You have planted your seedling, pounded in your tree tube stakes and you're about to lower your tree tube over the seedling. You notice the seedling has some beautiful little lateral branches and you realize that you are faced with a decision: Gather and bunch up those laterals, or prune the seedling to a single stem.
I call this the tree tube moment of truth. What do you do? You grit your teeth. You wince. You suck in your breath. And you prune the seedling to a single stem.
I know it's hard to do. I know it is counter intuitive. Not only did you pay good money for the seedling (so you don't want to leave its branches laying on the ground), you also know those branches will produce leaves that will fuel faster growth... right?
Wrong. I know that answer to this because I have done it both ways. When you prune to a single stem not only will you get a tree with better form (no narrow branch angles cause by cramming lateral branches into the confined space), you will get faster growth! That is because when you prune to single stems before applying your tree tubes each leaf will be exposed to more sunlight, and more air - especially carbon dioxide - will circulate in the tree tube to fuel more growth.
Several times I - or one of my customers - have done side by side tests: Same species, same site, some pruned to a single stem and some left unpruned. The pruned trees always perform better.
So when confronted with "the moment of truth" and facing the decision "to prune or not to prune," hopefully it will make it easier to do the right thing - pruning to a single stem - now that you know that your trees will not only have better form, they will also grow faster.
Think of it this way: When you buy and plant a seedling what you are really buying is a root system. Tree tubes are the fastest, surest way to turn that root system into a healthy, established tree. Pruning to a single stem accelerates the process of turning that root system into a tree.
Showing posts with label tubex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tubex. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tree Tubes Promote Stem Thickness - In Time
A customer asked a very good and well informed question this morning (that's not surprising - our customers are the smartest and best informed tree planters out there!): She had read that trees need to shake and sway in the wind in order to add stem thickness/caliper, and worried that this would not happen in tree tubes.
I gave a three part answer, which this poor customer probably regarded as "20 minutes of her life she'll her life she'll never get back," even though she was kind enough to listen and sound appreciative. To save you the same 20 minute discussion, here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:
1) It's true that while a seedling is growing up through a tree tube and out the top it does not sway or flex as much as an un-tubed tree, and has a thinner stem relative to its height than the un-tubed tree. (On the plus side, the tree is the tree tube is actually alive after the first few years, whereas odds are increasingly against the same being said for the un-tubed tree, due to deer browse and drought.)
2) This is not as true for the new vented Tubex Combitube Tree Tubes we offer here at Wilson Forestry Supply, especially when that vented tree tube is coupled with a PVC stake. Vented tubes have been shown to promote better stem diameter growth than the old, unvented treeshelters used years ago. And using a PVC stake allows the tree tube - and therefore the tree inside - to sway in the wind, triggering the same growth responses you see in an un-tubed tree: increased stem caliper and taper.
3) Even with today's better tree tubes and with PVC stakes, at the point in time the tree emerges from the tree tube it will have a thinner stem relative to its height than would an un-tubed tree. That's OK! That's why our tree tubes are designed to last 5+ years, so that after the tree emerges the tube can continue to support the trunk. Once the emergent tree starts swaying in the wind you will see that it quickly adds stem taper and thickness.
I gave a three part answer, which this poor customer probably regarded as "20 minutes of her life she'll her life she'll never get back," even though she was kind enough to listen and sound appreciative. To save you the same 20 minute discussion, here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:
1) It's true that while a seedling is growing up through a tree tube and out the top it does not sway or flex as much as an un-tubed tree, and has a thinner stem relative to its height than the un-tubed tree. (On the plus side, the tree is the tree tube is actually alive after the first few years, whereas odds are increasingly against the same being said for the un-tubed tree, due to deer browse and drought.)
2) This is not as true for the new vented Tubex Combitube Tree Tubes we offer here at Wilson Forestry Supply, especially when that vented tree tube is coupled with a PVC stake. Vented tubes have been shown to promote better stem diameter growth than the old, unvented treeshelters used years ago. And using a PVC stake allows the tree tube - and therefore the tree inside - to sway in the wind, triggering the same growth responses you see in an un-tubed tree: increased stem caliper and taper.
3) Even with today's better tree tubes and with PVC stakes, at the point in time the tree emerges from the tree tube it will have a thinner stem relative to its height than would an un-tubed tree. That's OK! That's why our tree tubes are designed to last 5+ years, so that after the tree emerges the tube can continue to support the trunk. Once the emergent tree starts swaying in the wind you will see that it quickly adds stem taper and thickness.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Shrub Prescription: First grow past the deer,then branch out
Many landowners interested in enhancing wildlife habitat for deer, wild turkey, pheasants and other species are planting small, fruit-bearing trees and shrubs like American plum, Nanking cherry, chokecherry, chokeberry (Aronia berry), golden current, buffalo berry and others.
This is another example of how our understand of how best to use tree tube technology has advanced in the past 22 years.
The old - and generally ineffective - recommendation in the early days was to use 2ft or 3ft tree tubes on these shrubby species. The thinking was that the shorter tree tubes would provide initial browse protection, but then would allow the plants to begin branching out at 2 or 3ft.
The problem with this approach was immediately apparent. Deer like to eat these species as much as - and probably even more than - tree species like oak and black walnut. So every time a shrub would emerge from one of these short tree tubes the deer would nip it off. Rather than a protective device the tree tube functioned more like an ice cream cone for deer!
Trial and error has shown us a more effective approach:
1) Use 4ft or 5ft Tree Tubes to grow the terminal leaders past the browse line. Yes, you get a "funny looking" shrub for a while, tall and thin, but a funny looking shrub is a lot better than a "dead shrub" or a 2ft tall "ice cream cone."
The good news is that most of these fruit-bearing shrubs or small thicket-forming trees grow like crazy in tree tubes. Even if you're planting little seedlings don't be surprised if some emerge from the tubes in the first summer!
2) Keep the tree tube in place for another 2-3 seasons, both to support the stem while it thickens up, and to protect from antler rubbing by deer and bark gnawing by rodents.
3) Remove the tubes after 4 seasons or so, to allow the plants to spread, branch and sucker. Pruning terminal leaders at that time will encourage more lateral branching. After 5 years or so you will have fully established and well branched shrubs.
It's a different way to grow a shrub, but today's record deer numbers force us to do things a little differently; namely first get past the browse line and then branch out!
Thanks for reading, and if you have questions about this or any other aspect of tree tube use, please contact us!
This is another example of how our understand of how best to use tree tube technology has advanced in the past 22 years.
The old - and generally ineffective - recommendation in the early days was to use 2ft or 3ft tree tubes on these shrubby species. The thinking was that the shorter tree tubes would provide initial browse protection, but then would allow the plants to begin branching out at 2 or 3ft.
The problem with this approach was immediately apparent. Deer like to eat these species as much as - and probably even more than - tree species like oak and black walnut. So every time a shrub would emerge from one of these short tree tubes the deer would nip it off. Rather than a protective device the tree tube functioned more like an ice cream cone for deer!
Trial and error has shown us a more effective approach:
1) Use 4ft or 5ft Tree Tubes to grow the terminal leaders past the browse line. Yes, you get a "funny looking" shrub for a while, tall and thin, but a funny looking shrub is a lot better than a "dead shrub" or a 2ft tall "ice cream cone."
The good news is that most of these fruit-bearing shrubs or small thicket-forming trees grow like crazy in tree tubes. Even if you're planting little seedlings don't be surprised if some emerge from the tubes in the first summer!
2) Keep the tree tube in place for another 2-3 seasons, both to support the stem while it thickens up, and to protect from antler rubbing by deer and bark gnawing by rodents.
3) Remove the tubes after 4 seasons or so, to allow the plants to spread, branch and sucker. Pruning terminal leaders at that time will encourage more lateral branching. After 5 years or so you will have fully established and well branched shrubs.
It's a different way to grow a shrub, but today's record deer numbers force us to do things a little differently; namely first get past the browse line and then branch out!
Thanks for reading, and if you have questions about this or any other aspect of tree tube use, please contact us!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tree Tubes: A Dissenting Opinion?
I often visit web forums where tree planting and tree tubes are discussed. It gives me more insight into the experiences, likes, dislikes, misconceptions and opinions of tree planters - which in turns helps me provide better instructions, develop better products, and in general provide better service.
Wherever people "meet" to anonymously exchange ideas and opinions you never know what you're going to read. For example, in a discussion board thread about tree tubes on a well-known gardening/landscaping site I came across this, in reference to tree tubes:
"Nasty plastic litter that spoils the landscape and harms wildlife. Often with the remains of a dead tree in the middle."
I wish people would learn not to sugar coat things and would say what they really mean! There are actually 4 separate aspects of this post, and I'd like to address each one of them separately:
1) Nasty plastic litter. Yes, tree tubes are plastic. And yes, if left too long in the field without removing and disposing of them properly they can indeed become litter. Part of this has been a learning curve. Foresters were initially told by overly optimistic tree tube manufacturers that the treeshelter tubes would photodegrade into smaller and small pieces that would eventually turn into an inert power... kind of like fairy dust. Tree tubes do photodegrade, but we know now that they should be removed and properly disposed of after doing their job.
I'll be doing a carbon footprint post soon - a plastic tree tube made from petroleum products that leads to a successful planting the first time, versus the petroleum needed without tree tubes, to grow new seedlings year after year, to prepare the site year after year, to drive to and from the planting site many more times, etc.
2) Spoils the landscape. Yes, for a brief period of time when tree tubes are used we are forced to look at a field of vertical plastic tubes. But this statement fails to take into account two things: The tree tubes are there for perhaps 5 years out of an 80, 100 or 150 year tree rotation. And, if not for those tubes the view they are "ruining" would look at lot worse for a lot longer, because it would likely be the subject of repeated efforts to clear, site prep and plant.
3) Harms wildlife. On its face this comment seems ludicrous given that tree tubes are helping to create - and re-create - millions of acres of wildlife habitat. They are an integral and necessary component in restoring such wildlife-sustaining trees as the mighty American chestnut in the face of historically high deer populations, hundreds of invasive weed competitors, and in the absence of the climatic conditions and periodic fires that allowed many hardwood trees to get established in the past. At the "tubular" level this comment might be referring to the tendency of some cavity nesting songbirds, such as bluebirds, to enter tubes - possibly searching for a new nesting site, possibly chasing insects, possibly for shelter, or possibly by accident - and become trapped. This is why all tree tube suppliers provide plastic mesh caps to place over the top of the tubes until the trees emerge, after which birds no longer enter the tubes. So to the extent that this was ever a problem, there is now an easy solution. I'll say it again: No other tree establishment tool or practice has done more to establish critical wildlife habitat than tree tubes.
4) Often with the remains of a dead tree in the middle. Over last 21 years I have noticed something interesting in people's perceptions of tree planting success. Imagine there is a field in which 300 oak seedlings are planted. The forester decides to use treeshelters on 100 of them. Now imagine that this planting is in an area with a white tailed deer density of about 40 per square mile, not uncommon in the eastern USA, that there is a drought the summer after the seedlings are planted, followed by a wet year.
Now imagine that you are visiting that site three years later, without knowing how many trees were planted. What would you find, and what would you think? You might find a handful of oak trees that survived and grew to waist or chest height without tubes, and you might think, "See, these trees didn't need tree tubes." And you might look in the tubes and find perhaps 10 or even 20 dead trees. You might conclude that the tree tubes are an unnecessary eyesore.
But in reality, what are you really seeing? A handful of trees that survived without tubes means that the vast majority did not - killed by drought, eaten by dear or out-competed by weeds. If all 300 trees had been planted without tree tubes that planting would have been a failure. Tree tubes draw people's attention and scrutiny - they generally walk past (or on) dozens of dead un-tubed seedlings to look down a tube and see how the tree is doing.
10 or 20 dead trees in the tubes means there were 80 or 90 living ones. And that number likely could have been higher with today's better planting stock and with more aggressive weed control by the planter. 80 or 90 high value oak stems per acre looks an awful lot like success in my book.
Part of this person's opinion - and it's not an uncommon one - is based on the misconception that the project would be as successful, or more successful, without tree tubes. That would be true,
> if we could go back in time to when there where 500,000 deer east of the Mississippi (instead of 500,000 deer harvested by hunters in WI each year without decreasing the overall size of the herd)
> if we could go back in time to when fire - either wildfires or those set intentionally by indigenous people to manage vegetative cover - helped oaks and other trees gain a competitive advantage over grasses
> if we could go back in time to before hundreds of invasive species of grasses, shrubs, vines and trees started competing with our seedlings from resources
We are not planting trees into a "natural" world, and so we need to use "unnatural" means in order to achieve success. If that means putting up with seeing a "plastic forest" for a few years to get those trees established I think that's not a bad trade off.
Wherever people "meet" to anonymously exchange ideas and opinions you never know what you're going to read. For example, in a discussion board thread about tree tubes on a well-known gardening/landscaping site I came across this, in reference to tree tubes:
"Nasty plastic litter that spoils the landscape and harms wildlife. Often with the remains of a dead tree in the middle."
I wish people would learn not to sugar coat things and would say what they really mean! There are actually 4 separate aspects of this post, and I'd like to address each one of them separately:
1) Nasty plastic litter. Yes, tree tubes are plastic. And yes, if left too long in the field without removing and disposing of them properly they can indeed become litter. Part of this has been a learning curve. Foresters were initially told by overly optimistic tree tube manufacturers that the treeshelter tubes would photodegrade into smaller and small pieces that would eventually turn into an inert power... kind of like fairy dust. Tree tubes do photodegrade, but we know now that they should be removed and properly disposed of after doing their job.
I'll be doing a carbon footprint post soon - a plastic tree tube made from petroleum products that leads to a successful planting the first time, versus the petroleum needed without tree tubes, to grow new seedlings year after year, to prepare the site year after year, to drive to and from the planting site many more times, etc.
2) Spoils the landscape. Yes, for a brief period of time when tree tubes are used we are forced to look at a field of vertical plastic tubes. But this statement fails to take into account two things: The tree tubes are there for perhaps 5 years out of an 80, 100 or 150 year tree rotation. And, if not for those tubes the view they are "ruining" would look at lot worse for a lot longer, because it would likely be the subject of repeated efforts to clear, site prep and plant.
3) Harms wildlife. On its face this comment seems ludicrous given that tree tubes are helping to create - and re-create - millions of acres of wildlife habitat. They are an integral and necessary component in restoring such wildlife-sustaining trees as the mighty American chestnut in the face of historically high deer populations, hundreds of invasive weed competitors, and in the absence of the climatic conditions and periodic fires that allowed many hardwood trees to get established in the past. At the "tubular" level this comment might be referring to the tendency of some cavity nesting songbirds, such as bluebirds, to enter tubes - possibly searching for a new nesting site, possibly chasing insects, possibly for shelter, or possibly by accident - and become trapped. This is why all tree tube suppliers provide plastic mesh caps to place over the top of the tubes until the trees emerge, after which birds no longer enter the tubes. So to the extent that this was ever a problem, there is now an easy solution. I'll say it again: No other tree establishment tool or practice has done more to establish critical wildlife habitat than tree tubes.
4) Often with the remains of a dead tree in the middle. Over last 21 years I have noticed something interesting in people's perceptions of tree planting success. Imagine there is a field in which 300 oak seedlings are planted. The forester decides to use treeshelters on 100 of them. Now imagine that this planting is in an area with a white tailed deer density of about 40 per square mile, not uncommon in the eastern USA, that there is a drought the summer after the seedlings are planted, followed by a wet year.
Now imagine that you are visiting that site three years later, without knowing how many trees were planted. What would you find, and what would you think? You might find a handful of oak trees that survived and grew to waist or chest height without tubes, and you might think, "See, these trees didn't need tree tubes." And you might look in the tubes and find perhaps 10 or even 20 dead trees. You might conclude that the tree tubes are an unnecessary eyesore.
But in reality, what are you really seeing? A handful of trees that survived without tubes means that the vast majority did not - killed by drought, eaten by dear or out-competed by weeds. If all 300 trees had been planted without tree tubes that planting would have been a failure. Tree tubes draw people's attention and scrutiny - they generally walk past (or on) dozens of dead un-tubed seedlings to look down a tube and see how the tree is doing.
10 or 20 dead trees in the tubes means there were 80 or 90 living ones. And that number likely could have been higher with today's better planting stock and with more aggressive weed control by the planter. 80 or 90 high value oak stems per acre looks an awful lot like success in my book.
Part of this person's opinion - and it's not an uncommon one - is based on the misconception that the project would be as successful, or more successful, without tree tubes. That would be true,
> if we could go back in time to when there where 500,000 deer east of the Mississippi (instead of 500,000 deer harvested by hunters in WI each year without decreasing the overall size of the herd)
> if we could go back in time to when fire - either wildfires or those set intentionally by indigenous people to manage vegetative cover - helped oaks and other trees gain a competitive advantage over grasses
> if we could go back in time to before hundreds of invasive species of grasses, shrubs, vines and trees started competing with our seedlings from resources
We are not planting trees into a "natural" world, and so we need to use "unnatural" means in order to achieve success. If that means putting up with seeing a "plastic forest" for a few years to get those trees established I think that's not a bad trade off.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wilson Tree Tubes For American Chestnut
Many people know the story of the American chestnut tree, but sadly many more people don't. It is one part tragedy, one part farce, ten parts dedication and hopefully, ultimately, 100 parts triumph.
Chestnut blight is a fungal disease that was accidentally introduced to the USA from Asia in about 1900. Several species of Asian chestnuts had co-evolved with the blight fungus, and were resistant. The American chestnut - a towering, majestic tree that dominated the forests of Appalachia and much of the eastern USA - had virtually no inherent resistance. Within 50 years more than 3 billion American chestnut trees were dead. (We'll never know the degree to which the American chestnut population might have had some innate resistance to chestnut blight; as the disease ripped through the eastern hardwood forest landowners were instructed by foresters to cut down all of their chestnut trees, on the assumption that they were all doomed, to salvage the lumber value. The fact that a small number of American chestnut trees did survive the blight, and the fact that in large populations a certain number of individuals almost always survive even the worst epidemics, leads us to believe that there would have been thousands of survivors that could have formed the basis of a breeding program to restore a pure American chestnut to the woods. Such an effort is underway thanks to an incredibly dedicated group of folks, but still we wonder what might have been if those chestnuts had been left standing to determine which could withstand the blight.)
The American Chestnut Foundation was founded by, among others, four brilliant men with - I'm proud to say - Minnesota connections: Charles Burnham, Philip Rutter, David French and Donald Willeke. The plight of the American chestnut was thought by most to be hopeless. These men had other ideas, and under Burnham's guidance initiated a bold and far-reaching plan: Adapt the precepts of the traditional "back cross" breeding done in other fields of agriculture to the American chestnut.
In other words, cross-breed the American chestnut with blight resistance Asian chestnuts, and then continue to back-cross the most blight resistant of these offspring with American chestnuts. The goal, of course, is to produce trees that gain the disease resistance genes of the Asian chestnuts, while maintaining and exhibiting the physical characteristics of the might American chestnut.
That process is several generations down the road, and the results are incredibly exciting and promising. I stand in bewildered awe of the dedication of the American Chestnut Foundation and its head plant breeder/farm manager Fred Hebbard.
At the same time there are other ways to restore the American chestnut. The aforementioned American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation, whose goal is to breed a blight-resistant tree that is 100% American chestnut in its genetics by working with the few chestnuts that survived the onslaught, the dedicated folks who are working with hypovirulent strains of the fungus in hopes of stopping the blight in its tracks as happened in Europe, and the amazing people who are applying genetic engineering to create chestnut trees capable of fighting off the fungus.
I salute you all.
And here at Wilson Forestry Supply we hope, at least in our own small way, to help in any way we can. Our Tubex Combitube Tree Tube is ideally suited for use on American chestnut seedlings or direct seeded chestnuts. Large diameter vented tree tubes have proven to be the best choice for American chestnuts.
If you are planting American chestnut trees this spring, give us a call. We offer special discount pricing to all of the dedicated folks working to restore the American chestnut to its rightful place in our eastern forests.
Chestnut blight is a fungal disease that was accidentally introduced to the USA from Asia in about 1900. Several species of Asian chestnuts had co-evolved with the blight fungus, and were resistant. The American chestnut - a towering, majestic tree that dominated the forests of Appalachia and much of the eastern USA - had virtually no inherent resistance. Within 50 years more than 3 billion American chestnut trees were dead. (We'll never know the degree to which the American chestnut population might have had some innate resistance to chestnut blight; as the disease ripped through the eastern hardwood forest landowners were instructed by foresters to cut down all of their chestnut trees, on the assumption that they were all doomed, to salvage the lumber value. The fact that a small number of American chestnut trees did survive the blight, and the fact that in large populations a certain number of individuals almost always survive even the worst epidemics, leads us to believe that there would have been thousands of survivors that could have formed the basis of a breeding program to restore a pure American chestnut to the woods. Such an effort is underway thanks to an incredibly dedicated group of folks, but still we wonder what might have been if those chestnuts had been left standing to determine which could withstand the blight.)
The American Chestnut Foundation was founded by, among others, four brilliant men with - I'm proud to say - Minnesota connections: Charles Burnham, Philip Rutter, David French and Donald Willeke. The plight of the American chestnut was thought by most to be hopeless. These men had other ideas, and under Burnham's guidance initiated a bold and far-reaching plan: Adapt the precepts of the traditional "back cross" breeding done in other fields of agriculture to the American chestnut.
In other words, cross-breed the American chestnut with blight resistance Asian chestnuts, and then continue to back-cross the most blight resistant of these offspring with American chestnuts. The goal, of course, is to produce trees that gain the disease resistance genes of the Asian chestnuts, while maintaining and exhibiting the physical characteristics of the might American chestnut.
That process is several generations down the road, and the results are incredibly exciting and promising. I stand in bewildered awe of the dedication of the American Chestnut Foundation and its head plant breeder/farm manager Fred Hebbard.
At the same time there are other ways to restore the American chestnut. The aforementioned American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation, whose goal is to breed a blight-resistant tree that is 100% American chestnut in its genetics by working with the few chestnuts that survived the onslaught, the dedicated folks who are working with hypovirulent strains of the fungus in hopes of stopping the blight in its tracks as happened in Europe, and the amazing people who are applying genetic engineering to create chestnut trees capable of fighting off the fungus.
I salute you all.
And here at Wilson Forestry Supply we hope, at least in our own small way, to help in any way we can. Our Tubex Combitube Tree Tube is ideally suited for use on American chestnut seedlings or direct seeded chestnuts. Large diameter vented tree tubes have proven to be the best choice for American chestnuts.
If you are planting American chestnut trees this spring, give us a call. We offer special discount pricing to all of the dedicated folks working to restore the American chestnut to its rightful place in our eastern forests.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Verbage
Certain nouns or names become so well known and popular they get turned into verbs in common usage.
One of those words is Tubex, as in Tubex Tree Tubes. A great product for protecting seedling trees from deer browse and other damage has become, in the minds of many professional foresters, a verb for protecting their seedlings. As in, "I need to Tubex those oak seedlings." As in, "I just got done Tubexing five acres of American chestnut seedlings." Or, "Those direct seeded acorns still need to be Tubexed."
That's what happens when you make the best tree tube on the market for nearly 30 years.
The story of Kleenex is used as a cautionary tale in this regard, a brand name which became so synonymous with the product category - facial tissues - that the manufacturer lost its trademark.
Tubex has a long way to go before that happens, since (unfortunately) more people blow their nose than plant trees. Not that I want people to blow their nose any less. And I have a feeling that if Tubex ever does have a "Kleenex problem," it will be considered one of those good problems to have!
One of those words is Tubex, as in Tubex Tree Tubes. A great product for protecting seedling trees from deer browse and other damage has become, in the minds of many professional foresters, a verb for protecting their seedlings. As in, "I need to Tubex those oak seedlings." As in, "I just got done Tubexing five acres of American chestnut seedlings." Or, "Those direct seeded acorns still need to be Tubexed."
That's what happens when you make the best tree tube on the market for nearly 30 years.
The story of Kleenex is used as a cautionary tale in this regard, a brand name which became so synonymous with the product category - facial tissues - that the manufacturer lost its trademark.
Tubex has a long way to go before that happens, since (unfortunately) more people blow their nose than plant trees. Not that I want people to blow their nose any less. And I have a feeling that if Tubex ever does have a "Kleenex problem," it will be considered one of those good problems to have!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Plastic Forest
I found this old article online today. One reason I like it is that it dates to April, 1989 - almost the exact time that I first learned about tree tubes and realized their potential for re-establishing high value hardwoods in the face of increased deer pressure.
The article is a classic - a classic display of short-sighted stupidity that is. The author complains about all of the plastic treeshelters he was beginning to see when strolling the English countryside.
He did have one valid point: In those early days tree tube makers were overly optimistic in telling customers that the tubes would photodegrade into an inert powder within a certain number of years. We now know this to be untrue. Well-made tree tubes like the Tubex CombiTube Treeshelters we carry here at Wilson Forestry Supply, have a perforation line running the length of the tubes so that the tube will open up and expand as the tree growth.
And responsible manufacturers like Tubex make sure all customers know that the preferable practice is to remove the tree tubes when the trees reach approximately 3 inches in diameter, and dispose of them properly.
As for Malcolm Smith's other complaints about wanting to see the woods like more "natural," well...
Is it "natural" to have a white-tailed deer population that is many, many multiples of what it was 100 years ago?
Is it "natural" for high value hardwoods to compete with dozens of exotic and invasive weed species?
Is it "natural" to suppress the fires that gave oaks and other trees a competitive edge over the surrounding prairie grasses?
We are planting trees into a very "unnatural" world, and as such it makes sense that we must turn to "unnatural" methods, such as plastic tree tubes. After all, there's a reason foresters invented tree tubes in the first place: What they were doing before no longer worked!
So Mr. Smith had a choice: Put up with a few years of looking at plastic tree tubes (perhaps 5 years out of an 80 or 100 year rotation), or be forced to watch year after year after year of failed plantings.
It would be interesting to know, 21 years later, what Mr. Smith thinks of tree tubes now!
The article is a classic - a classic display of short-sighted stupidity that is. The author complains about all of the plastic treeshelters he was beginning to see when strolling the English countryside.
He did have one valid point: In those early days tree tube makers were overly optimistic in telling customers that the tubes would photodegrade into an inert powder within a certain number of years. We now know this to be untrue. Well-made tree tubes like the Tubex CombiTube Treeshelters we carry here at Wilson Forestry Supply, have a perforation line running the length of the tubes so that the tube will open up and expand as the tree growth.
And responsible manufacturers like Tubex make sure all customers know that the preferable practice is to remove the tree tubes when the trees reach approximately 3 inches in diameter, and dispose of them properly.
As for Malcolm Smith's other complaints about wanting to see the woods like more "natural," well...
Is it "natural" to have a white-tailed deer population that is many, many multiples of what it was 100 years ago?
Is it "natural" for high value hardwoods to compete with dozens of exotic and invasive weed species?
Is it "natural" to suppress the fires that gave oaks and other trees a competitive edge over the surrounding prairie grasses?
We are planting trees into a very "unnatural" world, and as such it makes sense that we must turn to "unnatural" methods, such as plastic tree tubes. After all, there's a reason foresters invented tree tubes in the first place: What they were doing before no longer worked!
So Mr. Smith had a choice: Put up with a few years of looking at plastic tree tubes (perhaps 5 years out of an 80 or 100 year rotation), or be forced to watch year after year after year of failed plantings.
It would be interesting to know, 21 years later, what Mr. Smith thinks of tree tubes now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)