Parrotia Pruning Philosophy

I didn't want to hijack the recent Parrotia thread, so I started this one. I'm just wondering what people's views are on pruning Parrotia to expose the very handsome bark. Personally, I think this is something that absolutely must be done 100% of the time. In fact, I don't know why anyone would have a Parrotia and not do this. The bark is extraordinary, something like a cross between Lacebark Elm and Stewartia pseudocamellia, and bark this good just simply should not be allowed to remain hidden behind a forest of dense shoots. In fact, there ought to be a law! Yes, the plant naturally wants to grow as a bushy shrub, and all those dense shoots produce tons of that great foliage with all those intense colors in the fall, but limbing the plant up only reduces the quantity of foliage, and lifts it, it does not reduce the quality.

All that said, I do value the opinions of all people, and would like to hear what others have to say. Just a fair warning to those whose opinion may differ, however, will destroy your arguments in follow-up posts. But it will be fun and a learning experience for all involved. Tee hee.

Scott

From my observations they tend to have a bit of an arching growth. It depends on the location and desired affect. I agree that selective pruning highlights the nice bark. The pictures I added were of Parrotia as street trees where clearance is an issue and required to use this tree. As a plant for landscapes selective pruning makes more sence as the natural habit is somewhat arching and the street trees looked a bit odd being crown-raised.

Those look almost like Lacebark Elms pruned like that!

Scott

My philosophy . . . prune as hard as you like, but only with paper scissors.

Resin

Scott,

I agree that the trunks should be exposed. I'm a law and order guy too. I'll nominate you to be the National (worldwide?) Parrotia Sales and Pruning Regulator-in-Chief!

Resin- I think that your pruning method is one that will keep the tree the happiest and if followed from early on, will leave as much open trunk as the owner and Scott desire.

I will now attempt to hijack (is the use of this word going to bring down officials down on me for questioning?) this thread and ask if anyone knows if the bark exfoliation on Parrotia or Pinus bungeana is in any way connected to the amount of light it receives. We don't have many large Parrotia in the area but the P. bungeana that I've seen limbed up have far nicer bark display than those that are surrounded by branching that doesn't allow light in. I am assuming that there is a genetic factor in how exfoliating the bark is but with the plants that I've encountered, on average, open trunks means better display. What do you think?

Regards,
Ernie

In response to pruning I am purchasing a pruned to be Vase shaped. I know there will be others from the crown but I plan on keeping them prunned. The specimen has 4 branching trunks about 8-10" up from the crown . I will be walking close to this specimen when I enter the new terraced garden I am constructing so bark and leaf down low will be perfect. VV first specimen is too crowded in the lower branching. I like the open look of the bark specimen he has produced. (2nd photo) See Parrotia on other thread.

Scott said:

I'll disagree. I think to only raise the canopy (when pruning a Parrotia) only serves to create the exact situation that Scott later remarks on: "That looks like a lacebark elm." Precisely the point I would make.

Any tree/shrub that can have great bark doesn't have to have its skirt removed to show it off year-round. That's kind of like being a hussy. In fact, Scott should name one of his seedlings just that, Parrotia persica Brazen Hussy™, if he's going to grow it as a standard. What ever happened to decorum, being demure, or having some dignity?

There's something to be said for playing your cards close to your vest, and then "calling" when the time is right. For Parrotia, that is late fall and winter after the fabulous fall color display. Then, with leaves down, the exquisite character of the bark is revealed with the low angle and less intense winter sun angles.

I'd agree with some thinning of the branch density; no Parrotia needs sixteen branches per foot of trunk height. Most of the really great specimens around North America (see a reference like Dirr for locations) are not appreciably limbed up, but have less dense arrays of low branches that allow you to walk in under the canopy and observe the trunks/branches during the growing season. Remember: the great bark character develops on branches as well (if you haven't cut them off). Why would you want to minimize your enjoyment by reducing the bark surface area (another clonal name -- Parrotia persica Ecstasy Suppression™)?

I would vote for managing Parrotia with regards to where you've planted it; as in the street tree use, low branches would be inappropriate. Underplanted with groundcover or low perennials would lead to some light limbing up. As a lawn specimen or in a border with high canopy, I'd simply thin some of the branching and leave it branched as low as tolerable.

Ernie said:


I don't think the amount of exfoliation depends on light. The amount of exfoliation can be expected to be genetic, as Ernie has noted. The bark will exfoliate whether the plant is ever pruned or not.

The range of colors revealed or displayed (and one's ability to observe these) IS a function of light (which is usually a function of how much pruning has been done to allow light to reach the trunk). I have heard this contention expressed on more than one occasion; one can observe it at arboreta and gardens where multiples of these species are represented. One can probably observe it by looking at different sides of the same plant (especially on Pinus bungeana).

Ernie's question seems to revolve around the display achieved. Visibility to the observer is one key; the contrast on the bark that is exfoliating is the second element. The color variations expressed are enhanced by light exposure (especially where I have observed Pinus bungeana), where duller greens/grays in low light are heightened to whites, grays, silvers, greens, browns, etc. as exposure to fuller light is created.

Vociferous Voice you are always an education and a perspective of knowledge we humble ones haven't thought of. I agree and have learned from you again. But as far as the Parrotia Persica "Brazen Hussy" I cannot agree because I not being the tree, am glad to be an observer such a specimen. LOL

I'm curious to know if those advocating leaving it fully branched have this as a general philosophy, or is this specific to Parrotia? In other words, would you give this same advice for a A. griseum, Betula, Prunus maackia, P. serrula, etc.?

Yes.

Thanks.

Maybe you want more commentary?

The species just listed behave quite a bit differently than Parrotia and Pinus bungeana, and thus don't quite rate in the same discussion.

Except for maybe Acer griseum, the birches and cherries are quite a bit more vigorous in growth and probably never "hide" their treasures behind wads of tightly spaced branches.

I would still hold that unless you have reason to need clearance, why prune? One may never behold the magic of how these plants would grow left to their own devices.

Okay, everybody, VV took the bait. Stand back while I crush him like a grape!

If by saying "one may never behold the magic of how these plants would grow left to their own devices," you mean as a big green bush resembling an Euonymus alatus sheared into an oblong meatball by a gardening hack, then you are so right. But, to be honest VV,I prefer the look of an Euonymus alatus sheared into a ablong meatball by a gardening hack to the scrubby, scratchy mess of an eau naturale Parrotia, jealously, fearfully hiding its true beauty from view like a miser hiding his money!

Why must one thin minimally so that once or twice a winter they can put on their coats, scarves, and gloves, pack a lunch, and go slashing through the thicket to catch a fleeting glimpse of a little exfoliation appearing between stubs and branches in the waning, low-angled sunlight while their toes turn black from frostbite when one can so easily limb the darned thing up a foot, or two, or five, and view technicolor exfoliation every single day coming and going to work from the comfort of the heated seats in their Lexus?

Why must one play down the temptation to apply a little human aesthetic judgement to Parrotia or Acer griseum or any other plant for fear that Mother Nature will be sleighted? Or that the true plant as it wishes to grow is perfection defined and that anything we might do with a sharp piece of metal is defilement indeed. Is Mother Nature sleighted when we choose these exceptional plants for our gardens over her common, lesser weeds? Is not the very act of choosing better plants an expression of our judgement? Yes, it is. So if we apply our judgement in the selection process, why are we wrong to apply it to the errant branch or two? Or, in the case of Parrotia, to goad the modest, timid maiden into showing a little leg with a shorter skirt? Go at her with thy shears! Expose those beautiful legs. Fair Parrotia, be timid no more. I want to behold thy beauty from my picture window while drinking hot chocolate, wearing a sweater, stroking my beard, and smoking my pipe when I peer up from my Sunday Times.

Life is too short to make Parrotia bark viewings an adventure. People grow old and frail and die. People get run over by buses. Exfoliation this good should not be only for the young and athletic. It should be out there, exposed, free for all to enjoy. I find it disturbing, VV, how you seek to hoard this beauty for your own benefit at the expense of the aged, the handicapped, and the aged handicapped! You should be ashamed of yourself.

Scott

My, aren't we pompous tonight? Did the airline stock go up overnight, or is the 12 pack finally kicking in?

Talk about taking the bait! If your only experience of this plant is:

then you need to get out more often. If the only way you plan to experience a Parrotia is:

...then I am proud to hoard the species, and I ought to come take away any that you claim to hold sway over.

Your description may be the way commercially available Parrotia are produced and purchased, but it isn't the way they grow.

