Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking copse.
[deleted]
Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
51–60 of 117 posts
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#52Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to discuss the same section. It makes sense that urban trees die younger when you think about how heavily the odds are stacked against them: * No network of fellow of trees to share nutrients and information with via their roots, as mentioned above. * Dogs constantly pissing on the trunk. * Smog. * Planted in a small patch of dirt, surrounded by concrete. The dirt itself is usually extremely compacted so no…
I thought the piss was nutritious for plants?
Not so much on their trunks.
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to discuss the same section. It makes sense that urban trees die younger when you think about how heavily the odds are stacked against them: * No network of fellow of trees to share nutrients and information with via their roots, as mentioned above. * Dogs constantly pissing on the trunk. * Smog. * Planted in a small patch of dirt, surrounded by concrete. The dirt itself is usually extremely compacted so no…
I thought the piss was nutritious for plants?
As with many things, the quantity matters. Too much of a good thing is not beneficial. If you over fertilize, it can "burn" the plant. That is why most dog owners will find dead spots in their grass where the dog prefers to pee.
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#55are there any dense urban areas designed to coexist with healthy forests?
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also a very old one.
Did you read 'copse' as 'corpse', or is this really a common joke?
If you hadn't pointed out the difference, not only would I have not noticed the difference in spelling, I'd have also presumed it to be a typo, and not a pun.
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#57I highly recommend reading the book "The Hidden Life Of Trees" by Peter Wohlleben There is an informative chapter/section called Street Kids about trees planted along the streets primarily in urban areas. How their health is impacted by having no network of close cousins nearby to communicate/ suppy nutrients via root/fungi, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees-Illustrated/dp/1771...
Came here to discuss the same section. It makes sense that urban trees die younger when you think about how heavily the odds are stacked against them: * No network of fellow of trees to share nutrients and information with via their roots, as mentioned above. * Dogs constantly pissing on the trunk. * Smog. * Planted in a small patch of dirt, surrounded by concrete. The dirt itself is usually extremely compacted so no…
Not to mention people constantly ramming vehicles into them. There's not a tree in my town that doesn't have a big scar on the trunk at bumper level.
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#58I highly recommend reading the book "The Hidden Life Of Trees" by Peter Wohlleben There is an informative chapter/section called Street Kids about trees planted along the streets primarily in urban areas. How their health is impacted by having no network of close cousins nearby to communicate/ suppy nutrients via root/fungi, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees-Illustrated/dp/1771...
There are also some advantages. Urban trees, being more spread out, sometimes have greater sunlight and therefore grow faster. For some trees age isn't the limiting factor but height. They grow until they risk toppling over.
So the urban tree does die "young", but is the goal to keep trees alive as long as possible? If it is, then there are lots of things that can be done to slow their growth and prolong their lives. Deprive them of nutrients. Shorten their growing season. Keep them cold. Some of the oldest trees live in the most extreme environments. Bonzi trees age very slowly too. Perhaps we should trim our urban trees more aggressively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree) (5000+ years old, 10,000 feet above sea level)
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between the salt and the dog urine, hard to believe they survive at all.
Urine is just an aqueous solution containing urea (CH4N2O) and you need nitrogen in the ground since it is absorbed by plants and trees as nitrates. Nitrates are usually lacking in the ground so it's actually beneficial for the trees in the end. https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/environment/the-nitro...
Nearly all the trees and bushes on my street need barriers around them. The ones that don't will get peed on so much that the plant dies (or all greenery below a certain height will chemically burn).
Re: Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests
#60I think a bigger issue is healthy trees being cut in a lot of urban areas. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5801627/Great-tree-... Reference to UK, but I can see the same happening in Ireland and Portugal.
Frequently, the first step when building in the US is to rip down any existing trees and completely clear the property
Yeah there definitely need to be local restrictions on this when trees are more sparse. Atlanta requires approval and paying a fee to cut down trees on a lot, but some argue the cost is still too low to discourage it.