Fast growing trees for new large garden

ECO_Mental

I planning to build a house next year on a large site about 1.25 acres and I'm going to put a finely manicured lawn on about most of it......:D:D

Only joking!

My plan is to plant it mostly with native trees, leave most of the grass grow long and wild but cut paths through it to make it look like its planned. I will have some nice a lawn areas around the house with fruit trees etc I will also be planting a native hedge with white thorn etc.

Anyway I am looking of some advice on what trees that are fast growing that will fill out the space fairly quickly so it wont look like a barren field too long. This will obviously be a long term to retirement project but I need to get something going quickly.

Based in Cork exposed enough site but good ground with one corner a but wet but mostly good ground.

magicbastarder

birch will grow quickly enough - the guts of a metre a year if in good conditions. probably 60cm a year a bit more reasonable.
one benefit of them is that they cast a nice dappled shade so you could consider growing a slower growing species underneath them.

hazel might be an option too, you could set up a coppice cycle, and get firewood and food out of it.

looksee

Alder will grow happily in the wet bit, and is fast growing - it will grow in less wet bits too, I have a garden that is free draining acid and there are quite a lot of alders, nice trees. Willows look well too, and are definitely quick growing.

magicbastarder

i have an alder doing very well in not particularly wet soil, but i think the general gist is that alder does best beside flowing water, and willow in still/stagnant conditions.

macraignil

Here is a link to the price list of a Fermoy nursery.

I was going to suggest Ash but they have a disease problem at the moment that means the supply might still be restricted. They self seed in my own garden and the new plants seem to shoot up very fast once the ground where they are growing is any good.

Getting smaller trees as whips may work out better as the younger trees are small enough to not catch the wind much and so can be planted without stakes to support them and then they seem to settle in faster and grow at a quicker rate than some of the larger trees I planted.

Sycamore is fairly fast growing and can tolerate exposed conditions and might be a good option if you don't have horses grazing nearby. There is some toxin in the seeds that causes a nerve disease in horses that eat the fallen seeds.

I went for mostly oak and sweet chestnut as I think the nuts will be a good food source for wildlife in the long term.

Be aware of local hares and rabbits as they will sometimes decide to eat the bark on young trees and if they go all the way around they kill the tree.

looksee

Sweet chestnut is a very attractive tree, it seems to grow reasonably quickly.

magicbastarder

the OP mentioned native trees, so if you're being picky, sycamore and sweet chestnut are off the list.

ShiverinEskimo

You don't want Sycamore anyways. Horrendous trees to deal with. Suckers and seeds everywhere and the leaves are so big that they'll smother a lawn if not constantly swept off in the autumn.

Avoid IMO.

Lumen

When you're designing your planting scheme, think particularly about light, height and wind.

For instance, you can put some large, dense trees on the northern boundary and they won't cast shade on anything (that you own!).

Any kind of productive tree (e.g. fruit or nut) needs shelter and full sunlight. If it's not sheltered the blossoms will blow off in spring, if it doesn't have full sunlight it won't fruit fully, or at all.

For fruit and nut trees, use grafted specimens on rootstock appropriate for the size you're aiming for, bearing in mind that you'll want to pick fruit within reach.

Try to avoid just buying the biggest, fastest bloody thing you can find, and get a good mix of evergreen and deciduous for year round interest.

Play with shapes. Scots Pine will shoot up and drop branches as they grow, so you get a lovely high up canopy for visual interest without losing any light. They look crap when young, but the years will pass soon enough.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Sweet chestnut is a very attractive tree, it seems to grow reasonably quickly.

Oh yes, sorry, not paying attention.

macraignil

ECO_Mental wrote: »

My plan is to plant it mostly with native trees, .

magicbastarder wrote: »

the OP mentioned native trees, so if you're being picky, sycamore and sweet chestnut are off the list.

looksee wrote: »

Oh yes, sorry, not paying attention.

From what I was reading the opening post said mostly native trees so there would be no need to be picky and strictly take anything in particular off their list. Just because they are not historically from Ireland does not mean these trees do not grow well here and I can say I have seen good crops of nuts from sweet chestnut trees in north Cork. This department of agriculture information page claims the largest girth measurement on any tree in Ireland is a particularly old sweet chestnut in Co. Wicklow.



I agree with ShiverinEskimo that maybe Sycamore is not a great suggestion but it does grow fast and is tolerant to exposed sites. I think having a good variety of trees is the way to go and whitebeam, hornbeam, mountain ash, whitethorn, crab apples, cherry, Zelkova and Lime trees(tilia cordata) can make very nice trees and are also worth considering.

looksee

+1 on sycamore. I have a number in this 'new' garden and most of them will have to go. The granddaddy can (will have to) stay, but the younger ones are going to be culled. I would rather have more (indeed some) mountain ash and crab apple among others. After a lifetime of gardening in alkeline soil I now have acid soil (and have gone from sea level to a bit of altitude) so I am having to do a quick revision of what is suitable. It will be nice to have the option of some of the acid lovers though.

Squiggle

Only put trees close to your house if;

1. You are ok in the years to come with the risks those trees pose to your house in stormy weather.

2. You are happy having the lights on during day time in the middle of July. We need all the light we can get in this country imo and don't want to block it out with 50+ foot trees, which is what most, if not all, of the trees mentioned above will grow to.

There's a reason imo why you don't need a fellers licence to fell a tree within 100 feet of a structure. They shouldn't be there in the first place.

looksee

Squiggle wrote: »

Only put trees close to your house if;

1. You are ok in the years to come with the risks those trees pose to your house in stormy weather.

2. You are happy having the lights on during day time in the middle of July. We need all the light we can get in this country imo and don't want to block it out with 50+ foot trees, which is what most, if not all, of the trees mentioned above will grow to.

There's a reason imo why you don't need a fellers licence to fell a tree within 100 feet of a structure. They shouldn't be there in the first place.

No-one suggested putting the trees near the house, the OP specifically said there would be lawns around the immediate area of the house. You can put a lot of trees, including a couple of the big ones into an acre and a quarter without shading the house.

magicbastarder

also, the aspect will obviously be key. not much chance of blocking the light if the trees are to the north of the house.

Lumen

Trees always look MASSIVE standing up, you don't need to be endangering your house or blocking out light.

I have a load of 30+ year old trees which are maybe 10-15m tall, and maybe 25m from the house, on the boundary. There's obviously zero risk of them falling on the house but they create an incredible sense of shelter and cosiness, and I still have sightlines to the sea.

Squiggle

looksee wrote: »

No-one suggested putting the trees near the house, the OP specifically said there would be lawns around the immediate area of the house.

The OP said

"I will have some nice a lawn areas around the house with fruit trees etc"

Have you never seen a 7 or 8 metre high apple tree with a similar spread ?

You can put a lot of trees, including a couple of the big ones into an acre and a quarter without shading the house.

Indeed. You can also put trees 100 metres from your house that will block sunlight, especially in Winter.

Squiggle

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, the aspect will obviously be key. not much chance of blocking the light if the trees are to the north of the house.

A tree close to any window will block light.

Squiggle

Lumen wrote: »

Trees always look MASSIVE standing up, you don't need to be endangering your house or blocking out light.

I have a load of 30+ year old trees which are maybe 10-15m tall, and maybe 25m from the house, on the boundary. There's obviously zero risk of them falling on the house

At the moment. The trees wont stop growing.

Lumen

Squiggle wrote: »

At the moment. The trees wont stop growing.

But none of them are likely to top 20m.

The closest large tree is a cherry, and that'll be dead before it causes any issues.

magicbastarder

Squiggle wrote: »

A tree close to any window will block light.

the OP mentioned an acre and a quarter site with lawn around the house. i suspect he or she is sensible enough not to plant large trees right up against the window.
i have a 30 year old birch in a garden a fraction the size of the OPs, and the effect on the light in the garden is a positive one. dappled shade in the summer, and when the leaves fall in the winter, does not really affect light levels in the garden. it's to the west of the house.

ShiverinEskimo

Check out Arbutus Unedo. 'strawberry' tree. Native to Kerry. I planted one a couple of years back and it's doing very well.

macraignil

Squiggle wrote: »

Only put trees close to your house if;

1. You are ok in the years to come with the risks those trees pose to your house in stormy weather.

2. You are happy having the lights on during day time in the middle of July. We need all the light we can get in this country imo and don't want to block it out with 50+ foot trees, which is what most, if not all, of the trees mentioned above will grow to.

There's a reason imo why you don't need a fellers licence to fell a tree within 100 feet of a structure. They shouldn't be there in the first place.

Squiggle wrote: »

The OP said

"I will have some nice a lawn areas around the house with fruit trees etc"

Have you never seen a 7 or 8 metre high apple tree with a similar spread ?



Indeed. You can also put trees 100 metres from your house that will block sunlight, especially in Winter.

I agree with you that planting very large trees right next to a house is not a great idea particularly when we are seeing the impact of tropical storms and hurricanes that were not a feature of our weather previously. Many trees let their leaves fall off in winter which makes them much less prone to wind damage but these recent ex tropical storms are giving us strong winds before most trees have had a chance to drop their leaves. If we had no trees in the country however there would be much more damage from other material picked up by the wind and blown for longer distances. Trees provide shelter and also have a positive effect in absorbing the force of storms. Here is a video I took from the living room window of some trees absorbing some of the Hurricane Ophelia wind.



I have heard of incidences of depression in places where dense evergreen trees like Leylandii have been planted and then not kept trimmed to a practical size for where they are planted but the examples I have seen were all in urban areas where people would often spend a lot of time in doors. If the opening poster has over an acre of garden they will have plenty of opportunity to get out in the open air where even with a few trees growing they will have much more natural light than someone living in an urban area who does not make an effort to get out of their house regularly.



There has also been recent recognition to the positive effect of seeing things growing healthily and one of the nicest urban areas I have been in was an old area of Boston where the houses were smaller than and right up close to very large trees.


The opening poster specifically asked about larger trees to plant away form the house so I do not know why you have a problem with most of the suggestions being larger trees.



They mention fruit trees and some of these do grow to the 7 or 8metres you mention but they are much more commonly sold on dwarfing root stock that limits their size to about 2 or 3metres and since apple trees are normally pruned once a year it is possible to keep them to whatever size suits where they are planted. There is no problem with planting trees within 100feet of a structure once the correct varieties are planted and they are managed to a size that suits where they are planted.

ECO_Mental

OP here again, been holding back and absorbing the advice and thanks for it all, it has given me food for thought.

Everybody is right I wont be placing any large trees near the house, but I have plenty of space for large trees in other spots. Since my site is an open field at the moment what I want is to fill out the silage field look fairly quickly. So in about 3 or 4 years there is a bit of volume there.

First thing also I will be doing over the next few months is to plant a native hedgerow down one side of the site. White thorn, Holly, maybe a crab apple in there etc. I will try and get the longest bare-roots to get a head start, or is it better to have them 3-4 foot, I heard this is better and you dont have to support them.

macraignil

ECO_Mental wrote: »

OP here again, been holding back and absorbing the advice and thanks for it all, it has given me food for thought.

Everybody is right I wont be placing any large trees near the house, but I have plenty of space for large trees in other spots. Since my site is an open field at the moment what I want is to fill out the silage field look fairly quickly. So in about 3 or 4 years there is a bit of volume there.

First thing also I will be doing over the next few months is to plant a native hedgerow down one side of the site. White thorn, Holly, maybe a crab apple in there etc. I will try and get the longest bare-roots to get a head start, or is it better to have them 3-4 foot, I heard this is better and you dont have to support them.

If you are talking about planting a hedge then the hedge plants will sort of support each other to some extent. There are also lots of plants so supporting all of them with individual stakes and tree ties would be a ridiculous amount of work. Some exposed sites may benefit from netting posted next to the hedge to give the young plants some wind protection. I have found that usually the smaller sized hedge plants are less prone to wind damage and they are cheaper so would go with those. Either way you will have to keep them some way clear of weeds while they get established so from that perspective very small hedge plants might be prone to get over grown by weeds if you are not giving them enough attention. I'd reckon you should look at the plants on offer before deciding which size is the best to go with. Posted a video of my own white thorn and hornbeam hedge here. Not bothered weeding under them after they are planted a year and they seem to be doing fine now as the tops of the hedge plants are above the height the weeds can grow to.

magicbastarder

quick back of the envelope calculation - you're going to have areas in your garden 40m or more away from the house (that's a theoretical minimum, based on a half hectare circular plot with the house dead centre, so in reality you will probably have garden available which is noticeably further away.
anyway, assuming you're not going to plant leylandii, it'd take 50 years for a tree to reach 40m, and they'd be on steroids at that rate anyway.


the main calculation as mentioned above, is to figure out where your sunlight comes from and plan accordingly.

GreeBo

Lumen wrote: »

When you're designing your planting scheme, think particularly about light, height and wind.

This.
If not careful you will end up with big, bald, damp patches in the lawn due to too much shade and lack of airmovement.

fryup

its all fine and dandy having fast growing trees in the early years...but when they become mature they could turn into monsters esp macrocarpa and the like

macraignil

GreeBo wrote: »

This.
If not careful you will end up with big, bald, damp patches in the lawn due to too much shade and lack of airmovement.

There are lots of plants that will grow well in the shade of trees (particularly if they are deciduous trees that lose their leaves in winter) and many of these are more interesting than a grass lawn anyway. Snowdrops, crocus, vinca, etc. Here is a RHS list of possible plants for shade.

Lumen

fryup wrote: »

its all fine and dandy having fast growing trees in the early years...but when they become mature they could turn into monsters esp macrocarpa and the like

macraignil wrote: »

There are lots of plants that will grow well in the shade of trees (particularly if they are deciduous trees that lose their leaves in winter) and many of these are more interesting than a grass lawn anyway. Snowdrops, crocus, vinca, etc. Here is a RHS list of possible plants for shade.

I was thinking more of the productive trees (fruit and nut) which really need full sun.

What you can do is put tall trees on the north side of the site, and then plant fruit/nut trees in a few metres from those. That way they'll get full sun across the site from the south, even if you plant more smallish trees or high hedging on the southern boundary.

Windbreak on the west is also a good idea cos that's where the prevailing wind is from.

my3cents

OP mentioned wet area and fast growing.

Well not a native but very fast growing and loves wet areas, a real gem Metasequoia glyptostroboides

In my experience they are very stable in the soil and produce an excessively wide trunk at that base which with its shredded red bark is attractive in its own right. Good pic of mature trunk bare in mind no trees in cultivation are over about 80 years old as it wasn't "discovered" (previously know in fossel records) until the 1940's, larger image so just a link https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/MetasequoiaGlyptostroboides.jpg