Acer, as far as I've noticed, we have but one confirmed maple hater on this board! And he's made it clear it is the difficulty in gardening underneath these trees that sour him to the genus. I think your second to last paragraph may explain some of the ambivalence that some feel towards the tribe. FWIW, I live in the very heart of maple country. Things would simply not be the same around here if something, like say, Asian longhorned beetle, came through and killed off all these maples.

So yeah, probably somewhat taken for granted, probably somewhat disliked for the way they so thoroughly colonize a site, making it hard to grow anything underneath them, but great and important trees all the same.

+oM

Tom, you always have the most sensible answers. I'm becoming a fan. You and I could be twins when it comes to the defense of larger trees in the landscape, and how they actually take up less space. I've been trying to convince people of that for a while now.

I heard some people say they hated them for the same reason: That they form colonies and don't allow room for the other trees needed by wildlife, especially after the demise of the American chestnut. Perhaps that is so, but I'm hard pressed to find a better yard tree unless you have time to grow a white oak.

I should have asked that guy why he thought the Chinese pistache was better than a red maple. Still scratching my head...

Maples are great! I have at least 4 species in my yard. But I agree they have some issues. I would never plant silver close to something I care about. And I have a distaste for boxelder - the bugs, the half broken-off forms, weedy appearance... but if you live in some place like Manitoba, then I would guess you would like your only common maple type... ('Manitoba maple').
I would say they often tend to get overplanted too... many streets around here (MN) are 'ash, maple, ash, maple, basswood'. Soon to be 'gap, maple, gap, maple, basswood'

Acer is by far my favorite genius. It doesn't have to be limited to the typical larger growing natives either.

Acer takes up the majority of my deciduous plants. The only other genius that out numbers Acer is Picea.

For anyone to just plainly hate Acer as a genius in my book is an idiot. You can hate certain species but the buck stops there.

At the end of the day Acer is the god of fall color and offers such intricate beauty in it's leaf shapes and color.

In my opinion, of course, the Acer genus is absolutely gorgeous. I for one love the fall and the color it brings. I live near river bluffs and can spot the maples up there by the contrast with the sycamores and oaks. That being said I do feel sometimes that maples are over planted. The local park has nothing but red maples, which in the fall is pretty, but doesn't offer the variety of color that could be had by "changing things up a bit".

What bugs me is that people will dog maples for their very few problems and then plant things that are known to be invasive or that don't even belong in their zone/area. I love oaks but I myself have reasons why I won't plant more than one in my yard. The twigs and acorns that they drop, they attract squirrels, that people will then complain about. Bottom line is plant what makes you happy acer.

There is no "perfect" tree

Well thanks Acer! We fight the good fight. It occurred to me that many of us are living in both the time and the place where in forests, it just so happens that many other genera-Fraxinus, Quercus, etc. are having issues. Meanwhile, maples are rapidly filling in the gaps. In Wisconsin, there could probably not be a more common site than a patch of woods being absolutely filled in by sugar maple regeneration. So maybe this upsets some people who wish the declining species would still dominate these stands. I don't know.....just thinking in writing.

Just a tad off-topic, but for me, there is no finer forest than a "hardwood stand" which here in the Lakes States means a stand dominated by sugar maple but with large components of beech, yellow birch, hemlock, white pine, etc. In our Door County forests, which are among the best, these species are also accompanied by white ash and red pine! The latter is a surpriser in some ways, but there they are, all growing alongside each other. Quite stricking to say the least.

+oM

Acer is here to stay in yards across America.

I think many folks just planted silver maples in silly places a few decades back and now are regretting it.

There are so many easy to find cultivars of every shape I sometimes have to remember to look elsewhere. Think I have seven on my property.

I like maples. As someone mentioned, there is no perfect tree (consider gripes about the Pin Oak - huge size, downward dropping branches & chlorosis). Of the 'big 3' U.S. native maples:

1.) Silver Maple - fast growing is good but weak wooded & prone to breakage, poor fall color, sometimes shallow roots emerge making lawn-mowing a hassle & damaging side-walks, etc..., or so it's my understanding.

2.) Sugar Maple - said to be good in rural & suburban locations but not 'downtown' urban areas; I assume due to pollution or some such.

3.) Red Maple - thin barked & vulnerable to injury as a young tree, and there's a time in the year when the leaves are toxic to horses for whatever reason.

If you are planting near a septic tank/field, maples' shallow but dense fibrous root system can present problems.

And yes, if the plant offerings at some big box stores in recent years are any indication, our future landscape may have a lot of red maple cultivars (look'in at you, October Glory) and red/silver hybrids.

Richard.

I grew up in a neighborhood that has had a plethora of silver (sacharinum), red (rubrum), norway (platanoides) and japanese (palmatum) maples. Over the years, the silvers have declined in great numbers, mainly because they outlived their usefulness and were removed. Reds are still significant but some have dissappeared due to decline or decreased usefulness. Same true for norways. Most japanese are still around. Sugars (sacharum) were rare; few were planted and those that were often suffered decline.

The house where I grew up had two silvers and a red. My parents long ago grew tired of the shade (my mom's a sun worshiper), upkeep (leaf removal) and debris (downed branches) particularly from the silvers. They've now had them all removed. I miss the red... but not really the silvers, other than the shade they provided.

Anyway, I'd plant red, sugar, or japanese in a heartbeat... but no maple survives happily in NE NV so unfortunately I won't be doing that as long as I live there.

Ken must be on vacation, :-)

Count me in as another Acer lover.

No problems with maples in NJ, the Red is the state tree. I have LOTS of exotics and tropicals, but in the front are three maple sentinels--Sugar, Red, and Japanese. They fit right in.

Psst... its red OAK that's NJ's state tree :P

Acer, as far as I've noticed, we have but one confirmed maple hater on this board!

==>> yep .. thats me ...

and if you venture into the hosta forum.. you will find a couple hundred more ...

maples.. are park trees ... i am a shade gardener ... if i were to have my collection of 1600 hosta.. under a mature maple.. within about 5 years .... i would probably have about 20 of the hardcore hosta left ... and very few of the other companion plants ...

the dense.. fibrous surface roots are IMPOSSIBLE to garden under... they can and will.. out-compete ANYTHING planted under them ... including .. as you note.. the most invasive weed on the face of the earth .... grass .. when we get to talking about the norway .. and that is prof positive.. of a super competitor ...

and in my experience .... of SHADE GARDENING ... this includes ALL acer ...

if all you want in your yard.. is a tree.. and some grass ... there is nothing wrong with acer ...

its as you know.. all about priority of options ... and my priority is to not plant a super competitor ... so when peeps come here.. and ask about what to plant.. i do exaggerate to make a point.. and usually simply end up asking them .. to be sure .. that they have no gumption to ever do anything under the tree other than grow grass ...

and below.. is why you cant grow things under silver maple ... nor most maples ....

ken
{{gwi:234645}}

{{gwi:208954}}

I grow all sorts of plants under and around maples. Japanese Maples. Same with the Vine Maple, Acer circinatum.
It's a stretch to put all maples in the same basket just because the majority fit.
The argument can be made that it always rains here in Seattle so we can grow everything. Wrong on both counts. We have dry summers. Currently it hasn't rained in 29 days.
Here's my driveway in the Fall. The house is just around the corner. These Japanese palmatums were started from seed.
Mike
{{gwi:411825}}

I've happily gardened with multiple species of shrubs including hosta under a 15-20 year old silver maple. I had a clay loam.

My employer has 15-20 year old hosta and viburnum under a 40 year old norway. Again, clay loam.

I would post pictures but I don't want anyone's head to explode.

Well... in Ken's defense, if something is established under the maple much earlier in the tree's life, it probably does better than trying to establish something new when the maple is 60+.

We have 7 species of maple (think we will lose one of them), and multiple cultivars of 3 of them. It's hard to beat the diversity the genus offers, along with the other above noted traits. However, a yard/landscape of only maples is not desirable as well. Due to this we also have crabapples, dogwood, Oak, redbud, ginkgo, among other plants in our yard. My S.O. has made the statement "something other than a maple" when looking at trees for the the yard. For that reason, if we end up replacing anything, it likely will be non-maple.

As for surface roots, IMHO that has a great deal to do with soil as well. Soil such as Ken's will drain VERY fast, and whatever water there is will be at the top organic rich layer. Hence that is where the roots will be. But in deeply aerated moisture holding soils, there are much less shallow roots. Exception is that Silver's still have a strong tendency to have surface roots.

JMO,
Arktrees

Another maple lover here. They can be anything BUT common. Large, small, plain, fancy. I collect those not common in the nursery trade. I dunno how many I have, but there's always room for more.

Uh.... not the biggest maple fan here.
Actually hate norway maples, don't like red maples and only like japanese maples in other people's yards.
Love sugar maples though, and like silver maples if they have enough room to grow and die gracefully without crushing anything irreplaceable on the way down. All the other maples fall somewhere in between, I'm sure there are plenty of nice ones, but imo there are enough other nicer plants to get to first.

It's the roots I hate, and the smothering blanket of death that norway maples put down every fall. The red maples along the edge of my property suck the life out of the side yard. I'll have to pickaxe out a ton of roots before I can plant anything more interesting than the grass and mulch that's there now.

Red maple plantings bore me. Tree after tree of the same cultivars.... zzzzzzzzzzz. Please someone plant a couple seedlings or colorful saplings pulled up from from the side of the road. Give me a little diversity.

While I certainly do not hate maples, I do think that in the main, Ken is right-it's very difficult to grow herbaceous plants, or much of anything else, under a full-grown maple. In my own example, I up until recently had the largest silver maple in this city full of maples, in my back yard. Hostas planted along a nearby fence looked good-the first day they were planted! Thereafter, it was an inexorable decline, each year getting not bigger but a little smaller. A brother in law who is a serious hosta man reported identical results. Should one think that modifying the soil where these plants were to be installed was the answer, it seemed to take about one week for the maple's roots to fully colonize these pockets of nice, amended soil.

So no, I don't hate maples at all. They're one of the most important groups of trees there is. But it is undeniable to me that gardening underneath big ones is fraught with difficulty.

+oM

I grew up with a silver maple in the front yard, which didn't have much grass to play with under it.

Now the house I have has a 70? year old sugar maple, plus of similar age a green Norway maple, and three purple Norway maples, plus a young Japanese maple. I don't hate them, and only one of the Norways is low enough that grass doesn't grow under it. They look nice, and provide nice shade without too many seedlings, so I can't complain about them. I also have a mature green ash, hemlock, and Norway spruce.

But I'd prefer to have some variety, so I've also planted oaks, ginkgos, tulip poplar, sycamore, dogwood, hawthorn, buckeye, apples, pears, plum, and cherry. I'd love to have just a bit more room for an elm, a chestnut (if I could find one), and other native but not common trees.

But my gripe about maples is that they are so common, and the big box stores and independent nurseries as well. It's hard to find oaks, hickories and many other trees that would be good substitutes.

vince

Some folks really need to get around Norway, Silver and Red. Sure they are dominating but just a drop in the bucket.

Doesn't help that folks beat the hell out of surface roots of silver maples.

Here is a link that might be useful: Get out the box

The fairly mature Red maple on this property provided virtually no shade, it was tall and skinny. After lightning did it in it had to go. It had lots of shallow roots too. I wanted to shade garden and heard the opinions of oaks having "deep roots". Once I started with oaks and noticed they get wide and give lots of shade, and some grow fast, I planted every oak type I could find. I planted 2 Silver maples to add to the line of Silvers the neighbors planted years ago. One grew super slow and one grew super fast. The bigger one had an area leaking sap about half way up the trunk and after inspecting it I was able to break the tree in half with not much effort. I cut it down to the ground and pulled up the other small one. I replaced them with a Swamp Chestnut oak and a Willow oak. The neighbors line of 4 Silvr maples looks good and healthy and provides alot of shade, but I won't be planting any more. The seeds are a pain in the butt, making babies under other trees, but my Chestnut oak does that too. I do still have what Dax IDed as Sycamore maple. It is smaller than those I've seen before, maybe it was grafted to dwarf it, because it won't get any taller. It is a pretty nice small tree, but no fall color.

I just wanted to add a bit of side info that has not been brought up so far. Another reason Maples are so common in the landscape planting is due to their relative ease of transplant. Of the top of my head, I can't think of a single maple species considered "difficult to transplant", but I can think of many Oaks that are considered difficult. Most Oaks that are considered easily transplanted are very common. There are LOTS of Pin Oaks everywhere. Similar story with Northern Red Oak, Willow Oak, Shummard Oak etc. HOWEVER, this seems to be changing for the better. Locally I saw 2.5" Caliper B&B White Oak Q. alba that looked fantastic. 18 months ago I bought and had planted a 2" caliper Scarlet Oak Q. coccinea B&B that has done fantastic. The local city is also planting lots of these as well. These are both species that have been considered difficult to transplant, but that has obviously be overcome. Same thing is happening for other species as well. I saw B&B Sassafras this spring, a tree considered near impossible to transplant, but one that otherwise should be planted ALLOT more, as it has sooooo many fantastic qualities. Fast growth, drought resistance, tolerance for crappy soil, no real disease problems I'm aware of, interesting bark, a medium to large tree, fairly storm resistant, and fall color that can not be beat even by maples. I picked one up for a friend this pasted weekend.

Arktrees

I am an avid maple fan - Sugar maple is probably the nicest shade tree, in my opinion. There's nothing like the dense shade cast by a mature sugar maple! Also, I do a little bit of maple syrup - Can't compare with the fake, store-bought stuff! I also like the smaller tree maples and shrub maples, such as Striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum) and Mountain maple (A. spicatum). I don't mind seedling-grown red maples - They're pretty common in floodplain forests around here. I don't particularly care for silver maple, but it looks alright in floodplain woods.

Sassafras can become a bit of a pain if it sends up root sprouts everywhere. I think it's probably best reserved for forest openings and hedgerows. It is a good wildlife tree, though!

Maples can be overplanted & people get "tired" of them. Many are simple lollypops when young. Older ones usually develop good & interesting forms, but it may take a long time. Red maples are "invasive" in oak forests & can be viewed as a weed-tree there -- short-lived & prone to damage & decay.

Still, my Sugar maples are handsome & durable. One of the most handsome yard trees near here is a Silver maple w/spreading, graceful, drooping then upturned branch-ends. Chalk maple makes a beautiful, relatively small maple w/striking whitish bark & emerald-green leaves. Some of the exotic maples make excellent trees too -- from some of the posters here even in hot Texas!

Cuz people are simple minded morons.

After a few springs in a local nursery "selling" trees, ie, answering questions people had about the differences between different types, I can tell you people in general just have no clue. Or they read a couple of pages online and think they are experts.

In general, i'd say more people like maples than not...actually, i'd say more people are unaware that any other tree exists. We want fall color they'd say, so we want a maple. And when i'd be so crass to suggest that trees other than maple have fall color i'd either be ignored or looked at as though i'd just sprouted a second head. I came to the conclusion there's a romantic notion most people have that is deeply associated with maples over nearly all other trees. It also exists with birch, esp. paper.

Just observations. Valid for no one but myself. And since I only have room for one person in my head at this time, myself is the only person whose opinion I care about.

Also...maples are one of the few trees that couples can compromise on. Don't like oaks, they have acorns. Magnolias ate pretty, but such a mess. Can't say the name of elm cuz no one thinks the tree still exists. Catalpa? Yikes...the size of those leaves, all that mess... Maples have decent to excellent fall color, seeds that at least don't cause the mower to bounce, reasonably fast establishment and speed of growth. And the vast majority of people like nothing more than what others like...why else would we be so enamored of most popular lists?