Golf’s Tumultuous Relationship with Trees

By Jeff Mingay

Trees are an integral part of the Canadian landscape, and thus a component in our golf course settings. Certain types of trees, like those majestic old elms that once dominated the golfing landscape in North America, add tremendous character to a golf hole.

Elms are the ideal golf tree. Not only are they impressive in appearance, their high, vase-shaped canopy doesn’t interfere with a golf swing. And they’re deep rooters that don’t impede ball striking, mowing or carts.

When Dutch elm disease wiped out a large number of elms on courses across the continent during the 1950s and ‘60s, golfers panicked. In response to the epidemic, short sighted, haphazard tree planting programs orchestrated by well-intentioned yet misinformed “beautification committees” were rampantly instigated.

“Instant effect” was too often the goal, and as a result, inexpensive, fast-growing species – like evergreens, poplars, and willows – were planted without consideration of future effects. The results have been overwhelming negative. Today, we find too many tight, tree lined courses cluttered with inferior species trees that detract from the golfing experience and impede the game.

The three-dimensional nature of a tree has a tremendous impact on errant golfers, particularly high handicappers who benefit from some lateral forgiveness. Trees also inhibit better players from demonstrating skilful recovery play, which is an integral and exciting aspect of the game. Furthermore, tight tree lined holes do not assist in differentiating the best golfers from the rest, because everyone, regardless of ability, will spend at least part of the round chipping sideways from behind trees.

The world’s great courses are designed around ground features. The master architects of yesterday and today set-up optional routes of play by thoughtfully angling and tilting greens and placing bunkers to break up the direct line to the hole. Stray golfers are penalized through angles, sand, and other traditional two-dimensional hazards. Very rarely, if ever do trees factor into the strategy of a properly designed hole.

Still, at the club level, architectural reasons rarely justify tree removal, which is why informed advocates approach the issue from an agronomic perspective. After all, most golfers are more concerned about turf quality than design intent, and poor quality turf is very often attributable to an over-abundance of trees, particularly around greens and tees.

The root system of a tree normally spreads out to cover an area significantly larger than the circumference of its canopy. So, likely, the roots of a big tree 15-20 feet from a green are under the putting surface, stealing water and other nutrients from turf grass. Trees also inhibit morning sunlight from reaching the ground, warming the soil, and promoting turf grass growth. They block the type of air flow required for photosynthesis as well. And, without exposure to wind and sunlight, turf grass cannot dry following rain and will naturally suffer in damp conditions.

Golfers only need to look in their own backyards to see how difficult it is to grow healthy grass amongst trees. And still, the point is lost on those who have grown accustom to the presence of trees on their home course and continually take the efforts of the golf course superintendent for granted.

Education is key, and some outside advice from arbitrary third-party experts can help take some of the heat off of club officials. A comprehensive tree management plan devised by a golf architect in conjunction with the golf course superintendent, and perhaps an arborist, is a valuable asset to any course.

Most intelligent tree plans are based on “selective tree management,” which involves the removal and replacement of undesirable trees. In other words, removing junk and clutter opens space for desirable species: indigenous hardwoods, properly located, and adequately spaced in indigenous arrangements.

It’s important to use native species. Because they are acclimated to the site, they tend to live longer than non-indigenous trees (like evergreens for example), and are more apt to grow into impressive specimens if given adequate room to thrive.

Trees are an emotional issue. Many golfers will initially be wary, if not outright opposed to any tree removal on their home course. However, precedent suggests that once the positive results of a “selective tree management” program become apparent, those in opposition will unanimously embrace the project. Some will even claim the idea to be their own!

After all, fewer trees on a golf course ease the burden on the maintenance budget, provide for improved turf conditions, improve aesthetics, enhance the strategies of a well-designed course, and return some freedom to recover from poor shots and hazards.

Is there a rational golfer who could argue with these benefits and intelligently dispute that a few trees, here and there, need to come down?

Appears in the February 2003 issue of GreenMaster magazine