Giant mulch rings...never seen one, and don't believe in them!

[yibida]

Natures been showing us the benifits for years.

pdqdl, I see in your sign off that you state you are a certified arborist, and yet you make the statement "I have always considered trees the 'apex predator' of the plant kingdom". Viewing trees in this manner sounds counter to what an arborist is or should be.

You are evidently incredibly lucky to be in the perfect environment for tree growth. And yet for some reason you are claiming it is a curse.

Perhaps where your logic is erring is latching onto the phrase "protecting the tree from the lawn". It is well documented that trees and turf compete. Where trees predominate the turf will suffer. Where the lawn is given all the care, the trees suffer. A golf course may have the most magnificient appearing turf imaginable. It is a contrived, artificial environment. If that is the appearance your clients want, you need to adjust your recommendations to achieve that. Unfortunately for the environment, that generally means pumping untold amounts of chemicals. (But that is a whole other post and rant.)

Picture a forest...sparse, native grasses.

Picture a prairie, sparse, scattered trees.

This would be the natural order of things. People unfortunately try to have everything, all at once, with no thought as to what is going to blend and coexist.

The trees and grass in your area are desperately trying to tell you that they don't want to cohabitate. If your solution to no grass under a tree is to constantly try to thin the tree or raise the crown, you are in fact fighting a losing battle. We have clients that simply will not give up their grass too close to the tree, and we tell them this is a continual battle that will require maintenance.

"Too many trees, and you won't have any lawn. Period" This sentence is true, pdqdl. But then why not go in proactively to your clients and help them select their best specimens, get rid of the "weed" trees and set up a realistic management schedule for their landscape that will minimize the use of chemicals and annoyance of running into limbs or debarking the trunks with their lawn mower?

Trees will survive without the mulch ring. They simply will survive and thrive better with it. Your client has a dead spot, bare soil under the tree...why NOT mulch it and make it look attractive?

There is much documented evidence that roots thrive better under mulch. I am surprised as a certified arborist you have not read these reports. Google Kew Gardens. After a hurricane in the 1980s that blew over a great many trees, they discovered the roots under the grass areas were significantly less than the ones under mulch areas. Every tree that can now has a mulch ring.

Sylvia

:agree2:
Years of a natural mulch layer being produced in forests has always shown a multitude of benefits. Nutrient availability, suppression of weed growth, moisture retention, and so on.

To continually mulch around trees especially at juvenile stages has great benefits with aiding establishment but by creating a false economy of over fertilizing and watering because of lawn areas will always have an adverse effect long term if restriction on water use or not maintaining a regime of fertilizing occurs.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

My post of a few days ago got lost in the aether, so here are a bunch of thoughts more disjointed then usual.

To continually mulch around trees especially at juvenile stages has great benefits with aiding establishment

I would add the caveat that annual mulch additions, especially of the commercial twice ground, can interlock to the point of becoming hydrophobic. I've seen mound plantings that are bone dry under the mulch, even though there is a torrential downpour flooding the yard.

From an intuitive level, I like the idea of mulch sandwiching: every time mulch is renewed a layer of true compost is added first.

I think it was Russ Carlson, he did a survey of his yard and found the macrobiota count eightfold higher in soil under the mulch vs a few feet away in the turf.

The biggest problem with mulch is that it has become a commodity that is redefined ground wood-waste. There seems to nolonger be a requisite composted component to it. A landscraper puts down a colored ground construction waste product and it is mulch.

We all agree that mulch volcanos are bad.

 

[pdqdl]

I think some of you folks have misunderstood my intent. That, or my original post has been forgotten. I am not opposed to tree mulch rings. I put them around every tree I plant. I like the appearance of a properly placed mulch ring, and it's a great spot to add landscaping features as well. Let me re-state my complaint, with highlights:

Every time someone mentions lawn and trees in the same breath (here at ArboristSite), someone always seems to pipe in with the comment to add mulch out to the dripline.

... and I have never seen a mature tree mulched to the dripline, either.

...WHY do you folks keep telling us to increase the mulch ring to protect the tree from the lawn?

I certainly understand the value of placing plant species where they are well suited. My worst enemy is not the homeowners, nor the negligent lawn workers that damage the plants, it is the landscape architects that keep designing landscapes with stupid plants that look exotic when planted and then die off by the time the warranty is over.

My point is real simple: I don't see any benefit to the HUGE mulch rings so often recommended by some here at ArboristSite. I can show you many threads where someone mentions a tree problem, and the most often recommended solution is to "mulch to the dripline".

I still have not heard a compelling argument for this practice, although I certainly will concede that a native woodland setting is self-mulching by default, as the grass has died off beneath the trees.

 

[D Mc]

My point is real simple: I don't see any benefit to the HUGE mulch rings so often recommended by some here at ArboristSite.

I think it was Russ Carlson, he did a survey of his yard and found the macrobiota count eightfold higher in soil under the mulch vs a few feet away in the turf.

Dave

 

[lh3]

Questions

So, how do you know the store-bought mulch is doing anything? And, where does most store-bought mulch come from? Does it have anything bad in it? Is most tested or certified to be free of bad stuff? What about the dyes used in a lot of mulch? How does store bought mulch compare to natural "forest floor" mulch? Do the good things out-weigh the bad or the other way around?

 

[Bigus Termitius]

I've got the ulimate solution....fake grass and fake trees. Problem solved.

Don't forget the fake mulch..fake rocks..fake fireplace..fake...fake...fake...flake!

 

[pdqdl]

...

I think it was Russ Carlson, he did a survey of his yard and found the macrobiota count eightfold higher in soil under the mulch vs a few feet away in the turf.

...There is much documented evidence that roots thrive better under mulch. I am surprised as a certified arborist you have not read these reports. Google Kew Gardens. After a hurricane in the 1980s that blew over a great many trees, they discovered the roots under the grass areas were significantly less than the ones under mulch areas. Every tree that can now has a mulch ring.

Sylvia

I promise to listen carefully, but only to compelling, thoughtful, and well documented arguments.

I will look up, understand, and evaluate any reference that is included in this thread. So far, all that has occurred is that I have been advised to find information for myself. From my perspective, all that means is that you have your opinion, and you cannot or don't wish to forward the documentation.

The whole purpose of my thread was to challenge the "huge mulch ring" enthusiasts to document their claims, not to just get into a pointless debate where each party flings invective and adverse opinions at each other.

Really folks, I'm not just being an agitator, although I will admit to being annoyed by blind allegiance to a concept. Well informed allegiance is something I respect...So convince me!

 

[Ed Roland]

WHY do you folks keep telling us to increase the mulch ring to protect the tree from the lawn?

Not from the lawn, from the lawn "technician"!

Lesco hort supply suggests you fertilize your centipede lawn 6 times a year. Scott's says, what, 5 or so?

pdqdl, obviously you recognize the benefit of grass that needs mow and blow as often as po$$ible but are you aware of the ill effects of forcing woody perennials to grow at this manufactured rate? A 50' diameter mulch ring will help protect the tree from whatever junk science is being performed on the lawn.

Great thread, by the way.

 

[D Mc]

I don't claim to be JUST an arborist, I also claim to be a lawn expert. And I don't just have a silly certification from ISA, I have a BS in biology. When I got that degree, it included course work studying ALL the plants and animals of this world, not just the green ones that require chainsaws for maintenance.

Really, were you awake? If you indeed have a BS in biology, obviously not soil biology, but learned about all the other plants and animals of the world, you already know the answer.

I'm posting a link that took me 30 seconds to find on a google search.

http://www.mortonarb.org/images/stories/pdf/our_work/Tree_vs_Lawn.pdf

The information on the benefits trees derive from mulch abounds. But you will not see this unless you open up you mind.

Dave

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Really, were you awake? If you indeed have a BS in biology, obviously not soil biology, but learned about all the other plants and animals of the world, you already know the answer.

I'm posting a link that took me 30 seconds to find on a google search.

I noticed what seems to be a deficiency in that paper ...

Anyhow, plants in close proximity do not always compete. And if needed, it is available to supply the moisture and nutirent needs of several plants in close proximity. The paper did mention plants of similar needs in proximity, but was not limited to that.

