Debunking Tree Misconceptions – Trees and Hazards
Contributing writer: Dr. Jessica Sanders, Ph. D – Technical Services & Research Director
In a city as green-centric as D.C. is, many are aware of the numerous benefits trees provide to our everyday lives. As I walk throughout D.C. I am always taken aback from the large stately trees that line our streets; the shade they provide on a hot day, or the majestic marvel of a snow fall that has freshly coated the branches. But often we can lose sight of that, and I want to clear that up for you – so, here goes nothing. Debunking Tree Misconceptions 101.
1. Trees are dangerous – they’re fragile enough that storms, including rain, snow, wind and ice, can turn them into threats for homes and neighborhoods.
False. After storms, we tend to dwell on the negative impacts of the trees and become scared to plant them, simply because of the hazards that they could potentially pose in the future.
However, we never remember that the best way to counteract these potential hazards is to plan for them in advance. Some proactive pruning can do wonders in preventing decayed limbs or weak branch connections from causing havoc on your house – and is a wonderful “early indicator” when a tree is beginning to decline and needs to be considered for removal.
Prevention and planning is the first way to avoid trees becoming a hazardous tree in the urban area - but there is a second:
2. Trees are too big to plant in tight spaces – and therefore should just be removed overall, or significantly “trimmed down.”
False. Sometimes the urge to view trees as impedances and obstacles can be tempting – but it can all be solved by ensuring that the correct species is planted in the correct space. For example, many times in a small urban front yard, a large tree species is planted. Although when thinking about the immediate future, this doesn’t seem like a problem, at some point down the road this large tree species (think oak or maple) will outgrow the small space it was initially provided – and that’s when problems arise, like wire-conflicts, instability, space constraints, potential damage, etc.
Picking the right tree for the right space is essential – but there’s one more thing to keep in mind:
3. By observing a tree regularly, an accurate assessment of its health can be ascertained – a regular viewing by a professional isn’t needed.
False. Visual assessments can help to provide an idea of a tree’s overall health, but may not predict the extent of decay accurately. Essentially all trees have the potential to fail at some point and as they are living, they will eventually die. Trees provide so many benefits that outweigh their negatives, but making sure to remove a tree prior to its decline is crucial. A routine, scheduled tree assessment by a professional will help to ease the decline of mature trees gracefully and without incident.
Thanks, Jessica. This is great and very useful for sharing with others.
Alison, glad you liked it. I have really enjoyed reading your webpage as well.
The biggest thing about tree hazards is that the statistics just don’t match up. Sure, trees do occasionally fall on houses and cars, but other hazards are much more prevalent. The one death we had recently with the white oak falling on that person in Fairfax was a freak accident. You probably have a higher likelihood of getting killed by a toaster than a tree.
After the storms this year, I saw way too many people cut down perfectly healthy trees out of irrational paranoia. The recent article on how tree removal probably increases risk of disease and death (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/when-trees-die-people-die/267322/) illustrates that we may actually be creating a bigger hazard cutting down our forest than worrying about trees falling on our house…
/End Rant
Thank you for the excellent article. It frustrates me when people take an all or nothing view of trees in an urban habitat. Not every tree is right for every available space but the benefits they bring to an urban environment are immeasurable.