Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(3): May 2014 the value would increase by 28%—to more than $25 million in value. The SFASU campus and city parks trees are similar in biodiversity. Even though both SFASU forest and city parks appear to be fair- ly diverse with 79 and 44 individual tree species respectively, it is not biologically diverse. That is not desirable for tree management and disease control and may negatively affect urban tree health. New species should be introduced and understory trees need to be planted. GIS was useful to better under- stand the tree health situations and their spatial dis- tributions as spatial analyses can be used to facilitate the focus on tree identification and maintenance. Acknowledgments. This research was supported with a grant from the Texas A&M Forest Service and McIntire Stennis funds admin- istered by the Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture. LITERATURE CITED Abd-Elrahman, A.H., M.E. Thornhill, M.G. Andreu, and F. Escobe- do. 2010. A community-based urban forestry inventory using online mapping services and consumer-grade digital images. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation Geoinfor- mation 12:249–260. Albers, J.S., J.D. Pokorny, and G.D. Johnson. 2003. Chapter 3: How to detect and assess hazardous defects in trees. pp. 41–116. In: J.D. Pokorny (Coord. Ed). Urban tree risk management: A com- munity guide to program design and implementation. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, NA-TP-03-03., St. Paul, MN. Alvey, A.A. 2006. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5:195–201. Asociacion Española de Parques y Jardines Publicos. 1999. Metedo para valoración de arboles y árbustos ornamentales. Norma Granada. Asociacion Española de Parques y Jardines Publicos, Madrid, Spain. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. 1992. Guide for Plant Appraisal (8th edition). International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 103 pp. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th edition). International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 143 pp. Creech, D.L., J. Singhurst, D. Kulhavy, G. Seibel, and D. McDon- ald. 1994. The woodland vegetation of Stephen F. Austin State University revisited: A CAD/GIS analysis. HortScience abstract 28(5):482. Cullen, S. 2007. Putting a value on trees—CTLA guidance and methods. Arboriculture Journal 30:21–43. Dreesen, A.D. 1994. Evaluation of Texas shade trees. Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service, pub1-1683. 8 pp. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, M.H. Noble, and S.M. Sisinni. 2000. Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: An assessment of our nation’s urban forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- GTR-490. Portland, OR: USDA, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 483 pp. Ellison, M.J. 2005. Quantified tree risk assessment used in the man- agement of amenity trees. Journal of Arboriculture 31:57–65. 175 Fischer, J., D.B. Lindenmayer, and A.D. Manning. 2006. Biodiver- sity, ecosystem function, and resilience: Ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(2):80–86. Flook, R. 1996. A Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM). Ron Flook, Tahunanui, Nelson, New Zealand. Gilbert, E.A., and E.T. Smiley. 2004. PiCUS Sonic Tomography for the quantification of decay in white oak (Quercus alba) and hickory (Carya spp.). Journal of Arboriculture 30(5):277–281. Grande-Ortiz, M.A., E. Ayuga-Téllez, and M.L. Contato-Carol. 2008. A comparative analysis of methods for the valuation of urban trees in Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 6(3):341–352. Grande-Ortiz, M.A., E. Ayuga-Téllez, and M.L. Contato-Carol. 2012. Methods of tree appraisal: A review of their features and application possibilities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38(4):130–140. Hauer, R.J., and G.R. Johnson. 2003. Chapter 1, Tree risk assess- ment. pp. 5–10. In: J.D. Pokorny (Coord. Ed.). Urban tree risk management: A community guide to program design and implementation. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, NA-TP-03-03., St. Paul, MN. Helliwell, D.R. 1967. The amenity value of trees and woodlands. Journal of Arboriculture (1):128–131. Helliwell, D.R. 2000. Amenity valuation of trees and woodlands (revised edition). Arboricultural Association, Romsey, Hants, United Kingdom. 40 pp. Hermy M., and J. Cornelis. 2000. Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and suburban parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 49 (3–4):149–162. Hickman, G.W., E. Perry, and R. Evans. 1995. Validation of a tree failure evaluation system. Journal of Arboriculture 21:223–234. Hollis, A. 2012. A critical analysis of CTLA’s depreciation factors— Do inherent inconsistencies of method complicate the simplicity of process? Arboriculture Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry 32(3):157–166. International Valuation Standards Committee. 2005. International Valuations Standards, Seventh Edition. London. 459 pp. Johnstone, D.M., P.K. Ades, G.M. Moore, and I.W. Smith. 2007. Pre- dicting wood decay in eucalypts using an expert system and the IML-RESISTOGRAPH drill. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33:76–82. Johnstone, D., G. Moore, M. Tausz, and M. Nicolas. 2010. The mea- surement of wood decay in landscape trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36:121–127. Kane, B.C.P., and H.D.P. Ryan III. 2004. The accuracy of formulas used to assess strength loss due to decay in trees. Journal of Arboriculture 30:347–356. Kane, B., D. Ryan, and D.V. Bloniarz. 2001. Comparing formulae that assess strength loss due to decay in trees. Journal of Arbo- riculture 27:78–87. Longcore, T. 2004. Applicability of CITYgreen urban ecosystem analysis soſtware to a densely built urban neighborhood. Urban Geography 25(2):173–186. Luley, C. 2012. Indicators of decay in urban trees. Arborist News 21(3):18–20. Martin, C.W., R.C.Maggio, and D.N. Appel. 1989. The contributory value of trees to residential property in the Austin, Texas metro- politan area. Journal of Arboriculture 15(3):72–76. ©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2014
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
