We live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and the back 3/4 of our backyard is
heavily wooded with 100+ year-old oaks and elms, lots of smaller trees and
saplings, and lots of underbrush.

Although we really enjoy the nature and the privacy offered by the woods
(which is a big reason we bought the house), we wish we could make it more
usable for us to venture into and for the kids to play in. Now there is a
lot of undergrowth and small trees growing in the forest, which makes it
difficult to walk through without getting snapped in the eye by a branch.
Also, because the underbrush is heavy and thick, mosquitoes are particularly
bad in this area. Not a lot of light gets through the canopy of old trees,
so we can't plant anything back there except for shade loving plants.

We like doing our own planting and landscaping, so we don't want to hire a
pro. However, we could use some ideas. How do pro landscape designers
typically handle heavily wooded areas? Do they simply create some transition
trees and shrubs (which we already have) where the lawn meets the forest,
and then leave the forest alone, figuring it can't be improved upon? Or
would a landscape designer typically recommend getting rid of all the wild
underbrush and smaller trees (i.e., those with a trunk that's less than 6
inches in diameter) to make it more accessible, and then planting
shade-loving plants, like hostas in strategic places?

We'd hate to cut down healthy small trees, but I'm not sure there's a way
around it (most of our small trees are tall and thin and too big to
transplant).

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, especially from those people who
have made their wooded yards more usable or hired landscape designers to do
the same!

--
NOTE: Please delete the word "REMOVE" from my e-mail address when replying.
This is a spam guard.

Hi Dave, Dave here P

I did a residential design for a client on his heavily wooded 7 acre lot...
one area in particular was quite beautiful (the woods encompassed by a very
large circular driveway, about 3/4 of an acre), with stands of white and red
oaks, a lovely huge persimmon, and hundreds of mature native mountain
laurels. There was also tons of poison ivy, greenbriar, wild grape, an old
trash heap, and about a foot of undecomposed leaf litter.

I spent a good 5 hours there planning several pathways through the trees and
laurels into 3 small natually occuring 'rooms'. One was to be a hosta room,
one was a Japanese style moss garden, and the third was a more formal
sitting area with teak benches and tables. Smaller 'weed' trees and trees
that impinged on the flow were tagged for removal, as were a couple of dead
or dying trees and shrubs.

Over 3 days about 15 of my guys tore into the space, pulled out all the
underbrush and unwanted CRAP... we then blew out ALL the dead leaves
(leaving the decomposed layer), shredded them all, and mulched in the newly
demarcated areas for plantings that the winding pathways created. The paths
were lined with the wood chips generated from the dropped trees for a nice
visual difference between the two areas... we filled the space with hundreds
of hosta, ferns, sweet woodruff, golden moneywort... dozens of varieties of
perennials and smaller shrubs all throughout. That fall we planted several
thousand bulbs ranging from snowdrops to fritillaria. The effect was really
very nice, although maintenance issues would include annual leaf blowout to
maintain the crisp look of a woodland garden.

My advice would be to look for the 'bones' of your woods, to see those
elements that you really like and those that have to go, then build upon
that structure in a natural style

Dave

"Dave K." wrote in message
...
We live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and the back 3/4 of our backyard is
heavily wooded with 100+ year-old oaks and elms, lots of smaller trees and
saplings, and lots of underbrush.

Although we really enjoy the nature and the privacy offered by the woods
(which is a big reason we bought the house), we wish we could make it more
usable for us to venture into and for the kids to play in. Now there is a
lot of undergrowth and small trees growing in the forest, which makes it
difficult to walk through without getting snapped in the eye by a branch.
Also, because the underbrush is heavy and thick, mosquitoes are
particularly
bad in this area. Not a lot of light gets through the canopy of old trees,
so we can't plant anything back there except for shade loving plants.

We like doing our own planting and landscaping, so we don't want to hire a
pro. However, we could use some ideas. How do pro landscape designers
typically handle heavily wooded areas? Do they simply create some
transition
trees and shrubs (which we already have) where the lawn meets the forest,
and then leave the forest alone, figuring it can't be improved upon? Or
would a landscape designer typically recommend getting rid of all the wild
underbrush and smaller trees (i.e., those with a trunk that's less than 6
inches in diameter) to make it more accessible, and then planting
shade-loving plants, like hostas in strategic places?

We'd hate to cut down healthy small trees, but I'm not sure there's a way
around it (most of our small trees are tall and thin and too big to
transplant).

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, especially from those people who
have made their wooded yards more usable or hired landscape designers to
do
the same!

--
NOTE: Please delete the word "REMOVE" from my e-mail address when
replying.
This is a spam guard.

The size of the trunk really shouldn't be a factor.
If it's a 1 inch oak tree, protect it
If it's a 24 inch Norway Maple cut it, burn it, destroy it.........

It sounds like your woodland was originally a hardwood forest til beneficial
fires were kept from killing off non native and harmful fast growing soft
woods which choke off the Oaks and Elms. That's probably a lot of your
undergrowth.

Selective clearing of these trees and annual burning has been returning my
woodland to an oak glade, open and full of woodland flowers in the spring.
Closer in to my house I have done a lot of what Bockman mentioned in his
reply. Especially the hostas! They are great in shade and can be split
several times / year.

--

Barry


"Dave K." wrote in message
...
We live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and the back 3/4 of our backyard is
heavily wooded with 100+ year-old oaks and elms, lots of smaller trees and
saplings, and lots of underbrush.

Although we really enjoy the nature and the privacy offered by the woods
(which is a big reason we bought the house), we wish we could make it more
usable for us to venture into and for the kids to play in. Now there is a
lot of undergrowth and small trees growing in the forest, which makes it
difficult to walk through without getting snapped in the eye by a branch.
Also, because the underbrush is heavy and thick, mosquitoes are
particularly
bad in this area. Not a lot of light gets through the canopy of old trees,
so we can't plant anything back there except for shade loving plants.

We like doing our own planting and landscaping, so we don't want to hire a
pro. However, we could use some ideas. How do pro landscape designers
typically handle heavily wooded areas? Do they simply create some
transition
trees and shrubs (which we already have) where the lawn meets the forest,
and then leave the forest alone, figuring it can't be improved upon? Or
would a landscape designer typically recommend getting rid of all the wild
underbrush and smaller trees (i.e., those with a trunk that's less than 6
inches in diameter) to make it more accessible, and then planting
shade-loving plants, like hostas in strategic places?

We'd hate to cut down healthy small trees, but I'm not sure there's a way
around it (most of our small trees are tall and thin and too big to
transplant).

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, especially from those people who
have made their wooded yards more usable or hired landscape designers to
do
the same!

--
NOTE: Please delete the word "REMOVE" from my e-mail address when
replying.
This is a spam guard.

David J. Bockman wrote:
Hi Dave, Dave here P

I did a residential design for a client on his heavily wooded 7 acre
lot... one area in particular was quite beautiful (the woods
encompassed by a very large circular driveway, about 3/4 of an acre),
with stands of white and red oaks, a lovely huge persimmon, and
hundreds of mature native mountain laurels. There was also tons of
poison ivy, greenbriar, wild grape, an old trash heap, and about a
foot of undecomposed leaf litter.

oooohh sounds lovely... photos?

penny s

Thanks for the tips. Actually, we've already cleared out about 15 buckthorn
trees, some of them quite large. They were creating lots of the underbrush
and invading on the nice trees. Not sure what some of the other shrubs and
small trees are that are still packed in there. Our forest makes up about
one-third of an acre.

Dave

--
NOTE: Please delete the word "REMOVE" from my e-mail address when replying.
This is a spam guard.
"Brynk" wrote in message
...
The size of the trunk really shouldn't be a factor.
If it's a 1 inch oak tree, protect it
If it's a 24 inch Norway Maple cut it, burn it, destroy it.........

