Tree replacement

KevinS

KevinS

Branched out member
Location
ontario
We have condo work coming up to remove and replace about 60-70 dead/dying ash (eab)

To replace that number how many species would you recommend? They want to stay consistent so maybe 3 species is there thought at 20/species.

Not bad I was thinking more like 5 species makes closer to 12/species.
(math off of 60)

Thanks
 
All the elm died....let's replace them with ash. All the ash died...let's replace them with maple and pear. :confused:

Look at what else is there. Try to keep the population under 20% from the same Family, 10-15% from same Genus. Planting 60 trees, I'd try hard to push for at least 10-12 species.

How much room is there? Often large trees are planted in small spaces...don't make that mistake again if that was the case with the ash. What other parameters are there? Are not trees acceptable?
 
Dr. Ball has a great presentation on species diversity and also lists a bunch of underutilized tree species. Emphasis on lack of important pests and diseases as well if I recall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
I would also look into what trees they have left when considering what to plant. Example - if they have a high percentage of maples already I wouldn't plant more. I just gave a townhome association a list of 8 different trees (family) to replace 12 ash they are removing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
To review a powerpoint presentation given by Dr. Ball entitled "The 5% Solution", click on this link.

http://www.urbanforestrytoday.org/videos.html

Scroll to the bottom of the page and then come up 4 panels from the bottom on the left. The gist of it is to get off of species, and even genus, and look for families of trees which aren't represented on continents other than North America, in order to find good candidates that aren't going to crumple the first time an exotic insect comes calling.
 
cerviarborist said:
To review a powerpoint presentation given by Dr. Ball entitled "The 5% Solution", click on this link.

http://www.urbanforestrytoday.org/videos.html

Scroll to the bottom of the page and then come up 4 panels from the bottom on the left. The gist of it is to get off of species, and even genus, and look for families of trees which aren't represented on continents other than North America, in order to find good candidates that aren't going to crumple the first time an exotic insect comes calling.
Click to expand...

Works both ways, exotic trees may not be resistant to native insects and pathogens.
 
It's not that simplified. He's not talking about rare oaks, birches, and maples but rather plants that aren't related to much such as Koelreuteria, Maackia, Ptelea, Eucommia, Phellodendron, male Maclura, Ginkgo, Cercidiphyllum, etc. Problems run in the family and avoiding problematic families is the new goal.
 
My specs from ‘the board’ we’re ok with green trees or red trees but nothing that will get big or have roots that spread and we don’t want anything that will get a problem later like these crappy ash trees.

I swear that’s verbatim
 
KevinS said:
My specs from ‘the board’ we’re ok with green trees or red trees but nothing that will get big or have roots that spread and we don’t want anything that will get a problem later like these crappy ash trees.

I swear that’s verbatim
Click to expand...
Oh and it has to blend in with the other ones that are there
 
What does blend in mean?

What is "crappy" about the ash? Without EAB, they are a wonderful tree. Of course if "not get too big" is on the list, they were the wrong choice.

How big is too big?
 
I hear there is this new practice that can manage that "too big" issue.
It's called pruning; reduction pruning.

In many places I see crepemyrtle going in where a canopy was; the "too small" issue is much more common ime. You can revise the board's desires, and establish the objective *together*, then specify the species.

We are not selling shoes. The customer is not always right.
 
Depends Guy, too big for a street tree is just too big a tree for the boulevard. Also many cities dont have the time to manage tree height.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
Yeah...if there is a legit reason for smaller trees, I'd call it very poor planning to plant large species and expect manage size. Now...often, people have....shall we call it "uninformed" reasons for wanting small trees. Also poor planning.
 
Right; the board might think small trees = low mtc cost, while many residents might think more like big trees = big benefits.

If replacing ash, I would imagine most should be ash-sized, right? These are crucial conversations to have with the client.
 
Or A. Platanoides, Pryus or Gleditsia

I'm pretty sure without those 4 your average "landscaper" (or landscape architect) wouldn't know there are other trees to plant!
 
guymayor said:
Right; the board might think small trees = low mtc cost, while many residents might think more like big trees = big benefits.

If replacing ash, I would imagine most should be ash-sized, right? These are crucial conversations to have with the client.
Click to expand...
This also plays into proper sidewalk management and how better many cities could be dealing with it...

Saw a "premier" tree company here sever the roots at the sidewalk near the root flare of a bunch of 25+ year old Zelkovas at the behest of the city (No city forester at that time...) which are now declining and I would bet some will fail in a storm at that side of the soil line.

Sad really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom