasonable depth is any different from the root "pruning" that takes place when a tree is harvested for B&B. And in most cases, much less severe, as at least some feeder roots will remain present.

If I cared enough to actually get 3 ft of a taproot out, I would put it in 18 inches deep then let it hang a right turn and go someplace. I have seen the roots of big trees exposed by our rivers in flood prone stl. In my noisy opinion, the structure is pretty haphazard.

I wonder if there is a correlation between plants/trees which can be coppiced/topped...and the necessity for a taproot as a sort of mirroring the top growth. I ask because I cannot dispute the apparent survival rate of my brutal chopping...but it is fair to say that it is plants such as chestnuts, limes, hazels, alders and willows I have been shifting around, all grown for eventual coppicing and all amenable to being able to regenerate regardless of the loss of leaders or growing tips (and presumably, showing the same characteristics below ground. A sort of as above, so below sort of thing.

I am also inclined to consider the mediums from and into which transplanting is taking place... unless the soil and conditions are identical. I have to say that I have seen trees which would normally have a huge taproot (thinking of palms here)...grown in containers to very large size, then being transplanted with no sign of a taproot (obviously) nor showing any later inclination to develop one. In short, as always, I think it might be rash to be too proscriptive about what plants can and cannot do.

I imagine that in a sandy or loamy soil you can accommodate taproot to the side and it would eventually find its way downward. Not so in my clay soil, even amended, they just start growing round and round, til my tree dies.

I am a little troubled by the fact that everyone assumes the sapling already *HAS* lateral roots. (Not always the case in my experience).

I can agree with that. Species such as White Oak, American Persimmon, Pecan/Hickory, Black Walnut have a root not unlike a parsnip. Cut this and you have nothing left. Commercial nurseries seldom if ever grow these species to large B&B sizes because the root systems don't cooperate.

One additional observation, the best time to root prune the seedling is during the growing season. If the main root is nipped while actively growing side roots will form. This is done with an undercutting machine during the growing season in the seedbed.

I find parts of this thread slightly entertaining and parts of some responses a little disappointing. The entertaining part, for me, is Edlincoln's careful attempt to properly frame the question and to do it in a "PC" way. It didn't work, but he did a good job trying to guide the direction of the responses. The disappointing part is that, although the subject has been discussed a number of times, some of the regular participants still don't have a good understanding of all the aspects involved with taproots and appear to want to over-simplify things. Anyway...here is what I do...

The response you'll see from removal of taproots from trees ranges from almost certain death to very little impact at all. The species involved is a big factor in determining where on this spectrum the results will fall. With most taprooted species you'll probably notice a little extra transplant shock, but then little difference in good (typical?) conditions. The reason that I bring all that up is that I don't treat every type of tree the same way. Also, the size of the tree (and taproot) factor into my decision on what to do.

In most cases, I remove enough of the taproot to make it relatively easy to plant. In other words, there is no reason to try to get the remaining taproot extremely short. I would personally never try to bend (j-root) a taproot sideways. There is no advantage in doing so, and, I believe, significant disadvantage (discouragement of adaptive regrowth of the taproot system and stunting of plant growth).

That brings up another point, taprooted trees almost always grow a replacement taproot system. The regrowth often consists of multiple taproots growing from the remaining piece of taproot. The replacement root system might not be quite as adept at dealing with drought and so forth, but, in most cases, will be somewhat similar in function to the original root.

I'm finding it hard to put down all I'm thinking, but to sum things up...In most cases, you don't need to worry too much about keeping the entire taproot.

Once again, people keep talking as if there is a tap root and there is *Something ELSE* that provides nutrients...and I'm going to some extra effort to get the taproot. In at least some cases after I pull up at sapling I find I have a taproot with some fine feeder roots a the end and absolutely nothing else.

sam_md As it happens I've been planting American Persimmon and black walnut, although I've encountered taproot issues in Yellowood, Sassafras, and (although it isn't a tree) Baptista Australis.

So, the consensus is my "bright idea" of digging a trench and draping the long thin taproot in it, then covering it with dirt is ill-advised?

Should I go back and sever the root of the trees I did that to?

If I was going to move anything which required more than I can manage in one season, then I do it in 2...and undercutting and trenching has been the method of transplanting even fully grown trees (Capability Brown style) since the 18C. Most plants, given enough time and encouragement, will adapt to live in the circumstances they find themselves in (or die) ...and for those parsnip like roots, then time is possibly the most pertinent factor - either transplant as soon as is humanly possible, at the smallest viable stage...or take a bit extra time to allow the tree to adapt to the shock of removal by doing it in 2 parts. As for bending a taproot - no, it will invariably snap or, at the very least, die off at the point of bending.

I'd do research about each species adaptability upon severing or not severing a tap-root.

I'm only going to give one example. I bought a 5' pecan from Nolin River Nursery a few years ago and they dig their trees with excavators as to capture the entire taproot. When I received the tree in like a 10' long box... about 1/2 of it was roots. Their specific directions were to not sever the taproot but to dig a deep hole. So that's what I did. If you know your soil well and how much sinking will occur, plan ahead accordingly.

I'll address one more thing. Again using pecan... cutting the top back will ensure better growth from transplant. A 5' pecan grafted low should be cut back a couple feet to get it growing strong.

Where does this take us? I have no idea, but thought I'd share this experience which also would be an equal summary for: persimmons, fruit trees including pawpaw; and nut trees.

Addressing shorter seedlings/grafts... say up to 2' tall of fruit trees/nuts/persimmon, I'd cut those back a good 6" and again try to acquire as much root as possible.

Dax

Campanula The taproot of the yellowood was very flexible and didn't break at the J. Dying at the bend is a possibility. Should I take a sharp shovel and sever it now? There is still bare soil where it extends, so I could just jab a shovel down there. Or just assume it will die at the bend anyway? Or wait until the growing season?

gardener365 Were you suggesting cutting the trunk to 6"? Or the root?

I've had a terrible success rate wit American Persimmon. Not primarily due to taproot issues, I think.

Hi Ed,

Shorter seedlings (2') I'd cut them back (the trunk) just 6" or 8". The more root the better.

Regarding that J-planted tap-root, you should get (all TREES) the roots going straight down and of course spread other roots apart at planting time. I "build" a volcano shaped structure in every planting hole and spread the roots to the sides in equal proportion. The top of the volcano is above soil grade to a height that I know from experience that the tree will settle to grade level or slightly above for it's lifetime.

When I have a giant taproot like as that pecan tree did, I built a volcano as I went up the root while filling in the hole. Each time I came to a lateral root or set of laterals, I continued on filling the hole up but spread each-single-root off to the side so it would have an opportunity to grow laterally. An upside down V is exactly what I build/mold into place.

I dug a hole 4-5' deep and 4' across easily for that large-grafted pecan. I also pick axed the sides of the hole to allow gaps for roots to follow, into.

I'm a perfectionist and I know it. I don't think many people would put forth the effort that I do for planting a tree.

Dax

Ed, one more thing. A friend gave to me a grafted B.walnut this spring that was at least 8' tall. He got every bit of root (I was standing right there watching and helping him dig it.) When the tree was dug he took his pruners and cut that tree down to 4' tall. He cut it in half. Again, that's for transplant or some may say, transplant shock. But he's been grafting and growing nut trees for more than 30-years.

These are cultural practices that are known (to be correct.)

Dax

Mmm, I have not grown cladrastis myself (it is on the list) but the one I have seen in my local botanic garden was growing very like a multistemmed birch which does suggest that the top growth can be cut back in order to remove some of the water pressures on a transplanted tree. I would definitely chop the roots with a sharp spade - even though the root is flexible, the continued growth habit will almost certainly work against getting the tree firmly settled in its new hole - gravity is a defining force for rootgrowth and not something we can really influence. Better to have a short and stubby taproot which can grow downwards than one forced into unnatural sideways growth.

I know there are arguments for and against staking but in this situation, I would be anchoring the tree as firmly as possible to avoid any root-rock. Chopping a taproot, in itself, will not kill a tree as long as it is in a state of dormancy...but lack of water, over watering or rootrock can certainly result in death. I am confirmed in a belief in balancing the topgrowth with the rootgrowth and routinely chop back transplants unless a leader with strong apical dominance is the required growth pattern.

However, it is fair to say that my climate is probably nothing like yours - planting a tree right now, in the UK, especially in this season of warm, moist weather, would be a shoo-in - plenty of time for new rootgrowth before any transpiration pressures from new foliage...but you may like to discount my experience as not sufficient to talk with great authority given my unfamiliarity with the tree in question.

Interestingly, I also planted a walnut which had been somewhat potbound and neglected. Not only did I hack off the horribly mangled root system, my son whacked off half of the top growth with a misjudged swipe of my austrian scythe. It sulked, it pouted but amazingly, it thrives after a couple of years of non-growth.

