Collected Cedar Elm

Poink88

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
8,968
Reaction score
126
Location
Austin, TX (Zone 8b)
USDA Zone
8b
Two years ago (Jan. 6, 2012) I collected this cedar elm. It is one of my first collected tree. :)


Here it is today after some preliminary trimming. I might reduce it a bit more later. :)


Still a long ways to go but I plan on moving it into a bonsai pot this weekend since the buds are starting to plump up.
 
Nice progress so far. If you are going to reduce some more I might take the second left side branch back a touch. It looks like its about the same length as the first branch.
 
If you are going to reduce some more I might take the second left side branch back a touch. It looks like its about the same length as the first branch.

I agree. That is the one that stands out the most that many need to be reduced. Just thinking if I should wire it so I left it longer.

Looking at the bark, I can't believe it changed that much in 2 years.

Thanks guys! :)
 
I agree. That is the one that stands out the most that many need to be reduced. Just thinking if I should wire it so I left it longer.

Looking at the bark, I can't believe it changed that much in 2 years.

Thanks guys! :)

Yea it almost looks like a different tree. Nice job with this one Dario.

ed
 
Nice bones on that one Poink. I like the feel and the bark is full of character. Good work!
 
This is starting to show some real character, Dario. Looks like your invested time's starting to pay off!
 
Twin trunk trees are among my favorites. The smaller of the two here shows a lot of character and potential. The bark looks good, and the scar at the top is healing. It has clearly adapted to container-life.

The concerns that I see are:
1. If this is the chosen front, the lower trunk moves away from the viewer then pigeon-breasts, which gives a sense of instability...weak below, strong above, as opposed to showing movement.

2. From this front, the second trunk is also partly obscured, and creates a feeling of reverse taper as it splits from the trunk. You have about 60 degrees of possible front turning it counter-clockwise...let just a little light show between those trunks.

3. All 2-year old branches are all the same thickness from the bottom to the top. Time to let the lower ones run long and start holding back the top ones. While you're at it, wire them and add movement while it's still possible, or you'll have a tree with very straight, taper-less primary branches upon which years of ramification will be built.

How I would address it from this point:
1. Find a new front that improves the movement and shows off the twin-trunk feature. It might even be that the smaller trunk is somewhere between the 8:00 and 7:00 position on the new front.

2. I'd wire the upper primaries to get some crazy movement now, and shorten the tertiaries back to 3/4" nubs and start getting ramification from the jump...and wire the shoots that emerge as a result.

3. Let the new apical leader run to thicken the new section of trunk, but keep the side shoots short, wired for movement, and trimmed to keep ramification close to the trunk.

4. Lots of daylight between the wires that were applied. Need to place them properly to begin with so they can do their job. Remember to wire in 3D...movement up, down, front, back, and even twist them. Always apply wire in the direction of the twist so they aren't loosened when twisted.
 
Your tree looks great, marked difference - any specific reason other than time?

I didn't do much else different with this one. I would think moving it from its original location (almost all rock and can get really dry) to a much friendlier environment helped. It is very old but stunted due to the poor ground it was in...probably roaring to go when I collected it.

I didn't measure but I am assuming the new ring layer of wood is much thicker than the previous years average.

Mother nature at work...can't claim credit. :)
 
BVF,

Thanks for your response. Yes the branches will now be thickened but I will do it my experimental way starting this year. I am actually re-thinking my original plan of moving in into a bonsai pot since I need the extra soil volume and it to be more organic to speed the growth and thickening.

My approach will be to maintain the current silhouette (maybe just add an inch or so each year) but have several sacrificial branches on each primary branch closer to the trunk (not the ends). Not sure if I am making any sense with this description though.

I've wired this minimally and yes, it will get some also but note that some of the branches you may think needing some wire may be the sacrificial branches I will let grow this year.

Re: front, I will revisit but I believe this is the best compromise for now. Rotating it clockwise will hide the "twin" trunk feature. If ever, I can do a counter clockwise but just a few degrees.

Here are a few more pics...I anyone see a better option, I am all ears. :) Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • P1000021.jpg
    P1000021.jpg
    184.4 KB · Views: 58
  • P1000015.jpg
    P1000015.jpg
    189.6 KB · Views: 59
  • P1000017.jpg
    P1000017.jpg
    191.6 KB · Views: 58
  • P1000020.jpg
    P1000020.jpg
    183.8 KB · Views: 66
I am no "expert" but I think the 4th picture with the present branches attached looks best right now :)

Grimmy
 
Twin trunk trees are among my favorites. The smaller of the two here shows a lot of character and potential. The bark looks good, and the scar at the top is healing. It has clearly adapted to container-life.

The concerns that I see are:
1. If this is the chosen front, the lower trunk moves away from the viewer then pigeon-breasts, which gives a sense of instability...weak below, strong above, as opposed to showing movement.

2. From this front, the second trunk is also partly obscured, and creates a feeling of reverse taper as it splits from the trunk. You have about 60 degrees of possible front turning it counter-clockwise...let just a little light show between those trunks.

3. All 2-year old branches are all the same thickness from the bottom to the top. Time to let the lower ones run long and start holding back the top ones. While you're at it, wire them and add movement while it's still possible, or you'll have a tree with very straight, taper-less primary branches upon which years of ramification will be built.

How I would address it from this point:
1. Find a new front that improves the movement and shows off the twin-trunk feature. It might even be that the smaller trunk is somewhere between the 8:00 and 7:00 position on the new front.

2. I'd wire the upper primaries to get some crazy movement now, and shorten the tertiaries back to 3/4" nubs and start getting ramification from the jump...and wire the shoots that emerge as a result.

3. Let the new apical leader run to thicken the new section of trunk, but keep the side shoots short, wired for movement, and trimmed to keep ramification close to the trunk.

4. Lots of daylight between the wires that were applied. Need to place them properly to begin with so they can do their job. Remember to wire in 3D...movement up, down, front, back, and even twist them. Always apply wire in the direction of the twist so they aren't loosened when twisted.

Awesome post Brian! I'd follow this game plan...
 
I like pic number 4 as well. You have descent trunk movement and branch placement here, the chop scar is minimized, and the fact that the split trunk less visible, in my eyes, is ok, as I think the trunk movement is a bigger asset to this tree then the split trunk.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, if this were mine I'd go with #4 as well. Better branch placement overall and the trunk looks more "solid" (if that makes sense) and has better taper and flow.

You could try #2 to show off the scar, but then you'd have to get rid of the crossing branch and try to replace it with something smaller grown out from the back so you didn't have such a gap between the bottom and top branches. Plus, the carving of the chop to make a better transition to the leader while blending in the side branch at the lower edge of the chop just makes it seem like a lot more work.

And personally, I like the pattern of the bark in #4 better than #2. #2 has patches towards the bottom that are large and not as furrowed as at the top, whereas the bark on #4 is contiguous all the way up the trunk. Granted, it may change with time, but as of now I think it looks better. Pretty little tree overall, can't wait to see how it progresses:)
 
I'm voting for pic 4 as well. :) But that's just my two cents.
 
I hear you guys. #4 has always been a contender anyways so I feel no pain going that way. I'll check also if there is a happy medium between it and the original. :o

Thanks!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom