I have a holly tree that was distorted by a large conifer that grew up
beside it and took the light. The conifer is now gone but the holly has
several ugly long bare branches on one side. It found the following advice
on the web:

To rejuvenate a holly, "hat rack" it in late winter by cutting back the
branches by half to three-quarters of their length. The remaining plant will
have few leaves and look like a hat rack, but in spring it will flush out
with new foliage from all the pruning cuts. In two to three years, it will
be fully covered in leaves. Hat racking will result in a plant much reduced
in size, but still full of foliage.


But I am not sure if cutting back just a couple of branches will cause them
to generate new shoots. Anybody any experience?

thanks

Davy

Davy wrote:
> I have a holly tree that was distorted by a large conifer that grew up
> beside it and took the light. The conifer is now gone but the holly
> has several ugly long bare branches on one side. It found the
> following advice on the web:
>
> To rejuvenate a holly, "hat rack" it in late winter by cutting back
> the branches by half to three-quarters of their length. The remaining
> plant will have few leaves and look like a hat rack, but in spring it
> will flush out with new foliage from all the pruning cuts. In two to
> three years, it will be fully covered in leaves. Hat racking will
> result in a plant much reduced in size, but still full of foliage.
>
>
> But I am not sure if cutting back just a couple of branches will
> cause them to generate new shoots. Anybody any experience?
>
> thanks
>
> Davy

My experience of cutting back holly hedges hard (effectively defoliating one
side to remove a 1m plus pavement overhang) is that they will leaf up as the
above advice describes.

pk

"p.k." <pgkaddy-groups [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oP-dncXBSNVjV-fZRVnyvg [at] bt.com...
> Davy wrote:
> > I have a holly tree that was distorted by a large conifer that grew up
> > beside it and took the light. The conifer is now gone but the holly
> > has several ugly long bare branches on one side. It found the
> > following advice on the web:
> >
> > To rejuvenate a holly, "hat rack" it in late winter by cutting back
> > the branches by half to three-quarters of their length. The remaining
> > plant will have few leaves and look like a hat rack, but in spring it
> > will flush out with new foliage from all the pruning cuts. In two to
> > three years, it will be fully covered in leaves. Hat racking will
> > result in a plant much reduced in size, but still full of foliage.
> >
> >
> > But I am not sure if cutting back just a couple of branches will
> > cause them to generate new shoots. Anybody any experience?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Davy
>
> My experience of cutting back holly hedges hard (effectively defoliating
one
> side to remove a 1m plus pavement overhang) is that they will leaf up as
the
> above advice describes.

Absolutely and very rapidly.
Holly will throw out sky reachers at all levels from well lit horizontal
branches. In fact, if you want lush thick growth, it pays to do this, since
old growth actively inhibits this process.

--
Mike W
Gardening novice.
Holly Expert!

P.K.
thanks for responding almost immediately. I never doubted the advice given;
my question was that "will cutting back just a couple of branches will cause
those branches to generate new shoots" - or will the tree put its growth
into the 90% unpruned branches - letting the couple of pruned branches
remain mostly bare?

Anybody any experience?

Davy

"p.k." <pgkaddy-groups [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oP-dncXBSNVjV-fZRVnyvg [at] bt.com...
> Davy wrote:
> > I have a holly tree that was distorted by a large conifer that grew up
> > beside it and took the light. The conifer is now gone but the holly
> > has several ugly long bare branches on one side. It found the
> > following advice on the web:
> >
> > To rejuvenate a holly, "hat rack" it in late winter by cutting back
> > the branches by half to three-quarters of their length. The remaining
> > plant will have few leaves and look like a hat rack, but in spring it
> > will flush out with new foliage from all the pruning cuts. In two to
> > three years, it will be fully covered in leaves. Hat racking will
> > result in a plant much reduced in size, but still full of foliage.
> >
> >
> > But I am not sure if cutting back just a couple of branches will
> > cause them to generate new shoots. Anybody any experience?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Davy
>
> My experience of cutting back holly hedges hard (effectively defoliating
one
> side to remove a 1m plus pavement overhang) is that they will leaf up as
the
> above advice describes.
>
> pk
>
>

In article <rMCdnTqvjJk8pubZnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d [at] brightview.com>,
"Davy" <david [at] REMOVEallTHISchobham.org.uk> writes:
|> P.K.
|> thanks for responding almost immediately. I never doubted the advice given;
|> my question was that "will cutting back just a couple of branches will cause
|> those branches to generate new shoots" - or will the tree put its growth
|> into the 90% unpruned branches - letting the couple of pruned branches
|> remain mostly bare?

More the former than the latter.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Davy" <david [at] REMOVEallTHISchobham.org.uk> wrote in message
news:rMCdnTqvjJk8pubZnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d [at] brightview.com...
> P.K.
> thanks for responding almost immediately. I never doubted the advice
given;
> my question was that "will cutting back just a couple of branches will
cause
> those branches to generate new shoots" - or will the tree put its growth
> into the 90% unpruned branches - letting the couple of pruned branches
> remain mostly bare?
>

No, the pruned branches will get most of the new growth.
The higher those branches are the more successful this will be. But IME
holly more than most manages to throw new growth from any level if it is
reasonably lit[1] and to a lesser extent if not so well lit.

[1] Light can be allowed through the canopy by clearing out growth from the
core (ie near the trunk) but this action depends on how the tree has
previously been managed ie 'hat standing' promotes a dense core.

In summary, cut 'em they'll grow by sending out predominantly vertical
leaders.

--
Mike W

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <rMCdnTqvjJk8pubZnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d [at] brightview.com>,
> "Davy" <david [at] REMOVEallTHISchobham.org.uk> writes:
>>> P.K.
>>> thanks for responding almost immediately. I never doubted the
>>> advice given; my question was that "will cutting back just a couple
>>> of branches will cause those branches to generate new shoots" - or
>>> will the tree put its growth into the 90% unpruned branches -
>>> letting the couple of pruned branches remain mostly bare?
>
> More the former than the latter.



Correct, beacuse cutting off the leaves/groing points cuts off the supply of
hormone that suppresses bud growth behind the growing tip

(sorry for misinterpreting the original question)

pk