It sounds like your woodland was originally a hardwood forest til
beneficial
fires were kept from killing off non native and harmful fast growing soft
woods which choke off the Oaks and Elms. That's probably a lot of your
undergrowth.

Selective clearing of these trees and annual burning has been returning my
woodland to an oak glade, open and full of woodland flowers in the spring.
Closer in to my house I have done a lot of what Bockman mentioned in his
reply. Especially the hostas! They are great in shade and can be split
several times / year.

--

Barry

Wow, great ideas!! Thanks.

Dave

--
NOTE: Please delete the word "REMOVE" from my e-mail address when replying.
This is a spam guard.
"David J. Bockman" wrote in message
...
Hi Dave, Dave here P

I did a residential design for a client on his heavily wooded 7 acre
lot...
one area in particular was quite beautiful (the woods encompassed by a
very
large circular driveway, about 3/4 of an acre), with stands of white and
red
oaks, a lovely huge persimmon, and hundreds of mature native mountain
laurels. There was also tons of poison ivy, greenbriar, wild grape, an old
trash heap, and about a foot of undecomposed leaf litter.

I spent a good 5 hours there planning several pathways through the trees
and
laurels into 3 small natually occuring 'rooms'. One was to be a hosta
room,
one was a Japanese style moss garden, and the third was a more formal
sitting area with teak benches and tables. Smaller 'weed' trees and trees
that impinged on the flow were tagged for removal, as were a couple of
dead
or dying trees and shrubs.

Over 3 days about 15 of my guys tore into the space, pulled out all the
underbrush and unwanted CRAP... we then blew out ALL the dead leaves
(leaving the decomposed layer), shredded them all, and mulched in the
newly
demarcated areas for plantings that the winding pathways created. The
paths
were lined with the wood chips generated from the dropped trees for a nice
visual difference between the two areas... we filled the space with
hundreds
of hosta, ferns, sweet woodruff, golden moneywort... dozens of varieties
of
perennials and smaller shrubs all throughout. That fall we planted several
thousand bulbs ranging from snowdrops to fritillaria. The effect was
really
very nice, although maintenance issues would include annual leaf blowout
to
maintain the crisp look of a woodland garden.

My advice would be to look for the 'bones' of your woods, to see those
elements that you really like and those that have to go, then build upon
that structure in a natural style

Dave

"Dave K." wrote in message
...
We live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and the back 3/4 of our backyard is
heavily wooded with 100+ year-old oaks and elms, lots of smaller trees
and
saplings, and lots of underbrush.

Although we really enjoy the nature and the privacy offered by the woods
(which is a big reason we bought the house), we wish we could make it
more
usable for us to venture into and for the kids to play in. Now there is
a
lot of undergrowth and small trees growing in the forest, which makes it
difficult to walk through without getting snapped in the eye by a
branch.
Also, because the underbrush is heavy and thick, mosquitoes are
particularly
bad in this area. Not a lot of light gets through the canopy of old
trees,
so we can't plant anything back there except for shade loving plants.

We like doing our own planting and landscaping, so we don't want to hire
a
pro. However, we could use some ideas. How do pro landscape designers
typically handle heavily wooded areas? Do they simply create some
transition
trees and shrubs (which we already have) where the lawn meets the
forest,
and then leave the forest alone, figuring it can't be improved upon? Or
would a landscape designer typically recommend getting rid of all the
wild
underbrush and smaller trees (i.e., those with a trunk that's less than
6
inches in diameter) to make it more accessible, and then planting
shade-loving plants, like hostas in strategic places?

We'd hate to cut down healthy small trees, but I'm not sure there's a
way
around it (most of our small trees are tall and thin and too big to
transplant).

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, especially from those people who
have made their wooded yards more usable or hired landscape designers to
do
the same!

--
NOTE: Please delete the word "REMOVE" from my e-mail address when
replying.
This is a spam guard.

On Tue, 6 May 2003 19:30:15 -0500, "Brynk"
wrote:

The size of the trunk really shouldn't be a factor.
If it's a 1 inch oak tree, protect it
If it's a 24 inch Norway Maple cut it, burn it, destroy it.........

I was also on the norway maple mentality If it had yellow leaves
in fall, and you're in the northeast, get rid of it. The n-maple
provides no significant food source for native wildlife, and grows so
fast (4 to 5 FEET per year) it stifles native growth. It's a "kudzu
tree" of sorts, and hurts the ecosystem by taking the resources (sun
water & soil nutrients) other more useful trees could've used. It's
only benefit is providing cover for *some* wildlife, and pollen for
bees (which might be a bad thing, if you have a farmer nearby that
needs the pollinators).

Selective clearing of these trees and annual burning has been returning my
woodland to an oak glade, open and full of woodland flowers in the spring.
Closer in to my house I have done a lot of what Bockman mentioned in his
reply. Especially the hostas! They are great in shade and can be split
several times / year.

RELEASE THE BLEEDING HEARTS Lovely this time of year,
mostly-deer-proof, and a shade-lover. Grows much of its foliage while
deciduous trees are still budding out.

Dan

Dave K. wrote:
We live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and the back 3/4 of our backyard is
heavily wooded with 100+ year-old oaks and elms, lots of smaller trees and
saplings, and lots of underbrush.

Although we really enjoy the nature and the privacy offered by the woods
(which is a big reason we bought the house), we wish we could make it more
usable for us to venture into and for the kids to play in. Now there is a
lot of undergrowth and small trees growing in the forest, which makes it
difficult to walk through without getting snapped in the eye by a branch.
Also, because the underbrush is heavy and thick, mosquitoes are particularly
bad in this area. Not a lot of light gets through the canopy of old trees,
so we can't plant anything back there except for shade loving plants.

We like doing our own planting and landscaping, so we don't want to hire a
pro. However, we could use some ideas. How do pro landscape designers
typically handle heavily wooded areas? Do they simply create some transition
trees and shrubs (which we already have) where the lawn meets the forest,
and then leave the forest alone, figuring it can't be improved upon? Or
would a landscape designer typically recommend getting rid of all the wild
underbrush and smaller trees (i.e., those with a trunk that's less than 6
inches in diameter) to make it more accessible, and then planting
shade-loving plants, like hostas in strategic places?

We'd hate to cut down healthy small trees, but I'm not sure there's a way
around it (most of our small trees are tall and thin and too big to
transplant).

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, especially from those people who
have made their wooded yards more usable or hired landscape designers to do
the same!

--

Get someone in to help you identify all the buckthorn and destroy it -- cut
it down, burn it, and paint the stumps with Garlon.

Clear out the briars and poison ivy.

Now see what you have left.

You will probably have to thin the large trees a little; it helps if you
can identify them. I don't know what understory native trees grow up here,
but if I was still in East Texas I would plant dogwoods, redbuds, azaleas,
ferns, and stuff like that.

Best regards,
Bob

"David J. Bockman" wrote in message
...
Hi Dave, Dave here P

I spent a good 5 hours there planning several pathways through the trees
and
laurels into 3 small natually occuring 'rooms'. One was to be a hosta
room,
one was a Japanese style moss garden, and the third was a more formal
sitting area with teak benches and tables.

My advice would be to look for the 'bones' of your woods, to see those
elements that you really like and those that have to go, then build upon
that structure in a natural style

I think this approach can work, even if you have no budget to bring in an
expert like the second Dave.

We're on an 1-1/3 acres of oak/hickory woods (mature trees, 80 feet high),
with some maple and black cherry mixed in, and dogwoods and redbud at the
lower level. Otherwise the understory is a mess of poison ivy and garlic
mustard. My strategy is to destroy the latter, a little bit each year; clear
out the suckers and other weak saplings, while protecting the interesting
ones; and make paths. While putting some attention into the yard areas right
around the house - a few shade-grass stretches and ground-cover areas over
the septic field and in front by the gravel driveway - and building up
shrubs at the edge of the woods, and a showy flower bed by the veggie garden
that's in a frame in the front yard - I gradually made some paths into the
forest. (Got a couple of good cases of mid-winter poison ivy doing this, but
at least there were no copperheads around at that time.) The first path
looped around, past a future "room" in the woods, and down to where the lot
faces south onto a dirt road, the location for planting a raspberry patch.
When the power company came around to do trimming, they offered 12 cubic
yards of wood chips to any takers. I took it, and spread it on my paths.
Immediately, the forest looked organized and neat, even though most of it
hasn't been cleaned out yetl. When "cleaning", of course we'll leave the
snags for the woodpeckers. Just as, out front, we left the stumps of old
oaks that had been cleared years ago to build the house. We put dirt in the
center of the stumps, turning them into planters for pansies and petunias.
When the pileated woodpeckers come around to have a whack at breakfast at
the flower-filled stumps, it's quite a sight!

"Dave K." wrote:

We live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and the back 3/4 of our backyard is
heavily wooded with 100+ year-old oaks and elms, lots of smaller trees and
saplings, and lots of underbrush.

Sounds like a forest fire waiting to happen.

Although we really enjoy the nature and the privacy offered by the woods
(which is a big reason we bought the house), we wish we could make it more
usable for us to venture into and for the kids to play in. Now there is a
lot of undergrowth and small trees growing in the forest, which makes it
difficult to walk through without getting snapped in the eye by a branch.

Thin it out, prune it up. Even consider having one of the big
ones taken out to create a clearing (pretend it got struck by
lightning).

Also, because the underbrush is heavy and thick, mosquitoes are particularly
bad in this area. Not a lot of light gets through the canopy of old trees,
so we can't plant anything back there except for shade loving plants.

Take a serious look at them - perhaps having a professional
arborist in for a consult and some selective pruning would
lighten things up. A good pruner can make a tree smaller and less
dense and you can't really tell what they have done.

We like doing our own planting and landscaping, so we don't want to hire a
pro. However, we could use some ideas. How do pro landscape designers
typically handle heavily wooded areas? Do they simply create some transition
trees and shrubs (which we already have) where the lawn meets the forest,
and then leave the forest alone, figuring it can't be improved upon? Or
would a landscape designer typically recommend getting rid of all the wild
underbrush and smaller trees (i.e., those with a trunk that's less than 6
inches in diameter) to make it more accessible, and then planting
shade-loving plants, like hostas in strategic places?

Active management: clear brush and mosquito habitat, selectively
prune the trees you keep to decrease shade denseness in some
areas, remove spindly trees (weed trees) of all species. Keep a
few of the more promising trees as eventual replacements for the
big ones.

We'd hate to cut down healthy small trees, but I'm not sure there's a way
around it (most of our small trees are tall and thin and too big to
transplant).

In nature, the big trees you see got established along the
fringes of a clearing. Go ahead and clear the weed trees out.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

"Dave K." wrote:

Thanks for the tips. Actually, we've already cleared out about 15 buckthorn
trees, some of them quite large. They were creating lots of the underbrush
and invading on the nice trees. Not sure what some of the other shrubs and
small trees are that are still packed in there. Our forest makes up about
one-third of an acre.

Take your time, and identify the plants before you break out the
chain saw.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

Bleeding Hearts are probably my favorite!

This week my bottom area is a carpet of blue, Virginia Bluebells. Next week
it'll be pink, wild geraniums.

Wherever I clear the Norway Maples, within 2 years I get wildflowers in
abundance and enuf fuel to give a decent fall burn. Burning is the
healthiest answer to unwanted growth...soft maples, garlic mustard, etc

--

Barry


"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 May 2003 19:30:15 -0500, "Brynk"
wrote:

The size of the trunk really shouldn't be a factor.
If it's a 1 inch oak tree, protect it
If it's a 24 inch Norway Maple cut it, burn it, destroy it.........

