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

41–50 of 117 posts

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

#41

Post by danans »

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.

This already happened long ago by artificial selection and hybridization. One example that is found all over the world in Urban areas is the highly pollution resistant London Planetree:

https://arbordayblog.org/treeoftheweek/london-planetree-toug...

Only problem is that at least in my area, they constantly shed leaves, all season long.

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

saltminer wrote: post #17
oftenwrong wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the opportunity to tap water/sewer lines Does this involve breaking pipes? How exactly is it beneficial?

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by freedomben »

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

This is likely regional dependent. In Alaska and Western Washington this is definitely true. When my neighbor built his house they tore down the forest.

In Utah tho where trees are harder to grow and establish, the construction company will often ask you, or just leave mature trees where they are as long as they aren't blocking the house.

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

#44

Post by dsfyu404ed »

cafard wrote: 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.

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

#46

Post by ambicapter »

ekianjo wrote: post #25
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.

Happening in Paris as well: the city keeps cutting trees that are more than 100 years old just because they can: http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/paris-la-place-de-la-natio...

Article says that they took down the trees in order to undertake a study on how leak-proof the subway lines beneath the trees were? There's got to be a better way.

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

#47

Post by ambicapter »

fathead_glacier wrote: post #6
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. 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".

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

#49

Post by BurningFrog »

kaycebasques wrote: post #38
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...

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?
Post reply on HN