Edincoln - you are in a great position of having several projects on the go at once so...experiment.

How old/large are these transplants? I can honestly say that I have learned the vast majority of my trade by failing...but I have also learned how tenacious life is and rules are there for guidance, not unyielding prescriptions. The trench idea - leave one and sever one and pay attention what happens. I know the issue of wasted money is always there but nothing is ever wasted if it becomes a learning opportunity. I have left a sideways taproot on a couple of roses where it was easier to do so (rather than digging to Australia) and equally, have been more than eager to hack away at annoyingly long or recalcitrant roots. To be sure, the temperate UK climate is forgiving but if you can water and fuss, then you have more control than you might expect. Nothing to lose by trying different methods...and everything to gain.

Campanula The yellowood's Mother was a small to medium sized single trunked tree, although I don't know if someone pruned it to force it into a tree form. The high was 28F (-2C) yesterday. It's growing in what the government thinks is "Merrimac Fine Sandy Loam" with a lot of rocks in a very windy spot...staked. Actually a terrible choice for such a windy spot but it's such a beautiful tree and I was offered free volunteers with way more extensive root systems then I can get mail order...I couldn't resist. It is two to three feet tall...no idea of the age.

I got the yellowood volunteers too late in the season, and wasn't able to plant them all...I have a couple in a pot. Not sure if those will survive the winter...they don't have the long taproot anyway. If they last the winter, I'll have a few more tries.
The sassafras I tried the trench idea on died...but then, they are notoriously hard to transplant, and none of the other sassafras I planted survived either.

The black walnut didn't have much in the way of roots and really shouldn't be doing well, but I planted a bunch in the Spring, had a major drought, and only lost one. Next challenge is to see if they can survive their first winter. They say it is hard to transplant, but I haven't noticed this.

I'm planting at my parent's place, so I can't water and fuss.

Doubt I would be able to resist either. Keep notes, have fun. You will be advising the rest of us - I, for one will be very interested in the outcome as I agree, they are very beautiful trees.

Campanula If you are thinking of growing yellowood...both specimens I've seen were single trunked trees, now that I think of it. In some ways like giant redbud. Locust or walnut like compound leaves, wisteria like flowers every couple years, redbud like pods. I'm told it often has nice yellow fall color but just looked brown this year. Selling points are it is beautiful, tolerates sand, black walnut, and alkaline soils, and it isn't in the family rosacea or prunus so isn't susceptible to the same diseases as most of the other flowering trees common in temperate zones. (Both specimens I've seen were growing near black walnuts). Big drawback is it tends to develop bad crotch angles and thus needs a lot of pruning and doesn't handle wind well. Grows wild well south of me but tolerates Zone 6 winters, so shouldn't have any trouble with your climate

I agree that lots of folks say, "Be sure to get the taproot," and often they do with a knowing look, as if you are going to ask, "What is a taproot?" or "Gasp! You know about taproots too??"

Around here, I have a beautiful clay-based soil. Much of the area is like this and our trees tend to grow their roots outwards.

I worked in a nursery where we had an annex in a great spot next to a river in which to grow deciduous trees in the ground. They would be dug up in Winter, using a whopping huge scoop on the front of a tractor. The scoop would be placed with its metal lip touching the soil in front of the young tree, and then the tractor would pushed forward, biting into the ground. Although the soil was soft, the tractor would rear as the scoop forced its way under the tree.

I say all this because I would see, upon the falling away of that river soil from the trees roots, the shape of those roots. They would be sticking out somewhat, not going down in 'taproot' fashion.

When I am planting a tree, I dig down only as deep as the roots are high, and that's only roughly ... well it depends a bit, but it's about 3/4 of a metre maybe, at the most. Though once, when transplanting my mother's Mulberry tree, my brother and I dug down about a metre. But that tree had been in the ground for a few years.

As far as width of the planting hole goes, I think the wider the better.

I would never, never, never curl roots around. This is the biggest no-no in the book. Chop them off a little, maybe, if I am sick and tired of digging. And anyway, a bit of a trim stimulates growth, and branching of the roots.

As for a tree sinking, they wouldn't tend to do that. But I think I need to do a diagram here and I can't post it until my DH gets home to do that for me.

"I am confirmed in a belief in balancing the topgrowth with the
rootgrowth and routinely chop back transplants unless a leader with
strong apical dominance is the required growth pattern."

Carefully conducted study, after study, after study, after study has proven over and over and over again that the exact opposite is best for the tree and results in more rapid establishment and better growth. Centuries ago, this practice was believed to be best, but it's just amazing that people still believe it!

I hope no one will take this the wrong way, but I seriously view the recommendation to balance the topgrowth similarly to the way I would view someone claiming that the world was flat. I just can't understand how such a well-proven concept is overlooked or misunderstood.

brandon7: What is the exact opposite of chopping back the top growth? I genuinely want to know. Chopping back the roots, or preserving as much of the top growth as possible?

In almost all cases, all viable topgrowth should be preserved at planting. Dead, diseased, and significantly damaged limbs are the exception and should be removed.

This has been said soooo many times on here, but leaving the topgrowth means the auxins, necessary for root growth, are retained. These auxins are produced in the branch tips, so if when the tips are removed, so is the plant's ability to produced the chemicals that tell the roots to grow. With topgrowth cut back, the trees energy is redirected away from root growth and into repairing (covering over) the new wounds. Also, the plant stores energy in the wood. When branches are cut back during planting, you are robbing the tree of its energy reserve at the very time it needs that energy most.

When I think of the recommendation to cut back top growth it reminds me of an analogy where a tourniquet is applied to major limbs (arms and legs) of a heart attack victim. It's a completely misguided way to address the issue!

So you are advising keeping all the top growth.
You are also advising to trim the roots as much as necessary to fit them into a reasonable sized planting hole without bending.

The "top trimming" issue wasn't really what I was discussing, but it does bring an issue to mind. One of the trees has a branch with a very bad crotch angle...how long do I hold off before cutting this?

"You are also advising to trim the roots as much as necessary to fit them into a reasonable sized planting hole without bending."

Well, it's what I do. I'm not saying not to keep the entire taproot when doing so is reasonably do-able, but I am not convinced it's worth the effort in the majority of cases. A "happy-medium" approach is often a good way to balance the optimal interest of the tree with the practicality of the task. And, I personally do not think it's a good idea to put a significant kink in the taproot (j-root the taproot).

"One of the trees has a branch with a very band crotch angle...how long do I hold off before cutting this?"

I would make this determination with consideration of what percentage of the tree's "canopy" was in question. If I didn't think the removal of that limb would greatly impact the tree's establishment, I would likely remove it right away. There is no one single right answer to this, because it would depend on a lot of factors (even including how easy it would be for me to remember to come back and fix the problem later on).

Roughly 50% of the tree's "canopy". Yesterday it was 28F. I'm likely to forget. I was thinking of leaving it until next Fall so the tree will have more "solar panels" to supply energy the first growing season.

Yep, I'd probably aim for either the following spring, or maybe even better yet, I'd probably reduce the limb now and take it out later. +om has discussed that method (reduction prior to eventual removal) quite a few times, so I won't repeat all that here.

In that case, Brandon - how about linking to some of these studies? Unlike some, I view gardening as a lifelong learning experience and have no problems with being corrected but I do not find your snottyy attitude to be helpful or informative...just a bit dismissive. In fact, whilst I am certain you have mucho extensive garden experience, your actual advice dispensing mode is somewhat woeful. I have only had stewardship of my little woodlot for 3 years so it is a steep learning curve for me but I am coming from several decades of basic perennial, fruit and vegetable growing where pruning dormant woody top growth when transplanting bare-roots is still fairly uniformly practiced. Species roses, my abiding love, are always cut back hard when planted, and then no further pruning for the next 2/3 seasons...and rightly or wrongly, I extrapolated this practice when moving trees. I have also been having interesting dialogues regarding the other end of the operation - felling. For years, English trees, in preference, are felled during dormancy...yet In Ireland, the practice is to cut trees down in full growth as it is thought to help the drying process.Who's right? Or is it a bit more nuanced and complex?

I have no problem with the "keep as much top growth as possible" theory. My instinct is to keep as much plant as possible simply because you can always cut parts of the plant off later but you can't glue pieces back on. I'm a little perplexed by the differing attitudes towards top-growth and roots...unless a tree is horribly root bound I'm loath to remove healthy roots. It seems the more experienced opinions differ from me on this.

Could you provide a link to one one of the threads where "reduction prior to removal" is discussed?

I'm reluctant to prune now in case one of the two "leaders" (There is a fine line between a really bad crotch angle and dual leaders) had it's terminal bud damaged in transit...my plan on that front is to wait to see if they both have functioning terminal buds then berake the end off the branch early Spring if they do. Then prune it out next winter.

