Need Advice on Damaged Red Maple

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hard to tell from the pictures, were the planted at the same depth they were originally? Was the original depth the proper depth?

Pics of where the trunks meet the soil line would be good.
 
Ive never read it anywhere. I know it sounds loony, believe me!!! Thats what the Nursery Manager used to tell me. I guess we all fall for something sometimes.

I did mention, however, that water on the foliage is a good thing!! Can I get credit for that one?
 
maybe a partial Casey, :D

I have heard it said that water on the foliage too much will encourage all manner of growing things to take up residence, could be a bad thing.
If I'm not mistaken, when reading thru the ISA Study Guide a few months back, they warned not to get water on the trunk or foliage.

give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can find it.
 
Thats cool, seemed like at the time...I was young, and still knew it all....it made sense.

When I was landscaping, and taking care of accounts in DC, I could tell which of the planting beds I watered and fertilized got direct sunlight and which didnt. The flowers and shrubs that got waterd in direct sunlight would usually show spot occasionally, while the ones that had about 85% shade, would stay green. Just my observation, and real world experience.
 
I haven't heard that about trees, but I know some plants -- Jades, for instance -- will burn big time if water is left on the leaves during sunny times.
 
"Question 6 - In most instances, it is preferable to minimize water on the foliage of plants."

Mike, is this a typical irrigation job, or is it a special instance?

Killory, see Planting in the link below. Can you find the flare:confused:
 
treeseer, that's all there is to the question, one of ten in the pre-test.

a couple of quotes..

in regard to watering in the evening, "Where fungal diseases of the foliage are a problem, it is important not to extend the period in which the leaf surface is naturally wet from dew"

"Watering the lower trunk (root collar) should be avoided because it can lead to increased fungal decay problems for the tree."

"In most sites, it is best to choose sprinkler heads with low application rates and those that minimize the amount of water on the foliage. This method will reduce runoff and fungus problems."

"Excessive irrigation of trees is becoming a problem in many parts of the country. Fungal problems, especially root and collar rot, are becoming more prevalent."
 
I suspect the fungal problems with watering mostly arise from trees grown in irrigated turf areas. Optimal turf irrigation is quite different from what most trees want.
Don't worry about the leaves or trunk getting wet, unless it happens frequently.
The recommendation about 3 to 4 inches of mulch is too much. This is a highly stressed tree, it doesn't need the added stress of 4" of fresh wood chips covering the soil. Thick mulch dramatically reduces soil oxygen levels.
 
Composted or processed mulch should be fine, though. four inches will shrink to a couple inches after a few rains. Stress reduction is both immediate and long term.
 
Mike Barcaskey said:
ISA recommends 2 to 4 inches of mulch

You're all right--2" of fine-textured, or 4" of coarse mulch is about right. the bigger issue is to see whether the wall contractor put clay on the rootballs to stabilize them (common).

Watering the root collar is way worse than watering foliage. Next month's Arborist News will have an article about wilt disease made worse this way.

There's no serious foliage disease that afflicts maples that I know of, so watering the canopy may help. (Isn't that what God does?) I'd even look at ways of shading the trees, to minimize transpiration.
 
Mike Barcaskey said:
ISA recommends 2 to 4 inches of mulch
The ISA has some good literature and its publications and website are well thought out and quite educational. Over the years the ISA has many of its recommendations evolve, and some even change completely. As new research unfolds, we have new understandings, and new recommendations are made.
I work in the field (tree service) and although I'm not a researcher, I enjoy reading research and figuring out just how it applies to real life.
One thing I have noticed over my years in the tree business is how long it takes for changes to take place, at least in how trees are cared for.
A great example of this is planting depth. We've known for years about planting depth issues, and I still can't find a nursery that doesn't have the majority of its stock planted too deep, or a landscaper that plants trees at the proper depth.
Another example is mulching trees. I'd guess less than 50% of the mulch beds I see are done properly. By properly, I mean the bed is actually better than no mulch at all.
The most common mistake, mulching too deep.
As for the recommendation to apply 4" of new mulch to a stressed tree, it will do more harm than good. If the soils are clay and the mulch has leaves ground up with it, such a thick application could very well be a death sentence for the tree. If it didn't kill the tree outright, it would have disrupted the growth of the tree by changing soil gas exchange and chemistry.
There is no reason to add more than 2" of mulch in a single application (with the exception of temporary applications to prevent compaction, and then it becomes the better of two evils). Two inches will have all the benefits of adding more, but will have fewer adverse effects. Adding mulch is very much like adding soil to a root zone.
Adding a thick mulch layer slows the drying of the soil, which you might think is good, and it is in many situations, but with a tree that is getting regular irrigation, slowing evaporation only slows the soil gas exchange. We want the soil to cycle between wet and dry to pump out the CO2, created by plant and microbial respiration, and pump in O2 from the atmosphere.
You might also think the mulch keeps down weeds. Think about it, if you're creating an environment so hostile weeds can't even grow, what are you doing to roots?
The only time I would recommend 4" of mulch would be on well drained soils, with course chips, and on planting sites that will only get initial watering and then need to rely on rainfall. And then the recommendation would be given with the knowledge that the thick mulch was not optimal for the tree, but only being done to prevent drought damage (again, the lesser of two evils).
Two inches is what is optimal for this tree, in this situation.
 
Mike Maas said:
Think about it, if you're creating an environment so hostile weeds can't even grow, what are you doing to roots? .

An excellent question, sir!:rockn:
 
I don't see that being apples to apples Mike.
The reason the weeds are hindered from growing is that they have to push up through the inches of mulch. The mulch creates a hostile environment and smothers what would be the above ground growth/foliage of the weeds. The tree already has its foliage above ground. I do not see how you can compare the trees roots/mulch and the weeds foliage/mulch.
Not denying that more than 3-4 inches is too much and that evolvinig thinking may drop it to 2 inches.
However I would argue that more than 4 inches of mulch, up to a point, say 12 inches, would lead to the death of the tree. It will not do that in and of itself. It will lead to stress, which along with other factors, could lead to death.
Way too many trees have lived way too many years with too high of a mulch bed and no other stress agents to say that too much mulch will kill a tree.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top