The Predictability of Tree Decay Based on Visual Assessments

Literature Cited

1. 1.↵
   1. Coder, K.D.

   1989. Should you or shouldn’t you fill tree hollows? Grounds Mainten. 24: 68, 70–73, 100.

   OpenUrl
2. 2.↵
   1. Costello, L.R., and
   2. J.D. Peterson

   . 1989. Decay detection in eucalyptus: An evaluation of two methods. J. Arboric. 15: 185–185.

   OpenUrl
3. 3.↵
   1. Franks, E.C., and
   2. J.W. Reeves

   . 1988. A formula for assessing the ecological value of trees. J. Arboric. 14: 255–255.

   OpenUrl
4. 4.↵
   1. Hubbard, W.G.

   1993. Street Tree Inventory and Urban Forest Assessment. Prepared for the City of Gainesville, Florida. Unpublished.
5. 5.↵
   1. Matheny, N.P., and
   2. J.R. Clark

   . 1994. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. HortScience, Inc. Pleasanton, CA.
6. 6.↵
   1. Mattheck, C., and
   2. H. Breloer

   . 1994. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. HMSO, London.
7. 7.↵
   1. Niederhofer, M.

   1994. Hazardous tree management questionnaire. Unpublished questionnaire covering management of hazardous trees in 9 Florida cities.
8. 8.↵
   1. Shigo, A.L., and
   2. P. Berry

   . 1975. A new tool for detecting decay associated with Fomes annosus in Pinus resinosa. Plant Dis. Reporter 59:739–742.

   OpenUrl
9. 9.
   1. Smiley, T., and
   2. B. Freadrich

   . 1990. Hazardous Tree Evaluation and Management. Bartlett Tree Research Lab. Charlotte, NC.
10. 10.
    U.S.D.A. Southern Region. 1990. Benefits of urban trees: Urban and community forestry, improving our quality of life. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Forestry Report R8-FR 17.
11. 11.
    1. Wagener, W.

    1963. Judging hazard from native trees in California recreational areas: A guide for professional foresters. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California. Research Paper PSN-P1.