# tree treatments discussion



## treevet (Oct 2, 2010)

Recently tree soil drenches have come into vogue. This is based on increasing awareness of fibrous root quantity in the proximity of the trunk. Systemic treatments such as immidacloprid for eab etc. are becoming the norm as they are very labor non intensive and quite effective according to research.

Question: We have had impactful drought 4 out of the last 5 years. Ofcourse in a perfect world you would water the entire root system on a mature tree. Alternative.....just do a soil drench with water. I think this can suffice up to an impasse where there is just too much dry soil for perimeter roots not to dry out in extreme conditions.

What do you think. It is almost like putting a Gator Bag on a 3' dia. Tree. Will it work?.....better than giving up like the average homeowner would do when faced with this or putting a sprinkler on the tree that just waters the grass or runs off.


----------



## ATH (Oct 2, 2010)

Certainly, that water is going to benefit the tree. However, my concern would be the condition of the larger root system. If it gets too dry, it is going start dying off. Maybe a more blended approach would be beneficial? Water at the base frequently and soaker hose or sprinkler every 3-4 weeks?

I have not seen any research about water uptake at the trunk, just treatments so I am only guessing.


----------



## treevet (Oct 2, 2010)

Certainly the fibrous roots in the perimeter would die off and if the basal watering was discontinued the tree would be in peril. But the tree will translocate the basal water imbibed to the roots in the dry area. Would that be enough? 

I have looked for and requested research but found none. Sometimes a mature tree is just not going to get watered in its extremeties. Think parks, huge acreages, etc.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 3, 2010)

I've seen this method work to some extent in small back yards. 

I tell people to soak the basal area of the tree, I have started "dishing out" basal areas so water will be detained and perk through.

Then there is Wulkie's study with his large I.D. hoses where he watered Chicago park trees with a drip-line flood. I've taken to calling it "perk irrigation".

Another method I have seen work is to put a kiddie pool out under the tree, knock holes in the bottom so that it will drain slowly. I've told people to do this when there are watering restrictions in a region.

A few years ago, a local company was doing macro-fusion w/ highly dilute fert to get water into specimen trees.


----------



## treevet (Oct 3, 2010)

Interesting stuff....esp. like the swimming pool idea. I have had my yard full of pre drilled buckets but a whole pool seeping.....great idea.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 5, 2010)

treevet said:


> Interesting stuff....esp. like the swimming pool idea. I have had my yard full of pre drilled buckets but a whole pool seeping.....great idea.



Thankyou...thankyou verymuch


----------



## treevet (Oct 6, 2010)

We were working on a beautiful estate today that obviously the grass was not a priority. Grass is basically a spring crop around here. If you don't throw away literally thousands of dollars on it during the no rain summer....it goes dormant. It doesn't generally completely die, but will come back.

My client is totally into the trees and it is quite a chore for her to water properly in the summer. 

What if tree services offered and engineered a sprinkler system......set up only to water the tree's root systems? It could be subcontracted to the experts in that field.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 6, 2010)

treevet said:


> What if tree services offered and engineered a sprinkler system......set up only to water the tree's root systems? It could be subcontracted to the experts in that field.



You could ask FTA to design it. 
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Oct 6, 2010)

:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 6, 2010)

treevet said:


> We were working on a beautiful estate today that obviously the grass was not a priority. Grass is basically a spring crop around here. If you don't throw away literally thousands of dollars on it during the no rain summer....it goes dormant. It doesn't generally completely die, but will come back.
> 
> My client is totally into the trees and it is quite a chore for her to water properly in the summer.
> 
> What if tree services offered and engineered a sprinkler system......set up only to water the tree's root systems? It could be subcontracted to the experts in that field.



Why trouble with inventing something new, when lawn irrigation does just fine for the trees? There are a lot of arborists that seem to think that benefiting the lawn is bad for the tree, but I am not part of that crowd.

If your customer wants to irrigate the trees, get a quote from a lawn sprinkler installer, and then tell her how to set the irrigation timer to help out the trees the most. Any variety of irrigation installation that does not emulate natural rainfall (which lands on the lawn as well as the trees) will eventually cause problems for the trees, unless it is to only provide relief in drought conditions.


----------



## treevet (Oct 6, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Why trouble with inventing something new, when lawn irrigation does just fine for the trees? There are a lot of arborists that seem to think that benefiting the lawn is bad for the tree, but I am not part of that crowd.
> 
> If your customer wants to irrigate the trees, get a quote from a lawn sprinkler installer, and then tell her how to set the irrigation timer to help out the trees the most. Any variety of irrigation installation that does not emulate natural rainfall (which lands on the lawn as well as the trees) will eventually cause problems for the trees, unless it is to only provide relief in drought conditions.



Any lawn is unhealthy for trees. The healthier the lawn over the root system the worse it is for the tree. My idea is a set up to water a mulched over root system during drought. Why would you want to water otherwise. Sprinkler systems are for grass. 

Sprinkler systems generally emit too often and too little for trees bringing root systems to the surface and making them more susceptable to dry weather if no system is in use.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 6, 2010)

Maybe run all the sewer pipes under the root zone? 
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Oct 6, 2010)

Or maybe stored spring rainwater in containers.

Sewer water would be a negative with water soluble salts.


----------



## ATH (Oct 6, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Why trouble with inventing something new, when lawn irrigation does just fine for the trees? There are a lot of arborists that seem to think that benefiting the lawn is bad for the tree, but I am not part of that crowd......



Agreed that we don't need to invent something new, but maybe tapping into a new market with an existing product isn't such a bad idea. If a lawn sprinkler is on long enough to benefit the trees it is on too long for the grass. Using the same systems though to set up tree specific zones and timing would be good for the trees.

Storing rainwater is also a great idea. Trouble is, that is a LOT of water to store if you want enough to do something meaningful for 2 or 3 months out of the year... Let's say you want to give the tree 25 gallons of water every other week (that is really not very much, but a number to start with). If you are looking at a 6-8 week dry period, you need to store 150-200 gallons of water. Who has a "high end" landscape (assuming those are the folks willing to invest in these systems) that is willing to include a 200 gallon tank as a part of that?


----------



## treevet (Oct 6, 2010)

ATH said:


> Let's say you want to give the tree 25 gallons of water every other week (that is really not very much, but a number to start with).



you always hear from the experts how much water in gals. to give a tree but rarely hear HOW to give it. If the lawn is parched and a pavement like surface then a sprinkler likely will just run off out of the root zone.

If you have a lush country club over the root zone you know where that h20 goes. But if you give it in JPS' swimming pool type of delivery or you give it to a mulched surface.....then you are doing something very positive.


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 7, 2010)

What happened to deep root watering and drip irrigation?
In Lake Elsinore, Ca. We had 4 Oaks at Canyon Hills. All 4 trees were brought in by Valley Crest. Big mature Oaks, we installed drip irrigation for them and would do a deep root watering about every 2 months, seemed to work fine.
We used the little 3 foot dealies, tapped into the quick coupler off the system and would let them sit about 1/2 an hour in each spot, moving them around the root zone.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 7, 2010)

sgreanbeans said:


> What happened to deep root watering and drip irrigation?
> In Lake Elsinore, Ca. We had 4 Oaks at Canyon Hills. All 4 trees were brought in by Valley Crest. Big mature Oaks, we installed drip irrigation for them and would do a deep root watering about every 2 months, seemed to work fine.
> We used the little 3 foot dealies, tapped into the quick coupler off the system and would let them sit about 1/2 an hour in each spot, moving them around the root zone.



Those the oaks on the corners of Canyon Hills and Lost? Three are dead. We have been doing that property for a few years. They just turned another section over to us. We took out one dead oak in the median on Canyon Hills near Railroad Canyon. I thik I have pics.
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 7, 2010)

Yup, here.
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Oct 7, 2010)

sgreanbeans said:


> What happened to deep root watering and drip irrigation?
> In Lake Elsinore, Ca. We had 4 Oaks at Canyon Hills. All 4 trees were brought in by Valley Crest. Big mature Oaks, we installed drip irrigation for them and would do a deep root watering about every 2 months, seemed to work fine.
> We used the little 3 foot dealies, tapped into the quick coupler off the system and would let them sit about 1/2 an hour in each spot, moving them around the root zone.



I just think when you have to do all that "tapping into" and "moving around" stuff and the ho has a lot of trees.....it is nice in theory but it just doesn't get done. 

Nobody wants to pay for watering and the tree guy (us) doesn't want to be the donater of the service during busy season. So it just doesn't get done properly and everyone involved just cringes on the edge of their chairs and hopes the trees make it through the drought like they "usually" do. But secondary issues come into effect with insects and or diseases.

Signs of drought stress might include wilting, curling of leaves, tip burn and marginal necrosis of foliage, yellowing and browning of most or all of the foliage and the loss of virtually all of the leaves. Evergreens might show needles turning yellow, red or purple or they might turn brown at the tips of the needles that may progress to the twigs.

The easier the "dose and timing" can be made to be the more likely it will happen IMO. Go in the garage and press the button on the sprinkler box for 2 hours into the mulch bed around the trees and go sit on the couch.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 7, 2010)

Treevet, I agree with you that frequent shallow watering does not promote proper root development. The same is true, both for lawns and for trees.

In your best, anti-lawn response, can you honestly say that you have ever seen a tree suffering from drought stress in an irrigated lawn? 

Some of my thoughts on the topic:

1. Lawns are invariably over-watered. Watering well for the trees does not over water the lawns, unless you are already watering plants that don't need it.

2. The vast majority of the tree roots is in what, the top 18" of the soil? That is right where the grass is living, too. They both get the same water, although some trees sink their roots fantastic distances for water. All that means is that the trees will get water when the grass has dried up. It doesn't mean that the trees can only get water from deep in the earth.

3. Drip irrigation will create a root system that surrounds the emitters. Unless you infest the ground around a tree, you may be causing the tree to have a rather limited root system dependent upon the irrigation. Unless, of course, you only turn it on when drought comes to town. [Probably at the same time that no-watering ordinances kick-in!]

4. I don't think I have ever seen trees suffering from poor nutrition, poor maintenance related disease, or stunted growth in a well maintained, fertilized, and irrigated yard. WHY do so many arborists promote that good lawn maintenance is bad (or inadequate) for the trees? Show me some pics! Maybe an example or two?


----------



## NCTREE (Oct 7, 2010)

What about flexible black soaker hose. In circle the root system keeping the hose spaced 3' apart. You have to water more frequent and longer but it seems sufficient.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 7, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Treevet, I agree with you that frequent shallow watering does not promote proper root development. The same is true, both for lawns and for trees.
> 
> In your best, anti-lawn response, can you honestly say that you have ever seen a tree suffering from drought stress in an irrigated lawn?
> 
> ...



You almost got them, Dude. I was waiting for the part where you would say there is an enviroment in which the landscape includes the trees.
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Oct 7, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> > In your best, anti-lawn response, can you honestly say that you have ever seen a tree suffering from drought stress in an irrigated lawn?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 8, 2010)

TV, we aren't that far apart in our understanding of how things work, it's just that you are a dedicated "tree-first" kind of guy, and I try to look at everything equally. We have beat this topic up before, so it's not worth making a big fight over. My comments in _burgundy_. Some parts trimmed for brevity.



treevet said:


> Yes, absolutely. What would be sufficient water for the tree when applied to a lush lawn above the tree root zone suddenly becomes not enough for the tree (and lawn together). _Nope. I have never seen leaf scorch in an irrigated yard._ Have seen it countless times. You are telling me you have never witnessed a weak or dead tree in a watered lawn??? _Sure. Lots of dead trees in irrigated yards. It's part of the cycle of life. However, I must say that the number of dead trees that I see in irrigated lawns is absoutely dwarfed by the number of dead trees that I see in non-irrigated areas._ Have you done research on this? _On this specific topic? I don't think it exists. A while back I posted some research that demonstrated that the microenvironment above turf, both irrigated and non-irrigated, was more conducive to shrubs and low growing trees than either mulch or bare dirt. Curiously, bare dirt outperformed the mulch in that respect._
> 
> Let's also acknowledge that lawns are a contrived, artificially created entity (probably the basis for the quote "trees and lawns have different watering cycles"). _Yes, without a doubt. So is the nursery that we grow our landscape trees in, as well as every other aspect of urban culture._
> 
> ...



This is a good dialogue so far. I am genuinely interested in your opinion, and am willing to convert if you can convince me. Unfortunately, right now I see things a little differently.


----------



## treevet (Oct 8, 2010)

It is impossible to direct quote you when you reply like you did without a lot of work but it is easy to see that you are a lawn advocate likely in preference over trees. You likely would advocate having lawn right up to the buttress flare.

But it is commonly accepted contemporary researched knowledge that a mulched bed over the root zone is preferable to lush lawn. This is why mulch beds are NOW put under new trees and groves and most often chosen to be formed under established trees. You choose to ignore commonly accepted researched knowledge despite 3 of the myriad quotes I could have provided to challenge your position.

When I say lawns are a contrived artificial entity you simply compare the situation with trees that have been planted. But many times homes are built with trees already in the landscape or woods. Homes are never built in a lush weed free lawn area that pre existed. Nor could the lawn exist or even survive without being catered to with much money poured on it and effort. Trees could.

You state that shrubs and LOW GROWING trees have been proven to exist better in irrigated turf than bare dirt or mulch (unirrigated?). I doubt that but we are discussing LARGE growing trees (at least I am).

You state that when conditions are extreme that trees come out the better in competition than lawns do. I doubt that. Can you cite research to substantiate this? Sometimes it takes years to show the damage done to trees in this situation.

When I state that when times are most difficult (drought) that this is the time (like we are having in my area now) that the grass becomes a huge deficit in the struggle for survival of trees and their ability to defend themselves from insect and disease attack (if a lush lawn is over the root system).

You chose to distort my thought as appearing to mean that the tree is near death and ofcourse it is not the lawn that is at fault.

And finally you want me to provide you with researched data showing that irrigated lawns are more difficult on trees than a plain old lawn that is mowed. 

My premise is that mulched (not any lawn) surfaces capturing any precipation whether artificial or natural is way better than any lawn especially a lush, chemical laden, contrived water sucking carpet.

I think we have beat this to death also and do not plan to respond unless you post in a fashion that can be quoted. But you have to agree with a simple fact.....

A mulched area under a tree will capture water (the op subject) for the tree's fibrous root system better than if it has a lush lawn growing over it? 

Just give me an answer to the simple last question pdqdl, before you address the rest of the post please.


----------



## Garden Of Eden (Oct 8, 2010)

TV & PDQDL, I have nothing to add to this, other than you both have a ton of knowledge about this it would appear, and I'm impressed.

Thanks for the info guys.

Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 8, 2010)

opcorn:
Jeff


----------



## dingeryote (Oct 9, 2010)

Not to butt into the very informative debate.

But has anyone tinkered with sub-soil trickle to get Partially UNDER the lawns root mat?
Granted it wouldn't be 100% delivery, and loss to the competing lawn would be there, but a reduced amount. Or would the dadgum grass overwhelm things quickly?

Done properly, with a timer and a Mazaei injection system inline, water flow could be controlled as needed, and nutrients added as needed during stress.
That, and it's not apparent to the prying eyes of busybody neighbors nor waternazis.

The growth near the emitters issue is understood, but if it's used only during stress periods, and emitters are spaced every 12-24" how badly would the growth be concentrated?

Additionally, I wonder if trickle added to trench mulching would have any benefit? It would require some interesting design, but 18mm buried trickle line isn't awfull expensive nor difficult to work with.

Just tossing this out there, because I am pondering subsoil irrigation in very sandy soil, and looking towards subsoil mulching for another purpose that has some paralells.

Thanks!

Staysafe!
Dingeryote


----------



## treevet (Oct 9, 2010)

Sounds like a viable option esp if not dealing with acres of trees.


----------



## dingeryote (Oct 9, 2010)

treevet said:


> Sounds like a viable option esp if not dealing with acres of trees.



Thanks!
I wondered. 

Possibly, if it can be filtered enough not to clog emitters, good old compost "Tea" could be used to get a shot of chow to the fibrous roots, untill I can get enough organic matter tilled in, and the trenched mulch starts breaking down.

I'm dealing with several thousand bushes in rows, and got to thinking about trees and lawns, while mulling over weeds in new plantings.
I can cheat a bit with cultivation, ya can't on a lawn.

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> ...
> 
> A mulched area under a tree will capture water (the op subject) for the tree's fibrous root system better than if it has a lush lawn growing over it?
> 
> Just give me an answer to the simple last question pdqdl, before you address the rest of the post please.



No, I won't agree that mulch captures more water. I will conclude, however, that it does a much better job of retaining water.

Thick mulch usually forms fungal mycelium mats that are somewhat impervious to water. The same thing occurs sometimes in lawn areas; when this occurs they are called "local dry spots". The water has a greater tendency to run off of these areas. Obviously, mulch types and condition, and how often it is disturbed will play critical roles in how well it absorbs water. Similar considerations are required for lawn/soil conditions as well.

Water use for this comparison should be broken into 3 different aspects: absorption vs runoff rate, total capacity, and water retention rate. I have already given my comments on absorption (in response to your question), but I thought I should add something on the other two topics.

Total water holding capacity: Rich topsoil has a greater capacity to hold water than the average shredded hardwood mulch, in that it has much greater humus content, and it generally will have a much smaller average particle size. The surface tension of water dictates that more water will be retained in the material with the smallest particle size. If you don't believe me, take a bucket filled with topsoil and one with mulch; weigh each bucket. Add water until they are totally saturated. Pour off the excess water, then weigh them again. You will find that the topsoil retains more water than much every time.

So; does mulch hold more water than the same amount of topsoil filled with turf? No. _Given that mulch is generally piled on top of the topsoil, and does not usually displace any topsoil, this is almost a moot point. The addition of mulch on top of topsoil will certainly retain more water than topsoil/lawn alone._

Water retention rate: In the study that I obliquely referred to previously, mulch was found to have the least favorable micro-environment above it than either bare dirt or lawn. This is because it reflects heat back up to the plants above it rather than absorbing the heat, and it also transpires less moisture back up into the air above it. Woody plants that were located in the fairly shallow area of higher humidity and lower reflected heat performed better in these areas over lawn than they did over much. Sadly, the zone of higher humidity and lower heat does not even come close to helping out your average shade tree.

The very traits that causes mulch to be less desirable in the 6' tall microenvironment above it, are what also enable it to outperform lawn surfaces in this respect: water retention. Because mulch reflects heat better than either bare dirt or lawn, and it does not transpire moisture anywhere near as well as lawn, _I think it is pretty safe to say that the soil beneath a nice thick mulch layer will always have more moisture than the lawn immediately adjacent._


No, TV, I'm not an advocate of lawns over trees. Nature is filled with a magnificent array of plants, and I like them all. I am as equally impressed with the beauty of a well formed oak as I am by the best of lawns. When I go for a tour across the country, I cannot say that I enjoy driving through the open prairies any more or less than in the forests or the mountains. While the desert and arid regions are interesting, I distinctly don't like them as well as where either grass or trees thrive. One of my favorite things to see is a meadow infested with dandelions, yet I make a good amount of my income from wiping them out.

Here is one of my favorite pics:






Yes. I mulch my trees, and I think it is both beneficial to the trees, and it makes the yards easier to mow, too. I just have a hard time understanding why so many people advocate wiping out the lawn beneath all the trees. 

Trees are the apex predators of the vegetable world. It's like saying that the fleas and the tapeworms are killing off all the lions, and we should take preventative steps immediately to protect those poor endangered lions. All the while, we seem to be overlooking the more important considerations _(for the purpose of this analogy)_ of whether the lions have anything to eat, and whether they are being killed off by hunters or other predators.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> When I say lawns are a contrived artificial entity you simply compare the situation with trees that have been planted. But many times homes are built with trees already in the landscape or woods. Homes are never built in a lush weed free lawn area that pre existed. Nor could the lawn exist or even survive without being catered to with much money poured on it and effort. Trees could.



No, I agreed with you! 

I also pointed out the urban culture is artificial with respect to trees, too. I am not a forester, and I am not generally concerned with the health of forest trees. I am an arborist, landscaper, lawn mower, and general contractor in the big city. My concerns involve meeting my customers desires, which means giving them a landscape that looks like what they want it to. 

I try to keep everything in balance.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> ...
> 
> You state that shrubs and LOW GROWING trees have been proven to exist better in irrigated turf than bare dirt or mulch (unirrigated?). I doubt that but we are discussing LARGE growing trees (at least I am). ...



No, I didn't. 

I stated "A while back I posted some research that demonstrated that the microenvironment above turf, both irrigated and non-irrigated, was more conducive to shrubs and low growing trees than either mulch or bare dirt."

This study formed no conclusions at all about "proven to exist better...". It only commented on certain conditions. I drew no further conclusions, and I think that it is erroneous to make more conclusions than the authors did.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> ...
> 
> You state that when conditions are extreme that trees come out the better in competition than lawns do. I doubt that.
> ...



No, I did not say that at any time. 

I only stated the the lawns always loose to competition with trees. Just pick your best customer with the very best trees: look at the lawn beneath (or near) those same trees.

Then pick your customer with the very best lawn. Are all their trees dying off from turf related issues? 

******************************************************
I should probably rescind my statement about grasses always loosing to trees. 

The reason that the prairies predominate in the midwest USA is that they catch on fire and kill off all the trees. Grasses do recover and survive fire much better than trees do, and they generally survive in lower precipitation areas because of their ability to go dormant. Trees can't go totally dried out and dormant like grasses, so they loose in that ecological niche.

Conversely, where they don't get burned up by prairie fires, the native trees generally stay green all summer, while the lawns in those areas often go dormant and brown. Why? Trees root deeper, and have more moisture available to draw upon. Obviously, annual rainfall is very important to this argument.

_There is a cave in southern Missouri that has trees roots coming into the ceiling several hundred feet below the surface._


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> When I state that when times are most difficult (drought) that this is the time (like we are having in my area now) that the grass becomes a huge deficit in the struggle for survival of trees and their ability to defend themselves from insect and disease attack (if a lush lawn is over the root system).



I can't argue with that. I don't know that grass is a huge deficit, but any competition for a plant that is struggling will be a problem. It is certainly easier to rebuild a lawn than it is to restore a dead tree, so I would support any maintenance option that supported the trees, if I could only choose between keeping the lawn or keeping the trees.

On the other hand, isn't it easier to just provide what the tree needs (water) than it is to kill off the lawn?


----------



## treeclimber101 (Oct 10, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I've seen this method work to some extent in small back yards.
> 
> I tell people to soak the basal area of the tree, I have started "dishing out" basal areas so water will be detained and perk through.
> 
> ...



Or just use gator bags , sounds like the same process ...


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> And finally you want me to provide you with researched data showing that irrigated lawns are more difficult on trees than a plain old lawn that is mowed.



Yes. Unless I misunderstand your arguments, you stated that lawn sprinklers were inadequate and unhealthy for trees.

I asked: 
_In your best, anti-lawn response, can you honestly say that you have ever seen a tree suffering from drought stress in an irrigated lawn?_

You responded: 
_Yes, absolutely. What would be sufficient water for the tree when applied to a lush lawn above the tree root zone suddenly becomes not enough for the tree (and lawn together). _

Why not just set the irrigation settings for the health of the trees? The lawn will do fine on what is plenty for the tree. On whatever schedule might be selected.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 10, 2010)

treevet said:


> ...
> My premise is that mulched (not any lawn) surfaces capturing any precipation whether artificial or natural is way better than any lawn especially a lush, chemical laden, contrived water sucking carpet.
> 
> ...



Well, almost no argument from me. Mulch doesn't capture more water, but it does hold it better. 

Is mulch better for the tree than lawn? *Certainly!* 
_That is like asking a lion if it prefers to have fleas!_

How many of your customers are willing to sacrifice their lawn in favor of getting the ultimate in tree health? Not very many of mine will! I believe in balance and moderation...in everything!

By the way: lawn does suck up the water; both into the soil when if falls, and out of the soil when it is hot. When it comes to water transpiration rates per acre of ground, trees beat the snot out of lawn for sucking water out of the soil.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Oct 10, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Well, almost no argument from me. Mulch doesn't capture more water, but it does hold it better.
> 
> Is mulch better for the tree than lawn? *Certainly!*
> _That is like asking a lion if it prefers to have fleas!_
> ...



ACTUALLY turf drinks 95% of the water in the first 8inches if soil so mulch isn't important its essential to the overall health of the tree , my issue with mulch is overmulching can cause what I call a water slide away from the tree where very little water even gets to the roots , its equally important to remove as much OLD mulch as you install , and aerating around the dripline ...


----------



## treevet (Oct 10, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> No, I won't agree that mulch captures more water. I will conclude, however, that it does a much better job of retaining water.



My statement was that it captures more water for the tree (by retaining not absorbing) just as a road grate captures water from pavement.

If you have to have lush green lawns.....make as big a mulch ring around every tree that the client can stand imo. Ofcourse the mulch ring should be properly done without hardpan beneath it or piled too high and ideally composted mulch that will not support disease of the parent material and protected from being washed away if nec.

pdqdl.....if you take your cursor and place it to the right of the sentence or paragraph you want to quote.......then drag it with the mouse to the left (it will high lite your intended quote).....then go above the post box and left click on the little square box that has a point on the bottom and looks like a quote in a cartoon. 

This will give you a quote of the part of someones post you want to seperate and you can type below it responding to it.


----------



## treevet (Oct 10, 2010)

treeclimber101 said:


> ACTUALLY turf drinks 95% of the water in the first 8inches if soil QUOTE]
> 
> That is interesting....any study you can cite? Where did you get that info 101?


----------



## ATH (Oct 10, 2010)

treeclimber101 said:


> Or just use gator bags , sounds like the same process ...


Yeah...but you would need to fill up that bag 'several' times during a day to be beneficial to a larger tree. They are good for small trees, but bigger trees need so much water, I'm not sure that even a daily filling would do too much good (but it obviously isn't going to hurt the tree).


----------



## treevet (Oct 11, 2010)

ATH said:


> Yeah...but you would need to fill up that bag 'several' times during a day to be beneficial to a larger tree. They are good for small trees, but bigger trees need so much water, I'm not sure that even a daily filling would do too much good (but it obviously isn't going to hurt the tree).



I agree but they might be good for a young tree if you staked them up in a circle over the perceived root system. I think they hold 30 gals. 

Every tree I plant gets a whole kit with it and they pay for it if they want a guarantee. Mulch, Gator bag, 4 foot staked fence (big deer problems here) and I have started putting refridgerator hoses (short hose with nothing on one (inside bag) end and hose coupling on fence end zip tied to the fence). They just have to bring a hose and couple it to the short hose and fill the bag.

If no short hose we just use bag ties to hold the fence that circles the root ball and they can open the staked fence and go inside and fill the bag.


----------



## treevet (Oct 11, 2010)

I am still a big advocate for verticle mulching. If the client can stand paying we do it every couple of years to a stressed tree or one on a hill or one with bad compaction.... and the more you do it the better as the quantity of holes is a positive. We mix pea gravel or sand with humus to fill which retains the hole and improves soil quality (very clay based here).

This in comparison with blasting air holes which imo just compresses the soil adjacent to the air hole blasted......and the hole you blasted is just gonna fill in again in short order anyway.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 11, 2010)

treevet said:


> ...then go above the post box and left click on the little square box that has a point on the bottom and looks like a quote in a cartoon.
> 
> This will give you a quote of the part of someones post you want to seperate and you can type below it responding to it.



Thank you for the reminder. If you prefer that for future debates, I'll stick to that format.


----------



## Ed Roland (Oct 11, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> I don't think I have ever seen trees suffering from poor nutrition, poor maintenance related disease, or stunted growth in a well maintained, fertilized, and irrigated yard. WHY do so many arborists promote that good lawn maintenance is bad (or inadequate) for the trees? Show me some pics! Maybe an example or two?



"Good lawn maintenance" is not good maintenance for mature trees. 5x annual fertilizations for the grass will have detrimental effects for the tree. Trees can only store energy in living cells. The amount of energy reserves is then directly related to the amount of healthy living cells in wood and inner bark. When elements are added to the soil natural biological processes are stimulated and there is an increase in growth rate. For this accelerated growth to happen, energy is required. That energy is, of course, coming from stored reserves or new substances produced from photosynthesis. The tree has to speed up its activities and possibly the tree can manage if energy required can keep up. But what if this stimulated growth outpaces energy reserves/production? Large leaves and long shoots can be expected before the decline spiral. There may not be enough energy left to make new wood, bark or to supply the living cells in the trunk or roots. These living cells are dependant upon the leaves for their energy. 
So, while saturating the soil with elements might = "good maintenance" for turf, know that the tree roots sharing the same space in the soil have to deal with it as best they can.
I not only recommend mulch. I recommend a giant mulch ring all the way to the dripline to keep turf pros from harming client trees.
Just one way turf is an enemy of urban trees. 

great conversation, guys.


----------



## treevet (Oct 11, 2010)

Ed Roland said:


> "Good lawn maintenance" is not good maintenance for mature trees. 5x annual fertilizations for the grass will have detrimental effects for the tree. Trees can only store energy in living cells. The amount of energy reserves is then directly related to the amount of healthy living cells in wood and inner bark. When elements are added to the soil natural biological processes are stimulated and there is an increase in growth rate. For this accelerated growth to happen, energy is required. That energy is, of course, coming from stored reserves or new substances produced from photosynthesis. The tree has to speed up its activities and possibly the tree can manage if energy required can keep up. But what if this stimulated growth outpaces energy reserves/production? Large leaves and long shoots can be expected before the decline spiral. There may not be enough energy left to make new wood, bark or to supply the living cells in the trunk or roots. These living cells are dependant upon the leaves for their energy.
> So, while saturating the soil with elements might = "good maintenance" for turf, know that the tree roots sharing the same space in the soil have to deal with it as best they can.
> I not only recommend mulch. I recommend a giant mulch ring all the way to the dripline to keep turf pros from harming client trees.
> Just one way turf is an enemy of urban trees.
> ...



Great post Ed......dynamic equillibrium!

Negative aspects of salt involved with fertilization must also be considered.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 11, 2010)

Who'da thought it, Ed? I'm coming in on your side with the fertilization issue, although I think that your argument is botanically & biochemically flawed. You may recall that I have always been one of the folks that generally spoke against tree fertilization as a profit center, particularly in lawns that are already getting lawn fertilization.

Now that I look at it in that light, the bigger mulch rings do keep the chemicals out of some of the root zone. Not much though...


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 11, 2010)

treeclimber101 said:


> Or just use gator bags , sounds like the same process ...



It is a matter of volume and local ordinance. When there are watering restrictions you can have a kiddie pool, this gets a large volume into a larger area faster and does not look like ten gator bags under a big tree.

The problems with gators is that they are meant for small trees, some people use the Miracle Grow watering spike, but that can be a PITA for an H/O to move around.


----------



## treevet (Oct 12, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> It is a matter of volume and local ordinance. When there are watering restrictions you can have a kiddie pool, this gets a large volume into a larger area faster and does not look like ten gator bags under a big tree.
> 
> The problems with gators is that they are meant for small trees, some people use the Miracle Grow watering spike, but that can be a PITA for an H/O to move around.



That is the whole deal IMO too. If a pita....they not gonna do it.

Still would love to know if the soil drench (at base maybe with a soaker hose) is feasible. Probably never be known as who has time for research anymore.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 12, 2010)

I have been watering trees for many years with "soil trench" technology. We might have a business park with a couple hundred trees to water, so we hook up a manifold for 5 garden hoses to our water tank, then put a hose at the base of each tree.

The operator just keeps the pump running, then walks to the back tree, carrying the hose to a new tree at the front, walk to the back-move to the front,...all day long. Move the truck when needed.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 12, 2010)

treevet said:


> That is the whole deal IMO too. If a pita....they not gonna do it.
> 
> Still would love to know if the soil drench (at base maybe with a soaker hose) is feasible. Probably never be known as who has time for research anymore.



I think that products like Merit have shown the uptake value for years. I've started using organic fert/amendments in the basal area over the past few years. Though not enough subjects/consistency to report anything.

A PhD with TCoT in Chi reported on total soil replacement of the basal zone with high organics a few years ago. it was a WAA conference I saw him at.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Oct 12, 2010)

treevet said:


> treeclimber101 said:
> 
> 
> > ACTUALLY turf drinks 95% of the water in the first 8inches if soil QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## treeclimber101 (Oct 12, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> It is a matter of volume and local ordinance. When there are watering restrictions you can have a kiddie pool, this gets a large volume into a larger area faster and does not look like ten gator bags under a big tree.
> 
> The problems with gators is that they are meant for small trees, some people use the Miracle Grow watering spike, but that can be a PITA for an H/O to move around.



They have gators for trees up to 15" caliber , they look like a small waterbed bladder around the tree but work well in the summer , you could probably also use the bags like they use around a pool when they close them , just pop a few pin holes in them every couple of inches ..


----------



## treevet (Oct 15, 2010)

Some new info and vids on the Resistograph. Looks very user friendly and less expensive than it used to be.

http://www.imldistribution.com/application-videos/


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 17, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Those the oaks on the corners of Canyon Hills and Lost? Three are dead. We have been doing that property for a few years. They just turned another section over to us. We took out one dead oak in the median on Canyon Hills near Railroad Canyon. I thik I have pics.
> Jeff



WOW, THAT SUCKS!!!!! 
when I left Gothic, they just had lost that to LDI. I put tons, TONS of work into that street scape right there! Actually won an award for best street scape in 03. Really bums me out that they didn't make it. The issue we constantly had up there was the reclaimed water system, the builder, Pardee, would not add filters to the pump house, we where always cleaning out the drip emitters and the pop up filters, they would get filled with little chunks of toilet paper (eewwww!) and clog the nozzles. So I was there, EVERYDAY for a year, checking those things, making adjustments on those DX timers. Reg Rhea was our tech, took a water sample and put it under the scope, nasty stuff, we always had fresh water and antibacterial soap with us, then would watch as the kids ran through the water playing and having fun, while their parent sat on the grass next to those purple signs I put in "Caution, non-potable, reclaimed water, do not consume"
MAN THAT REALLY BUGS ME, but that is for sure the same trees. When did you do it? Good ol CANYON HELL!!
glad you got the work though, and not Dean!
I have a sick feeling in my stomach right now, that really bums me, those WHERE great trees. I was like a Prison Warden there with my guys, wouldn't let them leave unless every emitter was checked.
I'm sure they died from lack of water.....right? I know Valley Crest did everything they could to get them in properly. Was a HUGE marketing project for Pardee, always,ALWAYS had the big wigs popping up on us.
Are they done building that out?


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 17, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Yup, here.
> Jeff



Wow, Looking at those kills me! It is obvious that they had problems, that street scape was filled with Ralph Eleftus (sp?) Pivets, Gazania and a bunch of other perennials and very little Mia Porum, again (sp)! 
That Mia Porum looks huge! 
Looks very different from when I had it. I'm guessing that the HOA took over, they prob didn't want to spend the money it took to take care of it, if I remember right we charged $17,000 a month to take care of that one, the park and Lost, then there was a third street, but I cannot remember the name. Up by the school
Did all those nasty Sycamores make it?
I will see if we have pics of it in 02/03.


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 17, 2010)

So Jeff answered my question, hard and fast! Guess the drip doesn't do too well. :censored:


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 17, 2010)

treevet said:


> Some new info and vids on the Resistograph. Looks very user friendly and less expensive than it used to be.
> 
> http://www.imldistribution.com/application-videos/



That will be very useful, what does something like that run?


----------



## treevet (Oct 17, 2010)

I have not looked into it yet but the owner called me and sent me a link but I saw an entry level price of $795 I think. He will call you right back or email you with info.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 17, 2010)

sgreanbeans said:


> Wow, Looking at those kills me! It is obvious that they had problems, that street scape was filled with Ralph Eleftus (sp?) Pivets, Gazania and a bunch of other perennials and very little Mia Porum, again (sp)!
> That Mia Porum looks huge!
> Looks very different from when I had it. I'm guessing that the HOA took over, they prob didn't want to spend the money it took to take care of it, if I remember right we charged $17,000 a month to take care of that one, the park and Lost, then there was a third street, but I cannot remember the name. Up by the school
> Did all those nasty Sycamores make it?
> I will see if we have pics of it in 02/03.



One by the school seems ok,but the othe three are dead (Canyon and Lost), It was about a month and a half ago we removed on in the median near Railroad. Landscapes USA has been there about three years. Yeah, the HOA took over. We will be removing the one's by the school on Lost during school break. They look to me like they were planted to deep or there was a grade change. They are still cabled. The sycamores on both sides of Canyon Hills are doing great. When I go there next, I will take some pic's. 
Jeff


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 18, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> One by the school seems ok,but the othe three are dead (Canyon and Lost), It was about a month and a half ago we removed on in the median near Railroad. Landscapes USA has been there about three years. Yeah, the HOA took over. We will be removing the one's by the school on Lost during school break. They look to me like they were planted to deep or there was a grade change. They are still cabled. The sycamores on both sides of Canyon Hills are doing great. When I go there next, I will take some pic's.
> Jeff



Railroad!, that's the other road!, couldn't remember. Cabled? I don't remember those? Syc's good! I'm glad something is left! The kids up there where horrible, running dirt bikes through all of the landscape, all the time! Always breaking branches.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> I have not looked into it yet but the owner called me and sent me a link but I saw an entry level price of $795 I think. He will call you right back or email you with info.



more like 3795, get the blue-tooth set-up and it is more like $7k


----------



## treevet (Oct 21, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> more like 3795, get the blue-tooth set-up and it is more like $7k



You are correct but there was a bargain basement unit I saw for $795. I am still interested at the high figure although not going into winter, maybe in spring.


----------



## treevet (Oct 21, 2010)

to prove my point.....

http://www.imldistribution.com/products/md-series/


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> to prove my point.....
> 
> http://www.imldistribution.com/products/md-series/



interesting, only the F series came up when I looked at IML's page earlier.

If someone gets the "cheap" one, let me know how well it works.


----------



## treevet (Oct 22, 2010)

I'll ask Otto about it and get back.


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 22, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> more like 3795, get the blue-tooth set-up and it is more like $7k



What's the deal with the Blue Tooth? 
4 grand! ill pass! 800 isnt bad, but 4G's! wow, I wonder what a cordless drill and real thin bits would do!


----------



## treevet (Oct 22, 2010)

sgreanbeans said:


> What's the deal with the Blue Tooth?
> 4 grand! ill pass! 800 isnt bad, but 4G's! wow, I wonder what a cordless drill and real thin bits would do!



Went to an entire Hazard Tree seminar with Ind. Arb Assoc. at Purdue U. and that is all that was used and you just judge by the quality of frass and resistance of the drill. Very little dif here other than you can vaguely tell HOW much resistance (how de lignified) the wood gived and it graphs it and can store it if you got the puter hooked up with the Resistograph.

That may be quite a bit tho in a court of law.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 23, 2010)

I've talked to some big RCA types who do regular expert witness work. They say that having the paper tape is invaluable with known hazard cases involving injury or death.

I have done a number of invasive exams with a very long fine bit 3/16 X 8 inch if i remember.

You really do not have to go in very deep, especially if you just want to examine for removal purposes. Do 4-6 bores in the area of question 4-6 inches deep will give you a good idea. I only do it if a thumping does not sound good, I am leary about breaking reaction wood boundaries.


----------



## brnchbrkr (Oct 24, 2010)

what about coreing?







Can coreing be used to determine the health of a tree?


http://cr.middlebury.edu/biology/treeline/educ_dialogue/virtual_tour/how/treeCoring.htm


----------



## treevet (Oct 26, 2010)

Here is an interesting article on Len's seminars I just read....

http://on-line-seminars.com/index.php?p=1_7_Organic-Certifications


----------



## treevet (Oct 27, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Good stuff!
> 
> It's interesting to note that much of this type of information was found in the publications of Rodale Press.......in the sixties and seventies! Tree care is but a small part of the philosophy.



handsome looking garden :agree2:


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 29, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> ! Tree care is but a small part of the philosophy.



I often say that arboriculture is a subdiscipline of horticulture, which is a sub of botany. For some reason many arbo's get riled when I say that they are restricted horticulturalists.

Speaking of gardens, does anyone know why my squash would have mostly male flowers the past few years? I get scores of flowers, but fives of fruit.


----------



## sgreanbeans (Oct 29, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I often say that arboriculture is a subdiscipline of horticulture, which is a sub of botany. For some reason many arbo's get riled when I say that they are restricted horticulturalists.
> 
> Speaking of gardens, does anyone know why my squash would have mostly male flowers the past few years? I get scores of flowers, but fives of fruit.



Not enough Bee's ?


----------



## treevet (Oct 29, 2010)

good hypothesis


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 29, 2010)

sgreanbeans said:


> Not enough Bee's ?



not enough female flowers, it's like a straight guy unwittingly walking into a gay bar "where's all the females?"


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Oct 29, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> I believe the flower ratio is about 10 to one.



m:f? sounds like what i have had for the last few years. Why did my Mom get so many zuch's back in the day?

Thanks for the ratio pointer, I was trying to think how to phrase the search forever. I just have to look for a different var. the pubs I looked at say that there is a wide variation between varietals. I only plant 8-10 plants at in a season, and have several different types.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 29, 2010)

sgreanbeans said:


> So Jeff answered my question, hard and fast! Guess the drip doesn't do too well. :censored:



Well, I will up there on Nov.12th to remove the oak on the northwest corner of Lost and Canyon Hills near the school. I will takes some close pic's of the dead oaks and you may know if they were like that in '03. We are removing them one at a time because of their budget. I will get some pic's of the sycamores so you can see how nice they have gotten.
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 29, 2010)

I think if you Google image Lake Elsinore and go to Canyon Hills and Lost, you will see they are dead.
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 29, 2010)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> ...
> Speaking of gardens, does anyone know why my squash would have mostly male flowers the past few years? I get scores of flowers, but fives of fruit.



I don't know much about squash except they are much better with butter and salt.

JPS, this might help you somewhat. I did a little digging, and got this info from http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/profiles/botsquas.html:

Flowering

Squash plants produce male flowers 3 to 4 days before producing female flowers. Usually three male flowers are formed for each female, but temperature and photoperiod can change this ratio. *Female flowers are open for only one day and only from dawn until 10 a.m.* Pollination is most successful before 9 a.m. It is important to ensure adequate pollen is deposited on female flowers. One strong hive of honeybees per acre is recommended for squash pollination. The number and weight of seeds and overall fruit shape and size is determined by the amount of pollen deposited on the stigma. *In summer squash, if pollination and fertilization are incomplete, the small fruits turn yellow, shrivel and fall off within a few days or are small and misshapen.* Squash pollen is large, and not easily moved by insects. The *native squash bee does the best job of pollination but is usually not available commercially*. Honeybees are too small to easily carry the heavy pollen sacs and generally are most active in late morning when many squash flowers have already closed. In addition, they may leave the fields for nearby crops or wild species.

Who would have thought that you need more muscular honeybees? Given the size of your garden, you might consider hand pollination. With a little study, I'll bet the female flowers are easy to identify, and all you will need to do is get up early and spread some pollen around!


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 29, 2010)

Damn, I'm good! A little more digging, and I found this production guide: http://vric.ucdavis.edu/pdf/fruitsetproblems.pdf

They recommend hand pollination when setting fruit is a problem! Be sure to download and save the reference above, because it includes pictures and tells you how to do it.

Apparently, you are not the first person to have way more flowers than fruit. Note that the male flowers come out before the female flowers, so trying too soon in the season might just be frustrating.


----------