In many situations, competition is minor or inconsequiential. This photo is an ancient example that crushes that paper's opening statements. The ferns beneath are doing just fine. That's why I think each tree and it's habitat must be treated on an individual basis.

I've worked at several country clubs, and noticed that trees often dominate a spot, with turf dying beneath completely. Hence, the paragraph about turf dominating reads as a misrepresentation. At least we can extract the best ideas from articles like that, filtering the content with other knowledge and experiences.

One more thing - the stunting mentioned in the .pdf. As long as trees can have good longevity, there are people that would prefer a bit of stunted growth. Bonsai being one of the most notable examples. Bonsai even requires slight starvation sometimes, or diminished nutrition.

So all-in-all, the .pdf article once again approaches education with a one size fits all point of view, rather than offering a multitude of solutions that people can utilize.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Really folks, I'm not just being an agitator, although I will admit to being annoyed by blind allegiance to a concept.

I'm sorta agreeing with you, partially: mulching to the dripline is overkill.

So I should document research, but you don't have to?

refute my opinions please;

Turf an artificially maintained environment that is close to a monoculture. Maybe three genus of grass grown with a mix of species.

Turf management removes the nutrient cycle from the urban/exurban environment; if we mulch the grass, it still does not have much nutrient value to it. Most people do not want the annual leaf fall to be mulched in. Not only doe this starve the environment of minor and trace minerals and elements, it makes for an organic poor topsoil. How many people have their lawns top-dressed on a regular basis?

Low organic soils lack a diversity of beneficial macro and micro-biota.

We could go on...

 

[Ed Roland]

When was the last time you saw a photo of a romantic couple lounging in the mulch under a tree?

Do you volunteer the information concerning the residual of a chemical with a class 3 Acute Hazard Warning rating (Dimension with turf fert) as they lounge and frolick in this luscious weed free grass?

Turf care can be at odds with tree care, plain and simple. This is an excellent thread to illustrate these conflicts. Why not try to separate your efforts to induce turf growth with our efforts to maintain long term tree care with a nice fat line of delineation such as mulch all the way to the drip or even WELL beyond? As you know the tree feeder roots do mostly inhabit the same space within the soil as your multitude of grass plants.

Let mulch deliver the elements to fuel tree processes instead of allowing the Scott's corp to dictate the growth that equals bottom line billing.

 

[outofmytree]

Hey pdqdl Im on your side mate!!!

Thought you might appreciate some support rather than the barrage you have received from the flock of the faithful thus far.

I am not in the lawn care business any more. I was. No longer. However I can tell you as an urban arborist that for every client that says kill the grass I love my tree there have been 20 who say, cut that damn tree down its leaves are ruining my lawn. This is reality. Not some mythical land where the tree fairy sits on the arborists shoulder and Mr/s Public take advice. In the real world you must be able to balance the needs of the client with the needs of the tree and mulching to the dripline in most situations isnt going to happen.

As to the size of mulch rings that will provide real benifit perhaps someone with more botanical knowledge could supply a link or reputable fact to determine where at least 75% of the trees roots are located. That distance from the trunk would give a realistic size to a mulch ring as a blueprint then it can be adjusted according to species, soil type, and location.

 

[tree md]

Been a long time since I was in landscaping and turf management (even went to school for that many moons ago) but we used to try to design natural areas for the trees with an island for mulch and usually pine strawed over it (in GA). We would try to create a nice large natural island for areas where there was a small grove of trees and rings around solitary trees in the turf areas. Trees in the large islands always seemed to do better than the solitary trees (especially the young ones) where we would typically only mulch maybe out to three feet. An added benefit (IMO) was there was less turf to manage and healthier trees overall. I also think the natural areas are more aesthetic looking and creates diversity.

 

[Bigus Termitius]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Allelopathy yet. It seems to me that it must be a consideration in some cases.

 

[Bigus Termitius]

I noticed what seems to be a deficiency in that paper ...

Anyhow, plants in close proximity do not always compete. And if needed, it is available to supply the moisture and nutirent needs of several plants in close proximity. The paper did mention plants of similar needs in proximity, but was not limited to that.

In many situations, competition is minor or inconsequiential. This photo is an ancient example that crushes that paper's opening statements. The ferns beneath are doing just fine. That's why I think each tree and it's habitat must be treated on an individual basis.

I've worked at several country clubs, and noticed that trees often dominate a spot, with turf dying beneath completely. Hence, the paragraph about turf dominating reads as a misrepresentation. At least we can extract the best ideas from articles like that, filtering the content with other knowledge and experiences.

One more thing - the stunting mentioned in the .pdf. As long as trees can have good longevity, there are people that would prefer a bit of stunted growth. Bonsai being one of the most notable examples. Bonsai even requires slight starvation sometimes, or diminished nutrition.

So all-in-all, the .pdf article once again approaches education with a one size fits all point of view, rather than offering a multitude of solutions that people can utilize.

Good post.

 

[Ekka]

I noticed what seems to be a deficiency in that paper ...

Anyhow, plants in close proximity do not always compete. And if needed, it is available to supply the moisture and nutirent needs of several plants in close proximity. The paper did mention plants of similar needs in proximity, but was not limited to that.

In many situations, competition is minor or inconsequential.

I noticed what seems to be a deficiency in your reasoning. :monkey:

Do have any data, photographic and validated evidence to support your claims? Or is it another generalization?

In the picture you posted the undergrowth was ferns, I wonder what the redwood's root density comparison would be if we took a soil core and compared it to a location where there was no ferns and just mulch (on the indigenous forest floor that is).

What you are suggesting here is that an almost symbiotic relationship exists between species occupying the same soil area. If that's the case then it needs to be scientifically validated and added to this list perhaps (or one like it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symbiotic_relationships

 

[yibida]

What Iv'e found using chipper mulch.

As someone mentioned earlier, good thread. opcorn:

I wonder if anyone has performed documented trials on mulching and not mulching trees in a controlled environment during establishment.

Hydrophobic layers of mulch developing are a concern if mulch layers are non permeable to start with (very fine mulch seems to develop this problem). Coarse mulch doesn't seem to do the job as well though as weed growth takes a stand readily.

If mulch is applied in a green state and not composted correctly fungal growth develops and adds to a hydrophobic development within layers and the mulch becomes biscuit like over time.

I have also read somewhere (sorry not sure of reference) that nitrogen draw down during composting robs the tree / shrub / plant as opposed to sustaining and fixing nitrogen when fresh mulch is used over long periods.

That said a mixture of a broad spectrum of components that are composted, ie.. leaves, twigs, wood, bark, fruit, etc.. in mulch seems to work better for me rather than an aesthetic one containing one ingredient.

 

[Ekka]

As someone mentioned earlier, good thread. opcorn:

I wonder if anyone has performed documented trials on mulching and not mulching trees in a controlled environment during establishment.

Hydrophobic layers of mulch developing are a concern if mulch layers are non permeable to start with (very fine mulch seems to develop this problem). Coarse mulch doesn't seem to do the job as well though as weed growth takes a stand readily.

If mulch is applied in a green state and not composted correctly fungal growth develops and adds to a hydrophobic development within layers and the mulch becomes biscuit like over time.

I have also read somewhere (sorry not sure of reference) that nitrogen draw down during composting robs the tree / shrub / plant as opposed to sustaining and fixing nitrogen when fresh mulch is used over long periods.

That said a mixture of a broad spectrum of components that are composted, ie.. leaves, twigs, wood, bark, fruit, etc.. in mulch seems to work better for me rather than an aesthetic one containing one ingredient.

http://www.sgaonline.org.au/info_mulch_chunky_or_fine.html

 

[Bigus Termitius]

Yes, but don't we find plants and trees growing in apparent harmony in nature?

Not necessarily symbiotic, though possible, but they seem to be able to at the very least coexist, and perhaps optimization isn't always the intent per the original design.

However, I can see where, at times, optimization is desired and even needful.

I liked M.D. Vaden's post for the balanced approach and the understanding of different situations along with the considerations for an array of variants.

I don't think the whole truth resides in either camp.