Tree seedlings taken from forest.

joseph brand

I was out for a walk last week in a forest and I brought along a bag of wet compost and a small garden fork. Hoping to find some seedlings, I came across a horse chestnut seedling and four oak seedlings.



Is it the wrong time of year to take seedlings? Will they survive? Any advice greatly appreciated, thanks.

redser7

Great. It's always best to take as much of the root ball in tact when transplanting. So dig around the plant and lift it with the soil attached to the roots. I reckon it would be best to give each plant its own pot. And use a suitably sized pot. For the small plants that big pot looks too big. It will hold too much water and that can lead to the roots rotting. So start small and as the plant grow, pot up.

wildlifeboy

make sure you pot them asap as they will die very quickly otherwise.

Fries-With-That

AFAIK it is illegal to interfere with the native flora in Irish Forestry,while it may seem harmless enough to take a few seedlings, if everyone took a few seedlings we'd never have any natural regeneration.

Would it not be better to gather seed and try to grow your own, rather than digging up a tree that has germinated in its natural habitat.

magicbastarder

afaik, oak has not been regenerating under canopy in the british isles now for decades since american mildew arrived.

don't forget that for an oak tree to successfully regenerate, only one of its acorns over its lifetime has to make it to maturity, out of the tens of thousands it produces.
the main issue with taking oak or horse chestnut is having the room to grow them.

vinnie13

I would say they will do ok keep the soil moist and you shouldn't have a problem

vinnie13

I would say they will do ok keep the soil moist and you shouldn't have a problem

looksee

I would be inclined to cut off some of the bigger leaves, especially on the horse-chestnut, its a rather dodgy time of year to be transplanting.

joseph brand

redser7 wrote: »

Great. It's always best to take as much of the root ball in tact when transplanting. So dig around the plant and lift it with the soil attached to the roots. I reckon it would be best to give each plant its own pot. And use a suitably sized pot. For the small plants that big pot looks too big. It will hold too much water and that can lead to the roots rotting. So start small and as the plant grow, pot up.

I tried my best to take the whole root ball, but it can be difficult with that black, crumbly soil.

As someone who started his garden with lifeless, dry, clay 'soil', I was almost salivating over that black gold beneath the chestnut tree. No doubt it's down to years of leaf litter.

lazybones32

The HC could do with a few of its leaves removed and the oaks need a bit of fertiliser- they're looking yellow. Happy planting.

Oldtree

put a tray underneath the pots, that will keep the pot at field capacity (the optimum for water in pots) keep the tray filled with water. This will make sure the plants have enough water while they settle in and avoid drowning the plants by top watering. Wrong time of the year to move trees really.

magicbastarder

yep, as mentioned above, best bet is to collect and sow seeds rather than transplant.

Northumbria

I see plenty of sapling oaks and young trees with powdery mildew all the time. They're regenerating in NW England at least.
It probably would be worth looking for a mildew resistant tree and planting clones of it around the country to serve as pollen parents to pass resistance to some wild oaks. Planting a resistant tree to replace non-resistant specimens would just lead to a decline in oak genetic diversity and leave the species open for some other pathogen in future, so resistance must be allowed to introgression instead of humans selecting resistant offspring and planting them.

magicbastarder wrote: »

afaik, oak has not been regenerating under canopy in the british isles now for decades since american mildew arrived.

don't forget that for an oak tree to successfully regenerate, only one of its acorns over its lifetime has to make it to maturity, out of the tens of thousands it produces.
the main issue with taking oak or horse chestnut is having the room to grow them.

magicbastarder

good to hear - how deep is the canopy above them?

Northumbria

magicbastarder wrote: »

good to hear - how deep is the canopy above them?

Very dense typically. I see them growing in ash and birch woodlands a lot, also in areas where rhododendron and laurel are invasive, usually in proximity to holly and yew, so pretty shady conditions.
If ash dieback takes hold in Britain either sycamore, birch or oak will replace it.

Grindley

My (back garden) sycamore often produces saplings. If anyone would fancy a very handsome-to-be tree - contact me!!!!!

Northumbria

Grindley wrote: »

My (back garden) sycamore often produces saplings. If anyone would fancy a very handsome-to-be tree - contact me!!!!!

Nah, they're nice trees but grow like weeds around here anyway.

PeteFalk78

You'll probably lose a few of those seedlings. There is nothing better than growing from seed. I have around 10 oaks, 12 horse chestnuts, 3 hazels and 5 sycamores all started from seed, ranging from a few inches tall to a couple of feet.

I'll be planting some of the bigger ones around the village in October and praying they survive to maturity.

Grindley

How nice to contribute something which may survive into the next century and beyond.

Northumbria

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

You'll probably lose a few of those seedlings. There is nothing better than growing from seed. I have around 10 oaks, 12 horse chestnuts, 3 hazels and 5 sycamores all started from seed, ranging from a few inches tall to a couple of feet.

I'll be planting some of the bigger ones around the village in October and praying they survive to maturity.

I've got a sapling ash. When I was a kid I collected shopping bags full of conkers. When u got bored with them I scattered them throughout some woods by a lake where there are no horsechestnuts for miles. Now after about 15 years there are quite a few there, all in areas where I scattered the hundreds of conkers and they're a great addition to the woodlands.
I understood as a kid that trees could grow from them, that's why I did it. Never expected anything from them though.

Tbh, I'm pretty much in favour of "guerrilla afforestation" of these islands. At less than 10% tree cover, I think such measures are necessary. Not on good agricultural land, but in marginal unproductive land such as river banks, alongside streams, in permanently wet areas of pasture (alder and willow) and in hedgerows. Such areas would be improved and useful land wouldn't be lost, giving farmers and land owners no reason to cut them down. Only native and long naturalized species should be used though.

magicbastarder

have you read 'feral' by george monbiot. about 80% of the way through it, enjoying it a lot.

though i would have chosen a different species than HC to spread, though...

Northumbria

magicbastarder wrote: »

have you read 'feral' by george monbiot. about 80% of the way through it, enjoying it a lot.

though i would have chosen a different species than HC to spread, though...

Well I was a kid at the time. George Monbiot would like it if everywhere were reverted to wilderness. Read 'Woodlands' by Oliver Rackham, very good read. He understood how the landscape was made and the value of traditional human activity in it whereas Monbiot treats historic use of the land as modern farming, not really understanding the ecological aspect of it

magicbastarder

i've read rackham's book too.
monbiot does not suggest reverting everywhere to wilderness, he's quite clear on that point - and admitted he was torn over some of the human consequences of rewilding the uplands where sheep are grazed.

Oldtree

this was a great read:

looksee

Oldtree wrote: »

this was a great read:

Well it sure is big!

Oldtree

looksee wrote: »

Well it sure is big!

Sorry about that, it's actually a small A5 book, the picture I embedded clearly isn't