Flowering ivy is an excellent source of nectar for various invertebrates. Definitely to be encouraged. I have some qualms though about the invasive prostrate form 'Hibernica'. This was planted as an ornamental by the Victorians and is now very common in woodlands in towns and cities and urban fringe areas. I recently noticed how, in a local woodland nature reserve, it dominates the woodland floor and seems to have completely smopthered other woodland vegetation. I guess there is a case for removing it from managed woodlands in order to increase diversity of the woodland ground flora.

It saddens me and my partner to see trees such as Oaks which are 300 years old suffering with this over invasive climber. Ivy causes the tree to compete for nutrients and moisture from the soil, it also adds great weight making the tree more susceptible to toppling, the ivy also interferes with the trees ability to perform Photosynthesis which plays a very important part in the health and disease resistance of the tree. What are your thoughts on the decaying bark of the host tree where the ivy is attatched? I have done a lot of research on the matter and I feel that Ivy makes good ground cover but when it gets very large it affects the overall health of the tree.

I think if you've read the article you won't be surprised that I don't really agree - except in gardens and parks, ivy is not an overinvasive plant, and does not adversely affect a tree - or rot its bark - unless that tree was already in some way weakened. If a woodland is dominated by ivy the woodland can be thinned out to let in more light, but ideally, if it's just left, it will sort itself out in time. Ask yourself this - if ivy kills trees, why are there are not areas of ivy and no trees?

I could not disagree more with Ranger on this topic, in fact I personally kill Ivy wherever I can. A letter to my local council has resulted in 10 years of neglect being rectified in the local cemetary, where Ivy had invaded a number of mature oak trees. Clearly over the course of a number of years, Ivy can completely cover any tree, and may eventually strangle it. I believe that particularly at risk are native deciduous trees, which by their nature shed their large leaves in Autumn primarily to protect themselves from the force of winter gales. As such, if these trees are covered in the evergreen Ivy, when large wind forces are present they will severely stress any affected tree. I have subsequently learned that further damage occurs by the continual presence of moisture around the trunk of the tree, encouraging mildew, rot, boring insects, etc, that will degrade the tree's protective bark, without which it will die. So let's all cut the wretched stuff down!

If trees primarily shed their leaves to counteract gales, how do you explain beech and hornbeam trees, which keep their dead leaves on all winter? I think you'll find that the reasons for trees shedding their leaves are a lot more complex than that.

I can't help thinking that the British love of gardening is getting out of control. Trees and ivy were made for one another and the idea that oaks need meddling humans with secateurs to look after them is laughable.

I believe that particularly at risk are native deciduous trees, which by their nature shed their large leaves in Autumn primarily to protect themselves from the force of winter gales. As such, if these trees are covered in the evergreen Ivy, when large wind forces are present they will severely stress any affected tree.

I note the comment from Tufty above: I'd be interested to know on what basis anyone suggests that the primary reason for deciduous trees shedding leaves is to counteract gales. Although it's certainly one factor I really don't think this can be the main reason. What about trees in tropical climates? They suffer far more vigorous storms than we do in temperate lands, yet they keep their leaves on all year around - sometimes quite big leaves. And what about those trees, as Tufty mentions, that keep their leaves on all winter anyway? It just doesn't add up.

If I were blind, I might say that ivy does not kill trees. Fortunately, my sight is good. I cannot believe that anyone can say that ivy does not harm trees. Ivy is a destructive phenomenon. There is no other purpose served in infesting trees. First it embraces the tree, climbs the entire height of the tree, spreads and becomes top flourishing and, eventually, disturbs the equilibrium of the tree and fells it. Its climbing will already have restricted the diametrical growth of the tree. Ivy should be destroyed anywhere it is seen to climb a tree.
Trees have evolved to grow unencumbered and with their barks exposed to the air.
Wildlife habitats have existed and flourished long before ivy infested our woodlands.
Down with ivy!

The Ranger responds: Interesting hypothesis. I'd like to see your evidence that ivy is of any more recent origin than trees. And why is it a bad thing if ivy does fell trees in a natural woodland?

There is some interesting disgussion going on here about the dangers of ivy. As a fellow Ranger i can see both points of veiw. I must say that from my experience a tree with large amounts of ivy in a native woodland is a fantastic thing to behold. Wildlife love it! But the flip side of the coin is when it comes to tree safety inspections ivy is not looked on very well. I beleive that where ivy infested trees are near to peoples homes it should come down. The fact of the matter is that larger animals in woodland eat ivy off of trees (Cattle or Deer) so you only get an ivy infestation around populated areas or areas of low density grazing animals. But hey its only an opinion.

As a Beeekeeper I encourage the growth of ivy in my garden. This being one of the few plants that flowers in September providing valuable stores for the bees to see them through Winter. Those people who think it is a nuisance should appreciate not only does it help insects but provides shelter and food for all species through the year. Including birds.

My friend Tom lives on a barge, and there is a large sycamore on his mooring, on a steep slope above his boat. It has a lot of ivy growing up it, and looms above, making Tom very nervous in high winds! He is a keen conservationist, and loath to make unnecessary interventions. What should he do?
Should he cut through the ivy stems at about 9' above ground, on an annual basis? That way, the wildlife could continue to benefit from the plant, but it would not overweight the tree?
The tree has lots of lichen on the branches right up to the outer twigs. That's not a very good sign, is it? He's thinking of pruning the top a bit, but will that be enough?He doesn't want to wake up at the bottom of the canal, under a toppled sycamore....

The Ranger responds: there's a serious disease of trees, that very few ever recover from. It's called 'I don't like the look of that tree'. People get into their minds that a certain tree is a threat to them. The longer it has stood safely, the more likely they think it will fall. The reassurance of experts - in the unlikely event that they actually seek any expert advice - falls on deaf ears. Once they've decided that the tree is a danger, they won't be comforted. In every other case The Ranger has ever encountered, the only possible solution to the unbearable ennui caused by the offending tree has been to cut it down or cut it back, regardless of the need to do so or the risk it presents. Of course, there are always genuine cases of risk. But they are very few and far between. The advice of The Ranger in this case as in all other such cases is that if it's that important, get a professional to look at the tree - and by a professional we're not talking a jobbing tree surgeon, but a consultant. It's amazing how many people who were just recently talking of matters of life and death have a different view when it comes to spending £75.

The case you describe, though, presents a unique opportunity. Surely the bargee is able to move away from the tree? In any case, it's probably not his tree or his ivy, so it wouldn't be up to him to cut it, would it?

I have recently had a preservation order put on a 300 year old oak that grows at the bottom of my garden and also the adjoining gardens. It was covered in ivy to a height of 60 feet which totally obscured any view of the trunk/branches. Within the next few years it would have spread into the crown of the tree, where I feel that it would have done immense damage.The vines that covered the lower trunk were the thickness of my arm.The ivy has now been killed and the tree is slowly returning to it's natural beautiful state. All the branches are now visable and on a sunny afternoon the sun streams through to the groung below.

Ivy makes trees more prone to being blown down - true.
Otherwise I see no reason to kill it. A healthy tree will always out compete ivy growing on it. If this were not the case, there'd be alot less trees as a result, considering it is a native that has been here since the end of the ice age. It is an important part of the ecosystem, just like the trees it climbs and provides food and shelter for a huge range of wildlife - even hedgehogs will climb into it in order to find a safe place to hibernate. I say keep it and don't let the Health and Safety brigade tell you any different!

To say that the primary reason deciduous trees loose their leaves is to protect from winter winds is laughable. Before you make absurd assumptions like that, do some research.

"Leaves are expensive organs for a tree to build and maintain. During winter (in cold climates) or the dry season (in warmer climates) it becomes difficult for the tree to maintain its water balance as there is less free water available in the soil. It is thus difficult for the tree to keep its leaves turgid and the cells of the tissues in the leaves would become damaged by the cold in temperate areas, or the heat in warmer areas. Instead of remaining actively growing during this time of the year the tree enters a dormant period.

Trees are adapted to the climate of the area where they grow. They do not wait for their leaves to be damaged by the harsh conditions of the winter or dry season before losing them. They prepare in advance for the onset of the unfavourable season by getting ready to lose their leaves. The enzymes which control the functioning chemical pathways in the leaves e.g. photosynthesis, contain nutrients which are valuable to the tree because they are in short supply in the soil from where they are absorbed. Before the tree abscises or separates off its leaves, it breaks down many of the organic compounds and reabsorbs the valuable nutrients from its leaves. It will reuse these in the next growing season. Nutrients which are reabsorbed from leaves include nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)."

More info here

http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/ecotree/leaves/decidu.htm

I have a 20 acre wood, and some ruined buildings amongst it.
I have become progressively concerned at the spread of ivy through the woods.
A beech tree area with substantial trees, has changed from beautiful trunks to
ivy clad trunks. A ruined mill with fine stonework has in the last 5 years been overwhelmed by ivy.
What worries me is, why is ivy suddenly spreading at such a rate. There are a lot of deer in the woods so nothing has changed, except perhaps the climate?
The other problem in the woods is the explosion of Holly trees, and their leaves have a similar look to them.
The only way I have been able to kill ivy spreading on the ground is sodium chlorate sprayed over the leaves.

