Live oaks and boxwood II

This is a test message. I'm new and figuring out how to post photos. Here goes:

Kingsville Boxwood live oak:


Live oak acting like a live oak bonsai

Hi Rockm.

Did you find THIS? If not, hope it helps.

yes Fiona, I did. It was most helpful and the reason why I was successful. Posting here is a bit different than other sites, but not too complicated.

Thanks

Nice live oak - I want it!

Treedwarfer wrote:Nice live oak - I want it!

Mee too! Don't see much of that. I do wish it looked more like the kingville/live oak bonsai and less like a pine bonsai. That's a beautiful kingsville, btw.

Thanks. Have had the live oak for almost 15 years now. I always hear it looks too much like a pine...Its look has to do with its trunk...The Texas collector I bought it from said he had never seen a live oak potensai with as much movement in the trunk within two feet as this one. You can't really see it in this photo, but the trunk twists two and a half times before the apex begins, much like a ram's horn.

The trunk is also over 200 years old. I haven't the nerve to chop it lower to make it more convincingly "live oakish"

As for the kingsville, I only bought and styled it this summer. It's got some filling in to do and I am trying to envision what kind of pot to put it in eventually. The current one is just to allow it to recover a bit from the root hacking it got.

Very very cool bark.

Good to see you made it over too. I'm learning from your test pilot to post a pic, hope you don't mind...
hmm, back to the drawing board, I'll have to go back to the tutorial...

855227215001536

Well, this does not look anything like my tree... Wonder what I'm doing wrong, I followed the tutorial. I'll try later.

Russell
i agree its looks pine-ish, what would be your suggestion without chopping it down much?? i think its a great tree and wonder what it would take to make it look more like an oak. i would think let the bottom branches grow out more and make the crown rounded itstead of pointed. it will be a big tree.

rockm wrote: I always hear it looks too much like a pine ...

Let them lose sleep over it, you're doing a fine job. Maybe shortening the apical section of the trunk a little to encourage the crown to spread...?

Really neat oak. The fact that it has more of a "pine" style than a "live oak" style is only a problem if you (original poster) aren't happy with that look. Otherwise, just appreciate it for what it is. Besides, with that single trunk structure, I would think it would be pretty difficult to mold this into a classic live-oak shape. Probably would take a lifetime!

Chris

FWIW, I had let the branches on this tree extend eight or nine more inches over time to try and get that sprawling "live oakiness" that Southern live oaks have. It just didn't look right on this trunk though. First, the most interesting part of the tree (the trunk) was pretty obscured by all the drooping branches. Second, the relative free growth I had allowed the branches for a decade didn't produce much thickening in the lower limbs and they only looked spindly contrasted against the burly nebari. The apex, however, thickened too much (apically dominant for sure) and required (s) continued attention to keep the inverse taper gods from running amok

I've since pruned the whole thing back (this is an older photo from last spring) on top and the sides to get tighter foliage and a rounder crown.

i did wonder about how you would/could combine the trunk the a spreading canopy and make it look convincing. i also would be very hesitant about removing ANY of the trunk. you could put it in a bigger pot but then the top would probably just go wild. it is a gorgeous tree as it is.

Thanks Mike. The pot it is in now is 24" by 17" by 6" deep. It is already almost too heavy for me to lift by myself. A larger pot would kill me

This tree was collected down around your area, near Salado. I have relatives in Tyler that I visit often, so I have seen a lot of this kind of oak and there are single trunked variants that look similar to this one on the west side of the "Piney Woods."

BTW, anyone got any suggestions on a pot for the Kingsville? I was thinking small slab...not convinced on that yet though...

i am by no means an expert, but my experience with boxwoods in general is they like something they can spread their roots in a bit. for the long term my experience has been they like a bit deeper pot. that could be due to the heat and dry we get here this time of year though.

I've kept boxwood in pots as shallow as 1/2 inch for years. They can take very shallow containers, at least in my neck of the woods--I don't have as much of an issue with heat (although this summer has been a doozy), as long as they're not in direct sun all day. I've found that deep containers stay far too wet for them.

Great trees. Any chance you could post some pics of the trees on the benches in the background? They look real nice too.

rockm wrote:FWIW, I had let the branches on this tree extend eight or nine more inches over time to try and get that sprawling "live oakiness" that Southern live oaks have. It just didn't look right on this trunk though. First, the most interesting part of the tree (the trunk) was pretty obscured by all the drooping branches. Second, the relative free growth I had allowed the branches for a decade didn't produce much thickening in the lower limbs and they only looked spindly contrasted against the burly nebari. The apex, however, thickened too much (apically dominant for sure) and required (s) continued attention to keep the inverse taper gods from running amok

I've since pruned the whole thing back (this is an older photo from last spring) on top and the sides to get tighter foliage and a rounder crown.

I think you're on to it there. The line and heigth of the trunk don't bother me at all, I think it's beautiful. If it were mine (if wishes were horses...) I think I'd be concentrating on the angle of branches. I know you didn't ask for all of this but... what strikes me as giving it a pine-ish look are the branches more than the trunk. I see them as too horizontal and flat. Even with a single line trunk, if the branches grew up and out, then had some fall to the ends it would look more live oak-ish. Anyway, just thinking out loud - and you're right, it may still not look right on this trunk.

You don't see too many Live Oaks as bonsai, that's a really nice one.. fantastic trunk!! I wouldn't shorten the apex at all, but raise it by removing the lower branches. Russel's right about extending and shaping the branches and rounding it to a more deciduous shape. Here's a rough idea of what I see in my head.

By the way, 15 years ago in this area.. did you buy this one from Vito's Bonsai? He sold a lot of Tx natives.

Thanks Joey.

I like your virt Joey.

You need to visit my little yard so I can pick your brain for design.

Nice virt. I like it, but I don't think it's really possible with the tree's growth habits. To grow all that new branching will take another twenty years, given my experience with this tree. Also, the increased height of all those branches would make the tree well over five feet tall...

I can't put it in the ground to accelerate development, as I have tried to do with other live oaks I've had. Most experienced complete branch die back overwintering here in the back yard, forcing me to regrow new branches every year. This tree is stored in a cold greenhouse from Nov. to early March, so it doesn't have that problem.

Vito Megna (wish he was still collecting, I miss his trees ) collected it. He also put the initial design to it, eliminating all its existing branches and choosing the current set.

All in all, I'm rather happy with the tree as is. Most people who see it in person are too. Photos wash some of the movement and character out of it.

rockm wrote: Vito Megna (wish he was still collecting, I miss his trees ) collected it. He also put the initial design to it, eliminating all its existing branches and choosing the current set.

All in all, I'm rather happy with the tree as is. Most people who see it in person are too. Photos wash some of the movement and character out of it.

Me too. Vito collected my cedar elm, back in '90 or '91. He seemed to go overboard in removing all of the existing branches, that's what he told me to do to the elm when I picked it out. The first thing I thought was "Why? Aren't they a big part of why you collected it? They a big part of why I'm buying it!" It's like "buy this great tree and eliminate half of its natural character, then you can spend the next 25 years trying to get it back".. wth?

And you're right about the photos, you lose so much detail they hardly look like the same tree when you see it in person. There are some incredible live oaks in the dunes between Ft. Walton Beach and Destin where I grew up in north Florida. There's no way to dig them legally, and I doubt you could get them out alive if you could dig them. You have a real treasure there!

I got a cedar elm from Vito too. Actually it was the purchase of that tree that lead me to this one. Both the oak and the elm have been my favorite trees for a very long time.

The branching on the oak trunk needed to be removed as the limbs were too thick, in the wrong place and grew at the wrong angle. The uro in the front of the tree show the typical diameter of the branching on the trunk that were removed. There are five or so similar scars, one is four inches across (it's at the left side on the back).

I have a feeling Vito did the right thing in removing them on the oak. Not so sure he was as accurate in removing the branching on my cedar elm though. From the scars on that one, I think he may have removed some good things...

rockm,

Can you show us the cedar elm (maybe on it's own thread)? Thanks!