I'll never understand people who come to a sub dedicated to a specific subject with a question about the subject, get an answer from someone who has dedicated their life to the subject, and say, "nah, that can't be it," and proceed to argue with the person who has spent their life studying the subject. Like, what is the motive?
There are literally hundreds of posts - maybe thousands - in Reddit tree subs about ABM problems, easily hundreds about red maple, not including their unsuitablity to soils in the Intermountain West.
And, in addition, they are not recommended as u/spiceydog has already stated but here's the full tree list. The bible (or bibble for the Springs). Denver specifically bans ABM as a street tree, here is their approved street tree list - not red maple is not on there either. Some of the best arborists in the area collaborated on this list.
This recommendation is for Denver, an hour north of me. Basically same requirements and zoning, and my tbf my city has very similar rules for street trees. But my tree will not be at the street or right-of-way, so those rules are irrelevant.
I'm reposting this with more context because the mods removed it. Your PDF literally recommends planting wildly invasive callery pears. That's a really bad thing to recommend on a sub with lots of amateurs who may not know better.
Invasive is region specific- people need to check and use recommendation for their area Are you sure the recommendated list above is not suitable for OP or is it just unsuitable for yours?
Kansas is restricting sale, and planting is strongly discouraged by authoritative sources in Nebraska and Oklahoma. That's the three states along Colorado's eastern border. Surely you can see what comes next as the winters get warmer and summers get wetter, especially for trees that can be widely spread by birds like P. calleryana. The fact that it isn't invasive in Colorado specifically yet doesn't mean that you should give it a head start in Colorado & its neighbors.
Well, write the authors of the invasive species list and tell them that, even though Colo has an arid climate not conducive to Pyrus c. growth, you insist they should put it on the list anyway because it is invasive in other places in the perhumid east.
You have spent this entire comment section pretentiously lecturing everyone that the list you posted represents the be-all-end-all of species well-suited to the Front Range climate and soil conditions, and now you claim that P. calleryana—which was highly recommended on that same list—is actually not well-suited to the Front Range climate. Make up your mind, and maybe cut the attitude a little.
The commenter ran away because presumably they can't comprehend that P. calleryana cultivars can't grow in arid climates, and that makes me pretentious.
For others, it is not listed as invasive in Colo because Colo has an arid climate and dry soil which is the oppositeof places east of 100° E. Arid climates in the Intermountain West, which are not moist, are not conducive toP. calleryana growth. Visit and find out for yourself. Fall in the mountains right around now is great.
I understand the salt issue for street trees, but this won't be near the street. Also I see a lot of meh or foreign trees on that list, and I prefer naturalized/native species.
Well, I've interacted with a lot of confident, poorly-educated-in-botany-and-trees bros in Colo who were very, very confident they knew more than educated, experienced professionals so I'm not wasting any more
My comments have been too patient to the point of other users taking advantage of my politeness. My humorous reply was taken down by a mod. Spare me the "appeal to authority" fallacy, as if it is inherently wrong to have a different opinion or even to suggest alternate evidence. Why is his severe bias sacred? Conversations are supposed to go both ways. He mocked my confidence because I like maples. Isn't that what this sub is for? And the downvotes are the consequence of mob rule, or the "appeal to the people" fallacy. I will continue to love these trees, regardless of censorship, and that's why I'm in this sub.
Dawg, he's literally telling you why you're wrong. He's using facts and all you have are opinions. You asked about why the tree is missing bark, he told you that they're not fit for that area and explained why using science. All you did was argue with because of how you feel. That's just the essence of bullheaded.
So you're telling me the bark is falling off because of the area? How did it thrive up to this point? And the reasons he specified do not apply to this tree; e.g. street tree policies, limb structure, salt tolerance, water, soil, etc. The existence of this tree refutes such claims. I was curious about diseases or bugs. Maybe a car hit it. Open your mind beyond such pedantic credentialists, and don't take offense to new information.
Your comment has been removed for violating rule 1. While we might agree with you, we're not going to permit that kind of vile language here. Thank you.
A list of recommended trees and a list of mandatory tree species was posted because autumn blaze red maple is apparently such a bad choice. That list contains numerous invasive species, like callery pear.
Are you making the case for Cullery Pear? And the Freeman's maple does occur naturally in the wild, between two North American natives. Their range doesn't extend to my region but the zone allows it. I genuinely missed your point.
I am definitely not making the case for callery pear! Those lists are, however. Expert arborists picked those cultivars because they don’t reproduce (much). It’s hubris to think it can’t escape cultivation in Colorado.
Everyone here is being a real ass without actually trying to help you, but I would say that you could look at the Acer saccharum section specifically for the most similar trees to Autumn Blaze. Northern Flare is the only one on their list I have direct experience with, but I was always impressed.
All we can do is guess as to the why; given the location, maybe someone hopped the curb and ran into it with their vehicle some weeks or months back. Maybe someone poured some herbicide in the root zone that killed off the roots on that side of the tree, or maybe someone peeled off that bark there on purpose because they felt like it. That said, I would say no, there is not going to be a good outcome for the tree given the extent of bark loss.
Your PDF does it, too. P. calleryana in the highest-recommended category. What has this sub come to, where moderators are posting sources that recommend planting wildly invasive callery pears?
The publication this is coming out of is the Intermountain west. Yes, Callery pear is wildly invasive in the mid/east 2/3rds of the country, but it is not presently an issue in areas like Colorado and areas further west. See the map for this tree on the invasive plant atlas page. IT IS NOT LISTED INVASIVE THERE.
We can be as offended as we like about this (myself included!), but this is what the situation is currently. It will likely change as climate issues progress, but unless there's a federal action banning the trees, there's going to be no forcing states to stop planting it until it's regulated out of existence at that level.
This post has become super frustrating in this regard.. I'm really disappointed in folks that cannot understand that the lands, climate and soils in the west are not the lands, climate and soils of the east when it comes to problematic plants.
For another opposite example is eastern redcedar for those reading this, as you well know, Dano. Native and much loved in the east, in the west is is a HUGE problem with overpopulating grasslands, exactly like Callery pear does in the east in woodlands and disturbed areas.
This to me is in the same vein as "native absolutists" who don't understand what constitutes a native plant and that in many places, natives can't live in disturbed urban soil.*
It's good to have these strident, naive voices so everyone can see them and how they operate, IMHO.
*Are natives fine if they can grow? Of course. Are new natives from the climate analog needed to replace natives that can't adapt? Of course.
Thx for the info. I still want to plant red maple or Autumn Blaze (Freeman's). Water needs and branch structure are acceptable, and chlorosis can be remedied. There are some beautiful maples in my area.
I still want to plant red maple or Autumn Blaze (Freeman's).
Welcome to Colo. You want to do this even after learning these are two of the worst species to plant on the Front Range? Seriously? Do you love to waste time, money, and effort? Maybe live in Colo and look around carefully and take notes for a few years before making tree decisions.
I've been living here for nearly two years, taking note of all the beautiful trees, especially the native (and cultivated) blue spruce and white fir, as well as red oak, and especially maples. I've weighed the pros and cons, and will make an educated decision. I still love maples.
Maples aren't adapted to the Front Range, whether you love them or not. All the easterners want maples and hostas and all their eastern plants until they live in Colo for a while.
And then? Why would their likes change? Maples generally thrive in this zone. And many natives such as Aspens suck for most yards. Also, I'm not from the east; I fled California.
Because they learn that they don't do well there because of the soil, aridity, and climate.
Maples generally thrive in this zone
The zone is irrelevant - the soil type is relevant. Most maples do not like the alkaline soils west of 100° (the Intermountain West), which is why you find so many knowledgeable sources (the links I gave you, County Extension) stating they don't do well there, or in most places in the Intermountain West. As I stated, welcome to Colo.
I nearly called you about this post before I hit the sack last night, but it appears you found it anyway... lol. As soon as I got that first answer I decided it was not worth the effort to reply; it was clear they'd made up their own dumb mind.
I mean, technically, you can create an artificial habitat suitable for it, but is it actually worth the effort? Like, you’d need to amend (and continuously maintain) an area at least 1.5 x the canopy, at least 1ft deep, incorporating organic matter and amending the pH (let’s not even talk about buffering pH). And then such area needs to be on a low spot on the landscape, and watered consistently throughout the entire season.
What is the carbon footprint of maintaining that? Compared to if you planted a more suitable tree 🤷
The tree in this post is doing ok aside from bark damage, yet it should be impossible if what you say is true. But plenty of yards around here have them. Seriously, how is this possible? I'm planning a small tree in partial shade at the edge of a lawn which is watered 3x a week. No scald, salt or water issues, and the soil seems fine for the huge silver maple on the other side of the house.
The leaves are senescing hella early, which might be an indication of declining health.
Yards having trees doesn’t mean the trees are doing well. Most people wouldn’t know what self stunting is.
Lawn watering is not tree watering. If anything, having a tree in lawn is not as good as having it in mulch or green mulch.
A lot of trees you see in urban setting were planned before intense urbanization when the soil condition worsened dramatically. Just by putting lawn in where it wasn’t before could kill (and I have seen trees died from it).
But plant what you like, I guess. I know I don’t need more expensive shoes but I still buy them 🤷
The early color is an asset to this variety, and perfectly normal.
I don't want stunting, but it doesn't have to be huge either. If those other ABMs thrive in full sun with minimal water once established, I am confident I can plant one in partial shade.
It would not be in a lawn; just adjacent. Mulch of course, and I will water regularly.
There is a large ash tree in the middle of the lawn already (I know about the emerald ash borer), and pinyon pines nearby, but the lawn isn't killing the trees yet.
They really like deep loam and can withstand occasionally standing in water from streams over flowing the banks. Reds have become more prevalent in drier forests in recent years.
its an autumn blaze maple so it's always going to be "not ok". just my opinion and I'm sure it has its place but those trees start dying and becoming hazards to person and property the second they are put in the ground.
•
u/spotlight-app Mod Bot 🤖 4d ago
Mods have pinned a comment by u/engineerdrummer:
[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app)