Pruning the ones you planted a year ago should definitely be fine. Even the ones that went in 4 months ago would probably be OK. I might go a little light on them though. Since they are such small trees, I don't see any need in rushing the pruning (in the case of the ones more recently planted). You could of course clean up any stubs or damaged branches left by the nursery.

I would not touch them until they have had a chance to acclimated to your yard for at least two complete growing season. After that I would start working on the extreme problems slowly.

You want the new trees to be growing and adapted to the conditions in your yard before you start to stress them by trimming.The trees you mentioned are not going to be a problem for at least five years. You have some time to study how the branches are growing and which ones needs to come off.

If they are as small as you say then they may not be alive in five years, so your work would be for nothing.

It really depends how bad the direction is the particular branch is growing. If a branch is growing into a bad place, it should be cut out as soon as possible. But you should not just cut off every branch on a young tree that isn't perfect, because this can really hold the tree back from its growth. So generally, with very young trees, leave the branches alone unless one or two of the branches is really growing in a bad direction. In extreme cases, if the young tree is very frail, you might have to let the little branch keep growing, until next year when the tree has become established enough to deal with a pruning. But the bigger you let a branch grow, the more trauma it can end up doing to the tree when you finally do prune it off. In some cases it can even become too late to prune off a misshapen branch.

What I say doesn't apply to potted trees UNLESS they have been held in pot too long or too small pot and become root bound. I have an intirely different pruning program than what's been suggested so far. I'll explaine my reasoning and you judge for yourself.Trees lose roots when dug. I believe the remainig roots are incapiable of supplying ample moisture and nutrients to the buds and resultant leaves that were set previous year before dormancy. 20% of top growth is the average amount I remove at planting. The norm is start at bottom and remove lower limbs. If some shade trees are forked near ground I remove one fork and leave it at that if fork was close to 20%. Secound year going foward I try to remove no more than 10% while shaping unless there's good reason for more. I believe transplant shock is mostly due to root lose so reducing first year leaves and terminal growth that must be supported reduce's shock. You mentioned "whips",if that's pecan whips I remove 40% or more of top at planting and leave trashy growth on lower trunk to prevent sun scald.

Growth hormones-called auxins-are produced at growing tips in the tree. These hormones send chemical signals to the roots to expand and grow. Keep cutting off growing tips and you're actually slowing down root reestablishment, which is job one for a new transplant. Although I'm not looking at your trees Johniferous, from just the text you offer, it seems you're in way too much a hurry.

I've trimmed lower limbs off of right around 20,000 trees in my time-it's not as if I'm saying don't do this-but you're in way too much of a hurry. You think you're gaining on some aspect here but you're not. Unless there was something so damaging to one of these baby plant's structures that it was going to limit the usefulness of the plant in the landscape-and right here I'll go out on a limb and just say, there's probably no such issue-it's not time to get the pruning tools out yet.

And no, "balancing" root loss with the top by reducing the top is no longer a part of good tree management.....if it ever was.

Except for the occasional removal of a dead limb, I don't prune my trees. I think it can't be good for the trees and I hate the way it looks.

What Tom said about growing tips is very important and should definitely be considered when deciding whether or not to prune a tree at planting (except for diseased, damaged, or dead branches....just DON'T prune at planting). Studies consistently show that pruning at planting is an ill-advised practice.

After a small whip is in the ground for a complete year, the plant should have become mostly established. Pruning then, is not as much of a problem, and especially if done this time of year before the tree leafs out. When deciding to prune an established (or mostly established) tree, Gardengal's advise is right on target!

Right^. And what's more, avoid the temptation to "do it all at once". A gradual approach is much better. But for now, relax. Let the thing get established for a while, maybe another year or so.

you have posted pix before ... why not now ...

i am wondering... why you cant just get rid of the jagged tip ... for right now ... but leave the rest???

i would also probably wait for two seasons ... and my logic would be ... every leaf is a food making machine ... and your root system is not established enough.. to be taking them away .. not yet.. after two years ... the roots should be pretty well set ... so you can start removing some of the canopy ... without slowing down the tree ..

again ... i am not sure that is the proper use of the word whip ... i am sure someone will define such for us ... i could surely be wrong ... i didnt think whips had branches ...

pic please ...

ken

No, you're right Ken. Whips are a marketing term though, not a botanical one! The natural equivalent would be sapling. And right again....mostly no branches.

It occur's to me that backyard gardeners recieve plants that look different depending on their source. I think we might profit from a discussion about evaluating condition of tree,how it was grown,how it was hearvested,and most important what if any pruning was done between hearvest and delivery to consumer. Trees I see at big box stores are usually in pots and retain all wood that was on it at hearvest. I'm not sure if that's for health of tree or to make it look and sell better. OP indicated his tree had been pruned shortly before it was sold. Trees I see at nursuries are often b&b and often been pruned/shaped/trimmed between/at hearvest. There can also be difference in root ball from one place to another. IMO there is no one size fitt's all set of instructions due to afore mentioned variance depending on source of tree. If this is common in your areas,can we talk about evaluating and handleing these variances?

That would be a great (and large) topic! We have discussed such matters here before, although I'm not sure one could find that single all-encompassing thread. This really gets to the heart of the matter though-who is the target consumer (man I hate that word), who is this thing being grown for, and for what purpose. My own view is that within the confines of the commercial, landscape end of things, many unwise and unhelpful things are done to trees purely for economic reasons, the public having been trained to expect the trees to look a certain way. Ken's mention of whips is a good example. Whips in the wholesale nursery trade literally look like sticks to most people. They for whatever reason have simply never seen how a young tree starts out-all energy being devoted to height increment. These organisms evolved in the company of one another, in a plant community we call forest. Typically, a forest starts following some land-clearing event-forest fire, windstorm, logging operation...and all the trees start out at roughly the same time. Competition is fierce. The only useful thing for each little tree to do is to grow upwards, racing for the sun. A huge percentage of these don't make it to maturity. All the slowpokes end up getting shaded out by the more vigorous stems, leaving the runts behind. If you're at all in forested country, try to find a stand that has been clearcut in the last five years. "You think the hair on your dog's back is thick!

And these are all saplings...or "whips" if this were a commercial operation. Branches come later.