Please click on the attached link to a Google search using "top pruning to compensate for root loss" as the key words. There are more than enough articles to delve in to.

Top pruning to compensate for root loss.

Here's the results of another search: Compensatory pruning

from the Clemson link: Top pruning should be restricted to removing broken and damaged branches and developing a good tree structure.

I'm really glad to see that. Anyone who works with deciduous tree production knows that producing a desirable structure while the tree is small is extremely important. It can make the difference as to whether the future tree is a grade A or a cull. The ideal time to do this is when the BR tree is transplanted, that way the plant is handled only one time. Elm, Sophora, Hawthorn, flowering Cherry & Crab are a few species that really need help. Oaks are notorious for forking and the low fork makes an unsalable tree.

Here is the rule that I follow, when I read so-called advice with the words ALWAYS and NEVER is simply dismiss it and scroll on by.

Sam, you are soooo right about detail pruning when trees are young. I've spent many hours working with tree growers showing them that five minutes worth of pruning on a youngster can greatly enhance the scaffolding of the tree in the future.

Campanula, frankly I think it would be a waste of my time to go over the topic with you, so I won't waste your time or mine!

--------------------

Edlincoln, I did a quick search and turned up A LOT of posts that I'd have to read through to find the best ones. Here are a few that I found easily, but you might do a GardenWeb search for something like '+om co-dominant in Trees' to find lots more and better examples. I think even the ones here will give you a pretty good idea though:

When to prune this tree

trim a newly planted tree?

Dual Leader Dawn Redwood? (probably the most relevant of these three)

"I'm reluctant to prune now..."

Then don't! If there's a good reason to wait....then....that's a good reason to wait. On a small tree, you still have plenty of time. A single year is not likely to make enough difference to justify limiting your options.

--------------------

"Top pruning should be restricted to removing broken and damaged branches and developing a good tree structure."

A lot of people (especially many fruit tree nurseries) add the "developing a good tree structure" to the list I posted above (dead, diseased, and significantly damaged limbs), but I'm unconvinced that "at planting" is the best time to do that. I'd much rather give the tree a huge head start at getting established and then come back to make structural adjustments. If I was planting a tree in some remote location, or something like that, it might be different. But, to me, the benefit of not having to come back later doesn't come close to the advantage I see in leaving as much healthy top growth as possible, initially. It might take one more minute to do the work in a year, but that's nothing in most cases.

P.S.

Sam's always/nothing sentence somehow made me think of something else...and, I guess I kind of brought this up before...but you don't have to choose between doing no structural pruning or doing "everything that needs to be done" at planting. Removing a small amount of the topgrowth is not likely to cause much problem with establishment, so if you want to start on the structural correction by removing a minor part of the topgrowth, that would probably be just fine. Note, that we are NOT attempting to balance topgrowth with root system volume, but only making minor adjustments.

Another point worth mentioning is that a reasonably-established tree (probably a year or less in the ground for a small, vigorous tree) will make a big difference in the tree's ability to cover over pruning wounds. So, I definitely wait when larger pruning wounds would be required, for that reason too.

'I am a little troubled by the fact everyone assumes the sapling already *HAS* lateral roots. (Not always the case, in my experience).'

Yes.

What used to be done in that place down next to the river was the tractor would be employed when there was no plan to lift the trees. The plan was merely to sever some roots so that they would branch.

They would have the scoop come under them, one at a time as they all stood in a row. Then the scoop would retrace its path, and leave the tree in position. Later, in the winter those trees so root-pruned would be lifted and now have a number of roots.

BTW, was too tired to post my rotton pic last night. And still can't just yet. If anyone cares.

' In my noisy opinion, the structure is pretty haphazard.'

Yes, It think that it's only in our minds that tap roots travel down and down and down for goodness knows how long and how far. Also, some diagrams I have seen in books or someplace show a tree like this: (this dumb picture will appear soon, when I do it, and when I am shown, again, how to post them).

Like their roots are a mirror image of their branches.

Here is the dumb pic I promised.

So hole is dug when soil is moist (never when wet), then back-filled so that there is a platform for the root frame, so to speak. (There will be little feeder roots on the roots that I haven't shown.)

The roots of this tree would have been trimmed as explained above, maybe the winter before.

Regardening taproots in trees, I personally believe that most of the time you would see this sort of root system:

When the tap root is doing it's thing (moving through ground), it would probably come to a rock and have to make a decision. Then there would be various greeblies about, munching here and chomping there. (Perhaps.) So the root would branch. And this would be to the trees advantage it seems to me. I would rather have my supports go outwards than only downwards.

These big structures are for anchorage of course. Water and nutrients are taken in by root hairs, I believe.

When it comes to the trimming of the biggest and strongest roots, I am of the belief that they be left as long as possible. I think that staking is an unhealthy practice for a tree and renders it less likely to develop strength. The gentle swaying (I do mean gentle) of a young sapling tells it to build some strength.

Ha. Just noticed my typo of 'regardening'.

People are also talking about trimming the top growth to compensate for the reduced roots.

I have an apricot out the front, planted in Winter, and I never cut back the young branches as advised. I had been planning to have a huge enormous tree with a lot of fruit, to see what would happen. (Was also, at the time, tossing up whether to prune it in such a way that he would be a very very small tree.) (I have trouble with decisions.) Anyhow, he has his tall slender branches intact, and in leaf, and is finding it a bit of a slog. His roots were fairly appalling in my opinion but I was comparing them, unfairly, to the sort of root systems that I had been accustomed to seeing. (Of non-fruit trees, I might add. Although, some of them would have been crabapples and flowering plums. Do they have a better root system than a tree grown for its fruit as a general rule? We never grew fruit trees.)

So, all this to say that I think I agree with the trimming of the top of a tree at planting time, if it was bare-rooted, and definitely if it is a fruit tree.

Tete wrote, "(Regarding) taproots in trees, I personally believe that most of the time you would see this sort of root system:"

I don't understand that post, because the picture does not show a tree with a taproot.

"When the tap root is doing it's thing (moving through ground)..."

Do you mean growing (elongating from tip growth)? ....at least that's what I think you mean. I also don't understand the "greeblies", "munching", and "chomping" sentence, at all.

"These big structures are for anchorage of course..."

Well, anchorage is one of the functions of a taproot.

"So, all this to say that I think I agree with the trimming of the top of
a tree at planting time, if it was bare-rooted, and definitely if it is
a fruit tree."

Can you explain why you think it's a good idea (and I'm guessing your are referring to balancing topgrowth as opposed to removal of dead, diseased, or damaged parts)?

rhizo, I love the Top 10 Myths of Tree care.

Brandon, precisely. I am saying that if you were to dig for several weeks and expose what is going on under the soil, that a tap root is something that you may not find. Even if you dig for another six weeks.

(Gasp - editting to add that I am referring to the digging away of soil from the roots of one of your Very Big Trees. In your garden.)

By, 'doing its thing', I mean growing. Branching out. Making it's way through the soil. Not many sites are full of deep, easily penetrated soil. Roots are disinclined to move downward in clay soils. They travel sidewards to some degree. If someone has put black plastic on the ground (where's my gun?) then they will stay right up the top, just under the plastic.

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned greeblies. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lifeform of some kind was munching the tip of a root here and there. And all for the good.

Growing espaliered fruit trees does stiffen the sinews when it comes to cutting back a maiden whip by over half to get a nicely divided second tier, and then again in following years. While the annual removal of laterals in cordon growth can be distinctly brutal. However, this is a very specific form of pruning/training (has analogies in training many roses also) and is not related to ultimate size/overall health. I draw the line at stepover apples (just too weird looking) but have generally enjoyed adventures in pleaching, training, and inosculation.

Thanks for the info, Rhizo - always good to learn different theories and I never mind eating humble pie either (cos I have munched on shedloads).

Apricots, peaches and nectarines benefit from annual pruning since fruit bearing branches lose productivity very quickly indeed - a continual form of renewal. I generally avoid them because of the dreaded curl although there are interesting resistant hybrid almonds (Ingrid, Robiyn)

I transplanted a dozen 2-3 ft seed-grown baldcypresses which all had carrot-like orange taproots (most had 2-3 taproots side by side) & hardly any side roots. Just tried to get as much roots as reasonable. All but 1 survived, but all did little for several yrs (or even had some dieback) before getting re-established. However, I wouldn't attempt transplanting any larger than those small sizes. Also had no problems w/a small white oak and shellbark hickory (the shellbark took off impressively the next yr!) A Kentucky coffee tree w/a taproot struggled after transplanting and the original stem died after a few years, but that one actually has resprouted from the roots.