Acer palmatum sharp's pygmy [#07]

[thumblessprimate1]

@MACH5, would you mind sharing your thoughts with a newbie comparing the two parts I've divided with the red line? I find both sides to be very beautiful, but I'm not sure what to think. If I had to choose a side, I'd prefer the right side a bit more. The left side of the image I notice is denser and has bolder lines. The right side of the image has more negative space, less branching, and delicate. These thoughts from me don't suppose that a tree cannot be denser on one side than the other; I believe in nature that does happen.

 

[Andrew Robson]

[


Leaf cutting would not solve this problem Andrew. It would make it worse by increasing density and further shading the lower part. Shortening by pruning is the way.

Wrong. Cutting leaves in half doesn't create more density...

It balances energy from the strong areas to the weak. What happens when you cut a leaf, physiologically? Leaf cutting creates a sugar loss, so when you cut the leaves in half on a strong area, it produces less sugar and weakens it, balancing it with the weaker areas, which you do not cut.

 

[Andrew Robson]

@MACH5, would you mind sharing your thoughts with a newbie comparing the two parts I've divided with the red line? I find both sides to be very beautiful, but I'm not sure what to think. If I had to choose a side, I'd prefer the right side a bit more. The left side of the image I notice is denser and has bolder lines. The right side of the image has more negative space, less branching, and delicate. These thoughts from me don't suppose that a tree cannot be denser on one side than the other; I believe in nature that does happen.


View attachment 126607

What's nice about this tree is that there is some variety in the silhouette. Some areas that are more dense, and some that are less. You don't want everything to look the same. That creates a very boring tree.

It does need to twig up more in general, yes, but that is the constant game of deciduous work.

 

[Andrew Robson]

This is why we have balancing techniques in bonsai. Area two does need to fill in a little, but simply letting it extend a bit longer than everything else and pruning back later will strengthen the area. Also leaf cutting techniques on area one will both create a sugar loss weakening the strong areas and let light in to help area two.

Bonsai is all about balance, which happens to be one of the most important words we use. Balance not only in design, but in aesthetic and psychology as well.

Edit: Physiology, not psychology...

 

[petegreg]

What's nice about this tree is that there is some variety in the silhouette. Some areas that are more dense, and some that are less. You don't want everything to look the same. That creates a very boring tree.

It does need to twig up more in general, yes, but that is the constant game of deciduous work.

Agree absolutely. The silhouette is beautiful and looks very naturalistic.

I think I've found 3-4 straighter branches in the upper right part of the tree. Is that intended?

 

[MACH5]

The only thing that would concern me a little ( and I mean just a little...for the future) M5, is that area 1 might be a bit to strong and interfere with the development of area 2..

View attachment 126602

Michael I agree. Area one is strong and does not quite fit in yet. I plan on cutting back in spring. I have left this area extend to build and frame the apex a bit more with the thought of cutting back, or completely cut off, the strongest parts. Apex is the area that needs the most work at this point.

Area two actually sits towards the back of the tree and not immediately under the apex as the photo suggests. This area also needs to extend and develop.

 

[MACH5]

@MACH5, would you mind sharing your thoughts with a newbie comparing the two parts I've divided with the red line? I find both sides to be very beautiful, but I'm not sure what to think. If I had to choose a side, I'd prefer the right side a bit more. The left side of the image I notice is denser and has bolder lines. The right side of the image has more negative space, less branching, and delicate. These thoughts from me don't suppose that a tree cannot be denser on one side than the other; I believe in nature that does happen.


View attachment 126607

T, I was going to reply to your question, but Andrew did it for me. The "pace" or "tempo", much like in a piece of music, book, painting, etc, needs variety to keep your interest, as long as the entire work feels balanced and harmonious. Indeed it does happen in nature. One of the biggest lesson I have learned from trees is their ability to surprise you. Nature is very unpredictable. Sometimes this is subtle, sometimes very obvious.

One other note. Walter Pall's work, no matter how wild and naturalistic it seems, it's always, or at least in his best work, visually balanced. I think this is his "dirty secret".

 

[MACH5]

Agree absolutely. The silhouette is beautiful and looks very naturalistic.

I think I've found 3-4 straighter branches in the upper right part of the tree. Is that intended?

Thanks Peter! LOL I think we can tear this tree apart all day long. But... the feeling it transmits to you is way more meaningful that any of its individual parts.

There are many branches that are still being considered and being bent one way or another. Still a work in progress.

 

[MACH5]

Somewhere here I also mentioned that I leaf prune this tree every single year. Meaning, I take one leaf out of each pair on the entire outside of the canopy. This species gets extremely dense and will kill for certain all interior branches if this is not done religiously as they do not get enough light and air. I don't recommend having more than a couple of these maples in anyone's collection because they are a lot of work unless of course you have an apprentice. Having younger trees is a different story however as they are not dense... yet!

Andrew is correct in that partial defoliation does weaken those strong shoots as their capacity to make and transfer sugars has been cut in half, promoting the strength of those closer to the trunk. It helps in balancing the energy throughout the tree.

 

[MichaelS]

Andrew Thomas, Wrong. Cutting leaves in half doesn't create more density...

Yes it does and I'll explain why. By leaf cutting only without leader replacement. (that means cutting out strong areas and replacing them with weaker ones further back) the next generation of buds on that branch will double in number just as they would if not leaf cut. The new buds might very well be weaker, but the density can only INCREASE . Now. Contrary to popular belief, the apex of dwarf Japanese Maples is dominant just as it is on the species. At least for the first couple of decades, this is true. I grow many dwarf varieties and the apex is always dominant. The only way to properly manage the dominant apex is to periodically perform leader replacement when it becomes necessary. Leaf cutting together with the pruning is good practice but it cannot replace leader replacement and periodic thinning out. This is standard practice.
So your theory of reducing energy in a given area with leaf thinning is correct but incomplete.
No ifs and buts, this area must be pruned.

 

[Andrew Robson]

Yes it does and I'll explain why. By leaf cutting only without leader replacement. (that means cutting out strong areas and replacing them with weaker ones further back) the next generation of buds on that branch will double in number just as they would if not leaf cut. The new buds might very well be weaker, but the density can only INCREASE . Now. Contrary to popular belief, the apex of dwarf Japanese Maples is dominant just as it is on the species. At least for the first couple of decades, this is true. I grow many dwarf varieties and the apex is always dominant. The only way to properly manage the dominant apex is to periodically perform leader replacement when it becomes necessary. Leaf cutting together with the pruning is good practice but it cannot replace leader replacement and periodic thinning out. This is standard practice.
So your theory of reducing energy in a given area with leaf thinning is correct but incomplete.
No ifs and buts, this area must be pruned.

You're still wrong. Cutting a leaf in half on a japanese maple doesn't not create more ramification. Pruning a shoot or branch will in some cases, but that is not at all what I was talking about.

 

[MichaelS]

You're still wrong. Cutting a leaf in half on a japanese maple doesn't not create more ramification. Pruning a shoot or branch will in some cases, but that is not at all what I was talking about.

I have no idea what you're talking about but it's ok, you're still young and have much to discover.
This is the trouble when you have a head full of theory and no experience.

 

[M. Frary]

Is this a case of successful rule braking??

Maybe,but don't cut that branch off!
The tree is perfect the way it is. Just keep doing what you're doing.
Excellent!

 

[Andrew Robson]

I have no idea what you're talking about but it's ok, you're still young and have much to discover.
This is the trouble when you have a head full of theory and no experience.

I'm a full time bonsai apprentice, getting lots of experience

 

[M. Frary]

This is the trouble when you have a head full of theory and no experience

The kids got experience. And getting more all of the time.
I fully expect to go to an Andrew Thomas demonstration in the future.
How long until he goes on tour I don't know.

 

[M. Frary]

One more thing.
Sergio if you cut that branch off I might have to come there and just take the tree away from you.

 

[aml1014]

One more thing.
Sergio if you cut that branch off I might have to come there and just take the tree away from you.

It's too bad you don't like JM

Aaron

 

[MACH5]

One more thing.
Sergio if you cut that branch off I might have to come there and just take the tree away from you.

Believe me I ain't about to mess with ya Mike! Branch stays!

 

[MichaelS]

Who's talking about cutting branches off? Jeezuz!, I simply stated that area 1 will need attention at some point and the only way to attend to it is to prune it. Reduce it with a tool that cuts branches. Andrew came up with all this leaf cutting and balancing bullshit instead of agreeing proving he lacks the knowhow. There's no point in leaf cutting there. It will lead to increase in density because the number of buds will not be decreased. The branches need reducing and thinning, not the leaves. Then he comes back trying to preach to me about sugar. Further proving he's still in the practical experience gaining stage.

Messing around with leaf cutting here won't do anything. The branch is already too thick and won't get thinner.
Something like this is what will have to be done eventually. (if not more) You can talk about balancing vigour with leaf pruning all you like but the reality is that it needs to be branch cut.
The tree is outstanding quality, it will need guidance to keep it that way and getting better. This is one of the things needed....sooner or later.
Just what is the big deal exactly??? We are just talking about trees not here not children. Everyone should stop being so bloody precious. We all need to look at our trees with a critical eye if they are to improve. I always look for the faults in my trees and I want everyone who looks at them to point out faults as they see them, not just tell me how nice they look.
Merry Christmas all!

 

[dirk hoorelbeke]

I'm no expert on this subject, but Andrew and Michael seem to be right both. You need to cut leaves and you need to cut some in half if it's still too full. Yes this will weaken the outside area. But if you compare the topmost part of a maple it will always be stronger than the area under it witch is shaded out. So somewhere in time you must reduce the stronger branches so you can cut back to the soft branching you created by defoliating. Best way is to do this a little bit at a time, no one will say you need to remove big branches all at once with a tree like this i guess. Evaluate the size of the buds in fall and adjust your pruning accordingly. I think discussing techniques for a specific tree on a forum always has the same problem. (a) We don't see the tree in real life. (b) We can't see the strength of the buds. (c) Every tree has its way of growing. (d) Not everybody has experience in all techniques, so they just offer what they think is best. (e) Even if we where all professionals we still would make different decisions based on experience.

For this reason i find fora good, we can provide different insights where the OP can think about. Rarely it is about right or wrong but most discussions tend to turn out that way. In this case i would like to come back to this post in 5 years. The tree (and Sergio) might have different plans.