Research ArticleArticles

Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses

Alexander J.F. Martin, Andrew K. Koeser, Ryan W. Klein and Tenley M. Conway
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2025, 51 (4) 369-378; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2025.016

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. Allgaier J.
    2019. Science and environmental communication on YouTube: Strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Frontiers in Communication. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036
  2. ↵
    1. Ballou TG,
    2. Lewis RR III.
    1989. Environmental assessment and restoration recommendations for a mangrove forest affected by jet fuel. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings. 1989(1):407–412. https://doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-1989-1-407
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Berland A,
    2. Shiflett SA,
    3. Shuster WD,
    4. Garmestani AS,
    5. Goddard HC,
    6. Herrmann DL,
    7. Hopton ME.
    2017. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 162:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/jdandurbplan.2017.02.017
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Botten N,
    2. Wood LJ,
    3. Werner JR.
    2021. Glyphosate remains in forest plant tissues for a decade or more. Forest Ecology and Management. 493:119259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119259
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    Bowbrick v. Jakob. 2017. BCPC 194 (CanLΠ). File No. 15-24906. https://canlii.ca/t/h4mb2
  6. ↵
    1. Brady NC,
    2. Weil RR.
    2008. The nature and properties of soils. 14th Ed. London (United Kingdom): Pearson. 975 p.
  7. ↵
    1. Braverman I.
    2008. “Everybody loves trees”: Policing American cities through street trees. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum. 19(1):81–118. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/delpf/vol19/iss1/3
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    Brown v. Johnston. 1971. 258 Or. 284 (Or. 1971). https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-johnston-8
  9. ↵
    1. Calvo E,
    2. de la Cova E
    1. Calvo E,
    2. de la Cova E.
    2023. Qualitative coding: Inducing and deducing. In: Calvo E, de la Cova E, editors. A qualitative approach to translational studies: Spotlighting translation problems. 1st Ed. New York (NY, USA): Routledge. 32 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003253594
  10. ↵
    1. Camacho-Cervantes M,
    2. Schondube JE,
    3. Castillo A,
    4. MacGregor-Fors I.
    2014. How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems. 17:761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0343-6
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Chandra Y,
    2. Shang L
    1. Chandra Y,
    2. Shang L.
    2019. Inductive coding. In: Chandra Y, Shang L, editors. Qualitative research using R: A systematic approach. p. 91–106. Singapore (Republic of Singapore): Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3170-1_8
  12. ↵
    1. Conway TM.
    2016. Tending their urban forest: Residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 17:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.008
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Conway TM,
    2. Jalali MA.
    2017. Representation of local urban forestry issues in Canadian newspapers: Impacts of a major ice storm. Canadian Geographies. 61(2):253–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12355
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Conway TM,
    2. Lue A.
    2018. Resident knowledge and support for private tree by-laws in the greater Toronto area. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 44(4):185–200. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2018.016
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Corbin JM,
    2. Strauss A.
    1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 13:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Costello LR,
    2. Perry EJ,
    3. Matheny NP,
    4. Henry JM,
    5. Geisel PM.
    2003. Abiotic disorders of landscape plants: A diagnostic guide. Davis (CA, USA): University of California, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 3420. 242 p.
  17. ↵
    1. Delshammar T,
    2. Östberg J,
    3. Öxell C.
    2015. Urban trees and ecosystem disservices—A pilot study using complaints records from three Swedish cities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 41(4):187–193. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.018
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Dunster JA.
    2018. Trees and the law in Canada. Victoria (BC, Canada): Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. 262 p.
  19. ↵
    1. Duran-Becerra B,
    2. Hillyer GC,
    3. Cosgrove A,
    4. Basch CH.
    2020. Climate change on YouTube: A potential platform for youth learning. Health Promotion Perspectives. 10(3):282–286. https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2020.42
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Durkin PR.
    2011. Triclopyr. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Corrected Final Report. SERA TR-052-25-03c. 269 p. [Updated 2016 July 9]. Atlanta (GA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Triclopyr_TR-052-25-03b.pdf
  21. ↵
    Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Method 4030: Soil screening for petroleum hydrocarbons by immunoassay. 17 p. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/4030.pdf
  22. ↵
    1. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
    2. Bellisai G,
    3. Bernasconi G,
    4. Brancato A,
    5. Carrasco Cabrera L,
    6. Castellan I,
    7. Ferreira L,
    8. Giner G,
    9. Greco L,
    10. Jarrah S,
    11. Leuschner R,
    12. Magrans JO,
    13. Miron I,
    14. Nave S,
    15. Pedersen R,
    16. Reich H,
    17. Robinson T,
    18. Ruocco S,
    19. Santos M,
    20. Scarlato AP,
    21. Theobald A,
    22. Verani A.
    2022. Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for triclopyr in oranges, lemons and mandarins. EFSA Journal. 20(8):e07545. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7545
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Fernandes CO,
    2. da Silva IM,
    3. Teixeira CP,
    4. Costa L.
    2019. Between tree lovers and tree haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 37:97–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.014
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Freund CA,
    2. Heaning EG,
    3. Mulrain IR,
    4. McCann JB,
    5. DiGiorgio AL.
    2021. Building better conservation media for primates and people: A case study of orangutan rescue and rehabilitation YouTube videos. People and Nature. 3(6):1257–1271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10268
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Granwehr C.
    2021. A guide to advanced YouTube search operators. [Published 2021 November 3]. https://granwehr.com/blog/youtube-search-operators
  26. ↵
    1. Guo T,
    2. Morgenroth J,
    3. Conway T.
    2019. To plant, remove, or retain: Understanding property owner decisions about trees during redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 190: 103601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103601
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Hsieh HF,
    2. Shannon SE.
    2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 15(9):1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Jenkins TF,
    2. Johnson LA,
    3. Collins CM,
    4. McFadden TT.
    1978. The physical, chemical and biological effects of crude oil spills on black spruce forest, interior Alaska. Arctic. 31(3):305–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40508906
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Kikuchi Y,
    2. Nishimura I,
    3. Sasaki T.
    2022. Wild birds in YouTube videos: Presence of specific species contributes to increased views. Ecological Informatics. 71:101767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101767
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Hauer RJ,
    4. Hansen G,
    5. Escobedo FJ.
    2019. Risk assessment and risk perception of trees: A review of literature relating to arboriculture and urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 45(1):26–38. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2019.003
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Lilly SJ,
    2. Bassett CG,
    3. Komen J,
    4. Purcell L.
    2022. Arborists ‘ certification study guide. 4th Ed. Atlanta (GA, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 468 p.
  32. ↵
    1. Lyytimäki J,
    2. Sipilä M.
    2009. Hopping on one leg—The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 8(4):309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Madathil KC,
    2. Rivera-Rodriguez AJ,
    3. Greenstein JS,
    4. Gramopadhye AK.
    2015. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics Journal. 21(3):173–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Martin AJF,
    2. Doucet T.
    2022. Communication of ecosystem services and disservices in local newspapers in Winnipeg, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 74:127653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127653
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. McLean HE,
    2. Jaebker LM,
    3. Anderson AM,
    4. Teel TL,
    5. Bright AD,
    6. Shwiff SA,
    7. Carlisle KM.
    2022. Social media as a window into human-wildlife interactions and zoonotic disease risk: An examination of wild pig hunting videos on YouTube. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 27(4):307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2021.1950240
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Stevens JC.
    2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 4(3-4):115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Olivero-Lora S,
    2. Meléndez-Ackerman E,
    3. Santiago L,
    4. Santiago-Bartolomei R,
    5. García-Montiel D.
    2020. Attitudes toward residential trees and awareness of tree services and disservices in a tropical city. Sustainability. 12(1):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010117
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Ordóñez-Barona C,
    2. Bush J,
    3. Hurley J,
    4. Amati M,
    5. Juhola S,
    6. Frank S,
    7. Ritchie M,
    8. Clark C,
    9. English A,
    10. Hertzog K,
    11. Caffin M,
    12. Watt S,
    13. Livesley SJ.
    2021. International approaches to protecting and retaining trees on private urban land. Journal of Environmental Management. 285:112081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112081
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Osman W,
    2. Mohamed F,
    3. Elhassan M,
    4. Shoufan A.
    2022. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Medical Education. 22:382. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    R v. Matheson. 2006. BCPC 14 (CanLII). File No. 162095-1-D. https://canlii.ca/t/1mfnw
  41. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Conway TM,
    3. Eisenman TS,
    4. Koeser AK,
    5. Barona CO,
    6. Locke DH,
    7. Jenerette GD,
    8. Östberg J,
    9. Vogt J.
    2021. Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio. 50:615–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Sampson M,
    2. Cumber J,
    3. Li C,
    4. Pound CM,
    5. Fuller A,
    6. Harrison D.
    2013. A systematic review of methods for studying consumer health YouTube videos, with implications for systematic reviews. PeerJ. 1:e147. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.147
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Schroeder H,
    2. Flannigan J,
    3. Coles R.
    2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 32(5):236–246. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2006.030
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Shapiro MA,
    2. Park HW.
    2018. Climate change and YouTube: Deliberation potential in post-video discussions. Environmental Communication. 12(1):115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1289108
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Snelson C.
    2011. YouTube across the disciplines: A review of the literature. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 7(1):159–169. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/snelson_0311.pdf
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Stoffel M,
    2. Slaveykova VI,
    3. Corona C,
    4. Cánovas JAB.
    2020. When scientists become detectives: Investigating systematic tree poisoning in a protected cove. Heliyon. 6(2):e03386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03386
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Thomas DR.
    2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation. 27(2):237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Utz S,
    2. Wolfers LN.
    2022. How-to videos on YouTube: The role of the instructor. Information, Communication & Society. 25(7):959–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1804984
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Vins M,
    2. Aldecoa M,
    3. Hines HN.
    2022. Sharing wildlife conservation through 4 billion views on YouTube. Global Ecology and Conservation. 33:e01970. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01970
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    Withrow v. Armstrong. 2006. No. 10-05-00320-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 15, 2006). https://casetext.com/case/withrow-v-armstrong
  51. ↵
    1. Ziter CD,
    2. Pedersen EJ,
    3. Kucharik CJ,
    4. Turner MG.
    2019. Scaledependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 116(15):7575–7580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817561116
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
Alexander J.F. Martin, Andrew K. Koeser, Ryan W. Klein, Tenley M. Conway
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2025, 51 (4) 369-378; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.016
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords