Trees: A Question for the Architects

[Pat Howard]

How much do you architects out there consider the trees  your are planting on your courses? And by 'consider the trees' I mean not the placement of them, but rather the species of trees that you are planting or planning on having planted.

I had never really paid much attention to them other than thinking "Don't hit it in those trees" or "Aim at that tree and fade it" ...etc. But today while playing the 9th hole at Overlake CC where I work, I realized how much better it is to be in the trees to the right of the fairway with a missed shot than in the trees to the left of the fairway. And this is based solely on the species of trees found on the hole, nothing to do with angles to the green.

The left ones are Scotch Pines, not very easy to play out/around/through as the branches are very thick and almost touch the ground, while the ones on the right are White Birch, very thin and easy to negotiate.

Do the types of trees factor much into the design of a golf hole? Just curious...

-I'll post some pics of the hole when I get a chance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

On most courses, we may do a conceptual landscape plan, but there are no funds to plant immediately.  Based on the region, we may show masses of trees, suggest spacing, and give a broad list of trees that should be used for "Canopy Trees", "Small Ornamental Trees" or decorative shrubs (usually out of play) There has to be some flexibility because in the future, when the super goes out to follow the plan (if he follows the plan) a particular species may be unavailable or too expensive.

In that acceptable tree list, I do consider playability, generally favoring high branching trees that allow recovery.  (Now that may come from my college summer job on a course, when looking backwards, I managed to get knocked right off a tractor by a low hanging tree limb, much to the amusement of the regular employees)

[Marty Bonnar]

Pat,
it takes a person with enormous skill to envisage what trees will look like when they are mature (and for our interest, how they might add or detract from the strategy of a golf hole!)

Those SCOTS Pines you speak of will lose their lower limbs over time and will be easily played out from given a nice soft straw-covered lie:



That certain Augusta course even imports straw, doesn't it!

FBD.

[Pat Howard]

Martin,

I wish that was the case, but ours look more like this:




And they're pretty hard to get out of!

As for what they'll look like several years down the line, I think that by looking at a mature version of the same species you can get a pretty good idea. Sure the size and shape vary somewhat, but I'm more interested in the playability standpoint of each species, such as high vs. low branching or thin vs. thick leafing Jeff mentioned above.

[ward peyronnin]

Pat

The species must be considered. Certainly Maples out compete turf and drop whirylbirds and other debris; Sweetgum drop their spike balls.

But the worst misstep I have seen was some idiot planting a Black Walnut over a greenside bunker; hundreds of serious loose impediments in play in the fall.

Northeast evergreens require experience i don't have but its about having fun out there and playability and whatever spacing and looser forms of growth can be tailored to that would be the way to go. I would say from the picture those plants will need thinning out in the next 5-10m years at best and you could probably start now rather than later and make the holes more playable