Isn't ivy alot like the strangler fig?


The Ranger responds: Not really, no. They're unrelated, growing in very different climates, and in a different way. However they both grow on trees in low-light environments, so that much is comparable.

ivy has destroyed our property which underwent extensive landscaping 15 years ago. The neighbors unkempt, nasty stuff took over in our yard--we are now re-lanscaping. How does one get rid of a huge amount of this pest?

sorry Mr Ranger but here in Surrey the evil ivy is killing thousands of trees, smothering the crowns and every time we have high winds felling many trees.
The mild winters are not restricting the spread of ivy that a nice cold winter of old would and it continues to grow throughout what should be a dormant period. The result is that icy growth rates are much faster than years ago.
Time for people to rise up and repel the evil that is ivy before it is too late.
Grab a saw and do your duty !

Dear Kerry,

How do you think this Oak tree managed 300 years without people interfering, in the first place???
Did some ancient warrior kill the Ivy for it, before you were born???


Comment from: Kerry
It saddens me and my partner to see trees such as Oaks which are 300 years old suffering with this over invasive climber. Ivy causes the tree to compete for nutrients and moisture from the soil, it also adds great weight making the tree more susceptible

I came to this site seeking help and found a debate,apparently populated by people simply recycling fixed positions. According to the Woodlands Trust website: In our view, ivy is not a plant which directly causes harm to trees.
I note the weasel word "directly" and conclude that this implies that it DOES do harm indirectly. Later it goes on:
Where ivy has grown high into the crown it may affect tree stability. The natural balance of the crown, stem and roots may be adversely affected by dense ivy growth and the tree may be liable to blow over in high winds, particularly when accompanied by rain or snow.

I have been spending a large number of weekends in the past few months deliberately cutting the ivy boughs that snake up our shared garden's 30 or so trees. I learnt a lot from a website - that I can't access any more! - about the state of ivy growth across the country. It shows photos of seven years' growth on the same walls and trees and hedgerows that show an engorgement by ivy of the native trees. The writer posits that this increase in ivy - and there definitely is a national increase - is caused by several factors.
1. climate change, which favours ivy growth, but not deciduous trees.
2. landscape amnesia, when we forget what we once looked at and merely accept that what is 'natural' must be right, which leads to the third point (entirely my own!)
3. that the countryside of Britain is a human-made landscape that has been formed over 1400 years. Only a few acres of undisturbed woodland exist. It is parkland writ huge. Trees' shapes distorted from their basic symmetry by invasives like ivy, especially away from 'natural' woodlands, need restoring. It is as much our heritage as a grand house or the Tower of London. All of our islands are human-created landscapes, those that are full of trees, hedgerows and grass as much as big cities and industrial sites. Greenery is generally more restful to the human eye, and are very much in our internalised notion of what 'wild and untouched' is, yet it is almost all human made, by artisan craftsmen of woods and hedgerows. However we can compensate. While I have cut all of the arm-thick boughs of ivy that crawl up all our trees here (Kent)so that the upper clumps of ivy are starting to wither and the shapes of the trees to reappear (this spring's leaf-burst willbe very different!), I have compensated by planting a hedgerow as a border 25 metres long in native thorns and dog roses etc which are easily avaiable from firms on the internet (including excellent short videos on how to plant such effectively)then cut the stems halfway down in order to produce a full bushy hedge of 3 metres height in about 4 years. Apparently when hedges were maintained by human hand and not machines, the hedgers would remove the ivy strands every few years as they clipped back and laid the hedge that had grown in the meantime. Now this happens rarely, and machine cutting hacks back the hedgrows unmercifully and produces hedgerow (in Kent if no where else)with about two feet of hedge on its top and naked trunks beneath extending for about 4 feet. This eliminates the thick clustering of bottom growth where insects, birds and small mammals might live. It takes away protection. In our area and through much of Kent roadside trees and hedges are heavily overgrown by ivy, shapes obliterated so that what was once a fine stand of trees cresting a skyline is now a line of thick shapeless giant's thumbs.
Finally I would like to start a national Anti Ivy League (AIL) whose members would work regularly to remove ivy from accessible trees across the landscape, probably not in woodlands as such (though in maintained woodland close by I come across cuts on oak and beech etc that are obvious anti-ivy). Nothing heavily organised at all, more a movement to restore a little our ailing lanscape that is blighted so often by moribund notions of our natural countryside. Take your saw and heavy snips wherever you go and save a tree from obfuscation.
Please be in touch if AIL interests...
Kevin Power

I recently moved in to a house where the previous owners were Ivy-Mad! I am very afraid of spiders and I've seen many of them in my garden since I've moved in. My brother says that spiders like to live/breed in ivy. What should I do to remove this ivy. What is the best and quickest way?? I'm desperate to get rid of the spiders! By the way, the spiders are the big hairy variety and they become quite aggressive when approached. I need to kill the ivy and the spiders at the same time. Sorry, nature lovers, but hey both MUST go asap! Any ideas? Please help!

The Ranger replies: sorry Chantal, we've got great sympathy for you but you've come to the wrong place. We like spiders, and we like ivy as the article explains. Neither will harm you significantly, and if you get rid of them they will soon enough come back. As you're lucky enough to have a garden, you'll be better off learning to live with these harmless elements of nature - even if you wanted to you'd never really get rid of them.

I'm joining the AIL its killing all the trees on the roadside in shropshire. I have seen many trees blown over and ALL have been covered in ivy. I nor my friend on the council who attends these events has ever cleared a tree that has not had ivy on it. Rise up and kill Ivy whereever you see it now!

I think the "Ranger" is going around with either his eyes shut or is wearing his rose coloured glasses. Things are not alright with the increasing proliferation of woodland ivy. Why is it with anything from iceburgs to floods we blame it on climate change, but it is only this numpty that can't see a problem.I have played and walked in my local woods for the past 55 years and have never seen anything like this last two years of proliferation. Is it the day of the triffids or what?

Interesting debate. My expertise is more on ivy on buildings rather than trees.

But Mike seemed to have the most common-sense point; the tree becomes "in danger" when the ivy is prolific on the crown. Possibly because the tree is already in trouble as a healthy crown would have restricted the growth of the ivy somewhat. Which would then account for the trees with ivy toppling over.

There does seem to a non-gardening obsessed layman that a compromise is available. Manage the ivy by not allowing it into the crown, or carefully removing or shearing it when there. The biodiversity of the tree would be maintained on the trunk and lower levels whilst the pressure would be relieved at the crown.

To Chantal. When dealing with it on buildings - I'm not sure how old your building is or what it's made from. But I would NOT recommend cutting the base on a building. It is much easier to control it's removal and avoid damage to the structure if you
(1) shear the foliage if particularly bushy
(2) apply a herbicide such as RootOut or Roloxide 10 (ideally something with copper sulphate. But assuming you've got lime mortar or limestone make sure that the solution pH is neutral or slightly alkaline. Do this at an appropriate time of the year to minimise risk to biodiversity.
(3) wait for it to work and remove from the top. It's much easier to do it bit by bit that way, rather than trying to yank it all from the bottom possibly with unpredictable results.

That advice is for buildings only and not trees or hedgerows.

Strong, woody VINES (Wisteria, kudzu etc.) that like sunlight will kill trees. Ivy, which does not like sunlight will not grow out into the canopy of a tree (where the light is.) The water and nutrient competition is insignificant for mature trees (trees go WAY deeper for that anyway.) The ONLY good reason to remove IVY from a tree is that it does increase the wind drag on the tree making it more likely to be blown down in a storm.

Enough with all the emotional nonsense already!

Interesting, but my main concern is with the damage (if any) caused by ivy on sound brickwork.
I have been trying, for over a year now, to establish a wildlife/butterfly garden here on our housing estate in Camden - London. But I've come accross so much ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity from the management and many of the tenants on matters such as the ivy on our walls. Two of the three magnificent specimens we had have been cut thus destroying the nesting sites of the flock of rare house sparrows, berries for thrushes, late summer nectar for bees, the nectar/caterpillar food plant of two species of butterfly and, just as sadly, the roosting site for a colony of bats. Entire ecosystems destroyed by the triple alliance above. It makes you want to give up. But it can't.

Having read the arguments for and against the benefits or otherwise of ivy, my opinion is that it should be controlled, not completely destroyed. This is because ivy is a mini-ecosystem that contains many insects that are the food supply for a variety of predatory lifeforms, especially birds.

The Ranger responds: I think that's a good stance. I also think the location and context of the ivy needs to be considered when deciding what to do. If this is done, your approach seems eminently sensible to me.