Gauntlet Response Debate VV vs. Mipii

We came from here:
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1345974/
It all started by this:

And the rest is history in the making..take it away VibernumValley this is your round to dominate!

Only one? Game on! I'm glad you saw the value in "taking this outside"...

Your first sentence (now within the quotation) leads to the very point I wanted to make: that many gardeners have erroneous assumptions about planting individual trees, usually in an open lawn, and subsequent performance thereof.

You are correct that there is reduced competition from tree roots. However, consideration of forest composition and function reveals that proximity of other trees' roots doesn't lead to poor performance. In fact, proximity of other trees and a forest's faunal associates likely leads to greater success in many trees' ability to procure nutrients needed from soils.

Editors note: see sallyg's response on the thread that led to this thread for a bit more thorough response about mycorrhizae and soil fauna. I was seeking a bit of brevity here, but I can inhabit a rather large soapbox when pressed.

Proximate neighboring large woody organisms have the greatest effect in the competition for light. An individual specimen in lawn would not have that issue vis-à-vis competition.

What would that lone tree would have to worry about? Millions of individual turfgrass plants, all desirous of that A soil layer's nutrients and moisture. Grass plants have absolutely no qualms about growing year round, taking much more than they give, and impinging on woody plants' "turf". Don't even kid yourself that a minimal mulch ring around your tree tips the balance.

Strike One.

I'm not sure the issue of falling plant parts and rubbing plays a huge role in a tree's success, but I'll grant you that it will not be an issue in a single specimen lawn condition - unless you are visited by a tornado or hurricane. What do single specimens encounter? Lawn mowing equipment, herbicides, and other dastardly deeds not often seen in a forest condition. I'll take the occasional dismemberment of a neighboring tree almost any time, since it will be fairly infrequent in the crowd.

I'll say you got a piece of that one - fouled straight back - but still Strike Two.

Next, you say:


But you immediately follow it up with comments about caring for diseases, dead branches, corrective measures, increasing health, etc. And adoption!

I would say there you have pronounced the definition of unsustainability, but that is not the discussion we are having - though it's a big part of it. I would say that most gardeners realize that they are planting trees for their grandchildren (and posterity) to enjoy, and down deep really don't want to be foster parents for that plant's whole life. And they do want the tree to live, regardless of what happens otherwise. This is central to my argument that what is done with the best of intentions is not often guided by the best information.

Where climax trees occur is in the company of others. The "adoption" is the composite family of plants, light, moisture, nutrients, etc. that make up the environment where climax tree associations occur. Most oaks, beech, hickory (and many many more) trees grow their best and longest lives when they approximate these conditions.

Strike Three.

I'm not sure how we went from a medieval metaphor, to boxing, to end up with baseball - but there is some sweet symmetry to it all. At least it's a scoreless first half inning.

What he said.

"a forest's faunal associates" can be duplicated with nitrogen fixing plants, natural soil amendments and yes...chemical fertilizer. Not to mention many, if not all the nutrients utilized by a tree on a lawn are already soil born, otherwise it would be an inhospitable environment for any fauna (grass is fauna, right?).

You (and SallyG) are right, the natural life cycle of trees in a woodland setting is conducive to supporting numerous inhabitants, such is the design. Although this doesn't mean they cannot equally thrive in a purposely man-made site. Sun loving varieties get more sun and therefore a much healthier robust form, not spindly and obviously stretching for more light. Therefore...dare I suggest...more strength and vigor as a result. Eliminating competition for only the strongest to survive has to be beneficial. I happen to think the battle takes a toll.

Growing urban lawn specimens also reduces 'stress' by way of providing more of what's not readily available in a naturalized setting...like water.

Then there's always Muddy1's dilemma just below SallyG's response -- "The remaining red maple is really half of a tree because it didn't develop limbs on one side due to the heavy competition from the pines and 2 other maples. It's not an attractive tree."
It's not an attractive tree!

I like a 360 view unto which I can feast my eyes. I'm a visual kind of girl, liking eye candy as much as the rest...

Let's grow some ugly trees.

Hey, where's the rest of my post? That's where all the good stuff was.

Went back and got it...


Let's grow some ugly trees.

Looks like someone is messing with me...where's my post?

Okay, it didn't agree with my symbol and wouldn't publish from that part down. I was starting to think 'conspiracy theory' and thought maybe VV had more pull than anticipated. Let's try this again.

Let's grow some ugly trees. (got to win something for that one).

Another look at SallyG's; "soil fungi in woodland are different from those in grassland, and woody plants are adapted to those fungi that proliferate with leaf litter and its high carbon content"
Yes, well perhaps, I mean of course we should consider 'adaptation' also in the genetic design. Do the trees not have to adapt to different environments anyway? Yes they do. Soil composition and a whole host of other environmental differences abound from country to country, state to state and sometimes even from block to block. Do forest specimens not have to adapt to an excess of leaf mold?

Where a specific tree is happiest is where it gets its highest list of species requirements met. Not to exclude symbiotic relationships that heartily boost performance. As long as we know what these components are, we can duplicate them.

And get an esthetically pleasing tree for our efforts.

Oh gosh VV, is time for a seventh inning stretch yet? I could very well have pooped myself with redundancy, I'll get better with this. I can learn to work smarter not harder.

Then you'll be sorry.

Shoot, one more important quip. My dinky tree ring only looks like such on the surface (to the untrained eye)...it's essentially there to keep the grass from getting too close to the trunk. It's a mowing strip designed to protect the bark from lawn equipment...the grass is the mulch that keeps the weeds down, the roots cool and the water from evaporating too quickly.

This message was edited Jan 12, 2014 11:07 PM

What she said...lol

I have been distracted by the more mundane issues of dinner. Flatiron steak paired with 2011 Cabernet Sauvignon (CA) and Caesar salad partnered with a 2012 Sauvignon Blanc (NZ) has taken my most recent attention. I apologize if my subsequent thoughts are not as linear as usual.

You are either refusing to engage the subject of my original argument, or you are agreeing with me, and saying it doesn't matter: "I want what I want."

I thought I was clear in my original statement when I said that too often gardeners want to plant climax species in "specimen" lawn situations, and wonder why bad things can still happen. With your last post, you have verified that I am correct.

You have gone to great lengths to claim (despite the fallacy that it is a superior position assumed by planting alone, rather than in an association) that the heroic gardener can ex post facto artificially provide everything that a plant can possibly need. On the face of it, you may think that is the case. In your statement, you show that there is information missing.

Grasses and their root systems acquire soil nutrients and moisture in a different manner than woody plants - just as they perform foliar functions in a different fashion than do woody plants and their leaves. The fact that grasses can function satisfactorily in a lawn environment does not mean that any other plant can equally function satisfactorily.

A lesson in symbiotic relationships would be useful. Soil fungi, bacteria, mycorrhizae (there is overlap), and other plants each play a different role in forming, acquiring, releasing, and absorbing individual components of the nutrients of plants' life cycles. This symphony is NOT present in a lawn environment as it is in a forest environment - sorry - and currently is not reproduceable by humans, try as we might. Yes, there are chemical fertilizers that can deposit N-P-K and minor nutrients - but only in the clunky brainless way of "what comes in the bag". Do you think you would thrive provided your essential nutrients in that manner? We could hook you up to a drip bag with a needle in your arm, and you'd "survive". But is that life?

It really is the height of arrogance to think what humans apply to the growing environment of plants is equal to - nay, SUPERIOR to - what plants might do for themselves. We may be able to produce a plant which we have been trained - or convinced ourselves - is more attractive, but I would say that it is not more healthy or robust.

Eliminating competition for only the strongest to survive? What? Competition IS how the strongest survive. Planting alone and babying is how the least and most worthless in the gene pool persist. Dare I say insanity - à la many royal families (and others) that interbred.

Clonal and monocultural plantings also prove to be disastrous in practice. That battle has been lost repeatedly. The bell tolls for thee.

Your sentence about urban lawn specimens being less water stressed completely confounds me. I know not what you mean. Given the same site and same rainfall, trees in a forest will outperform every single tree that has to compete with a lawn - hands down.

I will throw down an equally subjective gauntlet about value and quality versus appearance. Would you as similarly apply value and quality to images/individuals in fashion mags, centerfolds, and beauty pageants - as you claim to value in "...a 360 view unto which I can feast my eyes..." There's a fun predicament.

I'll wrap up this round with a question. Can you show me a planted tree that approaches the relatively common 300 year old age of naturally occurring oak trees found all over the midwest US? The fact that you can't underscores my point. We don't and can't duplicate the well-honed system that nature has assembled.

(sitting on the bleacher watching the action)
Mipii " Soil composition and a whole host of other environmental differences abound from country to country, state to state and sometimes even from block to block." Yes- and is that not a good reason to believe that specimens grown far away from their natural home may not thrive?

VV- I like that final point, about naturally occurring 300 year old trees. But human demands on real estate is part of that reason and totally unrelated to the tree's living condition. Poor tree can't help it that we are so fickle in cutting them down and building things.
I'm happy to see your agreement on what I understood about soil biology in the woodland. I got that from "Teaming with Microbes", which seemed a very good book but which I later read a criticism of.

Carry on while I watch and eat my popcorn.

yes do continue, I'll be back shortly with new popcorn.

Jan

this looks like a losing battle Mipii - I will excuse myself as I double check my yard of Japanese Maples to make sure they are not marooned in a sea of grass.

Just to be abundantly clear here...

I am NOT saying that gardeners should not plant trees in their lawns. Far from it. If that were to be the threshold, there likely would be few trees ever planted.

Rather, I am saying that this way of planting is a human construct for human purposes - mostly delight. It follows that since this is alien to how plants normally populate this planet, humans should expect that even though they think they've done everything right and humanly possible, failure will still be an option - and usually from an unconsidered direction.

I'm sure wha's Japanese Maples, Muddy's Southern Magnolia, Mipii's theoretical specimen tree - heck, even sallyg and meadowyck's popcorn - will receive the best of care.

I only am saying - for the purposes of full and thoughtful debate - that there are many logical, scientific, and well-known elements of growing plants successfully that are often excluded from many gardeners decision-making processes. These ought to be explored.

Excuse me VV, while you were distracted with gourmet mundanity, you should have also had a glass or two of that Clarity.

I only countered points you brought up...hence "the quotation marks"...well quotes from other members too. I stopped here for the 7th inning stretch, here I shall continue...

"It really is the height of arrogance to think what humans apply to the growing environment of plants is equal to - nay, SUPERIOR to - what plants might do for themselves."

Yes, humans are an arrogant species and plants don't "do for themselves" they are designed into an ecosystem to do what they do. Doesn't mean I shouldn't take a slice of heaven and plant in my yard to enjoy up close and often.

Billions of seeds are dropped in areas that aren't conducive to germination...and may not be viable for a million years. Part of the natural maintenance of things is adverse weather and fire, which incidentally can and does wipe out the entire "natural forest," three hundred year old specimens and all.

I haven't had one forest fire in my yard. In that case, my yard is a sanctuary.

Regarding the water issue, I'm referring to drought. Yes my shade garden (like a forest) stays moist longer due to the fact of less wind and sun to evaporate the soil. In times of drought I water, which is infinitely more beneficial to my tress than having them stressed. In a forest situation, you can crosscut the trees, take a look at the rings and see what years the tree endured weather related stress...consequently, those were the years of slower growth.

Also (for you grass haters), my grass is clipped regularly whereas the clippings break down and add nutrients to the soil (mainly nitrogen), the clippings also become thatch for water retention and evolve into humus for soil conditioning (much like what happens in the natural forest but takes less time).

This sounds more like a rural vs. urban argument. It also sounds to me that your rural setting is more superior than my urban one. This also means, yours is criticism for a manicured setting versus a naturalized setting. I'm sure that at one point your land was cleared and somebody along the way introduced a small variety of cultures, unto which you have also contributed. Hence, have you not been trying to create your own woodland by trial and error?

If this is indeed correct, then you are in the right place, cause there are gardeners galore signing up to DG to learn how to strike the balance between the two.

BTW, I can't dispute anything you wrote in your last response, I agree. Frankly, we need both and I enjoy both. I'll raise my glass to more advanced gardening practices (that's why I'm here and doing what I do -- to learn and accomplish). I'd take my hat off to ya, but I hate hats (gotta put one on to take it off).

Enough of baseball, shall we tread the dangerous waters of pruning and training trees?

Well said Robin....

and I agree with you. There seems to be two thoughts, the urban and natural. I once was blessed to have natural land to do with, but now we are urban, so this dictates what can go where. But even when it was natural I still wanted to put what I wanted where. While all the while enduring the hardships and rewards that go with that experience. I love the learning almost as much as enjoying the beauty that mother nature and I create.

Yes on to pruning and training trees.

Jan

If I had lots of space, much of it would be naturalized too. There's a lot of work that goes into manicured. Both are equally enjoyed for different reasons. One is to admire, ponder and learn, the other is to put in practice what you've learned. Trying to duplicate brings about a feeling of purpose, accomplishment and a closer relationship (being a part of something bigger than you), bringing the beauty to your front door rather than trotting off on a hike. I love hiking just for that purpose (although I'm easily distracted and may spend entirely too much time in close examination). I should be hiking for exercise -- that I like and also need...although gardening is good exercise too! sounds like a win/win huh?

Here, here, Mipii ! I don't know what I'd do with my time if I didn't have to tend to my plants. I try to tell myself it's exercise, too, but it doesn't match a hike.

To end my digression: if we left our suburban plots strictly to their own devices, they would become home to lots of non-native invasive species because of the deer factor. Native plants are real underdogs in natural settings. Deer prefer native plants, hence they are annihilated and non-native invasive species proliferate.
If we did not coddle native species in artificial settings through supplemental watering, addition of nutrients they would get in the forest, or application of deer repellents, our woods would start to look like the wilderness of Japan.
Survival of the fittest would mean no native species!

Ok, I'm steppin' in here. When I lived (20 years) in Arizona, I observed how the larger cacti and bushes, like Mesquite, were "Mothers" for seedling cactus, like Saguaros. This was neat. NEVER did I see a Saguaro seedling without protection of some Mother plant. And NEVER did I see an adult Saguaro crowding something else out.
Now, living back home in Virginia, I see the same thing, but it is just different trees. Baby oaks growing in tree stumps, amidst long needles under white pines, etc. Neat.
What is interesting is how, when a saguaro matures, the Mother tree/shrub is on its way out. Same thing here in Virginia.
Just an observation.

Now, for something INTERESTING about doggone Saguaros, do you know that, when transplanting them, you HAVE to keep their orientation to the sun exactly the same in the new spot? They die otherwise. I TOLD YOU this would be interesting. Makes me wonder when I come across threads about transplanting stuff in areas like Virginia...well, look at the similarity illustrated above, between plants in totally different climates. Makes you think, huh.

interesting Gracye

Those Saguaros are such neat plants. I didn't know that about them. My parents, who live in Phoenix, tell me that it takes 50 years for them to grow their first arm. Also, they tell me that when you see an upside down arm, that means they were hit with a hard freeze. I don't know if any of that is true but interesting nonetheless. They just planted one in their yard last season.

So onto the extremely long thread I just read and came up to speed on:

I think you both provide equally strong arguments. The one thing I would disagree on would be Mipii's comments that forest trees are less healthy and robust than specimen trees. I think that if anything, forest trees would be equally as healthy, if not more healthy than a specimen tree. They too have a good gardener (God) to take care of them. IMO a forest tree would be better suited to take on disease because it's in the population of other trees. Take for example a human who is exposed to bacteria and virus all the time. If they don't die early, they will build up a mondo (technical term) immune system, which will help them fight infection better than a specimen. At least that's my perspective, whether correct or not. Anyway, I think a tall 'lanky' forest tree looks just as healthy as a specimen tree. To me, I am attracted to the graceful stature of a tall forest tree. If I could do it, I would prefer to grow a forest rather than have a few attractive specimens. Unfortunately, the 1/4 acre that I've been blessed to have does not afford the ability of growing a forest if I also want to plant other fun stuff. I too, like most am trying to create the best of both worlds though. We will see how well I do in 20 years when our trees are more grown.

Excellent debate all and a very interesting read :)

Very interesting Grayce, thanks for sharing that nugget.

Muddy, the older you get the more you can tell how much exercise it really is. I have to start working out about now to get into good enough shape in order to have the endurance for staying outside all day working in the garden. It's a good passion!

Thanks for the Saguaro facts, Gracye and Sequoiadendron.

It just so happens that I have some baby Saguaros (Cereus giganteus, according to the seed packet; see photo) in need of adoptive parents. We grew them from seeds packaged in Arizona, and the tallest is maybe 2" high. We only have one small south-facing window, and obviously these guys don't want to grow outside in Virginia, so I'd like to farm some of them out to good homes. Send me a D-mail if you're interested.
I suppose I shouldn't mail them until the weather warms up, though.

OK, time for me to throw down. I'll see your mycorrhizae & soil fauna and raise you a large woody organism. Phiit-tooey.

"What would that lone tree would have to worry about? Millions of individual turfgrass plants, all desirous of that A soil layer's nutrients and moisture. Grass plants have absolutely no qualms about growing year round, taking much more than they give, and impinging on woody plants' 'turf'. Don't even kid yourself that a minimal mulch ring around your tree tips the balance."

OK, instead of a minimal mulch ring, how about a nice, wide, and well-maintained mulch ring? Not some freaky volcano mulch, but a healthy, organic mulch ring that was placed over soil in which the grass had been carefully removed and ruthlessly eliminated by non-chemical means. Oh, and the mulch ring is expanded every year to match the trees growth. The gardener is skilled enough to let nature do its thing thereafter and will only step in only when absolutely needed to keep it alive & prospering when nature may have had other plans. How 'bout dat?

You just described a forest floor...

But it's not a forest floor...

Sequoia, IMO a forest tree would be less suited to take on disease because it's in the population of other trees all touching each other and coughing in each other's faces and stuff.

Only in your mind...since you are trying to recreate and mimic it.

BTW, unless "...the mulch ring is expanded every year to match the trees growth..." which means it better stay at 1.5 - 2 times the height of your tree, or you aren't keeping up with its root system. Kudos if you are - which means you are eliminating a lot of grassy competition.

You still are not providing those associations found when trees grow amongst their friends. Some plants can do perfectly well extracted from that normal environment. Most of them are called pioneer species - which settle in amongst disturbance. The ones you have trouble with? American Beech, perhaps? Those are among your typical climax species, which will always resent being relegated to your lawn - since they wish to settle in amongst stability.

This made me laugh the most:

Good thing you're around! Whatever did Nature get into before you arrived...

Wow, Mipii - that's about as anthropomorphic as it gets.

Stay out of the woods! Home of cooties...

Now, now, no need to get prissy. Your mother taught you better than that.

I venture to say that the lone individual tree is separated from the herd, and more likely to be the sole target of any itinerant pathogen. Essentially defenseless - well, maybe reliant on that gardener of lore that lets Nature do her thing, till she messes up.

Singular in its genetics, and relegated to endless duplication via clonal propagation, this specimen and all its partners are identically exposed to the whimsy of that pest that sets its desultory gaze upon it.

