Kouta, ENTS-

If I recall correctly, Scots pine, a common associate of Norway spruce, has
the greatest range of any pine.  I think quaking aspen might be a contender
for greatest range also.

Steve

2010/1/10 Kouta Räsänen <[email protected]>

> Steve, ENTS,
>
> If Siberian spruce is considered a subspecies (P. abies subsp.
> obovata) of Norway spruce, it certainly have the greatest natural
> range of any spruce. If they are considered two species (P. abies and
> P. obovata), white spruce (P. glauca) may have greater range. Once I
> leafed a tree book in a book store; there was a question, which is the
> tree species with the greatest range in the world. The author supposed
> it could be white spruce, Siberian larch (L. sibirica) or Dahurian
> larch (L. gmelinii). I don't remember the name of the book; I think it
> was an American book translated to German.
>
> - Kouta
>
> On 10 tammi, 23:07, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Gaines, ENTS-
> >
> > Here are a few pics of Norway spruce in my area. They have probably the
> > greatest natural range of any spruce, so as has been mentioned there is a
> > great variety of growth habits. The photos show what I consider typical
> for
> > my area. The first shows mature trees in the landscape with what I
> consider
> > a tattered look, usually becoming around 70' tall. The second shows a
> > relatively young and vigorous tree(already running out of  room). The
> third
> > shows a very common mistake---the Norway spruce is only 3' off the corner
> of
> > the garage, and only about 15' from the Colorado spruce in the center.
> >
> > I think the reason I'm not as fond of Norways as most in the group appear
> to
> > be is due to their misuse in a landscape situation---there are so many
> other
> > species and/or varieties of conifers that do a better job in relatively
> > confined areas. When they are in a "forest" situation, combined with
> other
> > conifers and deciduous trees, or treated as specimen trees in large park
> > settings, they are perfectly acceptable.
> >
> > Steve
>

Reply via email to