I have to think that the previous owner considered this before the deck was built and the pool was put in. You shouldn't think that. Much, much more likely the homeowner said 'we're only living here x years. It'll be someone else's problem'. Should I have it cut down? I would hate to do that because it's so pretty but I'm worried about the damage the growing roots can do to the pool. Impossible to tell with info provided. Even if pix were provided, you need someone at the site to analyze. Certified arborists working with others can do a better job than anyone here, doing a distance diagnosis with sparse info. Dan

I was on a trip this past week to Arkansas and took a detour to the source tree to obtain some acorns. Following Kman04's line of testing--- "if you have any acorns or acorn caps from the original tree, is the inside of the acorn cap hairy or mostly hairless? If it's mostly hairless, it's Q. shumardii, and if it's hairy, then it's Q. nuttallii."---the acorns show the tree is Q. shumardii. The inside cap is mostly hairless. Further the acorns have the characteristic overlapping scales, short stalk, and mostly flat top. I learned from the Louisiana State University Ag Center site that the Nuttall acorn "has a distinctive cap with scales extending onto the projection holding the acorn to the twig. This characteristic makes it readily identifiable from all other southern acorns." These acorns are definitely not the Nuttall. This confirms the central insights given. Thanks for your help.

Hi Carol, I am in Sarasota also and have the privilege of having a very old, huge oak in my yard. When we were building this house, we called a respected arborist in to help us protect this tree from construction since it was the reason we bought this property. We also wanted to remove the 8-12 foot round of 'saplings' growing around the trunk to start planting things. He told us that these are not saplings, they are suckers which come up directly from the root system of the tree. The old tree is not as thick in foliage as it was in its youth, and this is one of the ways it tries to get more energy, by producing more foliage in the way of suckers. He strongly advised us not to dig up or spray them in any way, as it would make the tree decline, and perhaps even die. We asked him if it we could trim them (some were 2 feet or more tall). He said that would be fine as long as we kept most of the foliage. Since then, we have weed-whacked the suckers at an even level of about 8-10 inches once or twice yearly, I would estimate. We have planted ferns at the edges, which has grown into this a little, and there is also cast iron plant and firecracker plant at the edges which have grown into the suckers a little. I think the suckers look nice like a groundcover around the tree. In fact, it looks a lot like the asiatic jasmine around town. As an aside, our neighbors have many oaks and a very manicured yard. Their gardener sprays the suckers around some of their oaks a couple of times a year. These oaks that get their suckers sprayed have declined noticeably and don't look beautiful to me any more. An old, huge oak is a beautiful, beautiful thing. Nothing you plant around it will be as valuable or beautiful. My advice would be to just trim at a lower level, plant non-harmful things at the edges, or go for pots under the tree. If you'd like to see it in person, I'd be happy to show you my suckered tree. I think it looks nice. By the way, it's just my opinion, but I think part of the majesty of an old oak is seeing the gorgeous trunk base. For that reason also, consider not planting close to the trunk so that it can be visualized to its fullest! Good luck with your beautiful tree. Anna

Fixing in what manner? Start taking soil back out? As much as I've said about him not responding to recent attempts at communication, in his defense the guy has a degree in forestry and I recall discussing at some length the pros and cons of putting soil against a tree and specifically asked him about it. He explained it all and assured me that the way he did it is fine and does not jeopardize the health of the tree. What you can't tell from either my descriptions or pictures is how it looked before. There was significant erosion within probably 8-9' of the tree in nearly all directions. Loads of large, exposed roots. So while all that was covered up, I just went out and checked and it appears that I'm seeing the original ground surface level right at the base of the tree. There has definitely been erosion since he did it. Right around the base, it looks to already be eroded to what it always used to look like - very dry, pebbly dirt. Like I said, there was a very significant slope that had to be graded. Even so, the lower side of the bed you see in the pic is significantly lower than the opposite side. I don't think there is a problem with the tree. I had him do alot of trimming on the maple as part of the whole job since it's really getting a bit too big for being as close to the pool as it is. The pic does not show the detail around the base. It undoubtedly looks like it's piled up higher against the tree than it really is. I'm not gonna worry about it. Actually, based on some quick research (since I had no idea what was meant by the "flare") I don't EVER remember seeing the flare on that maple. If it ever was visible, it was probably covered up in '89 when we had the pool put in. Once again, the entire area (including where the maple is) had to be graded to create as little slope down from the pool as possible. I basically always recall seeing a solid trunk right down to the ground level. So, if the tree has lasted nearly 20 years post-pool construction and landscaping, I would imagine it will continue on. I'd gladly ask this guy about it, IF I could ever get ahold of him!