Benefits of Mulch

[NickfromWI]

I made this list:

1. holds moisture
2. moderates soil and root temperature
3. cushions roots, reduces soil compaction
4. prevents soil erosion from wind and water
5. adds organic matter to soil
6. suppresses weed growth
7. minimizes weed wacker and lawn mower damage
8. makes tree look tidy and pretty
9. increases root growth
10. makes trees easy to find (when planted in overgrown areas)
11. reduces soil "crusting", increasing water penetration
12. keeps green waste out of the dump

What am I missing?

love
nick

[treetx]

Makes purdy volcanoes :)

[NickfromWI]

you mean like:


http://www.taunton.com/CMS/uploadedImages/Images/Gardening/Issues_61-70/041069043-02_med.jpg
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/volcano2.jpg

or

http://www.gardening.cornell.edu/factsheets/mulch/images/vmulchlg.jpg

[treesandsurf]

Improves soil structure. Can prevent soil borne pathogens from splashing onto the plants. Increases water movement and absorption into the soil.

Don't forget to mention that some types of mulch can be harmful (allelopathic).

jp:D

[NickfromWI]

jp, what do you mean by "increases water movement?"

love
nick

[treesandsurf]

Mulches can reduce the crusting effect of soil and thus allow more water "movement" into the soil.

jp:D

[treesandsurf]

Also, increases the beauty of the landscape.


jp:D

[NickfromWI]

Ohhh...reduces the crusting? I was just reading that one. I'll go add it to the list now.

love
nick

[Mr. Sir]

Creates a market for one of our industries' most abundant waste products.

[NickfromWI]

That's a good one. Even if you are giving it away, at least you don't have to pay to dump it, and you are also keeping it out of the landfill...

love
nick

[TheTreeSpyder]

Allows you to not 'rape' that part of the land for recycling nutrients if you are mulching back what you are removing from that local. Naturally, the tree would mine the elements, then have that relative balance of elements back; and only mine the remainder.

Otherwise, my main addition is kinda already covered in some ways. Mulch leaves a breathable layer on top; so that the more compact sea of soil can be raw membrane from the top down. If there is no other protectant /bare soil; the top layer of soil must 'die off' from raw elemeant exposure; then the sea of soil /living membrane starts beneath this layer. But, the denser/ dead soil is harder to breath through than mulch. It is smaller particulate, less concave points, more consistent convex and less pourus a material; all serving to pack tighter. Oxygen will only go down so far into the soil; so now(with no mulch/dead top soil as 'cap') it (oxygen penetration)is limited by depth(as it would be anyway) and also by it's shallowness part being less alive/ dynamic. Leaving less useable/dynamic sea of soil in between the 2 layers(depth and dead soil) IMLHO.

i like breaking soil compression into 2 things it protects by:
spreading out the footprint of forces to less psi(static or dynamic force), and
shock absorber for less impact forces(dynamic protection only).
Uncompressed soil is key. i think a cup of healthy soil; should be half a cup of air space for transportation and storage of oxygen, water etc. And that many organisms work on developing this.

Also; suppresses weeds/competition fits further into 2 sub-categories:
roots can't reach dirt to take hold
and blocks light from soil. Then, even there are enough extra elements to grow something to compete; it can be trapped as it dies off to feed the locale; otherwise those nutrients would get washed away.

[JohnB]

I agree that mulch 100% beneficial. Although I've always been taught not to pack the mulch so hard around the trunk of the tree because it can cause trunk rot (to much moisture?)

[NickfromWI]

Yep, on mature trees you could leave 3' around the tree NOT mulched and the tree would be happy. There should be a ratio. It might be 2:1? 2' DBH tree should have a 1' area around it with no mulch? Hmmm....

But yeah, on my trees, the mulch starts AWAY from the trees.

[TC3]

Creates a barrier against foot traffic / Reduces soil compaction.
(I think Spydie said this in a thousand words or less ??? My bad.)

[treesandsurf]

Reduces rather than prevents, that's good!

I Loooooooooove mulch:notworthy:

Maybe the best thing an arborist can do for a tree?

jp:D

[treelooker]

Fights soil pathogens by building the forces of soil symbionts and beneficial microbes. The enzymatic activity of decaying organic matter creates an environment inhospitable to disease.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are at war with the evil fungi that seek to bring down our charges, the trees. We must enlist the aid of our allies, and mulch is the key player.

Look at the December issue of TCI--Percival's study showed that hawthorn mulch suppresses disease. This is the tip of the research iceberg--we must learn more about our stalwart ally.

And yes keep it off the trunk; tank youse berry much!

[TheTreeSpyder]

Actually, i think it is the job of the low branches or rows of trunks in the woods to reduce and break up foot traffic(even after the branches or trunk's deaths) to compact the rich sea of soil. The lower branches on the outer skirt also reduce light from sides, as well as draw/trail water away from trunk.

All the leaves actually reduce or 'anemify' the useful light by mining/stripping the red band out(thus leaving the cooler bands of yellow + blue = green looking leaves). The red band being most useful to the tree, especially for rooting and budding(?); thereby another check against competition taking hold/root; and even if it does so; then it is harder for it to 'fruit'/perpetuate it's own kind. So, this anemic light works in tandem with the mulch to limit competition by the real king of the jungle territories; that it takes for it's own. As these things are orchestrations of efforts; of checks and balances to the same end. Trees can't wander to a richer feeding ground; so in their wisdom; they try to do the next best thing and make one! Including giving the leaf 2 choices in this wisdom, to stay on the tree and store and feed nutrients, or to fall to the ground and store and feed nutrients...

If we follow the example of a real good root crown, we see the tree itself trying to ramp it's own mulch away from it's trunk. This own mulch would fall lightly and slowly over time, not in our thick layer. But, as we suddenly place thick layer, we should compensate and follow this example.

[xtremetrees]

Maybe the best thing an arborist can do for a tree?

jp:D

I think your right about that

[Al Smith]

Pines are not native to this part of the country but we have them as transplants. It was told to me that a person should allow the pine straw[needles] to accumulate under the trees to add the natural nutrients back into the living tree ,such as in would get in it's native mountain environment.

What I know about tree care would fit in a shot glass with room left over.I can prune them,climb them and cut them but have no idea how to feed them.:?

[Paul B]

technically you cant 'feed them', you can provide minerals, water and light which plants use to manufacture 'food' ;)

[NickfromWI]

Actually, Paul, sunlight radiates from my soul...so that makes me the only person in the world that can "feed" trees. The rest of you have to rely on the sun to feed the trees!

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

love
nick

[Paul B]

roger that, can you also cure SAD? :P

[squisher]

sunlight radiates from my soul...

love
nick

Are you sure that's coming from your soul, or is it coming out your azz?:P




:D:lol:

[MasterBlaster]

I'm an ex-Mcdonalds salaried manager and 30 seconds was all I could take!

[NickfromWI]

No, squisher...that's where the potpourri comes from!

love
nick

[squisher]

:lol:ewwwwwww!!!!

[sotc]

howd it get there? :/:

[TC3]

Fights soil pathogens by building the forces of soil symbionts and beneficial microbes. The enzymatic activity of decaying organic matter creates an environment inhospitable to disease.

Loved your post, Guy !!!
Couple o' questions (thinking out loud... or atleast in type) :
How is the research being done ? That is, is the mulch of the same exact tree or atleast the same species ? Or is it mix-and-match-mulch out of the back of the chipper ? Or is it commercial mulch ? Can / does the dyed-type mulch affect the enzymatic activity ? Also, I've seen many instances where the mulch gets moldy. Can this have an adverse affect ?
What types of mulch are best / worst ?
I've heard that Willow chips have lotsa potassium.

[xtremetrees]

the leaves of yoshino cherry trees should be cleaned up as soon as they fall because the fungus thats symboitic with the yoshino can spread. Namely shot hole fungus.

[TC3]

the leaves of yoshino cherry trees should be cleaned up as soon as they fall because the fungus thats symboitic with the yoshino can spread. Namely shot hole fungus.

Same is true for Apple Scab fungus.
"Sanitation" control of disease is the term I was taught.

[treelooker]

Loved your post, Guy !!!
Couple o' questions (thinking out loud... or atleast in type) :
How is the research being done ? That is, is the mulch of the same exact tree or atleast the same species ? Or is it mix-and-match-mulch out of the back of the chipper ? Or is it commercial mulch ? Can / does the dyed-type mulch affect the enzymatic activity ? Also, I've seen many instances where the mulch gets moldy. Can this have an adverse affect ?
What types of mulch are best / worst ?
I've heard that Willow chips have lotsa potassium.

http://www.tcia.org/PDFs/TCI_Mag_Dec_07.pdf

is where it is. author is glynn percival. Hey TC, drop me a pm if you want to wake up Peapod.

[xtremetrees]

Fruit trees can increase crops up to 400/600 % simply by mulching." WOW

[squisher]

What are some opinions/options on the best way to convert a grass area into a mulch bed for a already established tree?

[MasterBlaster]

First, remove the grass.

[squisher]

So you can safely remove the grass without damaging many of the tree's roots?

[MasterBlaster]

The damage will be minimal, remove ONLY the sod layer.

[squisher]

Cool, gonna try that out on some of my own trees. Once the snow melts that is.:D

Now what would you say would be the best way for scraping that grass off, I'm thinking of just digging the grass/top layer off with the bucket of my mini-skid?

[MasterBlaster]

No, that would probably go too deep. Either rent a sodder or buy the proper shovel and do it by hand.

[Skwerl]

Or you can spray the grass with Roundup and then mulch over it. Or mulch over the live grass and spray whatever grows through the mulch.

And before somebody throws a fit about the Roundup, please remember that Roundup is absorbed through the plant LEAF and has no effect on the soil. If you want to get technical, it chemically adheres to the dirt so tightly that the plant roots cannot draw it off the dirt. It kills grass and weeds by being absorbed through the leaf and disrupting the photosynthesis process.

[sotc]

we always disced the orchard so i dont imagine the mini will do much damage, call it root pruing:D

[TheTreeSpyder]

Round up is a foliar feed chemical, one of the original uses was spraying fencelines with trees. If it hits the bark it wouldn't be absorbed; but the leaves of high weeds it would absorb.

Another way to use it though; is to cut down a sapling etc. that is hard to kill; and immediately paint; it will absorb on a fresh cut. For such uses; i'll cut said stump high, so later as a matter of routine and/or if needed; i can make another fresh cut lower; and paint it. Leave no sawdust etc. before painting and try to cut, then paint immediately.

It is best used in warmer weather; especially with the foliar feed method; to get a lot of activity of taking in stuff from the leaf. Let it do it's job; don't get ticked or anxious if it don't work in a week etc. i think though that it is much better to remove the grass, before mulching; and mulch over soil sea.

[TC3]

O.K. enough, Spydie...
But it speaks to people who know what the hell they're doing with broad spectrum herbicides.
Round-Up is a contact herbicide. (surfactant)
Be clear on this, arborists.
Whatever it comes into contact with will go systemic & affect the plant / tree is has been sprayed by.
Understand what you're working with.
"Round-Up" has been made a household name & has been made to seem innocuous, or somehow benign.
"Going Green" isn't just a movement or some popular stance...
It's saying, "Wait a second... My little bit of a difference could mean something.."
It's being convinced that every little bit counts.
Round-Up is not a panacea.
Get rid of it.

[Bodean]

Mulch is a good cosmetic dressing for surfaacing roots found in clay soils.

As I understand it, Mulch tilled into the soil actually binds up available nitrogen.

Or something to that effect.

[NickfromWI]

Don't use a scraper. The roots aren't that deep. If it were my tree, it would become a labor of love to remove them by hand, maybe with the help of a cultivator, and I'd wet the soil first to soften/loosen it.

The "mulch over it and pull what breaks through" method sounds tempting too. I just wonder if you're asking for it down the line somewhere?

Yeah, keep the mulch on top. Over time it'll break down and "trickle" into the soil the way it would happen in nature. As much as possible I'd try to replicate that in your lawn.

love
nick

[squisher]

I've got alot of trees and alot of lawn, it ain't happening by hand. I'm gonna have to research this more I suppose, I also don't want to damage any of my trees.

[Frans]

Biosafety Information Service
Print
Assessment & Impacts » Health

Title: New evidence of dangers of Roundup weedkiller
Source: Third World Resurgence No. 176 Apr 2005
Publication date: April 01, 2005
Posting date: July 06, 2005

New evidence of dangers of Roundup weedkiller

New studies show that Roundup, one of the most common herbicides used worldwide for crops and backyard gardens, can have harmful health effects.
This has major consequences as the bulk of commercially planted GM crops are designed to tolerate Roundup with its active ingredient, glyphosate, and independent field data already shows a trend of increasing use of the herbicide.

Chee Yoke Heong

NEW studies from both sides of the Atlantic reveal that Roundup, the most widely used weedkiller in the world, can be harmful.

The stakes are high because more than 75% of genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide are engineered to tolerate glyphosate, with Monsanto's Roundup brand holding the biggest market share.

The use of Roundup has gone up especially in countries growing Roundup-tolerant GM crops engineered by Monsanto, who also produces the herbicide. It eliminates all other plants except the GM crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to it. Although the Roundup patent expired in September 2000, Monsanto is able to keep a captive and growing market for its weedkiller because the crops concerned are engineered to tolerate only Roundup.

Roundup with its active ingredient glyphosate has long been promoted as safe for humans and the environment while effective in killing weeds. It is a combination of glyphosate with other chemicals including a surfactant (detergent) polyethoxylated tallowamine that enhances the spreading of the spray droplets on the leaves of plants.

However, two recent studies show that Roundup, which is used by farmers and others including home gardeners, is not as safe as its promoters claim. This has major consequences as the bulk of commercially planted GM crops are designed to tolerate glyphosate (and especially Roundup), and independent field data already shows a trend of increasing use of the herbicide. This goes against industry claims that herbicide use will drop and that these plants will thus be more 'environment-friendly'. Now we find that there are serious health effects, too.

Roundup threatens human health

A group of scientists led by biochemist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than that in agricultural use. The findings were published in a US journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, in March.

According to French publication Le Monde, Seralini, as a member for years of the French Commission on Biomolecular Genetics (CBG), responsible for preparing the files for requests for field studies, then GMO (genetically modified organism) commercialisation, 'ceaselessly demands more intense studies on their eventual health impact'.

An epidemiological study in the Ontario farming populations showed that glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortions, and Seralini and his research team decided to find out more about the effects of the herbicide on cells from the human placenta.

The French team used human placental cell lines, in which very weak doses of glyphosate showed toxic effects and, at still weaker concentrations, endocrinal disturbances.

The study thus showed that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells, killing a large proportion of them after 18 hours of exposure at concentrations below that in agricultural use. This, they suggest, could explain the high levels of premature births and miscarriages observed among women farmers in the US using glyphosate.

They warn that since glyphosate is used worldwide, its residues may thus enter the food chain, and glyphosate is found as a contaminant in rivers. While Roundup and similar products were originally used against weeds, 'they have become a food product, since they are used on GMOs, which can absorb them without dying,' Seralini told Le Monde.

The scientists also compared the toxic effects of Roundup (the most common commercial formulation of glyphosate and chemical additives) and glyphosate (the active ingredient) by itself. They found that the toxic effect increases in the presence of Roundup 'adjuvants' or additives. These additives thus have a 'facilitating' role, with the result that Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient, glyphosate, at least by two-fold.

The toxic effect also increased with time, and was obtained with concentrations of Roundup 10 times lower than in agricultural use.

They concluded that the harmful effects of Roundup (the combination of chemicals) and not only glyphosate (the active ingredient) can be observed in mammals. Seralini is calling for extended animal studies.

Roundup 'lethal'

Another new study by scientists in the University of Pittsburgh, released in April, suggests that Roundup is also a danger to other life forms and non-target organisms.

Biologist Rick Relyea has found that Roundup is 'extremely lethal' to amphibians. In what is considered one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on non-target organisms in a natural setting, Relyea found that Roundup caused a 70% decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86% decline in the total mass of tadpoles.

Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely eliminated and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected.

'The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup, something designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians,' Relyea, who conducted the research at the university's Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, said in a statement released by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. 'We added Roundup, and the next day we looked in the tanks and there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom.'

'We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a repeatable result that we see,' said Relyea. 'It's fair to say that nobody would have guessed Roundup was going to be so lethal to amphibians.'

Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether Roundup would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source, the algae. However, he found that Roundup, although a herbicide, actually increased the amount of algae in the pond because it killed most of the frogs. 'It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has more grass in it - not because you made the grass grow better, but because you killed everything that eats grass,' he said.

More warnings

In 2002 a scientific team led by Robert Belle had shown that Roundup acted on one of the key stages of cellular division, which can potentially lead to cancer in the long term.

Belle is from the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) biological station in Roscoff (Finistere, Brittany, France) and his team has been studying the impact of glyphosate formulations on sea-urchin cells for several years. They used a recognised model for the study of early stages of cancer genesis, which had earned Tim Hunt the 2001 Nobel Prize in medicine.

The team has recently demonstrated in Toxicological Science (December 2004) that a 'control point' for DNA damage was affected by Roundup, while glyphosate alone had no effect. 'We have shown that it's a definite risk factor, but we have not evaluated the number of cancers potentially induced, nor the time frame within which they would declare themselves,' Belle acknowledges.

There is, indeed, direct evidence that glyphosate inhibits an important process called 'RNA transcription' in animals, at a concentration well below the level that is recommended for commercial spray application. Transcription was inhibited and embryonic development delayed in sea urchins following exposure to low levels of the herbicide and/or the surfactant polyethoxylated tallowamine. This means that sprayers who inhale the chemical are exposed to health hazards.

There is also new research that shows that a brief exposure to commercial glyphosate caused liver damage in rats, as indicated by the leakage of intracellular liver enzymes. The research indicates that glyphosate and its surfactant in Roundup were also found to act in synergy to increase damage to the liver.

Three recent case-control studies suggested an association between glyphosate use and the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma; a prospective cohort study in the US states of Iowa and North Carolina that includes more than 54,315 private and commercial licensed pesticide applicators suggested a link between glyphosate use and multiple myeloma. Myeloma has been associated with agents that cause either DNA damage or immune suppression.

This accumulation of scientific studies requires more safety research to be done, and provides a strong case for governments to urgently review the use of Roundup and other forms of glyphosate. At the same time, GM crops that are herbicide-tolerant should not be allowed to be grown.

References

'Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse', Institute for Science in Society Press Release, 7 March 2005.
'Roundup highly lethal to amphibians', University of Pittsburgh; Public release date: 1 April 2005
(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/uopm-rhl040105.php)
'Roundup Doesn't Poison Only Weeds' (translated from French), Herve Morin, Le Monde, 12 March 2005 (http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032805HB.shtml)

[xtremetrees]

Looks like to much mulch, 6-8 inches high on some trees . Should I email a pic to the county arborist and argue he done done it wrong?

[sotc]

e-mail it and nicely/tactfully mention thats not right.
can i use this pic robert?

[xtremetrees]

yeah bro, what for?

[TC3]

Looks like to much mulch, 6-8 inches high on some trees . Should I email a pic to the county arborist and argue he done done it wrong?
Judging by the pix, mulching isn't their only prob ? Maybe just send a couple of ISA pamphlets to the county on the care of trees... and don't forget to include the one on pruning / training young trees. That codominant lead should have been done away with years ago.
:/:
P.S. Pic #1 shows not over mulching, but the trend of planting high. I'm neither here nor there on it, but I'd bet my last dollar that the tree is still in the basket.
Ooops, wait... Here's my last dollar NOW !!! HAR !

[OTGBOSTON]

problem with that x is that the trees could've been planted too high. double check that it is a mulch volcano and not planted too high BEFORE you unleash your wrath on the guy:evil: either way its bad, just better to have your ducks in a row

[sotc]

just as an example "what not to do" pic

[xtremetrees]

Ty Boston, it will take closer inspection before sending out something. They have lost alot of the trees already, I'm seeing stumps. It seems wiser to have done it right from the beginning. Im guessing its over 1500 trees by this one road.

[squisher]

Ok in the reading I've done on applying mulch to mature/existing trees is it basically says to just go ahead and add a 2 to 3 inch layer on top of the existing surface without having it right next to the trunk/root flare.

So now my tentative plan is to use landscaping fabric right over top of the existing grass and then 2-3 inches of mulch over top of that. First off defining the mulch area with some lawn edging.

Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'm thinking that the landscape fabric will kill off the grass and not allow it to just grow up through the mulch.

[Skwerl]

landscaping fabric is a waste of time, money, and it creates more problems than it 'solves'. If you want it to work for 6 months then go ahead and use the fabric. But the problems encountered 3-5 years down the road will cause much more harm than good (kind of like topping trees, you have instant relief but worse problems later).

In other words, if it will kill the grass now then it will also restrict the tree roots later. And what are you going to do when you have grass growing on top of the barrier? Pull it up, after all the tree feeder roots and grass roots are all grown into it? Nope, it will be a mess.

[squisher]

So you'd just put the mulch right over the grass? That's the other way I'm considering and then just controlling whatever grass does grow through. A couple books that I read have recommended plastic with holes poked in or landscaping fabric to control weed growth. But I also read that mulching increases encourages feeder roots near the surface of the soil or the soil/mulch interface. So I wouldn't want to be disturbing all those roots in a few short years to repair/replace.

But couldn't you put down landscaping fabric just to help control the initial regrowth of grass/weeds and then just control whatever does grow through in the future as it happens without worrying about ripping out the old fabric? Also I read that mulch helps to supress weed growth so possibly after the mulch bed is established all that you might need to do in the future is add more mulch as it decomposes(if using a organic mulch which I would)?

I mean mulch is the way to go for new plantings or mature trees, just a matter of figuring the proper way to make it happen. The benefits are numerous as I've been reading and the risk/drawbacks are minimal as long as a little forethought is put into the type of mulch material used.

[Skwerl]

So you want to supress the weed roots but encourage the tree roots? How will the fabric distinguish between the weed roots and tree roots so it knows which ones to encourage and which ones to discourage?
:?

[squisher]

Hmm you're not following me and I'm not really following your last post there either I'm going to completly smother the grass not the tree as well, the grass should die because it will be buried no more light no more photosynthesis to grow I'm not going to kill it by the roots up. And I obviously won't be burying the tree.:P

The tree roots(feeders) and grass roots will already be there competing with each other as is happening right now with a tree surrounded completely by lawn, I'm hoping with either the landscape fabric and mulch or just mulch to smother the grass by burying it not by killing the roots. Once the grass is 'buried' it should die off unless it just grows right through the mulch again. That is why I'm considering putting down the landscape fabric.

Again so you would just apply the mulch with no barrier and deal with the grass as it grows through?

By all reports in the books I'm reading mulch naturally suppresses weed growth with or without a barrier.

Also increasing tree root growth is but one of the many benefits of mulch.

[Skwerl]

I'm just trying to get you to look at landscape fabric from some other viewpoint than the advertising blurb on the side of the box. Look at it from the tree's point of view. If you completely forget about the grass, will putting down fabric all over the tree's root zone help or hinder the tree? No in-between, just a yes or no answer. If you answer "It won't hurt too much", then how much is too much?

If it won't hurt the roots, then it won't hurt the grass either. And if it doesn't hurt the grass, then why are you putting it down? I'm just trying to get some sort of reasonable, well defined explanation why people insist on using that crap along with some sort of proof that it has ever worked. In 25 years I haven't found anything positive about it. And I'm ignoring the first 6 months of use, I'm focusing on 6.1 months through 20 years after it has been installed. Tree time, not weed time.

[squisher]

I hear what you're saying but what I'm talking about is the first six months when the existing grass goes, 'oh yah mulch thanks' and grows right up like crazy, will it be hard on the roots of the grass or the tree? I honestly don't know, I'm assuming that it would be a real advantage in controlling the grass growing up through the mulch and I'm not familiar with any damage that it would cause to the tree roots long term. As I understand it the goal of mulch is not to have the roots growing up and through it it's for temperature moderation, compaction protection, moisture retention so on and so forth but the roots of the tree will still need to grow in the soil underneath the mulch or right at the soil/mulch interface.

And just so you know I haven't been down to the home depot reading the boxes of landscape fabric I've been reading Arboriculture 4th edition, and Trees for urban and suburban landscapes as well as a few other resources.

From Arboriculture 4th edition:

They may be underlain with geotextile fabric or black plastic in areas free of traffic. The fabric or plastic enhance weed control, but the plastc is easily torn..................After the fabric or plastic is in place, apply bark, gravel, crushed rock, cobblestones, or other material thickly enough to cover the plastic...................To replace the sheeting and bark or rock mulches, you must removethe mulch covering, install new sheeting and replace the mulch cover.

They are referring to doing this around trees and shrubs so I would think that the roots of tree or shrubs would do fine in this scenario?

I'm not trying to be an ass Brian I'm just trying to learn and develop a plan for the best way to go about doing this. That's why I'm eager to read your thoughts on this as well. I'm guessing you have some experience with these coverings you seem to dislike so much and I have none, so I respect your opinion.

[sotc]

im with brian here. cut it low, spray it and mulch it. by putting down fabric your wasting alot of the effects of mulch like loosining the soil. you should have very few weed come through the mulch and the ones that do should pull easy

[sotc]

justin, most of the point of mulch is compromised with the fabric. the mulch will break down and do its thing but it wont get into the soil.

[squisher]

Now that's the kind of advice I'm looking for, I see so maybe obliterate the grass with my weedeater or something chew it right up bigtime and then just mulch over top of that.

I mean heh I have no desire to buy and install landscaping fabric if I don't have to.

What would you spray it with?:/:

[sotc]

roundup.

[Skwerl]

Installing fabric is a lot of work for very little gain, and the gain is temporary while the problems associated with interfering with the natural composting and settling of the soil are long term. Mulch does not remain as mulch, it composts into topsoil. As time passes you will add more mulch. 5-10 years from now your fabric will be under 3-4" of topsoil and all the tree roots will be tangled up in it. After 6 months the fabric will serve no useful purpose for weed control since new weeds typically germinate from airborne seeds.

Just spray the grass with Roundup and then mulch the area. The weeds will compost along with the mulch. Believe me, I sold enough of that fabric crap back in my teens as a lawnscraper, and I dealt with it as I maintained those properties for many years. I also have done lots of work on properties where fabric was installed many years prior and I was able to see with my own eyes how the roots of the trees and bushes reacted to the fabric. The roots penetrate it then grow rapidly on top of the fabric, where all the water and nutrients are available. Nothing grows underneath it.

[squisher]

See now I'm learning. Cool I will partake of physical and biological warfare on the grass and save myself the agony's of dealing with a barrier. What you and Willie mentioned makes perfect sense and you guys are right while the tree would still be receiving many of the benefits of mulch it would be missing out on a major one of the reaction/interface of the mulch directly with the soil. 8)

Thanks for taking the time to help edumacate me, I am but still a grasshopper.

[rumination]

What those guys already said. Landscape fabric sucks.

[NickfromWI]

I'd just put the mulch straight on the grass. The fabric is introducing something unnatural. One of the best things about mulch is that it is closely replicating something that happens naturally in the woods.

I've learned and teach that you can put 4" mulch without damage to the tree. Go big or go home!

love
nick

[MasterBlaster]

Grass can grow through the mulch.

[brendonv]

We had a makeshift hay field underneath a big White Oak in the yard. Just started dumping and spreading chips under it with a minimum of 4" thick. That was probably 10 years ago. Ever since then the hay field disappeared, now there is black gold underneath. The tree never looked so good.

Actually since we couldn't grow grass anywhere on that side, because of that tree, high traffic, 2 Beeches, and 2 Maples, it's probably 80% wood chip. Alleviates the compaction when I drive the truck on it, adds to the soil, and doesn't look so bad either.

[squisher]

Fresh chips? I've read that can cause nitrogen deficiencies which is easy enough to overcome with fertilizing. Just curious.

[brendonv]

They are fresh when I dump 'em :). Although, since we have bean dumping for so long, I don't think the top layer is making any difference since the roots are well below.

[sotc]

ahh, first hand experience!

[brendonv]

From the red over is all woodchip. We decided on this because grass wont grow, mud sucks, there is a greenhouse my parents always walk to, a chicken coop, my barn, I stack logs top left.

[squisher]

ahh, first hand experience!


That's what I'm looking for my first mulching will be this year. I ain't gonna risk messing it up. Books and you guys are the only access I have to info. Unless I want to pry the minds of other cert'd arbs around here who still top and do flush cuts.:|:

[squisher]

Thanks for the info Brendon and wow nice place.8)

[sotc]

next time you notice some of the weed cloth, pull up one corner and see what it looks like.

[brendonv]

Oh, weed cloth sucks!

I was at a customers property where they had it, lift it up-clay soil....look on top-black gold. Pointless to even mulch.

[rumination]

Squishy, fresh chips will only pull significant amounts of nitrogen from the soil if you mix it in. If you're just laying it on top of the soil without mixing it in it shouldn't be a problem. Or so I have been told, and my gardening experience seems to substantiate this.

[squisher]

Cool like I've been trying to say in this thread I am not professing to know much about this at all. Zero experience mulching is why I'm asking alot of questions and doing alot of reading before embarking on a course of action which may not be the best way to do something.

Thanks all you guys for sharing info/advice, I'm starting to feel like I'll be able to proceed with a appropriate course of action.

The KISS system seems to once again shine through in the area of mulching as well.8)

[Husky385]

I heard the other day some bozo [uk arb consultant/research big shot] doesn't believe in the benefits of mulching.....:O

[xtremetrees]

The idea i think about mulch is to increase the CEC cation exchange capacity. Thats the molecules ability to mingle with other molecules.