PRUNING 73 



CUTTING BACK TRANSPLANTED TREES 



That trees after they have been transplanted should be severely 

 pruned, or cut back, removing one-half to two-thirds of the 

 previous year's growth, is almost universally accepted by horti- 

 culturists ; but much diversity of opinion exists as to when the 

 operation should be performed ; some holding that it should be 

 done at once, others advocating deferring it till the trees are 

 starting into growth, and others, again, deferring it till the 

 following winter. 



The reason for such cutting back depends on the necessity of 

 preserving a proper balance between the roots and branches, a 

 necessity which cannot be too persistently borne in mind; for 

 the tree obtains some of its materials for growth by means of 

 its leaves, and some by means of its roots; if these two sets of 

 organs are not working in harmony, the tree cannot be properly 

 fed. When a tree has been transplanted, its roots will have 

 inevitably suffered much damage, as has been already explained 

 (p. 40), and to preserve the balance between roots and branches, 

 a considerable restriction of the latter is necessary. 



The effect of not cutting a tree back after it has been planted is 

 illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14 by photographs taken twelve months 

 after the planting. The trees made practically no growth 

 during the season, and measurements showed that, on the average, 

 the leaf-size was deficient to the extent of 24 per cent, and the 

 total leaf area to an extent of 15 per cent., in spite of there being 

 three times the length of leaf-bearing branches on the trees as 

 on those which had been cut back (I, 102) ; whatever the sub- 

 sequent behaviour of the tree may be, this diminution in leaf- 

 surface during one season must imply diminished energy, and 

 affords a strong argument against deferring the cutting back till 

 the end of the first year. When eventually the cutting back 

 was performed, it was followed by a burst of energy in the follow- 

 ing year, the leaf-size showing an excess of 20 per cent. ; but this 

 was not maintained, and in succeeding years it again fell below 

 the level of that of trees which had been cut back at once (V, 104). 

 There was not much, however, in the ultimate behaviour of the 

 trees, when measured either as to their size or as to the size of 

 their leaves, to differentiate between the respective advantages 

 of immediate or deferred cutting back, and it was chiefly as 

 regards fruiting that early cutting back showed to advantage ; 

 for, during the first five years after planting, the trees which had 



