Forest researchers say cities need
to plant different kinds of trees.
Many cities plant only a handful of
species. (Photo courtesy of the US Forest Service)
Urban forest researchers say cities
need different kinds of trees. Having
too many of the same kind of trees
encourages pests. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Urban forest researchers say cities
need different kinds of trees. Having
too many of the same kind of trees
encourages pests. Lester Graham reports:
Pests have already wiped out native trees such as chestnuts, elms and now ash.
James Kielbaso is a forester with Michigan State University. He says native trees are great but, one of his students has found some cities are too reliant on them.
“An urban tree population should not consist of any more than ten or fifteen percent of any one species. He’s finding the trees that are most over-used tend to be our native trees.”
In some cases, maples make up 30% of a city’s trees. That means if a disease or a pest hits maples, a city could lose a third of its urban forest.
Kielbaso says people should plant tree species not already in the neighborhood and a few hardy foreign species could help diversify a city forest.
In October 2006, a surprise snow storm did considerable damage to the trees in the Olmsted Park System. (Photo by Joyce Kryszak)
Volunteers are helping a non-profit conservancy plant new trees throughout the parks. (Photo by Joyce Kryszak)
John Penfold (pictured) says he and the other volunteers are willing to do whatever it takes to save the parks. (Photo by Joyce Kryszak)
At one time, cities were little more than stone and brick. But in the mid-1800’s
Frederick Law Olmsted began changing all that. The landscape architect
designed some of the most important park systems in the country. But decades
of neglect and nature’s wrath are threatening Olmsted’s largest park system.
Joyce Kryszak has the story of plans to restore it:
Transcript
At one time, cities were little more than stone and brick. But in the mid-1800’s
Frederick Law Olmsted began changing all that. The landscape architect
designed some of the most important park systems in the country. But decades
of neglect and nature’s wrath are threatening Olmsted’s largest park system.
Joyce Kryszak has the story of plans to restore it:
You’ve no doubt heard of, and maybe even taken a stroll through New York’s
Central Park. It was Olmsted who created that 800 plus acres of sprawling urban
backyard. But Olmsted didn’t just carve out a magnificent green space. He also
carved out a reputation for himself, and a demand for his designs for parks all
over the country. Olmsted’s green thumb-print can be found all the way from
Boston’s Emerald Necklace to Yosemite National Park. Brian Dold is a
landscape architect from Buffalo, New York. He says even his profession is an Olmsted
creation.
“[He] came up with the term landscape architecture and really brought it to a
scale where he could do these major projects. So, he sort of grew
from getting work and the profession sort of took off from there.”
And Dold has plenty of work to do in Buffalo, New York. There, he is
maintaining Olmsted’s first, and one of his largest, integrated park systems.
Last October, a surprise snow storm dumped two feet of heavy snow on the still
leaf-covered boughs of Olmsted’s majestic trees. Many of them splintered under the
weight, leaving an amputated landscape. Ninety percent of the trees were
damaged and hundreds were lost. But devoted park lovers are volunteering to help
the non-profit conservancy plant new trees throughout the six parks and
parkway.
“Woo, that’s a lot of work. All right, you got it.”
John Penfold even climbs up on top of the shoulders of other volunteers to unlash the
branches of a newly planted maple. Penfold says they’re willing to do whatever it
takes to save the parks.
“When the storm hit, kind of saw all the trees fall, so, I think it brought the
community together to realize, we have these trees and we need ’em.”
Before the storm hit, the park system was already in crisis. American Elm
disease swept through, killing the stately trees. Then the city cut money for
maintenance. But now, the non-profit conservancy has come up with a twenty-
year master plan to restore the Olmsted park system. Executive Director
Johnathon Holifield says they have their work cut out for them:
“This system, at one time, was home to about 40,000 trees – 40,000. We’re
down to about 12,000,” said Holifield. “So, we have a long way to go to
truly recapture the Olmstedian glory.”
The sense of urgency is helping the conservancy raise the money and muscle
needs to fully restore Olmsted’s vision. The vision part is where landscape
architect Brian Dold comes in. Dold poured over Olmsted’s plans and he consulted
with other conservancies. It’s his job to make sure that the system returns to the
naturalistic setting Olmsted intended.
“He really tried to make it look like it had naturally occurred. He used like
large open meadows, and dense woodland and pathways through there,
sort of meandering through, sort of creating that Olmstedian landscape
that looks like it could have been there from the beginning of time.”
But Olmsted’s plan will get tweaked a bit. Dold says had some experiments that
didn’t work out so well. Over time, the Norway maples and the Common Buckthorn
trees pretty much took over. Dold says they won’t repeat the mistake:
“We’re not planting any of those trees that aren’t zone hardy and trees that
are put on invasive species lists. Those are pretty much eliminated from
anything we would ever do in these parks. And we are actually
physically removing many of them.”
Instead, Dold says they’ll plant native species. Lots of sugar and red maples,
service berries, eastern redbud and others. 28,000 trees over the next 20 years.
Executive Director Johnathan Holifield believes the new plan would meet
Olmsted’s approval:
“He would be pretty happy and particularly when you look out there and
you see the diversity of use in the park, the volunteer element that we
have. That’s what Olmsted was about – democratic,
egalitarian use and that certainly is represented today.”
So, if you happen to be in a Buffalo Olmsted park this summer, be sure to bring a
picnic basket and blanket, or maybe a shovel and some tree stakes.
A very unscientific blind taste test found most people prefer grocery store syrup rather than real maple syrup. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Tom Jameson uses a brace and bit to drill a small hole in a red maple to tap sap for syrup. (Photo by Lester Graham)
A covered bucket is not used as often these days. Instead a network of tubing carries tree sap to a central collector. (Photo by Lester Graham)
It takes as much as 40 gallons of tree sap from soft maples to make one gallon of maple syrup. (Photo by Lester Graham)
In some parts of the country, it’s time to tap maple trees to make
syrup. Lester Graham went out to see how it’s done and conducted a
little taste test to see whether real maple syrup stands up to the name
brands you find at the grocery store:
Transcript
In some parts of the country, it’s time to tap maple trees to make
syrup. Lester Graham went out to see how it’s done and conducted a
little taste test to see whether real maple syrup stands up to the name
brands you find at the grocery store:
This story started out to be just a little walk in the woods to see
what all the fuss was about. Tapping sap from maples seems like a
quaint old-fashioned idea. After all, doesn’t syrup come from the
grocery store?
Well, anyway, Tom Jameson straightened me out about that. Early in the morning
he led the way through the woods until he found one of the maples he
wanted to tap. First, he drilled a small hole, then drove the tap – or
spline – into the tree:
“We are using an old bit and brace to drill a hole about a half in diameter and an inch and a half to two inches deep. Okay, now I need to just clean that whole little bit. I’ll be ready to drive in the tap, using a hammer to tap it into place. And, already the sap is beginning to run out.”
And that’s it. Sap started dripping right away into a covered bucket
hanging from the tap, or spline.
(Sound of dripping)
It takes a long time to get enough sap, and you need a lot of sap:
“Well, especially with these red maples, you’d need at least 40 gallons
to make one gallon of syrup.”
“So, if you’re doing it commercially, absolutely you want to stick to
sugar maples or hard maples. For the backyard guy that wants to try it,
any maple will work.”
You just have to boil it down sap from soft maples like the red maple
for a lot longer because there’s more water in the sap. And boiling down 40
gallons down to get one gallon of syrup takes a long time, like a good part of a
day or longer.
Jameson says for a lot of people, this is a family event. Empty the
buckets of sap into a big pan over an open fire and keep it boiling. And
a lot of the time you sit around listening to a favorite uncle tell
stories between nips of a flask that keeps getting passed around.
Jameson says it’s a good time, and worth the time spent because real
maple syrup is so good. Well, at least some people think it’s really
good. Jameson admits it’s not what some folks expect:
“Young people that have been raised on the grocery product sometimes
they don’t even like the real thing because it just tastes different to
them. It doesn’t have the extra butter in it or whatever it is. It’s
an acquired taste.”
With that in mind, we decided to do a little taste test. I got some
waffles, some real maple syrup, then three name brand grocery store
syrups… and just to throw everyone a curve, some dark corn syrup.
Then, we got five volunteers at the Environment Report headquaters.
Now, I’ll let you in on a little secret, the real maple syrup was
sample number three.
(Taster 1:)”Three is disgusting. I wouldn’t feed it to anyone. Awww,
gawd!”
(Taster 2:) “Three and four both have sort of a smoky flavor to them
which makes me think maybe it was boiled over a wood fire.”
(Taster 3:) “I think one, I think one is definitely store-bought, but
it’s really good. If two is the maple syrup, I’m really disappointed
because it’s awful. I hate it.”
(Taster 4:) “I chose three as the real one.”
(Taster 1:) “Three? If three is the real one, oh, my goodness.”
(Taster 4:) “I know. But, we’re so used to the imitation. And that’s
maybe why we don’t like it, because it is so real in flavor.”
(Taster 1:) “I’m hoping that two is the real one.”
Number two… was the corn syrup. Four of the five volunteers did guess
that number three was the real maple syrup, but none of them liked it
much.
Tom Jameson says a lot of people wouldn’t have anything but real maple
syrup. And a lot of people really enjoy going out to see
demonstrations of tapping trees for the sap and to watch the sap boil
and boil for hours and hours:
“Well, I think it’s a tie back to the good old days. And when people
can kind of make a connection to back to the way things used to be,
there’s something comforting about that.”
So, every year a lot of folks head out into the woods, hauling buckets
and drills and splines, and take advantage of what they think is one of
nature’s sweetest gifts.
Mark Kubiske checks the valve that controls the flow of greenhouse gases to a stand of sugar maples, birch and aspen. (Photo by Jennifer Simonson)
One part of the greenhouse gas-making facility. (Photo by Jennifer
Simonson)
A stand of trees is surrounded by pipes that release greenhouse gases. (Photo by Jennifer Simonson)
Scientists from around the world are studying how higher levels of carbon dioxide will affect forests 100 years from now. They’re doing that by pumping higher levels of CO2 and ozone into stands of trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson visited the experimental forests and has this story:
Transcript
Scientists from around the world are studying how higher levels of carbon dioxide will affect forests 100 years from now. They’re doing that by pumping higher levels of CO2 and ozone into stands of trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson visited the experimental forests and has this story:
(sound of “quiet area”)
The north woods of the Great Lakes states are stands of millions of acres of pine, maple, birch, and aspen forests. It’s a perfect place to try to figure out how trees will react to the higher levels of ozone and carbon dioxide scientists expect in the future.
(sound of beeping fence gate)
The first thing you notice at Aspen Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Project – Aspen FACE for short – is two huge tanks inside the fenced in enclosure. Each one is bigger than an 18-wheel tanker truck. They’re full of carbon dioxide… CO2. So much CO2 is used in this experiment, the tanks are filled twice a day.
(sound of filling tanks)
If you looked at the site from an airplane, you’d see 12 circular tree stands surrounded by 30 foot high pipes. Those pipes pour CO2 or ozone gases or both into the air surrounding birch, sugar maple, and aspen trees. The scientists know that greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere have been increasing. They believe two centuries of industrial pollution has contributed to the problem. And they expect the CO2 and ozone levels to double by the end of this century. They’re raising the level of greenhouse gasses in different mixes to see what the predicted levels will do to forests.
This open air project is different than previous experiments. David Karnosky is with Michigan Tech. He’s the Project Manager for Aspen FACE. He says before these kinds of projects, they just tested trees inside places like greenhouses.
“We needed to get out of those chambers. We needed to have a more realistic, real world sort of situation where we had multiple trees. We wanted real intact forest communities. We didn’t want to have just a small number of trees inside of a chamber.”
The United States Department of Energy launched this experiment in Wisconsin’s northwoods seven years ago. Karnosky says they’re learning how the trees react to the higher CO2 levels, and that could shape the future of the world’s timber industry.
“Who will be the winners? Who will be the losers? Will aspen or birch or sugar maple? In northern Wisconsin here we’ve got probably 40 million acres of those species mixes. What’s going to happen under elevated CO2 in the next 100 years? Will these forests remain as they are?”
(sound of driving on gravel)
Driving to one of the experimental circles, we pull up to a ring of trees. Mark Kubiske is one of the two full-time on-site researchers.
“Now this particular ring is an elevated CO2 plot. CO2 is delivered through this copper pipe. It runs to that fan, there’s a large fan right on the end of that gray building.”
The scientists have found that trees in the CO2 circles grow 30 percent faster than trees without the gas.
“The trees are larger in diameter, they’re straight, they have lots of leaf area, they just look very healthy. That is just in tremendous contrast to the ozone ring. We’ll go up around the corner and look at one.”
Nearby another circle of trees is not doing nearly as well. The trees are skinny, twisted not as tall as the other sites. Higher ozone levels are hurting the trees.
At the sites where pipes emit both ozone and CO2, the tree growth seems normal – except for some stunted maple trees. The leaves of the aspen and birch take in much of the CO2, convert it to sugar which goes to its roots, eventually becoming a natural part of the soil. That suggests forests may help alleviate gases that cause global warming. The Project Director, David Karnosky says CO2 and ozone appear to cancel each other out. But he says it’s too early to draw any firm conclusions. Ultimately, he says governments will be able to look at this glimpse into the future and try to come up with emissions policies that help.
“The whole issue of the Kyoto protocol, our government not signing off on that. There’s been some relaxing of the feelings from what I’ve seen from the President’s report now that they’re beginning to realize that elevated CO2 is having an impact on global warming and could be impacting our plant communities.”
Karnosky says it’s possible that besides reducing emissions, governments might determine that planting more trees might be very helpful in reducing greenhouse gasses worldwide.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.
Largeflower bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora) is one of the wildflowers declining at many of the sites studied by University of Wisconsin researchers. (Photo courtesy of Dave Rogers, UW Herbarium)
Don Reiter manages wildlife at the Menominee Tribal Forest in northeastern Wisconsin. The forest retains a healthy diversity of plant life, and has a low deer population. (MPR photo/Stephanie Hemphill)
University of Wisconsin researcher Tom Rooney says forest and wildlife managers should try to maintain a diversity of forest types, and not favor deer or any other particular species. (Photo courtesy of Tom Rooney)
Most of us think of the white-tailed deer as a graceful and cherished part of the natural scene. But it turns out when there are too many deer, it’s bad for some of the plants in the forest. New research suggests deer may be a prime culprit in a worrisome loss of rare plants in the woods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:
Transcript
Most of us think of the white-tailed deer as a graceful and cherished
part of the natural scene. But it turns out when there are too many
deer, it’s bad for some of the plants in the forest. New research
suggests deer may be a prime culprit in a worrisome loss of rare
plants in the woods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie
Hemphill reports:
Gardeners in many suburbs and rural areas know deer are good at
mowing down hosta, tulips and other favorite plants. In the woods,
deer munch on the small plants that live on the forest floor… plants
such as orchids, lilies, and other wildflowers.
Fifty years ago, researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed
hundreds of acres in the state, and made careful records of the plants
on those sites. In those days, the deer population was a lot lower
than it is now. In the last couple of years, two biologists went back to
many of those same sites and counted the plants living there now.
Tom Rooney says at most sites they found fewer different kinds of
plants.
“It tends to be the same species occurring over and again on the site.
You’re losing the rare species and picking up more and more
common species.”
He says they tried to link the decline in rare species to the fact that
the forest is getting older. But they found no evidence for that.
Instead, lead researcher Don Waller says the evidence points to
deer, which have increased dramatically over the last fifty years.
“The worst changes we’ve seen, ironically were in a couple of state
parks and a protected natural area, that showed losses of half or
more of species in 50 years. However, in these sites there was no
deer hunting, implying high densities of deer may be causing a lot of
the effects we see in the woods.”
Plants that rely on insects for pollination declined more than other
types of plants. Waller thinks it might be because the insect-
pollinated plants have showy flowers, which could catch the eye of a
wandering deer. As the flowering plants decline, the insects and
birds that rely on them for food could decline as well – bees, moths,
butterflies, and hummingbirds.
Waller says it’s worrisome because scientists don’t know how
particular insects and plants work together to support each other.
“As we’re losing parts of the ecosystem, we’re really not sure what
their full function is, they might play some crucial role we’re not aware
of and only too late might we become aware of the fact that this loss
led to an unraveling or threats to other species.”
Waller says the only places they studied that still have a healthy
diversity of plants are on Indian reservations. The Menominee Tribal
Forest in northeastern Wisconsin is pretty much like it used to be fifty
years ago.
(forest sounds under)
In this forest, there are only about ten deer per square mile. That’s
about as low as the deer population gets in Wisconsin. It’s not that
the tribe is hunting more deer; it’s the way the forest is grown.
Deer find lots to eat in young aspen woods; there’s less for them to
eat where pines and oaks and maples grow. Don Reiter is the wildlife
manager here. He says in the 360 square miles of the Menominee
forest, there’s really four different types of woods.
“We have pulpwood, we have northern hardwoods, white pine, red
pine, and again, the forest ecosystem as a whole, there’s plenty of
food out there for the deer.”
And because there aren’t too many deer, young pines and hemlocks
– and orchids and lilies – have a chance to grow.
In the upper Great Lakes states, wildlife officials have been trying to
thin the deer herd for several years. That’s because state officials
have been aware deer were causing problems by eating too many
plants. The recent study provides dramatic evidence.
In Minnesota, for instance, hunters are shooting four times the
number of deer they shot fifty years ago.
Steve Merchant is forest wildlife program consultant for the
Minnesota DNR. Merchant says the agency has liberalized its rules,
to encourage hunters to kill even more deer. But the number of
hunters hasn’t gone up in recent years. And lots of private
landowners post no-hunting signs.
“We need to have some help from people, people still need to get out
and hunt deer, and landowners need to provide that access for
people to harvest deer.”
Merchant says Minnesota is gradually trying to restore pine forests,
which were cut down for lumber and replaced with fast-growing
aspen. More pine forests could cut down on the deer population…
“But as long as we still have the strong demand for the aspen
markets that we do, and we manage those aspen forests in a
productive manner for wood fiber, we’re going to create a lot of good
white-tailed deer habitat.”
Merchant says it would take decades to change the woods enough to
reduce the deer population. And in the meantime, we’re losing more
and more of the rare flowers.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.
Foresters think they might be on the verge of eradicating a pest that destroys trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Foresters think they might be on the verge of eradicating a pest that destroys trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
The Asian long horned beetle attacks maples and elms. The bug first appeared in 1996, after wood crates infested with the beetle were shipped to New York from China. A second infestation appeared in the Chicago area in 1998. Stan Smith is a manager of the tree nursery program for the Illinois Department of Agriculture. He says the Asian long horned beetle might be under control around Chicago.
“Our population, we feel, is small enough that it might be getting to the point where it might not be able to reproduce very well. Hopefully within four to five years we’ll have everything pretty well cleaned up. At least that’s what we think can happen.”
The beetle is more widespread in New York, but fortunately the insect can’t fly very far. That means it can’t spread quickly, giving foresters a better chance at eliminating the pest.
Forest researchers say cities need to plant different kinds of trees. Many cities plant only a handful of species. (Photo courtesy of the US Forest Service)
