Brian: Gee that's an ugly looking tree you just planted. Looks like it sat in a pot for three years. I don't like three main laterals all coming from one point. But the tree looks too old to start over that low. So I'd cut to laterals facing in the direction you want growth. And balance up the sides by cutting more on the taller lateral. In your country any apple will bear well if it doesn't break down. So your tree has hope. Just thin well and try not to overload any limbs. You could even tie the limbs together. The Fruitnut

A tree rose won't grow taller but I don't think I know enough botany to explain why. Perhaps the following comes close: Elongation of a stem in the higher plants occurs by formation of new tissue at the tip of the stem. It does not occur by new tissue pushing old tissue upward. If you drive a nail into the trunk of a tree 4 feet above the ground, the nail will remain at 4 feet above ground for the life of the tree, even though the tree itself might become a hundred times taller. If you graft a rose unto a cane at a height of 4 ft, the graft will remain at 4 ft for the life of the plant.

I haven't seen Chestnuts over here in Utah -- I assumed they just liked the East better than out here. I highly recommend the Lindens -- they do well in our climate and soils, but they are fairly slow growers. Sycamores (or the common London Plane variety) are fast growers that will live a long time and do well here in the Rockies. I'm really enjoying mine. Also, I have a Chinese Elm (also called Lacebark Elm) that is a moderately fast grower and is resistant to Dutch elm disease. It's a great tree, with a semi-weeping shape. Many of my neighbors mistakenly think Chinese Elms are the weed tree that infests much of our area, but those are Siberian Elms -- a tree with a similar leaf but much different shape and many bad manners, including brittle branches and tons of seeds that sprout everywhere. Most oaks are slow growers, but I hear that Burr oaks are a little faster and grow well here.

As a bonsai judge, I know a little about what to do to bring out the potential in the tree's shape. Technically, the bifurcations (forks) appear too high on the trunk for the tree to be an ideal multi-trunk specimen, which means you would need to reduce the tree to a single trunkline to get the best from the tree. No big deal if that's not something you want to do because you're not looking for a prize, just a more presentable tree. You might have made an error if you pruned out the center of the tree, which it looks like you did in the picture. The stem closest to the center, determined by an imaginary vertical line upward from where the trunk enters the soil, would be the logical leader. At this point, you should decide if you want it to be a single trunk (you'd need to remove 3 trunks) or a multi-trunked plant. As an option, you could fairly easily air layer off the top of the tree just below where the trunks all split. If you're going to leave it all tied up until the trunks are set in place, you need to reduce the ht of all the trunks to different hts. Generally, trees look better with 1, 2, 3, 5, or 7 trunks. 4 is not usually used, so I would remove 1 trunk, then shorten the other 3 so the thickest trunk is tallest, the thinnest trunk is 1/2 the ht of the tallest, and the trunk with medium thickness is 2/3 the ht of the tallest. What do you think? Al