spedigrees: Limestone varies in magnesium content. If you go to your local agricultural store--I am not sure what you have up there--and ask for “high mag limestone“--crushed or pulverized--they should be able to direct you. The analysis is always posted on the bag. Dolomitic limestone is generally “high-mag,” but perhaps other types of limestone have a high magnesium content. Our soils here in the northern Shenandoah Valley are very high in magnesium, and high mag limestone underlies a good portion of our soils, and high mag limestone is readily available. And, almost all the NS in this area look very nice, in spite of our hot, dry climate. As for soil acidity--that should not be a problem for Norway spruce, unless the soil is extremely acidic, maybe in the low 4’s. At my timberland, where the soils are a bit below 5, Norway spruce does very well. I am not sure what an optimum pH would be, and it would probably vary with soil type. Maybe somewhere in the 5.5 range is "safe." As for magnesium for Norway spruce--this has been fairly well documented. I titled my original post “a hypothesis,” but there is substantial evidence. A site factors study done at SUNY Syracuse some years ago now, noted that “at least 75 kg per hectare” is needed for good NS growth. Studies in Europe, where there has been extensive decline in NS forests, has shown that the acid rain causes a reduction in the availability of magnesium, and supplementing magnesium often solves the problem. And, I have made some personal observations--not scientific, and without all the facts--that magnesium supplementation can make a dramatic difference. But, the main effect of magnesium may not be in height growth, but in the fullness, density, and lushness of the foliage. I have seen many poor looking, thin foliaged NS trees growing reasonably fast in height. Also, the thin foliage on some Norway spruce trees has causes other than a lack of an optimum supply of magnesium. And, I know, some of that is genetic, and not correctable. As for your experiment: Yes, 5 years should be long enough to show some results, but no sooner. The limestone has to dissolve into the soil, get down to the roots, and, because NS hold their needles for several years, the "thickening" of the foliage may not be vis1ble for several years. BUT, and this is a big "but," the effect may not really show up on very young trees. It may help the growth rate, but as for foliage density, that is never really noticeable until trees are somewhat older and larger--maybe not until they are 20 feet tall or more will any difference be really clear. As for the growth rate: white pine usually starts growing faster than NS. How old are your trees? How tall? NS trees don't begin to grow fast until they are about 4.5 feet high, and that could be only after 6 to 8 years. At that point, they should "take off." On the best soils, and in the right climate, an average of 28 inches is possible, with some years the new shoots elongating up to 4 feet or more. But growth averaging 20 to 24 inches is good for many sites. Norway spruce and white pine, assuming equally good strains, should grow equally well over the first 50 years. The white pine up to about 18 years should outgrow the NS, but after that NS should catch up a bit. After 50 years NS should outgrow the white pine for some years. SUNY Syracuse did a growth curves study for NS, and found that for the first 60 years--after the trees reach 4.5 feet in height, there is no "curve" as such, but a straight line. White pine growth curves bend sharply over to the right after the first 18 years or so, and at 50 years the growth averages about 1 foot, while at the same age, NS trees can still be growing 28 inches per year. But this rate does begin to decline not too long after the 60-year mark. On the best sites both should eventually make 150 feet or more in forest stands. Open grown NS should make 120 feet or more on better sites. As for the blue spruce and magnesium, I really don't know. Tom may be right about this. --spruce

8' spacing is good for a start, but as the trees mature they will need more room. For a single line of NS trees the eventual spacing should probably average 16 feet or more. But that could be many years away. 6 years ago I planted about a 200 foot line of NS on my property line and planted them a little more than 8' apart--for mowing and fencing purposes (I now have a new properly line and will be planting a line at least 800 feet long--I will post about my plans for that soon). About half of these trees I planted 6 years ago are really strong, the other half will be smaller and will in a few years be overwhelmed by the stronger ones. I will probably thin out the weaker ones in just a few years to give more room to the stronger ones and make the line look better. One "problem," sort of, is that the good ones and the weaker ones are not always every other one. I may have two strong ones, then a weak one, then another strong one, then maybe three weak ones, two more strong ones--you get the idea? So in the end I may have two spaced 8' apart, then 16 feet, then another tree, then maybe three weak ones together, and here I could cut all three and have a space of 24 feet--not too bad when the trees get really big, or I could save the middle weaker one for a while. So the spacing is irregular. For me this is OK, but some people might want the eventual line of mature trees to have equal spacing. I don't know how to do that if you want to start with closer spacing and then eventually thin them for wider spacing, saving the best trees. Well, I am sure you get the picture. Now I admit I am a Norway spruce nut, which I am sure you know by now if you have been reading my posts here for a while. NS trees have a lot of variability, and the really best ones are really, really beautiful. So I am always advising planting them so there is a maximum opportunity to get the maximum number of really beautiful ones--with fast growth and the dense weeping foliage, etc. So the more trees one can plant and the more opportunities one has to thin out the weaker, less beautiful ones, the more georgeous the final result. A triple row (offset) with the trees 6 X 6 is probably the best starting place I can devise. But planting this close requires a lot of trees and a lot of thinning, and a lot of difficulties protecting the trees and mowing around them etc. I doubt I will do this even for the screen that I am planning for my own property. I may do two staggered rows with each tree 10 feet apart with the rows 6 or 8 feet apart for the initial spacing. I am still thinking about what I will do. Anyway, enjoy your trees. If you want them to get a really, really good start, I advise mulch and regular watering the first year, and watering during dry spells for two or three years after that. --Spruce

the OP clearly states his having an appreciation for the tree All other landscape design considerations fall outside of this question Yet the opening statement I see is I have a Norway (pretty sure) spruce that a maniac tree guy recently mutilated thereby establishing a clear belief that there is an undesirable aesthetic situation present right at the start. you can plant other stuff around it. And the trunk is good for some vine to climb now Area beneath tree is going to be full of roots and subject to dripping from high crown. So it may turn out to not be a prime planting site - as is often the case beneath evergreen conifers.

Unfortunately there was a reason it was the last one at Home Depot at a really good price. It has been in the pot WAY too long, is terribly root bound, was not trained properly prior to you getting it, has sat in the pot for weeks with you, ants have moved into the root ball and made a nest...the plant has been stressed for a long time and is more susceptible to disease and pests. And now it is even hotter than when you first posted. So my advice to you would be plant it as soon as possible (yesterday) and keep it well watered going into the winter, and hope for the best.