The common belief of the uninitiated is that the mature version is just a larger version of the juvenile. One could not stray further from the truth. Of course, if you reside in the camp of those that believe that Betula nigra is a relatively small three-trunked plant that retains gloriously paper-peeling bark its whole life, then there's no hope for you anyway.

Curious: what did any plant (including Parrotia) ever do to you? You sure seem to be seething and set on severing shoots!

Of course Mother Nature is not the only answer. If you cannot differentiate between "all I know is I was born in OH and I can run a saw" and that there are mysteries to growth and plant behavior beyond a gardener's knowledge, then a truly beige life is being lived.

Speaking of...you must be getting addlepated when you say...

Which part of my recently operated upon knees (and newly bruised back/shoulders/hips from Acer truncatum acrobatics) qualify as young and athletic? My lovely wife is currently laughing out loud, and is surreptitiously seeking the warranty papers to see if she has any recourse. No, I'd appropriately site such an exquisite specimen as a Parrotia such that regardless of age, sex, race, creed, religion, national origin, or ability, one would be able to appreciate all of its treasures in all seasons.

Just a couple of words, since you've shot all yours.

•Jardins des Plantes, Paris
•Wisley Gardens, England
•Barnes Arboretum, Philadelphia
•Swarthmore College, Philadelphia
•Arnold Arboretum, Boston (100+ years old, 11 trunks)
•Biltmore Estate, Asheville
•National Arboretum, Washington DC

Nearer to home for ORV residents include great plants to observe at Rowe, Dawes, Spring Grove, Cave Hill, and Bernheim.

If one was to take the rant above seriously, then one might infer that the gardener should never plant a single Hamamelis, since...

...or worse, have to get out of their climate-controlled seat-warmed ozone-depleting Lexus just to catch an ephemeral whiff of the ever-so-fleeting fragrance which wafts wantonly from witch hazel.

This also begs the question: What, pray tell, does Scott do to a precious Parrotia persica 'Pendula'?

I am loving this long arm wrestle. It is good to see men staring into each others eyes and grinning with bicepts firm and sweaty. Yes I love a good fight! Oh VV I agree with Scott:

We are participants in gardening only when we choose and act. Never when we let nature choose its own plan and wait for it to emerge. Our gardens would be rarely more than a small 1/2 acre of the resident nuisiance.

Choice.

To act...or not.

To do only, is to capitulate to the primordial instinct to dominate.

Learn when to let Mother Nature take you.

And I am dominating you in this mighty debate! Feel free to cry "Uncle!" at any time. Everyone will understand.

I will admit, I suppose, that you are right about one thing, that a mature Parrotia specimen is quite unlike (and much superior) to youthful plants. And it would be grand if we could all make plans to be around in 150 years to see them in their full, mature glory, looking absolutely stunning, exfoliated bark vivid and prominently displayed, the whole plant a triumph of form and function and looking EXACTLY LIKE IT WOULD'VE FOR 140 OF THOSE YEARS IF SOMEONE HAD BOTHERED TO LIMB THEM UP!!! But, I guess that would be too easy and an affront to one's dogmatic and puritancal sensibilities..

I hope you realize your recent encounter with a rogue Acer truncatum only cements my assertion that observing and enjoying plants should be a done in safety and comfort. It should not be a dangerous adventure. Shoving one's way through a thicket of brush to hopefully catch a glimpse of exfoliating bark can lead to many life-threatening injuries. One could lose an eye. A branch might snap back and slash across one's frozen cheeks. Or one might be chased out from the bush by a badger, or a wolverine, or a bear. And I must be brutally honest with you, Vaunting Valet, that with two bad knees you would have no chance of outrunning a bear (or out-climbing one in an Acer truncatum). It will catch up to you in no time and start chewing on your head and your last thoughts (aside from hating the excruciating pain) will be that Scott was truly right. I wonder which of those thoughts would cause you the most pain?

As to name dropping every Arboretum that you can remember between glasses of wine, please! It is beneath you. An act of desparation. Like the drunk next to you at the bar slurring that he once knew Frank Sinatra.

Hamamelis? No greater winter delight than the sweet, sweet perfume emanating from those cute, crinkly petals. Worthy of a jaunt across the snow to partake of. But you do not need to hack your way into the interior for the pleasure, one must merely approach. And, then, IF ONE IS NOT TOO PARALIZED WITH FEAR TO PRUNE A BRANCH OR TWO, a bough may be brought inside for further exquisite enjoyment.

Scott

Scott's planks fall off his eyes and admits:

That's all I'm sayin'.

I guess you need to move south of the Ohio River, since the cold seems to have paralyzed your synapses. In winter, no foliage, no need to "penetrate" anything to observe bark character. In fact, larger mature branches will extend the beauty out to the observer.

The recent trauma was from falling from a fence (a pruned oak board enclosure!).

And...I'd prefer to contend with carnivorous wildlife from an unmolested tree which would give some scaffolding for this old body to clamber upon, rather than read Scott's epitaph below his beloved but bloodied Parrotia: "At least he got to see exfoliation as he experienced extispiciousness."

The list of plant collections possessing Parrotia persica was meant to enlighten, not aggrandize. As I said, maybe further exposure to variety is necessary. The insular world of Acer and Carpinus has flattened your world view. It is through observation of others, and reflections upon oneself, that true growth is achieved.

Scott, So you know Frank Sinatra?

Was he not the one who espoused: "I did it my way". Everybody wins!

I wanna give you two a bottle of Jack Daniels each, pruners and send you both into a field of Parrotia and let you both argue outside. I'm sure your words would degrade to @$*&% words shortly. Every tree is different, every situation is different. Neither of you are right or wrong. Much ado about nuttin' at all.

Growin gets it.

Though similar words were previously stated, as opposed to "...100% of the time..." limbing up concept.

Be that as it may...the interstate rivalry exhibited above is much ado about a lot (albeit with certain oral organs esconced firmly at times). It is exercising what we think we know, and what we want to espouse to others, in open forum to see what has legs and holds water versus what blows away like so much chaff.

Or gets eaten by wildcats (or the mascots associated with WI, MI, and CHI).

Planks fall from my eyes? I don't think so! I think it is you who fell off the planks of one overly-pruned oak, if I read your dribble correctly.

As for larger, more mature branches extending said beautiful exfoliation out to the observer, when exactly does that happen? Year 80? Year 105? Some year beyond when the year the sun will bloat into a red giant and absorb the earth? No sir, this is not for me. I want exfoliation, and I want it now. Ten minutes with my Felco #2s, and five years, and I will be fat and happy with a glass of (sure!) Jack Daniels on ice and a fine trunk of colorful exfoliation. Every tree is different, Growin' suggests. Why, yes, I think that is true. My Parrotia will be an exquisite example of nature's finest, and VV's will be a tangled weed. I will be drinking my bourbon with great satisfaction; he'll be drinking his to drown his sorrows.

Extispiciousness. Neither Webster nor Roget even have a clue as to what that means. Where do you come up with this stuff? Only proves your erudite, stuffy, academic nature which precludes you from the very sensible limbing up of a few feet of Parrotia trunk. While others, us plebians, freely prune and unrestrainably enjoy a grand view of Parrotia bark, you "tsk tsk" the gathering, happy crowds, sneak a quick view of your notebook which contains your word for the day, and go off to pass the fifty years it will take your Parrotia to naturally slough off the very same branches I would've pruned.

And how dare you resort to playing the Carpinus and Acer cards in this debate! Have you no shame, man? I make no apologies for my love of maples and hornbeams, and especially of the lovely and rare hornbeam-leafed maple! If maples and hornbeams are restricting my worldview, which they aren't, then I shall go through life with a maple blinder on my left eye and a carpinus blinder on my right, and yet I shall die a fulfilled, satisfied man!

Dang, though, I keep going back to that image of a bottle of Jack and a field of Parrotia. I think that might be what heaven is like. I know where we can get the Jack, VV. Where can we find a field of Parrotia?

Patrick, Know Frank Sinatra? No, 'fraid not. He's dead. Knew him though. Back in1963. "Told him to pass on "Candyman." Give it to Sammy, I said. The song for you is one called "My Way." I'll play it for you." Of course, the rest is history.

Scott


This message was edited Nov 5, 2006 6:04 PM

Well, Lincoln - Douglas it ain't, but it's still pretty darn entertaining. Hats off to both of you for sharing your passion.

All this energy put me in an lustful desire to prune. I have been outside pruning for over 4 hours and feel wonderful. My DW is in tears in the sunroom thinking that a simple concept of change is threatening. I see the trees 10 years from now as a specimen only to be looked up by the gods of Olympus. You have given me inspiration to plant a pathway of decent through my new woodland with an alternating parrotia and Hamamelis with vast open and exposed legs of the Parrotia contrasted with the closed tight branching pattern of the Hamamelus.

After reading all of the above I don't even know if I should post my photo of my 10 year old Parrotia. It has only been pruned a bit to keep it slightly away from the fence behind it. There is a border of various shrubs about 65 or 70 feet of which the Parrotia is first shrub/tree. Last year the color was very good . This year we had an early cold spell , 13-17 degrees for several days and it didn't have good color. This photo is from a year ago.

Donna

I again am blessed to see your garden and all its contents. you are so fortunate to have such beauty.

Rutholive, nice Parrotia but I'd prune 1/3 up to your shoulder height to the main stem if it was me. Then again you might be wanting a fence blocker.

What drama! If ya wanna do a midnight prune job and work on a field of trees (don't blame me if you get caught), go to McNeil Road in Pitt Meadows, B.C. right near Neaves Road and you'll see several rows of them. Wear black ski-masks. If you get caught claim diplomatic immunity and mention Greenpeace.

Whew, there hasn't been such a page turner since Vātsyāyana's last publication! I must find one of these fair Parrotias to see for myself what has inspired such jousting.

Scott:

I think the bottle of Jack is what started this treatise, which makes you shy of the Mark. The carnivore that will have caught you (sans climbing apparatus) will enjoy their meal and prognostication. It plays no class (or species) envy card, all slow white meat being the same.

Wilson's Nursery in Frankfort/Shelby County has been growing Parrotia for a few years, and apparently aren't selling them very well. There could be ample opportunity to extemporaneously advocate inane ideas al fresco.

Donna:

Your tree looks great. Wouldn't touch a thing, short of removing cross-branches or dead wood. That Parrotia should live a long and prosperous life, unmolested by the iconoclasts, and eastern Washington will be no less for it.

Jean:

I suppose that all depends on what position you take on the matter.

No, VV, you had it right the first time. It was a 12-pack that got me started! I can't afford bourbon, especially since my airline stock (and career) has completely tanked. I didn't get the bold "Mark" though, unless it was referring to Maker's Mark, which is a bourbon I REALLY can't afford.

Glad everyone was amused. So, what I want to knowis this, between me and VV, who was Douglas and who was Lincoln. Lincoln got to be President, but I think Douglas got to live longer.

SO what's FER dinner? I will look forward to photos of your Hamamelidaceae garden and your path of descent.

Scott

I've seen pictures of each of you. Scott, you are definitely Lincoln.

Thanks for the help and info Vociferous Voice, and you Scott. I now decend on Seattle for collection of many "On Sale" Hammamelis and Parrotia. Steve

If you have a chance to visit Colvos Creek Nursery http://www.colvoscreeknursery.com/ they have some interesting things. Only open on the weekend and it might be a good idea to call first.

I have been gone the past few days, and would not dare delve into most of the dialogue above.

But having had a number of Parrotias in my 2 gardens, I would say that yes, sometimes they demand pruning to expose not only the bark, but the "inner grace" of the plant. The first one I ever bought I ordered from Losely's, a wholesale nursery in Lake Co OH, back before Parrotias were found in every decent local nursery here. The plant was a great disappointment, a tangle of overgrown inner branches, with nothing of the graceful form I had seen on specimens in gardens. I knew little about pruning then, and it sat for a couple of years and really did nothing for the garden. But then I took a pruning class from a great local bonsai person, and the woody plant curator at the local bot gardens. And with some courage and a pruning saw, I took off about 1/3 of the inner branches and overgrown center of the plant. Almost overnight, the plant was transformed, and it grew better and looked much better, especially in winter. This plant has somewhat sinuous, ascending branches that are very beautiful even when young. With judicious pruning as the plant grows, the form can be enhanced and the bark and foliage all show to best advantage.

