Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Should We Consider Expected Environmental Benefits When Planting Larger or Smaller Tree Species?

T. Davis Sydnor and Sakthi K. Subburayalu
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2011, 37 (4) 167-172; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2011.022
T. Davis Sydnor
T. Davis Sydnor, Professor of Urban Forestry, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1085, U.S.,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Sakthi K. Subburayalu
Sakthi K. Subburayalu, Post-doctoral Researcher, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1085, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

LITERATURE CITED

  1. ↵
    1. Anonymous
    . 2009. Sacramento Tree Foundation. Accessed July 9, 2009. <http://www.sactree.com/doc.aspx?25>
  2. ↵
    1. Anonymous
    . 2006. iTree: Tools for managing and assessing Community Forests. Accessed May 17, 2009. <http://www.itreetools.org/>
  3. ↵
    1. Kuo, F.E.
    2001. Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior 33:5–3
  4. ↵
    1. Heimlich, J.E.,
    2. T.D. Sydnor,
    3. M. Bumgardner, and
    4. P. O’Brien
    . 2008. Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1):47–53.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Maco, S., and
    2. G. McPherson
    . 2003. A practical approach to assessing structure, function, and value of street tree populations in small communities. Journal of Arboriculture 29:84–97.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.,
    2. J.R. Simpson,
    3. P.J. Peper,
    4. S.E. Maco,
    5. S.L. Gardner.
    6. S.K. Cozad, and
    7. Q. Xia
    . 2006. Midwest Community Tree Guide. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-199. 100 pp.
  7. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.
    2005. Trees with benefits. American Nurseryman 201:34–40
  8. ↵
    1. Reisch, K.W.,
    2. G. Hull, and
    3. H.M. Hill
    . 1971. Case Histories of Several Street Tree Species and Cultivars at Selected Sites in Five Ohio Cities. Horticulture Series 376. Ohio Agricultural and Development Center, Wooster, OH. 65 pp.
  9. ↵
    1. Santamour, F.S., Jr.
    . 1990. Trees for urban planting: Diversity, uniformity and common sense. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA) 7:57–65.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W., and
    2. S.R. Ruffolo
    . 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 22:35–43
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.,
    2. J. Flannigan, and
    3. R. Coles
    . 2006. Residents’ Attitudes toward Street Trees in the UK and U.S. Communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:236–246.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Sydnor, T.D.,
    2. S. Subburayalu,
    3. J. Chatfield,
    4. E. Draper,
    5. A. Stone,
    6. K. Smith, and
    7. J. Conglose
    . 2010. Street Tree Evaluation Project: Forty Years of Street Tree Evaluation in Five Communities. Ohio State University Extension Bulletin #877. Columbus, OH. 100 pp.
  13. ↵
    1. Wolf, Kathleen L.
    2003. Public response to urban forest in inner-city business districts. Journal of Arboriculture 29:117–126.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 37 (4)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 37, Issue 4
July 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should We Consider Expected Environmental Benefits When Planting Larger or Smaller Tree Species?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Should We Consider Expected Environmental Benefits When Planting Larger or Smaller Tree Species?
T. Davis Sydnor, Sakthi K. Subburayalu
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2011, 37 (4) 167-172; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2011.022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Should We Consider Expected Environmental Benefits When Planting Larger or Smaller Tree Species?
T. Davis Sydnor, Sakthi K. Subburayalu
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2011, 37 (4) 167-172; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2011.022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods
  • London Plane Bark Exfoliation and Tree-Ring Growth in Urban Environments
  • Green Infrastructure with Actual Canopy Parameterization: A Simulation Study for Heat Stress Mitigation in a Hot-Humid Urban Environment
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Crataegus
  • Community Forestry
  • Environmental Benefits
  • Gleditsia
  • Hawthorn
  • Honeylocust
  • i-Tree
  • i-Tree Streets
  • street trees
  • STRATUM
  • Urban Forestry

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire