I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

Hazel

Hazel wrote:

I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

Hazels are trees and can grow to around 10 metres
(http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.hazel.html). The ones you see as
bushes are like that as they are usually coppiced.

Brian

Hazel wrote:

I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

Hazels are trees and can grow to around 10 metres
(http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.hazel.html). The ones you see as
bushes are like that as they are usually coppiced.

Brian

I will quote from the link you gave "Typically it has a number of shoots
or trunks branching out at, or just above, ground level, and this growth
habit has led to some people referring to it as a bush rather than a tree,
because it doesn't meet the strict definition for a tree, of having a single
stem that is unbranched near the ground."

I know they grow like that ^^, My three tree guides all give them as
multistemmed plants.The distinction between shrub and tree has nothing to do
with the size plants attain

To grow them, with a single trunk I assume all the side shoots have to be
removed, is this needed for the life of the plant ?

Hazel

The message
from "Hazel" contains these words:


Hazel wrote:

I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

Hazels are trees and can grow to around 10 metres
(http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.hazel.html). The ones you see as
bushes are like that as they are usually coppiced.

Brian

I will quote from the link you gave "Typically it has a number of shoots
or trunks branching out at, or just above, ground level, and this growth
habit has led to some people referring to it as a bush rather than a tree,
because it doesn't meet the strict definition for a tree, of having a
single
stem that is unbranched near the ground."

I know they grow like that ^^, My three tree guides all give them as
multistemmed plants.The distinction between shrub and tree has nothing
to do
with the size plants attain

To grow them, with a single trunk I assume all the side shoots have to be
removed, is this needed for the life of the plant ?

It would be, yes. Standard-trunk hazels would also constantly produce
suckers from below ground, which would have to be removed.

I'm wondering if what you saw were alders, far more likely to be grown
in a plantation of single trunk trees. Young alders look fairly similar
to hazel in bark and leaf.

Janet

In article ,
Brian wrote:
Hazel wrote:

I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

Hazels are trees and can grow to around 10 metres
(http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.hazel.html). The ones you see as
bushes are like that as they are usually coppiced.

This is a FAQ, but nobody has got around to writing it up.
There is no hard difference between trees and shrubs, and many
plants (like hazel and bay) are naturally "multi-stemmed trees".
At the other extreme, you get shrubs like butcher's broom,
periwinkle and brambles, which verge towards the herbaceous.

But back to hazel. It will typically grow, initially, with a
single stem. But it will also sucker, especially when the main
stem(s) are cut back. If there is enough light low down, those
suckers will form into separate stems; if not, it may continue
with a single stem. Coppicing will cause suckering, but most
hazel plants will develop multiple stems naturally.

So the answer is the combination of the plant having an established
stem and the lack of light under the canopy means that the secondary
stems do not develop.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Hazel" wrote in message
...
I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

growing as tree is what?
Or do you mean trees (plurals have no apostrophes)

In article ,
Janet Baraclough writes:
| The message
| from "Hazel" contains these words:
|
| To grow them, with a single trunk I assume all the side shoots have to be
| removed, is this needed for the life of the plant ?
|
| It would be, yes. Standard-trunk hazels would also constantly produce
| suckers from below ground, which would have to be removed.

Usually, but not always. An established hazel in a wood with a
fairly solid canopy doesn't sucker all that much, and most suckers
die off. Even my hazels (in the 'open') don't ALL sucker.

| I'm wondering if what you saw were alders, far more likely to be grown
| in a plantation of single trunk trees. Young alders look fairly similar
| to hazel in bark and leaf.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

| from "Hazel" contains these words:
|
| To grow them, with a single trunk I assume all the side shoots have
to be
| removed, is this needed for the life of the plant ?
|
| It would be, yes. Standard-trunk hazels would also constantly
produce
| suckers from below ground, which would have to be removed.

Usually, but not always. An established hazel in a wood with a
fairly solid canopy doesn't sucker all that much, and most suckers
die off. Even my hazels (in the 'open') don't ALL sucker.

| I'm wondering if what you saw were alders, far more likely to be grown
| in a plantation of single trunk trees. Young alders look fairly similar
| to hazel in bark and leaf.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

They were hazels, a photo in an article in an old copy of "Country Life"
iirc

Hazel

"Hazel" wrote in message
...
I have seen a hazel wood, the hazels are growing as tree's rather than
shrubs. How are they made this way as they are normally shrubs ?

growing as tree is what?
Or do you mean trees (plurals have no apostrophes)



As a tree, ie a single trunk

Hazel

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Janet Baraclough writes:
| The message
| from "Hazel" contains these words:
|
| To grow them, with a single trunk I assume all the side shoots
have to be
| removed, is this needed for the life of the plant ?
|
| It would be, yes. Standard-trunk hazels would also constantly produce
| suckers from below ground, which would have to be removed.

Usually, but not always. An established hazel in a wood with a
fairly solid canopy doesn't sucker all that much, and most suckers
die off. Even my hazels (in the 'open') don't ALL sucker.

I've never seen one that doesn't grow as a multi-stemmed tree/shrub
eventually, especially in a woodland environment - and yes, I've been
involved with woodland management since 1956, and I still am.

| I'm wondering if what you saw were alders, far more likely to be grown
| in a plantation of single trunk trees. Young alders look fairly similar
| to hazel in bark and leaf.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.

But managed. Then the question is, what the hell for?

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

Usually, but not always. An established hazel in a wood with a
fairly solid canopy doesn't sucker all that much, and most suckers
die off. Even my hazels (in the 'open') don't ALL sucker.

I've never seen one that doesn't grow as a multi-stemmed tree/shrub
eventually, especially in a woodland environment - and yes, I've been
involved with woodland management since 1956, and I still am.

I have. In fact, I am pretty sure I have one at present.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.

But managed. Then the question is, what the hell for?

As I say, not necessarily. If most of them were single-stemmed,
I would assume that they were planted from a clone that tends not
to sucker. I am sure that someone has selected such a clone in
the past, given natural variation and human, er, deviance.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

I've never seen one that doesn't grow as a multi-stemmed tree/shrub
eventually, especially in a woodland environment - and yes, I've been
involved with woodland management since 1956, and I still am.

I have. In fact, I am pretty sure I have one at present.

I do. Out of under a dozen.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.

But managed. Then the question is, what the hell for?

As I say, not necessarily. If most of them were single-stemmed,
I would assume that they were planted from a clone that tends not
to sucker. I am sure that someone has selected such a clone in
the past, given natural variation and human, er, deviance.

Both Bean and CTW say that Corylus avellana occasionally grows as
a tree. If there were a large number of them, I would bet on
them being cuttings taken from a largely non-suckering clone.
I agree that the question is, what the hell for?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

I've never seen one that doesn't grow as a multi-stemmed tree/shrub
eventually, especially in a woodland environment - and yes, I've been
involved with woodland management since 1956, and I still am.

I have. In fact, I am pretty sure I have one at present.

I do. Out of under a dozen.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.

But managed. Then the question is, what the hell for?

As I say, not necessarily. If most of them were single-stemmed,
I would assume that they were planted from a clone that tends not
to sucker. I am sure that someone has selected such a clone in
the past, given natural variation and human, er, deviance.

Both Bean and CTW say that Corylus avellana occasionally grows as
a tree. If there were a large number of them, I would bet on
them being cuttings taken from a largely non-suckering clone.
I agree that the question is, what the hell for?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Well, managed for their nuts would you believe.

Hazel

In article , Hazel
writes

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

I've never seen one that doesn't grow as a multi-stemmed tree/shrub
eventually, especially in a woodland environment - and yes, I've been
involved with woodland management since 1956, and I still am.

I have. In fact, I am pretty sure I have one at present.

I do. Out of under a dozen.

If they were ALL single-stemmed, that seems likely. If only SOME
were, they could still be hazels.

But managed. Then the question is, what the hell for?

As I say, not necessarily. If most of them were single-stemmed,
I would assume that they were planted from a clone that tends not
to sucker. I am sure that someone has selected such a clone in
the past, given natural variation and human, er, deviance.

Both Bean and CTW say that Corylus avellana occasionally grows as
a tree. If there were a large number of them, I would bet on
them being cuttings taken from a largely non-suckering clone.
I agree that the question is, what the hell for?


Well, managed for their nuts would you believe.

So what advantage in terms of nuts does a single stemmed tree confer
over and above a multi stemmed bush?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Both Bean and CTW say that Corylus avellana occasionally grows as
a tree.

They can be multistemmed, and still be classified as a tree.

Janet