More foliage = more root growth or??

[Matte91]

Hello.

I got some trees that I wan't to collect. But. Last year I chopped them down to stumps, with a few new branches left. Is it better to leave them in the ground to gain more foliage or is it fine to collect them in spring?
That brings us back to the first question. Does more foliage produce more roots? Or asked in another way can a tree have too little foliage to produce enough roots or am I completly wrong?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Frozentreehugger]

Like most things in bonsai there is no straight up 1 answer . There is a balance between roots and foliage . That all bonsai practitioners must be aware of . As part of the growing of trees in a pot . With knowledge of a specific species. Trees are often collected by drastic chopping the trunk and drastic reduction of roots . This will make the tree respond and regrow both . In sone species I. Others slower growing conifers for example this will kill the tree . So if you are not sure always better to work slowly . Like you I have found
Drastic reduction of trunk in the field is a good starting point . Then leave it in the wild with all its roots to respond . At least a year or more . Supplement fertilization . Can also help . The opposite reducing the roots in the wild can be risky . Unless you plan to go to it and regular water . When trees are collected one procedure is to reduce the foliage . In response to the reduction of roots . Foliage demands water . That demand can kill a tree that can’t supply it . Ie lack of roots . But it can also force the tree to grow roots . Again depends on the species . This is why bonsai are often . Recovered from collection and or allowed to grow vigorously. To establish roots before drastic pruning . To be strong enough to react to the pruning . In general conifers react slower and need much more safety margin then Dicid . Almost all conifers can not be drastic chopped . And regrow you need to leave green growth . Or you kill the plant there are exceptions . Dicid trees move more water . And can be drastically chopped . And drastic root pruned . For the most part and respond but . This is not 100 percent statement . Must be done correctly at right time . When starting out slower is the better approach . As I said I like your idea drastic cut in the field . Wait for the response . Stimulate with fertilizer . When you collect better to take all the roots you can get . Cut the foliage back and collect early spring to give the best chance of survival . Allow recovery . Trees and roots can always be trimmed . Step one in a pot us keep it alive . Hope this helps

 

[dbonsaiw]

The above ground and below ground portions of the tree are intimately related. Roots draw the water needed for basic life functions, including photosynthesis where water and CO2 are converted to sugars. The sugars in turn feed the tree and power growth, including root growth. So yes, more foliage equals more roots for the simple reason that the tree is making lots of food through photosynthesis. Not enough foliage can leave the roots starving for food. The more room the roots have to run, the more the branches will grow and the more foliage the tree will produce, thereby producing more food and more roots. Not enough roots and the tree will not be able to keep up with the loss of water through transpiration.

 

[It's Kev]

Your question is already answered. I use the “more foliage” type of logic if I have a stick in a pot that I wanna fatten up because more foliage means more sap traffic (it probably only works if you believe in it hard enough), but since you whacked yours down to a stump, there’s no need for that, except for a ways don the road if you’re building branches.

 

[leatherback]

Grab them now as spring comes.

The first two look like mature field maple; These are so tough, they can be tossed around in a box for weeks without roots and branches. Show it a hosepipe in spring and it will grow.

The third is a Fagus sylvatica by the looks of things. As inspiration:

5yr native tree challenge - Leatherbacks Fagus sylvatica

Well, as my first treedeemer thread I think this one would befit the title.. A little project I have started this spring, when I noticed one of my neighbours pulling out a beech hedgerow. After a short "Watcha Doin" and "Ya gonna toss those" (Or rather, Was machen sie?, and Was passiert mit die...

www.bonsainut.com

 

[Matte91]

Thanks for some very good answers guys. You are great!

The first two are elms and the third is a fagus sylvatica.

So do you guys think it will be best to:

1. Collect them in spring, when they have zero branches but lots of buds.
2. Or should I let them stay in the ground one season to let the buds become branches and then collect?

Thank you!

 

[Joe Dupre']

For the most part, one feeds the other. More roots and less foliage seems to work way better than the other way around, though. I have not had much success with chopping trees in place unless the tree is along a fence line or edge where it can get plenty of light. Chopping a tree with a dense overhead canopy has not yielded much success for me.

 

[sorce]

1. Collect them in spring, when they have zero branches but lots of buds.
2. Or should I let them stay in the ground one season to let the buds become branches and then collect?

Search cross-talk. It's knowledge from the failure. I just love it.

By the time buds are present, the tree already told itself it's using those roots, ought not cut em then.

Cross talk is everything.

Sorce

 

[leatherback]

1. Collect them in spring, when they have zero branches but lots of buds.
2. Or should I let them stay in the ground one season to let the buds become branches and then collect?

I think you saw I already gave my view on this..?

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

@sorce cross-talk leans on the concept that there is one production site, multiple use sites and another production site producing an antagonistic molecule.
Auxin made in apical meristem, distributed downwards, inhibited by cytokinins produced in the roots.
But science has been evolving away from the idea. Auxins can be synthesised locally, as can cytokinins. They still cross talk but not over the entire length of the plant. It's way more localized and compartimentalized than we suspected.
Still there are bulk producers, but if roots can produce their own auxin, they don't always lean on buds to do it for them.

Thought experiment: Think about the first flush of root growth of the year, this usually happens when the buds are still dormant. How can these buds produce something in bulk if they're not biologically active yet? And how on earth would they have auxins left to grow themselves?
Auxin is stored very poorly and especially natural IAA has a super short shelflife.
It varies per species, per cultivar even. But cross talk is less of a talk than bonsai professionals like Bjorholm make it out to be.
Local biosynthesis is something we should dive into some more. Because it fills all the logical holes that cross talk leaves open.

 

[sorce]

Because it fills all the logical holes that cross talk leaves open.

That's the problem. Logic. The holes are open and science is trying to fill them with physical things.
Interpretation of the trees speaking can only be observed.

Illogical filling.

Sorce

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

That's the problem. Logic. The holes are open and science is trying to fill them with physical things.
Interpretation of the trees speaking can only be observed.

Illogical filling.

Sorce

No, they've filled them with measurable, physical evidence.
That's not a problem, it's the solution.

Nobody interpreted anything, they just showed different lines of communication than we formerly knew about.

 

[Frozentreehugger]

I’m confused . But that’s east to accomplish . I see these 2 definitions of cross talk . Electronic I understand . The biological seems somewhat vague . In actual applications . Where are you guys getting the plant based info from. Or exactly what are you referring to as cross-talk in a plant WGW . Statement seems to make sense to me . But I’m unclear what exactly is cross talking with what . I do think there is a lot we don’t understand about plants . And several un proven thearies on what takes place . Like dormancy . My understanding is you take a maple and put it in the cold and dark . And it will not stay dormant beyond a certain point in time . Adding another stat to the equation . As to what starts and ends dormancy . Of course there are thearies .

 

[leatherback]

I’m confused . But that’s east to accomplish . I see these 2 definitions of cross talk . Electronic I understand . The biological seems somewhat vague . In actual applications . Where are you guys getting the plant based info from. Or exactly what are you referring to as cross-talk in a plant WGW . Statement seems to make sense to me . But I’m unclear what exactly is cross talking with what . I do think there is a lot we don’t understand about plants . And several un proven thearies on what takes place . Like dormancy . My understanding is you take a maple and put it in the cold and dark . And it will not stay dormant beyond a certain point in time . Adding another stat to the equation . As to what starts and ends dormancy . Of course there are thearies .

start studying plant fysiology.

I am a little tired with people claiming so much is not know. That an individual does not know, does not know the processes are not studies and by and large understood. Bonsai growers are plant fysiology hobbiest who do not access the literature on growing plants, generally speaking. That is what might cause confusion.

 

[Frozentreehugger]

start studying plant fysiology.

I am a little tired with people claiming so much is not know. That an individual does not know, does not know the processes are not studies and by and large understood. Bonsai growers are plant fysiology hobbiest who do not access the literature on growing plants, generally speaking. That is what might cause confusion.

I thought it was a pretty straight forward question . But if you prefer what is meant by cross- talk I’ve never heard the statement as it pertains to plants or bonsai . So I asked the people that brought it up what they were referring to . What is fysiology . Are you referring to physiology of plants . All I was saying about Theories is they are exactly that . A theory essentialy is unproven scientifically . That does not mean it’s wrong . But there are assumptions in a lot of theory that at latter dates is proven to be incorrect .

 

[leatherback]

Theories is they are exactly that . A theory essentialy is unproven scientifically . That does not mean it’s wrong

Yeah ehm.. Many people seem to have a good understanding of the word theory, but less so of the scientific process.

 

[BobbyLane]

Look like cool finds.

 

[Frozentreehugger]

Yeah ehm.. Many people seem to have a good understanding of the word theory, but less so of the scientific process.

Meatbe you should not post stuff when your sick and tired

 

[leatherback]

Meatbe you should not post stuff when your sick and tired

Great, guess we are all done here.

 

[Wires_Guy_wires]

I’m confused . But that’s east to accomplish . I see these 2 definitions of cross talk . Electronic I understand . The biological seems somewhat vague . In actual applications . Where are you guys getting the plant based info from. Or exactly what are you referring to as cross-talk in a plant WGW . Statement seems to make sense to me . But I’m unclear what exactly is cross talking with what . I do think there is a lot we don’t understand about plants . And several un proven thearies on what takes place . Like dormancy . My understanding is you take a maple and put it in the cold and dark . And it will not stay dormant beyond a certain point in time . Adding another stat to the equation . As to what starts and ends dormancy . Of course there are thearies .

Next time, shoot me a PM ;-)
Biological crosstalk is vague because most people don't know half of the terms of a sentence. And that's perfectly normal if you haven't studied biology or biochemistry.

In short, plant cross talk is used to define interactions between hormones. For example: one tells them to grow long, the other tells them to grow wide. In a perfect system this would create a bush, with bushy branches and bushy roots. But because one hormone is sometimes more present than the other, we get different kinds of growths. Like balancing a scale blindfolded, there's always one side leaning a lil further down than the other (and this is where cross talk falls short to explain the tilt, because hormones travel in minutes and plant responses take weeks). The long held idea was that the growing tip of a shoot produced auxin, a hormone that also fuels root production and shoot elongation. Its counter hormone is cytokinin, a hormone that's essential for branching and 'going horizontal', mainly originating from the root system. One counters the other and vice versa.
These hormones were thought to be produced on opposite ends of the plant, and travel against the flow of the sap (sometimes). But more recent studies have found that they're also produced on the spot, work with or against another on the spot, and don't always require miles of vascular transportation.
This means that the idea of "shoots talking to roots and roots talking to shoots" isn't as solid as we thought it was. In the bonsai world though, it takes a couple decades for people to adjust their theories because they're based on hearsay and sometimes myths.
It does mean that you'll steal the show if you say stuff like "well, yeah this branch didn't grow because of the cross talk, ya know."

I can go over the details for hours, but this should broadly cover it.

There is a pdf circulating on the internet that contains an older version of Plant Physiology by Taiz et all. It's on some US university website somewhere. If you google for "plant physiology taiz .pdf" you should be able to find it. It is outdated, but it's free and contains basically everything plant physiology related known to science at that time. It starts off with some heavy DNA and protein stuff, but to me that seems like a solid introduction of what follows.