Developing a Larch Forest

[The Warm Canuck]

What is the best method to start developing a Larch forest, with the goal of having something decent in 10-15 years?

I'd like to use about 10 of these larches that I have growing in the ground right now. The trees are between 2-5 years old. Is it best to grow them out individually, then closer to each tree is more refined plant them as a group? or put them right in a forest planting box and develop them as a group right from the get go?

I see so many multiple sticks in a box, forest plantings and I'd like to avoid that.

 

[NaoTK]

My advice is to do both:

Have 2-3 trees in solitary pots and let these get tall and thicken up. These will be the main trees. Wire out the branching.
The other trees are filler trees, they can be the same or similar size and the branch positioning is less important. Actually, its good to grow these close together and repot them together as a clump.

When you actually compose your forest you will start with your main trees and utilize the positioned branches for the design of the forest. Then you fill in with the filler trees and wire it out.

 

[Deep Sea Diver]

Agree with @NaoTK .

A couple notes. The issue with ground growing larches etc is they get thick, out of scale with longer internodes fairly quickly. When we prep for a forest build usually have all the trees in two sized pots, larger and smaller 1-2 years before.

Here’s a thread made of Ezo forest construction a couple years ago, showing steps. It may be of some help to you.

Cheers
DSD sends

 

[The Warm Canuck]

Agree with @NaoTK .

A couple notes. The issue with ground growing larches etc is they get thick, out of scale with longer internodes fairly quickly. When we prep for a forest build usually have all the trees in two sized pots, larger and smaller 1-2 years before.

Here’s a thread made of Ezo forest construction a couple years ago, showing steps. It may be of some help to you.

Cheers
DSD sends

This is perfect, thank you so much for this. I'm going to review your Thread well today and come up with a plan for next year. Prepare yourself for a barrage of questions

 

[johng]

I have zero experience with Larch but much experience with creating group plantings. You will have a much better forest if you work to develop the trees before they are assembled together. Nao's advice is good. If you want a group with 10 trees you ought to be developing at least 20-25. I would stress growing some of these in clumps of 2s and 3s...plant groups so that you have some that move to the left and some to the right. Strive to develop a vast size variation. You will need far more small trees than larger trees...20% large trees and 80% med and small trees. Grow them out in shallow containers so that they have a shallow root mass and can be easily transitioned into a shallow container. Prune the material frequently...build lots of branches realizing that some number of branches will be removed to accommodate planting them close together in the final planting. In general try to develop similar trunks and branches for most of the material. Straight trunks and downward sloping branches would be one option. Curved trunks are much more difficult to arrange in a pleasing fashion as a group. In my opinion putting together a forest of small trees and trying to grow them into a pleasing arrangement, like DSD is doing with the EZO, is far more difficult and challenging than developing the trees individually and then assembly more developed material. In spite of our best efforts, how a tree develops over time is not always in our control and when you put them all together in the same container you further reduce your ability to monitor and adjust growing conditions.

 

[The Warm Canuck]

My advice is to do both:

Have 2-3 trees in solitary pots and let these get tall and thicken up. These will be the main trees. Wire out the branching.
The other trees are filler trees, they can be the same or similar size and the branch positioning is less important. Actually, its good to grow these close together and repot them together as a clump.

When you actually compose your forest you will start with your main trees and utilize the positioned branches for the design of the forest. Then you fill in with the filler trees and wire it out.

I have zero experience with Larch but much experience with creating group plantings. You will have a much better forest if you work to develop the trees before they are assembled together. Nao's advice is good. If you want a group with 10 trees you ought to be developing at least 20-25. I would stress growing some of these in clumps of 2s and 3s...plant groups so that you have some that move to the left and some to the right. Strive to develop a vast size variation. You will need far more small trees than larger trees...20% large trees and 80% med and small trees. Grow them out in shallow containers so that they have a shallow root mass and can be easily transitioned into a shallow container. Prune the material frequently...build lots of branches realizing that some number of branches will be removed to accommodate planting them close together in the final planting. In general try to develop similar trunks and branches for most of the material. Straight trunks and downward sloping branches would be one option. Curved trunks are much more difficult to arrange in a pleasing fashion as a group. In my opinion putting together a forest of small trees and trying to grow them into a pleasing arrangement, like DSD is doing with the EZO, is far more difficult and challenging than developing the trees individually and then assembly more developed material. In spite of our best efforts, how a tree develops over time is not always in our control and when you put them all together in the same container you further reduce your ability to monitor and adjust growing conditions.

Growing the smaller trees in small clumps and growing the largest main trees individually, makes a lot of sense to me. It seems like it would give me the most control over the growth and offer options down the road, based on the final characteristics of trees. It seems to me that I would be developing the main trees basically as formal/informal uprights, with lots of branching options for the final design?

It also seems like at this point there's not much point in growing the smallest trees. I'll plan on growing about 3 large and 3 groups of 3-4, medium trees. Does that make sense? Once I get a few years close to when i want to group the final planting, I can start growing the smaller ones?

 

[jeremy_norbury]

Agreed - I've got a lot of larches and I've done exactly that:

1. grow a few out,
2. add others to fill
3. in and get them together at some point to develop.

I have an album here : https://www.flickr.com/photos/norbury/albums/72157694198999965/

 

[Deep Sea Diver]

Lots of good ideas from folks, sift through these to make your forest as you desire.

A couple things to point out…. The question is whether one wants to make a natural looking bonsai, or go abstract.

Don’t know how eastern larches grow for in nature although I have seen a lot of images, for example. Note straight up…



My experience is 1000’s of hours hiking amongst Western Larches, Redwoods, Firs, Spruces, Hemlocks etc. in the Western states and Alaska.

In nature 99.9% of the trees are razor straight unless they have been knocked over. Occasionally they may be pistol butted, yet not as much as many other trees. Also the old forest giant larches often get their tops knocked off by lightening strikes and windstorms, being as they are above the canopy. Then they broom up, sort like a redwood does.

Here’s an image of a western Larches forest setting. Note razor straight. Same on a slope.



Note how these trees don’t have the classic Japanese confir style with every one of the branches going down?

Anyway the point is making a larch forest with “trunk movement” wouldn’t look natural, at least to me. But if one wants to take artist license and make the trees in a Classical Japanese style.

The real difference in larches forests is the branches themselves, especially the older trees in the open. The trunks basically grow up, unsleeping they have been knocked around in storms, snow pressure and avalanches. Then the trunks go back up for that point. The branches are a different story, helter skelter, missing here, short there, long here, and clustered in certain areas…mostly the top.

No matter if one makes a forest of groups, or of individual trees of different ages, imho the amount of work done is pretty much the same. No matter, it’s basically clip and grow. However letting the trees grow together can actually save one time as the trees natural interaction will help create more natural image.

Btw, The Ezo forest was patterned using Saburo Kato’s method. Mr Kato was a highly respected Japanese master who specialized in forest plantings.

Good luck on your project.

Cheers
DSD sends

 

[The Warm Canuck]

Lots of good ideas from folks, sift through these to make your forest as you desire.

A couple things to point out…. The question is whether one wants to make a natural looking bonsai, or go abstract.

Don’t know how eastern larches grow for in nature although I have seen a lot of images, for example. Note straight up…

View attachment 569376

My experience is 1000’s of hours hiking amongst Western Larches, Redwoods, Firs, Spruces, Hemlocks etc. in the Western states and Alaska.

In nature 99.9% of the trees are razor straight unless they have been knocked over. Occasionally they may be pistol butted, yet not as much as many other trees. Also the old forest giant larches often get their tops knocked off by lightening strikes and windstorms, being as they are above the canopy. Then they broom up, sort like a redwood does.

Here’s an image of a western Larches forest setting. Note razor straight. Same on a slope.

View attachment 569383

Note how these trees don’t have the classic Japanese confir style with every one of the branches going down?

Anyway the point is making a larch forest with “trunk movement” wouldn’t look natural, at least to me. But if one wants to take artist license and make the trees in a Classical Japanese style.

The real difference in larches forests is the branches themselves, especially the older trees in the open. The trunks basically grow up, unsleeping they have been knocked around in storms, snow pressure and avalanches. Then the trunks go back up for that point. The branches are a different story, helter skelter, missing here, short there, long here, and clustered in certain areas…mostly the top.

No matter if one makes a forest of groups, or of individual trees of different ages, imho the amount of work done is pretty much the same. No matter, it’s basically clip and grow. However letting the trees grow together can actually save one time as the trees natural interaction will help create more natural image.

