Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35(3): May 2009 Topping is fairly commonly practiced, including by some who seem to know it is detrimental and who feel that trees are impor- tant. A favorable impression of topping may be due to a lack of ad- equate education about its negative effects. We found that having people read a simple educational brochure on directional pruning for utility clearance with some messages about topping was ad- equate to raise knowledge, but only if they had not topped before. Better education of citizens on tree biology, general care, and top- ping is desirable, but the form that education takes is important for it to be used and to be effective. Workshops and seminars are good in-depth learning opportunities, but few people avail themselves of those opportunities. People want educational methods and media that are flexible and available when and where they want them (Kuhns et al. 1998). Retail nurseries and garden centers are especially important for getting tree care information distributed because they are commonly used information sources. Extension often is a good source of information and education, but is less used than nurseries, so Extension may want to focus on educat- ing nursery personnel and supplying them with good educational materials. Study of the state of knowledge of nursery/garden cen- ter personnel may be useful to see what they know and believe and how that agrees with up-to-date arboricultural knowledge. People who top trees are likely to be difficult to educate away from their current behavior. They may not be easily swayed by anti-topping educational messages, or at least the messages in- cluded in this study’s brochure. Good anti-topping materials are available, and Web resources are especially good and thor- ough, but passive dissemination may not work – if people are convinced that topping is OK or even good, then it seems un- likely that they will go out looking for information about why it is bad. They need to be reached directly with strong anti-top- ping messages, perhaps through inserts in utility bills, mass me- dia public-service announcements, billboards, booths at garden shows, and through Master Gardener events. Web-based adver- tisements on gardening and tree-related websites could deliver an anti-topping message, then direct readers to more in-depth materials on the Web. TreeLine USA utilities could help get the anti-topping word out with bill inserts and newsletters, while possibly elevating their status in customers’ eyes as profession- als who are tree experts and who care about trees (Kuhns and Reiter 2007). This might even help counter the impression people may have that directional pruning done for utility line clearance is topping. Ultimately, anti-topping ordinances, at least for public trees, may be the only way that some people will forego topping. Working against topping, the arboricultural community cannot rely on its ugliness. Many people who have their trees topped think it looks good. Some even think it looks bet- ter than leaving crowns alone. Education needs to focus as directly as possible on why topping is bad for trees despite vigorous regrowth. A strong caution against planting fast- growing, poor quality trees needs to be part of this education. LITERATURE CITED American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2004. A300 Standard for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Mainte- nance – Standard Practices (Fertilization, Part 2). American National Standards Institute, New York, NY. Appleton, B., and S.A. Floyd. 2004. Wire baskets – Current products and their handling at planting. Journal of Arboriculture 30:261–265. 127 Arnold, M.A., G.V. McDonald, D.L. Bryan, G.C. Denny, W.T. Watson, and L. Lombardini. 2007. Below-grade planting adversely affects survival and growth of tree species from five different families. Arbo- riculture & Urban Forestry 33:64–69. Close, D.D., J.W. Groninger, J.C. Mangun, and P.L. Roth. 2001. Hom- eowners’ opinions on the practice and effects of topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27:160–165 Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Elmendorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a Penn- sylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture 29(4):237–247. Fazio, J.R. 1989. Don’t Top Trees. Tree City USA Bulletin No. 8, J.R. Fazio, Ed. National Arbor Day Foundation, Nebraska City, NE. 8 pp. Fazio, J.R., and E.E. Krumpe. 1999. Underlying beliefs and attitudes about topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 25:192–199. Ferrini, F., and M. Baietto. 2006. Response to fertilization of different tree species in the urban environment. Arboriculture and Urban For- estry 32:93–99. Gartner, J.T., T. Treiman, and T. Frevert. 2002. Missouri urban forest – A ten-year comparison. Journal of Arboriculture 28:76–83. Harris, R.W. 1994. Clarifying certain pruning terminology: Thinning, heading, pollarding. Journal of Arboriculture 20(1):50–54. International Society of Arboriculture. 2007. The top 10 myths of tree care. www.treesaregood.com/pressrelease/press/top10myths.aspx (accessed August 7, 2008). Karlovich, D.A., J.W. Groninger, and D.D. Close. 2000. Tree condition associated with topping in southern Illinois communities. Journal of Arboriculture 26:87–91. Kuhns, M.R. 1995. Trees and Power Lines. Leaflet 270, USU Extension. 2 pp. Kuhns, M.R. 1997. Penetration of treated and untreated burlap by roots of balled-and-burlapped Norway maples. Journal of Arboriculture 23:1–7. Kuhns, M.R., M.W. Brunson, and S.D. Roberts. 1998. Landowners’ edu- cational needs and how foresters can respond. Journal of Forestry 96:38–43. Kuhns, M.R., B. Lee, and D.K. Reiter. 2005. Characteristics of urban for- estry programs in Utah, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:285–295. Kuhns, M.R., and D.K. Reiter. 2007. Knowledge of and attitudes about utility pruning and how education can help. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33:264–274. National Arbor Day Foundation (NADF). 2008a. Tree City USA web page. www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA.cfm (accessed 08/15/08). National Arbor Day Foundation (NADF). 2008b. Tree Line USA website. www.arborday.org/programs/TLUSAReqments.cfm (accessed 8/15/08). Ryan, H.D.P. III. 1994. Arboricultural pruning methodologies. Arborist News 3(4):33–40. Schroeder, H.W., T.L. Green, and T.J. Howe. 2003. Community tree pro- grams in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29:218–225. Struve, D.K. 2002. A review of shade tree nitrogen fertilization research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28:252–263. Thompson, R.P., and J.J. Ahern. 2000. The State of Urban Forestry in California. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute Technical Report No. 9. San Luis Obispo, CA. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2005. What do people want from their com- munity forests? Results of a public attitude survey in Missouri, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31(5):243–250. ©2009 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2009
| 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
