Return to the Trees Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
Anyone agree?
| | |
Posted by
gardenapprentice 7b -TN (
My Page) on
Sun, Nov 4, 12 at 15:30
| Why do most people want an actual ornamental tree? I mean ornamental's are nice and give more showier foliage/blooms but it isn't as good as a naturally grown tree that isn't overfed to meet the common demand of some horticulturists. Anyone agree? |
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| agree.. ??? .. i cant even figure out what the heck you are talking about ... i guess we would have to begin.. by defining 'ornamental' .... and you know what.. i dont have one .. lol .. [but that never stopped me] ... anyone.. what is the definition ... is it as limited as appren seems to think.. or is it more broad ... one would tend the think.. that any plant.. planted as a specimen .. could be called ornamental.. since it was chosen for an aesthetic.. rather than a function .. crimminey.. now i dont even know what i am talking about ... lol ken |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I think you are trying to make a distinction between a native species and one that is not. 'Ornamental' in the horticultural sense refers to a plant that is grown for its aesthetic characteristics rather than for food or for some utilitarian purpose. In my book, that includes a whole lot of native species so that terminology falls a bit short if that was the point you were trying to make. Do I think natives are preferrable over a non-native or even a cultivated native species? Not necessarily and in some cases not at all. A native plant is not inherently "better" just because it is a native nor is a non-native necessarily somehow inferior just because of its origins. Each plant should be judged on its own merits and the suitability it has for that specific location/situation. And how boring would our gardens be if all we had were natives.......it hardly bears thinking about! |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| By ornamental i mean professionally grown. for example a redbud that is non ornamental is in the forest it isn't filled with flowers. While an ornamental one is full of flowers and has a definable shape, usually in the woods a red bud isn't defined to a certain shape. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
- Posted by lkz5ia z5 west iowa (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 4, 12 at 17:33
| So basically you are wondering why people want a tree to look good and not boring..... |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I prefer "real" trees. A tree should have green foliage, not red, yellow or white. No columnar form, no lace leafs. The many japanese maples are worst. Some are still nice but many looks like syntetic freaks. Also I want a fertile tree, I want seeds from it even if they are messy. I want it genuine. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I don't care for the "lollipop" kind of trees that are pruned up to the point that they don't resemble "natural" trees. There's one particular arborist here in my area that seems to be big on these. What seems strange to me is that the company is a very very well respected one and had numerous ISA certified arborists on staff. But, to me, their work just looks awful. I do like full and well maintained specimens, but I like them to look like what I picture as an idealistic natural tree, not one that has been turned into some weird artwork-looking thing or a tree that the pruner got carried away on. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
I guess gardenapprentice means cultivars vs species plants.
If that is the case it really depends. Some cultivars are clones, some aren't (if I am not mistaken). The issue of biodiversity is enormous but I do not think it really applies to ornamental horticulture, since so few are the trees that are planted for ornamental purpouses compared to those in forests or to crops. Nobody, I would expect, would think of planting a forest of Autumn Blaze maples, right?
I think it is more a question of concern when it comes to crops, in which case, when you consider the Great Plains, that is a lot of plants that are genetically identical or close to identical. And the consequences for the systems ecology are often unclear. Regarding looks... well... some cultivars bring characteristics that some would find necessary. I am personally more in the middle. I like certain cultivars, when they bring something otherwise impossible to observe.
What I have a problem with is the unwritten expectation that a specific tree should look exactly like that of the neighbour. The effect of that mentality is quite evident in the US gardens... It is really eerie to observe so many trees that are just so close to be identical... I like trees with quirks, defects, imperfections: a visible history that makes that organism special. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| Brandon you are right on point and you too Huggorm. I don't like variagrated trees if the tree wasnt meant to be a hybrid than leave it be just let them look natural and meant to be free growing and not pruned to the point the branches are brittle. One tree as a good example is the crape myrtle, in wild it looks so nice and free growing. But now the common trend for them is crape murder, it looks ratty. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| In some ways this fits into a conversation my wife and I have had several Falls in the the recent past. It seems to both of us that the fall color in the recent years is better that it was when we were kids. It could be an observant thing, but I also think that in the past 50 years there have been many hybrid trees plant both in the urban areas and by country homes. These trees bred for their color are now mature and are more obvious in the land scape. Personally I like the more colorful falls, and the hybrid flowering trees that make the springs more flowerfull. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| The hybrid magnolias can be incredible. While I have mostly planted large growing forest trees, I have planted a few that would qualify as "ornamental" in that they would not be found naturally. It does cross my mind while they are flowering but in a good way =) John |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I've always liked the aesthetic of the forest - Around here, redbuds sprout and line roads - in the spring, the whole roadside is a sweep of pink. Near Eagle Creek Park in Indianapolis, flowering dogwood is thrown into the mix. Truly beautiful - Natural, but certainly ornamental. Also, a plant doesn't have to be a hybrid to be ornamental - I find the large, spreading crowns of sugar maple to be highly ornamental, even species trees that have been there for 200 years. While I certainly don't mind hybrids for gardens and landscapes (Things like hybrid witch hazels or even hybrid serviceberries), in my view, natural, untampered-with wild areas are most ornamental. Go to older state parks (Turkey Run, Brown County, and McCormick's Creek are good Indiana examples), where mature, open forests abound with wildflowers and flowering understory trees, and you'll see what I mean. Not trying to shove my view on anyone, I'm just saying that to me, these mature woodlands are the most aesthetically pleasing. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| One of the problems this thread is having is that now the word "hybrid" is being used to stand in for cultivar. All cultivars are not hybrids but a few are. Some hybrid trees are not grown for the ornamental market specifically, but some are. There's hybrids, seed-grown straight species-with their attendant genetic variability, there's clones where the genetics from plant to plant is the same, and so on. I see this a lot. There's a garden writer in our local paper who usually does a pretty fair job. Just recently, he made the same mistake-referring to all cultivated varieties of trees as "hybrids". I don't mind someone on an amateur forum making that mistake, but when it comes to getting paid for your words, you ought to know better. +oM |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| Given my yard is full of grafted conifers, I guess I'm an "ornamental" kind of guy. This is more due to space limitations. I love the straight species of various trees, but I have no room for all of them and dwarf and miniature cultivars allows for more variety in the yard. tj |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I don't think their is anything better than a rare tree VS a standard 'Big Box Store' tree... Picea orientalis 'Skylands'
 VS... A standard Norway spruce:
 |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
I dont think that any tree is natural in the way you defined it. No tree is completely pure; there is always some hybridization going on. Oaks for examples are probably the most unpure trees with thousands of hybrids and backcrosses.
Humans are not really pure either for example its been found that white people have a small percentage of Neanderthal and Homo erectus DNA |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| Well this has wandered into evolution and species classification. Humans, white ppl included, are one species. They look different but interbreed. Oaks are a hundred species, some look different and many interbreed. After we figure out divergent evolution occuring in oaks in our natural ares and convergent in our yards we might figure out this human evolution thing. Oh, ornamental show pieces in a yard must be used with care just like accent chairs in a living room. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I think that Nature is the greatest artist and there is no more beautiful sight in the world than a 100% natural, indigenous landscape undisturbed by human activity or human-introduced species, or a colorful butterfly on a flower. Amazing and we just can't create this! But I also love being the artist and creating pretty gardens, and use many ornamental cultivars introduced by the horticultural trade. They are selected for interesting traits, and if they are vigorous, why not grow a few of them? (as long as they're not invasive) It's also quite important to me that the gardens and yard provide resources for other species, in particular I like birds and insects. So the gardens are organic, and a little messy sometimes, with numerous native plants, many plants grown from seed, seed heads left for the birds, leaf litter as a natural mulch, etc. PS Variegation and other selected traits aren't necessarily "unnatural", they could be the result of a natural genetic mutation. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| I have many oaks, a few hybrids ( Comptons oak ) and a few maybe hybrids of live oaks, watching them grow will show which they favor. And natural hybridization has probably given us some oaks that arethought of as being regular oaks, it just happened a while ago, before people took note of it. I tend to favor the natural growth habits of most trees. Many "new" forms eventually try to go back to their natural form. I hate suckering graft takeover. My dad's apple trees are doing this. Do I prune off these sprouts? They are pretty substantial. I've tried pruning them( the tree canopy) for more production and failed at that. He has gotten about 8 small apples in 4 years, I would rather buy him 8 nice store-bought better looking apples than see them sucker skirted ones out there. In the end I know they make him happy being out there, I just wish they weren't grafted trees ( Macintosh) But in the Orchard forum, they let me know seed grown apple trees won't give good fruit, and you gotta spray all kinda crap to get unblemished fruit. I don't like chemical spraying if I can help it. Well, I do use round-up on weeds. I am just going to try and fight the suckers and let my dad prune off any ugly pits and scabs and eat what's left on the fruit. Sorry to go on and on but, if I didn't have lots of area I may get into dwarf plants or columnar oaks, but I don't like the looks of weepers, columnars, prostrates etc, if I can grow the natural ( bigger) forms. I have some vareigated plants: Kerria Japonica, a shade shrub, Solomon's seal, Shade perennial, Brunnera, Lungwort etc, because there needs to be a contrast of some sort with all the greenery, and I would imagine some people need that ( contrast ) in their landscape and that's why we have all the colors and forms. I myself like the more natural forms of trees though. But I can relate to needing some contrast, I just use the less dominating forms of Shrubs and perennials to find my contrast. |
RE: Anyone agree?
| | |
| "Oh, ornamental show pieces in a yard must be used with care just like accent chairs in a living room." Worthy of painting on a sign and hanging in a nursery. Good analogy! |
Post a Follow-Up
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in.
If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Trees Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
