Could someone suggest a small, low maintenance deciduous tree for the
seattle area (lots of moisture and shades in the winter, and some sun in the
summer)? Small means between 8 to 14 feet.

I asked different people/nursery and each one gave me a different answers.
Is there a web site that would let me put in the criteria and give me a list
of trees?

In article , "peter"
wrote:

Could someone suggest a small, low maintenance deciduous tree for the
seattle area (lots of moisture and shades in the winter, and some sun in the
summer)? Small means between 8 to 14 feet.

My personal favorite is our own native little Vine Maple. It has a broad
range of appearance so you have to look at many from as many sources as
you can get to. It's nice to look at these before they leaf out (meaning
right now, quick), & judge them by their limb forms -- they're going to
have good leaves & flowers & pink seeds & pleasing autumn color no matter
what, so the only question is which shape looks best to you in winter.
Some have dozens of suckery trunks & are like huge bushes, but the ideal
is probably a mature single-trunked specimen which can be as wonderful a
tree as any fancy Japanese maple (athough if I had room, I'd have bushy
multitrunk one too). Here's mine:
http://www.paghat.com/vinemaple.html
Though it's a small tree, in a small yard it really has a feeling of
woodland substantiality.

There are of course many cultivars of Japanese maples to fill just about
any size & shape requirement or restriction. To get the best fall colors
you sort of have to be able to select one in autumn, because their range
of behavior is vast & some are more plain in autumn. But more of them are
being stocked at nurseries in spring. Japanese maples are largely
low-maintenance trees & also tolerate considerable shade.

One of the somewhat fast growing species rhododenrons really is a little
tree rather than a bush, R. concinnum, & I have one as a companion for the
Vine Maple, you can see it he
http://www.paghat.com/rhody_concinnum.html
It's evergreen rather than deciduous, but perhaps you meant not a conifer.
R. concinnum is not nearly as easy to find as a maple, the usual rhody
providers don't ordinarily have many true species plants to select,
preferring bushy hybrids. But if you could find a mature specimen in the
six-foot range, you'd have something already with a nice tree form. It'd
grow half a foot a year to 15 feet, might require side-pruning to keep it
from going as round as it gets tall, but otherwise demands no attention.
As it grows it is a choice whether to underlimb so it has a visible trunk
to be increasingly tree-like, or to let it leaf clear to the ground, but
even leafed top to bottom it is slightly "airy" so you can see the trunk.
Mine's relatively little at five feet tall, yet already gives the
impression of a tree rather than a bush, its leaning trunk a bit twisty.

Though a Paperbark Maple would eventually get bigger than 14 feet, it is
so slow-growing that its potential bigger size may not matter all that
much. Here's mine:
http://www.paghat.com/paperbark.html
They should be selected mature enough to already have the cool pealing bark.

Witch Hazels if purchased as shrubs are such slow growers it'll always be
a shrub, so if you wanted one as a tree, you'd have to buy an expensive
mature one already at least eight feet tall. They can potentially reach 15
feet but the expectation should be that it'll be about the size it was
when planted for many many years. The American witchhazel perhaps grows a
bit faster. To get one taller than four or five feet will probably be a
special order, but they're definitely available. The fact that they flower
in winter makes them especially appealing.

If you had room for TWO trees, well-chosen fruiting cherry trees in the
semi-dwarf categories are worth considering. Select them for fruit, don't
go for the fancy flowery cultivars, as the fancy ones can be high
maintenance disappointments. But being fed sweet Rainier cherries by ones
own tree is such a warm cuddly feeling of being cared for by one's garden.

I asked different people/nursery and each one gave me a different answers.

There are scores of trees that might fit your requirement, so of course
everyone's opinion is going to be about THEIR favorites. (Or at nurseries,
based on what they have that they could sell you then & there.) They're
probably all good suggestions so you just have to look at many specimens
of many recommendable species, to see which would be YOUR favorite to
live with.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

peter wrote:

Could someone suggest a small, low maintenance deciduous tree for the
seattle area (lots of moisture and shades in the winter, and some sun in the
summer)? Small means between 8 to 14 feet.

I asked different people/nursery and each one gave me a different answers.
Is there a web site that would let me put in the criteria and give me a list
of trees?

That is definitely a small tree - the bottom limit is usually considered 15
feet, unless it is dwarf. Here is another nursery person (and landscape
designer), giving you another list:

Amelanchier - serviceberry - 12'-20 feet
Crape myrtle - 12-18' (needs full sun)
Flowering crab - some 8-12', most 12-15'
Cotinus coggygria - smokebush - 10-20' (more shrub-like)
Rhus typhina - staghorn sumac - 8-12' (tends to sucker)
various Japanese maples, specially the weeping dissectum cultivars - anywhere
from 3-15+'
Magnolia stellata - 10-15'
Magnolia seiboldii - 10-15'
Chionanthus retusus - fringe tree - 10-15'
Vine maple - 15-20'
Pyrus salicifolia - willow-leafed pear - 12-18'
Cercis chinensis - Avondale redbud - 10-15' (more shrub-like)
assorted dwarf fruits ('Frost' peach, Italian plums, dwarf and mini-dwarf
apples) - 10-18'

You can also often find shrubs trained into standards (a single trunked,
tree-like form) at better nurseries. Those most common are flowering currant,
Japanese willow, dwarf lilac, and peegee and Annabelle hydrangeas. You should
also be aware that the ultimate, mature height of a tree (and its rate of
growth) are heavily influenced by growing conditions. Optimal conditions willl
result in optimal growth.

And before all you midwesterners and east coasters get your knickers in a twist
because many of these heights are lower than what you are used to, our climate
here is VERY mild and we seldom see certain trees achieve the same mature
heights as they do in other, hotter summer parts of the country and are many are
frequently stunted by consistant summer droughts.

pam - gardengal

That's ok, Pam, in other parts of the country Douglas Fir trees do not
routinely reach 200 feet in height, nor do Western Red Cedars, Hemlocks, or
any of our other western native conifers. It always fascinated me that in
North Florida many of the native trees could have reached more than 80 feet
in height (about the average tree height there), some easily, such as the
southern longleaf pine, but since that area receives an average of over 100
thunderstorms per year, any tree audacious enough to stick its head above
the canopy quickly gets zapped by lightning - killing it dead in most cases.
From any clearing, the forest canopy in any direction appears absolutely
level. However, walking through some of the forest preserves in North
Carolina, I have seen some impressively tall deciduous trees - probably at
least 140 feet. - things like tulip poplars, native sycamores, some oaks,
etc. However, the dappelled shade underneath them supports a very different
understory than we have in the dense coniferous forests on the west side of
the Cascades.
"Pam" wrote in message
...


peter wrote:

Could someone suggest a small, low maintenance deciduous tree for the
seattle area (lots of moisture and shades in the winter, and some sun in
the
summer)? Small means between 8 to 14 feet.

I asked different people/nursery and each one gave me a different
answers.
Is there a web site that would let me put in the criteria and give me a
list
of trees?

That is definitely a small tree - the bottom limit is usually considered
15
feet, unless it is dwarf. Here is another nursery person (and landscape
designer), giving you another list:

Amelanchier - serviceberry - 12'-20 feet
Crape myrtle - 12-18' (needs full sun)
Flowering crab - some 8-12', most 12-15'
Cotinus coggygria - smokebush - 10-20' (more shrub-like)
Rhus typhina - staghorn sumac - 8-12' (tends to sucker)
various Japanese maples, specially the weeping dissectum cultivars -
anywhere
from 3-15+'
Magnolia stellata - 10-15'
Magnolia seiboldii - 10-15'
Chionanthus retusus - fringe tree - 10-15'
Vine maple - 15-20'
Pyrus salicifolia - willow-leafed pear - 12-18'
Cercis chinensis - Avondale redbud - 10-15' (more shrub-like)
assorted dwarf fruits ('Frost' peach, Italian plums, dwarf and mini-dwarf
apples) - 10-18'

You can also often find shrubs trained into standards (a single trunked,
tree-like form) at better nurseries. Those most common are flowering
currant,
Japanese willow, dwarf lilac, and peegee and Annabelle hydrangeas. You
should
also be aware that the ultimate, mature height of a tree (and its rate of
growth) are heavily influenced by growing conditions. Optimal conditions
willl
result in optimal growth.

And before all you midwesterners and east coasters get your knickers in a
twist
because many of these heights are lower than what you are used to, our
climate
here is VERY mild and we seldom see certain trees achieve the same mature
heights as they do in other, hotter summer parts of the country and are
many are
frequently stunted by consistant summer droughts.

pam - gardengal

Staghorn Sumac amazed me when I happened upon a large stand in the
wild. I petted the antlers and it made me feel like a child in a zoo.
I can't imagine how a single one would look in a formal garden.

