Search this forum for someone named "fotisr". (i.e., go to google and enter "gardenweb fotisr sequoia".) He is growing them in an elevated part of Greece with zn 8 winters. Yes, they can grow there, but might not adapt to a specific area for a specific reason. (for example I have no idea if they tolerate calcareous soil)

In California planted ones are all over the place, including some quite hot and dry areas well away from the native stands. With many trees it is the delicacy of the naturally generated seedlings that keeps them from spreading into areas that are able to support artificially planted examples, that get some human attention to help them establish.

Including the planting of specimens well beyond the seedling stage in size.

With this one in particular the seedlings are quite apparently slow and delicate, may dry up, freeze out or be overtaken by more vigorous plants. For instance, the northernmost natural grove, on the Chetco River in Oregon is not reproducing due to competition from western hemlock seedlings. I see the same thing here, where when the redwood next door seeds into my place and hemlocks come up in the same spot these last shove the baby redwoods aside.

Thank you! sounds like it may well be worth a try, since the mail-order italian nursery from which I'd get it offers plants that are from 125 to 150 cm. in height,pot size 24 cm...in other words, not tiny little things. I can't spoil anything in my large and wild garden;( there's no running water; I must rely on rain and what I collect),but nor do very young plants have to completely fend for themselves,so as long as it's not a "penguins in the desert" sort of prospect,I might have a fairly good chance of success. What's more, the area that I'm trying to "forest up" is very barren; in fact, originally I thought it was too shallow and infertile for anything at all, but after a year or two of good rains, I went down there and-lo and behold!-there are indeed spots where the soil is not all that thin,by any means; it's just been penalized by erosion and subsequent drought,though it certainly does need lots of organic matter. So a baby sequoia would not have a lot of competition,hopefully.

Wild stands on marginal sites all in ravines, along streams. If you have similar lower areas where the hillside soil has run down and accumulated, try the redwoods there.

Particularly where it is barren be sure to mulch all plantings well. This will be your key technique for getting new plants to take hold and live under dry conditions. (You will also want to be planting in fall, so that months of rain - rather than drought - come right after the plants go in the ground). But do not dig organic matter into the soil for plantings of long-lived specimens (trees, shrubs, roses, climbers, perennials etc.) - you are not vegetable gardening in these instances.

This post was edited by bboy on Thu, Jan 1, 15 at 14:24

Bboy,the place i'm talking about perfectly fits the description of being on the flank of a hillside, but my land is awfully poor; there wasn't anything to "run down and accumulate", I'm afraid!I'll certainly mulch well, as I'm seeing that this is so, so important in a site like mine.But why do you say to not dig organic matter into the soil? I have always done so for my roses, and in fact am finding that ,now that I've significantly increased the amount of organic matter that I add,the roses have responded with breath-taking enthusiasm. I've never grown vegetables, btw. I have an idea that you are thinking that my soil is "garden soil". It isn't.
I am seeing such an incredible improvement in my garden since I started adding lots and lots of organic matter, mulching,and then working the older mulch into the soil and re-mulching. I've basically planted all my new baby trees the way I plant my roses.

Amending of planting holes and small beds creates problems with how water moves into and out of these amended areas. In organized trials growth of test subjects in unamended control groups has been better than that of those that were planted with amendments. This pattern of findings dates back as far as the late 1960s. The reason many think amending of back-fill improves results is the plants in the amended holes don't always die, and top growth can be great after their roots escape the amended zone and they get into the unmodified soil outside the hole or small bed. Showing that they should have been planted in the existing soil in the first place, without modification - other than loosening and aeration, which is the main benefit of digging in amendments at planting - it is the aeration caused by the digging that new plantings may respond to, rather than the presence of the amendments themselves.

Of course where you have managed to improve the overall humus content of a large area plants put there will probably tend to enjoy this - depending on what kinds of plants they are - as long as they are not on the edge of an amended bed - where there will be interactions with unchanged soil around the bed, same as in a small planting hole.

In general you don't want a soil organic content above 5%. More than this can be counterproductive. And in permanent plantings you always have the problem of organic material dug into soil decomposing and filtering away, long before the life of the planting is over. With flowering annual and vegetable beds, that are redone frequently this can be kept up with. Also wild ancestors of these types tend to be from recently disturbed soils that may be rich in organic litter.

With most other groups if you instead plant in existing soil and mulch afterward you are following the natural model of the forest and woodland.

Thank you; that is helpful. In fact, another thing that I think has improved my general results has been the fact that I stopped digging "rose holes" and now do "beds"; i.e.,working the soil in a large area around the new plants,concentrating more on width than depth. The new plants (trees) I put in are for the most part "alveolo forestale "size; i.e.,very young and small,the size used by forestry people to re-forest large areas. I'm very happy to have found this company that sells this type of plant, because-at least according to the site-these little guys establish much faster, and only require extra care in their first year,and,yes...DON'T require that you dig a "big hole" in order to plant them! so I'm hoping that I did an OK job with planting them,and I don't think I veered too far away from the conditions you have explained.I guess I'm going to be wanting to keep the general area around these guys mulched over the next few years,to help keep the soil aereated. Fact is, the area that I am trying to re-populate is so barren, with soil so compacted over the years by drought, etc, that SOME organic matter does seem to be a good thing; frankly,I'd be afraid that a very young plant would simply not be able to survive it's first summer on my land without something to maintain the soil soft-ish.
I always plant in fall. One year, in spring, a local rose nursery had potted roses and plants on sale ,and I bought some,and planted them out, since it was a relatively cool, rainy-ish spring...HA! only about HALF of them survived,and these were potted roses, supposedly easier than bare-root ones! NEVER AGAIN! cheers, bart

The main value of the mulch is shading the soil. It also protects it from compaction and slows frost penetration. Loosen your soil at planting and then keep it mulched afterward to maintain the loosening, instead of trying to do this with organic amendments dug into the soil - going through and digging in material that was functioning as a mulch previously is a particularly bad idea. Especially if the now dug in mulch is not immediately replaced afterward.

Place flat rocks in beds or throw down sheets of plywood to walk on dug over beds without them being compacted by your feet.

Another problem with amending with significant amounts of organic material at planting is that the soil subsides when the space occupied by the organic matter empties as it decomposes. Plants in liberally amended soils can end up well below grade later.

Bboy is right....and I can't stress enough how important it is to get a good mulch going beneath your trees.

Redwoods *must* be watered well for at least three years in dry areas...with supplemental watering extending beyond the establishment phase.

I have several Redwoods growing in my yard. Even with Summer water, there will be interior needle/branch die-back. My trees have been mulched thick and deep, and I've introduced ferns that further aid in locking moisture in the soil. I also add pieces of old wood and pine cones to the area.

Josh

The more leaves and mulch, the merrier!
I also toss my Christmas trees into the compost pile amidst the Redwoods.

Josh

I've been using rabbit manure and straw for a mulch around one of my young Coast Redwoods. One downspout from the woodshed gives it plenty of water. Hardy Geranium is the groundcover. Needless to say, it's growing very fast!
I wonder what the Mediterranean basin looked like before humans started managing goats and sheep? I'm sure it didn't do the forests and topsoil any favors.
Mike
{{gwi:2125028}}

This post was edited by mikebotann on Tue, Jan 6, 15 at 22:40

Yes, the now long-standing, often desert-like condition of that region is the result of centuries of natural resource mismanagement.

It has been pointed out that California has been doing down the same path.