why do you need the maple under the tulip tree???

its never going to be vigorous under the former ..

why not move it in the appropriate season???

ken

Thanks Ken, you make good points. It's a volunteer that was there when we moved in 14 years ago. I think it's too big to transplant without really tearing up the creek bank, so it's either ignore, prune, or cut. I like the natural woodland look, and my thinking was to have another tree in place in case the tulip tree ever has to come down (I hope that doesn't happen).

Way cool house, bird feeder, yard & surroundings. I love it.

That's a large "V" on your maple. I'd saw the side growing toward the tulip poplar off. You'll feel better after doing so. :-)

Dax

at 14 years old.. it should be near 40 feet tall ..

please refer to the picture.. and understand.. the the creek bed is irrelevant ... that is about a 2 foot wide root mass ...

not sure when your proper planting time would be ...

ken

this happens to be a cherry in april ... in MI
{{gwi:325678}}

OK, I've decided what I might do. As Ken pointed out, the tree is small for its age. That means it'll be a long time before there's a problem. I'll keep that V for now because I like the way it fills the space around it, but I'll use a rope to pull the branch around to the other side of the big tree and train it away from pointing at the house. That spicebush canopy will camouflage the line nicely. Maybe it seems like too much trouble, but I can have a tree with some structure rather than a typical shade-grown pole. And maybe after a year or so I'll just go ahead and follow gardener365's advice, and lop it off after all ;-)

"I hope folks don't tell me to cut them down, but I'm still learning. ;-)"

I would rarely destroy anything green but I'm afraid I can see no purpose to that maple. It will never thrive under the tulip tree and to me it just messes up the clean lines of the Liriodendron's trunk. I don't think trying to train the maple will work. It's starved of light and will reach for it whatever you do to force it in another direction. I'm not sure it's even worth moving since it is ill-shapen. If it is 14 years old it is very runty and I honestly think it needs to go. A new healthy one in another spot would reach that size in a couple of years.

On the other hand if you like the bosky look just leave it be and see what nature decides.

Acer, that little tree, being an Acer, is shade tolerant. It is somewhat redundant as others have pointed out. Whether you leave it or get rid of it is entirely up to you. But I'd like to address the fact that, if you do keep the tree, whether there or transplanted somewhere else, there is an alternative to whole branch removal, and that is "subordination pruning". By heading that errant branch back to an outward-facing branchlet, it will be slowed down (In growth) and a branch collar will form where there probably is none now, it being essentially a co-dominant leader. Once this branch collar forms, it will be more able to close the wound should you elect to remove it in total later. And should you elect not to remove it, it will have begun to behave more as a branch rather than a competing leader.

+oM

Wisconsitom, your answer is intriguing and I like the idea of a compromise that I can change later if needed. I'll definitely look into subordination pruning. Never heard of it before but I'm sure glad to now. :-D

Thanks acer. It is a technique which I bring up often on this board. I work for a forestry department, among other things, and this is standard procedure in our world for getting our thousands of young street trees off to a good structural start.

There's a guy named Ed Gilman from U. of Florida that has written extensively on the topic. Good place to look.

+oM

Can you take a picture of the y up close so we can see if there is a branch collar or not (if you can't identify it)?

Personally I'd prune it right now and transplant it late spring (not sure the exact date for your area).

Don't think about it, just do it!lol! Its going to grow much too quick, with plenty of caliper and then it will be too late and you'll be cutting it at ground level.

A red maple under a tulip tree makes zero sense due to growth rates.

If you need something to fill that space there are smaller growing trees/larger growing shrubs that will be a much better choice.

I hear you. A little voice in the back of my head says I should just cut it, but... I like the fall color, and it makes a nice handhold when we check on the spring overflow pipe that comes out right there. I think my husband would go ahead and whack it. For me it's the same old story: "But, I see trees in the woods that are closer than this, and they seem fine..." I'll probably try the pruning and decide from there. I don't think I'd bother transplanting, because red maples are common as dirt around here.
Here's a closeup of the V:

...And from the other side. The picture is so overexposed because I had to really turn up the brightness to make the dark areas visible.:

A trunk like that on a red maple will split eventually -- look how far down the bark-inclusion (stress-point) goes. It might be 60 yrs tho.

these last pics.. are the same tree as the first pic ...

unsalvageable.. IMHO ....

and of no aesthetic purpose where it is..

cut it to the ground.. and apply roundup or stump killer on the trunk.. and be done with it ...

its too big to move ... the crotch is totally ruined... and cutting one.. will not help ...

or cut at height.. and make a new bird feeder ... still kil the stump ...

good luck

ken

ps: who is totally baffled between the size differences in the first and last pics ...

If you like the fall color and find it a useful handhold in the spring, why not leave it alone? It is your tree on your beautiful slice of heaven and is both functional and aesthetic. If you want to leave it as is, DO IT! :) You have stated you are not growing a specimen tree and I think some people on here are stuck in perfect tree form lala land arguing for removal or pruning. It is what it is where it is and as such, will not undergo heavy snow load or winds where it is situated. Might last 20 - ? more years just fine where it is. No way that tulip poplar is gonna give away its dominance to that puny thing. Now if the tulip tree ever comes down for whatever reason, THEN you don't want this tree as a replacement tall tree with this form. I don't see how planting a small shade tolerant tree (like a dogwood) in its place will remedy this particular situation, though.

Plus it has the "natural forest" look, which to me is the most attractive setting.

John

Thanks, everyone, for your helpful responses. I've posted on Gardenweb many times over the years but this has been the best thread yet.
PS- The size difference in the first and last photos is because the last is a closeup of the first. After looking twice, I agree that it was sort of confusing. That "stump" in the last photo is the top of a post that used to support a handrail for a bridge over the creek.
Shannon

Jon, there is a delicate balance between a runt and character. I'm ready to set-up a tee and kick a field goal!

My whole point is that you have a moderate growing full size tree growing there. Don't quite understand the point of leaving it there.

It is not a moderate growing full size tree where it is situated. Some sites, acer rubrum can go 3'+/year. Not here. It is over 14 years old and about the same caliper as 5-6 year old October Glory. The OP likes the fall color and actually uses it functionally as a brace yearly.

Whaas, you have planted around 1000+ (2000+, 3000+?) plants in the last 5-8 years or so. During this process you have first selected the finest formed specimens you possibly could. The ones out of your control you have manipulated to fit your version of perfect. You have absolutely beautiful yards/gardens in part due to this! However, this is a more natural setting than anything you have planted (that I have seen. Possibly better phrased as "a more mature setting") and looks absolutely beautiful to me. Beauty eye of the beholder yadda yadda... it matters not a bit what either of us thinks about the situation, only the OP. I was trying to provide another perspective for Shannon to think about.

If it were me, I would indeed leave it alone and possibly plant some shrubs around it by the creek.

John

You bet, I hear ya. I just don't like trees throwing up the peace sign.

I'd rather see a small variegated dogwood or a golden Acer shirasawanum. That will give you more texture and color. Not to mention the fall color you love.

Plus you mention that Acer rubrum (a somewhat blah tree in general) is as common as dirt around there.

The more I think about...cut it down, cut it down!lol!

I continue not to mind if OP leaves the tree in place...or does not. But a finer example of a V crotch with attendant included bark between two codominant stems would be hard to find. And a great job of capturing this in the photo!

+oM

To me, it looks kind of nice - If you were worried about it, I would probably cut it down, and replace it with a mountain maple (Acer spicatum) or even striped maple (A. pensylvanicum). To me, it nicely offsets the Liriodendron. Just a few thoughts, do whatever makes you happy!

{{gwi:411677}}

, I'm out!

>But a finer example of a V crotch with attendant included bark between two
>codominant stems would be hard to find.

I thought the ridge of bark i the middle of the crotch indicated no included bark. Is that incorrect?

Here is a link that might be useful:

I see what you mean there, Alexander. May be right. I still would never consider such a union as "strong" though. Maybe stronger than the worst-case, but far from ideal, of course. There's such a line of cleavage extending down below the actual union area. Such a small tree though-not a big deal either way!

+oM