Except that large amended areas still have the problem of amendments breaking down, the soil returning to its previous condition and height - making this approach unsuitable for permanent plantings.

Panoply, I assume that this clay is the prevailing native soil in the area? As you drive around your neighborhood, do you see plenty of vegetative growth in native green areas as well as landscapes? It's not a barren wasteland?

As long as it drains well, clay can be great soil type in which to grow plants of all kinds. I know this because you can make pottery from my soil, too. After you use a pickaxe to dig some up.

I truly believe the problem lies in the fact that you are trying to alter/amend/change your soil rather than trusting your plants to know how to thrive in it.

We've established a beautiful landscape since we moved here, including trees (one ginkgo amongst them), shrubs, perennials, turf, and vegetables.

Every single element has been planted without amendments of any kind, nor do I have an irrigation system. I pay close attention to planting depth, maintain a good layer of mulch afterwards, and water only when needed after installation.

Our trees were all in the 2.0 inch caliper range with the exception of the ginkgo, a grafted baby given to us by a fellow horticulturist. No plant ever had a bit of trouble mastering this native clay and thriving.

It would be a good idea for you to contact your local Parish Extension office for information about how to collect soil for a sample or two and have it tested in their soil lab.

have you perked your planting hole ...

if it does not drain rather quickly ... then you would use brandons link ... and plant high ...

trees have no problem with clay ... once they get their roots down into it... you might say... get established ...

the problem is when WE screw up the transplant ... and dont allow the tree to extend its roots into the clay .. before the roots rot off ... because the clay and amendments.. are not draining.. or holding too much water ...

so.. on bad draining soil ... by planting high ... you allow the roots to have the air they need... while its roots reach down into the clay.. and set themselves up ...

did you ever tell us where you are ...

the color or type of clay is not relevant.. per se ... its how the clay drains..

keep in mind.. just about any tree.. sold ball and burlap... was grown in clay ... else they could not have dug the ball ... trust me.. sand and loam falls apart ...

ken

Oh, when I talk about ammending a large area I am on a scale a farmer would almost be familiar with. IF my metasequoia or shingle oak needed planted in ammended soil I would feel the need to give the oak a 100 plus foot circle of goodness and probably similar for the redwood. A ridiculous effort for growing a tree.

Interesting debate on that changing vs not changing the bathtub effect.

Oh, I amend like a bastard when it's potatoes I am growing and yeah, anything landing on top of the soil is pretty much going to make it's way into the soil, just by earthworm movement if nothing else but yeah, am frankly amazed at the hostility when sacred cows are found to be mere sheep.

OK. I've a lot to answer. I apologize for the delay. Rather serious family issues. OK. Let me get started.

Miketann: Yes, I have successfully planted the following trees: Live Oak, Jane Magnolia and a silk floss tree. Oh, a Dawn Redwood and a Crimson King Maple.

Laceyvail: I have been told otherwise by many others. In any case, I did what you suggested with the 1st tree. This is before I began searching for advice (when it died on me).

Torronado: This is cost prohibitive for me. See above for soil amendment. Using extra-small trees is an idea. What I've been doing is to pot them until there are about 2-3' and then planting. Also, what is meant by, 'You can create a weird bath tub effect of nice soil in clay.' Isn't this bad? Wouldn't the roots rot in this pool?

Brandon: I apologize but I don't know what you're telling me. Remember, I'm a relative beginner.

Gardengal: So how, and with what materials, should I amend my 'super clay?' Over what area, for a gingko tree? I like the 'standard gingko' the most but am consider trying to put in 'dwarf' gingkoes of various type. First, of course, I need to know how to plant them

SamL lol, Well, now I know (but it'll take me year to break the habit).

Embothrium: DAMN! Damn, damn, damn. Is there any easy way around this? What about the use of pine bark mulch, or even stones, to leave some kind of way for the roots to find a way to expand?

Rhizo: I don't understand how you're doing it! Do you plant very small trees? What do you mean by, "I pay close attention to planting depth, maintain a good layer of mulch afterwards...?" Also, why have the soil tested? Ph? I've planted trees, shrubs and flowers in my soil where some need more acidic soil and oters more alkaline and had most fail. Is there another test?

Ken Adrian: I am in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Please describe what you mean by planting high.

Toronado: See what I mean? To 'bathtub' or not to 'bathtub,' that is the question.

WISCONSITOM: You seem to have the better advice. So, do NOT amend the planting hole but DO amend the soil before hand. Amend it with what, exactly. It seems like you're saying to amend it with fallen leaves & etc. Is that right?

Camp: The 'sacred cow' being no amendment?

I hope y'all will clarify what you've said. PLEASE do. I really want a thriving ginkgo or 4!!!

Thanks,

Jeremy

Jeremy, I was just responding to the previous post. Many people don't really understand drainage, and make recommendations that just don't help. I'm kind of amazed when people like Gardengal, who supposedly know a lot about landscaping, don't understand the basic science behind drainage. They've often heard that amending the backfill, when planting a tree, is bad. They realize that drainage is one of the major reasons not to do it, but they mistakenly think that amending a larger area will help. It only really does so in weird situations like on a steep slope. In most situations, even amending a 100 acre plot around a tree will not improve drainage any differently than amending a planting hole.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but picture a bathtub with a mostly stopped up drain and filled with amended soil. Drainage is poor. Now, picture that same bathtub being enlarged to the size of an olympic swimming pool. If the water is the same depth, and the drainage at the bottom is the same (equivalent drainage rate per surface area), it WON'T DRAIN ONE BIT BETTER! The science on this part of the issue is cut and dry. Soil drainage is not a function of planting site area.

IF you were able to amend very deeply (down to a level of better draining soil), certain amendments can improve drainage. Of course this is usually not practical and, when done in a planting hole, could cause other problems (a sinking plant).

P.S. ....

The simplest way to improve drainage in most situations like this is to use raised beds / large berms.

I love Ginkgo too. Didn't know that there are other varieties - I only know the ordinary one.

Regarding amending the soil, I would be against amending only the planting hole. If it's done beautifully, the roots will have little inclination to venture forth, seeking better anchorage and tasty morsels. If it is done badly, then I think this amending will create more problems than it will solve.

For example, I sometimes hear someone say that they are going to add potting mix to the planting hole. Potting mix is necessary for plants in pots, not plants growing in the ground. Apart from being a waste of money i believe it to be totally unsuitable.

To me, soil amendment is something done over time. It's done by the plants and it's done by us. They drop and we try not to pick up. We might even go out and collect more.

Ginkgo is easy from seed - why not try that? They germinate after only a few weeks in the fridge - nice large seeds, you can start them off in the soil they will be staying in - no need to fuss about amending. However, and you may not want to hear this, we can't always have what we want. Are there other nearby gingkos? It is sometimes just not worth the candle, trying over and over again to grow a plant which will never be truly happy.

Since this thread is really about how to help the OP grow ginkgos on his supposedly nondraining clay soil, I don't want to get to far off the mark but let me just say that Brandon has likely not been addressing many issues about amending/grading/improving clay soils on a landscape (entire site) scale or he wouldn't be making these statements.

The bathtub to larger swimming pool analogy just doesn't hold water (pun intended). Amending a larger area does not create a swimming pool as there are no sides involved like there would be with an individual planting hole - there is no impervious surface/side to retain water and it is able to drain away naturally. Second, when you amend over a large area, you are raising the soil level overall, not just stuffing a few amendment into a hole in the ground. Raising the soil level and the associated grading involved to properly direct water flow immediately improve drainage. And the quantity and quality of the amendments used over a full scale landscape are typically quite different than the amendments most homeowners grab (peat, compost) when they amend a planting hole. 6-8 inches of coarse organic matter worked into the top 6-8 inches of soil will make a big difference in soil aeration and drainage. Even if the underlying soil profile remains resistant or slow to water penetration, the workable, well draining soil level (12-16 inches) provides adequate depth for root establishment without concern for them sitting in a 'bathtub' of water. That is why this process of large scale amending is still recommended by soil hydrologists, horticultural soil scientists and virtually any other source on soil amending you can locate. Simply, it works and works well.

Now and again, soil conditions, water tables and specific topography can still impede proper water flow and encourage poor drainage and under those circumstances, mechanical drainage enhancements may need to be utilized but these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Despite what Jeremy panoply1976 said in the second post, it seems like the directions are fairly clear, especially since he isn't able to do large-area amendments, which seems to be the only spot of debate on this thread

To condense what everyone who has a fair amount of experience has said:

Don't amend only the planting hole. (Campanula's sacred cow is amending the planting hole, something that is still recommended by some even though tests have proven it less successful than unamended holes.) Rough up the edges of the planting hole.

Better results are often found with smaller plants since they have an easier time adjusting.

Check out the percolation of your area, and if poor plant high. That is, dig your hole a few inches shallower than the plant's root ball so that the root flare (where the trunk widens at the top of the root) is a few inches above the soil level. Here are directions for doing a percolation test.

Mulch well though not against the trunk, as organic amendments will over time improve soil tilth courtesy of the soil micro and macro organisms. (It will also keep down weeds and help keep moisture even.)

Pay attention to moisture over the first growing season especially to be sure not to over water or underwater. (Long slow drip watering is better than hand-held hose or sprinklers as far as good watering techniques.)

Gardengal, there are sides! An olympic swimming pool HAS SIDES or there wouldn't be any water! Large ungraded amended areas have sides. When it rains, it doesn't just rain right over one tree or just in one spot. A large bathtub with a hundred times the surface area gets A HUNDRED TIMES the amount of rain! Although soil drainage can occur sideways as well as down, the down part is the only part that really counts on a macro scale. It's not like all the water is going to magically run sideways to one side of a large amended area and then disappear. This is common sense! I'm trying to keep this on a fairly nontechnical level, but you gotta think about what's going on here. And, BTW, your mentioning of raising the soil level and especially grading is a huge red herring. We both know that fixing surface drainage can help the situation, but that wasn't what we were talking about. It's fine to bring it up (I did too when I mentioned berms), but it seems to me that you are trying to sneak a little truth in to draw attention away from obvious fallacies.

Speaking of berms and grading, I think that's what needs to be done. If drainage is the issue (and it sounds like it likely is), this is the way to fix the situation. You don't necessarily need to bring in heavy equipment for grading (depending on site specifics and how you want the result to look). A load or two of good topsoil (preferably something similar in texture to what your thin layer of topsoil is like) could probably do wonders. You could spread it by hand or with a small skid-steer or mini track-loader (a large fuel-powered walk behind shovel). If your adding multiple berms (therefore using multiple loads of dirt), renting a mini track loader or small skid-steer would probably be well worth the money.

You would want to make your berms relatively large (in area). Not for the same reasons as in your conversations above, but to allow a larger well-drained area for the tree's root system as it grows.

After reading all of the advice I'm wondering if planting is the problem with your trees dying. How long did it take for the trees to actually die? 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months? Did you plant them in mid summer in the full sun? Did you water them 1 time a day with your garden hose? Twice a day? Once a week? Once every 2 weeks?

When you brought the tree from the nursery did you have it in the back of the pickup or in the trunk of your car? Was the canopy wrapped? Or did you drive down the interstate at 75 mph with the tree canopy exposed?

If these seem like beginners questions that's because they are. We need more info in order to help you understand where the problems lie. The link that brandon gave you was good beginning information to help you with the planting.

I find that water tends to be the main problem either to much or to little or as you suspected that the water would not drain because of the clay.

I hope that your family problems were resolved and everyone in your family is OK.

" Large ungraded amended areas have sides"

Not unless YOU create them with sides. And why would you?? A planting hole obviously has sides but a full landscape site has no "sides" other than arbitrary property lines. You are not attempting to make a swimming pool so there is no need to construct some deep well with steep sides. Think of it more like a shallow saucer but an inverted shallow saucer. You pour water over the top of the inverted saucer and it doesn't sit on the top - it runs off and dissipates. This is exactly the same principle involved in a full site amendment. There is no dish or bowl to collect or impede water flow and drainage. And water does have an ability to move sideways, for heaven's sake!! That is what drainage systems and grading/redirecting water flow is all about! Amending over a large area always require grading to some degree, even if only raking to smooth the surface. Obviously when you raise the height of the soil level with an adequate quantity of appropriate amendments over a large area, grading to direct water flow is most certainly a requirement. There are no red herrings here - just an awareness of what's involved in a full site amendment. A full site amendment is very much like a low but very large scale berm.....you don't seem to have an issue with those so your logic in applying different reasoning to a full site amendment - an overly large but relatively flattened berm - is somewhat flawed to say the least.

Exactly, jbraun.

We need a lot more info on what was done.

How big were the trees? How healthy before they went in? Were they so long in the tooth and short in the root that they never had a chance no matter what was or wasn't done to the soil before they went in?

'I've got a couple-three inches of soil and then I have clay. The
absolute worst kind I've ever seen. I truly believe that if you add a
potter's wheel... ... you could create art.'

Then again, you describe something that does seem to be a huge, enormous problem.

Now that I read it again.

And I see that you have access to a Ginkgo that might bear fruit. Does it?

If so, I also suggest sowing some of the seed - fruit and all, no need to be particular about it - at the time when they fall. Do not store them. Plant about 1 inch deep.

Meanwhile, do something to your soil. Leaves from deciduous trees, grass clippings, a nice load of animal manure perhaps. More leaves. More grass clippings. You get lovely stuff but it takes time.

"There is no dish or bowl to collect or impede water flow and drainage."

When you amend subsurface soil, you create dish or bowl ("bathtub") IN THE SOIL! Well draining amended soil allows water to soak in, but, if the soil underneath that amended soil will not drain, then the water has no place to go. With a sufficiently high berm, you get the roots up high enough that they can remain mostly up and away from the slow draining, saturated soil underneath. The water is still there on the site, but the roots are not sitting in it.

"You pour water over the top of the inverted saucer and it doesn't sit on
the top - it runs off and dissipates. This is exactly the same
principle involved in a full site amendment."

What you are describing is surface run-off which is quite different than soil drainage. With proper grading, or other surface water control, run-off can help. Amending the soil can actually DECREASE run-off and encourage water to percolate down into the soil.

"And water does have an ability to move sideways, for heaven's sake!!"

Unfortunately, you must have misread or skipped over part of my post.

Again, you've added in other subjects (particularly surface drainage) to try to make your suggestion work. I don't know if you are confusing the two concepts on purpose or not, but they are two different concepts. If you improve surface drainage, that may help the problem by removing some of the water before it has a chance to soak in. However, surface runoff is not aided by amending soil (unless you DECREASE soil drainage by amending, which is not what anyone is recommending). You may redesign water flow WHILE amending the soil, but it's not PART OF amending the soil. AND amending the soil is in no way necessary to redesign surface runoff.

Everyone who works the soil in the area in which I happen to live, curses said soil for its "awful clay". Yet, all around this city are these things called farms. These farms are places where crops are grown, mostly to feed animals. Very high yields of things like corn, alfalfa, and soybeans are the norm. Methinks maybe this awful clay isn't so awful. BTW, the clay type found in this area is montmorillinite, a tight red material.

So OP, is your site one of relatively new construction-say in the last twenty years (I know that doesn't sound "new" to some of you readers, but bear with me). Actually,, for over twenty years now, contractors have regularly stripped off the topsoil, piled a small percentage at site, then regraded this minimal amount back over subsoil to "get a catch of grass", that being the be-all and end-all of "success: as these folks know the term. No consideration is given to what the future occupants of the site may wish to grow there. Buyer beware, and be damned while you're at it!

So, if this is the case, there are more issues with the soil than just internal drainage. In fact, as it sits right now, we don't necessarily know that to be the cause of OP's woes. All we know is he's not having success in growing one tree type.

We planted gingkos into situations like the one I describe here years ago. They marked time...for a long time. We also have planted gingkos into old parts of town, where no such soil stripping was ever done. Completely different growth response. In this latter situation, they performed more or less like any other tree species, which is to say quite well. There is simply no substitute for decent soil.

If you are not able to import large amounts of topsoil, and who is really, given the subsequent changes to grade that would cause, you are left with working with the existing stuff. One aspect of such a soil which will always be in short supply is organic matter. One way to change that is to add in well-cured compost. I happen to prefer compost made entirely or nearly so of leaves, but there are many routes to a good material. This will do far, far more than change drainage characteristics, boosting soil microbial activity, adding trace elements, allowing for greater soil aerification (tree and all plant roots need oxygen), and so on. Some here believe that because organic matter decomposes, it is of no value. This is wildly missing the point that the very breakdown product of OG is humus, again a valuable component and a necessary one for trees which are adapted to forest soils. Then too, once a grouping of plants are up and growing on a site, they will themselves be adding OG for the duration of their lifespans and beyond.

I still don't know the history of this site-how it got so bad, etc. Maybe some more background info would help us to see the problem for what it is. BTW, are there not other plant species onsite doing reasonably well? This simple factoid should tell us much, but at present-unless I missed it-we don't even know that.

Tilling in good compost-not some half-rotted material of soured, anaerobic quality-will perform all the beneficial items I listed above and more. But we really need to know more about this site which none of us can see directly, to make informed comments.

+oM

Brandon, I have no
interest in an ongoing debate about this issue. You seem set in your
opinions despite any arguments to the contrary while my experience in
full site amending - reasonably extensive after 25 years of owning
and operating a very successful landscape design business - has never
produced the “swimming pool” effect you seem convinced will
occur. I wonder why that may be?

Full site or large
scale amending is a well established practice for dealing with poorly
draining or heavy clay soils. It continues to be recommended by all
manner of horticultural authorities and soil scientists that decry
amending individual planting holes and nowhere is the
indication/suggestion/implication that larger scale amending will in
fact just simply enlarge the bathtub effect. If done correctly, it
just doesn't happen.

So let's just agree
to disagree. Feel free to promote your swimming pool theory and I
will feel free to contradict it.

I don't know why I'm chirping in with this, but it has occurred to me more than once during this controversy that in many ways, the arguments being made against soil amendments of any type or on any scale are similar to the correct application of theory of particle size of growing medium as it relates to containerized production/growth of plants. To wit, there was (and still is among some) a long-held but erroneous belief that one could effect better drainage in a container by placing stones, broken crockery, etc. at the bottom of the container. Now we know of course that that will do nothing to enhance drainage, each layer of medium only releasing excess water to the next layer as its own internal drainage characteristics allow. Not trying to paraphrase anyone here, but this does seem to me like a misappropriation of that correct understanding. And like you gardengal, I have boatloads of experience in doing exactly those things I advocate for here on this forum. With no horse in the race across the overwhelming spectrum of threads that show up here, it may at least cause one to question why we contribute as we do. In effect, stripped to the bare essentials, all we're (gal and I and others) advocating for is a bit of helping with one of the very same processes by which soil is formed. And then, only where called for, which in modern development, is, unfortunately, most projects.

+oM

I've not caught up on posts since my last post but I've been thinking about This Clay Thing and I realise that I have the same problem but on a very tiny scale.

So now I am thinking that my thoughts on the addition of organic matter is not adequate. And I've been wondering about gypsum, though I have never seen gypsum and I've never used gypsum because I've never had to. I've not been in a garden where others haven't been before me, paving the way. Well, not paving the way, but doing whatever they did to greatly improve the clay that is the type of soil that I have in my garden.

And yes, Tom, (I have read this far) you are right about what they do with the top soil on new blocks of land (for housing). Taking most of it away and leaving only a little.

But, it's time for my dog walk...

Assuming the dog has been adequately exercized..and realizing I don't know how to spell that word.....I do know that gypsum has been touted for its ability to both "break up" clay and also, to neutralize salts in the soil. I don't know if there's really an validity to either of those notions, but it does get sold for those purposes. It may be too that what works on one soil type or one soil chemistry does not apply on others. In short, I don't know!

+oM

Yes, dog and I are both exercised and said dog is at my feet.

I have out the front some mounds where my other half deposited some soil from under the house when he was digging there. He is creating storage space or a secret fort. Anyway, the soil is very clayey. "No problem," I said. "Bung it out here. It will be fine."

So he bunged it out there.

And I collected horse manure and leaves. Stole other peoples leaves. More manure. More leaves. (I love collecting leaves.) Still more leaves.

Two or three or is it four or five??? years have gone by.

Well, sometimes I peak under all that lovely stuff. And guess what. The clay is sitting there untouched. Nothing has mixed in with anything.

So now I believe (finally!) that when it comes to clay, some major step must be taken. Only I am not sure what the major step should be.

gardengal?

Gardengal wrote, "...while my experience in
full site amending - reasonably extensive after 25 years of owning
and operating a very successful landscape design business - has never
produced the “swimming pool” effect you seem convinced will
occur."

1. From your own claims, you do more than just amend the soil.

2. I can guarantee you that in your 25 years, you have NEVER fixed a drainage problem on relatively flat land by simply amending a relatively thin layer of topsoil above a non- or poorly-draining sublayer. Simply put, I do not believe you have the ability to alter the laws of physics!

"It continues to be recommended by all
manner of horticultural authorities and soil scientists that decry
amending individual planting holes..."

I have NEVER ONCE seen a respectable horticultural authority, much less a soil scientist, recommend simply amending a layer of soil located on top of a poorly draining layer of soil as the primary method of fixing this type of landscape drainage issue. It just doesn't happen!

Amending large areas IS recommended, but for entirely different reasons.

--------------------

What's ironic (if that's the word) about this is that you could analyze this on an infinite scale and get the same results. You really don't even need "walls"/edges to prove my point. To make it simple, let's represent the well-draining amended soil by a sponge. Let's further stipulate that the sponge is of infinite length and width but relatively thin (say 12", just to put some figure on it). I use the sponge example because it might be easier to picture, for someone who doesn't fully understand drainage. It turns out that a sponge is a fair example, in many ways, of well-draining soil.

Now, lets get an infinite amount of Pan's nearly impermeable clay and make an infinitely large layer to place the giant sponge on. Following that, we'll need a sprinkler that can cover an infinite area. We all know that it doesn't rain in just one spot or in just a small area, and, we want our experiment to go to the extreme, so we'll need enough water to sprinkle the entire sponge.

What happens when we turn on the sprinkler (fake rain)? The sponge quickly becomes saturated, holds the water, and remains wet very long after the water is turned off. In fact, as you can easily imagine, the main way in which the sponge would dry would be evaporation. And normally, evaporation is not sufficient as a way to remove excess soil moisture for most trees to do well.

It seems to me that anyone carefully considering this situation would have no doubts about the results. And, with little effort could extrapolate this example into the real life scenario we are discussing. Although understanding how soil drainage occurs and depends on particle size and pore space could help, I think a little common sense should be sufficient to leave no doubt about this whole thing!

French drains - moled through the clay in a herringbone pattern, filled with stones. A kind of series of soakaways,

For smaller areas, I generally get busy with grit, gravel and other non-soluble stuff (shell, flint, dolomite) and a trenching spade - horrible job - anything which will provide a means of drainage between those fine clay particles. I have a friend who swears by planting deep-rooted comfrey and the like, every 3-4 years...but I think this is a continuous operation - no good for an idler such as myself..

As this controversy rages on, I took a minute to re-read the OP. There is no absolute indication that there is a drainage problem here. Only some mirthful language Panoply uses to describe the soil in his/her yard. And what really jumps out for me is " I've got a couple-three inches of soil and then I've got clay". Truly, this simply hearkens back to what I said earlier-a crappy and all-too-typical stripping away of topsoil has occurred. Drainage can surely be messed up in such situations, but it's no given here. In fact, with the usual poor infiltration also attendant to clay materials, these poor trees could be dying of thirst for all we know.

Again, (and again and again), we need more background before making big declarations here. So far, it's just lousy soil. And not much of it.

+oM

Brandon, you are confusing one issue with another.

We are not talking about drainage.

This sponge business of which you speak (as if you invented the example) is a whole 'nuther thing. The problem is the whole pile of clay in which we are trying to grow Ginkgoes. Or whatever. The clay itself is the problem. It (the clay) is severely lacking in the stuff that would make it a soil and therefore needs to be made into such in order to grow something well.

A perched water table is what you are referring to and the OP doesn't have this problem. She has a severe and 'orrible clay problem.

This bathtub business would certainly, certainly, ceeeerrrrrtainly be what you would have if you tried to 'improve' the planting hole only. All around the sides is the impervious clay. (Not really impervious, but by the time the sides have let the 'bath' water through, the tree will be unhappy. This will happen every time it rains for any length of time).

Even trees that love water cannot cope with such things as poor drainage, as you know. The only things that can cope with poor drainage are those trees and shrubs and other stuff that like to live on the banks of rivers and swamps etc.

Yes Tom (now that I begin to read your post). Exactly. It isn't a drainage problem at all. I also had to re-read the post. I think when I saw the word Ginkgo I leapt in, boots and all, and it was those stately trees that were on my mind, not the appalling clay and the mingy bit of topsoil.

Have you got anything else growing in the soil? The whole garden? Or just the bit where you want to plant? Weeds?

'Except that large amended areas still have the problem of amendments breaking down, the soil returning to its previous condition and height - making this approach unsuitable for permanent plantings.'

We want amendments to break down. This is how you get a yummy soil. It certainly does not return to its previous condition. Improvement comes gradually until one day you realise how gorgeous it is.

"We are not talking about drainage."

Sure we are. I don't know what you read, but we were 100% for sure talking about drainage. As Tom and I both said above, that may not be Pan's problem, but I think there's a pretty decent chance that it is.

"...as if you invented the example..."

Huh? I did "invent"/author the example. Not one word was derived from any other work. If you find my paragraph somewhere else, either it's one heck of a coincidence or they copy/pasted my paragraph from above in the last few days. I don't get what you are talking about here. Maybe I am misunderstanding your wording.

"The problem is the whole pile of clay in which we are trying to grow Ginkgoes."

Ginkgos can grow wonderfully in clay, as long as drainage is sufficient.

"A perched water table is what you are referring to and the OP doesn't
have this problem. She has a severe and 'orrible clay problem."

A perched water table is a type of drainage problem. If drainage is not the problem with the clay, what do you propose is the problem? Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else about clay that would prevent fantastic ginkgo performance. There are plenty of other possible issues, but they wouldn't be attributed to the fact that the tree was growing in/over clay soil.

"We want amendments to break down. This is how you get a yummy soil."

I sure don't want to open this can of worms very far, but I will say that I think you are misunderstanding Bboy/Embothrium's idea, and, as I think someone else said way up there somewhere, performance depends on the type of amendments used.

Brandon said: Sure we are. I don't know what you read, but we were 100% for sure talking about drainage. As Tom and I both said above, that may not be Pan's problem, but I think there's a pretty decent chance that it is.

Me: Okay, it is a drainage problem. I hadn't digested my coffee. But it's a different sort of drainage problem to having a perched water table. Underneath Panoply's clay is more clay, I reckon. Not a differnt type of 'soil'.

Brandon said: Huh? I did "invent"/author the example. Not one word was derived from any other work. If you find my paragraph somewhere else, either it's one heck of a coincidence or they copy/pasted my paragraph from above in the last few days. I don't get what you are talking about here. Maybe I am misunderstanding your wording.

Me: My apologies. I thought you were quoting a teacher or text. Sponges are always used to explain perched water tables.

Brandon said: Ginkgos can grow wonderfully in clay, as long as drainage is sufficient.

Me: Yes, they grow wonderfully in a clay soil. As do many things. I have a clay soil myself and would never knock it. But Panoply doesn't have clay soil He or she has clay. Big, huge, whopping difference.

Brandon: A perched water table is a type of drainage problem...

Me: Yes.

Brandon: If drainage is not the problem with the clay, what do you propose is the problem?

Me: The clay. It doesn't drain. It is too pure.

Brandon: Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else about clay that would prevent fantastic ginkgo performance.

Me: I can. But then again, I am not thinking with the air above the top of my head. (Just joking.)

Brandon: There are plenty of other possible issues, but they wouldn't be attributed to the fact that the tree was growing in/over clay soil.

Me: I believe that Panoply knows what he or she is doing, but is fighting a very big problem, and has therefore asked how to amend the clay. Some of us have said 'Don't amend only the hole.' Amending the hole only is never a great idea, and in the case of the hole being surrounded by clay it is an even worse idea than a 'not very good one'.

Brandon: I sure don't want to open this can of worms very far, but I will say that I think you are misunderstanding Bboy/Embothrium's idea, and, as I think someone else said way up there somewhere, performance depends on the type of amendments used.

Me: I may well be misunderstanding.

A very small berm like Peyton describes might help a small tree early on, but will probably do little to nothing for the tree as gets larger. If drainage is too poor for the small tree to live, a very small berm, providing insufficient room for the larger tree's root system, is not a good long-term solution.

EDIT: Peyton / rpwalton13 / (now) lhjsdgwpdkufhqerf had previously written:

"One cubic yard of soil will suffice, or use two yards for a bigger mound."

"As the tree grows larger the roots will handle the clay better."

Please explain how that would work. How do you suggest that roots of older trees are better able to handle poor drainage than those of younger trees?

EDIT: Peyton / rpwalton13 / (now) lhjsdgwpdkufhqerf had responded:

"It should work for plenty long enough...As the tree grows larger the roots will handle the clay better. "

I just thought you might have some rationale for your proposal. In cases where advice seems to contradict logic, I depend on scientific proof, or at least a good rational argument, to provide at least some validity to the suggestion. Without that, I'm usually hesitant to put much stock in the idea.

Occasionally someone will propose something that the rest of us haven't thought of or that seems to contradict customary practices. In cases where a good argument can be made, there's sometimes opportunity for us to learn something. For that reason, I sometimes probe suggestions that, on first look, don't seem all that promising.

EDIT: Peyton / rpwalton13 / (now) lhjsdgwpdkufhqerf had said:

"Hey dude, this isn't a scientific inquiry or courtroom testimony..."

Peyton, are you joking or did you completely forget what you wrote in your own posts? Don't be ridiculous!

EDIT: Peyton / rpwalton13 / (now) lhjsdgwpdkufhqerf had responded:

"Better soil and a raised planting area for drainage contradicts logic??...So planting on a berm doesn't seem promising????"

brandon7 TN_zone Didn't you recommend a raised bed yourself?

"The simplest way to improve drainage in most situations like this is to use raised beds / large berms."

Anyway, the theory is the smaller younger tree is suffering from transplant shock and just lost most of it's root system. It probably has "wounds" all over it's roots. It can be killed by things a larger established tree can shrug off. Saplings are known to be more vulnerable to disease. Increased risk of disease is one of the risks of soggy, poorly draining soil. Hopefully the tree will be able to survive less-then-perfect soil better when it is better established. The small berm puts off the time when the tree will have to deal with this. Hopefully gets the tree through the vulnerable first two years.

Is there a flaw in this logic?

I think it is fair to say that plants can deal with varying circumstances differently according to size or maturity - palms for example. Against the usual logic, it was impossible to establish a small phoenix date palm to survive an East-Anglian winter while a much larger specimen, transplanted at 8 years of age, sailed through the cold and damp without problem. It is also fair to say that plants have a considerable degree of adaptability...and faced with numerous fails, if I was desperate for a particular specimen, I would certainly be tempted to go down different and more experimental routes than the current (failing) procedures...so yep, I see nothing to lose in trying a raised bed myself.

"Didn't you recommend a raised bed yourself?"

Yeah, but Peyton chose to overlook that; it didn't fit with his changing argument.

"Is there a flaw in this logic?"

Newly planted trees are indeed more susceptible to a wide variety of things that a well-established plant might be better equipped to shrug off. I don't think poor drainage really falls into that same category though. A larger and/or well-established tree would still suffer from poor drainage.

Depending on the situation, a smaller tree planted in a small berm might do fine for a while and then gradually get stunted as its root system grew past usable soil. This would probably not be a healthy situation for the then-a-little-older tree. Lots of factors would come into play in determining the actual results.

As I wrote earlier, if drainage is the problem, a large berm (proportional to the requirements of the tree as it matures) would be my recommendation. I believe the recommendation for a berm comprised of "one cubic yard of soil" for a larger-growing tree is ill-advised.

Oh Christ, not one of these 'scientific proof' arguements...

Brandon, you don't have to put any stock in someone else's idea. It's up to Panoply whether he or she wants to do as anyone has suggested.

I reckon rpwalton's idea isn't bad at all.

Tete, feel free to build a one-cup size berm for your own trees if that's what floats your boat, HOWEVER, when I see advice like that on here, I feel completely free to point out the fallacy of the recommendation. Believe it or not, some people actually come here seeking good advice. A significant percent of the value of this website is it's members "fact checking" all the "noise" (various and sometimes conflicting recommendations). If you are one of those people that has a problem with science, that's your problem not mine. Maybe try placing a four-leaved clover under your one-cup berm.

I think we've beaten the drainage issue into the ground. I'm not 100% convinced we know that is the problem. Gingko are supposed to do good on dense clay soil, it's why they are popular as street trees. I figure it would be good to get some solid data on what is different between the situation in his yard and that in the Old State Capitol where the gingko are thriving. I also think it might be good to experiment with transplants of different sizes then what he's been using.

So Brandon, you think my advice was fallacious and "noise"...? And you think that you represent "science"??? I was speaking from 40 years experience and a Bachelor of Science in horticulture. Why do you insist on picking apart simple advice that works and denigrating others comments here? Sorry, but I'm done with this crap. See ya!

Peyton, I wasn't using the term "noise" to refer specifically to your advice. I was talking about the collective inputs form many contributors. In fact, I tried to define the term in the text (various and sometimes conflicting recommendations) so that it would not be taken as you seem to have taken it. Maybe it was not a good word choice, but it seemed OK at the time (especially with the attempt at clarification).

Without opposing views and without some analysis of all the various inputs, I believe this forum would be far less interesting and less useful. If I posted something that others felt was misguided, I would certainly hope they would provide feedback with good justification. It's the way we learn!

BTW, when I make a post, I try to be very sure that it is correct. In fact, I often do not comment on certain topic, even when I am tempted to, when I feel less comfortable that my understanding is accurate. There have been times that my input was wrong. When the fault of my logic or the details of my misunderstandings were pointed out, those were the times (without a doubt) that I learned the most from GardenWeb.

I am not against science. I am only against ignorant bleating in the name of science.