I was also on the norway maple mentality If it had yellow leaves
in fall, and you're in the northeast, get rid of it. The n-maple
provides no significant food source for native wildlife, and grows so
fast (4 to 5 FEET per year) it stifles native growth. It's a "kudzu
tree" of sorts, and hurts the ecosystem by taking the resources (sun
water & soil nutrients) other more useful trees could've used. It's
only benefit is providing cover for *some* wildlife, and pollen for
bees (which might be a bad thing, if you have a farmer nearby that
needs the pollinators).

Selective clearing of these trees and annual burning has been returning
my
woodland to an oak glade, open and full of woodland flowers in the
spring.
Closer in to my house I have done a lot of what Bockman mentioned in his
reply. Especially the hostas! They are great in shade and can be split
several times / year.

RELEASE THE BLEEDING HEARTS Lovely this time of year,
mostly-deer-proof, and a shade-lover. Grows much of its foliage while
deciduous trees are still budding out.

Dan

Get someone in to help you identify all the buckthorn and destroy it --
cut
it down, burn it, and paint the stumps with Garlon.

Yes, we know what buckthorn looks like and have removed all the buckthorn
trees. However, we still have to paint the stumps so the roots die and
suckers quit coming up. I've never heard of Garlon ... what's that and where
do you get it? Others have told me to use Round Up on the buchthorn stumps,
but that's pretty expensive and I had heard that there were cheaper
alternatives that will do the same thing. Is Garlon one of them?

Dave K.

The size of the trunk really shouldn't be a factor.
If it's a 1 inch oak tree, protect it
If it's a 24 inch Norway Maple cut it, burn it, destroy it.........

It sounds like your woodland was originally a hardwood forest til
beneficial
fires were kept from killing off non native and harmful fast growing soft
woods which choke off the Oaks and Elms. That's probably a lot of your
undergrowth.

Thanks for the tips -- that's what I need, more direction on what to cut
down and what not to cut down.

I don't know much about hardwoods vs. softwoods ... are softwoods the faster
growing weed trees? Are there any desirable softwoods? I don't think we have
any Norway Maples in our woods ... I think I could easily identify a maple.
I always thought maples were a desirable tree, but according to you and some
others, the Norway Maple must be more of a nuisance. Anyway, I don't have to
worry about that one, but there are some shorter trees in our woods that
look different than all the others and that I can't identify, despite
consulting a couple tree identification books. I think I'll have our cities
arborist come out for a consultation.

Dave K.

Besides getting an illustrated book, your best bet is to join one of your
local environmental groups, like Soil & Water or Natural Area Guardians.
The members are amazing. Ask for help and they'll be all over your place
clearing undesirables and assisting with annual burns, supplying you with
seeds and plants from their collections.

--

Barry


"Dave K." wrote in message
...


The size of the trunk really shouldn't be a factor.
If it's a 1 inch oak tree, protect it
If it's a 24 inch Norway Maple cut it, burn it, destroy it.........

It sounds like your woodland was originally a hardwood forest til
beneficial
fires were kept from killing off non native and harmful fast growing
soft
woods which choke off the Oaks and Elms. That's probably a lot of your
undergrowth.

Thanks for the tips -- that's what I need, more direction on what to cut
down and what not to cut down.

I don't know much about hardwoods vs. softwoods ... are softwoods the
faster
growing weed trees? Are there any desirable softwoods? I don't think we
have
any Norway Maples in our woods ... I think I could easily identify a
maple.
I always thought maples were a desirable tree, but according to you and
some
others, the Norway Maple must be more of a nuisance. Anyway, I don't have
to
worry about that one, but there are some shorter trees in our woods that
look different than all the others and that I can't identify, despite
consulting a couple tree identification books. I think I'll have our
cities
arborist come out for a consultation.

Dave K.