On the east coast, no expert I know of would call 111 anything but a very vigorous rootstock because it is traditionally the most vigorous rootstock used to grow apples since seedling rootstocks were largely abandoned. We don’t generally compare relative vigor with a type of rootstock that is not used, unless speaking historically. The language used in other parts of the country may be different, but in the literature I don’t think I ever see the word dwarf used to describe 111… semi-standard seems the most commonly used term to my mind but it was probably more often tagged as semi-dwarf when people were still comparing it to seedling rootstock.
I like some of the suggestions for possible disease problems- you could include insect issues as well as wooly apple aphid might be out of control there, but I suspect they’d be visible on the part of the rootsystem above the ground where the burr nuts are. Crown gall is a disease that can also inhibit growth, but peaches seem more susceptible to it here to than apples. I know it attacks apples but I’ve never had a trees roots overwhelmed by it.
However I am stumped by what soil condition would allow peach trees to grow vigorously while stunting apple trees. If they were Arkansas Black I could lay it on variety… if it was the spur-type of that variety.
Cutting the tree low might reduce growth the first season, but if new shoots emerged below the cut they should have achieved full vigor shortly.
I would feel pretty sure it was a soil issue, either too heavy or compacted were the peaches not thriving. No one has suggested how one would thrive while the other species would languish and the only thing that works for me as woolly apple aphid.
Unless the peaches are on a nematode resistant rootstock and the apple tree roots are being attacked by them.
Any other trouble shooting diagnostics should probably include a theory on why the peaches are doing fine.
In average soils nutrient deficiencies other than N rarely visually affect the growth of fruit trees, or any trees, for that matter and nutrient deficiencies are often diagnosed through leaf issues, they aren’t the first thing one looks at when vigor is the problem and in the 100’s of orchards I’ve planted over the years nutrient deficiency has never come up, or been on trees already on sites I’ve been brought to. Usually there is even enough native N to allow moderate vigor for establishing trees if there aren’t competing tree roots.
I think also the sample size is quite small. So it could just be unfortunate coincidence. (a vole hitting only the MM111 tree’s, that then got a bit behind, further exaggerated by lack of TLC. That kept them in a survive but not thrive state. While the peach pear and pomme gris got to the “i can take care of myself and thrive” state)
the other explanation (like you also said) would be apple/rootstock specified disease/pest or a nutrient deficiency or local “bad” soil spot that some rootstocks could handle better than others.
Another thing that could have happend could be a root of the MM111 tree’s circling it’s trunk and thus girdling it. It would be quite the coincidence. But if the MM111 tree’s where pot grown is not unimaginable.
That’s possible if it was pine voles… they don’t like peaches much in my region. But the trees would become wobbly as hell. I have never known them to do a half-assed job and to leave them firmly in the ground. I get a lot of them here in my nursery and young trees usually recover… eventually. Even when almost all roots are gone.
A beginner might not notice meadow vole damage, especially if it was partially hidden by weeds, but the are likely to outright kill a tree and not just stunt them. At least that is how they behave here… complete girdling or nothing, although that is not an absolute rule. Almost completely girdled trees have survived more often than rarely IME.
In my experience lack of Boron can (but not necessarily) affect apples more than peaches, although from what this fellow says I am having second thoughts, I could be, as experience teaches me, wrong. I like what the other guys say though - a bad patch of dirt. (One thing we could be missing is a misidentified root stock - which I think someone mentioned, but what knocks that off IMO is the growth at the bottom - which leads me to the central leader theme.) Also, in VA, WV, parts of MD, PA and NC Boron deficiency is chronic. Most growers add it - it is why folks like Helena sell it. Oh-I way agree with 111 not being dwarfing - less vigor than standard perhaps, but I have some big 111’s - particularly GS and Freedom, but my dirt is A1 (only lacking Boron) right next to some very productive grain fields. In this case it could be a combination of factors topped off by the central leader thing and I will respectfully disagree with anyone who short sells the efficacy of a central leader.
The dolgo apple tree is literally the next tree in the row from the peaches. Pear trees are 20 ft over, etc.
If it helps, the Pomme Gris had vigorous growth all along, these M111 trees never did. Never. These rootstock sprouts on both the dolgo and goldrush ARE vigorous, but i promise they are no more than last spring neglected in the pruning. (Funny. The rootstock sprouts are vigorous, but the scions aren’t??) And i cut the Pomme Gris central leader the first spring also, and i love how it turned out.
You know what, i believe i didnt cut Dolgo as i did the other trees. I think it had the lower branches at the start and i was told it naturally would be a smaller tree (lower vigor unless grafted onto seedling) so i only selected\cut out problem branches. It just didnt grow more than a few inches each year!
All these fruit trees were from good sources, Cummins, Burnt Ridge, Vintage Va apples, etc.
I like the idea of digging one up to examine it. I am sorely disappointed to have had apple trees in the ground for 7 years with little to show for it, but the worst would be not learning how to improve going forward!
I appreciate all the comments and suggestions so much!!
It didnt help that we read conflicting info when planting, some saying that adding compost keeps the tree from wanting to expand their roots. We removed LOTS of rocks, mixed compost with the remaining soil. Wish now we had done more compost, but like i said all trees got equal treatment, for better or worse.
M111 runting has been experienced by gardeners here in the west coast too. There are many hypotheses - burr knots, excessive suckers (in certain cases), heading cuts, vigor of the variety, etc. My own experience is that I planted a Fuji on M111 and made a heading cut to see if I can train it as an espalier tree. It never grew much for 2 years after planting. I also didn’t bury the rootstock deep upto the graft union and saw a couple of burr knots and few suckers. I pulled the tree out when I redid the fence next to it
After reading some posts here, my next planting was Mutsu on M111 last year. I’ll graft several varieties anyway, so chose a base variety that is known to be super vigorous. I also buried the rootstock, right upto the graft union and ensured the tree got good amount of nitrogen. The result is a 6 feet growth in a year and no burr knots or suckers. Of course, I can’t say which one helped the most in this limited case.
If you happen to have any extra M111 rootstock it might be good to plant a test plant in a large pot with good soil to observe vigor differences. If it performs with more vigor than those in ground (at least up until it becomes pot bound) then I would assume it’s just the wrong rootstock choice for your local soil type rather than it just being a weak rootstock. Another possibility is that something is eating the roots.
I have two trees on MM111 that have been in the ground for about 9 years and no fruit yet. I see some significant spurs this spring, however. I do have others that have fruited around year 5. The ones that haven’t fruited are about 15 feet, held at that height by summer pruning. It’s frustrating, but at the same time they are really beautiful trees that can also hold a lot of grafts. Jonathan and McIntosh. They have strong scaffolds and a what appears to be a really good root system. They have some suckers but not more than my other trees.
In comparison, I’ve been a little disappointed with more dwarfing rootstocks, and really disappointed with some Bud9 and really dwarfed trees. (should I even use that word in this discussion??). Fruit yes but they aren’t the trees I have been looking for.
I guess a lot of it is what kind of tree you are looking for–fruit? Shade? Beauty and stateliness? I vote all three.
Or determined fruiting of a stunted tree might keep it stunted. Sometimes I return a tree to reasonable vigor by removing most of the spur wood. If you runt a 111 tree by keeping it constrained in a small pot it will tend to fruit early. I have seen poor growing conditions in straight soil accomplish the same thing.
I no longer have any old trees on M111, but do have a couple nearing 10 years, and about 5 one or 2 years old. Getting them to fruit sooner is probably better done by picking some other rootstock.
Variety has as much influence as rootstock. Goldrush on 111 fruits the 2nd year in my nursery. Same thing with Ark Black and a couple other varieties. Non precocious varieties certainly can take a long time on 111, but by the time I sell them they are 5 yrs old so only the latest types require a great deal of patience. If you are in a hurry I recommend training them to a French Axe. With this method you pull secondary branches below horizontal and this vastly accelerates fruiting.
I have to throw in a solution I tried with not one but in two apple trees I was having an issue with. I had two apple trees that were just not doing well on M111. They looked quite runty and puny looking. Probably no more than 4-5’ tall. I just dug them both out and replaced one with another variety and the other was the same variety on a M111. They both did fine. The rootstocks I pulled out looked bad and not very well rooted out. The new ones I planted have done well. I dug a little more area out when I planted the new ones just in case it was more like a vase shaped hole after the other trees were in there. Just a thought.
With all due respect, and not trying to “start sh!t” by any means…. Reliably “stunting” (we are just avoidimg the d-word out of semantics) apple rootstocks is not, it appears, simple…if they were, we would have lots of contenders instead of a stable of “stuff with caveats”.
So at some point, a rootstock that could reliably make a tree of 80% standard height, or 70, or 60, was a real accomplishment. If was…dwarfing—it reliably made a tree tht was shorter than standard.
On the flip side, we now also have rootstocks that can make a 6’ tree.
In the world of apples, “dwarfing” refers to rootstocks of sub-standard height. “Dwarf” generally seems to refer to things like m9 that tend to be below 10 feet or so, with super-dwarfs like m27 being well below this. None of that reflected Oxford’s definition of dwarfing, and Oxford certainly did not consult Fedco, the Malling research institute, etc. or otherwise center their definition of dwarfing around apples.
M111 makes a shorter tree. Most call that dwarfing. Not a lot of complexity there, and yes others may make even shorter trees, but m111 DOES make a shorter tree.
Complete side-tangent but i have multiple trees, a few assorted gisela and mostly b119 and m11-, i loathe m111 even though it is doing well…i got them while young and stupid, and made many lovely grafts at 18-24” above soil, so they are now ugly AF and a potential fail vector by way of burr knots. The rootstock is solid but it is probably more sensitive to being treated “properly” (at least as far as height) than many others….
