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
AbstractArticles

Abstract

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 1981, 7 (7) 187; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1981.7.7.187
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Chapman, Douglas. 1980. Aesculus and Carya trees deserve second consideration. Weeds, Trees & Turf 19(6): 62-63.

In general, common horsechestnut, Ohio buckeye, and shagbark hickory are most effectively used in large area or golf course landscapes, while Ruby Red horsechestnut and, in some instances, Ohio buckeye fit into residential landscapes. All of these trees thrive in fertile, well drained soil. In native situations, hickory and oak are climax forests. They require only corrective pruning when young; therefore, are relatively low maintenance. For urban conditions, Ruby Red horsechestnut is most tolerant, followed by common horsechestnut, Ohio buckeye, and lastly, shagbark hickory. These trees can be outstanding additions/variations to the landscape, while requiring relatively little maintenance.

  • © 1981, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 7, Issue 7
July 1981
  • Table of Contents
  • 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.
Abstract
(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
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 1981, 7 (7) 187; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1981.7.7.187

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 1981, 7 (7) 187; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1981.7.7.187
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
  • 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

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire