Article Figures & Data
Tables
- Table 1.
Monitoring data collected by Tree Checkers on recently planted street trees. Methods based on the Urban Tree Monitoring Field Guide pilot test (Roman et al. 2017) with vigor following Pontius and Hallett (2014).
Variable Description Mortality status Whether the tree is alive, standing dead, removed, stump, or never planted Crown vigor class A holistic assessment of overall crown health, ranging from class 1 (healthy with little fine twig dieback and no major branch loss) to class 5 (dead) Trunk circumference Circumference of the trunk generally recorded at 1.37 m (4.5 ft) depending on tree form; multi-stemmed trees recorded below the fork; exact height used is also recorded Mulch Assessment of mulch based on PHS recommended practices (good, poorly done / too much, too little, none) Weeds/trash Presence/absence of weeds and trash in the soil pit Inadequate water Presence/absence of insufficient water, based on field crew feeling for soil moisture Bark damage Presence/absence of damaged bark Broken branches Presence/absence of broken branches Suckers/sprouts Presence/absence of root suckers / basal sprouts Root flare buried Presence/absence of root flare above the soil line; buried root flare indicates tree was planted too deep Tree photo Photograph of the whole tree in the context of its immediate surroundings Study objective Survival outcome Years since planting Sample size Notes on methods Citation Determine annual survival rate 95.5% annual survival 2–10 151 Limited to Acer campestre; mortality rate includes both missing and standing dead Roman & Scatena (2011) Evaluate survival and growth of bare root versus balled-and-burlapped planting stock 95% cumulative survival for bare root, 96% for balled-and-burlapped 2.6 average 1,411 Limited to commonly planted species, randomly blocked by year; missing trees were not included in mortality rate Jack-Scott (2012) Evaluate survival and growth to estimate future benefits 59% cumulative survival; 87% annual survival 3–5 1,742 All species included; sampling based on neighborhood groups; mortality rate includes both missing and standing dead Widney et al. (2016) - Table 3.
Monitoring findings comparing overall volunteer-collected data (n = 707, convenience sample) to intern-collected data (n = 198, random sample), and tree-by-tree consistency for the trees observed by both field crews (n = 178). Blank entries were omitted from all summary data.
Variable Volunteer result Intern result Tree-by-tree consistency Survival 91% 91% 96% agreement Crown vigor 74% in classes
1 & 284% in classes
1 & 2volunteer vigor within 1 vigor class of interns for 90% of trees Trunk circumference n/a n/a 62% within 2.54 cm Mulch 40% good 34% good 55% agreement
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.