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

[John Paul Sanborn]

I raised the bed using a soil developed by one of our local college horticulture departments but I had to raise the bed over the roots system of a young maple. I think the maple is like 13 years old, maybe 6-8" DBH and maybe 15' tall. I was sure not to cover the root flare or stem but I had to raise the bed about 12-14" over the root system.

I would say "it depends" if the since the soil is probably loose enough to facilitate gas exchange, I would expect that it is not a huge problem. Since it is perennials, you are not disturbing the soil on a regular basis either.

With gardens the problem is twofold, regular tilling for the soil destroys roots, and causes a permanent state of stress. Secondly: we create the environment were encircling roots will develop; thus becoming tomorrows girdling root. These are the only times I recommend a landscape fabric; to keep tree roots from infiltration the bedding soil.

Those roots need oxygen, which is one reason why they're so close to the surface.

A number of years a go, a college in one of The Carolinas did a tree well experiment with pines. they wanted to see the effectiveness of aeration pipes with significant grade changes. They found no difference between the test and control sites as far as health and gas exchange. Their assumption was that since they were careful to not run any equipment on the soil, so as to avoid compaction, that the compaction is the primary limiting factor in grade changes where drainage is not a factor.

 

[outofmytree]

Little 3' ring - sure pretty easy.

Most of the good landscapers here can maintain turf to within a foot of the trunk without any damage. But a ring a few feet radius or circumference would not be hard.

Would really look dorky in small yards. And the reason many homeowners don't want them, is that they reduce the amount of lawn to use.

In big landscapes, the circles can look pretty nice.

Below is a before and after of one landscape renovation. I revisited after 5 years, and the homeowner maintained the grass meticulously around the maple without damaging the bark. I think a circle would look rediculous - even a small square.

Thus - he as an amateur shows he can do it right.

If he sells the place, the next person can cut the tree ring out and mulch if they choose to.

There is about 2 weeks between these two images.

Nice looking job Mario.

On the other hand, if that was a runner grass planted in Australia the lawn mowing contractor would come looking for you with a blunt edger blade!

As a former "lawnie" I can tell you that tree on the verge has a life expectancy of under two years. Ring barking by brush cutter is a very common problem. Before I understood the benifit of mulch to trees I would convince my mowing clients to allow me to use the edger to create a small garden bed around the tree to avoid this. With 20/20 hindsight I was on the right track I just needed to add mulch and viola. On another note I have often wondered what a large violin has to do with an expression of accomplishment........

 

[S Mc]

Would really look dorky in small yards. And the reason many homeowners don't want them, is that they reduce the amount of lawn to use.

And yet your illustration here shows a small yard and a great deal of mulch. All the trees between the sidewalk and the house are in mulched areas with the grass separate. A good choice with easy maintenance. However, I don't see this little boulevard amounting to usable lawn for this homeowner. It just looks high maintenance to me.

Below is a before and after of one landscape renovation. I revisited after 5 years, and the homeowner maintained the grass meticulously around the maple without damaging the bark. I think a circle would look rediculous - even a small square.

Thus - he as an amateur shows he can do it right.

If he sells the place, the next person can cut the tree ring out and mulch if they choose to.

Most homeowners in our experience will not get down on their hands and knees and hand clip around the base of the tree, they use the weedeater. And unfortunately, the new owner will probably not go to the trouble of removing the grass and installing mulch, but will simply start the weedwacking attack.

IMHO, Mario, a design flaw in this plan. Better to have incorporated the tree within the geometric design of your squares without turf giving a better chance for long term survival of this tree.

Sylvia

 

[pdqdl]

i think the biggest advantage of mulch rings around trees is to keep them damn landscrapers from dinging them up with there mowers and weed wackers, make it out the the drip line and you will not only protect the trunk but the lower canopy also.

I agree. Absolutely the best reason to mulch a tree. But that is no reason to mulch a 50' diameter circle under a mature tree.

That is the basis of my posting: the tendency of so many here at AS to recommend large mulch rings for every tree health issue. It's not like trees don't benefit from the large mulch rings, and the elimination of competition. It is my claim, however, that the very large rings recommended by so many are a very minor benefit in most circumstances.

Sylvia: 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.

My goal is to be as well informed as I can on as many aspects of my trade as possible, and to share that information with my customers for a fee ($). I never claimed that my only focus in this world was to protect the best interests of trees to the exclusion of the lawn, the bushes, or the rest of the biosphere, for that matter.

Yes, the lawn monkeys often kill off the trees with their string trimmers. It really pisses me off when my guys do it. But that doesn't mean that I won't thin and raise a tree because the customer wants some better grass to sit on when they are relaxing in the shade of their tree.

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

 

[pdqdl]

NICE landscape Mario!

I agree with Sylvia, though. Even I (the self declared mulch ring detractor of ArboristSite) would have given that little tree a mulch ring. It looks great, but I would expect the lawn maintenance to end up getting the bark in the end.

 

[Brush Hog]

at alot of commercial sites i do tree work, there's mulch rings, there to protect the trees from idiot lawn maintenance worker's mowers and weedwackers.

I'm a so called idiot and proud of it . What about the lawn chemical companies spreading weed killer right next to the trees. Mulch rings would also protect them from that but those mulch volcanoes are just the opposite for a tree. A local nursery sells a mulch called forest blend. It's made up leaves,ground sticks and compost. That would be ideal around a tree I think not bright red ground up pallets.

 

[pdqdl]

Sylvia, I think you are a dedicated arborist, and you are certainly well informed. Sometimes however, I think you miss the point.

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.

Really? How does the term "arborist" suggest how we should think or "view" a certain topic? There are Certified Utility Arborists that spend their days evaluating which trees to hack out of the way of the utility lines, and there are Certified Arborists hired by their customers to argue with the Utility company. Just look at all the conflict on this site, where "arborists" are at each others throats constantly. I think many folks tune in to this site just to work out their aggressions.

Besides, if trees are NOT the apex predators of the plant kindom, what would be? The cactus?


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.

Huh? What part of my previous statement sounds like a favorable climate is a curse? I make my living from this climate. The purpose of my initial post was to point out to others on this site they (in my opinion) are treating trees like terribly fragile plants that cannot compete with grass.

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.)

Well...That is what the golf courses do. But that is torturing the grass to get a certain look. Not much different than the arborists trimming and thinning the trees to reduce windsail, or raise for roof clearance, or vertically mow for line clearance or...


Picture a forest...sparse, native grasses.

Picture a prairie, sparse, scattered trees.

Picture any of the above: no people, no maintenance, no customers. That doesn't match the reality of my world.

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.

Yep. That is what my customers pay me to do. It's their property, and their dollars.

"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?

What makes you think I don't do that already?

Trees will survive without the mulch ring. Thank you. That was my point. 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? Because my customers do not want and will not accept the silly look of giant mulch rings under a Mature tree. Not in K.C.

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.

Could you send me a reference? I suspect that this study has a bias in it's reporting. IF it was possible to compare mulched trees and non-mulched trees, exclusively to determine the rooting tendencies, doesn't the existence of that study indicate a bias? How could a study possibly compare the maintenance records of blown over trees.

Gee...property owner spends money mulching and caring for trees. That same property owner is probably irrigating the lawn at the same time, as well as adding fertilizer. Probable even aerates the lawn every now and then. Hmm... I wonder which tree will have the best roots. Tough call, eh? Let's see if we can get a Federal Grant to study the problem.

I have been to New Orleans several times, and have driven there each time. I never saw any mature trees mulched to the dripline unless it was part of a larger landscape, so I suspect that this study may not be reporting a case that matches my comments in the start of this thread.

Sylvia

You should also understand that my customers would probably have a fit if I planted a young tree and didn't mulch it. I'm not averse to mulch rings, I just get tired of hearing this "add mulch" thing as a lame solution to every tree problem.

 

[Bermie]

Whew, quite some back and forth, many valuable comments with sound reasoning to most of them!

I was going to mention Kew as well, they now mulch all the large trees if they can, out to the drip line, BUT Kew is a botanical garden and research institute, so they can afford to do it within the remit of what the place is for. I can agree that your typical HO wouldn't appreciate massive mulch rings.

It seems the overriding difference of opinion is how much grass can you get to grow under a tree and how little excessive work can you get away with doing to the tree in order for the grass to grow reasonably, and how little extra irrigation and fertilization do you have to do to the grass and not have a detrimental effect on the tree...I think.

Its the ongoing balance of a managed landscape, managing each part sufficiently without detrimentally affecting the other.

I do work on a large estate that has two very big ficus trees that are now surrounded by a high maintenance fine putting green lawn. The lawn is sparse under the trees, ficus are naturally dense, I've thinned them twice, removed large branches, they've added irrigation, plugged and sodded under the tree. The two are incompatible, but the HO doesn't get it, both I and the estate horticulturalist know that neither the lawn or the trees will ever be their best as long as the other exists!

The way out is compromise, plant tree species that tolerate grass under them, that have a structure and growth habit more compatible for light penetration for a lawn, allow a moderate mulch ring so the tree can get its organic matter....what you create, you must maintain...the landscapers credo (at least it was mine when I was a landscaper!)
And keep the mowers and weed whacker AWAY!!!

 

[moss]

One aspect not covered is that mulching around the tree is theoretically an attempt to provide something like the leafy and woody detritus normally found in forest habitat. It's known that urban and suburban trees with maintained and raked lawn right up to the trunk suffer chronic starvation, the human desire for "cleanliness" and an orderly yard puts the tree at a disadvantage. All I know is I hate seeing mulch volcanoes banked up over the root flare, the mulching strategy has gone haywire in current landscaping practices.
-moss

 

[Bigus Termitius]

Sylvia: 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.

Amen. Grasses and other plants have rights too!

 

[tree md]

Man, I can't tell you how many requests I get to remove trees so they can get grass growing in the yard every year but it's a bunch. The Sweet gum seems to be one of the most despised.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

IMHO, Mario, a design flaw in this plan. Better to have incorporated the tree within the geometric design of your squares without turf giving a better chance for long term survival of this tree.

Sylvia

Many neighborhoods are requiring sod in the strip.

Tree pre-existing.

Now here is something to consider for around trees - FAKE GRASS. For those who won't get on their hands and knees as you suggested. This back yard has no trees at all in the lawn. Other than pruning a few small trees in the pots and beds, I took this one just to show people what the artificial lawns look like.

Maybe this is what they should put in planter strips by the street around trees.

One bad thing fake grass may cause though, is it will get old at some point, and unless it can be recycled, will stuff landfills faster.

 

[treemandan]

Many neighborhoods are requiring sod in the strip.

Tree pre-existing.

Now here is something to consider for around trees - FAKE GRASS. For those who won't get on their hands and knees as you suggested. This back yard has no trees at all in the lawn. Other than pruning a few small trees in the pots and beds, I took this one just to show people what the artificial lawns look like.

Maybe this is what they should put in planter strips by the street around trees.

One bad thing fake grass may cause though, is it will get old at some point, and unless it can be recycled, will stuff landfills faster.

So where is the fake grass?

 

[M.D. Vaden]

So where is the fake grass?

You are being funny right

You're looking at it.

 

[S Mc]

I agree. Absolutely the best reason to mulch a tree. But that is no reason to mulch a 50' diameter circle under a mature tree.

That is the basis of my posting: the tendency of so many here at AS to recommend large mulch rings for every tree health issue. It's not like trees don't benefit from the large mulch rings, and the elimination of competition. It is my claim, however, that the very large rings recommended by so many are a very minor benefit in most circumstances.

You know, Pdqdl, we have asked several plant pathologists (you know those braineacs with the big degrees? as in PhDs) what would be the best thing you could do for a tree...the single, best thing to be done? The response: mulch rings. We ask every time we run into one of these people. You know what they don't say? Plant a lawn and then pour chemicals and fertilizers.

Sylvia: 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.

Whereas David would argue this point, I don't have a BS in anything. I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I have an abiding passion and love for our environment, for all living things and feel that our world is on the brink of disaster. Beyond that, I love trees. I love seeing well maintained and sustainable landscapes. It breaks my heart to see trees, shrubs, and flowers and, yes, turf, planted with little thought to long-term survival.

We have been sold a bill of goods from the chemical companies that we belong in a weed free, high-maintenance turfed environment.

My goal is to be as well informed as I can on as many aspects of my trade as possible, and to share that information with my customers for a fee ($). I never claimed that my only focus in this world was to protect the best interests of trees to the exclusion of the lawn, the bushes, or the rest of the biosphere, for that matter.

Yes, the lawn monkeys often kill off the trees with their string trimmers. It really pisses me off when my guys do it. But that doesn't mean that I won't thin and raise a tree because the customer wants some better grass to sit on when they are relaxing in the shade of their tree.

With your background and education I feel you have the inate ability to assist your clients in making it all work. You shouldn't view it as looking at one aspect, excluding all others. Working towards the best situation will make everything better.

What that solution is, as you should well know, will vary with every yard you walk into. Going in with only one plan will make most of them wrong. But with your studying ALL plants and animals of this world, you should already know that.

And I have to say, I would not retain employees who weedwacked client's trees. That would be prevented from the outset. If the trees were in lawn areas that the client was unwilling to have changed by even the smallest guard device or preventative ring, then those trees would be hand clipped, with the notation to the client that this required extra time and charge. If your employees damage personal property are they allowed to keep doing it? Why would you keep letting them damage the trees? If you had an employee who couldn't figure out the complexity of a high skill mower, would you let him or her keep operating it?

Sylvia

 

[M.D. Vaden]

You know, Pdqdl, we have asked several plant pathologists (you know those braineacs with the big degrees? as in PhDs) what would be the best thing you could do for a tree...the single, best thing to be done? The response: mulch rings. We ask every time we run into one of these people. You know what they don't say? Plant a lawn and then pour chemicals and fertilizers.

There is another way to look at this too.

One can approach the urban landscape as separating the best thing for the tree, from the best thing for the lawn. What some people don't know how to do, is provide the best for the TREE+LAWN combination.

It's handy to be able to provide solutions for trees alone, lawns alone, and trees plus lawns together.

If someone calls me and asks what's the best for a tree, answer is, I need to see that tree.

If a tree was removed on the west next door, the best thing is a shrub planted to shade the bark, or a screen during that summer. If the neighbors poured a RV pad next door slightly uphill, the best thing for that tree is a drain line or grade change to handle the water.

Handled that way, the best thing for the tree is at times antithesis to the sole solution of mulch-rings.

 

[pdqdl]

[parts deleted for brevity]

We have been sold a bill of goods from the chemical companies that we belong in a weed free, high-maintenance turfed environment. ....

Sylvia

The chemical companies have very little to do with it. They are only responding to a market that actively seeks better pesticides and fertilizers. Now if you mean the companies marketing the Lawn applications and their products...that's another story.

I have discovered that there is a large part of the population that fears "chemicals". Chemicals are BAD, and DANGEROUS, and they are NO GOOD for the environment.

In many cases, this is true. Particularly when they involve illegal dumping.

More often, people fear what they do not understand, and they do not fear what they are familiar with, regardless of the danger.

In support of this argument, allow me to submit: we all drive to work in vehicles powered by massively exothermic chemical reactions. Not many complain about the chemical hazard, but we have learned about the pollution and carbon problems associated with it. Many people won't get on an airplane, but they will not question getting in the car and racing down to the train station, a much more dangerous activity.

MOST of us wash our bodies, clothes and homes with a panoply of exotic chemicals, yet because we are accustomed to them from birth, no one seems to get too excited about the regular applications of toxic chemicals we dump on ourselves. Ever see what a single drop of shampoo does to an aquarium full of tropical fish? All that stuff goes to the sea, too.

Ever read a food label? TRY to find one that doesn't list several ingredients that you can't grow in your backyard.

Here's a good one for you: we surround ourselves with products that are the product of an entire branch of science called "Organic Chemistry", yet the number one marketing phrase that denounces the advances of chemistry is to call something "organic". All your plastics, all your pharmaceutical products, all the paints, and yes, all the pesticides and herbicides are the product of "Organic" chemistry.

In a thread not too long ago, herbicides to control noxious plants were being discussed, and any number of AS members volunteered that it was quite Ok to use salt, diesel fuel, or other "common" poisons. In fact, the damage caused by those product would be worse than by the product labeled for that application; unfortunately, they were quite comfortable with using SODIUM CHLORODE or Long chain aliphatic hydrocarbons to kill off those objectionable plants. This is just another case of people fearing the unfamiliar, and NOT fearing what we have become accustomed to.

Oops. Sorry Sylvia, I know that was almost an entirely different topic that I took off on, but I felt entitled, since you diverged into firing all lawn workers if they ever knocked the bark off a tree. And if you really think you can take one of the most illiterate, unskilled trades in the world and make them into efficient representatives of their employers best wishes for the customer...well you are much better at managing people than I am.

 

[S Mc]

Oops. Sorry Sylvia, I know that was almost an entirely different topic that I took off on, but I felt entitled, since you diverged into firing all lawn workers if they ever knocked the bark off a tree. And if you really think you can take one of the most illiterate, unskilled trades in the world and make them into efficient representatives of their employers best wishes for the customer...well you are much better at managing people than I am.

No need to apologize, pdqdl. Any time you want to slam chemical usage, I am right there with you. However, I'm not convinced that was your intent, but perhaps I am wrong.

If any worker refused to obey specific and detailed protocol of on site performance after sufficient training, I would indeed consider this grounds for termination of employment. This recourse would be taken only after discussion to be sure no misunderstanding existed that could not be rectified.

We often work at an arboretum where the volunteer assistants were allowed to weedeat around the trees. Once we came on board, we made it clear this was a policy that could not continue. It stopped immediately. I don't see the problem here.

But the general tone of your thread here, is why use "silly" mulch rings. As I have said, promoting the best environment for whatever species you are trying to grow, simply makes sense. You wouldn't plant a full shade plant out in the full sun and expect it to do well. If we plant KBG here in full shade, it will not thrive. In my Turf Management class the recommendations for best management of turf, stated over and over again, was proper selection of species for your particular site, cultural practices that enhanced the performance of that particular species to allow for least use of chemicals and fertilizers which would make for a stronger turf; one that would be able to assist in its own survival at the expense of weeds and competition.

If a client has a postage stamp yard, with a large shade tree, you aren't going to recommend a full sized mulch ring. If a client has a larger site, separation of turf and trees is a well-thought landscape design. This principle was emphasized over and over again in the Landscape Design classes I have taken.

"Lawn should not be used on the ground plane in shaded areas below tree canopies, on slopes over a 3:1 gradient, in small pieces here and there, or in long narrow spaces, such as along the side of the house near the property line. Lawn is difficult to grow and maintain in these instances." Residential Landscape Architecutre, Design Process for the Private Residence, Booth and Hiss. (Bold emphasis mine.)

Because these biologically sound and common sense design solutions are not adhered to more, gross amounts of chemicals are poured into the environment needlessly. "About 40 percent of all private lawns are treated with pesticides at a rate that is three to six times more per acre than that used by farmers." ibid

So, I personally find these sound principles worthy of consideration and try to impart this information to our clients just as we do when discussing proper pruning techniques. This all comes under the heading of PHC and BMPs.

Sylvia

 

[BC WetCoast]

Just to sidetrack the discussion slightly, I find it interesting that fruit orchards in the Okanagon valley plant grass under the fruit trees. I understand that the objectives of fruit trees are different than ornementals, but it would be logical that the orchardists should put mulch under their trees. Less maintenance and better for the trees?

Given all the research that goes into fruit tree production, why isn't this done? Or is it done and I'm just not aware of it.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Just to sidetrack the discussion slightly, I find it interesting that fruit orchards in the Okanagon valley plant grass under the fruit trees. I understand that the objectives of fruit trees are different than ornementals, but it would be logical that the orchardists should put mulch under their trees. Less maintenance and better for the trees?

Given all the research that goes into fruit tree production, why isn't this done? Or is it done and I'm just not aware of it.

My guess would be that the mulch is detrimental to maintenance.

Mulch grows weeds, and I can't imagine trying to hand-weed an orchard, unless someone wants to increase herbicide use.

With grass, it's pretty easy to just mow the grass, and weeds would not matter.

I suppose they could mow weeds in the mulch, but having run mowers over mulch before, it's rather messy when chips go flying in every direction.

That's a guess.