TK

"Trish K." wrote:

Staghorn Sumac amazed me when I happened upon a large stand in the
wild. I petted the antlers and it made me feel like a child in a zoo.
I can't imagine how a single one would look in a formal garden.

TK

They are pretty darn common in this area, but then many gardens here are
more casual in approach than typically 'formal' in feeling. Because of
their tendency to sucker, they are often used to stabilize slopes and are
frequently seen along freeway verges. They are most noticeable in fall,
when they show off their incredible fall color. When planted in the
garden, suckering can be controlled by mowing, but you risk not having a
pristine lawn. Best used in a mixed planting rather than as a stand alone
specimen.

pam - gardengal

In article , Trish K.
wrote:

Staghorn Sumac amazed me when I happened upon a large stand in the
wild. I petted the antlers and it made me feel like a child in a zoo.
I can't imagine how a single one would look in a formal garden.

TK

That sumac will adapt to anything, but probably best in dry sunny spots, &
the query was for something that preferred moist soil with shade part of
the year. There are so many super-duper trees that'd like moist soil &
partial shade it seems to me it'd be a waste of space to give it over to a
staghorn sumac, though I do like that tree too & put one out on the
roadside in a neglectable sun-garden with bush sage & hidcote lavender & a
butterfly bush & rock roses, where the sumac & all else are doing fine
with just an occasional squirt of water during the sunniest summer weeks.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

My favorite too! At my house the vine maples are wild, very old and covered
with lots of moss. The trunks and branches have formed very wide coves that
my guest have used as camping spots for outdoor parties. Ah, if only I lived
there as a kid, what great fort they would have made! They are especially
beautiful when the sun shines through them! They're wonderful to look at all
year round and I'd recommend this tree for anyone in the Northwest.


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "peter"
wrote:

Could someone suggest a small, low maintenance deciduous tree for the
seattle area (lots of moisture and shades in the winter, and some sun in
the
summer)? Small means between 8 to 14 feet.

My personal favorite is our own native little Vine Maple. It has a broad
range of appearance so you have to look at many from as many sources as
you can get to. It's nice to look at these before they leaf out (meaning
right now, quick), & judge them by their limb forms -- they're going to
have good leaves & flowers & pink seeds & pleasing autumn color no matter
what, so the only question is which shape looks best to you in winter.
Some have dozens of suckery trunks & are like huge bushes, but the ideal
is probably a mature single-trunked specimen which can be as wonderful a
tree as any fancy Japanese maple (athough if I had room, I'd have bushy
multitrunk one too). Here's mine:
http://www.paghat.com/vinemaple.html
Though it's a small tree, in a small yard it really has a feeling of
woodland substantiality.

There are of course many cultivars of Japanese maples to fill just about
any size & shape requirement or restriction. To get the best fall colors
you sort of have to be able to select one in autumn, because their range
of behavior is vast & some are more plain in autumn. But more of them are
being stocked at nurseries in spring. Japanese maples are largely
low-maintenance trees & also tolerate considerable shade.

One of the somewhat fast growing species rhododenrons really is a little
tree rather than a bush, R. concinnum, & I have one as a companion for the
Vine Maple, you can see it he
http://www.paghat.com/rhody_concinnum.html
It's evergreen rather than deciduous, but perhaps you meant not a conifer.
R. concinnum is not nearly as easy to find as a maple, the usual rhody
providers don't ordinarily have many true species plants to select,
preferring bushy hybrids. But if you could find a mature specimen in the
six-foot range, you'd have something already with a nice tree form. It'd
grow half a foot a year to 15 feet, might require side-pruning to keep it
from going as round as it gets tall, but otherwise demands no attention.
As it grows it is a choice whether to underlimb so it has a visible trunk
to be increasingly tree-like, or to let it leaf clear to the ground, but
even leafed top to bottom it is slightly "airy" so you can see the trunk.
Mine's relatively little at five feet tall, yet already gives the
impression of a tree rather than a bush, its leaning trunk a bit twisty.

Though a Paperbark Maple would eventually get bigger than 14 feet, it is
so slow-growing that its potential bigger size may not matter all that
much. Here's mine:
http://www.paghat.com/paperbark.html
They should be selected mature enough to already have the cool pealing
bark.

