I have a few young dissectum variety that are young (1 gal, unstaked), when do you start staking them? Do you prune off lower branch as the tree grows? What would happen if you don't stake them and do nothing at all?
Hi, You can start staking them now. Choose a top branch to be your main leader and as the leader lenghtens you keep tying it up so the tree grows up. You can prune back the lower branches, but I think that would give your trees an unnatrual look. If you don't stake them they'll just grow into lower mounding shrubs...that's all. If you want a taller mound you need to stake up to your desired height. Hope this helps, Layne
Hi, Don't prune the lower branches on young plants. The leaf area is needed for food production. As the tree grows, it will put out higher branches that will shade the lower branches. These lower shaded branches will die back and can be removed at that time. Dale
Basal skirt to ground more impressive, take off only dead branches. Staking to give height also done to make plant more impressive than if it were a low mound, so cutting back sides/limbing up likely to be at cross purposes.
I don't believe this to be true. You can stake one early on to develop a straight trunk and also to vertically lead a terminal branch to develop height but if you don't stake, it will still reach a pre-determined height, conditions favorable. Here are some photos made today of a 'Tamuke yama'. Notice the two prominent, green looking branches near the top. The ones growing opposed to each other, left and right. Those are last years growth and the secondary branching from them is this years growth. This tree has never been staked, was grafted in 1997 and has been in the ground for about 5 or 6 years. Each year it grows a new grouping of arching branches above the previous years growth. It will continue growing like this until it reaches the mature size for this particular cultivar. This un-staked plant will not be a lower mounding shrub. Each year it will grow, layer upon layer, taller and broader. They say that 'Tamuke yama' will go 12'...that is probably in 10 years for I have heard that there are some much taller. This tree is growing faster and more vigorously than another planted in the yard. Apparently conditions are very favorable for this plant.
We stake dissectums to achieve a desired height. That all comes down to personal preference and what we want the Maple to look like. Knowing the growth characteristics of our Maple will help determine whether we want to stake them or not. Personally, I've seen staked ‘Ornatum’ and ‘Ornatum’ left alone and I prefer the natural mounded form for that Maple any day of the week. Some people deceive others with the staking in the nursery. I've seen staked ‘Viridis’ sold as ‘Waterfall’ with the nursery knowing it could garner a better price for ‘Waterfall’ than for the ‘Viridis’. ‘Waterfall’ tends to like being staked much better than a ‘Viridis’ will respond to being staked. One Maple will fill in faster and cascade from a taller position better than the other one will. I agree with Brad that if we read our books and when the author talks about eventual height of the tree, it is based on leaving the tree alone to grow naturally. Heights and ultimate shapes can differ depending on where the plant is grown which is not so readily spelled out in the books. There really is no need to prune a dissectum other than to remove dead or dying wood unless we have a desired shape we want the plant to have or that we are worried about a plant with some age on it growing too wide or too large for a specific location. Staking of container grown dissectums in a nursery used to be done around 5 years of age at the earliest. Field grown dissectums around 7-10 years of age at the earliest. We do not help the plant any by a forced staking too young. We limit the plants overall growth and development by doing that. Dissectums do a whole lot better if we would just leave them alone until we have a plant with some substance to them to work with or alter later. A further note but will not be a popular one. There is an inherent problem as seen in this thread. Tamuke yama is a fictitious name if it is used to imply the plant as being the old Maple ‘Tamukeyama’. The Maple as shown in the photos may not be the venerable ‘Tamukeyama’ Maple that came into the US from Japan. Jim
Then again, it may very well be said cultivar. The Maple pictured in my previous reply has four grafted co-dominant trunks and was cloned from one or more of a set of four mature 'Tamukeyama' or 'Tamuke yama'. Take your pick of preferred spelling. I like the first but have been referring to it as the latter as that is how it is used in the latest edition of Vertree's classic. The four trees that I am describing were obtained from Don Shadow of Shadow Nursery, many years ago. The tallest being about 10' tall. I don't know when they were planted but they were about this size in the last half of the 1980s. Here is a photo of them, out of leaf, in early March of 2004.
Take your pick of preferred spelling. The 'Tamukeyama' Maple has been around for over 200 years. One of the first references of the name 'Tamukeyama' was in the Koidzumi Maples of the World book in 1911. In more recent years D.M. van Gelderen in his Maples of the World book lists the Maple as being 'Tamukeyama' (one word) and of course Mr. Vertrees did so as well in both of his Japanese Maples book editions. To use much of Mr. Vertrees' manuscript as the basis for the revised edition and change the common name spellings around without any expressed or written explanation given as to why the names were altered, gives rise to a notion that something sinister had possibly gone on behind the scenes towards the 'Tamukeyama' Maple. Knowing the man, I seriously doubt Mr. Vertrees would have given permission for the nondescript changes in the common name spellings to anyone. Especially with his fully knowing whose faces he would in turn be slapping. It is possible that J.D. might have endured a brain infarct towards Maples later in life but I tend to think and pretty well feel that was not the case. Jim
