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

81–90 of 117 posts

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

#81

Post by Raphmedia »

bryan11 wrote: post #31
guilhas wrote: post #9

I 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

They recently did that in my area (rural/suburbs in Canada).

They cleared a huge section of old-growth forest to make a big community area covered with grass.

Instead of keeping some trees aside or not clearing the whole thing, they planted new young sapling all around the pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes.

Everyone is complaining about the lack of shade in that area (so big it feels like you are standing in the middle of a plain) and the city's answer is: "Sorry, we planted trees but they won't be big enough to cast shade for years. Just be patient."

It feels ridiculous because the whole area is surrounded by forest.

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

#83

Post by holy_city »

Raphmedia wrote: post #81
bryan11 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frequently, the first step when building in the US is to rip down any existing trees and completely clear the property

They recently did that in my area (rural/suburbs in Canada). They cleared a huge section of old-growth forest to make a big community area covered with grass. Instead of keeping some trees aside or not clearing the whole thing, they planted new young sapling all around the pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes. Everyone is complaining about the lack of shade in that area (so big it feels like you are standing in the mid…

And then the trees will grow with the branches overhanging streets, powerlines, and homes - prompting the city/power utility to trim them. But naturally they won't hire arborists to do it.

The city of LA did that in my neighborhood last year. My street might as well have no trees at all.

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

#84

Post by LinuxBender »

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.…

10k above sea level would also put the tree well above major jet streams that carry pollution. A similar pattern occurred with a group in (I think) Norway, that were said to have the "fountain of youth", but it just simply turned out they were out of the way of pollution.

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

#85

Post by kaycebasques »

TrustAndSafety wrote: post #74
kaycebasques wrote: post #38

Earlier 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…

the odds are not stacked against them, plants (and other living creatures) do their best to colonize new places. That's why trees have soooo many seeds. Reproduction is the goal, not longevity.

Do you see a lot of urban trees naturally propagating?

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

#86

Post by beat »

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...

The "close cousins" thing is interesting for me. I live in a tree-lined streets neighborhood. Historically, they chose species on a street-by-street basis. My street was all linden trees for the curb trees (except for a last remaining elm, we've lost most of them to Dutch Elm disease). A few years back, a severe wind storm took out seven of the curb trees on my block, in a cluster (and smashed a few cars in the process).

Rather than planting more lindens, the city put in a diverse new collection - I think every one is different. Our new tree is a hackberry. Our next door neighbor got a japanese maple, and there's a buckeye across the street, etc.

So now I'm wondering what that means for the long-term health of our scrawny little hackberry. I don't know of any other hackberry trees in the neighborhood - the dominant species are lindens, maples, walnuts, ashes, catalpas, and a few ancient elms. Within our yard, there's a big old ash, a catalpa, a sumac, a magnolia, and a dogwood.

Oh, and I live in an urban forest, apparently.

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

#87

Post by beat »

kaycebasques wrote: post #85
TrustAndSafety wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the odds are not stacked against them, plants (and other living creatures) do their best to colonize new places. That's why trees have soooo many seeds. Reproduction is the goal, not longevity.

Do you see a lot of urban trees naturally propagating?

Living in an urban forest, ripping up wild young trees is part of normal yard maintenance. I probably get at least a dozen a year. Two of my full-sized trees in my yard were wild seedlings that I allowed to grow because I like those particular kinds of trees (a catalpa and a sumac), and they were in good locations.

This also includes invasive tree species like buckthorn, which is a villain in our area. Buckthorns pop up constantly.

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

#88

Post by beat »

guilhas wrote: post #9

I 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.

Sometimes, that's due to blights. We're losing a lot of beautiful, mature ash trees to emerald ash borers. So any tree with even a hint of them leads to immediate destruction.

I have a big, beautiful ash tree, and live a few blocks from a large park (a couple of square miles) with hundreds of ash trees, so I worry just how long I'll get to keep my tree.

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

#89

Post by kaycebasques »

beat wrote: post #87
kaycebasques wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see a lot of urban trees naturally propagating?

Living in an urban forest, ripping up wild young trees is part of normal yard maintenance. I probably get at least a dozen a year. Two of my full-sized trees in my yard were wild seedlings that I allowed to grow because I like those particular kinds of trees (a catalpa and a sumac), and they were in good locations. This also includes invasive tree species like buckthorn, which is a villain in our area. Buckthorns pop…

I guess one could view urban tree dynamics as extreme selection for certain traits. They have to be pretty, and in a location that won't inconvenience humans, and they can't do anything to inconvenience humans, like cause allergies, and they have to be extremely resilient.

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

#90

Post by pkaye »

RobotCaleb wrote: post #78
sevensor wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a single one?

Not even the one in their backyard.
Post reply on HN