Factors Influencing Urban Tree Planting Program Growth and Survival in Florida, United States

Factors Influencing Urban Tree Planting Program Growth and Survival in Florida,

United States

Andrew K. Koeser, Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz, and Chris Harchick

Introduction - Planting Initiatives• Tree planting is a key

element in urban forest management and promotion.

• In recent years, Million Tree planting initiatives have increased tree counts and public exposure.

• However, many note the need to go beyond number of trees planted when assessing success.



• In recent years, million tree planting initiatives have increased tree counts and public exposure.


commons.wikimedia.org



• In recent years, Million Tree planting initiatives have increased tree counts and public exposure.


htt

p:/

/clt

amp

a.co

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.g

asto

ngo

v.co

m

Introduction - Planting Initiatives

Extreme Planting Projects Failures:

• Oakland, CA – 2000 trees planted as part of a Federal project.

• 10 left after 10 years (Skar and Ames, 1984)

Introduction - Planting Initiatives

Extreme Planting Projects Failures:

• Beijing, China– 750 trees planted using a novel transplant method.

• 17-37% mortality less than 11 weeks after planting (Yang and McBride, 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Factors Influencing Urban Tree Planting Program Growth and Survival in Florida, United States

Sites Sampled

• Past FFS-funded community planting projects.

• 26 sites selected from 150 projects with active managers/records

• Sample stratified to include sites from temperate to sub-tropic regions

• Trees were installed 20 to 64 months prior to study

Sites Sampled

Florida Forest Service Grant Requirements• Florida #1 grade trees• Inspection in the

weeks following planting

• Inspection one year following planting

• Replacement required for dead and missing trees

lake.ifas.ufl.edu

Site Factors

• Site type

• Soil compaction

• Presence/absence of irrigation

• Presence/absence of staking materials

ww

w.am

erican-law

ns.co

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.i4

exit

guid

e.co

mfo

rum

.sky

scra

per

pag

e.co

m

Street

Open Lawn

Highway

• Site type

• Soil compaction



Site Factors

http

://ww

w.saw

grassvillagepvb

.com

htt

p:/

/ww

w.a

far.

com

Park

Parking Lot

Site Factors

• Site type

• Soil compaction



erad

tbah

satz

19

84

.2k0

0.c

om

Site Factors

• Site type

• Soil compaction



tvglandscaping.co.uk

Site Factors

• Site type

• Soil compaction



Trees Sampled

• The three most planted species included in study:

– Live oak (Quercusvirginiana; n=1197)

– Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora; n=154)

– Baldcypress (Taxodiumdistichum; n=240)

htt

p:/

/ww

w.n

wao

nlin

e.co

m/

Trees Sampled

• The three most planted species included in study:

– Live oak (Quercusvirginiana; n=1197)

– Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora; n=154)

– Baldcypress (Taxodiumdistichum; n=240)

Source: Trees: North and Central Florida

Tree Measurements/Factors

• Tree survival

• Trunk diameter

• Canopy condition (1-4)

• Percentage live crown

• Leans

• Rooting firmness rating (1-5)

city

bu

ilder

bo

okc

lub

.org


• Tree survival

• Trunk diameter



• Leans


ww

w.a

mle

o.c

om


• Tree survival

• Trunk diameter



• Leans


ww

w.p

ub

lic.a

su.e

du

Heat Damage –Southern Magnolia


• Tree survival

• Trunk diameter



• Leans



• For live oak only, compared balled and burlap to container

• Southern magnolia and baldcypress were container grown

Data Analysis

• Logistic regression proved problematic with data set.

• Assessed survival as a series of experiment-wise error rate adjusted Pearson’s chi-squared tests (prop.test function)

• Modeled growth using multiple regression with the lm function.

Results-Survival

Species

Irrigated Non-irrigated SignificantDifferenceZ% Survival n % Survival n

Live oak 97.5 717 94.2a 1017 **

Baldcypress 94.1 135 86.0b 250 .

Southern magnolia 97.7 132 73.8c 103 ***

zSignificance Codes: “***” = 0.001; “**” = 0.01; “.” = 0.10

Survival by Species and Presence/Absence of Irrigation

Results-Survival

ProductionMethod

Irrigated Non-irrigated SignificantDifferencez

% Survival n % Survival n

Container-grown 97.1 717 93.9 1017 *

Field-grown 98.5 135 95.7 250 NS

zSignificance Codes: “*” = 0.05; “NS” = non-significant.

Live Oak Survival by Production Method and Presence/Absence of Irrigation

Results – Live Oak GrowthFactor Coefficient SE P value 95% CI lower 95% CI upper

Intercept 0.909 0.074 <0.0001 0.7651 1.0535

Geographic region-North 0.215 0.018 <0.0001 0.1798 0.2507

Geographic Region-South 0.212 0.017 <0.0001 0.1778 0.2456

Planting Season-Spring 0.078 0.023 0.0008 0.0326 0.1243

Planting Season-Summer -0.051 0.025 0.0441 -0.1014 -0.0014

Planting Season-Winter -0.053 0.028 0.0533 -0.1074 0.0008

Months Since Planting 0.005 0.001 0.0006 0.0020 0.0072

Container-Produced -0.192 0.022 <0.0001 -0.2341 -0.1490

Irrigation Installed 0.070 0.023 0.0024 0.0250 0.1152

Firmness Rating 0.171 0.007 <0.0001 0.1570 0.1854

Initial Caliper 0.092 0.005 <0.0001 0.0823 0.1024

Site Type – Open Lawn -0.076 0.015 <0.0001 -0.1051 -0.0460

Site Type – Street -0.153 0.023 <0.0001 -0.1977 -0.1082

ProductionXIrrigation 0.098 0.027 0.0004 0.0435 0.1522

Adjusted R2 = 0.68

Results – Live Oak Growth

htt

p:/

/web

logs

.su

n-s

enti

nel

.co

m

ww

w.y

ytra

vela

dve

ntu

res.

com

h2o4tomorrow.blogspot.com

Results – Live Oak Growth

Results-Survival

ProductionMethod

Irrigated Non-irrigated SignificantDifferencez

% Survival n % Survival n

Container-grown 97.1 717 93.9 1017 *

Field-grown 98.5 135 95.7 250 NS

zSignificance Codes: “*” = 0.05; “NS” = non-significant.

Live Oak Survival by Production Method and Presence/Absence of Irrigation

Results – Baldcypress GrowthFactor Coefficient SE P value 95% CI lower 95% CI upper

Intercept -0.4838 0.3495 0.1676 -1.1723 0.2047

Geographic Region – North 0.2402 0.0461 <0.0001 0.1493 0.3311

Geographic Region – South -0.2337 0.0936 0.0132 -0.4181 -0.0493

Month Since Planting 0.0452 0.0096 <0.0001 0.0262 0.0642

Firmness Rating 0.1382 0.0242 <0.0001 0.0906 0.1858

Initial Caliper 0.1353 0.0110 <0.0001 0.1136 0.1569


Site Type - Park -0.5222 0.0826 <0.0001 -0.6849 -0.3595

Adjusted R2 = 0.73

Results – Baldcypress GrowthFactor Coefficient SE P value 95% CI lower 95% CI upper

Intercept -0.4838 0.3495 0.1676 -1.1723 0.2047

Geographic Region – North 0.2402 0.0461 <0.0001 0.1493 0.3311

Geographic Region – South -0.2337 0.0936 0.0132 -0.4181 -0.0493

Month Since Planting 0.0452 0.0096 <0.0001 0.0262 0.0642

Firmness Rating 0.1382 0.0242 <0.0001 0.0906 0.1858

Initial Caliper 0.1353 0.0110 <0.0001 0.1136 0.1569


Site Type - Park -0.5222 0.0826 <0.0001 -0.6849 -0.3595

Adjusted R2 = 0.73

Irrigation not in final model??

Results-Survival

Species

Irrigated Non-irrigated SignificantDifferenceZ% Survival n % Survival n

Live oak 97.5 717 94.2a 1017 **

Baldcypress 94.1 135 86.0b 250 .

Southern magnolia 97.7 132 73.8c 103 ***

zSignificance Codes: “***” = 0.001; “**” = 0.01; “.” = 0.10

Survival by Species and Presence/Absence of Irrigation

Results – Southern Magnolia GrowthFactor Coefficient SE P value 95% CI lower 95% CI Upper

Intercept 1.0877 0.0992 <0.0001 0.8916 1.2836

Geographic region - North 0.4023 0.0649 <0.0001 0.2741 0.5305

Planting season – Spring 0.1689 0.0481 0.0006 0.0737 0.2640

Planting season – Winter -0.2184 0.0506 <0.0001 -0.3182 -0.1184

Irrigation present 0.4348 0.0552 <0.0001 0.3257 0.5437

Firmness rating 0.1160 0.0154 <0.0001 0.0855 0.1465

Initial caliper 0.0621 0.0188 0.0012 0.0249 0.0991

Site type – street -0.3246 0.0775 <0.0001 -0.4777 -0.1713

Adjusted R2 = 0.77

Results – Southern Magnolia GrowthFactor Coefficient SE P value 95% CI lower 95% CI Upper

Intercept 1.0877 0.0992 <0.0001 0.8916 1.2836

Geographic region - North 0.4023 0.0649 <0.0001 0.2741 0.5305

Planting season – Spring 0.1689 0.0481 0.0006 0.0737 0.2640

Planting season – Winter -0.2184 0.0506 <0.0001 -0.3182 -0.1184

Irrigation present 0.4348 0.0552 <0.0001 0.3257 0.5437

Firmness rating 0.1160 0.0154 <0.0001 0.0855 0.1465

Initial caliper 0.0621 0.0188 0.0012 0.0249 0.0991

Site type – street -0.3246 0.0775 <0.0001 -0.4777 -0.1713

Conclusions

• Overall establishment rate = 93.6% (20-64 months after planting; n = 2354).

Conclusions

93.6% puts these projects among the most successful in literature:

• 91% (932) – Iowa (Tompson et al., 2004)

• 91.3% (45,094) – New York, NY (Lu et al., 2010)

• 95-96% (1163) – Philadelphia, PA (Jack-Scott, 2011)

Conclusions

93.6% puts these projects among the most successful on record:

• 91% (932) – Iowa (Tompson et al., 2004)

• 91.3% (45,094) – New York, NY (Lu et al., 2010)

• 95-96% (1163) – Philadelphia, PA (Jack-Scott, 2011)

Caveat: FL plantings include replacements up to 1 year after planting

Conclusions

• On-site irrigation most important to container-grown live oak and Southern magnolia

• Field-grown live oak out-performed similar container-grown material (seen in earlier studies by Gilman and Masters, 2010)

en.wikipedia.org

Questions?

Factors Influencing Urban Tree Planting Program Growth and Survival in Florida, United States

Documents

Transcript of Factors Influencing Urban Tree Planting Program Growth and Survival in Florida, United States