Grafted Katsura Tree

[mtate]

When I was looking at a Katsura (single trunk) at a local nursery, the person working there told me it was grafted. I've read info on the tree, and although it's pretty, it sounds like the root system will be a nuisance. Is it possible that because it was grafted, it will not have the shallow root system it sounds notorious for?

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Many trees are grafted onto hardy root stock, it all depends on what that stock is.

There are some cultural strategies to encorage deeper rooting.

1. 
   * amending the soil so that you have good perk, allowing deep penetration
   
   * using irrigation methods that allowfor this deep penetration, vs. short duration sprinkler use. One method is several short periods of watering, allowing the water to soak in then a longer one for the deep penetration. Water movement is a surface action, water has to wick over each particle of soil, which is why dry soil will have greater runoff.
   
   * use of deep rooting native grasses vs. common turf grass. this improves soil aeration and water handling abilities (greater volume) of the land. Also the benenficial macro and micro organisms will go down further.
   [/list=1]

 

[mtate]

John,
I went ahead and bought this tree. Now I notice that it looks like just around the grafting juncture, there are 4 stems that grow out of the trunk and have leaves. This is very low on the trunk, only a couple of inches from the crown. I have cut them, but they keep growing back. So, some questions. Does this indicate a bad graft and what will it mean to the overall welfare of the tree? Also, is there a simple way to stop this?
Thanks!
marie

 

[Bob Wulkowicz]

Originally posted by mtate
John,
I went ahead and bought this tree. Now I notice that it looks like just around the grafting juncture, there are 4 stems that grow out of the trunk and have leaves. This is very low on the trunk, only a couple of inches from the crown. I have cut them, but they keep growing back. So, some questions. Does this indicate a bad graft and what will it mean to the overall welfare of the tree? Also, is there a simple way to stop this?
Thanks!
marie

It would be nice if you had some pictures.

But, sticking to words here, if this is a tree grafted of two different parts, each half has an expectation of its other original half still being there.

When a graft is done, the cambiums of the two selected half's are supposed to join happily and thoroughly, and then operate as a regular tree with 2 small diameter sawn sections left in the middle of an ever-expanding trunk. If this happens, the customer--and the tree--will never know what was done.

But if there's an incompatability, or a failure in the grafting technique, or perhaps something we don't yet understand, the joined sections will not operate naturally and smoothly as happens in the trunks of ordinary ungrafted trees.

If the lower section of a tree that had its top cut off, isn't getting what it needs or expects from that new top--or if the graft has problems and acts as a kind of restriction to something, then it's very reasonable, even expectable, that the bottom part will send up new tops.

As long as the bottom is alive, and there is some deficiency or problem important to the bottom that isn't being satisfied, the startup of new branches will continue.

JPS mentioned hardy root stock--and your tree is an example; it's hardy enough to keep trying. and the growths creates are going to be branches of its own species, of what used to be there before someone cut it all off and threw it away.



The graft may or may not be bad, but there is some sort of problem that pushes the root stock to keep trying to have its own top. You might succeed in stopping the growths , but the root system will likely decline.

The tree is a likely a loser. It's your decision. Go back and ask for another. Give them the reciept and your home address where they can dig up the old one for exchange.


Bob Wulkowicz

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Some rootstock tend to naturaly put out sprouts, many Malus and Prunus have this and there is finaly a push in the nursery industry to use different stock.

Some southern Amilancheirs we foind grafed to Sorbus stock and then the Sorbus shoots out these funny leaves that confuse the the owner to no end.

If the tree was "pruned" in the nursery, i.e. the top butched down to make it bushier, then there may not be enough of the natural hormones coming form the terminal buds to suppress basal sprouting.

In any of these scenarios, I would just rub off any new sprouts as they sho up so that the tree does not put too much energy in them.

As i walk throught he neighborhood I will stop and rup off the sprouts on the Honeylocust street trees. Save the city from havign to pay a person to come and prune them off when bigger, and lets the tree "invest" the energy into the crown, where they can gut it out every 5-7 years.

 

[Bob Wulkowicz]

Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn

Some rootstock tend to naturaly put out sprouts, many Malus and Prunus have this and there is finaly a push in the nursery industry to use different stock.

Yes, it seems difficult for any of us to think ahead and change...



Some southern Amilancheirs we foind grafed to Sorbus stock and then the Sorbus shoots out these funny leaves that confuse the the owner to no end.

If the tree was "pruned" in the nursery, i.e. the top butched down to make it bushier, then there may not be enough of the natural hormones coming form the terminal buds to suppress basal sprouting.[

I don't quite agree. Certainly, there seem to be hormonal instructions woven throughout a tree, but splicing one tree to another is a very unusual circumstance in nature.

I sometimes think of a tree as a dumbell with the two interdependent ends each in a significantly different set of conditions; air and soil, one easy to grow in, and the latter with significantly more burdens for extension and growth. The functions are not interchangeable, and the complete tree needs both ends. If the other "end" is missing or deficient, the remaining end sets about to grow another. Tops grow new bottoms; bottoms grow new tops.

If a species that provided the rootstocks produced basal sprouting all the time au natural, that would be then be a trait perhaps of those roots. I don't know that is common for Malus and Prunus roots tied to their original tops.

If we noted repeated sprouting with those as rootstocks for foreign tops, I'd assign the events more to the act of grafting and a clue to some problem. Snuffing or rubbibg them out doesn't solve the problem.

As I said earlier, suppressing volunteer basal growth may force the rootstock into a decline because of continuing shortfalls in the relationships of one bottom to a different top. We may blur them both into being just trees, but the trees have a decidedly different opinion.

We buy grafted trees mostly for appearance in urban settings; extended tree health is a distant consideration. Perhaps if we pursue supression to the point where the rootstock literally gives up, there may be significant consequences. Who'd be keeping track of that subtlety?




In any of these scenarios, I would just rub off any new sprouts as they sho up so that the tree does not put too much energy in them.

As i walk throught he neighborhood I will stop and rup off the sprouts on the Honeylocust street trees. Save the city from havign to pay a person to come and prune them off when bigger, and lets the tree "invest" the energy into the crown, where they can gut it out every 5-7 years.

The tree makes an investment and uses energy only in getting out the structures that produce the first leaf. After that, the net energy flow is back into the tree. The investment is tiny; the eventual production is prodigious.

In my experiences, I note that most epicormic volunteers are very leafy--absolutely out of proportion to a typical branch with the expectable leaf spacings of its species.

Following a pruning, the big clusters of leaves that often appear seem to be trying to make up for the obvious loss and this is a local response below the point of pruning.

My views include treating any "spontaneous" growth as clues to a possible problem. We assign this activity as a flaw or insolence for a tree. I take a softer route and try to see if there is a pattern.

Trees do not invest energy into a crown; a tree derives energy from the crown. The top half of the dumbell feeds down. The bottom end supplies the materials for the assembly of carbohydrates, fats, protiens and other necessities.



Bob Wulkowicz

 

[mtate]

I doubt the nursery would be able to tell me what rootstock was used, but the sprouts and leaves produced from the bottom are definetely the same as the top, Katsura. This tree is normally multi-trunked, so if I keep pulling off the shoots, I'm still harming the tree?
Also, the tree is still in a container, the trunk is 2" in diameter, is 9 feet tall and begins branching at 3ft. At about 6ft up, I have two vertical branches that look to be competing. They are of the same diameter and equal height. The branch bark ridge is not included, but because they are both vertical there is only about one inch of space between them. As these two branches rise though, the gap increases to about 3 inches. I'm not sure if I should cut one of them back, and if so, how far down do I make the cut? The other branches on the tree have collars that I can see, these two do not. I guess that might qualify them for competing leaders? When would be the best time to do this if necessary?
I bought this tree because it is almost impossible to find something in my area that is a unique specimen and shade tree, ie not a maple or dogwood. I want to thank you all for your responses, I know this is very difficult without pictures. I'm going to take one and have it developed to disk or something so I can upload.

