We need your general location in the world in order to make helpful suggestions.

being a commercial installation.. have you not talked with nurserymen ...

it doesnt really matter what we recommend.. unless you are able to buy it.. in the size you wish ... within a reasonable distance from the installation ...

sand is the BEST media for trees.. so that is not an issue ..

as above... where are you

ken

ps:.. let me get this straight.. the developer planted cottonwood all thru the development??? ... man i could lend some choice words about that genius.. lol ... and i will bet.. he did it.. because they were a nickle a piece.. and FAST GROWING ... [unless of course.. it was you.. and then the decision was brilliant.. lol]

Sand good for trees? Well that explains it. I have rocks and sand.

My son and I were arguing today about how long ago I planted the big plane tree in my front yard. I thought it was five years ago. It looks like it was five years. It was actually three. I am already getting some nice shade from that tree.

what MOST trees like.. after becoming establishment ...is a sip of water.. and near total drainage..

which by my definition is sand ... as compared to clay ...

ken

Spafrica, look into pines. If any at all of this genus are suited to your area, they tend to enjoy sandy ground.

+oM

But soil based on clay is normally much richer than sandy soil. I have sand here, and I have a lot of oaks and pines, but no ash or bird cherry. Best thing with sandy soil is that winter frost does not get as deep in it as in wet clay.

No argument there, Hugg. Come to think of it, both choke and pin cherry can and do seem to thrive in sand lands. But without question, a clay-loam soil will have a much greater ability to hold onto nutrients.

OP's asking about sandy ground. Another thought, though I'm not especially fond of these plants, would be members of the Leguminosae, things like acacias, locusts, and so on. They can and do thrive in essentially sterile soils.

+oM

if PROPERLY PLANTED.. just about any tree.. can survive in ANY soil ...

but the OP seemed to suggest.. that their choice of tree.. would be dictated by the sand ...

all i was trying to do .. was suggest that .. per se .. IN AND OF ITSELF.. sand was not an issue ...

in my garden .... i have over 550 conifers.. which are trees ... and about 100 shrubs.. and 100 trees.. and none of them care about my mineral sand .... IMHO .... its just not an issue ...

the ONLY issue with a high draining sand.. is PROPER aftercare in regard to watering .... until the trees are WELL ESTABLISHED .. and able to fend for themselves.. and how long that takes.. is a function of how large the transplants are ...

wonder if OP will ever come back ..????

ken

Quercus Fusiformis is a good choice grown from acorns so you have the taproot helping with drought. They are hardy to zone 6. If op cares yet.

Pines grow well in sand here in South Carolina, but cleaning up the pine straw is a pain in the area. It is never ending and I would like to get rid of our pines.

i used to clean up under pine... and then i came to realize.. they were self mulching ...and basically killed everything under them. as the decades rolled thru ...

it was easier to remove the grass under the pine.. and leave the needles ... than to keep trying to grow the grass the pine was killing ... one might call it going with ma nature.. rather than fighting her ...

ken

Yeah, sorry to have to report this, Rosemary, but my head explodes just a little bit whenever I see folks removing the needles from under their pines. That's just me-you go ahead and keep raking-but everything Ken said and more argues in favor of leaving them, if you ask me!

+oM

You and me both, Ken - but hey, you have acreage don't you - changes a lot of perspectives, I find - gaining around 100x as much space as I have been used to, even if most of it is still (ahem) ungardened.

Here in sandy, shelly Norfolk, Holm oak has an engaging presence in the landscape. And yeah, various pines.

Camp, do you happen to know the average annual precipitation for your area? No specific reason, I'm just curious about such. In fact, I'd always considered the whole of England to be a rainy, rainy place, yet a cursory glance at such a map the other day surprised the heck out of me, in that, if this map is to be believed, many eastern areas of your country are much much less wet than I'd thought. Even London, famous I guess for fog, which is another weather phenomenon altogether, is way less wet than I'd thought. Same too for Europe-again if the maps I glanced at are right, numerous areas of Europe are far drier than even where I live, where the air for months at a time is coming straight out of the Arctic, which is by definition some very dry air. Anyway, some big surprises for this weather and climate geek in those maps. I did note the very wet areas of Wales, western Scotland, etc, but still much of the country was not at all as I'd pictured it. and again, same deal with much of non-montane Europe.

+oM

Ha - I think East Anglia is classed as 'semi-arid'...and we get those freezy Siberian winds too. For such a little island, the climate and geography is seriously diverse. Although the entire length of GB differs by only one temperature zone - rainfall is a very different kettle of fish. A while ago, you mentioned a foot of rain in a week - that's several months worth for us.

I think the intensity of the rain is what differs between eastern US and north western europe. When it rains in the US it really rains, inches at a time. But in europe, it's more of a steady drizzle that last for days but doesn't give much percipiation

Yes, I see that. I've always considered Britain and associated lands as being conducive to some very impressive tree growth, and perhaps more so than absolute moisture, it is the relative -I said relative-evenness of temperatures. We're not in the worst spot for that phenomenon in the US-that would be places like eastern Montana, the Dakotas, and so on, but still compared to where you are, I imagine we get some large swings. So too with the PNW, much more gradual cool-downs, etc.-I think-than around here. That might be the most important factor for tree growth. Oh, we still get enormous trees here, but its' different items, things of rock-solid hardiness like white pine or sugar maple. It seems like a very large and nice range of stuff is able to do well in places like Britain and the US PNW.

+oM

I'm surprised the summer drought of California and at least parts of the PNW isn't reducing tree growth more. I mean, it's in the growing season when plants really need water, but the redwoods are growing 250-300 ft anyway.

The thing about UK rainfall figures, is the rate of evapotranspiration is so low there, a little goes a long way. London is notably cloudier than Seattle in summer; thus even though both places have lowish summer rainfall compared to the US East Coast it's going to last longer in London. (and Seattle is still comparatively lower than anywhere in the UK for July rainfall) And once you get up near the Arctic Circle in Scotland, even the midsummer sunlight seems very weak and wan to me, who grew up at the latitude of Gibraltar in Washington, DC. (albeit never ending!) For example the first time I visited London was in early July 1993, I remember all 4-5 days were drizzly and cloudy with brief breaks to sunlight. My understand is by that point Seattle is usually having long, long streaks of sunny, crisp, low humidity days. OTOH when I spent a summer in Scotland, they were having a dry (for them) summer, with only a few rain days. But if the dry, crisp days are only around 65F, again, whatever soil moisture is there isn't really going anywhere in a hurry. At the end of the summer it still looked lusher, for the most part, than the US Mid-Atlantic looks at the end of a summer.

Late summer humidity in SE England is also a bit higher, because the Channel gets a bit warmer than the Pacific coast water - again, leads to lower evapotranspiration. I remember being in Brighton in September and the winds off the water having a succinct mugginess, but not quite uncomfortable. Some Irish friends of my family who vacation in northern California (but have lived in the US since they were teens) have said the same thing about being back in Ireland versus along the Pacific coast. They'd forgotten that Ireland is more humid.

Huggorm the redwoods get summer fog even during months with no measurable precip. They also can grow as bboy has pointed out, further south in California if they are in swales that have natural groundwater. However, they don't _need_ that fog. They aren't Rhododendron sinograndes. If they have dry air in summer and are watered or have groundwater, they will happily suck that water out of the ground. This is why there are huge ones in old, watered Sacramento gardens. Within reason though. I don't think they would grow in Phoenix, Arizona...but mine positively laughed off the very hot & dry Maryland summers of 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Nice treatment, David. A few comments: Split the latitudinal difference between where Camp hangs out and your place, I'm right in the middle, and to be honest, our sunshine in high summer has never felt like anything but a big hot blast aimed right at your head. I think at an average of 45 degrees N, we're in the sweet spot for direct lighting at this time of year!

I knew of course that Britain's climate featured moderate temperatures in the summer-references are legion to the relative scarcity of nice warm, let alone hot days. And I agree, that makes huge difference, one which can easily be seen right here when weather conditions permit. I'm not surprised at the "mugginess" of onshore flows there...like you say, warmer currents than offered by the directional flow off the Pacific.

Oh, and Hug, here I'm only parroting things I've read, but evidently, some of the coast redwood groves are "normally" irrigated by summer-long meltwater coming off high elevation snowpacks. The word normally in quotes of course because nobody knows what that is anymore. But I believe that is or was a factor.

This whole thread reminds me once again that in terms of what would constitute a good amount of yearly precip. for tree growth, the concept of available moisture is at the forefront. And as that relates to sand, a given plant can usually handle more rainfall or irrigation as it drains so well. I know in some of the sandier wooded counties in this state, it can rain a lot without so much as a puddle showing up, whereas where I live, in the clay belt, a quarter inch of rain leaves water laying all over.

+oM

I am in a river valley and groundwater is never far away - indeed, my wood is actually surrounded by reedbed and water meadows. The swathes of nettle and chickweed, the astounding 8foot tall foxgloves and the stupendous growth of the handful of trees I have planted, speaks of excessive fertility - not sure what, if anything, I can do about this but it is lush, very lush everywhere.

I think you are spot-on regarding evaporation, David. Once the mercury starts hitting 80F, this counts as a 'boiling' hot day. On the other hand, there are not that many days when grass stops growing .

I wish my land was in a river valley as well, and not atop a sandy moraine ridge. Sure drains well though.

The river forms an ox-bow with my wood and another identical plantation nestled in the curve of the river. Tidal flooding (never fluvial) happens on the opposite river bend, flooding the neighbouring plantation when the Yare overtops. The other wood has lost several dozen poplars and is waterlogged for months on end with a ground cover of sedge, meadowsweet, flag iris - whereas mine, less than 200metres away, has grass, lamiums, umbels. Go figure - the 2 plantations are separated by a stone's throw but mine is a lovely usable space while the other is an unpredictable marsh. Give me dry and free draining any day of the week.

The pine needles are all over the yard, not just under the pines which are probably over 50 feet tall. We have to clean them up.

Ok, thought maybe you'd say that, Rosemary. All I can recommend in that case would be to by all means delineate "beds" or whatever you want to call them under the ones where no such removal is practiced, it being of no practical benefit there...and to use whatever tool-rake, blower, unemployed youth, to remove-but utilize-the ones on (I think) your lawn areas. This is a useful material. I don't know if you know it, but "pine straw" is sold for real money down your way. Me, I'd think of a way to use it, even if just as an ingredient in a large composting setup. That's at least not wasting it.

As for hating pines and living in sand country, there is an issue there, one which I can't remedy. Those are the very plants most well-adapted to your area, and as such deserve a place, far more so than all the feeble little items that must be babied along. I see the same thing or the same mentality in place in S. Florida...folks flock to that area and immediately want it changed utterly from what it is/was. Actually, the developers take care of all that ahead of time, piling all that native garbage (satire alert) up to be chipped and blown into a van (semi trailer) to be hauled off. Then, a bunch of stuff requiring endless irrigation gets placed around the shiny new homes and the table is set for yet more groundwater depletion and all the rest.

+om

Oaks grow very well in sand here, almost as well as pine. So there is still hope, even if you live in "sand country"

Oh, yep - I am hoarding (jealously) my few pine needles which make gorgeous paths between the rides - just wide enough for one person to walk down...and yep, great in compost too. I have discovered the joys of leafblowing - after endless raking blisters, I bloody love my Stihl petrol blower.

English Oak has colonised my sandy soil (along with hawthorn, blackthorn and elder)

Isn't Florida famously sand country? I recall many anguished convos over on roses about the agonies of attempting a cottage garden, with roses aplenty, in Florida sand (apparently rootstock was a solution). We always want what we can't have, I guess..

Exactly! I frequent the Florida Gardening board and that is often the theme...things like "Can I grow lilacs in Florida?", or "what roses do well here?" ad infinitum. Meanwhile-and I alluded to this in the above post-the very vegetation perfectly adapted to that soil and set of conditions is swept away prior to development like so much rubbish.

Overall, pines and their relatives, many oak types, a range of small, shrubbier cherry species...really, the list is huge. But since we don't know where Spafrica lives, many or most of these suggestions are apt to be useless.

In my part of the world, yes, there is a noticeable difference between woods in the heavier soil areas and those in sand country, but it's also true that there is a great deal of overlap. Most species of plants occur over a range of conditions, not on some knife's edge of reality. If it were not so, we wouldn't have the kind of green world we do.

+oM

I have a river in my backyard. The yard itself is a grove of trees. The natural tendency is for the soil to be sandy. But the previous homeowners down through the years never raked the leaves. The backyard soil is black dirt. Trees in the grove are Cotton Wood, Black Walnut, Silver Maple, (Don't ask me how the Silver Maple and the Black Walnut learned to get along!) Buckeye, Pennsylvania Ash, Mulberry, American Elm and Spruce.

Is oleander trees is good to plant on sandy soil?

Turkey oak (Q.laevis) and Blackjack oak (Q.marilandica) both do well on sandy soil.