412 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
FALL VERSUS SPRING PLANTING OF FRUIT TREES 
Results of Careful Experiments. Difference of Opinion 
Dr. J. C. Whitten, University of Missouri 
There is hardly a month in the year which someone, some 
where, has not suggested as a good time for transplanting 
trees. The general concensus of opinion, however, is that 
deciduous fruit trees ought to be transplanted during their 
normal dormant period, either in spring or fall. As to which 
is better, fall planting or spring planting, there is quite a 
difference of opinion. Some growers advocate fall planting, 
others advocate spring planting; some say either time is good. 
While horticultural literature abounds with frequently 
expressed opinions as to the best time for transplanting, one 
finds comparatively little data in support of opinion in the 
matter. 
In recent years observations have been made at the 
Experiment Station at Columbia, Missouri, upon the result- 
ing behavior of fall planted and spring planted trees. Data 
showing the actual growth made by apple trees planted in the 
fall, as compared with those planted in the spring has, for the 
past two seasons, been recorded. It is not assumed that 
these two years’ observations on a single species of trees in a 
single soil formation and climate can prove whether faU 
planting or spring planting under all conditions is better. A 
tabulated statement of results observed, however, should be 
of interest. 
Record of Experiments 
In order that the spring planted and fall planted trees 
might be so handled aS to eliminate so far as possible from 
consideration any other factor than the time of year when 
they were planted, some precautions were taken. All apple 
trees studied were two years old when transplanted. They 
were grown in an experimental nursery on the horticultural 
grounds, where conditions of growth from the graft up to the 
time of transplanting would be similar. For purposes of 
measurement, as shown below, lo apple trees were selected 
from this nursery to be transplanted in the fall, and lo more to 
be transplanted the following spring. In each case the trees 
were selected in pairs, two trees being found which were as 
near alike as possible in size, vigor, habit, branching system, 
etc. One was marked Tree No. i for fall planting; the other, 
tree No. i for spring planting. In a similar way, trees as near 
alike as possible were marked as No. 2 for fall planting, and 
No. 2 for spring planting, and so on. One of each pair of 
these selected trees was set November 12, 1908, after their 
leaves had mostly fallen and the trees were well ripened for 
winter. At the same time that they were taken up and 
transplanted, the remaining leaves were also stripped from 
the limbs of the similar trees which were to be transplanted in 
spring. The branches also of the .10 trees reserved for spring 
planting were pruned back as near as possible to correspond 
with those pruned back for transplanting in autumn, so that 
leaf shedding, pruning branches, etc., would be done for all 
the trees on the same day. The 10 autumn planted trees 
were numbered in a row and place was reserved in a similar 
adjacent row to receive the corresponding 10 trees the follow¬ 
ing spring. 
The following table shows the amount of growth made 
during the summer of 1909 by these spring planted and 
autumn planted lots of trees. 
Comparative Growth During Summer of 1909 of Jona¬ 
than Apple Trees on the Experiment Station 
Grounds, Columbia, Mo. 
10 Trees set in autumn, Nov. 12, ’08. | 10 Trees set it Spring, April 22, ’09. 
Tree No. 
Total length 
gro-svth of limbs. 
Caliper. 
Tree No. 
Total length 
growth of limbs. 
Caliper. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
247. in. 
375-5 “ 
324- “ 
16. “ 
260. “ 
4 II -5 “ 
195. “ 
210. “ 
104. ‘ 
294. “ 
H in. 
“ 
K “ 
15 
16 
13 << 
16 
13 
16 
13 
16 
1 5 “ 
1 6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
170.7 in. 
185- 
99-5 “ 
42- “ 
133- “ 
105. “ 
173-5 
190.5 “ 
21. “ 
1 
1 .^ 4 * 
-fiin. 
^ “ 
9 << 
16 
9 ii 
16 
15 < 
16 
11 
16 
% " 
K “ 
Avg. 
243-7 “ 
13 
16 
Avg. 
124. “ 
^ “ 
At the close of the first season’s growth of these trees, it 
will be seen, the average total length growth of all the new 
limbs on the autumn planted trees, was almost double that 
made on trees transplanted in spring. The caliper or diame¬ 
ter growth of stem was taken about six inches above ground, 
so as to eliminate any irregularities which might possibly be 
due to the spreading of the stem near the root system. 
There was a gain in diameter for the autumn-transplanted 
trees of about 30 per cent. While to the casual observer 
three-sixteenths of an inch difference-in diameter might not be 
significant, it will be significant to the experienced nursery¬ 
man who realizes that even a very small gain in diameter, 
growth or stockiness of the tree is a very important factor in 
securing a good tree. 
Fall Planting Best 
In comparing the pairs of trees, it will be observed that in 
only one instance did a spring planted tree out-grow its mate 
which was planted in the fall. Inasmuch, however, as some 
of the trees in each transplanting made much larger growth 
than did others, it may readily be understood that accidental 
variation might be responsible for this spring-planted tree 
out-growing its autumn-set mate. The second year, the 
total length growth of limbs of the fall planted trees was 
eighty and one-fourth inches and the total length growth of 
the spring transplanted trees was sixty-three and five-twelfths 
inches. It should be added that in the course of each season’s 
growth both rows of trees were pruned back just as we would 
