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

61–70 of 117 posts

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

#61

Post by atulatul »

sandworm101 wrote: post #58
atulatul wrote: post #32

I 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.…

>but is the goal to keep trees alive as long as possible?

For some trees, being 100year old means that the trees are in their late teens/twenties/thirties (source above book). With that in mind, the answer to above question becomes somewhat difficult.

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

#62

Post by NeutronStar »

dymk wrote: post #59
ekianjo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yeah and if you drink 10L of water in 15min you'll die, doesn't mean water is nefaste to our health. Too much of anything is never good.

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

#64

Post by DuskStar »

ekianjo wrote: post #37
DuskStar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only relatively recently that cities began to have higher life expectancies than the countryside. Last 200 years or so, IIRC.

That's not at all what the original comment ' That's the urban lifestyle in general, isn't it? ' was suggesting.

>>> Life expectancy has been increasing as people left the countryside for the cities.

It's a comment on the causation here - if 'moving to cities' caused an increase in life expectancy in general you'd expect people living in cities to always have higher life expectancy than people in the countryside, and that's what my comment was refuting. Instead, it seems that life expectancy has been rising at the same time as people have been moving to cities, but moving to cities is not what caused the general life expectancy changes.

EDIT: Also, people have been moving to cities for millenia, it's just only been the past few centuries where those cities stopped being massive deathtraps and thus actually started growing.

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

#65

Post by icebraining »

ambicapter wrote: post #47
fathead_glacier wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. M…

> In a way it will be survival of the fittest for trees. What if the "fittest" trees end up being the ugliest or most allergy-triggering? My point is if its run by humans, it probably won't really be survival of the "fittest".

If it's run by humans, then human decision becomes part of the selection, shaping what "fit" means.

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

#66

Post by icebraining »

DuskStar wrote: post #64
ekianjo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all what the original comment ' That's the urban lifestyle in general, isn't it? ' was suggesting.

>>> Life expectancy has been increasing as people left the countryside for the cities. It's a comment on the causation here - if 'moving to cities' caused an increase in life expectancy in general you'd expect people living in cities to always have higher life expectancy than people in the countryside, and that's what my comment was refuting. Instead, it seems that life expectancy has been rising at the same time as…

Moving to current cities may still be what's causing life expectancy to increase, even if moving to cities in the past didn't. Cities weren't held constant.

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

#68

Post by tosser0001 »

In my city the DPW constantly drops a sapling in a sidewalk cut out with no after care or follow up so they just die within a year or two. It seems like a real waste.

I’ve always wondered what would happen if instead they really prepared the soil and waited to see what trees naturally sprouted, then removed all but the healthiest looking one.

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

#69

Post by DuskStar »

icebraining wrote: post #66
DuskStar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> Life expectancy has been increasing as people left the countryside for the cities. It's a comment on the causation here - if 'moving to cities' caused an increase in life expectancy in general you'd expect people living in cities to always have higher life expectancy than people in the countryside, and that's what my comment was refuting. Instead, it seems that life expectancy has been rising at the same time as…

Moving to current cities may still be what's causing life expectancy to increase, even if moving to cities in the past didn't. Cities weren't held constant.

Of course! But I'd still guess that it's not some intrinsic property of cities, and that a large part of the difference would be explained by income differentials (or job differences - no chance of getting crushed by a tractor in Times Square).

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

DuskStar wrote: post #69
icebraining wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving to current cities may still be what's causing life expectancy to increase, even if moving to cities in the past didn't. Cities weren't held constant.

Of course! But I'd still guess that it's not some intrinsic property of cities, and that a large part of the difference would be explained by income differentials (or job differences - no chance of getting crushed by a tractor in Times Square).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN