The Toronto Tree Thread

[yrt+viva=1system]

Random observation of the day, why does the City attach irrigation bags to trees when they clearly have zero intention of ever watering trees or filling them up? Is this just a check list duty lol.

I see them installed on trees up here in York Region and do actually see them filled up. But never once have I witnessed City of Toronto filling up theirs (eg. Trees along Spadina and St. Clair).

 

[Northern Light]

Random observation of the day, why does the City attach irrigation bags to trees when they clearly have zero intention of ever watering trees or filling them up? Is this just a check list duty lol.

I see them installed on trees up here in York Region and do actually see them filled up. But never once have I witnessed City of Toronto filling up theirs (eg. Trees along Spadina and St. Clair).

The City does not attach irrigation bags, the contractors do.*

The trees, when planted are under a 2-year warranty.

If they die within 2 years, the contractor must replace them at their own expense.

The City assumes the contractor will water diligently to keep the trees alive.

But depending on the contractor, they may fill the bags only when planting (which is pretty key); they may fill them only if there's a drought the season after they are planted, or they may fill them regularly.

Many contractors though treat the replacement of 'x' number of trees as just the cost of doing business and its built into the tender price. They are indifferent on watering, unless they get killed on the tender because 1/2 the trees died.

****

* The City does have a small number of in house staff who do this work and if its their tree, there will be a watering contract.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

The City does not attach irrigation bags, the contractors do.*

The trees, when planted are under a 2-year warranty.

If they die within 2 years, the contractor must replace them at their own expense.

The City assumes the contractor will water diligently to keep the trees alive.

But depending on the contractor, they may fill the bags only when planting (which is pretty key); they may fill them only if there's a drought the season after they are planted, or they may fill them regularly.

Many contractors though treat the replacement of 'x' number of trees as just the cost of doing business and its built into the tender price. They are indifferent on watering, unless they get killed on the tender because 1/2 the trees died.

****

* The City does have a small number of in house staff who do this work and if its their tree, there will be a watering contract.

Can always count on you to answer City related questions! Lol

 

[junctionist]

Random observation of the day, why does the City attach irrigation bags to trees when they clearly have zero intention of ever watering trees or filling them up? Is this just a check list duty lol.

I see them installed on trees up here in York Region and do actually see them filled up. But never once have I witnessed City of Toronto filling up theirs (eg. Trees along Spadina and St. Clair).

I agree. The city should be watering its young trees or installing irrigation systems. The contractors don't do a great job of it. Last year, we had some really dry periods during the summer. No one filled the irrigation bags during that time for the newly planted trees near my home.

The bags were empty for weeks, despite the dry conditions. When I called 311, they said that they would send someone out within 7 weeks, which seems unacceptably slow in a dry spell. I watered the ones I could with my partner by filling old juice and water jugs with water.

But it definitely seemed like the system was indifferent as to whether the trees survived or not. Even if the contractor replants them, that's at least one year of growth lost that we'll never get back.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

I agree. The city should be watering its young trees or installing irrigation systems. The contractors don't do a great job of it. Last year, we had some really dry periods during the summer. No one filled the irrigation bags during that time for the newly planted trees near my home.

The bags were empty for weeks, despite the dry conditions. When I called 311, they said that they would send someone out within 7 weeks, which seems unacceptably slow in a dry spell. I watered the ones I could with my partner by filling old juice and water jugs with water.

But it definitely seemed like the system was indifferent as to whether the trees survived or not. Even if the contractor replants them, that's at least one year of growth lost that we'll never get back.

Not sure what size the newly planted tree was but also something else I've noticed is that the City tends to end up with match stick trees (1.5"-2" diameter trunk). Not sure if there's specified minimum age for trees in the City contracts but age does also play a factor whether the trees will survive or not and when trees are planted (eg. autumn vs spring). Penny pinching cheapness probably played a big factor. In the end it's really a combination of dedication to watering and maintenance.

 

[Northern Light]

Not sure what size the newly planted tree was but also something else I've noticed is that the City tends to end up with match stick trees (1.5"-2" diameter trunk). Not sure if there's specified minimum age for trees in the City contracts

Trees are spec'ed by size.

In general, they tend to specify 30mm-60mm caliper stock.

That size is the measure of the diameter, typically measured at Breast Height; the measure is known as DBH.

Here is the Canadian Nursery Stock Standard which shows the relationship of caliper to height to branches in crown:

https://cnla.ca/uploads/pdf/Canadian-Nursery-Stock-Standard-9th-ed-web.pdf

but age does also play a factor whether the trees will survive or not and when trees are planted (eg. autumn vs spring). Penny pinching cheapness probably played a big factor. In the end it's really a combination of dedication to watering and maintenance.

Age is not a huge factor, except to say, the following; very young, very small trees don't have much of a root system, and can be more vulnerable to drought, or other extreme conditions.

Conversely, very large trees don't like being transplanted, because their roots get slashed in the process, and a large tree has to support itself with as little as 25% of its root mass.

A Whip sized tree (under 30mm DBH) is probably best since it can be moved with all of its roots, and it has a meaningful amount.

****

Most trees do better in spring, particularly nut-bearing species in the fall such as hickories and oaks and cone bearers such as pines and spruce.

It doesn't make as much difference for Maples, Basswoods etc.

 

[s00f]

Does the City have any comprehensive plan to address invasive species in natural areas? My mind immediately goes to the near-monocultures of Norway Maples in many ravines.

 

[Northern Light]

Does the City have any comprehensive plan to address invasive species in natural areas? My mind immediately goes to the near-monocultures of Norway Maples in many ravines.

The short answer, NO.

****

Longer Answer:

The City has I think its 4 this year, forestry crews who can remove invasives, and have pesticide licences, but they don't make particularly good use of them, and often have them planting instead.

They do contract out a little bit of work as well, mostly for DSV (Dog Strangling Vine).

Removing mature trees (like full-sized Norways in ravines) requires the other forestry crews, the ones that can scale and chain saw with one hand. Those crews mostly do safety-related work, and getting them to remove a tree merely because its invasive is a challenge.

The City does do this type of work, but it tends to be done in what I consider to be an incoherent, inefficient and illogical manner.

They tend to do a smattering of one-off cuts, in areas they want to protect for one reason or another, and do so with sort of eye to geographic equity (ie, we must do a site in Scarborough and one in North York and one in the old City, etc.)

They don't seem to look for mother-tree seed source; and they don't systematically replant in a timely fashion after any invasives are removed.

I would prefer to see a logical program done at a watershed scale (so likely led by the Conservation Authority); where removals follow logical seed distribution (north-west to south-east, generally).

The latter, because seed is distributed in part by wind (prevailing winds in our area are from the west); and by streams, which run south towards the Lake) .

I'd like to see the valleys targeted, but also any intelligent program has to address adjacent/nearby properties as well.

A final note on the above......the province has yet to prohibit the sale of Norway Maples in Ontario, so the nursery trade continues to sell them.

 

[s00f]

The short answer, NO.

****

Longer Answer:

The City has I think its 4 this year, forestry crews who can remove invasives, and have pesticide licences, but they don't make particularly good use of them, and often have them planting instead.

They do a contract out a little bit of work as well, mostly for DSV (Dog Strangling Vine).

Removing mature trees (like full-sized Norways in ravines) requires the other forestry crews, the ones that can scale and chain saw with one hand. Those crews mostly do safety-related work, and getting them to remove a tree merely because its invasive is a challenge.

The City does do this type of work, but it tends to be done in what I consider to be an incoherent, inefficient and illogical manner.

They tend to do a smattering of one-off cuts, in areas they want to protect for one reason or another, and do so with sort of eye to geographic equity (ie, we must do a site in Scarborough and one in North York and one in the old City, etc.)

They don't seem to look for mother-tree seed source; and they don't systematically replant in a timely fashion after any invasive are removed.

I would prefer to see a logical program done at a watershed scale (so likely led by the Conservation Authority); where removals follow logical seed distribution (north-west to south-east, generally).

The latter, because seed is distributed in part by wind (prevailing winds in our area are from the west); and by streams, which run south towards the Lake) .

I'd like to see the valleys targeted, but also any intelligent program has to address adjacent/nearby properties as well.

A final note on the above......the province has yet to prohibit the sale of Norway Maples in Ontario, so the nursery trade continues to tell them.

Thanks so much for your in-depth response! Out here in Durham Region the new developments are still being planted with Norways, but they aren't really self-seeding, so maybe sterile cultivars are being used? On the other hand I have seen Rosa rugosa used in naturalization projects which is not classified as invasive here yet, but is in regions nearby regions, and I've observed it spread pretty aggressively. Is there any sort of precedent in Ontario with invasive species being banned?

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks so much for your in-depth response!

You're welcome.

Out here in Durham Region the new developments are still being planted with Norways, but they aren't really self-seeding

Possible.

On the other hand I have seen Rosa rugosa used in naturalization projects which is not classified as invasive here yet, but is in regions nearby regions, and I've observed it spread pretty aggressively.

There are lots of species that aren't widely discussed as invasives, but are.

Particularly the herbaceous category (Japanese Coltsfoot, and Himilayan Balsam come to mind) but also shrubs. (noticing a big issue w/Japanese Honeysuckle)

Trees (beyond the obvious) are less of an issue.....but I've see Northern Catalpa seeding into valleys here, where it has no business being. Horse Chestnut is a big issue, there are others.

Is there any sort of precedent in Ontario with invasive species being banned?

Yes, but is a tiny list.

Here it is:

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

 

[Northern Light]

@s00f

This is a good resource: https://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/invasive-plants/

 

[egotrippin]

Discussion in the Crosstown Place thread got me thinking, since I could go on about trees forever, why some plantings aren't flagged for the appropriateness of their location. The tulip trees planted down by XO Condos come to mind as well; it seems like street trees struggle here in general, so why not go with the safest bets?

I get the desire for variety and more interesting streetscapes, but things like sycamores and tulip trees seem risky so close to busy roads. That said, there are a good number of London plane trees near where I work, in industrial Scarborough of all places, that have been doing very well. Granted they are part of a plaza and buffered a bit better by the sidewalk, but I was surprised to see them used in an otherwise very utilitarian setting.

 

[Northern Light]

Discussion in the Crosstown Place thread got me thinking, since I could go on about trees forever, why some plantings aren't flagged for the appropriateness of their location. The tulip trees planted down by XO Condos come to mind as well; it seems like street trees struggle here in general, so why not go with the safest bets?

I get the desire for variety and more interesting streetscapes, but things like sycamores and tulip trees seem risky so close to busy roads. That said, there are a good number of London plane trees near where I work, in industrial Scarborough of all places, that have been doing very well. Granted they are part of a plaza and buffered a bit better by the sidewalk, but I was surprised to see them used in an otherwise very utilitarian setting.

I missed this one..........

So, let me start by saying I agree w/you that for the most part we should avoid Tulip Trees and Sycamores as street trees.

There may be exceptions to this where conditions are unusually generous (ultra wide boulevards, low wind, lots of sun, and high soil volumes) but in general those 2 species are going to find most street locations extremely challenging.

****

On the second part, there is actually good reason for variety, beyond aesthetics.

See the poor suffering Acer Freemans down on the Waterfront Promenade.

Planting 100% of tree from the same genus or even 25% in any one area, can exacerbate the risk that if any disease/pest comes along that can kill that type of tree, you will lose a very large proportion of your trees all at once.

In general, the recommendation is to have no more than 10% of trees of one species (ie. Sugar Maple) 20% of trees from one genus. (ie. Acer or Maple) 30% of one family (ie Sapindaceae which includes Maples, Horse Chestnut and Lychee)

****

There are a large number of species the City could use, but does not or does so sparingly.

1) Conifers. The City just doesn't like them as street trees. There are lots of reasons for this, but really it comes down to fat at the bottom requires pruning, narrow at the top means less shade. Personally, I think they're under utilized.

2) Black Walnut. (the City doesn't want the mess of all the fallen walnuts and it worries about them dropping on someone's head) (they are close to the size of a tennis ball)

3) Black Cherry (the City hates the mess they make)

There are other species that are just hard to source at scale. Bitternut Hickory comes to mind.

 

[egotrippin]

Thanks for the response. I totally get variety, I didn't mean to suggest that we should have monocultures, but should perhaps stick to mixes that we know work well. It seems sometimes choices are made because they feel more exotic or special, rather than being suited to the environment.

And I would love to see more conifers. They have their challenges as mentioned, but I feel spaces can be designed to make them work. There's just a special feeling to a streetscape with conifers, you see this in older corners of the city with mature examples. It almost feels more wild, a touchstone to what the landscape looked like before much of it was clear cut.

On the topic of black walnut- my uncle had one in his yard and years ago at a family gettogether it decided to start shedding walnuts en masse. The thud they made was alarming, we had to move inside before somebody got knocked out. I can definitely imagine liability issues.

 

[lenaitch]

1) Conifers. The City just doesn't like them as street trees. There are lots of reasons for this, but really it comes down to fat at the bottom requires pruning, narrow at the top means less shade. Personally, I think they're under utilized.

Sightlines would also be a concern. Road salt/brine spray can also desiccate the needles.