Several years ago in October when we had our 14' Nuttal oak planted, they recommend leaving it on until the end of the following growing season. I waited until the following spring (nearly a year and a half after it was planted) which was a mistake.

When I broke up the ring there were small roots from the tree growing up into the ring.

20 foot tree? I say in 4 or 5 years it will be established

i agree with ken

me too.

I may as well be the one to say it-and yes, you will rightly declare I'm not answering your question-that 20 ft. transplant represents a false saving of time, waiting for a tree to grow. If for the purposes of this discussion, a much smaller transplant-say a total height of perhaps 6 ft. or even less-had been planted alongside your giant, it would in fact adjust to its new surroundings much more quickly and in effect, catch up to and then surpass the big guy in growth. How long would this take? Too many variables to pin that down but I'm talking about a general pattern, one which has been corroborated over and over again.

So I will indeed tie this to your initial question: The big transplant, having a great deal more work to do to acclimate to its new surroundings, will "require"-that's a vague term within this context-a mulch ring far longer than would a smaller one. And yes, those above advocating for the efficacy of mulch rings long into the life of the tree are also correct and for the reasons stated, and more.

Bottom line, you can do whatever you want. But by going so big, if there are benefits to mulch rings-most of us believe there are-you have extended that time span.

BTW, was this tree balled in burlap, spaded in, or what? Very generally speaking, the "root breakout zone" is wherever the backfill soil ends and regular non-dug-up soil begins. In very large transplants, it is beneficial to loosen the soil in this ring, using a rototiller or what have you. This eases the transition of roots out into the surrounding area, something that must happen if the tree is to succeed.

+oM

FWIW, I believe mulch is beneficial for an eternity. However it gets expensive and becomes a maintenance issue with big trees. For example, I am not going to mulch and weed a 100 foot circle around my shingle oak.

My small transplants usually get about 2 years of mulch even if they are in a difficult to maintain area. Some get a little more. Your big transplant will likely take longer to establish.

I dug a sycamore tree (3-4 ft.) up from the wild, brought it to my yard and planted it. Kept a "mulch ring" around it for 4-5 years until it had proper bark. Now I just spray weed killer around it about 3-4" from the truck. No problems. Did it to an oak also. Both are doing good and look great. All the pine trees I planted as seedlings I kept them mulched for a year or two til I got the bark on the trunk. Yes "mulch rings" look nice and do their jobs, but I have so many trees that would be all I do around here is mulch. Very necessary for new trees though.

Big azz silver maple the previous owner planted loaded mulch up high around the tree, so now I have to keep mulched because the roots are at least a foot out of the ground. But it looked good.

stparkes, I can understand your desire to remove the mulch from under the tree. Mulch is not very pretty. However, science has proven that grass under the tree will rob the tree of vital moisture and nutrients, but the grass will also suffer from the tree's shade. The best alternative I have discovered is to create a garden under the tree. That way the area looks much better and the tree is getting the benefit of the mulch.

However there are a lot of cautions to consider when planting something under the tree. Based on my experience of almost killing a specimen Jap. maple when I removed the sod, I wrote an article about how to plant under a tree correctly. I hope this helps. http://gibneyce.com/planting-under-a-tree.html

What ken et al said.

Best,

D

Len, I have to disagree with you about mulch not looking pretty. Most mulches look just fine to me. If it doesn't, just add a better looking one on top of the bad looking one, like ground up bark over ghastly dyed wood chips. Add some ground covers and top dress once in awhile with woodchips or bark and things will look more natural.The ground covers take over as the mulch deteriorates.

I totally agree with the idea that grass shouldn't be allowed up next to the trunk of a tree. Wrong for so many reasons. String trimmers kill a lot of trees. Wait! Not the string trimmer, but it's the string trimmer operator that's responsible for killing the tree.

A single tree with a perfect circle volcano mulch plunked out in the middle of the lawn looks rather contrived and ridiculous to me. Trees should be grouped in combinations and the bed beneath them should reflect the shape of the group in some way.

Mike

If the canopy is not too dense, a living mulch can be a lovely option - epimediums spring to mind immediately, and (don't all gasp at once) hibernian ivy - in particular, a mannerly variety called Buttercup. Pachysandra, and creeping dogwood (cornus canadensis) in an acid soil will do well, as will a number of small shrubs such as ruscus and sarcococca.. I do grow right up to the base of my poplars - in fact, these areas, which have had decades of leaves gathering and rotting, provide pockets of surprisingly deep and useful soil and the light levels are relatively high all year round - bulbs love it and spring ephemerals such as celandines, wood anemones, hepaticas and of course, hardy geraniums, do well. However, for at least a few years, a tree of that size really needs all the help it can get to establish (I am also a fan of planting maidens) and any competition for water and nutrients is potentially an issue.

Obvs, these plants are appropriate in GB but where you are, ymmv.

Thank you all for your responses. From everything you wrote, now I know what lies ahead: at least 4-5 years of mulching (and buy a smaller tree next time).

For best growth all permanent plantings are mulched permanently. A common exception in the decorative landscape is large, high branching trees in lawns - these look better with the grass coming up to the trunk instead of with a small bed around them.

Trees are use to a forest and np the natural mulching they get. Mulch rings are the closest thing to that. I suggest keeping mulch for 5 years then after do a once in 5 year fertilizing program

"Trees are use to a forest and np the natural mulching they get."

I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean. Maybe that "trees need mulch"?

"I suggest keeping mulch for 5 years..."

Why "5" years? I'm just wondering where that figure comes from.

"...then after do a once in 5 year fertilizing program"

Oh boy, here we go...... I cannot imagine what you could even POSSIBLY base that on!

Based on the fact that it was said tree is planted in a grassy area. Trees are from the forest therefore they get natural mulching from fallen composted leaves. Tree in the grass do not. You can mulch for a year if you'd like but to have a healthier happier tree in a grassy landscape I would choose to mulch a bit longer than a year. Trees that I have planted do very well but I do understand the many different routes that can be taken. So yes oh boy here we go

Here's an analogy to the once in 5-year fertilizing program:

Children need vitamins. Regardless of whether they are eating well-balanced and nutritional meals, I recommend that you force feed them vitamin pills one day per month.

only a help page not a place for bickering back and forth. Your analogy is spot on can't wait to take one of your classes

CW, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time. It's just that I take this exchange of info seriously. People come here to learn, and, when someone presents themselves as a professional, their information is likely to be depended upon and (I believe) should have a good solid basis. When a professional makes a recommendation that seems...well..."off the wall", I think it's important for that recommendation to at least be questioned. Otherwise, bad information is likely to prevail and people can become misinformed.

I've written a few things on here before that, when I looked back, I realized were not well thought out. I try really hard to make that the rare exception though. If I ever write something that runs strongly counter to currently accepted standards, I try to provide plenty of backup or rationale. If I didn't, I'd expect multiple people to question the recommendation.

My analogy was not meant to be condescending, but to illustrate the logic pattern behind the recommendation to routinely fertilize once every five years.