In article ,
Eddy writes:
|
| And thanks for this too. I'm constantly amazed at how the human mind
| cannot conceive of all factors at the one time. (We really do need
| computers!) You're absolutely right. The splendid rhododendrons we
| had in West Wales were only about 9 feet high but they had trunks it
| would take you two hands to get around, say, 5 inches diameter. So,
| yes, it's difficult to believe a trunk that thick would not have roots
| that would resist descending further than a foot below the surface!
|
| Maybe I could try the bonsai option? Embed four or five 1 foot strong
| ceramic tubs in the soakaway, just so that the rims aren't showing, and
| plants rhodies in them. That way the area might just become
| successfully bushed while the roots would be contained?

A waste of time. I said "watch out" not "don't do it".

The term "azalea" refers to deciduous rhododendrons, most of which
are quite small, but I believe that there are also many low-growing
evergreen ones. Burncoose used to have a bed of 3' high azaleas next
to its conservatory, and that effectively suppressed grasses and
other weeds. That was in the 1960s, incidentally, so don't look for
it there now.

You need to get advice from an expert on the species that will not
grow beyond a few feet, and will not develop extensive root systems.
They exist, but I can't tell you what they are.

You DON'T want R. ponticum, R. maximum, R. arboreum etc. or their
hybrids. The first is the one that has naturalised itself.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.