In looking around, I found that Oikos offers some in the 3 to 4 foot range, which would just make it in terms of size. They call them 'eurolepis', which is another name for the same plant, I believe. So, what, if anything do you all have for experiences with Oikos?

+oM

Some stuff, grown in those little paper plant bands, is small, and sometimes spindly, but I don't think I've ever purchased anything from Ken that didn't establish well and grow just fine.

Yes, they're all seedlings, and it's something of a genetic crapshoot - and particularly with the oaks and chestnuts, the seedlings you buy may be real genetic 'mutts' due to cross-pollenation in his seed orchard - but he's got a lot of things that you just won't find anywhere else.

+oM

I have ordered from Oikos twice, and my opinion of the stuff I got is mixed. Some of the trees, especially the taller ones, were extremely spindly and weak, as if they had grown in an overly crowded space, and or were grown in shade. I nursed these things as carefully as I could, but a good number simply couldn't overcome the weak condition, and died.

I had better luck wuth the smaller things that had not been in the little paper pots for so long. A number of the trees had severe root deformity, with the root going down in the paper pot, then back up, and then around, etc. A real mess.

But I will order from them again because they offer things I can't get elsewhere. And some the things that came in better shape than the others, have grown well.

I would not trust them with the hybrid larch, and it seems they don't offer them in the size you need. But they do sell some "field grown" things--these may be better. Unfortunateley, I don't know where you can to go for the size you want.

I got mine from Forest Farm in the one gallon size, and they were about two feet tall or a bit more. These larch are spectacular. I got two the first time, the last time I ordered I got 10, and this next spring I will get maybe 15 more--I just can't get enough of these. In the deeper soils here they grow fast, and right now in the fall their color would make the angels weep. I want to plant more so I can have them in little groves, and in one place I want to mix them in loosely--with space between--with Norway spruce.

Well, good luck finding these trees--if you can find them, your customer will, in a few years, be absolutely delighted!

--Spruce

I do see them listed at 4 to 5 feet on Oikos. Not sure what to think as to why others don't see this. But can you elaborate, Spruce, on your reluctance to recommend this outfit for this species? Right now, it's about all I've got to go on. The worst part-or the best, depending on how you look at it-is that the golf course superintendant is very enthused about this tree!

+oM

I just checked the Oikos site, and their larch are grown in those paper pots, not field grown. A fair amount of the paper pot stuff, mostly or exclisively oaks, I got from them has had what to me looked like serious root deformity. But perhaps with the larch it is not a big problem, and maybe it really wasn't with the oaks. After I planted them, I did not remember which ones had the worst root systems.

But if the root system is small, and the trees are up to four feet tall, they will need careful tending, including being staked, and carefully watered for a while.

In all fairness, the larch I got from Forest Farm had weak and small root systems also, and they all survived fine. But in the hot and dry climate here, I carefully watered them for 3 years!

So, go with the Oikos, and I know they will be expertly planted, and should grow just fine.

But do me a favor--after you get them, tell me what you think of them. If I get a good report from you, I will try Oikos for some larch in the future.

These larch are at the top of my list of "not planted nearly enough" trees! Planted in groups of 3 to 12 or more, they will be absolutely gloriful on a golf course. And they are fabulously long-lived.

-spruce

Funny you mention marschlinsii's longevity. The golf course super, a good plant man himself, did ask about precisely that, knowing of the tendency of very fast-growing trees to often not be long lived. I assured him that this was less the case amongst conifers, what with their high degree of production of chemical defense materials. I used coast redwood as an example, Anyone here think I was off-base on that point?

What I wish we could do would be to get some seedlings, line them out, and then transplant as needed. That would be great, but it ain't gonna happen.

Finally, what do you or anyone else know of the max. size available from FF?

+oM

Yes, it is a myth that fast growing trees are always short lived. Many are, but there are also many exceptions. Redwoods are the best example, but the giant Sequoia are also the fastest growing trees in the environment in the Sierra where they live. In the northern part of the midwest and the Northeast, white pine grows rather fast, and is supposed to live up to 400 years, etc., etc.

But as for the hybrid larch, there is no data available, since the hybrid is fairly new. My saying it will be very long lived is based on the fact that the European larch, one of the "parents," is reputed to live for 1,000 years. Hard documentation may be lacking, but the tree is very, very long lived. In England some some reports say European larch are susceptible to some canker diseases and don't live so long, but here in the US, those planted at about 1800, such as the one near here at the Oatlands plantation, are over 200 years old and still look very young and vigorous. The Japanese larch is also supposed to be long lived, but I don't have any estimates of its maximum life span. Our western larch is reputed to live for something close to 1,000 years or more. The native tamarack, among the larches I know, IS fairly short lived, but can exceed 200 years occasionally.

The hybrid larch I got from forest farm probably averaged 30 inches when I got them. The first year the growth was minimal--maybe 6 inches. The second year maybe 12 to 18 inches--that would make a good commercial size.

By the third year some really take off and grow up to 4 feet--others not so much, but they may take off the next year. But for the best growth, they need deep good soil--something like a rooting zone of 30 inches or more. If grown on a slope, they will grow very well with soil not so deep. But, anyway, you say lining some out is not an option.

--spruce

Overall, I'm very hopeful that this recommendation, which will have my name associated with it, will be well received in the long run. It's just getting to that point I'm concerned with. We just can't be putting little dinky saplings on a golf course. Or maybe we can, but I'll be worried about their welfare in the early years!

+oM

If there's a question about the hybrid larch they offer, it might be best to e-mail them first with any concerns.

Just looking for any larch at nurseries will quickly disabuse one of the notion that they will find rare, esoteric materials!

+oM

Maybe a bit more information about the larch I got from Forest Farm. The trees I got in the one gallon size were, each time, about 30 inches tall, vigorous, and well formed. The one Gallon size were initially grown in tubes, and have spent a season, maybe not a full year, in the gallon pots. The roots did not fill up the one gallon pots, and the soil in the pots was a light kind of soil with a good amount of organic material. The root "balls" were fragile, but with care, they were not difficult to plant. I could imagine that they could be planted just as well bare root--just remove the potting soil and put them in the native soil with the roots spread out nicely--they may be more drought resistant planted that way.

The concern I had, seeing the limited root development, and the lightness of the potting soil, was keeping them well watrered. Now I am down here in VA, and a very hot and dry part of VA at that. Where you are, I would guess the dry weather/droughts/heat are not so much of a problem. And, if you get the trees in early--as soon as the snow is gone and the ground is workable--that will help them get a head start with early root growth. Forest Farm will send them when you specify, unlike many places that sell bare root things. If you have a reasonably wet year, they may not need that much watering.

I had 100% survival, no problem. But I was "all over" these things, making sure they did not dry out.

If you did plant them out for a year after getting them from Forest Farm, they might look a bit more acceptable. And if you babied them, and had them in good soil, they might come close to averaging 40", and you could plant them with a decent root ball, and have them needing much less watering at that point. More work, but if that is the best you can do, it would not be bad.

--spruce

It is conceivable that because the trees are not necessarily going to go directly into the project area-they can be planted anywhere on the course-there may be additional flexibility in how this aspect gets done.

I do like the overall sound of those from FF though. The fact they were started in tubes makes me wonder if they were originally supplied by my usual source-itascagreenhouse.com, who sell lots of trees in that form.

+oM

One somewhat odd thing has happened: These trees, as I've related, are really fast growers. Some are near ten feet tall after three growing seasons. Well, we had some fierce N. winds back about a month ago. Two separate events. I goes up there, and much to my horror, numerous of these are blown such that they are nearly parallel to the ground. Nearby Norway spruce and other species-no such issue. Upon close examination, these larch have simply been bent over near ground level, and left in that position. I've since staked and corrected a few of the worst ones. But I do wonder why these trees were so severely affected by these winds. True, they were taller than the nearby spruce, but at least in a few cases, not by all that much. Some of those NS have done really well too.

Oh well, this is but one chapter in what will be for me, a project for the rest of my life in planting up (And allowing for natural regeneration) of the field areas of that property. Also a little odd to me, the ones blown sideways actually are behind-in respect to the wind direction-an old barn and big brick farm house. Others far down the field from there are in what would seem a much more vulnerable position, but had no such trouble.

I welcome any and all further discussion of this amazing plant.

+oM

Any chance there was an early wet snow??? I lost a lot of my larch in Western MD three years ago in just such an early snow. It is hard to believe that winds could do this damage--the young larch are so flexible they should just bend in the wind, no matter how strong, and spring back. But a heavy wet snow will press them down relentlessly--so much that they are permanently bent and/or the roots torn loose.

Japanese larch are especially susceptible to this when they are young, but the European are also, but to a lesser extent. European and Japanese larch hold their needles until almost everything else is bare. The Japanese also are often uprooted by this kind of early snow weight--the European are a bit less likely to be uprooted, but it depends on the soil to some extent.

I have a lot of larch planted in Western MD, and they have withstood some fierce winds. There are some more mature larch in a few nearby places, and I have never observed any wind damage.

Regular conifers, such as Norway spruce and white pine, etc., are usually unaffected by early wet snows--they are adapted because holding their needles all winter long is their norm. Of course the worst of the worst heavy wet snows can damage almost anything.

Maybe some of your young larch can be saved by pulling them back up with a rope, and pounding in a stake or two to hold them. But if the roots are torn loose, or partially torn loose, their prospects are not so good.

--spruce

There was no snow during these wind events. Quite a bit of rain, but no snow. But that brings me to the other aspect-that having been bent downward so much, any subsequent snow will surely exacerbate the situation.

I remember when I was just starting out on this project being told by someone-maybe you-that the larch will outgrow everything else so much that it would be advisable to give other species a headstart of perhaps three years. I now fully understand this. Furthermore, as other less wind-prone species get going, the overall wind patterns will be softened. Therefor, as much as I hate to do so, I have decided that as I start out other pods of conifers in that field, it will indeed be pines, spruce, and other items, with the larch going in later. I also wish to get some bigtooth aspen going on the few relatively higher, drier spots I've got. No particular reason except I like how they look. Of course, that is the reasoning behind this entire project!

So on my land, I plan to not plant anymore larch for the next two or three years. I still do need to source some (hopefully) larger specimens for the golf course deal though.

+oM