 

[Bob Wulkowicz]

Originally posted by mtate

I doubt the nursery would be able to tell me what rootstock was used, but the sprouts and leaves produced from the bottom are definetely the same as the top, Katsura. This tree is normally multi-trunked, so if I keep pulling off the shoots, I'm still harming the tree?


What is your sense of why the tree was grafted as they told you in the nusery. They may not know why either if it was sent from somewhere else.

Was the rootstock intended to be vigorous and replace a weak stock; or was the new rootstock intended to be dwarfing and limit the size of the mature tree?

Those are two distinctly different end products. What were you looking for?

If this is what you mean by multi-trunked, and what you described your tree as "straight and begins branching a 3 feet," did the nusery mean to protect you from having the pictured tree?


<IMG SRC="http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v46/n09/KatsuraTree.gif">



Also, the tree is still in a container, the trunk is 2" in diameter, is 9 feet tall and begins branching at 3ft. At about 6ft up, I have two vertical branches that look to be competing. They are of the same diameter and equal height. The branch bark ridge is not included, but because they are both vertical there is only about one inch of space between them. As these two branches rise though, the gap increases to about 3 inches. I'm not sure if I should cut one of them back, and if so, how far down do I make the cut?


I've gotten more unfomfortable anf therefore, more noisy about the use of the word competetive in describing parts and functions of trees. As I've said before, competetion just doesn't make a lot of sense in an individual organism. Negative feedback, I understand, but competing parts seem a hangover from Darwin and the playing fields of capitalism. What if I said they were simultaneously aspiring? Is it we, or the tree who needs one leader?



The other branches on the tree have collars that I can see, these two do not. I guess that might qualify them for competing leaders? When would be the best time to do this if necessary?


The following photos by Gary Johnson show first what is considered a typical "strong" branch attachment.

<IMG SRC="http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/images/7415f06.jpg">


This one shows a pair of codominant stems too close together with bark in between that prevents a continuous union.


<IMG SRC="http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/images/7415f07.jpg">I



Many times these are called codominant leaders, not competing leaders.. People are afraid of them because they may turn into included bark, so they cut one off. I think that's sadly misinformed most all the time, and if the leaders are slightly divergent, I can fix them and eliminate the "future" hazard. Mostly, people don't even think about alternatives, they do what's been said forever and never look or challenge the the incomplete thinking.

If your codominant stems angle from 1" to 3" over a 6' length, consider a simple stick arrangement that forces them apart over a period of time. When released, they'll retain much of that new improved spacing because reaction wood and ordinary growth keep the new angles.


Gee, that sounds like no included bark, and no saw--heresy of the first order.!



I bought this tree because it is almost impossible to find something in my area that is a unique specimen and shade tree, ie not a maple or dogwood. I want to thank you all for your responses, I know this is very difficult without pictures. I'm going to take one and have it developed to disk or something so I can upload.

We'll keep the thread warm for you,


Bob Wulkowicz

 

[mtate]

Bob,
I read your replies with great interest. The worker at the nursery pointed out to me that the tree was grafted, I really wouldn't have known. When I asked him why, he said, "I don't know, maybe the original rootstock was weak". He gave me a printout from a horticulture program (Horticopia) they use. In the information for this tree, it says "Can be trained to single trunk" and "prune to maintain a dominant leader by cutting back competing leaders".

The picture of the multi-trunked tree that you included is what I believe the Katsura, without interference, is supposed to look like. I don't know why certain trees are trained to grow with a single trunk, I guess the same appearance issue that you attributed to grafting. Wouldn't the sprouts that would normally grow from the base of the tree then be suppressed anyway to "train to a single trunk"?

The picture of the closely spaced codominant stems is not what I have right now, but as the stems continue to grow that will probably be what I'll wind up with. I like the idea of not having to prune them. Right now they are about 3 feet long, but I'm sure they will continue to grow much higher as this is the center of the tree. How do I make a stick arrangement?

I would take the tree back at this point but this was the only one they had left, so I had nothing to compare it too. I guess I'm still most concerned with the sprouts at the base. If this will lead to eventual decline of the tree, it's not worth planting. The leaders are something I can deal with over time, and with your help

I hope to have pictures by end of the week.
Thanks.