Re: Laurus nobilis, was Tall, thin screen
Nan,
Here's another vote against Laurus nobilis.
My tree was identified by several tree 'experts' as Laurus nobilis not
Umbellularia
californica. I can't confirm it.
It was planted in 1960 so I've been told. It didn't start suckering until about
10 years ago and that may be in response to armellaria sp & ? spelling, I mean
Oak root fungus, which now fruits completely around the trunk in November and
December. The trunk is about 2 feet in diameter. The tree is at least 30 feet
tall. I've had it inspected by a couple of plant pathologists who say the tree
is in no danger of falling so I've no excuse to cut it down and grow a persimmon
or some other useful tree. My advice to others has been to grow Laurus nobilis
in a container.
I like Michael Larmer's idea, only with a Passionflower vine. There are some
real beauties that grow in your climate.
Liz W
" an adequate trellis can be constructed of galvanized posts
set every eight or ten feet and then strung with fence wire."
John MacGregor wrote:
> > My experience of Lauris nobilis is that it suckers fearfully (I grow
> > one only as a container plant for this reason). Do you perhaps have a
> > non-suckering form
>
>
> This is the first I have ever heard of Laurus nobilis suckering. I have
> grown it for 30 years in Southern California, as single plants and as hedge,
> in several different gardens, including in the Shakespeare Garden at the
> Huntington Botanical Gardens where I used to be chief horticulturist.
> Occasionally a branch lies on the ground and layers itself, but nary a
> sucker. Are you sure we are talking about the same plant? California Bay,
> Umbellularia californica, has been known to sucker.
>
> John MacGregor
> jonivy@earthlink.net
