I have the option to buy some trees at 35 a pop through the city I live in. I'm in the north dalls area. Which type of tree has the least maintenance?

Bur Oak
Bald Cypress
Shumard Red Oak
Live Oak
Chinquapin Oak
Chinese Pistache
Lace Bark Elm
Cedar Elm

Thanks in advance.

Go with the bur oak or the chinquapin oak. The elms are not bad, especially for some fall color.

I had heard that cypress are 'water-seekers' and would tear up water lines to get at the moisture (takes a while for the roots to get at 'em but it's expensive to fix).

Haven't heard much lately about elm disease so the elm would be a nice break from the oaks...

I would not spend 35 on a Chinese Pistache unless your soil has little or no susceptibility to Cotton Root Rot. That said I would definitely add it for fall color (and variety) if possible.

I have killed 3 or 4 in different areas of my yard, from Cotton Root Rot, before getting one to grow, which is now beautiful in the fall. The only way I can justify the expense is to buy the little seedling (5 to 10 bucks).

In my yard I have Live Oak-4, Monterey-2, Chinquapin-2, Burr-5, Red-2, Laceys-1, and Canbys-1 and a few more of the same down at the corral. I like them all, and you need variety. I think the Burr ends up being the most "majestic" and the liveoak the most trouble free in my area west of S.Antonio.

Also have 2-Cedar Elms, the one Chinese Pistache and a bunch of fruit trees. Forgot the Bald Cypress... took 3 of those to get to grow. The roots would swirl in a knot even though I dug the famous "square" hole. Finally one grew when I left it for dead about 15 years ago.

[This message has been edited by Allen76 (edited 1/21/2008 6:05p).]

[This message has been edited by Allen76 (edited 1/21/2008 6:07p).]

And that Burr Oak makes some HUGE acorns. Coolest acorn in TX.

The Bur and the Shumard will do the best.

Avoid the Elms. They can make a mess on cars. But if there are no cars under them, then they have beautiful globes.

But they are not as majestic as the oaks.

Good luck.

That list sounds like my yard:

2 Bur Oaks
2 Lacebark (Chinese) Elms
1 Cedar Elm
1 Chinese Pistache
1 Sweetgum
1 Globe Willow (planted for a temporary provacy block)

As far as maintenance, a tree that only costs $35 isn't going to be terribly big, and all young trees will require more frequent pruning than larger trees to acheive their proper canopy form.

This still isn't much work, at this point, I spend about an hour in the yard one day a year cutting off some lower branches.

The biggest issue is making sure you install the tree properly. One recommendation is to till the soil 12 inches deep in a circle with a diamter five times the diameter of the pot (assuming it's a containerized tree) and dig the actual planting hole at least twice the diameter of the pot in the center of the tilled area. By tilling that large of an area 12 inches deep, you provide more properly conditioned soil characteristics for the lateral roots to spread out away from the tree.

Also, if a containerized tree already has girdling (circling) roots, making vertical cuts spaced about every 12 inches around the circumference of the root ball will help to stop this situation.

Make sure to leave about 10% of the root ball above grade of the surrounding area, this allows for some settling of the soil over time, and ensures that the root flare is above grade where it needs to be, assuming it wasn't already buried after years of switching to larger containers at the nursery, if that is the case, then some surgery may be necessarry.

Taking the time to ensure proper installation will ensure quicker establishment and get you the results you are looking for.



[This message has been edited by Tree Hugger (edited 1/22/2008 8:07a).]

Don't forget to keep the grass away from the tree for at least 2 years! Our demo in the Panhandle (it proves right everywhere) showed double the growth when you kept water/nutrient sucking grass away from the tree for at least a 3 foot distance all around.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention the mulching of the entire tilled area when you are done.

and keep the mulch away form the trunk of the tree.

If you're in sandy/well drained soil they all will do well. If you're in heavy black gumbo, give up on all but the live oak and the elms. If you're in red clay, live oaks would be your best bet, along with maybe the read oak.

Red oaks need to be adapted for the area/soils IMO, and just getting one grown in East Texas usually isn't a recipe for success. Live oaks do well and are pretty adaptable. Chin oaks are good looking trees and grow pretty fast in good soil. I love cypress, but they do much better in well drained soils. The also look like scraggly christmas trees until they get larger.

Burr Oaks are beautiful trees and make gigantic acorns, but their leaves are the absolute worst thing to have in your yard from a maintenance standpoint. They also lose limbs once they get old - and we're talking limbs big enough to take out a concrete bunker. Cedar elms are the best as far as leaves are concerned - they put out the first in spring, usually turn colors in the fall and are among the last to lose their leaves. It also is a tiny leaf that you won't have to rake.

Or you could let these experts help:

http://texastreeplanting.tamu.edu/CustomSelector.aspx

Knut -

$35.00 a pop is pretty cheap & it's already been mentioned that the tree you get is going to be small, probably 1" caliper or less.

Tree Hugger & B-1 have given you all the advice you need for planting.

The only thing I can add would be to avoid temptation & don't plant the trees too close together or near the house, especially with the bigger oak or cypress trees.

I'd say at a minimum space the trees 30' apart & at least 15' from the house. Any closer & they are going to be crowding each other & cause problems with the house.

If it was me, I'd splurge on a couple of bigger trees (45 gallon) and buy less of them. You can get some pretty good deals from Home Depot & they warranty their stuff.

Go with the Bur Oak for rapid growth, but be prepared to rake leaves in perpetuity. The acorns make great slingshot ammo.

Thanks for all the help. Here's where I'm getting them from if anyone was curious.

http://www.cityofallen.org/commservices/kab_trees.htm

quote:

---

I'd splurge on a couple of bigger trees (45 gallon) and buy less of them.

---

Actually, smaller trees will have a shorter establishment period and will put on more growth than a larger tree. I've cross sections of comparative analyses and over a five-year period, a 1" tree will actually outgrow and overtake a 3-4" tree

Tree Hugger is correct ...

All of my trees were planted from tiny seedlings. Some of my relatives told me that I would not live to see the live oaks get beautiful. Planted in 1990, I have some that are 15" Dia, although not really majestic yet, they are pretty darn big in 17 years.

quote:

---

over a five-year period, a 1" tree will actually outgrow and overtake a 3-4" tree

---

Woah! I knew that this was the case with B&B trees, but I had no idea a 1" could overtake a 3-4" so quickly.

Is your data available on-line? Or could I beg you to e-mail a copy to me? I'd love to see it.

Actually, Apache, I tend to agree. I have no data to back it up, but it seems that my smaller trees caught up with the big ones. Perhaps the larger ones go through more transplant shock.

Why would a container grown tree go through so much shock if properly cared for after installation?

Edit to clarify: I'm not doubting Tree Hugger that it occurs, I just like to know why!

I'm also curious if the 'catch-up' rate is as fast in places like Austin where the soil is pretty poor.

[This message has been edited by Apache (edited 1/25/2008 8:25a).]

Probably takes a larger tree a lot of effort to re-grow its root system to a proper size for the size of the tree. The root ball on a larger planter tree is nowhere near the size that the root system would be if it were in the ground. There's where your catch up factor goes, probably. A smaller tree is easier to get most of the root system planted intact, and it can absorb more from the get go instead of having to re-grow roots.

Sounds like a good explanation anyways....

I figured the root ball size in containers is proportional to the corresponding tree size, so all the various container grown trees would be on a pretty much level playing field when starting out. Dunno.

I'm certainly not going to stop suggesting customers buy larger trees, though.

Considering most people move in around 5 years, they want that instant gratification anyway.

As a ISA Certified Master Arborist go with the Bur Oak. It is part of the White oak family and is not that susceptible to oak wilt. Also it is one of the fastest growing oaks as well. It also is drought resistant and the wood is high quality. Elms have a history of not doing to well in Texas but if you must plant one the American and Cedar Elms do ok for awhile.

quote:

---

Elms have a history of not doing to well in Texas but if you must plant one the American and Cedar Elms do ok for awhile.

---

Where are you getting that from? American and Cedar Elms are both native to Texas. American Elms are a common component of bottomland hardwood areas and Cedar Elms grow like weeds all over the Blackland Prairies and the hill country.

quote:

---

Why would a container grown tree go through so much shock if properly cared for after installation?

---

It's all about the root growth. Even if a container grown tree has been properly cared for, it's root system is notably smaller than it would have been if already in the ground and it taked larger trees longer to re-establish a critical root zone before moving on to canopy growth. Two bur oaks I planted in my front yard are starting to make me believe this theory. One was a 50-gallon tree, probably 2.5-3" inches diameter at base, the other was a barely 1" wally-world special I paid $8 for.

The wally-world special has developed a more well rounded canopy and is almost 3" diameter at base, while the larger tree has added about an inch of diameter, but still has a weak canopy, and for some reason the leaves have always been a bit undersize. It put out three acorns the first year, about 50 last year, and only about a dozen this year.

This June will mark 4 years those trees have been in the ground, they were planted the same day.

As far as the cross sections I saw, it was at a tree care class in College Station, taught by Dr. Todd Watson, and he had pictures in his presentation.

Cedar elms do have some issues with disease and they don't live for hundreds of years like an oak, but they are still pretty good and your best bet in poor drained heavy black soil. I will agree that the other kinds of elms (lacewing, water, etc.) are junk trees.

I also don't have any data other than observation, but I will agree wholeheartedly that a smaller 1" tree will pass up a larger tree in a matter of years and continue to grow faster and be more healthy.

I have a neighbor who planted large (about 8" caliper) liveoaks at the same time I planted seedlings in 1990. (Both of our houses were new with no trees at all around them.)

His trees had beautiful trunks but noticeable weak canopies for at least 6 years. Now his and mine look about the same. Many of my trees were free, planted from acorns, but the ones I bought were the smallest available at the nurseries.

In 1999, my 6 year old son and I each pulled a cedar elm seedling (about 4" tall) out of hill country limestone and transplanted them into our yard. I carefully dug mine out to keep the root ball intact. He, being 6, yanked his out, leaving one tiny whisker of a root. I made fun of his tree with its one little root. Today, both trees are about 10" caliper and 14 ft tall. He still reminds me of his horticultural skills.

Dr. Watson told us during the class, that if he had his way, every tree he planted would come from no larger than a one-gallon container.

Cool. I didn't realize that the catch-up would be that fast.