382 Petter et al: Tree Selection of Tree City USA Cities in the Pacific Northwest diversifying the tree species, it is important to con- sider maintaining a stratified age distribution to avoid all of the trees maturing at the same time. In our opinion, regional diversity could be accom- plished in a few ways. First, continuing to plant native species helps to set a particular region or area apart from others and provides a unique sense of place. Second, we recommend partnering with local nurser- ies to grow a greater variety of tree species. If there is a market, tree nurseries are more willing to grow that species. Third, where feasible, more trees should be planted that were grown from seed, both for native and nonnative tree species. This will increase the intraspecific tree diversity, help to produce trees that are better suited for the local climate, and reduce reli- ance on cultivars. Management Implications 1. Select the tree based on site characteristics. 2. Avoid tree species that have known problems (e.g., weak branch attachment) or are poten- tially invasive. 3. Engage more stakeholders and improve inter- disciplinary cooperation. 4. Increase diversity: strive for 5-10-20-30; 10-20- 30 on a neighborhood scale. 5. Consider regional diversity, both in terms of increasing the number of species and increasing diversity within species that are specifically adapted to your region. LITERATURE CITED Alvey AA. 2006. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 5(4):195-201. Arbor Day Foundation. 2016a. Oregon Tree City USA summary. [Accessed 2018 Apr 20]. https://www.arborday.org/states/ documents/Oregon.pdf Arbor Day Foundation. 2016b. Washington Tree City USA sum- mary. [Accessed 2018 Apr 20]. https://www.arborday.org/ states/documents/Washington.pdf Arbor Day Foundation. 2020. Tree City USA Growth Awards. [Accessed 2017 Apr 19]. https://www.arborday.org/programs/ treecityusa/growthAwards.cfm Beatty RA, Heckman CT. 1981. Survey of urban tree programs in the United States. Urban Ecology. 5(2):81-102. Carlson C. 1995. Urban forestry and arboricultural advancements in Ohio, USA. Arboricultural Journal. 19(4):377-400. City of Eugene. 2015. Approved street tree list. [Accessed 2018 Apr 20]. https://www.eugene-or.gov/3677/Code-Resources -and-Regulations City of Portland. 2017. Street tree inventory report. [Accessed 2018 Apr 20]. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/ 638773 Clark JR, Matheny NP, Cross G, Wake V. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23:17-30. Conway TM, Vander Vecht J. 2015. Growing a diverse urban forest: species selection decisions by practitioners planting and supplying trees. Landscape and Urban Planning. 138:1-10. Cornelis J, Hermy M. 2004. Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning. 69(4):385-401. Creswell JW. 2013. Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series. 48. https://digitalcommons.unl .edu/dberspeakers/48 Creswell JW, Miller DL. 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice. 39(3):124-130. Culley TM, Hardiman NA. 2007. The beginning of a new invasive plant: a history of the ornamental Callery pear in the United States. AIBS Bulletin. 57(11):956-964. D’Amato NE, Sydnor TD, Struve DK. 2002. Urban foresters identify Ohio’s tree needs. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(6): 291-301. Escobedo FJ, Nowak DJ. 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning. 90(3-4):102-110. Green T. 2002. Arborists should have a central role in educating the public about veteran trees. Arboricultural Journal. 26(3): 239-248. Haack RA. 2006. Exotic bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera in the United States: recent establishments and interceptions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36(2):269-288. Herms DA, McCullough DG. 2014. Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: history, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual Review of Entomology. 59:13-30. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 15(9):1277-1288. Iles JK, Vold AM. 2003. Landscape tree cultivar preferences in Iowa, US. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 29(6):331. Kenney WA, Idziak C. 2000. The state of Canada’s municipal forests–1996 to 1998. The Forestry Chronicle. 76(2):231-234. Kenney WA, Van Wassenaer PJ, Satel AL. 2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and manage- ment. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108-117. Kovacs KF, Haight RG, McCullough DG, Mercader RJ, Siegert NW, Liebhold AM. 2010. Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in US communities, 2009–2019. Ecological Economics. 69(3):569-578. Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Tarnai J, Dillman DA. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems asso- ciated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture. 30(1):28-35. McKenney DW, Pedlar JH, Lawrence K, Campbell K, Hutchinson MF. 2007. Beyond traditional hardiness zones: using climate envelopes to map plant range limits. BioScience. 57(11): 929-937. ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2020
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
