Do "ornamental trees and shrubs" have a place on a properly maintained course?

[PCCraig]

My club currently has approximately 1300 trees on its roughly 90 acre golf course site. Of that 1300, approximately 120 are ash trees and will be removed within the next two or three years. Other than ash trees, the club and its green committee acknowledges that the course has too many trees and has taken out a fair amount of trees over the past 5 years which were located close to greensites. While many understand that the course has too many trees, most if not all believe that trees are still needed in many locations due to safety as the course is very old and many holes run close to each other.

There is a movement within the club's green committee to replace removed trees with "ornamental trees and shrubs" the latter of which would be planted in highly visible places to "increase the beauty of the course", but in places that would be "unlikely" to come into play very often. One tree mentioned is a serviceberry, which is a small flowering tree that will be placed in a 20ft area between a tee and a green.

Generally speaking, I have no idea what that means and am struggling to think of other prominent courses that have "ornamental" elements other than maybe AGNC's azaleas. Can anyone else on here speak to these types of trees/bushes on golf courses? Are they a part of a properly maintained golf course?

[Brent Hutto]

My club has several embankments here and there planted in Azaleas. Often it will be the side of a hill that's maybe 20, 30, 40 yards behind a green. Or off to the side of the actual routing of the course, like between a tee box and some houses that are setback 100 yards from the course. That sort of thing. If any of that stuff is in play it would only be when you blow a ball way over a green.

An exception would be the ninth hole where we have a huge planting of azaleas plus a couple of pine trees acting as a buffer between the back of the ninth green and a cart path that runs from the clubhouse over to the tee box on another nine. I hate that bunch because you're playing a 100, 150 even 200 yard severely uphill approach shot where the back half of the green is blind and it is totally easy to fly or bounce the ball over the green. From the back edge of the green there's like four paces of rough then a steep falloff down into those azaleas. I lose two or three balls a year back there (actually I always find them but it's an unplayable lie).

Anyway, with that one exception I love having them there. For a couple months in the spring the course is glorious. And even that ninth hole would be fine if there were, say, 20 paces worth of rough to catch balls over the green instead of just 10-15 feet.

We also have Mimosa trees in a couple places that are lovely and attract hummingbirds. Some of them are just over to the side of tee boxes but there is one that's in play guarding the outside of a slight dogleg-right Par 4. But they keep it limbed up eight feet off the ground and do a good job of keeping any branches or leaves that fall from building up in the rough under the tree. So it's really just another tree that 10 yards to the left of where you'd want to hit your tee shot anyway.

[Rick Shefchik]

As a guy who finds golf courses beautiful by themselves, I wouldn't be pushing for ornamental trees and shrubs. But knowing your course history (famous for the garden left of the first fairway in earlier days) and knowing how close the holes are to each other, I don't think I'd object to serviceberry shrubs like this, as long as they were intelligently placed:



At least you've got a better chance of playing out of these than a pine tree, and I'm sure they don't suppress the surrounding grass like a pine.

[jeffwarne]

Our golf course had roughly 14 out of 18 holes carved out of a forest of scrub oak trees and native mountain laurel.
all 18 holes + the large expanse of property on and around our property had mountain laurel which can grew naturally and frankly out of control at the elevation we are at.
In June it blooms for about 3 weeks and is spectacular, particularly now that we've pruned it to manageable levels opening incredible native areas of lowlying  bluestem,blueberry, and bayberry bushes, and opened multiple water and golf course, views and further exposing the course to the already prevelant winds.
There are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of native mountain laurel bushes/plants/trees on the 525 acre property

Anyway, a Golf Digest rater cornered me after playing the course and wanted to know how much money we had spent planting the property in the "azaleas"

[Sean_A]

If a club is going to plant trees they may as well be attractive and indigenous to the area, however, if there is  money floating about I can't help but wonder if it couldn't be spent on the playability of the course.  

I would caution against trees for safety.  Unless its a horrible willow (or another huge type tree) or some sort of horrible leylandii hedge, trees really provide a feeling of safety, but don't actually provide safety.  If there is any dangerous shot it is better to keep sight lines open so golfers can be aware of the danger.  Obviously, boundaries are a different matter.  I would also caution against planting any trees near tees or greens.  They eventually get bigger and need to then be dealt with.  I would also caution against trees which drop leaves.  I would also caution against trees which block nice interior views.  Essentially, trees can often become a headache for later committees.  

I guess shrubs are okay if they are miles out of the playing area, but not many shrubs are really attractive enough for long enough against how ugly they are the rest of the time.  

Ciao

[Brad Klein]

PCraig,

I have read dozens of such planting programs for golf courses to beautify them -- most of them from the 1960s. If you plant ornamentals you get stuck a lot with monotone green after spring and before fall, thus through much of the golf season. Plus you interrupt the horizon line of the property as your eye attempts to scan across it. Ornamentals et al work in clusters, as copses or groves or in distinct beds and on the perimeter of the courses. But when scattered t/o the golf course they destroy any harmonic sense of the land and make everything look like the same limited vista. If you want such seasonal beauty, go visit a botanical garden or arboretum. You'll notice that they don't play golf there.

I vote "no."

[Jeff_Brauer]

When I get to do a landscape plan, and the idea is to have some highlight areas, I do what Pat says they are doing.  You obviously try to minimize it to keep maintenance down.

You might have one highlight area by the clubhouse where everyone can see it. 

You might have two or three more in high traffic areas where tees are clustered, and golfers get to see the same area twice, perhaps from different sides.

Lastly, I draw sight lines from every tee.  Where 2 or more cross is usually a good place for an ornamental cluster so again, it can be viewed several times.

Are they required?  No.  Do some courses benefit from them?  Probably so.

The problems include some regions don't have long flowering trees.  In TX, we can use Crepe Myrtle for all summer flowers.  It may not be worth it for just a few weeks of flowers in spring.

These trees also typically use more water than turf in most cases, and as drought restrictions kick in, they might suffer, leading to removal.  Moving forward, there will sure be less of these.

[John Mayhugh]

I have read dozens of such planting programs for golf courses to beautify them -- most of them from the 1960s.

Pat,
I'm glad I read your post after lunch.

Would be great if Brad could see your club and talk to the green committee.  I love his comment above.

[Jason Topp]

Pat:

My approach to such issues is to let others have their flowers.  It distracts them from messing with the golf course.

[Jud_T]

   
Do "ornamental trees and shrubs" have a place on a properly maintained course?

No.  Time for a little night putting.....with chainsaws....

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Highly recommend the USGA Turf Advisory Service where a USGA agronomist can work with the greens committee to make informed choices when managing golf course plantings.

http://www.usga.org/course_care/turf_advisory_service/Turf-Advisory-Service/


Plantings not only compete with the turf but can aversely effect air circulation and can have other undesirable effects.

http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/management/trees/Man-s-Friend-or-Golf-s-Enemy-/

[Carl Johnson]

I think they're o.k., if worked in as part of a "natural" landscape plan that is suitable to the geographical location of the course and are native to the area.  For example, if the course has been built on a ground that once was woodlands that included dogwoods and serviceberry trees, then placing a few of these trees here and there as a remnant of the woodland, in a way that looked natural rather than formal, and did not come into play, would be fine with me.  Personally, I planted several serviceberry trees at the side of my house that borders a national forest.  They're in the forest, so bringing a couple into the yard works for me.  It would be the same for me on a golf course.  I'd say the same for perenial wildflowers, such as goldenrod, black-eyed susans and cone flowers, popping up here and there in a "natural" area on a course.

Also, I agree that "safety" is not a good excuse to have trees.  They may provide a false sense of security, among other things, while at the same time not being reasonably effective.  My club is also an old club on a small piece of property.  Several years ago we took out many, many trees, of which many had been originally planted for "safety" reasons.  The tree removal has not, in my view, created a safety issue.  By the way, at an event at our course in the past week a PGA rules official told me that he had never been to our course before, and wondered whether we had lots of golfers being hit by errant shots because everything was so close together.  I told him it was not a problem.  I think the problem, and the tree line solution, is more imagined than real.

P.S.  My understanding is that the name "serviceberry" (a/k/a "sarvisberry" in the mountains of West Virginia) derives from the fact that they are very early bloomers, the first out in the mountains in the spring, and the flowers were therefore used to decorate for church services, when the circuit riding preacher first came through in the spring to take care of deaths, births and marriages that had happended over the winter when he could not get over the mountains and into the hollows.  True or not, that was the tale I was told many years ago as a child in West Virginia.

[Bill_Yates]

Brad,

Amen..............Corner

[Kalen Braley]

Yes they do belong.....all hail Augusta!!

[Carl Johnson]

Yes they do belong.....all hail Augusta!!

Actually, they do belong at Augusta, because they define Augusta.  The whole place is unique, from it's Magnolia Lane, to its clubhouse and cottages, its pimento cheese sandwiches, its membership policies, it's weed-free landscape, its flowering trees and bushes.  But that does not mean the rest of us must mimic Augusta.  In fact, I'd argue the opposite.  We should try to avoid mimicing Augusta, so it can stand out, alone.

[Kris Shreiner]

Properly placed, and with wise selections, they certainly can add to the aesthetics of a golf property. A less is more mentality, with the:  superintendent, consulting architect and a certified, knowledgeable arborist collaborating...you generally will get wise decisions. It is the fast fading, but still occasionally persistent "beautification mantra," with the willy nilly approach...that is the urge to purge.

Brad's call on clusters in appropriate areas, with staggered blooming periods from different varieties, having the select, stand alone specimans used sparingly, should make for a complimentary, quality presentation. But NOT on a links (even faux efforts ) course, or anywhere else they don't fit!

Cheers,
Kris

[jeffwarne]

Yes they do belong.....all hail Augusta!!

Actually, they do belong at Augusta, because they define Augusta.  The whole place is unique, from it's Magnolia Lane, to its clubhouse and cottages, its pimento cheese sandwiches, its membership policies, it's weed-free landscape, its flowering trees and bushes.  But that does not mean the rest of us must mimic Augusta.  In fact, I'd argue the opposite.  We should try to avoid mimicing Augusta, so it can stand out, alone.

Well that and Fruitlands nursery was one of the premier nurseries in the south prior to becoming ANGC

[Carl Johnson]

Yes they do belong.....all hail Augusta!!

Actually, they do belong at Augusta, because they define Augusta.  The whole place is unique, from it's Magnolia Lane, to its clubhouse and cottages, its pimento cheese sandwiches, its membership policies, it's weed-free landscape, its flowering trees and bushes.  But that does not mean the rest of us must mimic Augusta.  In fact, I'd argue the opposite.  We should try to avoid mimicing Augusta, so it can stand out, alone.

From jeffwarne:

Well that and Fruitlands nursery was one of the premier nurseries in the south prior to becoming ANGC

I'm smiling.  Great catch.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There is a movement within the club's green committee to replace removed trees with "ornamental trees and shrubs" the latter of which would be planted in highly visible places to "increase the beauty of the course", but in places that would be "unlikely" to come into play very often.

YIKES !
THE FEMINIZATION OF GOLF COURSES IN AMERICA

One tree mentioned is a serviceberry, which is a small flowering tree that will be placed in a 20ft area between a tee and a green.

WHY ?[/b]

Generally speaking, I have no idea what that means and am struggling to think of other prominent courses that have "ornamental" elements other than maybe AGNC's azaleas.

Can anyone else on here speak to these types of trees/bushes on golf courses? Are they a part of a properly maintained golf course?

Lehigh spent an inordinate amount of their operating budget on Ill advised ornamental plantings.

ANGC puts on a unique televised event, an entertainment special that shouldn't be compared with any local club.

Plantings require maintenance.
The money would be better spent trying to achieve fast & firm conditions.which would benefit every golfer's game instead of contributing to their allergies 

[Kris Shreiner]

Beauty hardly equals feminization.  We've all seen striking trees, flowering or otherwise, on golf courses. So long as it doesn't compromise play, or create significant, unwanted turf problems, why should there be an issue? I'm in a business where we often remove them..for a living. There are times when they need to go, and times when appropriate, well-placed additions ENHANCE a setting.

The Lehigh undertaking probably didn't have: the superintendent, consulting architect, and quality, KNOWLEDGE-BASED arborist combination working together. There doesn't have to be a lot of cost, or extensive aftercare attached to that, if it's thought out properly and the right selections are made.

Most flowering ornamentals are modest sized and don't present the large canopy, shading and turf issues. With good, low pest and disease resistent choices, they can function quite well in a golf course environment. Tavistock in New Jersey, for example, has some wonderful hillside plantings that have a attractive, yet random look, which interferes with play or turf not one iota.

Lancaster CC has some fine perimeter ornamentals that certainly add to the presentation. Their stately Sycamores, hugging the streamside, TOTALLY add to what already is an exceptional string of holes along that river, lowland area. In short, trees have their place in golf...just not the WRONG place.

Cheers,
Kris

P.S.- I think an individual's particular taste(s) also influences their views on this subject, which is fine.
 

[Craig Sweet]

Its been pointed out, some areas are limited as to what will grow...in Montana we have issues with aphids and animals (the fruit attracts deer and bears)...fortunately, our ornamental trees are on the fringes of the property except for a few flw. plums that are in turn around islands near cart paths...

I use to think flowering trees on a golf course was a great idea...not so sure anymore.