Weeping willow question

[flyin-lowe]

I have a weeping willow that was planted about 3 years ago. My neighbor planted one about the same time and his is doing a lot better then mine. He looked at mine and recommended I prune a lot of the branches of as they are near the ground. I don't know much about planting these trees but he said they can spread more like a bush in the beginning if left like mine. He seemed uncertain and just said "that's what i've been told".

Here are a couple pics. Curious if you would leave it be or cut away?









This one has a few stars showing what he said he would cut off.

[MorpheusPA]

You do want to establish a strong central leader for a willow, yes. So sure, go cut those off. You can prune a willow in late winter, so do that now. I'd also be inclined to cut the one at 1 PM (on the lowest photo) off as well, to establish the central branch as, unquestionably, the leader.

But I might wait until next year to do so as that looks like it might leave the tree with only one major branch on it.

That just looks...kind of sad for a three year old willow. If you haven't been feeding it, please do so. With Milorganite or the like, you can use a double handful in the drip zone monthly. Synthetically, a handful in the drip zone monthly. In Indiana, stop in August to give the tree time to harden off before winter. So probably April to August, depending on leaf out (lately, leaf out has been April around here).

[flyin-lowe]

As always, thanks for the info Morph.

[flyin-lowe]

Here is what I ended up with. Looks a lot better already, funny how cutting a bunch of the limbs from a tree can make it look more like a tree.... Not the best pic, I snapped it from the driveway.

[MorpheusPA]

It does look better! I'm still tempted to tell you to pull off that last little lower branch that just doesn't look right....

[flyin-lowe]

Sounds good. I left that one because (and I may have misread) your original response said you "might" cut the one off at 1:00 pm or maybe wait until next year. I did cut that one off and the one remaining was even higher then the one you said it might consider. Either way hopefully it will perk up. I have other trees in my yard that are young and they seem to be growing good so I don't think I have a major soil issue. I had read somewhere that it is not a good idea to fertilize young trees but never knew if that was just went planting them or overall...

[MorpheusPA]

Just when planting, and really, a gentle feeding even at that point isn't a mistake. Overfeeding at any time when young is a problem as you'll end up with weak wood.

[flyin-lowe]

I had an old farmer tell me one time that staking trees makes them weak. He said being blown around when they are young makes them harder and hardier. He said it’s better to buy a smaller treee that isn’t tall enough to need stakes and sacrifice a year or two of height for a tree that is stronger in the long run. Not sure if there’s any truth to that but it made sense. So I usually get them as small as I can instead of getting them already 6-7 feet tall.

[MorpheusPA]

Old farmers and people in general say a lot of things. Staking a tree for overlong will make it not invest a lot of energy in root mass (why bother if the stake is there?) but you can always recover that by slowly releasing the stake over the course of several years. It's also not an extreme issue if the tree is growing properly; the tree will grow feeder and anchor roots up to its genetic demands if the energy is there to do so, just not quite to the extremes needed if it's under appropriate stress.

Correlation, in this case, does not equal causation. Smaller trees tend to adjust to their new environments faster. I start with whips and small trees because they're younger, adjust in a single season, and begin growth almost immediately. Like the paradox where hot water freezes faster than cold water (yep, that's true), small trees that didn't just have 90% of their roots chopped off, requiring that they be staked to avoid falling over, aren't shocked. They adjust in days to weeks rather than a year because they don't need to regrow a massive amount of roots and don't have a massive overload in the top growth mass, and begin normal growth very, very quickly in their new home.

So, right answer (you don't need to stake and it grows faster). Wrong reason.

Honestly, the number of garden myths people cling to out there is ridiculous. No, you don't have to change pot soil every year or two. Yes, you can refresh it. I've had the same soil in my outdoor pots for twenty years. Stuff in them grows better than in the gardens most of the time. Indoor plants? I have a 30 year old fiddle leaf fig (known to be difficult) that's never had the soil changed. Looks flawless. I've been screamed at online about this. It's not correct.

The list is endless.