The crowd in the forest, in their magically diverse genetic makeup borne of sexual propagation which brings mixing of flaws and strengths with every new generation - and the fact that a forest IS mixed generations of plants - is (generally) ideally suited to ward off attack by those pathogens they grew up with.

There obviously are not built-in mechanisms - in specimen or forest member - to defend against pathogens brought from elsewhere.

Everybody knows how disease spreads, anthropomorphism is funny (I know you like it).

And when they get old and decrepit or injured, they fall all over each other piercing their biggest/best line of defense from pathogens...their bark (romantics aside). The crowd in the forest could very well be looked upon as a feast...the mother-lode.

Agreed though, we all need to focus more on creating and maintaining genetic and ecological diversity. I do believe however, the average gardener does take into consideration the importance of soil health. How else could mulch, topsoil and compost be such a huge market?

I'll accuse 'mulch, topsoil and compost' from a 'store' as being as nutritious as white bread.. Pretty good maybe, but lacking in some essentials the way white bread isn't nutritious on the level of whole grains.

Ok, somebody go out and measure the mass of woody material in a acre of "yard" and then somebody else do it for an acre of "forest" in the same zone. Meet back here after.

My back yard could handle one mature spreading specimen oak. As forest, the number of trees and others plants for that area would be much higher. But not every acorn will sprout and become a mature tree. Or not at the same time; different ages.

Being a large market as it may, I don't think anything a gardener purchases would be a better replacement than what nature provides i.e. that fallen tree you spoke of. The decomp on that fallen tree in addition to the leaf mould and dead critters makes for unmatchable fertilizer. Even the water we give cannot water like nature.

That all being said, I've seen American Beech growing happily in a lawn of a homeowner who's level of gardening is nothing more than cutting the grass. It's not to say a climax species cannot have a sustained life in the yard, plus when I'm dead and gone, what do I care if all my trees die? :)

Mulch, topsoil and compost are indeed 'nature made,' of course I've no idea what you've been in contact with...fauxpost perhaps.

God is the Master Gardener at my place as much as he is in the forest, there's just more meddling going on here. I've mentioned the forest is an ecosystem and a home garden is simply an attempt to duplicate it. An ecosystem is in constant change...in a forest even the dominant species die out and get replaced with something new. Insects, disease and fire are all part of the process.

Also, a good trick I've been using is lawnmower mulching and spreading the leaves dropped by my Acer Saccharum, the finer bits are more easily broken down. The down-side to that is -- my turf marooned tree is so happy it also drops scores of seeds, enough to fill a forest.

That's a good idea Mipii, I just started doing that this fall. I covered our main gardens with the leaf/grass mulch to let it breakdown all winter. There was probably only 20% grass. I'm looking forward to seeing its benefits this coming season.

I spread it on grass areas too, every little bit helps. I've also started spreading coffee grinds, my soil has a lot of clay and the grinds have been helping lower the alkalinity and improving the soil texture. Again, my lawn is treated just like my garden areas...hand digging out weeds and all (it's cathartic).

Haha..whatever works for you. Sometimes I'll pull a weed and then lay it out in the driveway to watch it wither in the blazing summer sun. Also, I like to choose the heat of the day to spray Roundup on the weeds because they wither more rapidly. It's pretty sinister, I know, but I love it :)

Payback's a b#*ch...lol!

Darn straight!

Pardonnez-mois but I will stand by my accusation that it is 'buyer beware' as far as commercial mulch, compost and topsoil. There is no quality control other than what the seller and/or buyer demand. I assert that these products may be made from a big variety of starting materials, and will vary in their actual quality.

I completely agree if you are saying that adding organic material is a very good thing in almost any situation.

so what was the question? choose from
A- Debate pros and cons of specimen planting versus natural growth.
B- Make a case for understanding why your specimen suddenly up and dies, despite what you thought were ideal conditions.
C- I missed the point, so enlighten me, and perhaps help continue the discussion.