Live data from Hacker News

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

phys.org

111–117 of 117 posts

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

#111
post #15

Some do remarkably well in Washington, DC, given that they are planted between sidewalk and curb. They don't get much salt, compared to what they would in some northern states, there is that.

DC (the cities and suburbs around it even more so) has a massive amount of space between sidewalk and curb compared to older east coast cities that weren't planned.

Really? I'd guess that in my neighborhood it's around three feet, certainly not four.

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

#112
Haven’t read the full study but I’m curious to see how much diversity is factored in. In a lot of cities you see monocultures of the same “signature” tree — which often leads to disease.

My instinct would be to focus on mixing things up, and making sure there’s a wide diversity of trees; not just overall, but co-planting so there’s trees mixed with shrubs, grasses, wildflowers, etc. Mimicking the multiple vertical layers of a forest also maximizes photosynthesis so you get more carbon storage per meter.

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

#113
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proce…

Hackberrys grow very quickly, you can water them and watch it grow like a weed. They also fall down in storms. I removed one from my yard and will be planting an Eastern Persimmon instead.

Mine still looks pretty sad and despondent after a couple of years. I hope it's beautiful someday, but for now it's pretty dull next to its glamorous Japanese maple neighbor.

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

#114
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hackberrys grow very quickly, you can water them and watch it grow like a weed. They also fall down in storms. I removed one from my yard and will be planting an Eastern Persimmon instead.

Mine still looks pretty sad and despondent after a couple of years. I hope it's beautiful someday, but for now it's pretty dull next to its glamorous Japanese maple neighbor.

Well, check on soil quality, maybe add compost, check water supply, maybe add a dripper, check that the soil isn't rock-hard, so the roots can get around. If you want to know exactly what the tree needs, though, research is probably in order.

OK, here's a pretty thorough guide to the hackberry: https://homeguides.sfgate.com/special-care-hackberry-tree-56...

Sounds like you should keep crap off the trunk so it doesn't rot, it needs to be pruned to grow right, and if the soil gets dry it will start dropping leaves about it.

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

#115

Civilization is an affront to nature -- it's amazing how few of us understand this.

And yet here you are, sitting in a building supplied by endless electricity, on an electronic device that takes an absolutely insane supply chain to produce, connected to mankind's greatest invention (the Internet), posting on a website that celebrates the most high-tech and capitalist goals imaginable. All while railing against a civilization that is completely possible to exclude yourself from. Being here, making t…

I am not anti-civilization. I am presenting an objective framework. There is: organic ( Nature ) and inorganic ( Civilization )

Not sure how your comment relates...

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

#117

Civilization is an affront to nature -- it's amazing how few of us understand this.

I love the debate about what is or is not "nature" these days. We try to separate humans from other organisms because our use of tools/building nests is so far advanced from say, what an ant produces, or a bird making a nest, or a monkey with a stick. But we're no different from those organisms in terms of tools and nesting, we're just really good at what we do. You could argue humans are different in that we possess…

Look at the structural difference between systems of Nature and systems of Civilization.
Post reply on HN