[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
TT: Re: Re: Forest -vs- Trees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gradually replaced nonnative invasive shrubs and vines(Ligustrum
sinensis, Kudzu)
with natives and have had very good success. I used deciduous
hollies,Bottlebrush
Buckeye, Hydrangeas,Crossvine, American Wisteria(W. frutescens) and others.
It
was quite successful and is much more estheitc. Try a gradual replacement
if possible. Merry Christmas to all the Tree Towners
craig/athens,ga.
----------
> From: Steve Morse <skgmonbi@seanet.com>
> To: Community_Forestry <TreeTown@Majordomo.Flora.Com>
> Subject: TT: Re: Forest -vs- Trees
> Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 11:40 AM
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The largest problem with ordinances that try to preserve understory is
> where do we start and stop enforcement. In "No cut" buffers the rules
are
> generally that the area needs to be left in native vegetation but what
> about noxious weeds? In the general landscape, it would be better if the
> understory is not disturbed but it become a real enforcement nightmare to
> try to control behavior at this level. In many of the areas on our
Island
> non-native plants (blackberries and scotch broom) are major part of the
> understory and it is not reasonable to not allow removal of these
species.
> I would like to see the understory left in undisturbed state but in need
to
> be a educational effort and not a regulatory one.
>
> Steve Morse
> Bainbridge Island, Washington
>
> ----------
> > From: Mark Stephens <markws@one.net>
> > To: Community_Forestry <TreeTown@Majordomo.Flora.Com>
> > Subject: TT: Forest -vs- Trees
> > Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 5:30 PM
> >
> >
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I was reading the tree ordinance guide and noticed that no understory
> > trees/shrubs were mentioned. This raises a question I thought I would
> > ask of the group. Two points before I ask, though. This mostly
pertains
> > to suburban rather than urban areas, and assumes that urban forestry
> > covers more than the front yard. Anyway, here I go...
> >
> > Should a community have more than just a tree ordinance? Just trees do
> > not make up a forest. What about productive understory plantings
(local
> > species) to provide food and cover for wildlife? Around here that
would
> > include Dogwood, Spicebush, and Viburnums. What about the soil? Is it
> > like a woodland soil, with the ability to absorb a lot of rain water
and
> > slow runoff, or is it lawn? I have seen many wooded lots were the land
> > owners clear the "tangled brush" and planted lawn grass, leaving just
> > mature trees? This type of 'urban forest' doesn't do much for the
local
> > environment, plus it's on a clock that's ticking down until all the
> > mature trees die. Would home owners act differently if told the value
> > of and how to identify the local forest plants? Can an urban forest
> > division act as the educator here?
> >
> > Seems there should be a great difference between a tree council and
> > urban forestry. Can urban forestry tackle the problem of allowing
> > development while still maintaining a healthy (for an urban area
anyway)
> > forest? Can a local tree council become a local plant council? Food
> > for thought at least.
> >
> > I have enjoyed reading all the recent posting here in TreeTown,
> > especially the famous trees. You've made my Inbox a pleasant place to
> > visit. :-) Happy Holidays everyone!
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Mark W Stephens (markws@one.net) - Cincinnati, OH Zone 5
> > http://w3.one.net/~markws - Our Backyard Forest
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
==============================(TreeTown)===============================
>
>
> ==============================(TreeTown)===============================
==============================(TreeTown)===============================
Follow-Ups: