All maples have fibrous root systems that run along the surface of the ground. I think areas with thin topsoil run in to this problem more, as the roots try to avoid poor soil. I can't say for sure that one cultivar within the species will be better in this aspect, but I do know that the freeman crosses are worse.

Have you considered the "Sunset Maple" Red Maple cultivar? We just planted a nursery tree of this variety a few weeks ago. (12') When we did research prior to selection we found that this type is not prone in most cases to surface root issues.

I'm certainly not arguing, as I don't know doo-dah about the subject.
But I went here -
http://hort.ufl.edu/trees/ACERUBG.pdf
and found this -
"ÂRed Sunset Red Maple is easily transplanted and
usually develops surface roots in soil ranging from
well-drained sand to clay."

I have seen many red maples and no problem with surface roots. This problem is much exaggerated. And I think, contrary to the "expert" source cited above, my observations tell me it is a problem primarily on heavier and less well-drained soils. Red maple is one of my favorite trees, so I am always looking at them and how they grow.

Also, it is one of the most common trees in my woodland and I am always working on "skid trails" in my logging. I keep the wear on these trails to a minimum, but if there are any surface roots, I will see them and scrape them. The damage to surface red maple roots is fairly rare--no more common than black cherry roots and hemlock roots. Yes, there is a tendency for red maple trees to have roots near the surface. Are they a problem coming up to the surface in grassy lawns in well drained soils? I don't think very often, and I have lived around these trees most of my life!

If you want to have a red maple tree in your yard and don't have some obvious problem with heavy clay just under the sruface or standing water after a rain, go ahead, plant them and enjoy!

--Spruce

They all do it. Sometimes it takes years and years.

will the roots destroy the foundation of the house?

Thinking of planting an october glory at the front of the house which is about 2 meters away.

you need 4 meters minimum jumbojimmy and that's with caution on the safe side..

Dax

"For street planting and home gardens, oaks would be a better choice: They deliver big shade nearly as fast as the large maples"

if oaks grew anywhere near as fast as maples, people *would* be planting them all the time for shade, many have comparable fall color, they do have the stronger wood, are longer lived, etc.

and I agree oaks are generally better for all the reasons he stated, I've been happy to see Chicago's forestry dept going the way of oaks, it's a very good long term investment.

but for an individual homeowner who may not want to wait 10+ years for that shade and mature feel, red maples are a good choice, so there will always be a demand for them.

norway maples on the other hand...

Red maple is a large-growing tree, over 60 ft. tall. Picture a 60 ft. maple over your house. All debris dropped by the part of the tree that hangs over - including dropped branches - will go into your gutters and onto your roof. And when it gets big it will make your house look small. Maybe the shade given and the 'cottage on a larger estate' look that might be produced by this situation will be valued enough to not be concerned about the litter and potential hazard (all trees come down, sooner or later). That will be up to you - if you are still living there when the tree gets big.

in the forest they might get 60 feet tall, but #1 the cultivars tend to grow smaller, and #2 trees in large urban areas never grow as big as they are capable of due to lousy environmental conditions.

that all said, I wouldn't plant one without considering the mature canopy, you certainly don't want it actually on *top* of your house.

>#1 the cultivars tend to grow smallerWhy? Because catalogs repeatedly depict them as growing 20'-40' tall? When was the last time you saw a red maple cultivar described as being selected for dwarfness or slow growth?

>#2 trees in large urban areas never grow as big as they are capable of due to lousy environmental conditions.Some heights for planted red maples growing within cities:

73 ft. Wenatchee, WA (1988)
86 ft. Tacoma, WA (1987)
92 ft. Tacoma, WA (1988)
92 ft. Seattle, WA (2006)

http://www.soonerplantfarm.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/plants.trees/typeID/3/index.htm

take a look at the dozen or so red maple cultivars, which all have different mature heights listed.

do you run a nursery? what evidence or experience do you have to back up your theory that all red maple cultivars will grow to be towering beasts?

I have never, ever seen a 60 foot tall red maple anywhere in Chicago. I doubt I've even seen one much past 40 ft.

Washington state is not exactly full of "typical" urban areas. Go to NYC or Chicago and tell me what you find- you apparently went to a "tallest trees" website and are pretending that's the norm.

next item of evidence:

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/nursery/metria/metria4/m46.pdf.

"ABSTRACT--- Red maple has been shown to be highly variable genetically in many traits associated with adaptability and marketability. Current research efforts are being made to determine the inheritance of these traits, and to identify clones which represent a superior combination of economically valuable attributes...

Typical mature forest trees are about 60 to 90 feet in height and about 2 feet in diameter. In landscape sites or along streets, however, 35 to 50 feet in height and 12 to 18 inches diameter is about average."

Why do you hate science? Do you believe you know something that all the people who do research work on these cultivars don't?

Paul, I would suggest contacting the nursery above that offers the red maple cultivars you are interested in and asking their opinion, describing your situation.

>Why do you hate science?I provided data, measured with scientific instruments by workers I know personally to be careful. Doesn't sound like an example of hating science to me.

>Do you believe you know something that all the people who do research work on these cultivars don't?I imagine most would agree most red maple cultivars aren't old enough for ultimate sizes to have been demonstrated. The records I listed are not the largest red maples known, just some that have gotten tall out here - thousands of miles outside of their native range. Much greater heights have been claimed for wild tree(s) in Michigan.

Some records for cultivars:

'Bowhall'

49 1/2 ft. Aurora, OR (1993)

'Columnare'

77 1/2 ft. Seattle, WA (2006)

Scanlon

57 ft. Aurora, OR (1993)

Some must be so new that "adult" examples don't exist yet.
That must be why I can't find a pic of an established "Burgundy Belle".
Thanks to all for your replies.
Paul

that's data only in the most generic sense, what you are doing is selectively choosing bits of data that boost your argument, while ignoring the data, context, researchers, and contributors which don't. that is what I meant when I admittedly exaggerated to say you were hating science. science does not allow one to ignore data that doesn't fit a pre-conceived theory ("all red maples grow very tall"), it is necessary to revise your theories as other evidence surfaces.

if you have some stats showing large studies done over decades comparing different cultivars and showing their growth rates as equal to wild red maples (which of course grow taller, that's what trees in the forest have to do to get sunlight), that would be relevant to the question posted, and I'll happily concede the point. but I haven't found anything suggesting that, and it runs contrary to what I have found.

Paul, some of these cultivars are new, definitely. But trees don't continue growing up to the skies forever, they reach a mature size, usually within about 30 years (varies by species), and then creep up, if they even do that. regarding cultivar variation, there are all sorts of cultivars that have been bred for specific traits, from columnar form to a certain color, and yes, for mature size. I don't know why red maple would be the exception to that rule.

the point is simply that all red maple cultivars are not alike, that's why they are cultivars in the first place, people are selecting them for specific traits. so if you have your heart set on a red maple, find a few nurseries that carry a cultivar you like, and feel them out by emailing or phoning them, I've found most nurseries are only too glad to help out.

You're arguing with something other than what I said.

This topic about red maple growing has become quite a debate! I am not sure what anyone really knows, and not sure what I really know, but I will chime in anyway.

I have loved red maple for many years. For a long time I thought sugar maple was the only really good maple for my area, but I have opened my eyes.

I commented earlier about the surface roots issue, and I stand by that comment. The trees in my woodland are approaching 80 years old, so if the surface roots develop "eventually," it should not be a problem, one need think much about when planting a young red maple tree, unless one has the kind of soil conditions I and one or two others here have noted. And these trees don't live for much over 150 years, at best, anyway. So if in my woods it is not a problem after 80 years, I would not worry much about it.

As for size and the sustainability of growth rates, red maple is not "bad" in this regard. What I mean, is that a red maple is not going to drastically slow down in its growth rates after about 30 years or so. I recently read an article based on forest research which said that red maple has a better sustained growth rate after age 80 than black cherry. I note information like this because it affects my silvicultural harvest plans.

Overall, red maple is generally classed as a moderately large tree. In the forest it can easily exceed 100 feet on good sites and can be substantially taller. Growing more in the open as an ornamental/shade tree on properties with good soil, it can easily top 60 to 70 feet and eventually grow between two and three feet in diameter.

As for the named cultivars: what information I have been able to find about their growth rates and eventual size is very spotty. It is my impression that the freeman hybrids grow faster and perhaps larger than the regular red maple cultivars. As for the red maple cultivars, I do believe that at least some of these do not grow as fast or large as the wild "species." Some of them are selected not only for their color but for their growth form--crown shape, compactness/density, etc.

I have been confused by the information tags on trees sold in nurseries. I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that the size estimates are often based on some time period, something like 10 or 15 years. Other times the trees have tags that indicate some postulated "eventual" height, but what assumptions this is based on I have no idea.

Probably the most important variable is the site quality--the soil, etc. that the tree is growing on. On lots with avarage to fair soils, I would expect a regular red maple to achieve something like 50 feet in 50 years after being planted as a six foot tree. On the better sites I would think something like 65 feet would be more likely. I suspect, and I really mean "suspect," that some of the popular cultivars may do somewhat less, but not dramatically less.

--Spruce

>I have been confused by the information tags on trees sold in nurseries

Here is a link that might be useful: Tree Heights

No, no, no, the size of the Red Maple trees is mostly dictated by where it is growing. In Texas a red Maple easily gets to be 60-80 feet in height, however, in colder climates, lets say zone 5, the tree will never reach such heights. You must also keep in mind, that a Texas Red Maple will not grow properly in Illinois and vice versa, Hardiness for these two specimens, although same species, would be totally different. Furthermore, do NOT confuse the roots of a Silver to a Norway or a Red maple, they all differ in root thickness, quantity and horizon settlement. Lastly, how these roots grow also depend deeply on the soil where the tree is planted. In coarse loose soils like sandy loams, depth penetration, even for a Silver maple is great, however, in heavy soils like clay, roots for any tree would remain mostly in the top horizon.