Oh boy is Mr VV going to be moved to comment. I just picked up my 2 Parotia Vanessa, and Persian parotia. It seems that Vanessa will be heartier so I'll report in 2 to 3 years about cold weather success. I also got 2 Hammamelis Arnolds Promise. I love coming to Seattle they have everything you want. No trimming on my Parotias cause the big ones didn't fit into my car and I had to get 5 gallon ones to take home.

What an interesting and hilarious thread! Now that the semantic gymnastics have ended and we have descended once again into the relative tranquility of..................... Back to the exfoliation issue. VV correctly interpreted my poorly worded question and correctly stated it as the display achieved by exfoliating bark. I have spent some time the last few afternoons looking over some larger P. bungeana to compare the bark. I think that I'm at odds with his opinion (not sure I'm interpreting it correctly) in that the amount of light reaching the trunk, and the contrast it creates, is responsible for an illusion of lowered effectiveness of exfoliation displayed. To be fair, my studies have only included 5 trees in central IL so this may or may not extrapolate out farther. My statements should not be taken as empirical evidence even though I think so ;-) I just haven't had the opportunity to test my new hypothesis out in other areas of the country. As one who creates fine art photographs, I have had to train myself to see past illusions created in the mind when reality is different. Observing and using (or avoiding) subtle objects in the frame make all of the difference between an average image and one that makes the person viewing the art take a second look. NOTE: I'm not immune to this illusion phenomenon, just that I know that the brain can deceive and have mental processes to second guess my first impression . All that said, I believe that plants grown in a shady or non-limbed up environment don't achieve as high a reflected luminance capability as those exposed to more sunlight. I considered setting up an experiment, photographing the trunks of both kinds of subjects. The more I thought about it, the more complicated it became and it got to the point of needing advanced mathematical calculations. That was without genetics factored in. This is beyond what I'd care to do in the waning hours of a pleasant Nov. afternoon. All that I will say for now is that exfoliating bark on shaded trunks don't seem to get quite as white/silvery (capable of as high a reflective luminance) as those exposed to light. On close examination (and I will attempt to document this with a macro lens later) it appears that there is some sort of moss, lichen or other biological entity growing on the bark in minute quantities that dulls the reflective luminance. So with head hanging and with shuffling of feet, I humbly await the Valient Voice's reply.

Regards,
Ernie

But you"ll get mine instead...at least at first.

Don't know about the question immediately at hand, and I apologize for butting in, but I did want to add this. A good rate of growth might be an important factor for the quality of color, luminance, and texture on bark, because good to steady growth will mean more exfoliation. The continual expansion of the stem is what causes old bark to slough off and new bark to be exposed.

That's all.

Scott

LHDP:

I think we agree.

Less light = less appearance of good color. Exfoliation occurs nonetheless, just less physically observable (obstructions to view) and less contrast achieved due to low light.

An experiment to see if this is so. Find a limbed up Pinus bungeana planted in the shade of taller trees, and compare to a limbed up one that is planted out in the open as a specimen.

I still think a north-side vs. south-side of the trunk comparison might yield an answer as well.

Scott's hypothesis holds water except for trees like river birch; bark exfoliates like mad on youngsters, then decreases in bark interest with age (swamp white oak and overcup oak fall into this category, too).

VV,

I actually don't agree. I just got so windy and blew so much smoke that I confused you! My official stance, smoke free:

1) Exfoliation occurs with less light reaching the trunk due to branches or shade causing objects. We agree on this.
2) Color expressed on shaded stems is not as bright as on those exposed to sunlight. The longer exposed to sunlight, the better it is expressed.

My reason for #2: Some sort of substance of biological origin (like a moss) grows on the bark in the shaded areas somewhat smothering the natural color. In an attempt to convince you of this I got my macro lens out and had at some P. bungeana growing in the (unirrigated) nursery. Tree #3 so perfectly made clear what I'm trying to point out that I'm going to start there and work down if you demand more evidence. How to interpret my results: I have linked to a full shot of the bark and attached a cropped section of the image for close up viewing. I can get no closer in than this so it will have to suffice. Picture was taken on the Northeast side of the tree. To the right you can see the "stuff" making the color look bad. I might add that there was a small branch (1/4" dia.) a wee bit further right that grew up along side of the trunk adding more shade. To the left and heading south into the light, the color purifies to a nice white althought I didn't get enough depth of field to make this completely transparent.

Link: http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c16/erniew/odds%20and%20ends/PinusBungeanaBark.jpg