Mature Pear & Plum trees what to prune

[simon12]

I have these 2 trees in my garden that were there when I got the house 2 years ago and according to a neighbour are at least 35 years old. I have not pruned them but in summer I noticed there where 2 extra trees (nearly as tall as the pear but alot thinner and with similar leaves) that I suspect are suckers from the root stock of the pear which I removed and also removed 2 bushes growing very close to them. Both trees fruited last year with good quality fruit but not a large amount maybe 20ish per tree.
I have no idea whether removing the excess trees and bushes is all thats needed or if they should be pruned aggressively due to not being pruned for years. The broken branch on the pair hanging down actually had alot of fruit on it. Also the pear had black spots on the leaves which mainly affected the 2 removed trees and got better on the remaining tree when there were removed.
Thankyou in advance for any advice pictures below (I hope) Pear on left

[BertieFox]

If I could 'piggy back' on your question, I'm interested in the same subject as we have an ancient orchard with some huge old plums and pears. Some people have told us to cut them right down to a low height to reach the fruit but that would mean getting rid of most of the fruiting wood.

I've often wondered if we would be better to chop them right down and replant with new trees and cultivars which are fairly cheap to get over here, as the old trees produce very little fruit in an average year while the new trees we have already planted do far better.

[FB.]

pruning aggressively

That won't achieve what you want; if done in winter the tree will fight you back with a lot of long new shoots and will stop fruiting for at least a couple of years.
If aggressively pruned in summer or autumn it can kill the tree, or hurt it so much that it struggles to grow or fruit for several years (and may eventually die a few years later).

"The broken branch on the pair hanging down actually had a lot of fruit on it"

The break will have caused a slowing in the sapflow, which will have caused sugars from the leaves to become trapped in the branch, causing better fruiting. Slower-growing or slightly drought-stressed trees tend to fruit best.

--------------------------

Looking at your trees, it is going to be very difficult to do much with them. They have been allowed to grow far too tall, and the pruning required to get them back into a nice shape and good cropping will take several years - during which you might not get much fruit - and possibly none at all.
It's possible that the extensive reshaping required will fail anyway, resulting in an ugly or unstable tree.

If you still want to proceed with a several-year project which *might* renovate them, and you accept the risk that the tree may not respond as hoped, then some closer pictures of each tree will be needed.

An ideal picture to assess the possibilities for each tree would be one or two pictures that show what branching the tree has in the area of 3ft-8ft (1m-2.5m) height off the ground; I'm wondering whether it would be possible to cut the main leading shoot/trunk at a height of 5ft and still have enough branches below that point to turn them into reasonable large bushes or half-standards.

But there would be a huge pruning wound at the level they were "topped" and almost certainly it would not heal (not even if painted with wound sealant), probably resulting in the tree eventually becoming hollow. Possibly the large wound could become infected with canker - plums are especially prone to canker.

[FB.]

I've often wondered if we would be better to chop them right down and replant with new trees and cultivars

Planting a fruit tree in or near the location of an older tree often results in very poor growth of the young tree due to the soil being depleted of the nutrients a fruit tree needs, and large numbers of fungi, nematodes and other ground-living bugs will have built up over the years and will be in such large numbers that many of the young trees' roots will be eaten.
It's known as "replant disease" and affects all kinds of plants - roses being a well known plant which suffers replant problems.

If you must re-plant a fruit tree site, it is a good idea to plant a different kind of fruit tree, and to plant a different rootstock - often a fairly vigorous rootstock will be needed to overcome the loss of roots to the soil pathogens.
So if I had an orchard in need of replacement, with MM106 rootstock apple trees, Quince A pear trees and St.Julien A plums trees, I'd use MM111 or M25 apple rootstock, Pyrodwarf pear rootstock and Brompton plum rootstock to give extra vigour which will compensate for poorer and diseased soil compared to when the original trees were planted.

[simon12]

I think on both trees where the trunk divides into many branches is around 5" or just over, do these pictures help?
Pear

Plum
I can only attach 5 pics so will try another post

[simon12]

It doesn't seem to want me to add another post except as a quick reply so plum pics will have to wait. I think I will try the several years approach to try to get a good tree and risk a bad one but if I decide not to is there anything worth doing to them to try to improve fruiting? And what would happen if I just cut down the top 1/4 of the pear tree now? 1 other slightly unrelated question roughly what sort of size will my 2x1 year maiden cherries (Lapins and Napoleon) on gisela 5 root stock get to compared to these trees when mature.
And thank you for all your great advice FB in many other threads I have read as well as this one.

[FB.]

1 other slightly unrelated question roughly what sort of size will my 2x1 year maiden cherries (Lapins and Napoleon) on gisela 5 root stock get to compared to these trees when mature.

I would make an educated guess that your 25-year-old trees are on Quince A (pear rootstock) and St.Julien A (plum rootstock). They are roughly equivalent to the Colt (cherry rootstock) and MM106 (apple rootstock), although Colt is arguably a little more vigorous than the others.

Gisela 5 is a size smaller than the Colt/St.JA/QA//MM106 and will probably reach about two-thirds the size.
However, your existing trees could have easily been kept much smaller and persuaded to put more effort into fruit and less into making wood if the original owner had pruned them sensibly every couple of years.
The trick is not to let them go upwards once you have them to the height you want. But you don't give them a haircut; you completely cut out strong upright shoots each winter before those shoots get a chance to increase the tree height.
Unfortunately, most people tend to give the tree a haircut and cut off the lower (near-horizontal and most productive) branches which just encourages the tree to vent out its energy upwards.

I think it will be possible to reshape your existing trees. My first thoughts (but I might change my mind after chewing it over for a day or two) would be that there are plenty of lower branches and you should be able to "top" the tree with a single cut on the trunk. One single pruning cut at a height between 4-6ft depending where you'd like the branches. No more than one cut is needed.
However, you might find it safer to remove some of the upper branches on the bit that will be cut off, before taking the top off the trunk, so as to make the job safer and to reduce the risk of splintering when the large top piece is cut off.
This coming summer, do not allow any new upright or near-upright shoots to grow from the area near where the pruning cut was made or the tree will quickly regrow what you cut off!
But if you get rid of any shoots from near the pruning cut as soon as you notice them, you'll persuade the tree to put more energy into the lower branches.

[FB.]

-

Here's a rough sketch of what I'd do.

One cut will do the job, although you may want to cut the unwanted top off in sections to make it easier to handle, safer and less likely to split the trunk when the top piece falls off.

During summer 2014, any shoots which try to grow upwards from near the pruning cut MUST be removed within a few weeks of you noticing them; remove the entire new shoot from the place it started growing. Do not be tempted to shorten it or it'll come back. Do not cut into any of the older wood.

Also remove any root suckers that the tree sends up. Hard-pruned trees are more likely to produce suckers (shoots from near-ground or just below ground) and watershoots (upright new shoots); both should be removed.

Any of the other main branches which also send new shoots straight up should also have those shoots removed.

During the summer, if any non-vertical shoots from the remaining branches get too long, prune them back to whatever length you like, around mid-July to early August.

The rest of the tree will have to wait until next winter for general tidying-up, at which time you can start thinning out crowded branches. Note the word: "thinning" which means total removal of unwanted shoots with as few cuts as possible, as opposed to "heading" which means cutting the tips off all the shoots.
Heading cuts make the tree more vigorous and reduce the cropping. Thinning cuts much less so.
By taking out the whole top of the tree, you are effectively "thinning" because it is total removal of unwanted material with as few cuts as possible.

Do not feed the tree. Do not water the tree unless there is an extreme drought. Given its size, there is no need to worry about grass, weeds or other plants growing all the way to the trunk.

If you do the above and are lucky, it might still crop well during 2014, and you might have it in good shape and full cropping for summer 2015.
But don't get your hopes too high, to avoid disappointment.

-

[boundtothesoil]

Hi simon12
Unless these trees are useful for shade and/or privacy, I'd take a ruthless approach, get them both out and start again, preferably not planting against the fence unless you're going to train the replacement trees as cordons, fans, or espaliers. The two reasons for this suggestion are. Firstly, as FB says, renovation pruning will be a long and unsightly procedure, with no definite promise of a super-yielding tasty variety when you've finished. Secondly, if you keep both trees relatively tall you will always be cutting back because of the fence and the overhang into the next garden.

If it were me, I'd select a couple of really good replacement varieties, and plant them in open ground as two year olds on a semi dwarfing rootstock (MM106 is my personal preference because of my wet soil, but see FB's views), then prune them formatively to produce bush shaped trees. By the time they are four years old I'd expect 'fruit of my choice' off them.

[FB.]

(MM106 is my personal preference because of my wet soil, but see FB's views)

I think MM106 is OK for Surrey because they get quite a lot more rain than we do here.
The problems with MM106 seem to boil down to lower rainfall Eastern-England on light sandy or chalky soils.

Basically the more droughty/low-moisture-retention soils severely affect MM106 but MM111 does well on such soils. Where soil moisture isn't a limiting factor MM106 is as good as MM111.

I don't know if I said it in public recently or whether it was in an email with orangepippin, but in the short/cool years I think MM106 is at least as vigorous as MM111 and M25 - the M25 rootstock in particular seems to be greatly slowed down in cooler years or cooler soils (often cool because they are damp) while MM106 seems to love cool damp soil.

I also like the idea of a mixture of rootstocks, were possible. In my view it gives a better chance of at least some of the trees coping with whatever nature throws at them - whether climate or pests or diseases.
It is often possible to use a range of rootstocks but still end up with trees about the same size, if consideration is given to the scion.

So we might find the mature size of Egremont Russet on M25 to be about the same as Golden Delicious on MM111 and about the same as Annie Elixabeth on MM106 or Bramley on M116 - assuming, of course, that the rootstocks are happy in the soil and climate.

[simon12]

Thanks again just to confirm are you suggesting cutting the top or the trunk straight across somewhere between the highest side branches and where it splits into vertical branches or just cutting all the vertical branches back as close to the stump as possible or will either do? Also is it worth treating the cut with anything and is a standard wood saw suitable?
Plum pictures below

[FB.]

Thanks again just to confirm are you suggesting cutting the top or the trunk straight across somewhere between the highest side branches and where it splits into vertical branches or just cutting all the vertical branches back as close to the stump as possible or will either do? Also is it worth treating the cut with anything and is a standard wood saw suitable?

One cut, taking the top half (ish) of the tree out at a level where the remaining branches lower down are where you want them.
So maybe the cut will be at 4ft or maybe at 5ft depending on what you think is most suitable in order to get the appearance and mature height you want to maintain them at.

But if you make one cut you'll find the top is so heavy that when it falls it might break the lower branches, or the top might snap off leaving a jagged wound which will definitely get infected with fungal diseases, or it might split the tree down the middle, or might tear the bark off the whole of one side of the tree. All of which will ruin the tree irreparably.
Additionally, if you're up there on a step ladder it'll be a lot safer if you take the top out in sections of manageable weight rather than one big piece that causes you to fall off the ladder.
So although one cut is all that's required, I'd play it safe and remove the top in several pieces of manageable size.

So you'll need to cut the top off in several pieces for the safety of yourself and the tree, but when the job is done it should look like you did it with one cut.

An ordinary saw will do. If you had lots of trees a professional fruit tree pruning saw would be better. I don't use any special tools for my trees - secateurs and loppers are usually sufficient if you keep up to date with pruning.

The plum would be best left for a few more weeks before pruning (plums are best pruned very late in winter, just as they are about to start leafing-out again; it reduces the risk of infection in the wound).

[FB.]

-

The key to getting it right is to make sure you guide the tree correctly during 2014, by:
1. removing, within a few weeks of their appearance, strong-growing upright shoots
2. removing, within a few weeks of their appearance, any shoots which try to grow from the area near the pruning cut
3. shortening any long shoots elsewhere on the tree between mid-July and early-August (although early July to mid August would be acceptable if holiday plans get in the way).

If you aren't prepared to do 1,2 and 3 during the 2014 growing season then you will probably have lost your chance to get the trees right and they will be a hideous mess by the end of 2014.
So don't start something that you don't intend to see through to the end.

If you can't commit an hour or two in July-August to follow up the pruning then I suggest you leave the trees alone. The biggest problem with fruit trees, or trees in general, is that after years of neglect they need a couple of years of persistence and proper follow-up pruning but most people can only be bothered to hack at them random times when they happen to have a few spare minutes.


In the case of the other tree, I'd probably do something like this:

-

[FB.]

-


After you've pruned the tree in the next several weeks, I would expect its response for 2014 to look like this if you don't follow up with removal of all those upright shoots during the summer:
(if you leave those upright shoots until next winter all that new growth will have produced lots more roots which will increase the trees ability to gather resources in order to grow faster and faster to fight you back every time you prune it)


-

[simon12]

Thanks again I will have a go with the pear at the weekend