I built a house 2 years ago and the excavator had to "bury" a couple of trees in order to do the final grade. When I say "bury" I mean between 6 and 18" of dirt piled onto the trunks of the trees. It was a heavily wooded lot. Last year, one choke cherry died. This year, 2 choke cherries died already, and 3 more are on their way out (very tiny leaves and not looking too healthy). I started pulling away the dirt from the trees, and here is my question. I have a lot of maple trees that have dirt piled up on them. They look very healthy. When I started to dig away the dirt, I noticed that the maples were sprouting what looked like new roots coming out of the buried trunk. Do maples adapt to having that much soil piled up on them? All the maples look like they are doing great. But, I am scared that they are going to kick the bucket soon just like the cherry trees. HELP!!! I need to figure this out soon so that they don't die also, because they surround my house and block a lot of sun (which I like). Thank you for any help anyone can give.
soil covering tree trunks
- Thread starter ShannonG
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Stumper
One Man Band
Most trees can adapt to additional soil if it is built up gradually. More than about 4 inches at a time is usually bad news. The death of your Chokecherries was, unfortunately, predictable. Since the maples are not declining visibly and you found new roots developing I would suggest that you leave things be around the trunks. If a large about of dirt was added over the entire root system then removing some of it MIGHT be desirable.(I don't know what is practical in this situation and it would be prudent to investigate whether new roots have been sent into the surface soil. Under ordinary circumstances most of a trees roots will be found in the top 14" of soil. Also their is difference in the bark of roots vs portions of the tree above ground. Piling additional soil over a trees trunk and root system is a double whammy because it constitutes a dangerous environmental change for the bark of the trunk and it MAY deprive the tree of needed nutrients etc by making the roots lie inhospitably deep.. Obviously your Maples have effected the transformation of the buried bark since roots are sprouting. Since they apear heathy they are probably managing to maintain a functioning root system as well.
tshanefreeman
ArboristSite Operative
During the growing season, trees not only produce enough carbohydrates to sustain life for that year, but also they produce in excess, thus allowing for a storage reserve for the following year's budding and for times of stress. Thus some trees will be able to sustain life for longer periods of time than those will little to no storage reserves.
I am speaking hypothetically here, but I suppose that your Maples are larger in overall size and maturity than your pre-disposed Cherry Trees. Both species were affected by the grade change...........as seen by the death of the cherries and the development of adventitious roots on your maples. Most likely the maples are still dipping into their stored carbs to be able to continue life. It is a general rule of thumb that the true effects of construction damage will not be seen instantly, but more like 4-5 years. Therefore, the decline of your maples, could already be progressing, but not to the point of visible effects.
I agree with "Stumper" and that sometimes it is best to leave the trees alone and see how well they can adapt to their new living conditions. However, if the tree ultimately declines and dies in the future, it shouldn't come as a total surprise!
Shane Freeman
Total Tree Care & Consulting
[email protected]
I am speaking hypothetically here, but I suppose that your Maples are larger in overall size and maturity than your pre-disposed Cherry Trees. Both species were affected by the grade change...........as seen by the death of the cherries and the development of adventitious roots on your maples. Most likely the maples are still dipping into their stored carbs to be able to continue life. It is a general rule of thumb that the true effects of construction damage will not be seen instantly, but more like 4-5 years. Therefore, the decline of your maples, could already be progressing, but not to the point of visible effects.
I agree with "Stumper" and that sometimes it is best to leave the trees alone and see how well they can adapt to their new living conditions. However, if the tree ultimately declines and dies in the future, it shouldn't come as a total surprise!
Shane Freeman
Total Tree Care & Consulting
[email protected]
Stumper
One Man Band
Well said Shane!
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
The biggest problem is not thre additional soil but the methos used to apply it. Heavy equipment compacts the soil and reduces the porocity of the soil. Most construction people do it this way.
Second is the moisture on the trunk and the adventicouse (epicormic) rooting you mentioned. The moiosture acn lead to root/basal decay, the "new" roots suport the tree in uptake of water and minerals while the "old" anchoring roots system is decaying. The "new" roots can also grow in a disorganized fashionm encircling the trunk and eventualy girdle it.
Planted too deep
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/ipmnet/djTreeroots.html
decay in trees
http://search.dogpile.com/texis/search?q=decay+trees&geo=no&fs=web
Girdling roots
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7501.html
Second is the moisture on the trunk and the adventicouse (epicormic) rooting you mentioned. The moiosture acn lead to root/basal decay, the "new" roots suport the tree in uptake of water and minerals while the "old" anchoring roots system is decaying. The "new" roots can also grow in a disorganized fashionm encircling the trunk and eventualy girdle it.
Planted too deep
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/ipmnet/djTreeroots.html
decay in trees
http://search.dogpile.com/texis/search?q=decay+trees&geo=no&fs=web
Girdling roots
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7501.html
digger242J
ArboristSite Lurker
Sorry to make my first post here by dragging back a relatively old thread, but I searched and this topic is pretty much the same one I have a question about.
Yesterday I worked at a site where the excavator had made a good sized pile of dirt. It eventually grew to the point where it covered the bottom several (3, 4, 5?) feet of a couple trees. They're maples, although I won't pretend to know which variety. The homeowner asked me if that was going to kill them. I'd be pretty sure that that much would kill them if it were left ther permanently, but this dirt will be moved once the house is complete. Seeing as it'll be winter soon and they'll be dormant anyway I suggested that he shouldn't worry too much.
Was I right, or should he be worried?
BTW, I've visited here a few times, but registered just tonight so I could ask this question. As on PLowSite and LawnSite I've, always appreciated the helpful nature of the members.
Yesterday I worked at a site where the excavator had made a good sized pile of dirt. It eventually grew to the point where it covered the bottom several (3, 4, 5?) feet of a couple trees. They're maples, although I won't pretend to know which variety. The homeowner asked me if that was going to kill them. I'd be pretty sure that that much would kill them if it were left ther permanently, but this dirt will be moved once the house is complete. Seeing as it'll be winter soon and they'll be dormant anyway I suggested that he shouldn't worry too much.
Was I right, or should he be worried?
BTW, I've visited here a few times, but registered just tonight so I could ask this question. As on PLowSite and LawnSite I've, always appreciated the helpful nature of the members.
Stumper
One Man Band
If it isn't permanent that helps. There is still the possibility of compaction of the "permanent" soil. Also the question of other construction damage (cutting roots , driving over the root system, tearing up the trunk while moving the dirt around etc. Your answer was logical but there are other factors which may or may not come into play.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Some studies have shown that it is the compaction of soil that causes tree decline, not grade changes.
The worst part is that it can hde basal decay, whule epicormic roots support life.
The worst part is that it can hde basal decay, whule epicormic roots support life.
digger242J
ArboristSite Lurker
Thanks for the answers.
Stumper, you're right about "other construction damage". I've done plenty of that, although in my own defense I'll claim that owners have a habit of harboring unrealistic expectations about the ability of trees to survive in close proximity to a house under construction. Unless we were to do everything by hand there's just no way to avoid getting equipment close to some of those trees.
(Case in point--we built a million and a half dollar house on a wooded lot. The architect designed it RIGHT next to about a 30'' oak tree, all of 80 feet tall I'd guess, and it *had* to stay. Part of the wall for the side porch actually was built to *span* the roots only about 5 feet from the trunk. Obviously the footing excavation for that porch cut a lot of roots. Having been told so specifically how important that tree was I refused to dig it with the backhoe, so the builder had the concrete guys do it by hand. They did just fine cutting those roots with a pickand shovel. Also, we weren't allowed to disturb anything more than about 20 feet away from the house, and the only access to the back of the house was around that side. Backfilling the house, bricks delivered, bricklayers moving scaffold etc., laborers cleaning up with a skid loader, concrete for the back porch and steps, rain leaders, landscapers with topsoil...I leave it to your imagination how many times a piece of equipment ran over the roots on that side of the tree. I also leave it to your imagination what it cost to have it taken down as it stood dead and overhanging that one year old million and a half dollar house...)
I guess that's the "soil compaction" factor at work there, huh? I've been told that oaks are particullarly sensitive to that. Is that true, or are they all just as sensitive?
The customer who asked me about those couple Maple trees has a sewer easement throgh the woods too. It's 10 feet wide and has a couple of good sized trees about in the middle of it, so I'm either going to be outside of the easement, or within 5 feet of those trees when I dig the sewer. Whadda ya think I should tell him when he asks if they're going to make it?
Stumper, you're right about "other construction damage". I've done plenty of that, although in my own defense I'll claim that owners have a habit of harboring unrealistic expectations about the ability of trees to survive in close proximity to a house under construction. Unless we were to do everything by hand there's just no way to avoid getting equipment close to some of those trees.
(Case in point--we built a million and a half dollar house on a wooded lot. The architect designed it RIGHT next to about a 30'' oak tree, all of 80 feet tall I'd guess, and it *had* to stay. Part of the wall for the side porch actually was built to *span* the roots only about 5 feet from the trunk. Obviously the footing excavation for that porch cut a lot of roots. Having been told so specifically how important that tree was I refused to dig it with the backhoe, so the builder had the concrete guys do it by hand. They did just fine cutting those roots with a pickand shovel. Also, we weren't allowed to disturb anything more than about 20 feet away from the house, and the only access to the back of the house was around that side. Backfilling the house, bricks delivered, bricklayers moving scaffold etc., laborers cleaning up with a skid loader, concrete for the back porch and steps, rain leaders, landscapers with topsoil...I leave it to your imagination how many times a piece of equipment ran over the roots on that side of the tree. I also leave it to your imagination what it cost to have it taken down as it stood dead and overhanging that one year old million and a half dollar house...)
I guess that's the "soil compaction" factor at work there, huh? I've been told that oaks are particullarly sensitive to that. Is that true, or are they all just as sensitive?
The customer who asked me about those couple Maple trees has a sewer easement throgh the woods too. It's 10 feet wide and has a couple of good sized trees about in the middle of it, so I'm either going to be outside of the easement, or within 5 feet of those trees when I dig the sewer. Whadda ya think I should tell him when he asks if they're going to make it?
Stumper
One Man Band
Tell him that trees are amazing organisms that often surprise even the experts but that they will probably die within 10 years.
Tom Dunlap
Addicted to ArboristSite
You guys are handing out conclusions that could come back to bight you. By telling the people that the trees will probably survive the excess soil you just took over the responsibility for the trees from the excavator. You became the expert that will be stuck with explaining the demise of the trees. Better ask your insurance agent about the coverage you have for consulting. Errors and omissions as well as completed job coverage might be in order.
Kim Coder once talked about "temporary" soil storage. He had a great visualization for the audience. What he asked people to do was to imagine that he is a pile of soil that will be "temporarily" stored on top of you. How long do you think you would survive? Have you ever seen Kim Coder ?
Excavators should have their feet put in the fire when they kill trees by their ineptness. Arbos should be doing the trees and the homeowners a favor and become their advocates. It wouldn't be too hard to prove that the sloppy dirt work killed the trees. Next, hit 'em with a replacement value law suit. Why do too many people just wring their hands and cry about loosing trees? What if the excavator gouged a hole in the new house? What if the excavator spun his tracked Cat on the new driveway and shredded the surface? Don't you think the repairs would be made? The trees can't be replaced or repaired, everyone on this site should know that... If these clods got hit in the pocket book once, they'll be more careful next time. They are expected to be just as much of an expert in their discipline as we are in ours. Moving and storing soil on jobsites is nothing new. The information about tree damages is readily available and there's no reason they shouldn't know about the damage they're causing.
Tom
Kim Coder once talked about "temporary" soil storage. He had a great visualization for the audience. What he asked people to do was to imagine that he is a pile of soil that will be "temporarily" stored on top of you. How long do you think you would survive? Have you ever seen Kim Coder ?
Excavators should have their feet put in the fire when they kill trees by their ineptness. Arbos should be doing the trees and the homeowners a favor and become their advocates. It wouldn't be too hard to prove that the sloppy dirt work killed the trees. Next, hit 'em with a replacement value law suit. Why do too many people just wring their hands and cry about loosing trees? What if the excavator gouged a hole in the new house? What if the excavator spun his tracked Cat on the new driveway and shredded the surface? Don't you think the repairs would be made? The trees can't be replaced or repaired, everyone on this site should know that... If these clods got hit in the pocket book once, they'll be more careful next time. They are expected to be just as much of an expert in their discipline as we are in ours. Moving and storing soil on jobsites is nothing new. The information about tree damages is readily available and there's no reason they shouldn't know about the damage they're causing.
Tom
Nickrosis
Manned by Boderators
I agree wholeheartedly. If their pocketbooks are threatened, perhaps they will consider the trees the next time they race around a construction site.
Getting back to the original question. Immediate removal of the soil around the trunk to the natural trunk flare is what is called for. If the piling was recent, return it to the previous grade so that Kim Coder can begin breathing again. If this isn't done, the tree will soon choke to death like the choke cherries because fermentation is occuring below ground instead of the normal respiration.
Nickrosis
Getting back to the original question. Immediate removal of the soil around the trunk to the natural trunk flare is what is called for. If the piling was recent, return it to the previous grade so that Kim Coder can begin breathing again. If this isn't done, the tree will soon choke to death like the choke cherries because fermentation is occuring below ground instead of the normal respiration.
Nickrosis
Jay Banks
ArboristSite Operative
The storing of soil on tree roots is often over looked as a cause to tree death. It is always a "I didn't damage the tree" line from the developer. Because "we" don't see the damage and it may take several years for the tree to show a declining canopy.
I have every developer root prune at the limits of clearing to prevent damaged roots from providing a path for diseases, but it also helps in speeding up the decline of trees on the edge. This way I can pin the developer for removal while he's still in town.
I have every developer root prune at the limits of clearing to prevent damaged roots from providing a path for diseases, but it also helps in speeding up the decline of trees on the edge. This way I can pin the developer for removal while he's still in town.
Stumper
One Man Band
Tom, Go back and reread the thread. Nobody is saying that this is alright. Noone is saying that the trees will be okay. I probably came closest to that in response to the original post but I was addressing the "current situation" not saying that piling soil over trunks and existing root systems was okay.
Otherwise I agree with your post-with one caveat-frequently owners/builders are attempting to save trees that should be removed in the first place.
Otherwise I agree with your post-with one caveat-frequently owners/builders are attempting to save trees that should be removed in the first place.
digger242J
ArboristSite Lurker
Thank you, Stumper, for your closing comment. It was exactly that point that I was trying to make.
Anyone who chooses to build on a wooded lot is going to kill trees simply clearing a space for the house to sit on. Unless the existing grade is perfect (which is never the case), some amount of cutting and/or filling will be required around the house. Run utilities in underground, and a sewer out, and now you've got a networkof trenches through the woods too.
Being the excavator that engendered this particular discussion, and the only one in sight right now, I'm working real hard to not take Tom's comments personally. There are inept clods in the excavating industry, just as I'm sure there are some in the arborist industry. (Although, in a Darwinian sense, I guess climbing into a tree with a running chainsaw tends to cull the herd a little more effectively.)
I'll restate my point. Even the most expert operator cannot work in the kind of proximity to trees that some people would like them to without doing some "collateral damage". Anyone who suggests otherwise is doing both the property owner and the excavator wrong. The other option would be to do it all by hand, and there's nobody who's going to find that economically feasible.
As far as the couple of trees I was asking about initially, what's going to happen to them is they'll either live or die. The dirt's not going to move until the lot is graded, probably in the spring. To get it off the trees now would require trucking it away, and that of course costs money. The owner of the lot, (who by the way is an architect, and his own general contractor, and this is going to be his home), had a certain space cleared to spoil the excess dirt already, and it just isn't big enough. I've already been asked about spreading some of the dirt between the remaining trees. Being able to cite the wisdom that's been shared here will help me argue more convincingly against that idea. (I'm already on record as saying I didn't think it was a good idea.) He'll need to decide whether to clear more trees, or pay for dumptrucks. My bet would be that the trees come out on the short end.
Anyone who chooses to build on a wooded lot is going to kill trees simply clearing a space for the house to sit on. Unless the existing grade is perfect (which is never the case), some amount of cutting and/or filling will be required around the house. Run utilities in underground, and a sewer out, and now you've got a networkof trenches through the woods too.
Being the excavator that engendered this particular discussion, and the only one in sight right now, I'm working real hard to not take Tom's comments personally. There are inept clods in the excavating industry, just as I'm sure there are some in the arborist industry. (Although, in a Darwinian sense, I guess climbing into a tree with a running chainsaw tends to cull the herd a little more effectively.)
I'll restate my point. Even the most expert operator cannot work in the kind of proximity to trees that some people would like them to without doing some "collateral damage". Anyone who suggests otherwise is doing both the property owner and the excavator wrong. The other option would be to do it all by hand, and there's nobody who's going to find that economically feasible.
As far as the couple of trees I was asking about initially, what's going to happen to them is they'll either live or die. The dirt's not going to move until the lot is graded, probably in the spring. To get it off the trees now would require trucking it away, and that of course costs money. The owner of the lot, (who by the way is an architect, and his own general contractor, and this is going to be his home), had a certain space cleared to spoil the excess dirt already, and it just isn't big enough. I've already been asked about spreading some of the dirt between the remaining trees. Being able to cite the wisdom that's been shared here will help me argue more convincingly against that idea. (I'm already on record as saying I didn't think it was a good idea.) He'll need to decide whether to clear more trees, or pay for dumptrucks. My bet would be that the trees come out on the short end.
Tom Dunlap
Addicted to ArboristSite
My point is that unless you make your client aware, and document what you say, any damage that is caused by grading or trenching is your responsibility. If there is an option available, no matter how difficult or expensive, you need to make that available and have the client decide what to do.
I work with a landscape architect that is very tree sensitive. As a result, the trees that are kept at the beginning of the job are the ones that will live on to maturity. Sure it costs more, how do you buy mature trees? For that matter, how do you buy a wooded lot?
Did I paint excavators with too wide a brush? Maybe, but I spend a lot of windshield time in developing suburbs and don't notice many construction sites that are very tree-friendly. Then I start to get calls a couple of years after wooded developments are built to cut down trees that should have been cleared initially or were killed by cuts, fills or trunk gouges. In my experience its the rule rather than the exception that trees are not taken care of by tree professionals until they show signs of decline. Taking the time to check in with pros is to be commended. I'm sure that the trees that you come into contact with will be better cared for than by Bucket-Blight Bob.
Tom
I work with a landscape architect that is very tree sensitive. As a result, the trees that are kept at the beginning of the job are the ones that will live on to maturity. Sure it costs more, how do you buy mature trees? For that matter, how do you buy a wooded lot?
Did I paint excavators with too wide a brush? Maybe, but I spend a lot of windshield time in developing suburbs and don't notice many construction sites that are very tree-friendly. Then I start to get calls a couple of years after wooded developments are built to cut down trees that should have been cleared initially or were killed by cuts, fills or trunk gouges. In my experience its the rule rather than the exception that trees are not taken care of by tree professionals until they show signs of decline. Taking the time to check in with pros is to be commended. I'm sure that the trees that you come into contact with will be better cared for than by Bucket-Blight Bob.
Tom
Nickrosis
Manned by Boderators
I still agree wholeheartedly.
Nickrosis
(afflicted by unnecessary posting disease tonight)
Nickrosis
(afflicted by unnecessary posting disease tonight)
Jay Banks
ArboristSite Operative
In a perfect world the excavator and arborist is standing hand in hand (without the chainsaw running) educating the landowner on which trees can be saved and which to remove for their dream home.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
I like the idea of leaving trees that should come down. It protects the next row of trees. After all, it's not that hard to remove a tree later, rather than sooner, even in tight spots.
I built a house recently, and the first contractor on the site did tree damage. After he immediately found out he wasn't getting paid, the other contractors were sure to leave my trees alone.
So there may be something to Tom's idea about hitting them in the pocket book.
I built a house recently, and the first contractor on the site did tree damage. After he immediately found out he wasn't getting paid, the other contractors were sure to leave my trees alone.
So there may be something to Tom's idea about hitting them in the pocket book.
digger242J
ArboristSite Lurker
I agree wholeheartedly with Jay Banks. It goes right back to what I initially said about owners harboring unrealistic expectations. The trouble is, you guys don't work for free either, and I've yet to meet a builder who'd happily pay you to come out and tell his customer that that beautiful shade tree eight feet from the proposed back porch is as good as gone before I take my first bucketful of dirt.
Another thing to consider is that the arborist educating the landowner should have a clue about what is involved in the sitework that the excavator needs to do. I've honestly never worked with an arborist, but I've seen my share of architects, and even landscape architects, who don't seem to have any practical idea of what needs to take place when you bring big machinery in and start moving lots of dirt around. What I'm reading here is telling me that dirt piles and trees cannot exist in the same place, even temporarily. Nor can root systems coexist with utility trenches, or even the tracks left by a passing machine. The existing trees are certainly an asset, but in this model, all the modern conveniences and the equipment used to provide them have become a liability.
As far as hitting anyone in the pocketbook, if it's known upfront that *any* certain conditions will make a contractor's work more difficult, (and thus more costly) to him, he'll hit you in the pocketbook first. That's one reason why Jay's perfect world will never be realized. I believe that, by and large, customers will prefer to depend on the *chance* that a tree will survive the certain abuse that construction will bring to it, rather than surrender to the certainty of it's demise, or willingly pay extra up front to prevent that abuse.
