I am planting red spruce, but they are too tiny yet to evaluate from an
aesthetic perspective. They are quite hardy and tough, however.
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
914-478-5712
From: Bob <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:30:55 -0500
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: Honorary native tree--a possibility?: Norway spruce
Steve,
What is your opinion of white fir as an ornamental? Western Mass has
many. I find them attractive, but know nothing about their tolerance to
environmental factors or longevity. Thanks in advance. I'm thoroughly
enjoying this discussion of the merits of different spruces. Does anyone
plant red spruce as an ornamental or landscaping choice?
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Steve Galehouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob--
>
> The rankings are purely subjective and personal, and are based on 30+ years of
> offering for sale(Colorado and Norway), and actively selling(Serbian,
> Oriental, White) spruces:
>
> Serbian-By far the most "elegant" spruce, with a narrow habit and branches
> that initially descend, then become upswept, in a Dr. Seuss-ish sort of way.
>
> Oriental-The shortest needles of any spruce but at the same time lush, with a
> high gloss and a black-green color, which displays the lime-green new foliage
> to perfection.
>
> White-Grey green foliage, medium short needles, utterly unpretentious----but
> it reminds me of my cabin in central Ontario, where it is abundant along with
> white pine, red pine, jack pine, and hemlock. It is also the most forgiving
> spruce when planted in heavy clay, and an Ohio native from pollen records.
>
> Norway-Lush and vigorous in youth; tattered, somber almost funereal with age.
> But it still is the authentic Tannenbaum.
>
> Colorado-The green ones are fine, but the grafted blue cultivars are the
> Britney Spears of the plant world; all flash, no substance.
>
> Again, just personal opinions, I hope I didn't offend anyone.
>
> Steve
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM, <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> Including appearance, what are the main reasons for the ranking you gave?
>> Just curious.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Steve Galehouse" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> >
>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2010 6:14:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: Honorary native tree--a possibility?: Norway spruce
>>
>> Gaines, ENTS-
>>
>> I have to admit Norway spruce is not one of my favorite conifers---they don't
>> seem to grow old gracefully, and to me often look like a tattered flag in old
>> age. This is not an issue in a forest planting or windbreak, but I think that
>> is why Dirr sort of dissed it for ornamental plantings(combine this with
>> improper siting in a landscape, too near a building, and a plant that looks
>> lush and vigorous at 10 years looks entirely out of place 20 years later). As
>> far as big tree fans, it probably is the largest and fastest growing spruce
>> for the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest states, and when grown in an
>> ersatz natural setting it looks quite at home and attractive, but as a
>> specimen landscape plant, which I think is the direction Dirr was coming
>> from, it fails to develop character like an old white pine or eastern hemlock
>> or Austrian pine might, in my opinion.
>>
>> I do very much like Oriental spruce(from the Caucasus, not China), and also
>> Serbian spruce---when I owned and operated a garden center I liked to display
>> Serbian spruce adjacent to the Bosnian pine, but not many people "got it".
>>
>> Of the available tree-form spruce in the nursery trade, my order of ranking
>> of favorites from most to least would be: Serbian, Oriental, White, Norway,
>> Colorado. But that certainly doesn't represent their general popularity or
>> sales velocity. I've attached a photo of an Oriental spruce from my yard.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:31 PM, spruce <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
>>>
>>> ENTS:
>>>
>>> I just went into the species section of the website and looked up
>>> the Norway spruce stuff. I saw a few things I think I should follow
>>> up on. I thought this topic, being more recent would be the best place
>>> to do that.
>>>
>>> I have been on a kind of crusade to correct some misinformation
>>> about Norway spruce. There is a lot written in popular tree books
>>> that is flat wrong. I don't see much of that misinformation among
>>> ENTS members, and that is a joy to me. I won't go into a long
>>> catalogue of what has been said in books about what a lousy tree
>>> Norway spruce is, except to say that at one point I was so disgusted
>>> that I thought I had to do something--at least a little--to set the
>>> record straight. My target was Michael Dirr, who wrote the "Manual of
>>> Woody Landscape Plants," probably the most used reference guide of its
>>> sort today. I called, and in a very reasonable way quoted to him what
>>> he said about NS and explained why it was not fair. He readily
>>> agreed, and his subsequent edition, while not giving NS all the praise
>>> it might deserve, is now much more fair. A lot of books with mis-
>>> information are still out there, of course, and many of these are
>>> "set" and will not go through new editions. I should have done more,
>>> I guess, with a few others. AFA's "Knowing Your Trees" is another
>>> prime offender.
>>>
>>> Michael Dirr, and myself also, are big fans of Oriental spruce
>>> (Picea Orientalis).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I saw some reference to the reproduction of NS and some
>>> speculation about the lack thereof in some places. In many areas it
>>> reproduces readily, including on my timberland in Western MD. In some
>>> cases a lack or reproduction may have to do with the specific strain
>>> involved. But generally it reproduces in the cooler and wetter parts
>>> of the range where it is planted in the US. In one case I saw a
>>> virtual carpet of seedlings under an old stand of NS. I never see any
>>> reporduction here around Winchester.
>>>
>>> About "specific strains," etc. Norway spruce is just about the
>>> most variable species I am familiar with. Another species with a
>>> large degree of variability is red maple. Norway spruce has an
>>> extremely wide natural range. It intergrades with the so-called
>>> Siberian spruce, but some taxonomists consider the two to be one
>>> species. Many NS that have been planted in this country in the past
>>> have been from inappropriate seed sources, and thus have not grown
>>> very well, and hence some excuse for the bad press NS has had over the
>>> years. There is variation in the bark, needle length, degree of weep
>>> of the foliage, color, branching angles and "sweep," etc. etc. This
>>> variability is one of the really wonderful things about the species.
>>> If you plant a line of NS for a screen, each tree will be an
>>> individual and not look like all the others. Behind my house in
>>> Arlington, VA where I lived for a number of years, there was a line of
>>> NS. Anyone not really familiar with NS could look at that line and
>>> think there were four different kinds of trees planted there.
>>>
>>> But NS seedlings, even if grown from a very good seed source,
>>> include a high proportion of "runts." The stand near Glady, WV which I
>>> have talked about in some earlier posts is a good example. The
>>> dominant trees there are spectacular, but many of the trees that were
>>> growing with them are--or were--rather poor. When I got permission to
>>> do some study there and to cut down some trees, I couldn't bring
>>> myself to cut any of the beautiful dominants, but I cut a couple of
>>> smaller, slower growing ones and measured and counted rings. I say the
>>> trees I cut were "runts," but at the time they were about 95 feet
>>> tall.
>>>
>>> When was NS first planted? I discussed this a little in an earlier
>>> post. I have heard on what I think is good authority-- two sources--
>>> that it was planted during colonial times. I mentioned earlier trees
>>> that I thought were planted near 1835. The time these trees were
>>> planted is somewhat better than a guess. I have on a number of
>>> occasions done some research--talking to trees owners and learned
>>> about local history--and felt that there was some good evidence for
>>> those dates. I don't know of any ring counts of very old trees.
>>>
>>> I want to correct a bit what I said about the group of trees in
>>> Addison, PA. These are, I now remember, next to a craft shop run by
>>> the Augustine family. I talked to the owner a few years back--he was
>>> in his late 80's at the time--and he had letters in his family records
>>> that dated the planting of these trees to 1870. I said before that
>>> they were 130 years old--make that 140. These are worth a bit of a
>>> detour to see if you are in the area. I had believed all I read in
>>> books about NS trees until I saw these trees--what an eye opener that
>>> was for me. And being able to talk to Mr. Augustine before he died was
>>> a joy to me. These trees in Addison, PA will always be close to my
>>> heart. I have not seen them for about 7 years--I hope they are still
>>> OK. The neighbor downwind was at that time doing all she could to get
>>> them cut down as a hazard. I hope none have blown down.
>>>
>>> Somewhere someone expressed a concern about NS trees stability in
>>> wind. They are not especially prone to windthrow, contrary to some
>>> opinions. But they are not outstandingly windfirm either. I would
>>> rank them about average for conifers. I never see nay blown down
>>> inside a forest stand, but in the open they may be.
>>>
>>> Growth rates: I referenced a study on that done at SUNY Syracuse.
>>> I can summarize. On the best sites, after reaching a height of 4.5
>>> feet, on the better sites--generally class II soils, which are not
>>> uncommon--they will grow to about 112 feet tall after 50 years. This
>>> is comparable to white pine on similar sites. But at that point the
>>> growth rate of NS has not begun to diminish--the growth "curve" is
>>> still a flat ascending line. So they will maintain their fast growth
>>> rate for a longer period than white pine, but after 60 years or so it
>>> begins to decline. On my timberland, my trees are just a bit ahead of
>>> the growth curves established by the SUNY Syracuse study. For a period
>>> in their youth, white pine may grow a bit faster, but from 40 to 60
>>> years, my bet is with Norway spruce, at least if a good strain is
>>> involved.
>>>
>>> Really, which tree grows faster depends on the strain of each. I
>>> have seen good NS outstrip poor white pine very easily. So don't draw
>>> any overall conclusions based on one comparison.
>>>
>>> One more thing--this is important. I don't have any scientific
>>> documentation for this, but I believe NS is especially sensitive to
>>> some lawn weed control chemicals that work through activity in the
>>> soil. Roundup is fine. I wish I had more specific info, but I have
>>> seen NS decline or die in so many places after these chemicals were
>>> used, I would warn anyone who has any of these trees in their yard to
>>> be very, very careful. I have not only observed this problem--I think
>>> this is what I have observed (no proof)--but I was also told about the
>>> problem some years ago by a forester in MD who was working on their
>>> outstanding/champion trees program.
>>>
>>> Well, I hope I have remembered everything. If not, I will post
>>> again.
>>>
>>> --Gaines
>>>
>>
>
