Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(4): July 2011 to define base levels of annual carbon sequestration for a com- munity, additional carbon sequestration might allow communi- ties to sell carbon credits. When all 2009 benefits are included, the honeylocusts are estimated to contribute $430 per surviving tree to the community (Table 2). In contrast, the surviving haw- thorns contribute $57 per tree. Thus, total air quality benefits for hawthorns are 7.5 times higher than those of hawthorns in 2009. CONCLUSION i-Tree Streets is used here to contrast the environmental benefits of a large and a small growing species in Brooklyn, OH, grow- ing in similar sites. Accordingly, trees are assumed to be repre- sentative of their respective species, in two size categories, in an average street tree location, with average cardinal orientation and distances to structures. In other words, results would vary if one were to optimize a location for a benefit such as shad- ing to decrease heating and cooling costs for a specific site. Mature size and longevity are major factors in deter- mining environmental benefits. In this study, reducing sur- vival from 89% (honeylocust) to 65% (hawthorn) results in the loss of 27% of the benefits that would have accrued to the hawthorn if the trees had an 89% survival rate in 2009. When making decisions for a community, it sometimes helps to consider things on a larger scale. Suppose the Brook- lyn, OH, urban foresters in 1964 had been able to plant 100 trees of both types in the same location with the same re- sults. There would then be 89 surviving honeylocusts and 65 surviving hawthorns. The hawthorns would then be de- livering a total of $5,700 for the community while the honey- locusts would be delivering 7.5 time as much, or $43,000. If another scenario is used and the hawthorns were spaced 6.1– 7.6 m on center, one could then double the number of trees but their survival rate would remain the same. Some communities do this when planting smaller trees. In this scenario, the larger, longer lived honeylocusts would still produce 3.8 times as many environ- mental benefits as the smaller growing hawthorns after 46 years in the landscape. This study clearly demonstrates that, where space is available, such as in the two sites selected, larger, and longer lived street species will benefit the community in a variety of ways. This study should not be construed to suggest the use of larger growing trees beneath utility lines as utility pruning is expensive, causes conflicts, and can interrupt utility service. Utilities generally prune plants to no more than 7.6 m high beneath utility lines, which reduces the service life and envi- ronmental benefits of trees. Utility pruned trees were not con- sidered in this simulation as utility lines were not present in either site. One must still cite trees properly and use various taxa, but mature size, longevity, and potential environmental benefits should be considered when planning urban plantings. LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 2009. Sacramento Tree Foundation. Accessed July 9, 2009.
Anonymous. 2006. iTree: Tools for managing and assessing Community Forests. Accessed May17, 2009. Kuo, F.E. 2001. Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and atten- tion in the inner city. Environment and Behavior 33:5–3 Heimlich, J.E., T.D. Sydnor, M. Bumgardner, and P. O’Brien. 2008. Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emer- ald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1):47–53. Maco, S., and G. McPherson. 2003. A practical approach to assessing structure, function, and value of street tree populations in small com- munities. Journal of Arboriculture 29:84–97. McPherson, E.G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, S.E. Maco, S.L. Gardner. S.K.Cozad, and Q. Xia. 2006. Midwest Community Tree Guide. Unit- ed States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-199. 100 pp. McPherson, E.G. 2005. Trees with benefits. American Nurseryman 201:34–40 Reisch, K.W., G. Hull, and H.M. Hill. 1971. Case Histories of Several Street Tree Species and Cultivars at Selected Sites in Five Ohio Cit- ies. Horticulture Series 376. Ohio Agricultural and Development Center, Wooster, OH. 65 pp. Santamour, F.S., Jr. 1990. Trees for urban planting: Diversity, uniformity and common sense. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metro- politan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA) 7:57–65. Schroeder, H.W., and S.R. Ruffolo. 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 22:35–43 Schroeder, H., J. Flannigan, and R. Coles. 2006. Residents’ Attitudes to- ward Street Trees in the UK and U.S. Communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:236–246. Sydnor, T.D., S. Subburayalu, J. Chatfield, E. Draper, A. Stone, K. Smith, and J. Conglose. 2010. Street Tree Evaluation Project: Forty Years of Street Tree Evaluation in Five Communities. Ohio State University Extension Bulletin #877. Columbus, OH. 100 pp. Wolf, Kathleen L. 2003. Public response to urban forest in inner-city business districts. Journal of Arboriculture 29:117–126. T. Davis Sydnor Professor of Urban Forestry School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210-1085, U.S. [email protected] Sakthi K. Subburayalu Post-doctoral Researcher School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210-1085, U.S. 171 ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2011
| 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
