I would also want it to compete with the Norway maple to slow its growth ===>>> yeah ... good luck with that ... lol ... if the most invasive weed on earth ..... grass ... wont grow under a norway.. good luck with anything else ... if we are to presume that a tree is twice as large underground.. as above... how are a couple little vines going to slow it down ... regardless ... give it a try ... if you can provide enough water for the vine.. in excess of what the tree will steal ... and the vine actually can become established and thrive.. it might be a really cool affect ... i would recommend not amending the soil .... and never watering the vine alone.. bare rooting it.. and planting in only in the soil removed in digging the hole ... you might get it going.. but any amendment .. fertilizer.. or water specific.. will encourage the maple to come fill the hole you dug with feeder roots.. and in the long run.. strangle the plant .... i know this for a fact from growing some odd 1500 hosta under a myriad of trees ... maples .. among others ... are super competitors .... and .. given time.. will take everything that other plants might need ... and norway is their king ... good luck ken ps: even if you decided to increase your odds by trying to grow the vine in a 20 gallon pot.. under the tree.. on top of the native soil .... within a few years.. the roots of the tree will fill the pot.. these darn things arent even limited to mother earth .... maybe they are aliens ...

Thanks for the feedback everyone. After reading people's comments and talking with my wife we have decided to leave it this year and address the issue within the next two springs or falls- maybe cut it down next summer and wait to replace it. The picture I took of this tree faces north. To the south of the tree is a red maple, very young about 2" diameter. This is about 35-45 feet from the Norway. To the NE of the Norway we plan to plant a Swamp White Oak (again, 35-45 feet away) next spring. I imagine the canopy on the maple and oak will get quite big eventually (15-25 years, but still) and we don't want it to look like a giant shade blanket is cast over 1/2 of our yard. We've decided to replace the Norway with a smaller tree- perhaps an American Hornbeam. With a smaller tree in between I think that balances things out nicely, and the Hornbeam is a natural tree to the area If we keep the maple, yes, I won't have to deal with shade or root issues for 20 years or so. But I or whoever is living here will have to eventually, and that's a headache that I just don't want to deal with. Why not plan ahead. What boggles my mind is the previous owners literally planted it 7' from the corner of the home in the flower bed. What on earth were they thinking? We are also moving a crabapple tree next year from opposite end flower bed (again 7' from the house) and extending the flower bed and putting a dogwood tree in. Not sure what to do with the crabapple. I think it is a Donald Wyman, but I can't be sure. I may relocate that to the edge of my property so I can still enjoy the flowers but not have to worry about the fruit.

The only tree I have on my urban lot is what I thought was a Norway maple. It takes up an entire corner of my yard, so pretty much a quarter of my property. It took a while to do the entire area, but I have a pathway walking straight towards the trunk that then splits into two paths, one going off to the side where I have a deck and the other simply circles the tree and joins the other path. I have lamium, hay scented ferns, blue columbines, corydalis lutea, fringed bleeding hearts, and a couple hosta growing right at the base of the tree and then under the rest of the canopy to either side of the path I have more of the same, plus brunnera, 5 or 6 other ferns, epimediums, European ginger, creeping forest type phloxes, dozens of hosta varieties, Solomon's Seal, Jacob's ladder, lungwort, sweet woodruff, Lady's mantle, and toad lillies. I do have to water during dry spells and in some areas the plants barely flower, if at all, but they're green and growing and better than clay, rocks, and weeds, which is what was there when I started. I keep a thick layer of cedar mulch around everything but I plan on switching to shredded leaves for mulch once I get a shredder. I do realize you can't heap soil and mulch ontop of tree roots without killing the tree so I didn't go crazy, but the couple inches of mulch I have down has been there for 5-6 years now and the tree is fine. In some areas I dug the ground over, but in others I was lucky I could hack a hole in the cement-like clay and masses of roots big enough to shoehorn the plant in. In that area I stuck with cast iron plants like the hay scented ferns and basic hostas like lancifolia - nothing fussy. I figured what lives lives and I'll worry about replacing what dies. Nothing's died yet! Lisa

Hello TJ, The following article contains instructions to remove invasive Norway Maple from a woodland, using a 'stepped' approach: "What to do if you suspect a Natural Area is being invaded by Exotic Trees: It is not easy to contemplate removal of trees as part of sensitive environmental management, however the fact is that invasive exotics are causing significant environmental disruption worldwide, resulting in the loss of biodiversity and ecological functioning to natural ecosystems. First, a survey of the site should be conducted identifying remaining native species of trees and shrubs, and invading exotics such as Norway Maple, European Buckhorn, Tatarian and Amur Honeysuckle. Where there are only a few exotics saplings mixed with native species, these invaders could likely be removed without causing any disruption. The problem arises when the forest canopy is mostly exotic, since removing all of them at once could cause serious problems, including opening the site to further invasions of exotics and soil erosion. Removals around any existing native trees would be a start, as well as removing all exotic seedlings, and saplings where larger trees form the canopy. Where large exotic trees exist, removing the lower limbs to allow light to the forest floor is an initial step to consider where complete removal would open up the forest canopy too severely. If native tree seedlings are not naturally establishing, then planting is called for. As the native forest grows, further thinning of the exotics can take place, until they and the seed source is eventually eliminated. Through this process, a return to a native forest association should occur without opening the forest canopy. Since the ground flora may recover under the lighter shade than Norway Maple provides, it is important that it not be further impacted by invading plants of open conditions that would occur if the canopy were opened too quickly." One word of caution: Norway Maples put out "phytotoxins" - which are chemicals that are toxic to most native plants. It is not just the shade, but the phytotoxins which prevent the establishment of native understory, shrub and groundcover layers below Norway Maples - even with thinned branches overhead. My neighbours and I have wasted thousands of dollars trying to plant under Norways in our ravine. The majority die - even when we've created elaborate watering systems to compensate for the Norways (I know - defeats the whole point of planting natives in the first place!). We've had some success by replacing large areas of soil when we plant - but we've recently learned the phytotoxins are in the leaves as well - so those plants just take longer to die. Not to discourage you - it only seems to relentlessly kill plants in some locations - not all. But if anyone has any information on NM phytotoxins - and what to do about it so that we have better success establishing a native layer (ANY native layer - after a few years of NM we have only three layers: 100+ year old oaks, complete NM understory,rapidly eroding bare sandy soil with a few still hanging-on hardcore natives (toad lilly, trillium)) - I'd really appreciate hearing about it! Here is a link that might be useful: Norway Maple: Reassessing the threat to natural areas