Arborists should allow trees to be themselves

[TMW]

http://www.granttribune.com/index.php?op...s&Itemid=55

“Understanding how trees grow, their strategies for growth and how to participate in those strategies; that’s how we can cultivate trees,” said Jack Phillips, consulting arborist, at a recent tree school.

Much of arborists’ education today consists of treatments and overlooks the broader perspective of how trees can naturally defend themselves, Phillips said. It ignores how trees draw what they need from the environment and what they contribute to the environment.

He said, when trees grow in communities, the plants themselves create conditions in which they thrive. By understanding how they do that, arborists can help them create optimum conditions for themselves, rather than interrupting the process with treatments.

He pointed out that trees survived for millennia without fertilizer. They don’t need it, he said, except when people make it impossible for them to live otherwise. Trees don’t need fertilizer; they need space to grow, he said. They have not evolved in sidewalks.

More than anything, arborists and homeowners need to think about giving trees the kind of space where they can “be themselves.” Trees need to “really be trees instead of some kind of creature that’s chemically dependent or some kind of pet that we can mold and shape according to our desires.”

 

[Blinky]

I agree... but isn't that what arborists do? Care for trees in urban settings where they aren't able to grow naturally and create the conditions in which they thrive?

People DO want to mold and shape their trees, so to speak. It's not great for the trees but people are people, our job is to mediate that and educate folks about how to keep their trees healthy.

 

[mdvaden]

[ QUOTE ]

He pointed out that trees survived for millennia without fertilizer. They don’t need it, he said, except when people make it impossible for them to live otherwise. Trees don’t need fertilizer; they need space to grow, he said. They have not evolved in sidewalks.



[/ QUOTE ]

What is not pointed out, is that the trees that survived for millennia, are not the millions of trees of we don't see that died.

Go up to Mt. Hood in Oregon. What tree do you see. Only the living, not the ones destroyed. That's what decay is for in the natural world. Works fine in the forest. What lives lives and what does not does not. And it looks great in that natural environment.

In nature, a full-blown hands-off scenerio results in all kinds of damage, breaking, leaning, etc..

We don't want that in most urban settings, so a total hands-off aproach will not only be unwelcome by the informed, but may get laughed to scorn.

Some trees don't need to be worked on. But other trees do. It's that simple.

Many arborists are very aware of a "broader perspective" except that it's impractical.

I'd say the author is the one who is unaware of the broader perspective of just what it is that the better more dedicated arborists really know.

In large part, the author conveys a doctrine as if he is unaware of what goals many residential property owners have in mind to enjoy their properties. People rarely live over 100 years, so I say let them enjoy their homes and yards. Tree species can live for centuries - so let the trees live that untouched life out in the forest.

 

[familytree]

I agree, it's more if a survival of the fittest in nature. The survivors are revered, the dead never morned, except in urban settings.

 

[Colin]

X 2

 

[idnwid]

[ QUOTE ]
More than anything, arborists and homeowners need to think about giving trees the kind of space where they can “be themselves.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This amuses me, how many people have yards that allow for this, sort of eliminates street side trees as well.

 

[dylanclimbs]

[ QUOTE ]
or some kind of pet that we can mold and shape according to our desires.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats wrong with that? Dang hippies

 

[scott_baker]

You guys might be interested to know that Jack Phillips is a highly regarded arborist with tremendous depth of experience.

His interest in a more ecological and, frankly less human centered, approach to Urban Ecology and thus tree management is shared by many people in our field.

I think that we will all be learning more about trees than we know presently....and as has happened many times in the past...changing our practices and...sometimes...attitudes.

Change is the only sure thing in life.

I say embrace it, question it, but don't get stuck.

Don't worry...there will still be a need to manipulate trees and probably more fun to be had.

Scott

 

[mdvaden]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys might be interested to know that Jack Phillips is a highly regarded arborist with tremendous depth of experience.

His interest in a more ecological and, frankly less human centered, approach to Urban Ecology and thus tree management is shared by many people in our field.

I think that we will all be learning more about trees than we know presently....and as has happened many times in the past...changing our practices and...sometimes...attitudes.

Change is the only sure thing in life.

I say embrace it, question it, but don't get stuck.

Don't worry...there will still be a need to manipulate trees and probably more fun to be had.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be so.

But the article posted had nothing really new in it.

For example, I don't do any fertilizer programs myself, having learned from trees I grew up with in Oregon. So that aspect is actually old news. It's a good point though.

But various arborists I know, are very aware of that kind of stuff, contrary to how the article seems to portray arborists in general.

Giving trees more space may not even be possible. If we are talking the right tree for the right space, that's pretty much the standard of teaching even among landscape tech students these days.

What is changing, is that the colleges are now providing "mature size" and "landscape size". That's because of zoning and planning standards to set urban growth boundaries. The properies are getting very small. So the urban approach to trees now, is starting to recognize a useful lifespan, not an indefinite existence. Not really the approach I like, but that's how it's becoming. At least there are a good amount of older homes with bigger lots providing some nice size trees to work with.

If anything, the planners may be the ones who need to realize that trees need more space. I'm not sure how willing they and the developers are at present to enlarge each property for a single home. Would be nice.

As far as backing off off of uneccessary sprays or fertilizers, it's nice to see someone promoting that angle.