Pup wrote:Bringing up an old chestnut. Just re read this post, I noticed that no one really answered the question, why Australian tend to grow taller trees.
In the northern hemisphere the trees used can be seen growing naturally, small and stunted.
I Australia our trees mostly grow tall, so we like our counter parts in the north subconciely follow what we see.
Just my
Pup
Thank you for bumping this thread. I've not come across this thread before and that was a very interesting read.
Well said Pup, but I don't think 6:1 applies to every tree in the Northern Hemisphere either. I don't ever recall seeing an American Redwood or a Swamp Cypress even coming close to a 6 : 1
ratio. It can quite easily be more like 20 : 1 or even 30 : 1 and they look trully fantastic.
Likewise, Eucalyptus / Casuarina can often have enormous
ratio differences of
trunk to height ratios. Eucalyptus in particular can be 40 : 1
Suggesting that 6 : 1 is an aesthetical ideal bench mark is ludicrous in my opinion.
I too prefer the look of a well structured taller tree, over a shorter stump. But it still simply depends on the species in my opinion. A lot of figs are naturally wide based at the
trunk, and this may be a better
ratio, but a lot of our other native material are relatively thin at the base, compared to their height.
A 6:1
ratio is simply generalizing and not helpful at all....
)-but surely "if you understand horticulture and plant physics,and you have an artistic eye" you don't need to learn the rules --- because you already have.-----but perhaps in all this we probably should just substitute the word ,"rules" for the word "Knowledge"
is that trees in the open are far shorter per width than trees in a forest will be. Same applies to bonsai, Our trees are typically shown in isolation so when designed with that in mind, they will be proportionally shorter than naturally growing trees .
