Should I Ditch this Norway Maple?

[paghat]

The enormous garden I'm reworking has a sapling Norway maple planted on the property line & my first inclination upon spotting it was to get rid of it. There are hundreds of spots all around this property that need attention and I have to be conservative about removing stuff that has already been done, but I just think the future dominance of this tree could in a decade be a nuisance to maintaining substory plants or fruiting trees. The owners of the place pretty much trust whatever I decide, but there's so much that I'm uncertain about, & maybe I'm over-reacting to not like this sapling & for predicting it'll be a crummy tree someday. Anyone with a big Norway maple in their yard that they now wish someone dug up & discarded back when it was still a sapling? Anyone who has abject praise for theirs?

-paghat the ratgirl

[Dan]

If the bark is brown and the leaves turn yellow in fall & closely resemble sugar maples then yes, get rid of it. By the roots, if possible.

Decade? try a year or two....norways grow 5 feet per year in good conditions. Buying a true sugar maple to replace it would be a great idea.

Dan

[Christopher Green]

Norway Maple isn't exactly choice, though it's not a g**d**n weed like Box Elder or Silver Maple. Its faults are hyperaggressive roots and harboring aphids. It's one of the trees that I'd make sure wasn't planted near a drain line.

You'll need to envision whether a 20-meter tree (in not too many years) that competes viciously with anything you try to plant under or near it ultimately belongs where it is. In other words, if you want to use that place just for a specimen tree, it's not actually a bad choice, but if you want the place where it is for other purposes, the Norway Maple may as well go, and it will be no great loss.

[Stephen M. Henning]

My neighbor has large Norway maples and there is a row of Norway maple seedlings along the property line. They are considered a noxious invasive plant and I know why. Their leaves are a big mess. Nothing grows under them. They don't look bad, but they create so many problems that they are not worth the battle. My advice would be to take care of the problem while it is small.

[Mike LaMana]

By all means, in every case, lose the damned Norway maple! This tree adds nothing to the urban or suburban forest, and is nothing but a noxious invader. I have never seen a Norway that could not have been replaced with a better (usually native) species.

ML

[paghat]

A concensus surely has arisen -- thanks to you, Mike L., Christopher & Dan

-- & anyone who adds their own sentiments later. I get squeemish guilty feelings when I decide to destroy a tree, so glad to be seconded & thirded on this decision.

-paghat the ratgirl

[Dan]

Our local community college (up here in Sussex County) has tons of the damn things on the property. Some of the ones closer to the academic halls STILL HAVE THEIR (partially) GREEN LEAVES (most native trees lost their leaves around here over four WEEKS ago). I'm going to recommend the school try & remove them, I don't think anyone's brought it to their attention just yet.

The only major problem with removal would be erosion. The school is built on a steep hill, and much of that is being held back by maple roots.

Dan nw NJ

[Mike LaMana]

The fact that these weeds keep their leaves so long is their only saving grace: About mid-October I used to send my crews out to "...cut down all the trees that still had their leaves on". Makes restoration ecology a tad easier.

In all seriousness, the dense, shallow root mat does serve a decent soil conservation function, but especially in Sussex Co. this could be as well achieved with Sugar maple. Go figure...

ML