[CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

[Margot Ursic]

Yes, getting the below-ground environment is critical and would certainly help more native species live longer lives in our cities.

I would also add that the typical palette of species drawn from for landscaping and reforestation plans in cities tends to be very limited, and that although there is anecdotal evidence of which native species do (and do not) do well in built up environments, there are many species that haven't been assessed, and very little published data on those that have. Let's not give up on the natives so easily!


Margot Ursic, M.Sc. / Planning Ecologist, Facilitator
BEACON ENVIRONMENTAL
337 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ON  N1H 3W4
T) 519.826.0419 x21  F) 519.826.9306  C) 519.803.8101
www.beaconenviro.com

-----Original Message-----
From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of stephen at ufora.ca
Sent: June 18, 2012 9:51 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

Amen Barb.  There's a lot of pressure to just plant as many trees as possible, any species.  It's throwing away the baby with the bathwater and it isn't necessary. We can plant natives and have them thrive if we do our jobs properly and don't cut corners or take the easy way out. If the designer is lazy and the installer is the low bidder, then the rest of us have to work harder. The city can be like an alien spaceship on the landscape if we let it, or a great place to preserve and enhance what's left of the nature we still have. We have the money, expertise and lots of people here to do it.

Stephen Smith
Urban Forest Associates Inc.
Urban Forestry and Ecological Restoration www.ufora.ca -----Original Message-----
From: Boysen, Barb (MNR)
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 7:51 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

Despite the amen, I'd like to continue the discussion about the right tree in the right place.

I've been arguing for people to understand that the urban forest is not an island.  Depending on the topography and the state of the natural/rural landscape around it, it has great potential:
- to contribute to natural gene flow, and 'lord knows' many of our southern Ontario local areas could use the help, and that's not even considering natural migration pathways and climate change effects
- to be a barrier to that gene flow, and again with the sprawl effect this is increasing,
- and worse, to be source of invasive or maladapted genes that can pollute/dilute the native communities and gene pools. This is a huge issue and getting larger in southern Ontario.

And I seriously appreciate the need for green and its benefits in the many totally artificial sites, but I hope we can do a lot better to improve
- the sites for urban trees,
- the selection of material that will thrive and either be neutral or beneficial to the local and neighbouring landscapes
- the message to clients, the politicians and the public about what's at stake.

If our profession doesn't make the arguments, how can we expect them to appreciate it?  We had some great discussions along these lines at the OUFC's agm Spreading Roots last November, as many in the audience heard the reality re the stock that is produced by many of the larger growers, poor sites for trees and poor, poor planting and tending practices.

In the previous discussion Oliver asked some questions about species selection and Phillip replied about making your own decision as long as you are prepared/able to defend it.

I'm wondering if there are a set of guiding principles, or even a checklist that people could use when making species/stock type selections, and whether they include the broader long term and landscape implications?

Or are we too pressured to just deliver anything green?

Barb Boysen, Coordinator
Forest Gene Conservation Association

Suite 233, 266 Charlotte St
Peterborough, Ontario
K9J 2V4

T: (705) 755-3284
F: (705) 755-3292

barb.boysen at ontario.ca

www.fgca.net
www.ontariosnaturalselections.org

-----Original Message-----
From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
[mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of James Urban
Sent: June 16, 2012 11:56 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

Amen

Jim Urban
Urban Trees + Soils
410 263 4838



On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ian Wilson wrote:

> It's been said before - there are no trees that are native to cities.
An urban forest is, by definition, an artificial landscape.  I agree that we should try to incorporate local native species where possible and good design helps - but in most urban situations the native trees don't do well.  The "right tree in the right place" should be our credo, which should include exotics that don't cause other problems
>
> Ian Wilson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
[mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Kowalyk, Bohdan
(MNR)
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:33 AM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
Issue 5
>
> There are two separate issues involved that are getting confused.  One
> (my interest) is about what (if any) urban areas would be appropriate
> for proliferating non-native tree species and whether more emphasis
> should be placed during design of urbanizing areas on providing
> conditions suitable for representative native species.  The other
issue
> of human health effects from pollen is altogether different and
> apparently pushed primarily by drug companies.
>
> Bohdan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Philip van
Wassenaer
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:31 AM
> To: 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
>
> I second that motion. Let's not protect ourselves so much that we all
> get hermetically sealed off from the nature that produced us!
>
>
> Philip van Wassenaer, B.SC., MFC
> Principal Consultant
> Urban Forest Innovations Inc.
> Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
> www.urbanforestinnovations.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net]
> On Behalf Of James Urban
> Sent: June-14-12 8:51 AM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
>
> I wish that we would focus our attention on the larger picture.  The
> most destructive and invasive species, by far on the planet are
> humans.  Or you could take the opposite approach and say humans are a
> part of the natural evolution of the planet (we are nature) and the
> changes we bring to
this
> evolutionary process is just nature at work.  In either case I think
we
> worry about small things we think we can control while missing the
> larger more important items that maybe we cannot control but which
> need to be
a
> part of the discussion.
>
> We live in a cloud of pollen and I doubt that the small change in
pollen
> caused by the few plants that we can control make a significant
> difference in overall levels.  But I do believe that if we fail to get
> a healthy (pollen producing) urban canopy, we will continue to drive
> people into their AC controlled homes.  Getting people out of contact
> with all the nasty things that are in the outdoor environment has been
> shown to increase the allergies we think we are trying to protect
> people from in the first place.
> Breath the air, sneeze in pollen season, take Claritin if you must,
but
> continue to fight for large canopy trees that will cool the city and
> make the city a better place to live.
>
> Jim Urban
> Urban Trees + Soils
> 410 263 4838
>
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNR) wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't a male clone still release pollen able to travel distances
>> for reproduction with the uncontrolled population?
>>
>> Bohdan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
>> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of James Urban
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:07 AM
>> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
>> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
>> Issue 5
>>
>> Tree of heaven can be invasive, but if you specify a male cultivar
>> those plants are not.  unfortunately the male cultivar is still in
>> development so you will have to wait a few more years.  Jut file this

>> away until you see the male cultivar released.
>>
>> However.  Tree of heaven is not at all like sumac.  It is a huge tree

>> while sumac is a small tree.
>>
>> Jim Urban
>> Urban Trees + Soils
>> 410 263 4838
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Iola Price wrote:
>>
>>> It will take me a bit of time (that I don't have at this point) to
>>> dig through my files to verify, but isn't Tree of Heaven considered
>> invasive or
>>> potentially so in Ontario?  Iola Price
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
>> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net]
>>> On Behalf Of canufnet-request at list.web.net
>>> Sent: June 10, 2012 12:00 PM
>>> To: canufnet at list.web.net
>>> Subject: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5
>>>
>>> Send CANUFNET mailing list submissions to canufnet at list.web.net
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/canufnet
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> canufnet-request at list.web.net
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> canufnet-owner at list.web.net
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than
>>> "Re: Contents of CANUFNET digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: CTLA appraisals in Ontario (Oliver Reichl)
>>>
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:40:07 -0400
>>> From: Oliver Reichl <careofthetrees at gmail.com>
>>> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] CTLA appraisals in Ontario
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>> <CA+3+qfHDZ4KeDoddcVasNoMt1ZTMNCFsK16ibR+V+CHt2ewROw at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>>
>>> Thanks Alex/Ian/John for your replies. Some comments:
>>>
>>> 1) ISAO is apparently out of supplements and all they gave me was a
>>> photocopy of the list of species ratings. No worksheet. Anyone have
a
>> pdf of
>>> the whole supplement and wanna share?
>>> 2) Things started with native species on this site, and I'm very
>> partial to
>>> keeping it that way. Of course, I'd also prefer stock from locally
>> sourced
>>> seed. I chose *Ulmus americana* 'Princeton' because its apparently
>>> DED resistent, still the same species, and available in the client's

>>> area,
>> even
>>> if it probably isn't genetically "local".
>>> 3) For sumac, in the absence of a worksheet, I'm leaning towards the
>> species
>>> rating for Tree-of-Heaven (because of similar leaf shape, similarly
>>> soft-wooded, and its low rating).
>>> 4) Both "scrubby" and "tree form" Manitoba maples occur on the site.

>>> I
>> like
>>> Alex's *Acer* alternates, and am also considering *A. saccharinum*.
>>> Basswood has also been suggested to me, I presume because its
>> similarly
>>> soft-wooded and also inclined to be multi-stemmed).
>>> 5) Yes, big quotes take time to put together, but I definitely share
>> Ian's
>>> opinion on this. Paying for one quote is one thing, but 3x or more
>>> can
>> get
>>> pricey pretty quick. I think my future response will be to
>> spontaneously
>>> levy a "quote administration fee" equal to the amount someone wants
>> for
>>> submitting a quote. They probably won't like that one bit, but odds
>> are that
>>> anyone who's that focused on profiteering isn't gonna be your lowest
>> quote
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
>>> Consulting Arborist-Ecologist
>>> ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A
>>> 18 Larue Mills Rd.
>>> 1000 Islands, ON  K0E 1R0
>>> Tel: 613-923-8833
>>> Email: careofthetrees at gmail.com
>>> Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Hennessy, John
>>> <John.Hennessy at brampton.ca>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian and Oliver,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> We have been monitoring our Zelkovia over the past two years. Not a

>>>> long history, however we have had enough winter kill in exposed
>>>> areas
>>
>>>> to adjust our expectations . Our Zelkovia planted in the spring did

>>>> moderately better than those planted in the fall. However, any
>>>> Zelkovia planted with open north westerly exposure, did
>>>> poorly.(60%mortality, 30% pedestal suckering mess?s!). ****
>>>>
>>>> This is the second positive comment with regards to ?sensation?. We

>>>> will be adding ?sensation to our list 2013, thank you. Our
?pioneer?
>>>> and ?homestead? are hardy where the Zelkovia fell short. We use all

>>>> three, in desirable and undesirable sites, to continue to
diversify.
>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> John Hennessy****
>>>>
>>>> City of Brampton****
>>>>
>>>> Forestry Inspector****
>>>>
>>>> ISA ON1193a ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [mailto:
>>>> canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] *On Behalf Of *Ian Wilson
>>>> *Sent:* 2012/06/05 10:54 AM
>>>>
>>>> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] CTLA appraisals in Ontario****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Oliver,****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> In the Pacific NW ISA Chapter we gave staghorn sumac a rating of
55.
>>
>>>> In my area (interior British Columbia) sumac is somewhat invasive
>>>> and
>>
>>>> I would tend to rate it lower, although I have seen it used
>>>> successfully for stabilizing steep banks and it also seems to be
>>>> very
>>
>>>> drought resistant.***
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Acer negundo has a bad reputation for good reasons, but there is a
>>>> clone of Acer negundo that we have experimented with in the last
>>>> five
>>> years ?
>>>> Acer negundo ?Sensation?.  It?s a male cultivar (no seeds or
>>>> boxelder
>>
>>>> bugs), it has an attractive reddish leaf colour (year round) and is

>>>> a
>>
>>>> medium size tree.  It is relatively fast growing so I suspect in
the
>
>>>> long run it might have some of the weak wood and decay issues as
the
>
>>>> Acer negundo species, but in the right place I think it might be a
>>>> good tree choice.  I have been impressed with this tree in parking
>> lot
>>>> islands and in sidewalk cutouts where there is very limited soil
and
>
>>>> harsh conditions that would kill most trees.  At a Canadian Tire
>>>> parking lot near my house I have watched some of these trees over
>>>> the
>>
>>>> last 8 years growing in very small volumes of soil and as a result
>>>> they are growing quite slowly, but they don?t seem to be showing
any
>
>>>> symptoms of decline or stress and they aren?t lifting any asphalt
>> (not
>>>> yet anyway) in spite of the lack of any root barriers.  ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> One tree that I?ve been impressed with as an American elm
>>>> alternative
>>
>>>> is Zelkova serrata.  We don?t have too many of them but they seem
to
>
>>>> be very vigorous and well adapted to boulevards and difficult
sites,
>
>>>> and quite
>>>> attractive.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I don?t think we?ve ever paid a nursery / landscaper for a quote ?
I
>
>>>> would expect they would offer free quotes if they want our
>>>> business.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Ian Wilson****
>>>>
>>>> City of Kelowna****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [
>>>> mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
>>>> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>]
>>
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Oliver Reichl
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2012 7:18 AM
>>>> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network
>>>> *Subject:* [CANUFNET] CTLA appraisals in Ontario****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Greetings:****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I'm doing a large appraisal project that has brought up a couple of

>>>> interesting issues. I'm keen to hear your opinions.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> 1) the Ontario supplement does not contain a species rating for
>>>> Staghorn sumac, *Rhus typhina*. What would you consider the best
>>>> alternative to use for a species rating? (I have one in mind ...
>>>> just
>>
>>>> curious to hear what others may have used and why).****
>>>>
>>>> 2) *Acer negundo* (crapwood) and *Ulmus americana* (disease-prone)
>> are
>>>> not available in the marketplace. What would you consider the best
>>>> alternatives to use for replacement plant material? (Again, I have
>>>> ones in mind ... but curious to hear what others suggest or may
have
>> used
>>> and why).
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> 3) quotes for replacement trees and their delivery/installation are
>> an
>>>> integral part of the valuations. How much, if anything, would you
>>>> pay
>>
>>>> a nursery or landscaping firm for a quote?
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to any replies,
>>>>
>>>> Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
>>>> Consulting Arborist-Ecologist
>>>> ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A
>>>> 18 Larue Mills Rd.
>>>> 1000 Islands, ON  K0E 1R0
>>>> Tel: 613-923-8833
>>>> Email: careofthetrees at gmail.com
>>>> Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare****
>>>>
>>>> Please review the City of Brampton e-mail disclaimer statement at:
>>>> www.brampton.ca/en/Info-Centre/Pages/Privacy-Statement.aspx
>>>>
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>>
>>
<http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20120609/fa9d68da/
>> at
>> tach
>>> ment-0001.htm>
>>>
>>> End of CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5
>>> ***************************************
>>>
>>
>