Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 117 posts

Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

#4

Post by neuronic »

I wonder if urban trees will adapt to city life - but I guess it depends on where the cities get their new trees. If it's not from the city's tree gene pool we will put forest trees into cities and they won't far any better 200 years from now.

Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

#5

Post by zaroth »

thrower123 wrote: post #3

Hard to expect anything different. The amount of salt that they get exposed to is horrifying, at least in places that experience cold temperatures and go nuts with the calcium chloride to melt off every speck of snow and ice.

Between the salt and the dog urine, hard to believe they survive at all.

Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

#6

Post by fathead_glacier »

neuronic wrote: post #4

I wonder if urban trees will adapt to city life - but I guess it depends on where the cities get their new trees. If it's not from the city's tree gene pool we will put forest trees into cities and they won't far any better 200 years from now.

I think it will also involve selecting seeds only from "better" performing trees from the city tree gene pool. This will then ensure that beneficial mutations / changes survive. An unfortunate requirement of evolution to force progress.

In a way it will be survival of the fittest for trees. Unfortunately it might take considerable work from urban planners which I cannot see happening on a large scale any time soon.

Maybe a better idea will be to selectively breed species in hard environments and then distribute the seeds to cities that need them. With genetic modifications becoming prevalent in the food industry this might be not far away from happening.

Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

#7

Post by jcwayne »

oftenwrong wrote: post #2

If you want to read the full study: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

> The role of street trees in the urban carbon cycle is complex as the environmental costs and benefits of street trees evolve over the course of a tree’s life, with emissions associated with establishment often precluding net greenhouse gas benefits in the early stages of a street tree’s life cycle. The carbon costs associated with nursery production, planting, irrigation, pruning, removal, and disposal are high. Street trees must survive for several decades (26–33 years) to attain carbon neutrality.

That's much longer than I would have expected.

Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

#8

Post by 3131s »

thrower123 wrote: post #3

Hard to expect anything different. The amount of salt that they get exposed to is horrifying, at least in places that experience cold temperatures and go nuts with the calcium chloride to melt off every speck of snow and ice.

Trees benefit from being around other trees, for example by passing nutrients through their root systems, signalling chemically to warn of threats, sharing beneficial fungi, and being shielded from the elements. It's definitely no surprise that urban trees don't fare as well.

Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

#10

Post by oftenwrong »

thrower123 wrote: post #3

Hard to expect anything different. The amount of salt that they get exposed to is horrifying, at least in places that experience cold temperatures and go nuts with the calcium chloride to melt off every speck of snow and ice.

There are some benefits for street trees that the article points out, including less competition for light, more CO2, more nitrogen deposition, a longer growing season, and the opportunity to tap water/sewer lines.
Post reply on HN