Kiwi’s Larch Forest Restoration.

Leo in N E Illinois

The Professor
Messages
11,337
Reaction score
23,254
Location
on the IL-WI border, a mile from ''da Lake''
USDA Zone
5b
Largest tree should never be dead center. The off center placement adds movement to the forest. This forest moves to the left, remember that as you create branches and apex designs.

The spacing of the trees in this forest is actually pretty good. I would not re-arrange the trees, unless they fall apart when repotted. If they are partially, or fully fused at the roots, I would not try to re-arrange them.
 

Maloghurst

Chumono
Messages
750
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Seattle WA
USDA Zone
8b
Hi all,
I have been lucky enough to be given this old (30 odd years) Larch forest. Unfortunately this forest has been left to get old without keeping any lower branches (or they died off etc).

Front, boxes to got regrowth
View attachment 278498
View attachment 278499View attachment 278501

Back
View attachment 278500

I am planning on trying my hand at thread grafting to refurbish some lower branches
Tagging a couple of people for advice - @Forsoothe! , @Paulpash.
Orhers advice is of course welcome.
Charles
I would also be looking to add more trees but I think the back has a better feel then the front. The main tree from the current front looks like it’s in pretty rough shape. A new largest tree with the new front something like this could look pretty nice
EB6F89AB-6044-4744-9C7C-BE0162110D42.jpeg
 

KiwiPlantGuy

Omono
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,352
Location
New Zealand
USDA Zone
9a
I would also be looking to add more trees but I think the back has a better feel then the front. The main tree from the current front looks like it’s in pretty rough shape. A new largest tree with the new front something like this could look pretty nice
View attachment 278690

Hi,
Thank you for your virtual here. It has given me another idea/option to ponder for sure.
Charles
 

KiwiPlantGuy

Omono
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,352
Location
New Zealand
USDA Zone
9a
Largest tree should never be dead center. The off center placement adds movement to the forest. This forest moves to the left, remember that as you create branches and apex designs.

The spacing of the trees in this forest is actually pretty good. I would not re-arrange the trees, unless they fall apart when repotted. If they are partially, or fully fused at the roots, I would not try to re-arrange them.

Hi Leo,
Thank you for your comments. They are helpful going forward, as I have a few forests in baby stages to prune, repot, and rearrange next winter as I now realise that symmetry is not a good thing in Bonsai.
Charles
 

SpOoNzL

Yamadori
Messages
71
Reaction score
160
Location
New Zealand, Dunedin
USDA Zone
9a
Hi Charles this is what id do if this were mine.

1) I'd remove the tree in red and style it as its own windswept style tree. This would also make the remaining 7 trees look closer together.
2) Since all trees have a similar finishing height I would raise the trees up in the soil line (blue circle) to create a mound/hill to make the heights of the trees different.
3) Once trees have been planted on a mound prune to try create a more triangular canopy. Orange line.
 

Attachments

  • E65F20CE-FFBB-48AB-A474-A5A5DCD42214.jpeg
    E65F20CE-FFBB-48AB-A474-A5A5DCD42214.jpeg
    386.5 KB · Views: 59

SpOoNzL

Yamadori
Messages
71
Reaction score
160
Location
New Zealand, Dunedin
USDA Zone
9a
Additionally you could use the red tree into a raft as it looks like it has 5 branches that could become new smaller trees, maybe you could add it to the backside of the forest? I'm unsure how well larches grow new roots though if been layered. I think the technique would be scoring/exposing on one side so the cambium shows then apply hormone and lay the tree flat on sphagnum. I think it could look cool to have like a fallen over tree growing new baby trees at the back of the forest.
 

KiwiPlantGuy

Omono
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,352
Location
New Zealand
USDA Zone
9a
Additionally you could use the red tree into a raft as it looks like it has 5 branches that could become new smaller trees, maybe you could add it to the backside of the forest? I'm unsure how well larches grow new roots though if been layered. I think the technique would be scoring/exposing on one side so the cambium shows then apply hormone and lay the tree flat on sphagnum. I think it could look cool to have like a fallen over tree growing new baby trees at the back of the forest.

Hi,
Thank you for your comments and design ideas. I am seriously conflicted between which I would like the front. I think I need a few more little trees, and your raft idea is worth thinking about.
The last concerning part of the design/restoration is the “dead” tree.
1. Remove altogether
2. Lay it down to be a old rotting tree
3. Leave it alone as forests do have dead trees which haven’t blown over yet etc.

What do you and others think about the dead tree?
Charles
 

KiwiPlantGuy

Omono
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,352
Location
New Zealand
USDA Zone
9a
Hi All,
Just wanting to tag a couple of other members to gauge some more opinions. So then in a few months I can start planning some changes.
Could @crust, and @Adair M please share opinions and ideas? My previous post I wanted some thoughts on - about the dead tree - thank you
Charles
 

Adair M

Pinus Envy
Messages
14,402
Reaction score
34,873
Location
NEGeorgia
USDA Zone
7a
I kinda like the dead trunk. It needs some little trees on the left to show the forest is rejuvenating, in spite of the dead mother tree. Make sure to vary the height of all the trees.

I would not separate these trees. The only time you would do some thing like that is if you were to add a tree into the middle. An established forest of multiple trunks is maintained as a single unit.

I know Forsoothe offered his avatar as proof of separating. Just look at it! It shows no maturity, all the trunks are equistant, they’re all about the same caliper. Sorry, he may like it, me, not so much.

Saburo Kato wrote a great book on forests. It’s available at Stone Lanturn.

image.jpg

it’s pretty much the definitive guide on forests.
 

leatherback

The Treedeemer
Messages
13,937
Reaction score
26,876
Location
Northern Germany
USDA Zone
7
What do you and others think about the dead tree?
Bonsai forest are about creating the illusion of a forest. I would not add the dead tree. To me it indicates a failure to care for it properly. Furthermore it will be a host to borers etc which you really do not want. Take it out and replace or add enough young plants to create the illusion of a forest in mature stage with several levels of age.
 

KiwiPlantGuy

Omono
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,352
Location
New Zealand
USDA Zone
9a
Hi,
So it is late Spring here and my Larch forest has been plucked all over, and about to go again. Unfortunately when I picked up the box to add 6 or 7 thread grafts the trunk fell over, so I have laid it down like a fallen forest tree. I am planning on adding a mother tree which is in the ground at the moment.
My obvious concern is that it is way too thick and overgrown on the top and sides. Do I go in now pre-Xmas and reasonably heavily cut back the strong growing areas?
FrontEECBC280-4294-4395-AFB9-2C5A8602BC7D.jpeg
BackC6808D11-76CF-441E-BEBB-3082E5682D17.jpeg
Thread grafts0D1CAAAE-1593-4559-A22C-1B3D8899987A.jpeg

Lastly I feel like a proud father as a cone has appeared.
14C620F8-7013-4D0D-9710-46CAB56A9AA5.jpeg
Charles
 

Bnana

Chumono
Messages
641
Reaction score
672
Location
The Netherlands
USDA Zone
8
It's developing well, with a bit of pruning and cleaning it will improve fast.
How much you can cut depends on how healthy the trees are, these can grow very fast.

I do like the dead trunk, but to me dead wood is a sign of a healthy forest, the opposite of what leatherback wrote. In natural forests there is a lot of dead wood, we're often used to plantations and overly managed forests that lack old trees and dead wood. Add long as the other yes look healthy I think it adds something.
 

Forsoothe!

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
6,878
Reaction score
9,248
Location
Michigan
USDA Zone
6b
You need to practice the tapering methods spoken of here. Forests will have a disproportional amount of foliage at the top for the same reasons that forests do: no light or space below. We have to grow our forests from stock that is pretty close to the finished size of trees and mature them in-place, as opposed growing them in-place. This sounds like double-speak, but there are some absolutes that we have to deal with which are not different than a real forest: the internal branches will die over time. If you don't start with branches on the insides, you will never, ever grow any in there. A few will live that get some light, but most, -almost all will diminish over time.

Your tops are too big as a percentage of the foliage. You need to keep them smaller and pointy and essentially as a finished product as the lower limbs ramify and fill out the perimeter profile. Everything needs to be wired into flat layers and with plumb trunks. It never gets easier, and you will never have as many internal branches as you do now. Arrange them into finished intermingled positions (layers), almost without regard to anything (like which tree the branch is on) except filling in space where branches should be, and leaving space between layers where space defines layers. An observer can't really see that the branches don't grow from each tree in the fashion of a Christmas tree out in the open. Some trees will have almost no branches and the neighbors to the left and right will provide the alternating left-right-left-right layers, and that's OK. The observers look at the whole thing and if branches (layers) are flat (horizontal) and fill in all the space, or an appropriate amount of space, they assume the branching is proper and the whole will "look" right. Wire it now, it never gets easier. Make the top a series of pointy, individual tops and keep them tidy while the rest fills in. The tippy-tops do need to have a nice arrangement of tiny branches all in the right position and proportion, as a Christmas tree, because they are out in the open. That will take you long enough to do for the rest of the branches to ramify and look good.
 

KiwiPlantGuy

Omono
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,352
Location
New Zealand
USDA Zone
9a
You need to practice the tapering methods spoken of here. Forests will have a disproportional amount of foliage at the top for the same reasons that forests do: no light or space below. We have to grow our forests from stock that is pretty close to the finished size of trees and mature them in-place, as opposed growing them in-place. This sounds like double-speak, but there are some absolutes that we have to deal with which are not different than a real forest: the internal branches will die over time. If you don't start with branches on the insides, you will never, ever grow any in there. A few will live that get some light, but most, -almost all will diminish over time.

Your tops are too big as a percentage of the foliage. You need to keep them smaller and pointy and essentially as a finished product as the lower limbs ramify and fill out the perimeter profile. Everything needs to be wired into flat layers and with plumb trunks. It never gets easier, and you will never have as many internal branches as you do now. Arrange them into finished intermingled positions (layers), almost without regard to anything (like which tree the branch is on) except filling in space where branches should be, and leaving space between layers where space defines layers. An observer can't really see that the branches don't grow from each tree in the fashion of a Christmas tree out in the open. Some trees will have almost no branches and the neighbors to the left and right will provide the alternating left-right-left-right layers, and that's OK. The observers look at the whole thing and if branches (layers) are flat (horizontal) and fill in all the space, or an appropriate amount of space, they assume the branching is proper and the whole will "look" right. Wire it now, it never gets easier. Make the top a series of pointy, individual tops and keep them tidy while the rest fills in. The tippy-tops do need to have a nice arrangement of tiny branches all in the right position and proportion, as a Christmas tree, because they are out in the open. That will take you long enough to do for the rest of the branches to ramify and look good.
Hi,
Thank you for your critique and all the advice. I will read and digest all you are saying.
So my plan is to remove a lot of the ramified top and side (overgrowth) to give the thread grafts room to grow and hopefully create some stronger lower branches. I do realise this will take time, but with the forest in great condition, I am hoping to do this but Xmas (longest day here), to give the forest time to recover etc.
Do you agree with this? Or am I just better to add in more trees to complete the grove (on the edge of a field look)?
Thanks again , Charles
 

Forsoothe!

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
6,878
Reaction score
9,248
Location
Michigan
USDA Zone
6b
Yes, add branches where you need them and when they are healthy add tree in front.
 
Top Bottom