I might be wrong, but I think one of the purposes of mulching is to
discourage other plants from taking root close to the tree and providing
competion for water and nutrients. In dense forests, where some of our
landscape trees are native, trees generally "take claim" to the land under
their canopy, and between the smothering effect of a thick layer of dropping
leaves every fall and the general drought-like effect that a dense canopy
provides to the soil under it, few plants survive to compete with the trees.
In an urban landscape, people often want lawns to grow under trees, or in
some cases, perennial beds or shrubberies. Mulch probably would benefit the
tree by reducing the competion, but that runs in direct contradiction to the
landscaping efforts that people are making. I think it's a nice, satisfying
(and more natural) look to see a medium large tree surrounded by a large
circle of mulch or grass-less area (like 20 feet in diameter) , but for
people with small urban lots, it's probably only going to happen rarely -
because of all those fun flowers to grow, or because they think the
neighbors want to look out on lawns.
"David Emerling" wrote in message
...
Hopefully somebody in this newsgroup is knowledgeable in this area.

Isn't it true, that there is little value in piling mulch around the base
of
large, established trees. I understand the practice when a tree is much
smaller and newly planted.

I appreciate that some people like the aesthetics of placing mulch around
their trees, but if the tree is 8-inches in diameter it is likely that the
root structure is so widespread that a pile of mulch around its base
provides little benefit.

True of False?

--
David Emerling - Memphis, TN

If you want to email me - remove NOSPAM from the above address.