Keywords
structural damage
Matheny and Clark method
Dunster method
Casuarina equisetifolia
How to Cite
##article.highlights##
- Fourteen types of structural defects affecting 38.7 % of the trees were identified.
- The Matheny & Clark and Dunster methods were used in the urban tree risk assessment.
- Most tree species and forest sections had a low risk rating.
- Casuarina equisetifolia and Schinus molle had the highest number of defects.
- Defect analysis and risk assessment are fundamental in urban forest management.
Abstract
Introduction: Urban forests require an assessment of their trees’ structural defects, as well as the risk they represent.
Objective: To identify the defects and risks of the trees in San Juan de Aragon Forest in Mexico City.
Materials and methods: Twenty-eight circular plots of 0.1 ha were randomly established. Diameter at breast height, total height and slenderness index were measured in each tree. Structural defects were identified and a risk rating (RR) was obtained at the individual, species and section level using the methods of Matheny and Clark, and Dunster.
Results and discussion: Of the 760 trees evaluated, Casuarina equisetifolia L., Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R. Br. and Hesperocyparis lusitanica Mill. were the most frequent species with diameter classes from 7.6 to 15.1 cm, heights from 5.1 to 10 m and slenderness index from 26 to 75. Structural damage was identified in 38.7 % of the trees: lean (18.8 %), cankers (15.4 %), epicormic shoots (14.4 %), dead branches (9.9 %), tumors (9.2 %) and cavities (6.2 %). Casuarina equisetifolia and Schinus molle had the highest number of defects. With the Matheny and Clark method, 83.9 % of the trees had a low RR, 14.7 % a medium RR and 1.4 % a high RR; with Dunster's method, 88.1 % had a low RR, 11.3 % a medium RR and 0.68 % a high RR.
Conclusion: The procedures for evaluating and identifying trees at risk of failure allowed recognizing their main structural defects in a simple way.
References
Arias, A. D. (2004). Estudio de las relaciones altura-diámetro para seis especies maderables utilizadas en programas de reforestación en la zona sur de Costa Rica. Revista Forestal Kurú, 1(2), 111. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/ejemplar/400183
Bellet-Travers, M. (2010). A risk assessment methodology for trees in parkland bases on comparative population analysis. Arboricultural Journal, 33(1), 3–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2010.9747588
Bellingham, P. J., & Sparrow, A. D. (2003). Resprouting as a life history strategy in woody plant communities. Oikos, 89(2), 409416. doi: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890224.x
Dunster, J. A., Smiley, T. A., Matheny, N., & Lilly, S. (2013). Tree risk assessment manual. Champaign, IIlinous, USA: International Society of Arboriculture. Retrieved from http://www.treesource.co.uk/tree-risk-assessment-manual~4365
Escobar, M. A., Leslie, C. A., McGranaham, G. H., & Dandekar, A. M. (2002). Silencing crown gall disease in walnut (Juglans regia L.). Plant Science, 163(3), 591–597. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00164-4
Gaceta Oficial de la Ciudad de México (2018). Administración pública de la Ciudad de México. Retrieved from http://data.consejeria.cdmx.gob.mx/portal_old/uploads/gacetas/d666dd8ef846b97be1579960fecabf69.pdf
Harris, R. W., Clark, J. R., & Matheny, N. P. (2003). Arboriculture. Integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs and vines (4th ed.). USA: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Arboriculture-Integrated-Management-Landscape-Shrubs/dp/0130888826
Hauer, R. J., Vogt, J. M., & Fischer, B. C. (2015). The cost of not maintaining the urban forest. Arborist News, 24(1), 12–16. Retrieved from http://html5.epaperflip.com/Viewer.aspx?docid=fd65520a-16ff-421e-9fb8-a42c0118f0d3#page=14
Jim, C. Y., & Zhang, H. (2013). Defect-disorder and risk assessment of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(4), 585–596. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.06.003
Koeser, A. K., & Smiley, T. (2017). Impact of assessor on tree risk assessment ratings and prescribed mitigation measures. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 24, 109–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.027
Koeser, A. K., Klein, R. W., Hasing, G., & Northrop, R. J. (2015). Factors driving professional and public urban tree risk perception. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 968–974. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.004 1618-8667
Kulhavy, D. L., Unger, D. R., Hung, I. K., Wu, D., & Sun, J. (2014). Comparison of tree condition and value for city parks and Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, U. S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 40(3), 165–177. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/forestry/220
Luley, C. J., Nowak, D. J., & Greenfield, E. J. (2009). Frequency and severity of trunk decay in street tree maples in four New York cities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 35(2), 94–99. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2009/ns_2009_luley_002.pdf
Martínez-Trinidad, T., & Islas-Rodríguez, L. (2010). Biología y compartimentación del árbol. ArbolAMA, 3, 21–29. Retrieved from http://www.isahispana.com/portals/0/docs/treecare/Arboricultura%20tradicional%20y%20arboricultura%20moderna.pdf
Matheny, N., & Clark, J. R. (2009). Tree risk assessment. What we know? (and What we don´t know?). Arborist News, 18, 20–31. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292089898/download
Matheny, N., & Clark, J. R. (1994). A photographic guide to the evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas (2nd ed.). USA: International Society of Arboriculture. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Photographic-Guide-Evaluation-Hazard-Trees/dp/1881956040
Meier, A. R., Saunders, M. R., & Michler, C.H. (2012). Epicormic buds in trees: a review of bud establishment, development and dormancy release. Tree Physiology, 32(5), 565–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tps040
Meilleur, G. (2006). Basic tree risk assessment. Arborist News, 15(5), 12–17. Retrieved from http://www.historictreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ISA-CEU-Basic-Tree-Risk-Assessment-complete.pdf
Pallardy, S. D. (2008). Physiology of woody plants (3rd ed.). USA: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.agrifs.ir/sites/default/files/Stephen%20G.%20Pallardy%20Physiology%20of%20Woody%20Plants%2C%203rd%20edition%20%202007.pdf
Pérez-González, G., Domínguez-Domínguez, M., Martínez-Zurimendi, P., & Etchevers-Barra, J. D. (2012). Caracterización dasométrica e índice de sitio en plantaciones de caoba en Tabasco, México. Madera y Bosques, 18(1), 7–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2012.181511
Pokorny, J. D. (1992). Urban tree risk management: A community guide to program design and implementation. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/naspf/sites/default/files/publications/02_na-tp-03-03_urban_tree_risk_management_508c_v2_20171027.pdf
Ryder, C. M., & Moore, G. M. (2013). The arboricultural and economic benefits of formative pruning street trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 39(1), 17–24. Retrieved from http://joa.isa-arbor.com/articles.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=39&IssueID=1
Saavedra-Romero, L. L., Alvarado-Rosales, D., Hernández de la Rosa, P., Martínez-Trinidad, T., Mora-Aguilera, G., & Villa-Castillo, J. (2016). Condición de copa, indicador de salud en árboles urbanos del Bosque San Juan de Aragón, Ciudad de México. Madera y Bosques, 22(2), 15–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2016.2221321
Schreuder, H. T., Ernst, R., & Ramírez-Maldonado, H. (2004). Statistical techniques for sampling and monitoring natural resources. doi: https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-126
Shigo, A. L. (1984). Compartmentalization: A conceptual framework for understanding how trees grow and defend themselves. Annual Review Phytopathology, 22, 189–214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.22.090184.001201
Sreetheran, M., Adnan, M., & Azuar, A. K. K. (2011). Street tree inventory and tree risk assessment of selected major roads in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 37(5), 226–235. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/26914789/Street_Tree_Inventory_and_Tree_Risk_Assessment_of_Selected_Major_Roads_in_Kuala_Lumpur_Malaysia
Statistical Analysis Software Inc. (SAS). (2015). SAS® 9.4 In-database products: User’s guide (6th ed.). Cary, NC, USA: Author. Retrieved from http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_npar1way_sect004.htm
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014). Field guide for hazard-tree identification and mitigation on developed sites in Oregon and Washington Forests. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3799993.pdf
Villar-Salvador, P. (2003). Importancia de la calidad de planta en los proyectos de revegetación. En J. Rey-Benayas, T. Espigares, & J. M. Ibarra (Eds.), Restauración y ecosistemas mediterráneos (pp. 65–86). España: Universidad de Alcalá/ Asociación Española de Ecología Terrestre. Retrieved from http://www3.uah.es/pedrovillar/PDF/Texto%20publicado.pdf
Vogt, J., Hauer, R. J., & Fischer, B. C. (2015). The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 41(6), 293–323. Retrieved from https://www.isa-arbor.com/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/research/Vogt_AUFNov2015.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2019 Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente