It's not that they necessarily grow faster but it has been noted that they establish faster.

For instance, a 2.5" caliper B&B tree planted in the spring '07 may not establish until '09 or even '10 but a small container size may be established in half the time. And that's when the growth really picks up.

Sycamore is a very rapid grower, about 6' a year and native to a good portion of the country. It's easy to grow and fast to establish. If you've got the room for this large tree I recommend it.

I agree. For a good fast growing shade tree, I would rather have a Sycamore growing in my yard, instead of a fast growing maple. The only larger maples I like are the hardwood Maples, but they will not grow as fast as the Sycamore, and I am not sure if the hardwood maples will live as long as the Sycamore is reported to live.

I did see a report indicate that the Sycamore is better if one keeps the side branches fairly short when the tree is still fairly young. I do not remember the reason for that, or even know how important it would be to follow that advice.

A sycamore tree has nice large leaves for casting a very effective shade. Also, the way the sycamore's bark flakes and reveals white trunks is very stunning.

London Plane would of course be an alternative.

Yes I've seen the branches clipped on field grown trees. I thought that was just ti fit more in the area because they would be really wide. Maybe someone who knows can elaborate.

If you want to have a good sized tree faster, get a large B & B tree. Some folks in this forum have expressed opinions against that, saying that a smaller tree will not have the transplant shock and will recover and ultimately grow faster.

Well, I say "sometimes." I have seen some really large trees successfully transplanted and they seem to do just fine. So if you can get a good freshly dug tree (dug this year when dormant) and get someone to plant it correctly, and stake it (bigger trees have a bigger risk of being blown over by a severe storm, if one comes) you will get a nice tree several years faster.

If what you want is good shade fast, a good sized London plane tree can provide wonderful shade and it usually has very good, strong branch structure. But you don't get autumn color. No matter, I planted two of these and one American sycamore.

As for shortening the lower branches. I think the reason for doing this after they are planted in your yard is to keep the tree from developing large branches below the height that you will eventually want to prune the lowest limb up to. For a large tree like a plane tree, I would think that something like 15 feet would be a minimum. For a maple, the height may be somewhat less. It is a matter of taste and proportion. So if any of the branches below the level you will want to prune up to look like they will grow longer than 6 or 7 feet, you can shorten them. Then when you are ready to prune the tree up to the eventual desired height, they will not be too large. But it is best not to prune off the lower branches too soon--the tree should always have at least 2/3rds of its height with branches. This helps the tree grow stronger with a thicker trunk.

I visited a rather large estate with a wonderful large house, and they had two white oaks planted either side of the front walk. These trees were about 30 feet tall and they had systematic pruning to maintain a central trunk and had the branches all shortened to help achieve an eventual long trunked, high crown form. But the tree was not yet pruned much above 7 feet or so to maintain good growth and health. I really admired how these trees were pruned and the result in 30 to 50 years will be stunning!

--Spruce

Sycamores are great trees, but considering fast shade is one of your primary goals, don't rule out maples completely. The Freeman maples, like "Autumn Blaze" really take off fast. Their structure is typical of most 'soft' maples. A little vigilance will keep bad things from happening.

For years, I've advocated planting bare-root stock when appropriate. Very cost-effective, no soil compatability issues, and ease of handling.

+oM

Sycamores tend to thrive in wet areas, right? ( Along river banks, swampy areas, and areas with high water tables)Before recommending them as the tree of choice, should the environment where they would be planted explored a bit? The same would go with Silver Maples or Weeping Willows I presume. Great shade tree, but need a ton of water to thrive. What is the area/ soil conditions like where you would plant your tree? How much room do you have?

I won't say sycamore will grow well on thin, dry soils, but even though it is most typically a tree of bottomland sites along streams, it grows just fine on drier soils if they are reasonably deep and fertile. It is a tough adaptable tree, and I think the hybrid plane tree does even better on the drier harsher sites. I would plant this tree in any reasonably fertile soil.

But if I thought a sugar maple would fit my requirements, I would choose that first. And the red maple cultivars are good, and the Freeman maple, "autumn blaze" is faster than most of the maples. If you get an autumn blaze pay attention to how it is growing and do the required pruning to make sure it develops a good shape.

--Spruce

If done right B&B isn't so bad, but far too often the trees get a lot of root damage when dug up and wrapped in the burlap. They survive, but spend the first few years repairing their roots instead of growing their tops. If you buy a potted tree that was grown in the container, at least you know that half the roots aren't still in the field somewhere.
At least in my area, sycamores and planes are the messiest of all the common shade trees. Beautiful in the right location, but expect a ton of leaves in the fall and those shed pieces of bark too.
Assuming you have the space, I recomend tulip tree - Liriodendron tulipifera. Huge fast growing beautiful trees. Good shadetree and flowers too. I have seen a seedling planted by a friend of mine exceed 20' two years after planting. They seem to be less messy than an oak or sycamore too.

Ziggy

It is WELL documented that a woody plant will need to devote its energy reserves into root establishment before it is able to expend energy into a lot of vegetative growth. Period! The larger the tree, the more time it is likely to take. Climate makes a big difference, as well. Remember, it takes a lot of roots to support that large tree body!

As was said earlier, once a plant is properly established, then 'stand back'!

With ample irrigation to the root ball during the establishment period (water being the most limiting factor), it can take a minimum of 3 months PER INCH of tree caliper before adequate establishment occurs. Add on another couple of months per inch for container grown trees. It is typically longer than that due to improper watering, poor planting practices, climate, etc. Root establishment slows down in the cooler times of the year.

Remember, too, that a hefty tree which is very busy trying to re-establish a new root system is not able to fend off the assaults of excessive heat, cold, disease, or insects.

So, bigger is not better...except perhaps in the pockets of the nurseries. ;-) 'Instant gratification' does not balance out against the longer term results.

I planted several dozen trees six years ago when I moved into a new house with a new yard. All of my larger trees were B&B, and most did quite well and started growing the next season (I planted in September). The best ones to establish and grow fast were three Autumn Blaze maples, a London Plane (around here that's synonymous with Sycamore, but maybe we're loose with the nomenclature), two Water Birches, two Prairie Fire Crabapples, and a Chinese Elm (also called Lacebark Elm). The only one that really stood still for several years was a Linden.

Perhaps the reason my B&B trees established so quickly is that I was EXTREMELY cautious in handling and planting them. I did not allow anyone else to plant them -- I carefully removed the wire cages and burlap and made absolutely certain that the rootballs were not damaged at all by the planting process. I know some recommend leaving the burlap on, but in my opinion that's just so people don't damage their trees by breaking the rootball during planting. I also threw some super phosphate fertilizer in the hole when planting to encourage root growth, and I slowly drenched each rootball with liquid root stimulator fertilizer when the hole was half-backfilled with dirt.

I also have some Kwanzan Cherries that took a long time to grow, but I think they came in 5-gallon containers, rather than B&B. I think they've struggled with less than adequate drainage, though, rather than transplant shock.

Also, I did not stake any of my trees, large or small. I wanted them to get used to wind, and they quickly developed thick trunks because they were allowed to sway in the breeze. If I had a lot of high winds, though, I would have done some staking.

Dorrie...
why do growers clip the branches on L. Plane?

Ah, the debate goes on. Plant large trees--no, plant small ones, they get established faster.

I have learned many lessons in my life--some quite embarassing. A good many of these lessons concerning trees have boiled down to one thing--open my eyes and see!

Here is one case in point. For many, many years I believed what I read in books about Norway spruce--how it was ill adapted to growing in the US. My first source for information about trees for many years was the AFA book, Knowing Your Trees by Collingwood. It said something like, Norway spruce usually deteriorates before reaching 60 feet, are short lived, and become thin and unattractive. I believed this for many, many years, in spite of seeing Norway spruce trees that gave the lie to this. I always thought there was some special circumstance that explained the good NS trees I looked at. But I didn''t really see them--I had my sources and they were right. I never really saw until about 20 years ago. I am now 68. I think the day I really questioned my received wisdom about NS trees was the day I stopped in Addison, PA at a craft shop that had about 8 absolutely magnificent NS trees out front. The most georgeous trees I had ever seen (OK, I am exaggerating, but these trees were magnificent). I thought, OK, they grew fast, but they won't last much longer. I talked to the owner, who was about 85 years old at the time, and he said the trees were planted about 150 years ago. He convinced me that he really knew, based on his family history and its continuous ownership of the property since about 1835.

Well, I am going on and on, but I opened my eyes and now I am "seeing" NS trees that I couldn't really see as long as I was focused on what I had read in books.

Well, it is the same with the planting of large trees. People in this forum can talk until they are blue in the face about the theories about root damage, establishment of larger trees, etc., etc.

All I ask is open your eyes. In Winchester where home depot is located they planted really large maple trees--some sugar, some red. These trees were about 25 feet tall when planted. And they have been growng beautifully ever since--I don't have any small trees I planted growing so well. This is just one example--I see many, many trees planted after they were quite large and they grow wonderfully.

I did not see them until several years after they were planted, but at Longwood Gardens in PA they planted two large Norway spruce trees either side of the entrance of a new conservatory. These trees must have been over 50 feet tall when planted--I think over 60'. They are gorgeous and growing beautifully! I could take any one who thinks planting large trees does not get one further ahead on a tour and I will require that the eyelids be taped OPEN!

You can quote all the theories about planting, root damage, transplant shock, etc., etc. It all just sounds silly to me--I CAN SEE!

Sorry for the ranting tone here, but I am frustrated reading about theories and explanations about how large trees cannot get established fast and can't be a really good choice when one can spend the money and wants a big tree without waiting.

--Spruce

uh ok so now I am as confused as I was. I guess I will just use my judgement on a tree by tree basis.

I loved the London Plane tree and cannot now remember why I crossed it off my list. Maybe because of the mess? I think I've seen a few around, but none in my town. My useable space is about 50' w x 40' d. Clay soil with lots of rocks and grubs mixed in.

What I really want is a nice woodsy backyard....I am trying to adjust, since I live in the middle of an old cornfield, and am not a big fan of pine trees. There is a not very busy road and brand new softball field, in front of a football field/track on the other side of that. They are not putting in any more trees, so I kinda want SOMEthing to absorb the noise and those stadium lights which illuminate my bedroom so well. Nothing is going to stop that for a number of years...

There's a tree I like.... albeit a somewhat boring tree... Fraxinus Quadrangulata. medium-fast growing, fine textured dark green leaves, nice habit, adaptable to soil/conditions/drought/heat easy to grow, I just transplanted one and so far it hasn't died. I'll go out on a limb and say it might be easy to transplant! It's one of those trees you're probably going to have to mail order. Mix it in with some other types of trees tho.

Diane:

If you like the London plane tree, go for it. I certainly like it. There is no one perfect tree that combines all the characteristics one might want in a tree. I think the people who don't like the London plane don't like the large leaves after they fall, and they don't like the flakes of bark that sometimes fall off. For me neither of these things is a problem.

What is good about a London plane (and I am using this as a general term for the common hybrid plane--the "bloodgood" cultivar is a good cultivar), is that it is fairly fast growing, has some good resistance to anthracnose (I have never seen one affected, but in climates where there can be cool wet periods after they leaf out they can be), it naturally develops a good, strong branching structure, it develops a broader crown sooner than the American sycamore, and it can grow well on harsh sites that are too tough for many popular shade trees. I don't know the life span, but it could be as long or longer than American sycamore, which can be 600 years.

As it grows, prune off the lower limbs slowly, and shorten any that grow faster than others until the time is right to prune them off. Decide how high you want the lowest branch to be and plan for that when you plant it. Because the tree gets large and you might want some room underneath, I would think something like 10 to 12 feet would be good. But if you know where there are some of these trees growing, go look at them and see what you might like for yours. If you want light underneath for grass, you could go substantially higher.

--Spruce

You should also consider Shumard Oak. Mine has grown around 2.5ft a year, fast for an oak. They are fairly drought tolerant too.

Tulip tree - Liriodendron tulipifera. Big fast growing attractive native trees. I have personally seen about an 18" seedling exceed 20' in two years. My friend moved, and unfortunately the new owners cut it down. It is much less messy than a sycamore or plane.
Being that sycamores are a common native here, they are much more common than london planes. The planes seem to be much smaller than the american sycamores here in PA. Considering the huge size of some sycamores that were planted as street trees along roads less than 50 years old, a 600 year old tree must be quite a sight to see.

Ziggy

Ah, Spruceman....what a story teller. ;-) I do wonder why you seem to think (I may be misreading this) that your powers of observation are superior to others.

Most of the professionals that I have dealt with over many years know (though observation) that larger trees are slower to establish. It's not a theory, but fact. No one is disputing that huge trees cannot be kept in good shape until they become established. But there will be very little growth and very little resources available for ordinary defenses. The average homeowner and even the typical landscaper is much better off utilizing younger and smaller specimens for landscape purposes. It is the after installation care that can be challenging.

In just one personal example, I was responsible for the installation of many live oaks on a large private development in SC. I requested 2" inch caliper trees, but the nursery could only fill some of my order and we had to use 4" specimens for the remainder of the job. (20 small and 5 large) All of the trees were from the same nursery, and we mixed up the plantings so that large and small trees were integrated with each other.

Within three years, all of the smaller trees had fully outgrown the larger ones. The big ones, though 'healthy', exhibited virtually no annual stem growth for two growing seasons. One had to be removed due to borer damage. The management program was excellent; two members of this organization's landscape staff were ISA Certified Arborists!

QQ, the usual answer I get from growers about their pruning and training practices for various tree species often has something to do with their concept of what the customer wants. I've known some growers who do have a real vision for the future infrastructure of a tree, but not many. Building the proper scaffolding for that future tree body is something that few modern tree growers understand. At least, that's what I've observed. The exceptions are the wizards of the business!

Recovery is variable by species and age more than size. My main problem is with B&B vs. container grown. I've bought a bag of dirt with almost no roots before. Trees grown in containers should have no root damage to recover from. B&B trees are field grown and dug up by people who may or may not care. Even a good nursery can have bad employees from time to time. Even good employees who care may do a lot of damage. I've done it moving trees within the same yard. Sometimes the roots aren't where you expect them to be.
Adapting to pH, moisture, and other conditions can have a great effect too. Even planting trees close together is no guarantee that the conditions are the same. I've seen test holes 10' apart have soil that looked like it came from two different continents.
While larger trees generally are older and slower to recover, I still believe that the main difference is in the fact that containers are less of a gamble.

Ziggy

Rhizo:

Are my powers of observation superior to others' Well, maybe. The older I get the more objective I have become, and the less influenced I am by "received wisdom." I have found that one's powers of observation are very much influenced by what one believes. I am not prepared to give chapter and verse here, but I have always had a special interest in psychology and a number of studies have been done about how observations are influenced by beliefs.

Until a few years ago I always believed as some do here in these forums that smaller trees get established better and that any difference between a larger tree and a smaller one is made up for by the smaller one getting established better. Well, it has not been easy for me, but I was wrong all those years. Again and again I see the larger trees getting established and growing well so that the smaller ones never catch up. The largest Norway spruce I dug up and transplanted on my property here in Winchester has maintained its advantage over all of the many smaller ones I planted and is growing just as fast--and this is even though I planted this thing all by myself and had to sacrifice much, much more of the roots than I wanted to. But with the professional planters that know how to handle large trees, and have the right equipment and/or manpower, I regularly see wonderful success. If I had the funds to pay for them, I would go with these trees every time, especially at my age. Recently the Tysons Mall outside DC was expamded and they brought in really, really big trees. Boy, are these gorgeous and growing beautifully.

A number of years ago when all the quonset huts were removed from along Constitution Ave in DC they built a new area called "Constitution Gardens." They put in a small lake, and the Vietnam Memorial was placed in this area. Well, I watched the whole process of bringing in and planting the trees. They brought in several hundred trees, most of them 20 to 30 feet tall. Then there was a workers strike--I can't remember what local union it was. These trees sat untended and unplanted until sometime in July. In spite of all that I don't remember any dying and they all got established and they had "instant trees" for this area. There were many kinds of trees--red oaks, white oaks, burr oaks, sugar maples, red maples, tuliptrees and others I can't at the moment think of. If these trees had been 5 or 6 footers they would not yet hardly be as big as these trees were when they were planted.

And as for these container trees--I hate them! The roots go round and round and round, and up and down and up and down inside these pots and are such a tangle that I don't see any advantage. These roots must be unwound--not always possible--and when they are they can be five feet long out of a 5 gallon pot! How do I plant a tree like that without cutting off these long, long roots? I have never seen any of these really take off and grow fast--no wonder--the roots are so contorted after growing inside those confining pots. Uggghh!

I cannot say that you have not observed large trees that when transplanted did not do as well as some smaller trees. What I am saying here is that my experience/observations are the reverse. Obviously a homeowner who tries to buy and plant a tree that is larger than he can handle properly will get poor results. For my own planting efforts I am always very careful to buy a tree that is small enough for me to handle. But if I can handle a six to eight footer I will get that instead of buying a 12" tree from Forest Farm.

--Spruce

The operator of a tree-farm explained to me that the lower branches of a 'commercially grown' tree are a necessary evil; they are needed to develop trunk caliper in the early years but they are removed later to prevent head injuries. At the farm they shorten these laterals to redirect energy (in the plant) towards the canopy while still retaining some for caliper building.