do you mean lifting the canopy form the ground up???

a pic might help ...

i did it ... the secondary branches tend to weep also ... so as those grew.. and year or two later.. i lost some of the height under the tree ... so i hand pruned some of those ....

ken

Most people love the pyramidal evergreens in the shrub form -- with foliage to the ground -- because they're pretty that way. However, once the tree is in the yard and close to either house, walk, drives, or is the blocker of a view, then often times the tree's shrub form must be sacrificed to the greater needs of their human masters, the most merciful ... for whom they exist to serve.

Limbing the spruce tree up by entirely removing its lower limbs is the same procedure that would happen with any broadleaved deciduous tree. And the result is similar (as we see in Ken's picture above) with the exception that what remains of the tree has a different "flavor" than what a deciduous tree would have.

If you limb up the tree so that its lowest remaining limbs are 8' above the ground. Next year they may be 6' or 7' above the ground. Not because they are sliding down the trunk of the tree, but because they are growing longer, becoming heavier, and hanging lower. In future years, they could be hanging low enough to touch the ground as that's how it works. When I cut lower branches off of a large tree, I try to anticipate and compensate for a couple of more year's growth . I don't want to be back cutting off more the next year. Every couple of years is enough. If one wants to do it annually, that's their prerogative. To me, the minimum magic number of feet of height that limbs should not hang below, is 8', because that lets it clear the human head with some degree of comfort. If the tree is large enough, a higher ceiling is better. No one wants to feel like they're going to get their head scraped.

My personal bias is young trees branched to the ground, old trees clear trunk in proportion to the crown. I don't like the look of spruce (or any other conifer) 'palms'. I LOVE palms though.

I dislike any tree limbed up just to accommodate the very unnatural and arbitrary needs of the homeowner......especially with conifers, excepting those that often lose lower limbs naturally. IMO, nothing looks worse unless the tree has been topped. It's the age old adage of "right plant, right place".

Canopy thinning and other pruning methods should produce results that look like the tree has never been touched with pruners. That's one way to tell a skilled arborist/pruner from an amateur hack job.

whether they like it or not.. is not really the issue ...

your view is your defining reason ... and ..if in fact ... you were selling the house.. you might add significant value to having the view ... if you get my drift ...and if you are not selling.. you may as well enjoy the view ...

that said.. i think both would agree ... that properly pruning them is not an issue ...

and as i read your premise.... you are not talking about shearing it..the sides.. nor top[ping it ... both of which would not be approved in any manner ... imo ..

if this is DYI .... the first cut is made at 2 or 3 feet from the trunk ... to remove most of the hanging weight .. and then make the proper surgical cut at the trunk ... doing this avoids ripping a big chunk of bark down the trunk.. opening a large wound.. which would not be approved ...

ken

Here's a picture of the tree as we'd view it from a room where we frequently sit. As you can see, it is next to a large White Pine. It was planted by my spouse and her late husband. She would like to lift it up about 6'-8' from ground level. My preference would be to leave it as is or remove it entirely. It's healthy and full at this time, but I've got to believe it will start to thin where the pine branches are covering it.

"... unnatural and arbitrary needs of the homeowner..." ?? Is the homeowner not the prime reason for their landscaping to exist? If the conifer loses its lower limbs naturally, it's OK...? But if a person helps it do the same thing ... "nothing looks worse"! That seems to be a method of appraisal not based on appearance, but on some personal vision of correctness.

"Canopy thinning and other pruning methods should produce results that look like the tree has never been touched with pruners." If that's true, what is the justification for it? Does the same principle that enables it, apply to all of the other materials that man obtains from the earth? If not, where is the dividing line?

My personal bias is young trees branched to the ground, old trees clear trunk in proportion to the crown. I would not think to manage a tree in that, It gets to be one form now. Then I'll change it later. Sometimes that change can be difficult or more work. Sometimes, it's not possible. In the end, I think it assures a slower manner of getting to the final form (which I'm hoping to do sooner, if possible.)

Maackia, After seeing the picture, I deem the tree doomed. At some point it will be merely trying to scrape out a hardscrabble existence in a world dominated by bigger, strong, unyielding competitors.

I am obviously coming at this from a different perspective.

Trees that naturally drop lower branches do so because that is their nature and this tendency is also somewhat governed by their growing conditions. But a white pine or a Doug fir planted and grown in a cultivated setting with proper care are unlikely to do the same as they would in their natural forest setting. Does that mean we should go out and routinely limb all these trees up just becaue they may do that on their own? Of course not!! And conifers that have a naturally pyramidal form with low branching look ridiculous limbed up........like a Christmas tree on a stick.

Just because we have the ability to prune a tree anyway we like does not mean we need to do so.

I learned how to prune back in the day from a certified arborist. And the ISA has some pretty well defined reasons for pruning, none of which include manipulating the trees or shrubs into shapes to suit the whim of the gardener or the homeowner. Trees and shrubs are pruned as a preventative or corrective measure to ensure the health and productivity of the plant - removal of dead wood, crowded or conflicted branches, to reduce or eliminate potential hazards and to increase or encourage flowering and fruiting.

And the above is also the justification for developing pruning skills acute enough so that after the pruning is done it's hard to tell it was pruned at all but the tree/shrub just looks better. One prunes to enhance the natural growth habit, not to alter it or render it into a leafy green lollipop!! Or a Christmas tree on a stick :-)

And by pruning in this sense I do not mean pollarding or pleaching or shearing trees and shrubs into hedges. That is done for entirely different reasons and is not at all the same as approaching a standalone specimen in someone's front garden.

My philosophy with landscape design - and I'm sure this is influenced heavily by my education in horticulture - is to select and site plants so that pruning is seldom ever necessary, other than the corrective or preventative measures addressed above. And since 95% of my clients want low maintenance landscapes (and few have any pruning skills anyway), this works out very well. As I stated previously, right plant, right place.

@GG ...We're probably talking apples and oranges here. I don't promote raising the canopies of those certain conifers if it's avoidable. But where it's not, neither do I promote keeping them in people's way. Then, canopies must go up, or go away. In terms of maintenance, I don't think we're too far apart. It is that other reason -- art -- where I don't think it holds true that a plant should look like it's "never been pruned." But I think that is a substantially large portion of a landscape, at least for me anyway. And I'm not talking about far out art ... just making gems out of rocks.

limbing up doesn’t make sense in this case. Either lose the pine or lose the spruce. Their forms aren’t at all complimentary next to each other in the proximity.

"Their forms aren’t at all complimentary next to each other in the proximity."

I do agree with that, but when you've got two very healthy trees it isn't -- at least for me -- an easy decision. My spouse read through this and found it very interesting. This is one of those situations where I see both sides to the issue, and we're not sure there is a right answer. We agree it's best to set this decision aside until it becomes clearer to us.

Does Norway Spruce have greater tolerance to shade than most spruce? I've been waiting for this spruce to start showing some ill effect of the White Pine, but so far the evidence has been scant. You can see an opening where the White Pine branch is making the most sincere of attempt to deprive it of sun, but that's a bout it.

The problem is the pine and spruce are too close to one another. And not of the same scale. The solution is to remove the spruce. And not cutting the bottom half off, so that it becomes a "Calgary palm".

“And not of the same scale.”

That may be true today, but how about in five years? Or ten or twenty years? The spruce has gained significantly on the pine over the past five or so years. I don’t know if it can keep it up or how this will end, and the spruce may start to show some evidence of pine burden, but until I see more evidence I think I’ll watch them develop. It’s not like the two of them are hurting my eyes.

More of the lower branches on the white pine could be removed. A tree that size in the wild may not have a branch for over 25 ft. up. That may provide more sun to the Picea and open up a better view from that position.

I wouldn't raise the crown on the Norway, I'd remove it before I'd do that.

The answer is to cut down the white pine and leave the spruce as it is. I'm not a fan of pine trees.

Also, I'll just note that I, too, like conifers with branches to the ground, but Ken's tree is beautiful.

I'm not a fan of pine trees ? ... cut em all down , they attract bugs , not to mention bird poop

ha

"Does Norway Spruce have greater tolerance to shade than most spruce?"

From what I've seen, yes.

I'd lean to Bill's suggestion of limbing up the pine, if anything. As he said, it does occur in nature...

...and on the lower right is a pine out of scale...lol.

tj

For me the clear choice is to remove the spruce at its obviously misplaced and blocking your view. If you limb it up that just a temporary solution and the pine will suffer or it will simply look silly limbed up 40’

Unless your blocking a view on

purpose both those plants are a dime a dozen in WI. In this case it seems it’s blocking a pleasant view. I know it’s tough to cut your losses but its time to the right call for you and the future owners.

What to do? Removal of the pine is not negotiable, but raising the canopy is a possibility. I’m curious as to how the relationship of these two conifers will play out. The spruce has been shooting up about 3’/years, while the pine is growing slower. Does no one think the spruce may eventually catchup with the pine?

I wouldn't limb up the pine more than about 20 ft. Or at least take off the two or so branches that are contributing to shading the upper part of the spruce.

We must remember that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west so depending on how the trees are positioned, they each may be getting near 'full sun' although at different times of the day.

I don't know if the Norway will every 'catch up' with the pine but the top may get to where it won't be as affected by the pines canopy.

Unless they were 'brothers' growing side by side, how good can they ever look one always growing into the armpit of another (as it leans away) , and the other always dominating the space. It's not a vision of peace and serenity, but one of perpetual struggle losing the battle.

The White Pine will likely outlive the Norway Spruce.

' The White Pine will likely outlive the Norway Spruce '

True, and none of us, most likely will be here to see that. :-)

Yardvaak,

There's beauty in tree configurations other then perfect storybook shaped specimens planted at perfect distances. But then, that's maybe just me, I've always loved a little 'Wild woods' effect. :)

That's a really good looking spruce. I'd have trouble cutting it down too, however it looks like it's blocking some more attractive garden beds? Tough call

That is a real tough call ,,, the Norway is a real nice plant , but imagin it in only 10 years , way over the grass , almost out to the Bush's Lace

you could limb it up with plan to take it down

ron

and what about in 50 yrs ,,, it could be 80 ft

My head is telling me to remove the spruce, but my heart is saying something else. I may wait until fall to remove it. I am leaning in that direction. We hope to be here another 15-20 years, and as plantkiller mentions, it could block out much of the garden view by then. It's hard to believe that a few years ago I was stringing it with Christmas lights top to bottom.

I think Bill made a good point about the orientation of these trees and the amount of sun they get. The spruce is to the east of the pine and gets ample sun.

I appreciate everyone's input and really enjoyed the vigorous debate. It doesn't make the decision easier, but at least I can say I've given it full consideration. Thanks again.

...and on the lower right is a pine out of scale...lol.

A grouping of several or more individuals of the same species - in other words a clump or grove - registers visually as a single unit. Whereas a single large specimen of one kind with one small specimen of another kind close by generates a David and Goliath effect.

No way could I ever cut either of those down. Aesthetics be damned. And I only elevate spruce when the lower branches begin to thin or die out. I say let natural selection decide. If the Norway spruce begins to thin out or lose branches due to the pine, then cut it down. (Norways can do extremely well in partial shade from what I have seen - as another has mentioned.)

With my luck, if I had your situation and cut one down, the other tree would be struck by lightning or topple in storm within a year.

It is your garden and you can do whatever you like. I have a similar situation with a Picea abies 'Konca' and a Cryptomeria j. 'Elegans Compacta'. The spruce is way more interesting and rare than the Crypto, so I just assumed that I would take out the Crypto. But then I started playing around with it, raising the skirt, thinning the crown, tipping the branches, etc. It's fun. I will likely eventually take out the Crypto but maybe not. In the meantime, it is a conversation piece! And MNTG makes a good point; just when you think you are in control of the situation, Nature reminds you that you are not!

I've seen Norways do well in shade. But like any tree they don't like branches being touched/crowded.

"Whereas a single large specimen of one kind with one small specimen of another kind close by generates a David and Goliath effect."

Understood, but my Picea abies 'David' seems more than willing to take on Goliath, and we know how that biblical story turned out. :)

Sara, that's the kind of garden attitude I need more of. There should be an element of experimentation, but I tend towards letting nature play itself out as MNTG suggests. You've given me something to think about.

The whole point is to have some fun with it. And learn something in the process.

I guess mother nature tired of my procrastination and did some pruning to the pine. The recent heavy, wet snow removed some branches, including a large one throwing shade on the spruce. You can see thinning about 2/3 up where the fallen branch was growing through the spruce. I see this as a positive and nature has again proven to be a better pruner than I (me?), but that’s a low bar.

This photo has a large Norway spruce on the left edge and white pines in the back. Though the pines look to be at the edge of woods, they are in a narrow strip between the field and the river, and so get good sun morning and afternoon.. Notice how the pines have limbed themselves up, but the spruce has a real grace with the branches all the way to the ground. Sorry I am not home or I would have a better photo for you.

Your picture nicely captures the pine - spruce contrast. I’m not sure why, but IMO pines look better pruned up than spruce.

Much better!

Sort of what I suggested early on. :-)

Well, the deed has been done. The ongoing battle for light and space was becoming untenable — to me, not the pine or spruce. They were doing fine, but both were so vigorous it was closing off the garden view. Painful to do, but the spruce is gone.

Native species - 1

Naturalized species - 0

;-)

More than that, when view obstruction is concerned, the only decent way to open up a spruce is to remove it.

Was the deed done dirt-cheap? :)

If you got a tree and you want her gone…

tj

With all apologies to ACDC, the dirty deed was done dirt cheap. I decided now was the time knowing the spruce was soon going to be too large to do it myself. The birds are not happy with my decision, but I didn't want to wait 'til spring when they may have nests.

Rip spruce