Winter-2007

��

The Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee’s mission is to advance Minnesota’s commitment to the health, care and future of all community forests.

Inside ThIs Issue2 Perspectives Column

4 urban Forest health: Tree Inspections for homebuyers

7 Mystery Tree

8 Clip & save: stem Girdling Roots

11 Training

12 spirit Trees:

15 sTAC Info and Calendar

16 uNRI Resources

Visit MnSTAC on the Web at www.mnstac.org

Vol. 9, No. �

Green Teams continued on p. 3

COMMUNITY FOREST PROFILE

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007

The Plymouth Avenue and Legacy Village Green TeamsBy Barb Spears

A green thing is happening in North Minneapolis! Trees are getting planted and flowers are blooming, but it’s much more than that. Community residents

are taking an active role in planning, planting, and serving as stewards of their environment.

With major funding from the USDA Forest Service and the Minnesota DNR MnReLeaf Program, a project was started in July 2004 to create a model community forestry program in the inner city. North Minneapolis residents created their vision for Plymouth Avenue. The vision includes education, inventory, reforestation, brownfield greening, conservation employment training and a commitment to ongoing stewardship.

Tree Trust and the Northside Residents Redevelopment Council (NRRC) have worked together to facilitate this project. The first step taken, in January 2005, was the formation of the Plymouth Avenue Green Team. The team members are 12 very active citizens, plus many other individuals who help out when they can. Since then, the Legacy Village Green Team has also been formed.

The Green Teams have had many notable accomplishments since January 2005, such as: The creation and implementation of landscape plans for Humboldt Pocket

Park and Givens Legacy Park. The formation of a partnership with the Northside Garden Club and North

High School. The completion of a residential tree assessment of approximately 1,300 trees. The creation of a landscape design plan for the intersection of I-94 and

Plymouth Avenue through MN/DOT’s Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program.

Plymouth Avenue Green Team

NRRC

Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE22

PERSPECTIVES COLUMN

By Jim Hermann

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), Asian Longhorn Beetle and Gypsy Moth are words we are becoming all too familiar with here in

Minnesota. And whether one views the con-tinual bombardment of information on these invasive tree pests as summoning the inevitable or just crying wolf, the result can be a sense of foreboding.

We have all heard the invasives buzz, and as professionals, we are busy making plans, forming task forces and talking money, politics and tree loss. At the same time, the public is often left in a vacuum. Maybe it is time for us to step back for just a moment to reflect upon our preparations. Are we giving enough of the right information, delivered in the right way, to the public, so that it makes sense to them and allows them to more actively participate in this process? Doing so may help ease some anxiety and may also alert us to gaps in our present communication efforts.

In the case of Emerald Ash Borer, for example, the public may not be fully aware of the continuing research, planning and educational efforts already underway in Minnesota. The U.S. Forest Service, operating out of their St. Paul Field Office, has a dedi-cated team of Foresters, Entomologists, and Program Leaders working on EAB issues. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has appointed its own EAB Readiness Planning Team and is creating an Early Detection and Response Readiness Plan. MDA is also working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and other cities and partners, to conduct ash surveys throughout the state. MDA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staff and field personnel are working together to refine their respective roles for the arrival of this pest.

Continuing education efforts by the University of Minnesota and government agencies, along with professional and advocate groups have provided us with an early and realistic look at EAB and its potential impact on the Minnesota landscape. This information is giving cities and towns the planning tools

to review their own ordinances, licensing and regulatory policies and procedures. Since the distribution of EAB over long distances, and even from one state to another, has occurred through the movement of firewood, reviewing local firewood regulations and restrictions as well as updating condemnation and removal procedures to include ash, is a reasonable next step. If cities have not already done so, they should also consider taking inventory of their ash resource to determine the potential impact of EAB and to review their future reforestation options. Recycling of ash into marketable products beyond chips is another research area which is still in its infancy, but nonetheless, it is a significant piece of the EAB puzzle that should not be overlooked. Our experience with handling Dutch elm disease gives us a glimpse of how we might begin to address community concerns about EAB.

It is a complex issue to try to build momentum without sounding an alarm and to prepare for and fund a control program for an insect that has yet to be discovered in Minnesota. But there is also an urgent need to pursue this effort and to plan for its eventual arrival. We have all heard about the millions of dollars of devastation that EAB has already caused in other states and the different ways in which these states have chosen to respond. We need to learn from their advances and setbacks, incorporate their results and acknowledge the potential long term effects that EAB could have here. At this time, we have a unique window of opportunity to continue to educate the public without fear, alert officials to prepare without a mandate and give all of us the ability to plan without a crisis. We should take advantage of this opportunity.

Jim Hermann is the Forestry Programs Manager with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

“our experience

with handling

Dutch elm disease gives us a glimpse

of how we might begin

to address community

concerns about

EAB.”

Beyond The Doom and Gloom News—Preparing for the Future

Providing 194 trees, 45 shrubs, and numerous flowers to the community through plantings and tree give-aways.

Tree Trust, NRRC and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) supported their efforts in many ways including: NRRC provided meeting space and administrative support; Tree Trust youth crews from the community installed the hardscape materials for Givens Legacy Park; Tree Trust coordinated the residential tree assessment project and provided workshops on tree identification and the use of PDAs to collect data; NRRC facilitated the process to remediate a brownfield into a safe space to create the Humboldt Pocket Park; Tree Trust Young Adult Conservation Corps participants installed the hardscape materials for Humboldt Pocket Park; and MPRB provided wood chips, trees and water for plantings.

In April of 2006, the Plymouth Avenue Green Team and the Legacy Village Green Team received the MnSTAC 2005 Outstanding Volunteer Award!

The Green Teams are truly building and strengthening their community. However, it is not simply about planting trees and greening their environment, but developing the personal relationships with neighbors, friends, and others while achieving the goals of a healthy, sustainable community.

Barb Spears is an Urban Forester with Tree Trust and has worked closely with NRRC and the Plymouth Avenue and Legacy Village Green Teams over the past two years. If you would like more information about this project, please contact Barb Spears at 651-644-5800 or [email protected]. For more information on Tree Trust, please visit www.treetrust.org.

Green Team, North High School Students, and Councilman Samuels, planting at Plymouth and Lyndale Avenue.

Tree ID Workshop with Dave Hanson from the University of Minnesota.

North High School Students planting at Plymouth and Lyndale Avenue.

Humboldt Pocket Park Planting.

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007 �

TRee

TRUS

TTR

ee TR

UST

TRee

TRUS

T

TRee

TRUS

T

Green Teams continued from p. 1

According to The Homebuyer’s Handbook by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, “Buying a home can be one of the most

rewarding experiences of a lifetime—and one of the most stressful. After all, a home mortgage loan is the largest contract most of us will ever sign.” While at the same time, according to the Minnesota State Bar Association “In Minnesota, the form that is the most significant consumer con-tract in commerce [the residential purchase agree-ment] is unregulated.”

Buying a new home is scary enough, but when the surrounding landscape contains mature trees, homebuyers have a little extra homework to do. The trees that come with the house on a wooded lot can be either an asset or a liability. These sites deserve a certain amount of care and will require at least some ongoing maintenance. Failure to acknowledge this up front can lead to even bigger and costlier problems later.

Protect the InvestmentThe research is growing that can prove trees

pay back quite well in energy savings, property values, and other benefits on the investment to plant and care for them. Cumulative effects can have big impacts. Take the car, for example. The positive contribution to the national economy and the negative impact on the environment of one individual automobile may not seem significant,

but the aggregate effect of millions of cars on both certainly is. Likewise with the economic value and environmental services that a tree provides. An appraisal value of an individual shade tree is not done as often as the valuation of a used car, but it can be determined just as surely. This, of course, is not to mention the subjective, emotional value trees can evoke. Whether it’s a single tree on a small lot in the city, or a big wooded lot in the suburbs, people can have strong feelings about their trees. The functions that trees provide a community have moved publicly-owned trees beyond an aesthetic luxury to requiring pragmatic, rational management by municipalities. But in order to know if what the private landscape contains is in fact an asset or a liability, or if it really matches the goals and capacity of the new landowner to care for it, the homebuyer also should be provided good information on just what’s out there.

Disclosure Forms and Home InspectionsMost homebuyers are aware of disclosure

forms, but there is no single standard form, and the commonly used ones come in three flavors (the 2, 5, or 11 page versions) so the level of detail they address can vary. Among the cast of characters involved in a home purchase transaction is the Home Inspector. His or her job is to inspect a home prior to closing and identify

Tree Inspections for Home BuyersBy Glen Olson

ILLUSTRATIoNS: UNIveRSITy oF WISCoNSIN–exTeNSIoN AND THe WISCoNSIN DNR.

� Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE

uRBAN FOResT heALTh

problems that exist. There are several associations that train and certify these people, but again, no state regulation. Only certain cities require the Truth-in-Housing Inspection, which determines if the home meets a particular city’s housing code standards. None of these will typically look at anything beyond the exterior of the building itself, landscape issues may be specifically excluded. It is an important tool that could be expanded, and should be standardized, since the purchase offer can be made contingent on the results of the inspection. In the absence of standardized forms or requirements that address the landscape, what should homebuyers do regarding the wooded lot they are considering purchasing?

Tree PreservationToo many times I’ve heard

from homeowners “We bought this place in the winter, so we didn’t know all these trees were dead.” A similar problem is the number of homeowners faced with dead and dying trees a few years after moving into their recently constructed homes. A tree preservation plan prior to new construction can provide protection for trees to be saved and a prediction of likely mortality for others, given the intended design, so even if the building and impacts aren’t altered because of it, a plan is worthwhile. The much higher expense to remove a dead tree from a finished landscape with a structure nearby, not to mention the loss of trees that may have been the reason they built or bought in that particular place, may be avoided with a plan. Absent that, the landscape inspection at the time of purchase could reveal problems, and suggest remedies and costs, in time to be part of negotiations.

What to Look ForMany cities have a city forester or tree

inspector who may maintain records of disease incidence on a particular lot or neighborhood. If not, an inspection done by a qualified commercial arborist or forester can provide some reassurance by identifying if major threats are present or not. Structural assessments can be done at any time of the year, but certain problems can only be diagnosed during the active growing season and may need to wait until summertime. Groups of stumps or recently cleared openings in a wooded area can be one clue. Some diseases and treatments are ongoing issues for several years.

For example, an area of root cutting to contain an oak wilt infection might contain some trees that still appear healthy, but that will most likely become infected and die within a few years. Preventative injection of fungicide for Dutch elm disease has a limited time of effectiveness and needs to be repeated periodically to be effective. Other problems, like anthracnose, are not at all serious tree killers, and the solution may be that a homeowner does no more than raise his or her aesthetic tolerance level.

There are plenty of established and maturing trees already in the landscape that include “the wrong tree in the wrong place.” Poor choices made in the past because of disease susceptibility, mature size, nuisance fruit, or other conflicts, can be identified for corrective action, or removal and replacement. Even “the right tree in the right place” can develop problems that increases risk over time. A tree may have problems that are correctable with pruning, or may have a shape or condition that is poor, but not yet a threat that requires immediate

action. Tree risk management may be as simple as continued monitoring or moving the target (anything of value that may be damaged by tree failure). Accepting that risk is always the tree owner’s responsibility, but awareness of the problem is always a prerequisite.

continued on p. 6

�

The trees that come with the

house on a wooded lot can be

either an asset

or a liability.

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007

Tips for a an Inspection ReportLike with any professional consultation,

clarify expectations for the inspection report ahead of time for both parties sake. Is it based on a flat fee or hourly rate? Will it be delivered on the spot, e-mailed, or take a few days to mail? Consider the different formats available: a checklist, a report generated from specialized software, or a narrative style. A “good,” “fair,” “poor” rating is of limited use. Something like a 1 to 10 scale is better, but should include a written description or examples to help define each level. A description of a problem should include a suggested remedy or action as well. If a sketch or map is provided, include a legend and north arrow. Expect questions, and that the homeowner may want to accompany you. This may even be recommended,

as this helps the client to better understand both the general

condition and the details of the site that are

summarized in the report.

Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 2005 http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Brochures/homebuyershandbook.pdf

Minnesota Residential Purchase Agreements, 2000, Residential Real Estate Committee, Minnesota State Bar Association http://www2.mnbar.org/sections/real-property/forms/mnrespa2000_final.pdf

USDA Forest Service, http://www.na.fs.fed.us/urban/treespayusback/

Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Ed., International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. http://www.isa-arbor.com/

McPherson, Gregory E., “Urban Forestry in North America,” Renewable Resources Journal, Autumn 2006.

Miller-Davis Company, MN Association of Realtors, MN State Bar Association all have proprietary forms available. http://www.millerdavis.com/ , http://www.mnrealtor.com/ , http://www.mnbar.org/

Nat. Assoc. of Certified Home Inspectors, http://www.nachi.org/ ; Nat. Assoc. of Home Inspectors, http://www.nahi.org/ ; Amer. Society of Home Inspectors, http://www.ashi.org/

Management Goals and optionsLarger wooded lots are often too big to

maintain as formal yard, but too small for any commercial production that would help pay for their own management. Small-scale forestry is possible with tools such as the portable band-saw that can show up onsite and salvage-cut a single tree into usable lumber for a reasonable cost. Cooperating with others can create options that wouldn’t otherwise be available, such as getting a truck load worth of pine bolts from a thinning that combines scattered patches throughout the neighborhood. Is the homeowner thinking about the intended long-term use and character of the land? Ask them “What do you want it to be like in 10 or 20 years?” What are the homeowner’s own resources? Can he or she run a chainsaw or a chipper to dispose of that dead tree once it is safely on the ground? Are they aware that scheduled visits for pruning over several years instead of all at once are a good option? The accessibility and inviting nature of a wooded backyard can be destroyed by an understory being invaded by thorny plants like buckthorn. Is fire danger an issue?

ConclusionThere are plenty of reasons why good stew-

ardship of the landscape and its most prominent inhabitants, the trees, are justified. The starting point is information and education. The alterna-tive is ready-shoot-aim.

Glen Olson is a Certified Arborist with Kunde Co., Inc., natural resources consultants. He works as both a contracted City Forester for municipal programs, and as a private consultant.

Tree Inspections continued from p. 5

� Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE

Do you

know this tree?

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007 7

MYsTeRY TRee

This tree is native to Minnesota. Most often, you will find it in the southeast and central parts of the state. It grows

well in shady to partly sunny locations. It tends to be found in soil that is rich and moist; but is fairly adaptable.

In a more protected exposure, this tree makes a great addition to the home landscape. The leaves, being very toothed, have the look of a birch tree—in fact they are related!

This tree really shows its strength in the trunk which is blue grey and looks corded with muscle. At the same time, it is more of a small stature tree with showy orange red fall color and a beautiful yellow papery bract-like catkin.

Answer on page 14

PHoT

oS B

y DAv

e HAN

SoN

stem

Gir

dlin

g R

oo

ts (

sGR

’s)

Figure 1. A healthy Norway maple tree and one showing severe decline from stem girdling roots.

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007

Stem Girdling Roots (SGR’s) and The Rest of the StoryBy Richard J. Hauer

Hello Americans, this is not Paul Harvey. You know what the news is. In a minute (seven paragraphs to be exact), you’re going to hear ... the r-r-r-rest of the story!

Page One. In 1994, Northfield, Minnesota, a crisis is brewing in the urban forest. Something is amiss with the urban trees. Norway maple trees are showing signs of old age, yet they are in their teens and twenties. They are just mere teenagers and young adults of the tree world and they are showing their ills through wilting and scorched leaves and the striking dieback of twigs and branches in the canopy (Figure 1). Could it be as simple as Verticillium Wilt, the disease caused by the soil-borne fungi such as Verticillium albo-atrum and Verticillium dahliae? Verticillium wilt produces symptomomatic wilting and scorching in the canopy of the tree and discoloration of the wood xylem in cross-section. Folks, these trees certainly were showing signs of wilting and scorching in the canopy. Hopefully, a simple verification by leading tree experts would put this story to rest and solve the mystery.

Cindy Ash and Gary Johnson enter the picture. Both are trained in classic tree pathology and understood how to diagnosis the tree patient in situ among their urban forest friends. Each knows their way around a Petri dish as much as they know their way around the urban forest. But something was wrong with a diagnosis as simple as Verticillium Wilt. The wilting of leaves in the canopy was not like that caused by

PHoT

oS B

y RIC

HARD

J. H

AUeR

continued on p. 10

9

Figure 2. A normal stem and root system juncture on a Norway maple tree.

Figure 3. An abnormal root system encircling and compressing the stem of a Norway maple tree.

Verticillium. And what about staining in the wood xylem? What staining! None was found in the trees that these arboreal masters touched and examined. Even more, something was strange as these trees had stems that looked more liked telephone and telegraph poles coming out of the ground, rather than the normal tapering of stems that deciduous trees from the angiospermous world so commonly exhibit.

Lucky for us, Cindy and Gary had a tool. Oh yes, a tool that each and every one of us has learned to master at some point in our life. A tool that we call a hand trowel. Upon digging and removal the soil to expose the magnificent underworld of the tree, they observed something abnormal. Abnormal is just the opposite of normal and one must understand what is normal to determine what is abnormal. Roots radiating away for the central stem like spokes on a wheel is normal and what a tree is genetically trained to do from life within the first several days as a germinating seed and weeks later as a growing seedling (Figure 2). But these trees had something new, something different or abnormal. They had roots circling around the stem (Figure 3). In some cases, this fortuitous finding by the simple removal of soil and exposure of the roots led to not one but several roots wrapping around the stem. Even more so with several trees, there were layers of encircling roots as the depths beyond the surface was explored. Would this be the end of the story?

Now for Page Two. Gary and Cindy left that day with questions. Was this an isolated case of a few trees gone bad? Or was this something even bigger? The only way to find out was to apply principles first taught to us in elementary school and later honed in middle and high school, possibly even in college and as a professional - science. The scientific process involves making observations and recording them. Document what you see and compare this to what is already known. From this we make conclusions. Well, Professor Johnson did just that. First, the records of those trees in Northfield were noted. Then more observations were taken from the trees within the urban forest of the Minneapolis and Saint Paul metropolitan region. Tens, then hundreds, and eventually over a thousand observations were recorded. The presence or absence of encircling and girdling roots, depth to the structural roots that radiate away from the stem, diameter and species of tree, and recording on the general health of the tree was noted.

These scientifically based observations led to a discovery: buried root systems are not good for trees and tree roots systems buried by soil can become short-lived trees. Not every case of buried root system led to a tree becoming ill at a young

Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE

PHoT

oS B

y RIC

HARD

J. H

AUeR

age. Heck, even the urban forest has George Burns trees that push the envelope on biological tolerance. But many trees with buried root systems did start dying young.

With these findings in hand, a technology transfer grant was received from the Midwest Center for Urban & Community Forestry to disseminate these observations to the practitioners who foster the urban forest. But what to name the publication? Developing a title is often as hard as developing the introductory paragraph. Especially with a quandary of terms such as girdling roots, girdling root syndrome, strangling roots, encircling roots, embedded roots, partial girdling, root strangulation, root tangle, root spiraling, coiling root, root malformation, deformed root systems, root deformation, and others competing for entry as title winners.

It was the morning of a brisk day in March 2000 and the caffeine from copious amounts of coffee were doing their work when, at the same time, it struck Gary Johnson and myself (I was working as a graduate research student with Professor Johnson at the time) that the problem was from a root contacting and compressing the stem. From that elegant postulation came the new term, Stem Girdling Roots or SGR’s for short. Why the new term SGR’s? It seemed to adequately define the problem. The problem occurred when root tissue connected with and led to stem compression and anatomical dysfunction with smaller cells and their arrangement into tissue. This manifested itself into physiological reductions in the transport of water and manufactured food. Further, defining the location on the plant where the pathological agent (the root) was causing its harm was consistent with the description given to insect and disease caused ailments (e.g., bark borer, twig girdler, root rot, flower blight).

Now Page 3 and the Rest of the Story. The message is simple. Nature knows where the roots of trees should be and following these cues is one important step in the right direction. Roots of trees are near the surface and a normal stem taper and directional movement of roots away from the stem at the soil surface is a guarantee with genetic backing from the arboreal gene pool. Practitioners and lay people alike are getting the message and moving the urban forest forward one root system at a time.

But this is not the first discovery of the harm that can come from burying tree root systems. Nearly four centuries ago, a similar observation led William Lawson to remark in 1618 in A New Orchard and Garden, the tree care text of his day, that “most functioning roots were near the surface … and injury would result if these were buried.” And now you know the rest of the story—to plant at grade—good day!

Richard J. Hauer is an Assistant Professor of Urban Forestry at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. You can reach him at [email protected] or 715-346-3642

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007

stem Girdling Roots continued from p. 9

For more information on buried root systems and SGR’s, see A Practitioner’s Guide to Stem Girdling Roots of Trees at (http://www.extension.umn.edu/distri-bution/naturalresources/DD7501.html) or the Fall 2000 (vol. 3, no. 4) of the Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate.

��ADVoCATE • Winter 200�

The 2007 Minnesota Shade Tree Short CourseApril 3 and 4

Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn CenterNot everything is as it appears. The Minnesota

Shade Tree Short Course is more than just shade tree information. It’s about conifers, too! It’s also about diseases, insects, the stresses of winter and urban sprawl. As an urban forestry conference, it includes topics in landscape design, sociology, volunteerism, managing employees and satisfying customers.

Arboriculture is more than just pruning and taking down trees. It’s the propagation, production, planting, maintenance and treatment of trees, shrubs and vines. It’s a mixture of all the sciences and practices required to yield mature, healthy and “safe” trees for Minnesota’s landscapes.

Ethics is often described as “doing the right thing even when no one is watching.” Ethics in arboriculture is usually considered to be a “don’t do” character trait. “He doesn’t top trees.” “She doesn’t flush cut or use tar paint on wounds.” “That company would never over-charge just because a windstorm hit the city.” These are pretty obvious examples, but there are some controversial and “cloudy” ethical situations in our profession. “The customer is always right?” “It may not really help the tree but at least I’m not doing any harm?” “If I don’t do it, someone else will and at least I’ll do it with less damage to the tree?” “I had no idea it would get that big or produce such obnoxious fruit or would block the views of on-coming traffic.”

The 2007 Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course (STSC) has everything that you need to clean off your glasses or windshields and start a new season with a clear, professional, ethical and informed perspective. For 45 years, the STSC has welcomed urban foresters, arborists and other horticulturists, landscape architects, consultants and students to join each other for a couple of days that are jam-packed with information, good fellowship and opportunities to advance professionally. 2007 will be the best conference yet.