Btw, The Ezo forest was patterned using Saburo Kato’s method. Mr Kato was a highly respected Japanese master who specialized in forest plantings.

Good luck on your project.

Cheers
DSD sends

I really appreciate your perspective on this. I agree, if one is trying to imitate a true representative of a larch forest found in nature, then the trees would be dead straight without sloped down branches. Your Ezo forest is great representation of this, and I think it's on it's way to be a great work.

As you said, it ultimately boils down to artistic perspective. Personally, in this case, I like the idea of using Larch as a mock White Pine from nature. Due to Larches deciduous nature and quick growth, I have found it easier to manipulate them then coniferous stock. From my research of Bonsai forests; It seems to me that if a larch is just left to it's natural growth habits, it won't translate into a convincing piece (just from the limited internet searches I have done). It seems that if the larches are trained more informally, they appear more convincing. However, I am newer to Bonsai and am only giving my opinion as I see it at this time in my journey.

An examples of what I'm going for would be this amazing Nick Lenz's piece:



The trees are still left pretty straight, however, they still have some movement and the branches have a downward slope.
I guess the best representation in nature, of what I'm going for, would be an old White Pine Forest:


Don't get me wrong Eastern White Pine are mostly very straight, but the real old ones, at least in my area, have some movement. Here's a good example:

 

[NaoTK]

I am a proponent of not making "so what?" trees or compositions. These are trees that are just static trees and you see them at a show and say So What. If we are going to go through the trouble of bonsai'ing something, it should be interesting or tell a story; have some dynamism. A bunch of straight trees is beautiful and natural, but I've seen that movie 100 times, so to make it interesting it needs to have a wide range of trunk calipers or an overwhelming density of trees to avoid being a So What. Age can make it interesting but that takes time. Trees that are slightly bending and fighting for light (like the Lenz example, sans tank) is interesting.

 

[Deep Sea Diver]

Imho there is space for everything in the bonsai world. So I’m open to all ideas.

One thing I know in life and bonsai is one has to be true to oneself.

The Nick Lenz composition is a valid representation of nature of larches in a hilly tairn. It isn’t stylistic or different by any means. Seen that image many times in the Cascades…

…and yes the trees are straight…. And I love the composition!

One of the big things about forests is the trees should be basically in harmony in the design. Taking a solitary or edge example and creating multiple trees following that example in a forest could work, but isn’t for the faint hearted… and not for a first forest

Looking forward to seeing your work!

Cheers
DSD sends

 

[rusticana]

What is the best method to start developing a Larch forest, with the goal of having something decent in 10-15 years?

I'd like to use about 10 of these larches that I have growing in the ground right now. The trees are between 2-5 years old. Is it best to grow them out individually, then closer to each tree is more refined plant them as a group? or put them right in a forest planting box and develop them as a group right from the get go?

I see so many multiple sticks in a box, forest plantings and I'd like to avoid that.

View attachment 569251

Of course the trees will get thicker and grow faster with the most resources available to them. But youve got so many? You could start your practice now. With say 5? 10 is a lot? I have a larch forest over 25 years old. Dug up as sapling the side of the Transcanada near Sudbury. It quickly became a nice little forest. But as you can tell its been slow going allways being in a pot.
My advice to you is grow most along to get some girth quickly. But also start 5 out before next spring and get into it right away.

 

[leatherback]

Key importance is to ensure variation in sizes. If you now have trees there with 2 inch bases than you are probably good to go and start preparing for composing the forest. Size is not everything though, and reducing pruning marks and developing some taper can help later on, as I found in the forest below; The ugly rreduction cuts remain obvious a long time.. Keep an open mind: in a few years, you could add a few young trees to the composition.

This forest I put together maybe 5 or so years ago. And since the picture I inserted a few pencil thick trees on the side and in the back to increase the range and enhance the feel of a free-standing group of trees. The picture is 2 years old; I cannot find a more recent one oddly enough. Since then I have done significant pruning. I did do a repotting video on this forest which show it without its clothes..

I started with a very mature larch as the start and searched for smaller trees to put around, in at least 3 different size classes. The setup below is the original one. Keep in mind you will have to do serious root reduction. It might be beneficial to keep them in pots for a bit, and do major trimming, get them stable and then plant up. I had to replace one tree because I killed one