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?

Like animals, trees grown from seed must pass through several phases of development before they become sexually mature and capable of producing reproductive parts (blooms/ seeds/ fruit). The plant phases of seed - seedling - juvenile - sexually mature are roughly mirrored in human developmental stages of embryonic - infantile - juvenile - adult/ sexually mature. A freshly sprouted seedling is no more capable of producing reproductive parts (blooms/ seeds/ fruit) than an infant. Too, a plant's aging process is different than an animal's. Where animals age chronologically, plants age ontogenetically. Ontogenetic aging can be thought of in terms of how many cell divisions have occurred to move the plant to its current phase of development. One might reason that the most recent new growth would be the youngest part of the plant, but ontogenetically, it is the the oldest part of the plant because it has taken many more cell divisions to produce the newest parts. Ontogenetically, the youngest part of a tree grown from seed will always be the root to shoot transition area at the base of the trunk, no matter how old the tree is chronologically. Pruning a tree back hard can easily remove all existing mature growth and return it to a juvenile phase that would require a considerable amount of new growth before the wood again becomes mature. All factors that influence growth rate have an impact on how long (chronologically) it takes a plant to become sexually mature, so thinking that a change in nutrition alone will cause a plant to bloom is misguided. The fastest seedlings to mature within any given species will depend on how proficient Mother Nature or the plant's grower is at providing ideal cultural conditions. Ideal cultural conditions = most rapid growth rate and shortest period of time to reach maturity; this, simply because ideal conditions are most conducive to cell divisions and therefore a fruitful tree at a younger chronological age. It should be noted that applying nutrients or other products in willy nilly fashion with no knowledge of whether or not there is an actual deficiency of those nutrients or no good reason to apply them is highly likely to be limiting in terms of both growth and rate of maturation. Whenever we discuss what is or isn't an appropriate part of the methodology we use to make certain our plants get all the nutrients essential to growth and good health, we would probably first want to be sure our objectives are on target. It's difficult to argue with the idea that our focus in supplying supplemental nutrition to our plants should be on ensuring all the nutrients plants normally assimilate from the soil are A) IN the soil and available for uptake at all times, B) in the soil in a favorable ratio - that is to say in a ratio that mimics the ratio at which the plant actually uses the nutrient, C) at a concentration high enough to ensure no nutritional deficiencies, yet still low enough to ensure the plant's ability to take up water efficiently, and the nutrients dissolved in that water won't be impeded (by a high concentration of solubles in the soil solution). The part in bold is where growers often run afoul of sound husbandry. By adding unnecessary nutrients we A) skew the ratio of nutrients, each to the others, such that an excess of one nutrient causes a deficiency of one or more other nutrients, and B) make it more difficult for the plant to assimilate water and nutrients. So, for plants in containers, best results can be had by choosing 1 fertilizer with an appropriate nutrient ratio and all the nutrients essential to normal growth. Forget the snake oil products and claims made on product packaging by sellers whose only goal is separating you from your money. For plants in the landscape, a soil test is ESSENTIAL for any grower aiming at providing the best cultural conditions possible. "A little extra" is almost always going to be limiting rather than beneficial; otherwise, it wouldn't be "extra". Al

thanks- these pics are mainly from the front yard. the large tree in the first pic is a Colorado blue spruce, surrounding by smaller green giants mostly. The second pic is a norway spruce in full bloom. The last pic is a fat albert spruce- again surrounded by green giants, and a norway spruce peeking in the pic on the right. I have a few bloodgood japanese maples too to pop in some red color. Hope this helps. I know I am not up on all the latin names and such and don't claim to know as much as alot of other people here- but I enjoy doing it. Much of this hobby is trial and error. So it pays to research stuff before you pay for anything. I've lost alot of stuff too.

I was thinking the same thing as you greg.This winter and last winter has been the coldest since I planted it.Our normal winter lows have never caused any damage.Last winter we only had that very hard freeze for two days without any moister,and I got some bud rot.Today on the local news the weather man checked to see if we have ever been this cold for this long.He said that he had to go back to 1982 to get close.In 1982 we had a blizzard,there was 12" of snow on the ground with snow drifts of 6to7feet.The snow lasted for four days,with lows of 17&18 and highs of 20&25.On the fifth day the temp.jumped up to 50* one day and 55* the next.The night temps.dident get below freezing,all that snow melted in 2 days.The weather man said for him to find when temps.got colder for longer,he had to go all the way back to 1877.Today we finally got normal winter time temps.since last thursday.Normal for us is 40*to60*for highs,and lows of 20*to40*To give you an example today was 47* and tonight it gonna be 26*,by sat.its gonna be 50*&41*.I am just glad to see the artic cold and snow gone,but I know it will be back,winter is not through yet.I checked the big pindo today and so far all its got was a little frond damage.If we get another artic blast I will build a removeable greenhouse around it.The plant stands about 10 feet tall and 8 feet across,fronds and all.Thanks for the advise everyone.I dont know about you all but Im ready for spring!!!!and what happened to global warming?