Witch Hazels if purchased as shrubs are such slow growers it'll always be
a shrub, so if you wanted one as a tree, you'd have to buy an expensive
mature one already at least eight feet tall. They can potentially reach 15
feet but the expectation should be that it'll be about the size it was
when planted for many many years. The American witchhazel perhaps grows a
bit faster. To get one taller than four or five feet will probably be a
special order, but they're definitely available. The fact that they flower
in winter makes them especially appealing.

If you had room for TWO trees, well-chosen fruiting cherry trees in the
semi-dwarf categories are worth considering. Select them for fruit, don't
go for the fancy flowery cultivars, as the fancy ones can be high
maintenance disappointments. But being fed sweet Rainier cherries by ones
own tree is such a warm cuddly feeling of being cared for by one's garden.

I asked different people/nursery and each one gave me a different
answers.

There are scores of trees that might fit your requirement, so of course
everyone's opinion is going to be about THEIR favorites. (Or at nurseries,
based on what they have that they could sell you then & there.) They're
probably all good suggestions so you just have to look at many specimens
of many recommendable species, to see which would be YOUR favorite to
live with.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

there are lot's of dogwood trees that should fit this spot. They grow
so slowly, that size should never be a problem.

"peter" wrote in message . ..
Could someone suggest a small, low maintenance deciduous tree for the
seattle area (lots of moisture and shades in the winter, and some sun in the
summer)? Small means between 8 to 14 feet.

I asked different people/nursery and each one gave me a different answers.
Is there a web site that would let me put in the criteria and give me a list
of trees?

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm making a list so I can do further research
on each of them.

Question about the vine maple. There are some maple trees (not sure what
variety) in my yard. And whenever I prune off one branch, several branches
grow out of that spot eventually. This makes the tree quite ugly. I wonder
if vine maple has this annoying characteristic.

Questions about fruiting trees. Don't they attract insects? Don't they
require a lot of fertilizers to make fruits?

I also have some rhododenrons in my yard. If left unattended, they grow from
a bush into a giant bush, and the leaves become so large they are no longer
attractive. Also seems susceptible to powder moss (?). For maintenance, I
was told to pick off the flower every year after they blossomed. That is a
tedious operation.

Thanks. I'll look into them.

"Pam" wrote in message
...

Amelanchier - serviceberry - 12'-20 feet
Crape myrtle - 12-18' (needs full sun)
Flowering crab - some 8-12', most 12-15'
Cotinus coggygria - smokebush - 10-20' (more shrub-like)
Rhus typhina - staghorn sumac - 8-12' (tends to sucker)
various Japanese maples, specially the weeping dissectum cultivars -
anywhere
from 3-15+'
Magnolia stellata - 10-15'
Magnolia seiboldii - 10-15'
Chionanthus retusus - fringe tree - 10-15'
Vine maple - 15-20'
Pyrus salicifolia - willow-leafed pear - 12-18'
Cercis chinensis - Avondale redbud - 10-15' (more shrub-like)
assorted dwarf fruits ('Frost' peach, Italian plums, dwarf and mini-dwarf
apples) - 10-18'

I've never prunned my vine maples, actually. They were there when I moved to
the property and they are quite old. Here's a good picture of some vine
maples(not mine actually):
http://www.phototripusa.com/Images/a...lgvnemples.htm

This is truly a fantastic picture though...



"peter" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm making a list so I can do further research
on each of them.

Question about the vine maple. There are some maple trees (not sure what
variety) in my yard. And whenever I prune off one branch, several branches
grow out of that spot eventually. This makes the tree quite ugly. I wonder
if vine maple has this annoying characteristic.

Questions about fruiting trees. Don't they attract insects? Don't they
require a lot of fertilizers to make fruits?

I also have some rhododenrons in my yard. If left unattended, they grow
from
a bush into a giant bush, and the leaves become so large they are no
longer
attractive. Also seems susceptible to powder moss (?). For maintenance, I
was told to pick off the flower every year after they blossomed. That is a
tedious operation.

Our native bigleaf maple, Acer macrophyllum, often produces sucker growth, which
is not particularly attractive. However if maples are pruned properly and at the
correct time of year, they should not be producing the type of growth you
describe. IME, vine maples seldom need much in the way of pruning - they are
small, well-behaved trees and an occasional grooming to remove dead wood or
damaged branches should be all that is required.

Fruiting trees do not necessarily attract insects, specially if you are
dilligent about harvesting the fruit (which afterall is the point in growing
them). And trees like flowering crabs and amelanchiers, although they do produce
fruit which is not particularly edible to us, are attractive to birds, which is
something to consider. No extra fertilizing is required for these or other
fruiting trees to produce, if soil conditions are adequate.

It is not necessary to remove the spent flowers from rhododendrons each year. It
does make the plant look tidier for the home garden if you do, but it is not
necessary for production of new flowers. The scores of rhody and azalea
plantings at the Arboretum, for example, never get deadheaded and do just fine
without it.

From your comments, it sounds like you are looking for *very* low maintenance
plantings. In that case, exclude the dwarf fruit trees from my list - they do
require more attention than other, more ornamental trees. Look carefully to
determine which tree is correct for your specific location and soil conditions
and which will maintain the height limitations you desire. Some regular
maintenance will be required of anything you select to keep it in prime
condition, but you can limit the amount necessary by careful selection of the
correct plant for the correct location. Take your list and your site
requirements to a local nursery or garden center (not Lowes or HD) - the staff
there will help you to select what will work best for you. This is an excellent
time to select and plant trees in this area - the nurseries are full of new
stock and many are offered on sale.

pam - gardengal



peter wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm making a list so I can do further research
on each of them.

Question about the vine maple. There are some maple trees (not sure what
variety) in my yard. And whenever I prune off one branch, several branches
grow out of that spot eventually. This makes the tree quite ugly. I wonder
if vine maple has this annoying characteristic.

Questions about fruiting trees. Don't they attract insects? Don't they
require a lot of fertilizers to make fruits?

I also have some rhododenrons in my yard. If left unattended, they grow from
a bush into a giant bush, and the leaves become so large they are no longer
attractive. Also seems susceptible to powder moss (?). For maintenance, I
was told to pick off the flower every year after they blossomed. That is a
tedious operation.

Our native bigleaf maple, Acer macrophyllum, often produces sucker growth, which

is not particularly attractive. However if maples are pruned properly and at the

correct time of year, they should not be producing the type of growth you
describe. IME, vine maples seldom need much in the way of pruning - they are
small, well-behaved trees and an occasional grooming to remove dead wood or
damaged branches should be all that is required.

Fruiting trees do not necessarily attract insects, specially if you are
dilligent about harvesting the fruit (which afterall is the point in growing
them). And trees like flowering crabs and amelanchiers, although they do produce

fruit which is not particularly edible to us, are attractive to birds, which is
something to consider. No extra fertilizing is required for these or other
fruiting trees to produce, if soil conditions are adequate.

It is not necessary to remove the spent flowers from rhododendrons each year. It

does make the plant look tidier for the home garden if you do, but it is not
necessary for production of new flowers. The scores of rhody and azalea
plantings at the Arboretum, for example, never get deadheaded and do just fine
without it.

From your comments, it sounds like you are looking for *very* low maintenance
plantings. In that case, exclude the dwarf fruit trees from my list - they do
require more attention than other, more ornamental trees. Look carefully to
determine which tree is correct for your specific location and soil conditions
and which will maintain the height limitations you desire. Some regular
maintenance will be required of anything you select to keep it in prime
condition, but you can limit the amount necessary by careful selection of the
correct plant for the correct location. Take your list and your site
requirements to a local nursery or garden center (not Lowes or HD) - the staff
there will help you to select what will work best for you. This is an excellent
time to select and plant trees in this area - the nurseries are full of new
stock and many are offered on sale.

pam - gardengal

peter wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm making a list so I can do further research
on each of them.

Question about the vine maple. There are some maple trees (not sure what
variety) in my yard. And whenever I prune off one branch, several branches
grow out of that spot eventually. This makes the tree quite ugly. I wonder
if vine maple has this annoying characteristic.

Questions about fruiting trees. Don't they attract insects? Don't they
require a lot of fertilizers to make fruits?

I also have some rhododenrons in my yard. If left unattended, they grow from
a bush into a giant bush, and the leaves become so large they are no longer
attractive. Also seems susceptible to powder moss (?). For maintenance, I
was told to pick off the flower every year after they blossomed. That is a
tedious operation.

I also have some rhododenrons in my yard. If left unattended, they grow from
a bush into a giant bush, and the leaves become so large they are no longer
attractive. Also seems susceptible to powder moss (?). For maintenance, I
was told to pick off the flower every year after they blossomed. That is a
tedious operation.

Deadheading is 80% or more just for tidiness. It won't hurt the rhodies if
you fail to do it, or do it only moderately on the parts that face the
garden & show most. Some rhodies to their dead flowers a long time &
produce seeds, but it doesn't seem to deplete their energy for the
following year's blooms. Some such as PJMs & many other Mezzit hybrids
drop their spent flowers on their own if you ignore them. Deciding to
pinch off the dead flowers from mature shrubs is a personal choice based
on how you think those dead flowers look vs how much of a bother it would
be to clean the shrubs up. Sometimes, as for quite young deciduous
azaleas, deadheading is simultaneously a chance for end-pruning that'll
cause the twigs to branch. But the same shrub un-deadheaded drops the
petals & retains only a spidery skeleton of the truss, which can be kind
of decorative if not removed, though I will remove them a few at a time as
mood strikes, no need to hurry. For the most part it's done for looks
since the shrub won't suffer if you don't bother, & it won't rebloom if
you do bother.

By "powder moss" do you mean powdery mildew? I've one azalea the lower
leaves of which get a mildew near autumn, but it takes care of itself
because it's deciduous & drops its leaves, & the problem has never gone
above the very bottom branches & has never spread to evergreen rhodies. A
spotty so-called powdery mildew that can attack evergreen rhodies is not
noticeably powdery like the stuff on deciduous azaleas or on bee balm.
I've never had to deal with the spotty kind on my rhodies but it's common
enough someday I'm bound to have to deal with it. The rhody guides mainly
recommend fungicides. But here's something you might try that is organic:
If you've seen the problem on specific shrubs but not others, you might
"treat" the problem shrubs before the mildew appears on newer leaves, with
a once-weekly spray of powdered skim milk diluted to a fourth of drinking
strength; be sure also to get underneath the leaves. Since I've been lucky
& never had to try this on evergreen rhodies I can't swear it'll work, but
it worked on honeysuckles.

If very few leaves are affected you could pinch those off & discard (not
compost). If the plant is otherwise healthy, it can usually survive & not
look bad since for many hybrids the majority of the spotting will be
hidden on the underside of leaves. The evergreens drop their leaves in
two-year cycles, & these should be cleaned up & discarded in the trash.
The problem should be manageable without recourse to fungicides, but I
realize that's easiest for someone to say who hasn't had a problem with
it. Any shrub that seems especially prone to the fungus could be dug up &
banished to a part of the garden where it is nowhere near other rhodies
(or replaced with something that has no R. cinnabarinum in its hybrid
history, as they're said to be most susceptible), & look instead for
rhodies with R. yakushimanum or R. augustinii in their hybrid history. Our
local native Northwest species of rhodies are also impervious to the
mildew. A few hybrids such as Vulcan's will let the mildew badly mar the
top surface of the leaves, but a great number of hybrids are capable of
keeping the mildew to the underside of leaves so that infected shrubs are
not bad looking. Here's a widely circulated tip sheet:
http://www.rhododendron.org/v53n2p73.htm

I've tried to guess what I may have done that keeps the problem out of my
gardens, & of course it could be nothing but "lucky so far." Still, I
think my methods do have something to do with it. Rhodies are more
susceptible if planted too many too close together in overly shady areas,
so don't crowd them, make sure they get SOME sun, & break up the shrub
array with unrelated shrubs such as Fothergilla or Ninebark or Kerria or
dwarf Yew, or whatever. Rhodies "isolated" between unrelated shrubs are
less susceptible. They're more susceptible if they are too warm through
winter, so should not be planted up close to walls of the house especially
if the house is poorly insulated & warms the shrubs all winter (the stuff
I put closest to the house is stuff like winter jasmine or blue potato
vine or tasmanian giant fern that benefit from the residual warmth through
the winter). Water under rhodies with soakers rather than sprinklers so as
to keep humidity down, but at the same time don't let the ground dry out
too much in summer since stressed rhodies are more susceptible. Shrubs
that are too compact or hemmed in by other shrubs need to be provided
better air circulation. I used to be 90% organic, but now I'm 99.99%
organic, & when I see other gardeners who use lots of chemicals also
getting lots of diseases that require lots more chemicals, I increasingly
believe that the more chemical assistance given to a garden, the more
chemical assistance will be required; & the less chemicals are used, the
better the overall balance in the garden so that chemical interventions
become less & less called for.

Here's a link to that one azalea I have that does get mildew on its lower
limbs very briefly toward the end of autumn:
http://www.paghat.com/azalea_whitethroat.html
Here are its autumn leaves, for which you would never suspect any pathogen
at all:
http://www.paghat.com/autumnleaves7.html

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/