This is my first post,I am trying to find out which Maple Tree would best fit our front yard.It is 75' wide by aprox 30' to the house.( The whole depth is 200'.) We wanted a big leaf maple, but from looking on here, it seems that would get to big for our space. We don't really care for the maples with small leaves. Any sugestions? Thanks
Big-leaved maple, as in all maples with leaves above a certain size, or bigleaf maple as in the native Acer macrophyllum? There is a narrow-crowned bigleaf maple cultivar in commerce, this still grows tall but not so wide. http://www.forestfarm.com/product.php?id=135 Otherwise, in general, the taller maples (bigleaf, Norway, silver, sugar etc.) are too much for a small place. Small-growing maples (Japanese, vine etc.) should be used instead. A big leaf on a smaller tree, with conspicuous winter bark can be had with A. tegmentosum. This is on the market here.
Might I suggest one of the Acer japonicum varieties? There are several with larger leaves and they do not get so big as our native maples. Some to consider are: A.j. Vitifolium A.j. Yama kagi A.j. Ed Woods #2 A.j. Dancing Peacock
Seems to me if you want to fill the space, 30' from the house, you could go with a smaller cultivar of x freemanii. I think K4's suggestion of japonicum 'Vitifolium', or even just the species, would fit the bill very well. 'Vitifolium' has large leaves, but otherwise isn't very different from the species. Note that until it gets established the leaves of japonicum will not get to full size. You haven't said what kind of sun the area gets, but beware of putting vine maple or tegmentosum (which actually means hidden) in full sun. Ron has as usual made great proposals, these are fine trees, but they won't tolerate too much direct sun. (Although in Portland, I suppose full sun is relative...) -E
Considering the parentage of the cross and the growth behavior of existing widely planted Freeman maple cultivars I would wonder what smaller ones there might be. There are certainly some narrow-growing ones, but small-growing I would not expect to find. Unless somebody selected and propagated a dwarf seedling for that characteristic, instead of the traits usually looked for in such trees.
Maybe, Ron. I was looking at the 30' dimension, so I suppose narrower was what I was getting at. I don't have my reference material with me and can't check until 2 wks from now. I did remember there were some smaller also, but can't recall names. -E
Catalogs and even the USNA web site understate sizes of newer introductions in particular. Lots of cultivars (of otherwise 60'+ species) that are not described as dwarf or small-growing but miraculously have nice, non-threatening "mature" sizes of 20'-30'. Especially with commercial literature at least doubling the heights indicated is liable to produce something closer to the true picture. Here's some records of some Freeman maple specimens that have been around long enough to show their colors: 'Armstong' 71' (1990) 'Armstrong' 69' (1990) 'Marmo' 75' (1985)