We have a new “home” this year at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The center is a convenient location with plenty of free parking. There is a wonderful courtyard, with many trees to take advantage of (if our early April weather cooperates!) and there will be educational and trade exhibits throughout the two days in April.

But, the best is the content! Even if you have all of the answers to urban forestry, arboriculture and ethical questions, you can still brush up on your skills. Test your firewood identification skills. See how well you can peel an ash and find insect larvae buried in the wood. Earn SAF and ISA CEU’s, become recertified as a state Tree Inspector for 2008 or possibly, meet a new employer or employee.

So, mark your calendars for April 3 and 4, 2007. Point your vehicle in the direction of Brooklyn Center and join us for two days of the best topics, speakers and friends in urban forestry and arboriculture. You won’t be disappointed.

For More Information: Oona Besse University of Minnesota 612-624-3492 [email protected]

The 2007 Minnesota Tree Care Advisor (TCA) Core Course

St. Paul, MinnesotaThe 2007 Minnesota Tree Care Advisor Core Course

Workshop Series in St. Paul will begin on February 10 and continue for five consecutive Saturdays, concluding on March 10. This workshop series prepares volunteers interested in contributing to urban forestry efforts in their neighborhoods, communities or state, and consists of 30 hours of classroom training along with approximately 4 hours of outside homework exercises.

All workshops take place on the St. Paul campus of the University of Minnesota, in Green Hall, home of the Department of Forest Resources. Each Saturday consists of 6 hours of intensive training, discussions and exercises, along with a leisurely lunch hour and plenty of opportunities to get out of your chairs.

Registration fees vary for individuals who pledge to return volunteer hours and for those who choose to take the training for professional advancement. Those that pledge volunteer hours have a goal of attaining 50 hours during their first year of active duty, and 25 hours per year thereafter.

A partial list of the training topics include: plant identification and use; site analysis and plant recommendations; problem diagnosis; avoiding construction damage; basic pruning; planting and transplanting for long-term health; risk assessment and management; minimizing winter damage to landscape plants. An extensive reference manual is included with the registration cost.

If you are interested in becoming a volunteer and joining some of the finest tree-huggers around, the fourteenth annual training session still has a few seats available. For more information on the program, check out the Tree Care Advisor website at www.mntca.org. We look forward to meeting you!

Gary Johnson and Dave HansonTCA Program Coordinators

Training

Rev.

HeNG

SURe

Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE�2

I really like old trees. There’s something special about just being near something really, really, old. In relative terms, living to 100 years is

quite an accomplishment for a human being; giant tortoises top out at around 150 years or so for the animal world. Even so, we feel a sense of awe and marvel when we have a chance to see, or

are literally hanging on for dear life on rocky outcrops, or residing on stony beaches. Only recently have these trees had to deal with large numbers of human visitors. Perhaps their relative seclusion, living where humans simply couldn’t, has preserved their existence for so long.

The exact opposite is often true for old trees in China. While there are, undoubtedly, many very old trees growing in the wild in Asia, some of the most remarkable, and aged, specimens are found growing alongside people! The Tang Dynasty ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba— ) in Figure 1 is 1,300 years old. Notice how close the building is to the tree and how the cobblestones cover the entire root system. Perhaps it was this vigor and stamina that inspired one Chinese Emperor to dub it “Emperor Tree.” In China, a ginkgo tree is treasured for more than mere beauty. Translated literally from Chinese, ginkgo means “white fruit tree.” The current stewards of the “Emperor Tree,” the Chan (Zen) Buddhist monks on Cloud Dwelling Mountain, are very happy to report that she still bears “white fruit!” Even older are the camphor trees (Cinnamomum camphora— ) in Figures 2 and 3 which are 1,200 and 1,700 years old, respectively, growing amongst monasteries on Tian Tai Mountain. It is truly amazing that these trees are not only living, but thriving, in

even talk, to these people and animals; those who have seen, and endured, so much. This concept of endurance is probably best portrayed in very old trees.

As arborists, foresters, nursery growers, and tree-huggers, most of us view trees in a broader sense than simple utility. That is, they are something more than just a product on a shelf, paper for our morning newspaper, or wood for a cabinet not yet made. As stewards of urban and community forests, trees become companions in our daily lives. What a great joy it is to be surrounded by “green friends” that are our elders by a hundred years or more. Think about the oldest tree you have seen, is it perhaps one of those gnarly, old bur oaks (Quercus macrocarpa) living on some old patch of prairie? These trees are true marvels, and Minnesota is graced with many fine examples. Our state is home to the lonely remnants of the old-growth white pine (Pinus strobus) forests, native to northern Minnesota. These sole survivors of a time long past, have become representatives of an ancient landscape that was almost wiped out in the infancy of our nation.

Indeed, America is graced with many such elder giants. Most notable are the giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron giganteum) of northern California, some of which are estimated to be 3,000 years old. There are also the much smaller, but older, bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva), which might be over 4,000 years old! There are many other trees as well, mostly conifers, that have stood over 1,000 years, living in the harshest conditions and still surviving (Dean et al., 1996). Interestingly, though, is the fact that these trees are found growing in their native setting; they were not planted by humans. Many are growing in the temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest, while others

By Chad P. Giblin

Figure 1. Tang Dynasty Gingko tree.

Spirit Trees:

Rev.

HeNG

SURe

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007 ��

such close proximity to humanity. Notice how the stonework is built right up to the massive root flare and the walls that surround these giants. In some cases, fairly accurate dates of planting are known. The plum tree in Figure 4 was planted in the Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD) by the Buddhist Master Guo Qin who was one of the religious advisors to the Emperor of China. Like the ginkgo mentioned above, this tree still bears fruit which, reportedly, is reserved only for very special guests! These trees have survived long periods of turmoil, war, and outright chaos. Nevertheless, when the Communists rose to power, many trees like those pictured here, were destroyed, usually along with the temples or monasteries where they grew. Similar arboricultural atrocities occurred in Taiwan during the Japanese occupation from 1895 to 1945 when many of the old-growth cypress (Chamaecyparis spp.— ) were felled and sent to Japan for timber.

These trees aren’t just found on religious sites; however, some villages in mainland China are home to ancient “family trees.” Many families can trace back the planting of such trees to distant relatives, who, centuries ago, planted a little sapling with hope for the future. The shade under these trees then became the resting place for the mortal remains of subsequent generations.

These trees are afforded the same solemn respect of any Western cemetery or family tomb and left untouched, even during the toughest times.

In China or Taiwan these trees are called shen mu ( ), which basically means “spirit tree.” Many Chinese characters, however, have multiple meanings, depending on their context. For example, the character shen has been translated to “spirit” because that makes the most sense. The character could also be translated as “god” or “mind” depending on how it is used. This could mean any number of things, but basically does a shen mu or a “spirit tree” have a mind like you or I? Which came first, the tree or the spirit? It is important to understand that when these characters and words are translated, they may take on the cultural and sociological ideals of the translator. In the West, when we think of spirits we generally envision scary ghosts, perhaps a shadowy remnant of the person left behind after an untimely or unjust death. In Asia, however, some religious and cultural traditions believe that people and other beings undergoing reincarnation are reborn as ghosts or spirits. Is it possible, then, that these trees have become the corporeal manifestation of such beings? We can

continued on p. 14

Figure 2. Camphor tree.

Chad P. Giblin is a Scientist with the University of Minnesota, Department of Horticultural Science.

spirit Trees continued from p. 13

Rev.

HeNG

SURe

Rev.

HeNG

SURe

Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE��

The “Mystery Tree” is Carpinus caroliniana, commonly known as American hornbeam or musclewood.

only speculate. But, what is it about these trees that have allowed them to survive? Are they endowed with some intrinsic nature that spares them from the fate of millions, or perhaps billions, of trees that are cut down for our use every year? What separates a shen mu from those trees that make up the very paper this is written on? Maybe someday we will learn, or perhaps remember, how to speak to the trees and they will share their stories.

References and Acknowledgements:Dean, J.S., D.M. Meko, and T.W. Swetnam, eds. 1996. “Proceedings of the International Confer-ence on Tree Rings, Environment, and Humanity: Relationships and Processes 7-21 May, 1994, Tucson, Arizona.” Radiocarbon 1996:727-731.

Special thanks to Rev. Heng Sure, Director of the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery in Berkeley, CA for his wonderful photos and stories regarding the trees included in this article and to Mr. Wen-Ping Chen, Ms. Jenny Su, and Mr. Song-Qin Ye for discussing their experiences and history regarding shen mu in both mainland China and Taiwan.

Figure 3. Camphor tree.

Figure 4. Plum tree.

��

uRBAN AND COMMuNITY FOResTRY sTAC INFO & NeWs

Calendar

For handy up-to-date links to web sites of interest, be sure to visit www.mnstac.org

ADVoCATE • Winter 2007

EventsMarch 13-14, 2007, Iowa Shade

Tree Short Course, Phone 515-294-6222.

April 3-4, 2007, Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course, Earle Brown Heritage Center, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Contact Oona Besse at [email protected] or 612-624-3492.

April 16-18, 2007, Trees & Utilities National Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. Contact Matt Fong at [email protected] or 402-474-5655.

July 28-August 1, 2007, ISA Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii. For more information: www.isa-arbor.com

July 28–August 1, 2007, American Phytopathological Society Annual Meeting, San Diego, California. For more information: www.aspnet.org

September 15-19, 2007, 43rd Annual Society of Municipal Arborists Conference, Hollywood, Florida. Contact: Donald R. Goulding at [email protected] or 954-304-3226.

October 29, 2007, ISA Leadership Workshop, Champaign, Illinois. Contact: Jerri Moorman at [email protected] or 217-531-2835.

New PublicationsConifers for Gardens. Richard L.

Bitner. 2007. Timber Press

Designing and Renovating Larger Gardens. Douglas Coltart. 2007. Timber Press

Green Roof Plants. Edmund C. Snodgrass and Lucie L. Snodgrass. 2006. Timber Press

About MnsTACThe Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee (MnSTAC) was established in 1974 by a group of concerned citizens to address the health and well being of community forests. MnSTAC is recognized throughout Minnesota and the country for its expertise, advice, coordination and support for community trees. It is an organization of diverse individuals who represent a broad spectrum of tree-related interests. It fosters and supports local comm-unity tree programs across the state so healthy community forests are fully integrated into community development, infrastructure, education and management.

MnSTAC BoArd of direCTorS

President: Ken Simons—763/717-9366vice President: Michael Max, environMentor Systems, Inc.—763/753-5505emily Barbeau, City of Minnetonka—952/988-8421Ken Holman, DNR/Forestry—651/259-5269Steve Nicholson, Kunde Company—651/484-0114Gary R. Johnson, U of M/Forest Resources—612/625-3765Robert Slater, MN Dept. of Transportation —507/529-6145Kameron Kytonen, City of Andover—763/767-5137

Regional MnsTAC CommitteesSoutheast STACChair: Henry Sorensen—651/388-3625 or 651/385-3674Sec./Treas.: Katie Himanga, Heartwood Forestry, Lake City—651/380-9680

Northeast STACChair: Kelly Morris, City Forester, City of Grand Rapids—218/326-7481Secretary/Treasurer/Technical Advisor: Dan Jordan,IRRRA Mineland Reclamation—218/254-7967

Native Alternatives to Invasive Plants. C. Colston Burrell. 2006. Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Rain Gardens. Nigel Dunnett and Andy Clayden. 2007. Timber Press

The Encyclopedia of Grasses for Livable Landscapes. Rick Darke. 2007. Timber Press

The Self-Sustaining Garden. Peter Thompson. 2007. Timber Press

Websites Center for Urban Forest

Research www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr

National Arbor Day Foundation www.arborday.org

Midtown Greenway www.midtowngreenway.org

Minnesota Arbor Day www.dnr.state.mn.us/arbormonth

Minnesota Association for Environmental Education http://naaee.org/maee

Tree Care Industry Association www.treecareindustry.org

Tree Trust www.treetrust.org

Urban Natural Resources Institute www.unri.org

Urban Natural Resources Institute Resources

The Urban Natural Resources Institute (UNRI) is an initiative of the USDA Forest Service Northern Station. The Institute consists of Forest Service scientists who are conducting research on urban natural resource issues.

The following resources are made available by the UNRI:

Online Learning Opportunities. Participate in the monthly “webcast” sessions which offer educational presentations on current topics.

Electronic Newsletter. Keep up-to-date with the latest research related to urban forestry and natural resource management. Sign up for UNRI’s quarterly e-news.

Electronic Mailing List. Join the electronic mailing list to receive a digest of postings related to urban natural resources. You can also post questions or announcements for distribution.

Bulletin Board. Visit the web-based bulletin board facilitated by UNRI scientists.

For more information, check out the UNRI website at www.unri.org

Winter 2007 • ADVoCATE

Presorted Standard

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 171

St. Paul, MN

Minnesota Shade Tree AdvocateA quarterly newsletter pub-lished by the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee.

Managing Editorial Group: MnSTAC Education Committee (Emily Barbeau, James Burks, Ken Holman, Gary R. Johnson, Lara Newberger, Jeff Rick, Mark Stennes, and Patrick Weicherding)

Editor-in-Chief: Judy Slater

Design: Creative Services Unit, MNDNR

Material in this newsletter is not copyrighted. Reproduction for educational purposes is encour-aged. Subscriptions are free. Articles, news items, photos and videos are welcome.

This publication was produced with the support of the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area; State and Private Forestry.

Address inquiries to:

Minnesota DNRDivision of Forestry500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155

Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks.

Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155-4044RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED