Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery A ... · ii Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery —A Management Plan Yuqi Yang Master of Forest Conservation

Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery

—A Management Plan

by

Yuqi Yang

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation

Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto

©Copyright by Yuqi Yang 2017

ii

Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery

—A Management Plan

Yuqi Yang

Master of Forest Conservation

Faculty of Forestry

University of Toronto

2017

Abstract

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennes Fairmaire), an invasive insects, has caused

significant loss of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Eastern North America. Prospect Cemetery, an

arboretum-cemetery in Toronto, with 140 Ash trees, has been threatened by this insect as well.

Infested and decaying Ash trees cause serious safety concerns. In order to prevent further EAB

infestation and prioritize hazard tree removal, a 10 year management plan was developed based

on single tree inventory data. For trees that could be possibly saved, trunk injection with

TreeAzin was suggested as the most suitable treatment. Criteria for selecting Ash for injection

are that a tree must be no less than 20 cm in DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), and that has no

significant dieback in crown. For all other Ash trees, treatments, such as removal, monitoring, or

do nothing, were identified based on their health condition, location, and tree size. As a result,

three management scenarios were developed, and their estimated cost were calculated for Mount

Pleasant Group to select from. The three scenarios are: ―Do Everything‖, ―Reduced Injection‖,

and ―Eliminated Replanting‖. Comparison of the scenarios, enabled the scenario of ―Do

Everything‖, injection of all healthy Ash and removal of unstable trees with replanting as the

most efficient. Annual inventory, continuous monitoring, and follow-up adjustment on

operations and budgets are also recommended to minimize safety risks.

iii

Acknowledgement

I would like to appreciate Dr Danijela Puric-Mladenovic, my supervisor of this Capstone Project.

Thank you for your patient guidance and precious advices. Your dedicated edit is greatly

appreciated. The completion of this project owns to your contribution and support. I would also

like to appreciate Mr Jeff McMann, my internship supervisor. Thank you for providing me the

opportunity to work at Prospect Cemetery, and thank you for inspire me on the topic of this

capstone. Learning from your great experience on data collection and species identification has

been a key step for the establishment of this project. Without the data and pictures, you offered,

the project could not be developed. Thank you for helping me all the way to today. I would also

like to send my sincere appreciation to Dr Sally Krigstin and Dr Sandy Smith. Thank you for

connecting me with Jeff and recommending me to Mount Pleasant Group. Without you this

project could not be produced. Last but not the least, I would like to appreciate all my fellow

2015 Master of Forest Conservation candidates for your continuous support during the 16 intense

month. Thank you!

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................3

2.2 Data Analysis and Treatment Determination .......................................................................4

2.2.1 Ash Selection Criteria for Trunk Injection ..............................................................4

2.2.2 Removal Priority and Timeline ................................................................................7

2.2.3 Replanting and Maintenance....................................................................................8

2.3 Budget Calculation...............................................................................................................9

3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................9

3.1 Ash Condition at Prospect Cemetery .................................................................................10

3.2 Treatments and Timeline ...................................................................................................11

4 Management Scenarios and Budget ..........................................................................................13

4.1 Scenario One—Do Everything ..........................................................................................13

4.2 Scenario Two—Reduced Injection ....................................................................................14

4.3 Scenario Three—Eliminated Replanting ...........................................................................16

4.4 Budget Comparison ...........................................................................................................17

5 Management Recommendation and Conclusion .......................................................................18

Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................20

Appendix I .....................................................................................................................................25

Appendix II ....................................................................................................................................26

Appendix III ...................................................................................................................................28

Appendix IV...................................................................................................................................30

v

Appendix V ....................................................................................................................................31

Appendix VI...................................................................................................................................31

Appendix VII .................................................................................................................................33

Appendix IV...................................................................................................................................34

1

1 Introduction

In recent years, the value of urban green space has been more recognized (Derkzen et al., 2015).

Cemeteries, as islands of green within the compacted urban space, are increasingly important

component of urban green spaces, (Kowarik et al., 2016; Klaufus, 2016; Swensen et al., 2016).

To serve environmental and cultural demands, many cemeteries are transforming into arboreta

(Kowarik et al., 2016; Klaufus, 2016; Swensen et al., 2016). Arboretum is a collection of diverse

shrubs and trees that provide horticultural, educational, scientific, and public benefits (Idzojtic, et

al., 2011; Elliott et al., 2008; Buhler & Kristoffersen, 2009).Cemeteries with diverse collection

of trees, that bloom, flower, and change colors in different time are more attractive to urban

communities. Cemetery-arboretum also serve to awake public environmental awareness and

moderate moral pressure (Ijeomah et al., 2014; Elliott et al., 2008; Sherburn & Devlin, 2004;

Kowarik et al., 2016; Brown, 2013). Inevitably, some clients, who have their beloved berried in

an arboretum-cemetery, dislike trees, but in general, more people are grateful to the recreational

function provided by these cemeteries. Trees and shrubs are used to landscape graveyards and as

a mean of memories (Clayden & Dixon, 2007; Swensen et al., 2016).

Besides the cultural and environmental values, arboretum cemeteries could also be used for

public and professional education. Decomposition processes taking place in the soil of

cemeteries could provide continuous nutrient support to trees and shrubs growing on. Addition to

this, sufficient space an arboretum-cemetery provides to plants could support the fully display of

their growth (Ijeomah et., 2014; Buhler & Kristoffersen, 2009; Kowarik et al., 2016; Brown,

2013; Idzojtic, et al., 2011; Klaufus, 2016). Hence, arboretum-cemeteries can serve to

demonstrate the establishment and maintenance of native and non-native urban trees and their

growth characteristics to future arborists and foresters (Ijeomah et al., 2014; Buhler &

Kristoffersen, 2009). Besides, old cemeteries often have old and heritage trees and as such could

also act as genetic pool and provide seed source. This could be a crucial scientific data base for

academic researches and other urban forest plans (Buhler & Kristoffersen, 2009; Kowarik et al.,

2016; Brown, 2013). Additionally, as a collection of various species, an arboretum-cemetery

could be an experimental site providing potential options for new urban tree species (Buhler &

Kristoffersen, 2009; Kowarik et al., 2016; Brown, 2013).

2

Prospect Cemetery of Mount Pleasant Group also functions as an arboretum and as such provides

significant cultural and ecological values to public. Although Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) only

makes about 2% of all trees, it is an important representative in the arboretum-cemetery.

However, due to the spreads of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennes Fairmaire)

benefits provided by Ash trees as well as tree canopy of the cemetery are evidently threatened.

Emerald Ash Borer, a phloem-feeding insect native to Asia, is the most destructive pest to

Eastern North America forests and urban trees since it was first observed in 1980s. As of 2002

EAB started causing vast damage to Ash population, first in Michigan (Herms &McCullough,

2014; McCullough et al., 2009; McCullough et al., 2016) and then spread out from there, the

insect is now threatening more than 95% Ash trees in North America. Ash species, but

specifically Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) ,White Ash (Fraxinus americana) , Black Ash

(Fraxinus nigra), and European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), are under the risk of EAB to different

degree (McCullough et al., 2016; Mercaader et al., 2015; Herms & McCullough, 2014). EAB

spreads both naturally and by human-assist. Ash trees in Prospect Cemetery are scattered with a

relatively low density, so it could be relatively difficult for the insect to fly from one tree to

another by itself. However, the high pedestrian volume at the cemetery makes human an

important carrier for EAB spread (Herms &McCullough, 2014). The diversity of tree species is

decreasing due to the increasing ash mortality. Weak and dead branches, along with dead trees

are significant hazards to the visitors and pedestrians. The dying trees and snags could also cause

damage to paths and monuments underneath and nearby. Questions regarding to the decaying ash

trees have already been brought out by clients of the cemetery. Additionally, the infestation of

EAB in Prospect Cemetery could result in multiple damages to urban canopy, such as gap

openings, understory alteration, and loss of habitat for over 200 arthropod species (Herms

&McCullough, 2014). Ash loss also promotes spread of other shade-intolerant invasive species,

many of which have been already observed in Prospect Cemetery (Herms &McCullough, 2014).

In spite of the significant damages the insect could cause, EAB could be controlled with multiple

methods if observed at the early stage of its infestation (McCullough et al., 2016; Mercaader et

al., 2015; Herms & McCullough, 2014; McCullough et al., 2009). Unfortunately, while the city

and many forest managers, including Mount Pleasant Cemetery, are seizing the time to treat /

remove the targeted species, little measure was addressed in Prospect Cemetery. Only few ash

trees were injected three years ago, and no follow-up injection was addressed, regardless that

3

insecticide to be effective has to be applied every year. Thus, the replacement of dead and dying

trees at Prospect Cemetery would be imperative, and a management plan addresses to prevent

further EAB infestation strategically would be urgency.

The paper develops an Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) management plan for Prospect Cemetery

utilizing tree inventory data. Data on tree condition and size were analyzed, which enabled

determing treatments. A list of species for replacement was created, and the timeline of removal

and replacement was also designed. A detail operation plan and the budget of the plan were

generated for the upcoming year (2017). Follow-ups as well as future costs up to 2027 were

suggested, so that all Ash in the property could be taken care of. Besides, alternatives and

treatment priorities are provided in case of budget insufficiency. Meanwhile, the study tended to

demonstrate the importance and the application of single-tree inventory with standard data to

support decision making.

2 Methods

2.1 Data Collection

Single tree inventory was conducted to collect detail and up-to-date information on all tree

species and understand local and neighborhood condition of the property. Tree inventory was

also conducted to collect necessary information for developing a tree management plan

(Vastaranta et al., 2014; Saarinen et al., 2014). Besides species identification and recording

during the inventory, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), crown width, and height of the tree were

measured. In addition to these, tree condition was assessed following the scale: good, fair, poor,

or dead. A tree with almost full / full canopy and no cracks or rots was defined as good, a tree

with less than 30% crown was defined as poor , and any condition between good and poor was

defined as fair. Additional notes were taken to further describe health condition. For example,

girdling roots, hangers, insects, conks, wounds / scars, cracks, rots, marks of woodpeckers, and

marks of historical injections were recorded. The location of a tree was mapped and it was

recorded if a tree is beside road, office building, mausoleum, or property line.

A software Arbor pro was used for entering and managing tree inventory. A google map of

Prospect Cemetery was preloaded in the program; for every tree inventoried, a point location was

digitized at the center of the tree on the map. Then, inventory information for each point / tree

4

was entered in an automatic pop-up form that enabled entering a standard set of attributes.

Finally, a picture of a tree was taken and documented as a reference. If a tree was a memorial

planting, a picture of the memorial plaque was also taken to document its private ownership. The

memorial plaque information means that Mount Pleasant Group does not have the right to treat /

remove the tree without the authorization from the family / client. As a result of this,

management of memorial trees will not be included in this plan.

2.2 Data Analysis and Treatment Determination

In order to demonstrate Ash condition, tree DBH was categorized into six classes according to

2016 US Forest Service Tree Marking Guide (Table 1). The lower limit of DBH class three (3)

was modified from 18cm (original) to 20cm (Table 1)

since 20cm is the suggested threshold of TreeAzin trunk

injection (personal communication Jeff McMann, Arbor

Services Co-ordinator of Mount Pleasant Group;

Melamed & Zhou, 2012; Knight et al., 2013; Campbell

and Sloan 1977; Haavic and Stephen 2010; Volney

1998; Jennings et al., 2014; Marshall et al. 2013; Lyons

et al., 2009; Duan et al., 2010; Siegert et al. 2007;

Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009). Data

analysis was done with Excel where Ash condition, DBH classes, and inventory information

were used as input criteria.

2.2.1 Ash Selection Criteria for Trunk Injection

Annual trunk injection of TreeAzin was selected as a management measure for preventing EAB

infestation (Grimalt et al., 2011). Grimalt et al (2011) and Kreutzweiser et al. (2007) confirmed

that TreeAzin has short residual time and low side effect to untargeted species, so it is an

environmental friendly insecticide recommended for retardance of EAB infestation at Prospect

Cemetery. TreeAzin is an insecticide proved to be efficient to control EAB larvae and adult for

one year (Kreutzweiser et al., 2011; Grimalt et al., 2011). Since some EAB larvae need 1 to 2

years to hatch, annual injection would be necessary (Flower et al., 2015; Grimalt et al., 2011)

5

Two criteria were applied for selecting Ash trees warrant injection: the tree must be no less than

20 cm (DBH) and have no significant sign of dieback in tree canopy. The criteria were provided

by Mount Pleasant Group and supported by Harbord Village EAB Management Plan (Melamed

& Zhou, 2012) and other studies (Knight et al., 2013; Campbell and Sloan 1977; Haavic and

Stephen 2010; Volney 1998; Jennings et al., 2014; Marshall et al. 2013; Lyons et al., 2009; Duan

et al., 2010; Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009).

2.2.1.1 Significant Sign of Crown Dieback

Tree size, crown class, and vigor influence Ash susceptibility to EAB infestation (Campbell and

Sloan 1977; Haavic and Stephen 2010; Volney 1998). Knight et al. (2013) discovered that tree

mortality rate is 50% higher for trees that had crown dieback, regardless of the cause of the

dieback. Even trees have mild canopy thinning have significantly higher EAB mortality rate than

trees with full, healthy canopies (Knight et al., 2013). Jennings et al. (2014) also observed that

most EAB emergence was found on trees with 40-60% dieback. Studies of other borers also

show that the survival of the insects is significantly correlated with the condition of the tree

(Barter, 1957, 1965, Haack & Benjamin, 1982 in Duan et al., 2010).

Studies indicates that self-defense, killing the borer, EAB larvae, via chemical toxicants or

physical barriers generated by the tree itself, is the major mechanism fight from the infestation

(Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2009). Healthy

ash trees with good crown conditions could defense to EAB larvae more effectively and

aggressively since they have more nutrient and energy reserves to support production of

defensive chemicals. Also, physically EAB larvae could be surrounded and absorbed by the

formation of callus tissue, a fast grown layer that seals damaged area. This mechanism would be

most effective when the growth rate is high, which also requires healthy canopy to produce

necessary energy and nutrients (Duan et al., 2010). An weakness, such as defoliation, wounded,

or infestation by other insects could weaken its self-defense (Barter, 1957, 1965, Haack &

Benjamin, 1982 in Duan et al., 2010). For these reasons, EAB females prefer stressed trees for

oviposition, and EAB larvae develops faster on stressed ash trees (Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et

al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2009). However, self-defense system of Ash

species in North America is not strong enough to stop establishment of EAB larvae in trees

(Siegert et al. 2007; Tluczek et al. 2008; McCullough et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2009). Insecticide

6

injection was developed to assist the self-defense system by providing extra chemical

compounds targeting the borers (Grimalt et al., 2011). However, the treatment to-be applied does

not heal the tree. A tree need to be healthy enough to perform its fundamental physical function,

so injecting significantly infested tree would not be effective (Grimalt et al., 2010). For example,

the 2012 EAB management plan for Harbord Village, Toronto also indicates that trees in fair

condition, with little signs of EAB infestation shown in canopy were considered for preservation.

Thus, of healthy canopy (canopy without significant sign of crown dieback) is a rational criterion

for selecting ash tree for EAB treatment.

2.2.1.2 20cm DBH Limit

With the consideration that host defense mechanism is the most important factor causing EAB

larvae mortality (Duan et al., 2010), since greater trees usually have developed more mature self-

defensive system, and since greater trees also have more energy and nutrient reserves comparing

with the smaller trees at similar health condition, it gives more chance to greater trees to survive

from infestation after wiping out the borers with the help of trunk injection (Lyons et al., 2009).

Harbord Village EAB Management Plan (2012) also suggested that ash trees greater than 20cm

DBH can be effectively treated in the long-term, while smaller trees may not be as easily saved.

Even though the bores were effectively removed, small trees might not reserve sufficient

nutrients to survive. Besides, physical damages caused by trunk injection on small trees might

kill the tree even faster than EAB (Lyons et al., 2009).

2.2.1.3 Rationality of the Combined Criteria

Although, self-defense system in relatively larger Ash trees is stronger than in smaller trees, the

defense mechanism is most effective for trees with good crown condition (Jennings et al., 2015).

The behavior of EAB also indicates that the basing decisions on a sole criterion could not

guarantee treatment effectiveness. EAB adults favor relatively large trees in decline, as they have

reduced self-defense but still provide relatively sufficient food resource for larvae (Jennings et al.,

2015). Studies for other similar borers, including trees infested by other insects such as gypsy

moth (Lymantria dispar) (Campbell & Sloan, 1977), red oak borer (Enaphalodes rufulus)

(Haavic & Stephen, 2010), jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) (Volney, 1998), white pine

weevil (Pissodes strobi) (He & Alfaro, 2000) also imply that large trees with full canopy has

larger area for photosynthesis, which may require longer time for borers to weaken the tree, and

7

hence allow for higher survivorship (Kathleen et al., 2013). Thus, in order to prevent further

infestation in Prospect Cemetery, the combined application of the two criteria would be rational.

2.2.2 Removal Priority and Timeline

Ash trees, that have not meet injection criteria, and that might pose hazard and high safety risk

were categorized as trees to-be removed. Then, removal priorities were determined accordingly.

Ash hazard was evaluated based on health condition, location, and size by DBH. In order to

estimate the instability of a tree, a marking scheme was developed to Ash health condition and

location. The sum of health condition scores and location scores indicates the initial risk to

human and was related to initial removal priority (Table 3; Figure 1). Then, initial removal

priority was adjusted for tree size. Ash health conditions are categorized into four types: good,

fair, poor, and dead (Table 2). Higher score represents more severe health condition; for example,

a good tree was given a score of one, and a dead tree was given a score of four (Table 2).

Similarly, location was categorized into three types: not close to any building or pathway (shown

blank in Table 2); near office building or mausoleum; near road or property line. A score of three

was given to trees near road or property line, where there is the highest pedestrian traffic. A

score of one was given to trees not close to any building or pathway. After generating initial

removal priority by summing health condition scores and location scores, the priority was further

adjusted by tree size (Table 3; Figure 1). Relatively large trees (DBH no less than 5cm) were

considered risky and remained in their initial removal priority (Figure 1). Whereas small trees

(DBH less than 5 cm) were considered not as risky; these trees were rejected from their initial

removal priority and moved to next priority category (Figure 1). The adjusted priority also

suggests removal time (Table 4). Higher adjusted priority suggests that trees are more hazardous

and need to be removed sooner. Trees categorized into priority one would be recommended to be

8

removed in the first year (2017).

2.2.3 Replanting and Maintenance

Ash trees to-be removed and the existing ash stumps represent potential plantable space. Each of

these locations was assessed replanting based on the planting preference of Mount Pleasant

Group. As a result sites along property lines are not considered for replanting as they provide no

significant visual values while trees planted there could cause relatively high risk to pedestrians.

Species for replanting were selected with respect to the interest of Mount Pleasant Group and

managing the cemetery as an arboretum. A list of potential species and a list of available species

at Uxbridge Nurseries were provided by Mr Jeff McMann. The Uxbridge Nurseries provides

Mount Pleasant Group with the planting stock. Comparison between the two lists generates

replanting options. Extra comparisons were addressed among existed tree species at the property,

9

native tree species at risk in Ontario (Ontario, 2016), and the previously created list of replanting

options.

For Ash trees that did not meet the injection criteria or fall into priority one to five removal,

further categorization were developed to determine adequate maintenance measure, including do

nothing and monitoring. No specific operations will be undertaken on Ash trees in good / fair

condition but are smaller than 8cm in DBH and are not close to any buildings or pathways, for

these trees could lead to less risk to human safety. Other trees in good / fair condition, but are

less than 20cm in DBH, are suggested to be monitored to determine future operations.

Monitoring is also suggested for to-be removed trees and injected trees as well, so that

maintenance operations could be decided.

2.3 Budget Calculation

In order to obtain the financial support of this plan from Mount Pleasant Group, predicted

expenditure is calculated. In consultations with Mr Jeff McMann and literature review (Melamed

& Zhou, 2012; Tree Removal, 2016; Pang, 2016), an estimate of EAB management cost is

provided. Per capita cost of each operation to-be conducted on Ash genus in Prospect Cemetery,

including injection, maintenance of current Ash and newly planted trees, tree removal, stump

removal, and replacement, was listed in Table 5. Besides, 3% interest rate (personal

communication Mr Jeff McMann) was applied to estimate future costs during 2018 to 2027.

3 Results and Discussion

By using a standard inventory data and the criteria described, Ash condition at Prospect

Cemetery was assessed. Number of trees / stumps for each treatment was clarified accordingly.

Although it is suggested that rare species should be injected regardless of its condition

10

(suggested by Mr Jeff McMann), since no rare Ash species was observed, no exceptional

treatment would be developed.

3.1 Ash Condition at Prospect Cemetery

Based on data from the 2016 Ash inventory at Prospect Cemetery, 8% are stumps (Figure 2). The

remaining 92% are Ash trees. Each of the conditions, dead, poor, fair, and good, is about 25% of

all Ash trees. The number of dead

trees is the lowest while the number

of good trees is the highest (Figure 2).

Categorizing the trees into six DBH

classes shows that all Ash trees less

than 8cm in DBH are alive and only

a small portion of them are in poor

condition (Figure 3). In general,

number of Ash trees in good and fair

condition decreases as DBH

increases (Figure 3). DBH class three (3) (20-38cm) has the largest number of dead trees and the

second largest number of poor trees, while DBH class five (5) (50-75cm) has the largest number

of poor trees (Figure 3). This indicates that Ash in these two DBH classes have been decaying

significantly, and could be important targets of removal. In DBH class six (6) (≧75 cm), due to

11

the great size of these trees, the dead / poor trees could be significantly hazardous. Hence,

although the fewest number of good trees was observed in this DBH class (Figure 3), the dead /

poor trees will not be remained for their heritage values.

3.2 Treatments and Timeline

Every Ash tree in the cemetery has been evaluated, based on the criteria selected, and assigned

with a suitable treatment. Number of Ash trees allocated in each treatment was counted, and the

sum of DBH in each treatment was also calculated. Among 140 Ash trees, 36 trees are suggested

for annual trunk injection with the total DBH 1,562cm (Table 6). 34 trees are in good / fair

condition but have not reached 20cm DBH threshold for injection (Table 6). For these trees, 10

of them do not require treatments since they

could bring relatively low risk to pedestrians

due to the small size and the location with low

pedestrian traffic (Table 6). The other 24 of

them requires monitoring to determine future

operation. Another 70 trees are suggested to be

removed, of which 19 are recommended for

priority one removal (Table 6; Figure 3).

According to figure 3, the first three years are

recommended for relatively intensive Ash removal, which indicates that most of the to-be

removed trees are fairly risky. Less trees, but greater total DBH, are suggested to be removed in

2021 (priority removal four). This means that some big trees are relatively stable for now, but

12

would be decayed in following years (Table 6; Figure 3). This phenomenon agrees with the

studies of Lyons et al. (2009) and Duan et al. (2010), which implies that if infested by EAB,

great trees could stand longer than small trees.

Among 153 observed live and dead trees and stumps, 13 of them are Ash stumps. 10 out of the

13 stumps are not near property line and preferred to be replacement of other species by Mount

Pleasant Group (Figure 4). Besides, 48 out of the 70 to be removed Ash trees are not close to

property line and preferred for replanting (Figure 4). 31% of the live and dead trees and stumps

are Ash need removal and re-planting, while 14% require removal only (Figure 5).Trees warrant

injection occupies 23% of Ash genus at Prospect Cemetery (Figure 5). 16% Ash trees might be

determined to be injected or removed through following monitoring (Figure 5).

13

4 Management Scenarios and Budget

Base on the results, three management scenarios were developed: ―Do Everything‖, ―Reduced

Injection‖, and ―Eliminated Replanting‖. Scenario One ―Do Everything‖ means that all Ash meet

the injection criteria will be injected, all unstable trees will be removed following one to five

removal priorities, and all plantable sites will be replanted with tree species other than Ash.

Scenario Two ―Reduced Injection‖ means that only two representative trees of each Ash species

will be injected. The greatest two trees of each Ash species meet the criteria for injection will be

selected. Other operations will be remained as described in Scenario One, while follow-up

removal after year five (priority five removal) might be required due to potential increasing EAB

infestation. Scenario Three ―Eliminated Replanting‖ remains same injection and removal

operations as scenario one, but no replanting will be conducted. Annual cost covering from 2017

to 2027 for the three scenarios was calculated, so that Mount Pleasant Group could choose a

suitable one with respect to their budget.

4.1 Scenario One—Do Everything

Scenario One ―Do Everything‖ includes TreeAzin trunk injection for all Ash that meet 20cm in

DBH and has no significant dieback shown in crown. This scenario suggests removing all

unstable trees following priority removal one to five. Additionally, all to-be removed trees and

existing stumps that are not along property line will be replanted with species other than Ash.

Replanting will be addressed before the next summer after stump removal. For example, if a

stump is removed in 2017 summer, then replanting on this site should be completed before 2018

summer. The replanting and maintenance cost was included in the estimated budget of 2017.

14

Assuming 100% survivor rate of injected Ash, this alternative requires annual trunk injection of

36 Ash with TreeAzin (Table 7). This will cost C$ 4,920 in 2017 (Table 8). The increasing trend

of injection cost was caused by 3% interest rate (Table 8). Stump removal will be addressed on

sites preferred for replanting, which includes to-be removed trees and existing stumps. Hence,

under the same assumption, no removal or replanting will be required from year 6 to year 10

(Table 7). Therefore, starting from year 6, the cost of Scenario One could be saved on tree

removal, stump removal, and replanting (Table 8). Monitoring should cover all trees, while the

24 trees highlighted in Table 6 should be focused. Maintenance could focus on injected Ash and

newly planted trees, while monitoring could provide necessary information for maintenance or

removal adjustment.

4.2 Scenario Two—Reduced Injection

As described, Scenario Two ―Reduced Injection‖ only injects the two greatest healthy trees of

each Ash species. Thus, declination of the un-injected healthy trees is expected with the

consideration of potential EAB infestation. In order to estimate the increased loss of Ash trees,

Ash mortality curve (Figure 6) caused by EAB (Zwack, 2016) was used. According to the curve

(Figure 6), the mortality rate is relatively low from year one to year five, while evident mortality

was observed from year 6. Therefore, from year one to year five, removal timeline of Scenario

Two ―Reduced Injection‖ could follow the original removal priorities, while additional removal

would be required starting from year six. Since the curve was calculated from street trees with

approximately similar DBH, it could be assumed that the mortality rate equals to the percentage

15

of Ash loss in DBH. Addition to this, since it could be difficult to specify which tree would die

in which year, Ash loss between year six and year ten at Prospect Cemetery was estimated based

on DBH (Table 9). The DBH based prediction also matches with budget calculation, for the per

capita cost of tree removal is C$ 22/cm-DBH.

Assuming all injected Ash could survive, only eight trees will be injected annually for Scenario

Two, which will cost C$ 1,714 in 2017 (Table 10, Table 11). Removal and replacement between

year one to year five would be the same as Scenario One, but specified Ash tree removal starting

from year six requires further determination based on monitoring (Table 10). Due to the

insufficient information about the location of to-be removed trees during this period, stump

removal and replacement have yet been decided (Table 10). According to Table 9, Ash loss

could be increasingly significant as time goes by, and the estimated tree removal cost would also

increase with the same trend (Table 11).

16

4.3 Scenario Three—Eliminated Replanting

For Scenario Three ―Eliminated Replanting‖, injection of valuable Ash and removal of unstable

trees will be remained as Scenario One, while no monitoring or maintenance for newly planted

trees will be undertaken (Table 12). Therefore, the cost of injection and removal for ―Eliminated

Replanting‖ would be the same as for the scenario ―Do Everything‖, while cost on stump

removal, planting, and maintenance of seedlings could be saved (Table 13). Nevertheless, actual

cost on injection and removal from year two to year ten still need adjustments based on actual

Ash response to trunk injection.

17

4.4 Budget Comparison

Comparing estimated cost among three scenarios, ―Eliminated Replanting‖ cost the least (Figure

7). Between year one and year six, the cost of ―Do Everything‖ is slightly higher (about C$3,000)

than the cost of ―Reduced Injection‖, but the trends of the expenditure of these two scenarios are

the same (Figure 7; Table 8; Table 11). In this period, the difference between ―Do Everything‖

and ―Reduced Injection‖ is caused by the different number of Ash trees to-be injected. However,

after year six, when the cost of ―Do Everything‖ and ―Eliminated Replanting‖ stabilize, the cost

of ―Reduced Injection‖ would increase due to the increasing Ash mortality (Figure 7). At year

eight, estimated cost of ―Reduced Injection‖ would be the same as ―Do Everything‖; after year

eight, predicted expenditure of ―Reduced Injection‖ would be the highest. At year 10, ―Reduced

Injection‖ would require about C$10,000 more than ―Do Everything‖ (Figure 7; Table 8; Table

11). Additionally, predicted cost at hand does not include any planting after year five, while

―Reduced Injection‖ might require further planting to offset canopy lost caused by increased Ash

mortality. This could lead to even higher expenditure of this scenario.

18

Accumulating the annual differences between estimated cost of ―Do Everything‖ and ―Reduced

Injection‖, before year eight, ―Do Everything‖ costs about C$1,8000 more than ―Reduced

Injection‖; between year eight and year ten, ―Do Everything‖ costs about $1,3000 less than

Reduced Injection (Figure 7; Table 8; Table 11). Addition to the fact that the actual expenditure

of ―Reduced Injection‖ could be even higher due to increased replanting, the overall budget

required for ―Do Everything‖ and ―Reduced Injection‖ could be close. However, while ―Do

Everything‖ protects all Ash trees that could be potentially saved, ―Reduced Injection‖ could

cause about 60% loss of Ash trees that are currently in good condition. Therefore, Scenario Two

―Reduced Injection‖ will not be recommended. For Scenario Three ―Eliminated Replanting‖, it

remains same Ash values as the scenario of ―Do Everything‖, but ―Eliminated Replanting‖ will

not increase the collection of tree species for the arboretum-cemetery. Thus, when the budget is

sufficient, Scenario One ―Do Everything‖ would be recommended instead of Scenario Three

―Eliminated Replanting‖.

5 Management Recommendation and Conclusion

According to the results, the scenario of ―Do Everything‖ would be the optimal choice for

protecting Ash and increasing tree species diversity at Prospect Cemetery. Therefore, in the first

year (2017), TreeAzin spring trunk injection of 36 ash trees that are greater than 20cm in DBH

and with no visible sign of die back shown in canopy is recommended. For safety concerns, 19

trees marked with priority removal one should be cut down. Stump grinding is recommended for

removed trees and the exiting stumps that are not close to property line. Two of each interested

19

species are suggested to be planted at the 19 available spots. Hence, nine to ten species from the

previously generated list (Appendix I) would be selected according to seedling availability in

nurseries in 2017. Clones should be avoided when selecting the two trees of each to-be planted

species. Additionally, detail planting spot should be assigned via matching the space and the

mature size of an interested species. It is suggested that space availability could be reflected by

canopy width of to-be removed trees. Moreover, replanting at sites near road/mausoleum/office

building should be completed first since these trees could provide important visual values for the

cemetery. Planting at sites with signs of exotic species should be addressed early as well.

Pesticides and understory planting could be applied with tree planting in order to prevent

expansion of invasive species.

Annual tree inventory of Ash trees is recommended since the operations proposed rely on the

response of injected Ash trees. If all injected trees remain healthy, then same trees would be

injected in the next year. However, if any injected Ash decayed significantly, following injection

might not be recommended, and removal would be suggested based on the stability of the tree.

Besides, re-inventory could provide specific data guiding maintenance, especially for the newly-

planted trees. Therefore, annual inventory would be necessary for precise arrangement of follow-

up operations and explicit budget estimation.

In order to minimize safety threats, routine staff monitoring is recommended along with annual

inventory. Actually, any trees considered unstable should be removed as soon as possible. As for

potential species to-be planted, besides the listed species of interest, other native species that are

not collected in the property would be recommended for consideration. Species proposed for

consideration includes Betula lenta, and Quercus shumardii. These two species are not available

at the Uxbridge Nurseries in 2017, but it could be worthwhile to check with other nurseries or

book the seedlings from Uxbridge Nurseries for future planting.

20

Literature Cited

Abell, K. J., Duan, J. J., Bauer, L., Lelito, J. P., & Van Driesche, R. G. (2012). The effect of bark

thickness on host partitioning between tetrastichus planipennisi (hymen: Eulophidae) and

atanycolus spp. (hymen: Braconidae), two parasitoids of emerald ash borer (coleop:

Buprestidae). Biological Control, 63(3), 320-325. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.08.009

Buchholz S, Blick T, Hannig K, Kowarik I, Lemke A, Otte V, Scharon J, Schönhofer A, Teige T,

von der Lippe M, Seitz B (2016) Biological richness of a large urban cemetery in Berlin. Results

of a multi-taxon approach. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7057. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.4.e7057

Brown, T. (2013). The making of urban ‗healtheries‘: The transformation of cemeteries and

burial grounds in late-victorian east london. Journal of Historical Geography, 42(Complete), 12-

23. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2013.05.001

Bühler, O., & Kristoffersen, P. (2009). The urban tree arboretum in hørsholm, denmark: A new

tool towards an improved education of arborists and tree managers. Urban Forestry & Urban

Greening, 8(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.10.001

Derkzen, M. L., Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). REVIEW: Quantifying urban

ecosystem services based on high‐resolution data of urban green space: An assessment for

rotterdam, the netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(4), 1020-1032. doi:10.1111/1365-

2664.12469

Duan, J.J., Ulyshen, M.D., Bauer, L.S., Gould, J., & Driesche, R.V. (2010). Measuring the

impact of biotic factors on populations of emerald ash borers (Coleoptera: Buprestidae).

Environmental Entomology,39(5),1513-1522.

Elliott, P., Daniels, S., & Watkins, C. (2008). The nottingham arboretum (1852): Natural history,

leisure and public culture in a Victorian regional centre. Urban History, 35(1), 48-71.

doi:10.1017/S0963926807005172

Flower, C. E., Dalton, J. E., Knight, K. S., Brikha, M., & Gonzalez-Meler, M. A. (2015). To treat

or not to treat: Diminishing effectiveness of emamectin benzoate tree injections in ash trees

http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7057

21

heavily infested by emerald ash borer. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 790-795.

doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.003

Grimalt, S., Thompson, D., Chartrand, D., McFarlane, J., Helson, B., Lyons, B.,& Scarr, T.

(2011). Foliar residue dynamics of azadirachtins following direct stem injection into white and

green ash trees for control of emerald ash borer. Pest Management Science, 67(10), 1277-1284.

doi:10.1002/ps.2183

Herms, D.A. & McCullough, D.G. (2014). Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: history,

biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual Review of Entomology, 59, 13-30.

Idzojtic, M., Zebec, M., & Poljak, I. (2011). Dendrological and horticultural value of lisicine

arboretum. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering. 32(1), 193-201.

Ijeomah, H. M., Okoli, C., & Iyah, E. I. (2014). Ecotourism resources of university of uyo,

nigeria: The arboretum and ravine destinations in perspective.Ethiopian Journal of

Environmental Studies and Management,7(3) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v7i3.13

Johnson, T. D., Lelito, J. P., Pfammatter, J. A., & Raffa, K. F. (2016). Evaluation of tree

mortality and parasitoid recoveries on the contiguous western invasion front of emerald ash

borer. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 18(4), 327-339. doi:10.1111/afe.12164

Jennings, D. E., Duan, J. J., & Shrewsbury, P. M. (2015). Biotic mortality factors affecting

emerald ash borer (agrilus planipennis) are highly dependent on life stage and host tree crown

condition. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 105(5), 598-606.

doi:10.1017/S0007485315000498

Jennings, D., Taylor, P., & Duan, J. (2014). The mating and oviposition behavior of the invasive

emerald ash borer (agrilus planipennis), with reference to the influence of host tree

condition. Journal of Pest Science, 87(1), 71-78. doi:10.1007/s10340-013-0539-1

Klaufus, C. (2016). ―The dead are killing the living‖: spatial justice, funerary services, and

cemetery land use in urban Colombia. Habitat International, 54, 74-79.

22

Kowarik, I., Buchholz, S., von der Lippe, M., & Seitz, B. (2016). Biodiversity functions of urban

cemeteries: Evidence from one of the largest jewish cemeteries in europe. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 19(Complete), 68-78. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.023

Knight, K.S., Brown, J.P., & Long, R.P. (2013). Factors affecting the survival of ash (Fraxinus

spp.) trees infested by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Biological Invasions, 15(2), 371-

383. doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0292-z

Kreutzweiser, D., Good, K., Chartrand, D., Scarr, T., & Thompson, D. (2007). Non-target effects

on aquatic decomposer organisms of imidacloprid as a systemic insecticide to control emerald

ash borer in riparian trees. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 68(3), 315-325.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.04.011

Kreutzweiser, D., Thompson, D., Grimalt, S., Chartrand, D., Good, K., & Scarr, T. (2011).

Environmental safety to decomposer invertebrates of azadirachtin (neem) as a systemic

insecticide in trees to control emerald ash borer. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 74(6),

1734-1741. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.04.021

Lyons, D.B., de Groot, P., Jones, G.C. and Scharbach, R. (2009). Host selection by Agrilus

planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): inferences from sticky-band trapping. The Canadian

Entomologist, 141(1), pp. 40–52. doi: 10.4039/n08-045.

Marshall JM, Smith EL, Mech R, Storer AJ (2013). Estimates of Agrilus planipennis infestation

rates and potential survival of ash. Am Midl Nat 169(1), 179–193

McCullough, D.G., and Siegert, N.W. (2007). Estimating potential emerald ash borer

(Coleoptera: Buprestidae) populations using ash inventory data.Journal of Economic Entomology,

100: 1566–1586.

McCullough, D. G., T. M. Poland, and D. Cappaert. (2009). Emerald ash borer (Agrilus

planipennis) attraction to ash trees stressed by girdling, herbicide or wounding. Can. J. For. Res.

39: 1331Ð1345.

23

Moran, Emilio F. (2010). ―Environmental decision making,‖ chapter 7 (pp. 127-142)

inEnvironmental Social Science: Human-Environment Interactions andSustainability,Chichester,

UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Magarey, Roger D., Borchert, Daniel M., & Schlegel, Jay W.. (2008). Global plant hardiness

zones for phytosanitary risk analysis.Scientia Agricola, 65(spe), 54-

59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000700009

Mercader, R. J., McCullough, D. G., Storer, A. J., Bedford, J. M., Heyd, R., Poland, T. M., &

Katovich, S. (2015). Evaluation of the potential use of a systemic insecticide and girdled trees in

area wide management of the emerald ash borer. Forest Ecology and

Management, 350(Complete), 70-80. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.020

McCullough, D. G., Poland, T. M., & Lewis, P. A. (2016). Lethal trap trees: A potential option

for emerald ash borer (agrilus planipennis fairmaire) management. Pest Management

Science, 72(5), 1023-1030. doi:10.1002/ps.4083

McCullough, D.G., Poland, T.M., & Cappaert, D. (2009). Attraction of the emerald ash borer to

ash trees stressed by girdling, herbicide treatment, or wounding. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research, 39, 1331-1345.

Melamed, S., & Zhou, X. (2012). Harbord Village EAB management plan. Retrieved from:

http://harbordvillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TreesEABmanagementplan.pdf

Ontario (2016). Species at risk in Ontario list. Retrieved from:

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list

Pang, S. (2016). Assessing tree survivorship for the Toronto District School Board: potential

benefits of tree maintenance. Master of Forest Conservation Thesis. University of Toronto

Swensen, G., Nordh, H., & Brendalsmo, J. (2016). A green space between life and death – a case

study of activities in Gamlebyen Cemetery in Oslo, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift -

Norwegian Journal of Geography, 70(1), 41-53. doi:10.1080/00291951.2015.1102169

https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000700009

24

Saarinen, N., Vastaranta, M., Kankare, V., Tanhuanpaa, T., Holopainen, M., Hyyppa, J., &

Hyyppa, H. (2014). Urban-tree-attribute update using multisource single-tree inventory. Forests,

5(5), 1032-1052.

Sherburn, M. & Devlin, A. S. (2004). Academic major, environmental concern, and arboretum

use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 23-36.

Tree Removal (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.treeremoval.com/costs/tree-stump-removal-

cost-price-guide/#.WGjXilUrJoA

US Forest Service (2016). Marking guide. Retrieved from:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3794596.pdf

Vannatta, A.R., Hauer, R.H., & Schuettpelz, N.m. (2012). Economic analysis of emerald ash

borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) management options.Horticultural Entomology, 12, 196-206.

Vastaranta, M., Saarinen, N., Kankare, V., Holopainen, M., Kaartinen, H., Hyyppa, J., & Hyyppa,

H. (2014). Multisource single-tree inventory in the prediction of tree quality variables and

logging recoveries. Remote Sensing, 6(4), 3475-3491.

Zwack, J. (2016). Emerald Ash Borer management options vs. the Ash mortality curve.

Retrieved from: http://www.isa-

arbor.com/events/conference/proceedings/2013/presentationDescription.aspx?ID=985

25

Appendix I

Tree Species of Interest Available at Uxbridge Nurseries

Abies cephalonica Picea Alcoquiana

Abies chensiensis Picea Engelmannii

Abies Ernesti Picea Glehnii

Abies holophylla Picea jezoensis

Abies sibirica Picea Koyamai

Acer argutum Picea schrenkiana

Acer capillipes Pinus Jeffreyi

Acer Davidii Pinus rigida

Acer Forrestii Pinus Wallichiana

Acer Grosseri var. hersii Populus alba 'Raket'

Acer Maximowiczianum Populus balsamifera

Acer micranthum Populus deltoides

Acer Sieboldianum Populus grandidentata

Alnus crispa Populus x canadensis

Betula Maximowicziana Pterocarya rhoifolia

Betula platyphylla var. japonica Quercus phellos

Betula utilis Quercus serrata

Callicarpa Bodinieri 'Profusion' Robinia Pseudoacacia 'Tortuosa'

Callicarpa japonica Stewartia sinensis

Castanea pumila Styrax Obassis

Castanea sativa Vitex Agnus-castus

Larix Gmelinii Zanthoxylum americanum

26

Appendix II

Ash Trees Warrant Injection

id area Botanical_Name condition

Crow

n

width/

m

exact_

dbh/c

m location notes

40000 9 Fraxinus nigra Good 12 37 Road

40204 8

Fraxinus

americana Good 6 57

40434 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Good 11 48

injected

40435 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 7 25

injected

40439 8

Fraxinus

americana Fair 17 138

40871 12

Fraxinus

excelsior Fair 13 32

41001 12 Fraxinus nigra Good 8 21

ID confirm

41003 12

Fraxinus


41029 12

Fraxinus

americana Good 6 23

41042 12

Fraxinus

americana Good 12 50

41055 12

Fraxinus

americana Good 4 22

crack on trunk

41466 15

Fraxinus

americana Fair 8 24

Property

Line suckers

41688 14

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Good 7 31 Road

ID confirm , leaf

miners, disease

41727 14

Fraxinus

excelsior Good 13 56

42293 19

Fraxinus


orange tag on tree

42564 22

Fraxinus


injected

42723 21

Fraxinus


42809 17

Fraxinus

americana Good 7 31

girdling roots ,

injected

42813 17

Fraxinus


injected

42907 17

Fraxinus

americana Good 6 27

injected

42925 17

Fraxinus

americana Fair 3 21 Property Line

42950 17

Fraxinus

americana Good 8 50

27

43378 23

Fraxinus


43379 23

Fraxinus


43523 29

Fraxinus


43587 29

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 12 45 Property Line

43592 29

Fraxinus

americana Fair 18 40 Road

43598 29

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 10 30 Road


44350 35

Fraxinus

americana Fair 4 40

eab

44359 35

Fraxinus


eab, injected

50267 1

Fraxinus


ID confirm

50274 1

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 8 46 Property Line

50295 1

Fraxinus


ID confirm


50985 7

Fraxinus


28

Appendix III

Ash Trees Marked for Priority 1 Removal

id area

Botanical_N

ame condition

Crown

width/

m

exact_

dbh/c

m location notes

40556 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanic

a Dead 7 37 Property Line

40565 8

Fraxinus

americana Dead 15 29 Property Line

40856 12

Fraxinus

americana Dead

72 Road suckers

41453 15

Fraxinus

americana Dead 10 47 Property Line suckers

41456 15

Fraxinus

excelsior Dead 10 32 Property Line suckers

41621 10

Fraxinus


41622 10

Fraxinus


41623 10

Fraxinus


42259 18

Fraxinus


42786 17

Fraxinus

pennsylvanic

a Dead 6 19 Road

43386 23

Fraxinus

americana Dead 8 15 Property Line

43554 29

Fraxinus

pennsylvanic

a Dead 8 30 Road

43555 29

Fraxinus

pennsylvanic

a Dead 12 40 Road

43677 36

Fraxinus

americana Dead 10 30 Road suckers

43970 33

Fraxinus

americana Dead 20 55 Road

43974 33

Fraxinus


44369 35

Fraxinus


50292 1

Fraxinus

pennsylvanic

a Poor 11 22 Property Line

2 out of 4 stems

dead, ID

confirm

42497 22

Fraxinus

pennsylvanic Poor 22 89 Road

2 rots, 1 cable,

injected

29

a

30

Appendix IV



Crown

width/

m

exact_

dbh/c

m location notes

40221 8 Fraxinus americana Poor 8 44

Property

Line

40451 8 Fraxinus excelsior Poor 8 56

Property

Line


Property

Line


Property

Line suckers


Property

Line


Property

Line suckers


Property

Line

42863 17 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 69 Road


Property

Line


Property

Line

43655 36 Fraxinus americana Poor 16 30 Road suckers


44091 30

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Poor 12 25 Road




Fraxinus spp,

EAB

50053 1

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Poor 6 14 Road EAB


Property

Line

31

Appendix V



Crown

width/m

exact_

dbh/c

m location notes

41551 15

Fraxinus

americana Dead 20 133

41666 13

Fraxinus


41698 14

Fraxinus


42174 18

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Dead 5 43

suckers

42398 22

Fraxinus

americana Dead 6 27

43939 33

Fraxinus


44114 30

Fraxinus


leaf miners

44121 30

Fraxinus


44257 39

Fraxinus


44421 34

Fraxinus

americana Dead 8 30

50377 2

Fraxinus

americana Dead 8 44

50796 3

Fraxinus


42944 17

Fraxinus


Property

Line 30% dead

50054 1

Fraxinus


ID confirm,

cracks on stem

42591 22

Fraxinus

americana Poor 11 47

suckers , co

dominant

stems

43042 24

Fraxinus

americana Poor 14 87

80 % dieback,

suckers

42241 18

Fraxinus

americana Poor 1 6

Property

Line

Appendix VI



Crown

width/

exact_

dbh/c location notes

32

m m

40433 8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Poor 8 59


suckers



suckers


50 % dead



EAB




suckers


eab,

girdling

roots ,

suckers ,

fungus


33

Appendix VII



Crown

width/

m

exact_

dbh/c

m location notes

42211 18 Fraxinus americana Fair 4 11 Road suckers


40506 8 Fraxinus americana Fair 1 3

only one trunk

is alive


30% dead

34

Appendix IV

Initial Data


Crown

width/

m

exact

_dbh

/cm location notes


40013 9 Fraxinus americana Good 7 17 Road

40185 8 Fraxinus americana Stump

40201 8 Fraxinus americana Stump 0 0

40204 8 Fraxinus americana Good 6 57



40216 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Stump 0 0

Property

Line

40217 8

Fraxinus


Property

Line

40218 8

Fraxinus


Property

Line

40219 8

Fraxinus


Property

Line


Property

Line



Property

Line

40347 8 Fraxinus americana Good 0 0 seedling





40433 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Poor 8 59

40434 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Good 11 48 injected

40435 8

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 7 25 injected


40451 8 Fraxinus excelsior Poor 8 56

Property

Line


Property

Line ID confirm


Property

Line


Property

Line

35


only one trunk

is alive

40556 8

Fraxinus


Property

Line

40565 8 Fraxinus americana Dead 15 29

Property

Line


Property

Line suckers


Property

Line


Property

Line


40856 12 Fraxinus americana Dead 72 Road suckers

40871 12 Fraxinus excelsior Fair 13 32

40909 12 Fraxinus americana Fair 0 0 seedling


41001 12 Fraxinus nigra Good 8 21 ID confirm

41003 12

Fraxinus


41013 12

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Poor 17 60 suckers


41037 12

Fraxinus



41055 12 Fraxinus americana Good 4 22 crack on trunk

41378 11 Fraxinus americana Good 6 15 suckers


Property

Line suckers


Property

Line suckers

41456 15 Fraxinus excelsior Dead 10 32

Property

Line suckers


Property

Line suckers


Property

Line






Property

Line suckers


Property

Line suckers


Property

Line suckers


36

41688 14

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Good 7 31 Road

ID confirm ,

leaf miners,

disease

41693 14

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Good 8 17 Road leaf miners


41727 14 Fraxinus excelsior Good 13 56




42162 18 Fraxinus americana Poor 16 72 suckers

42174 18

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Dead 5 43 suckers

42211 18 Fraxinus americana Fair 4 11 Road suckers

42234 18 Fraxinus excelsior Fair 4 6

Property

Line

42235 18 Fraxinus excelsior Stump

Property

Line suckers


Property

Line


Property

Line suckers


orange tag on

tree



42497 22

Fraxinus


2 rods, 1 cable,

injected

42564 22 Fraxinus americana Good 13 38 injected


suckers , co

dominant stems


42786 17

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Dead 6 19 Road


girdling roots ,

injected

42813 17

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 9 25 injected


ID confirm ,

Phelodendron

amurence

42868 17 Fraxinus excelsior Good 4 15 Road injected

42907 17 Fraxinus americana Good 6 27 injected

42918 17 Fraxinus americana Fair 10 49 30% dead


Property

Line

42929 17 Fraxinus americana Poor 14 63 50 % dead


Property

Line 30% dead

37



80 % dieback,

suckers



Property

Line


Property

Line


Property

Line


Property

Line


Property

Line

43424 23 Fraxinus americana Fair 8 10 Road



43523 29

Fraxinus


43554 29

Fraxinus


43555 29

Fraxinus


43587 29

Fraxinus


Property

Line


43598 29

Fraxinus




43677 36 Fraxinus americana Dead 10 30 Road suckers


43939 33

Fraxinus


43946 33 Fraxinus americana Poor 18 55 EAB


43970 33 Fraxinus americana Dead 20 55 Road



Property

Line


Property

Line


Property

Line

44091 30

Fraxinus


44114 30 Fraxinus americana Dead 18 40 leaf miners

44121 30

Fraxinus


38

44132 31

Fraxinus




44306 34 Fraxinus americana Poor 10 20 suckers

44350 35 Fraxinus americana Fair 4 40 eab

44359 35 Fraxinus americana Fair 14 50 eab, injected


eab, girdling

roots , suckers ,

fungus



44372 35 Fraxinus excelsior Good 6 15 injected



44535

Fraxinus


kitchener s,

injected, cracks,

compacted soil,

shadowed ,

damaged on

base, girdling

roots

44540

Fraxinus


kitcher

s,injected

44544 Fraxinus americana Good 18 45 Road

kitcher s,

injected

44545

Fraxinus


kitcher s,

injected



spp unknown,

EAB

50053 1

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Poor 6 14 Road EAB

50054 1

Fraxinus


ID confirm,

cracks on stem

50076 1

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Good 7 17 Mausoleum ID confirm

50267 1

Fraxinus

pennsylvanica Fair 6 22 ID confirm

50274 1

Fraxinus


Property

Line


Property

Line

50292 1

Fraxinus


Property

Line

2 out of 4 stems

dead, ID

confirm

50295 1 Fraxinus americana Fair 18 93 ID confirm



39

50611 3 Fraxinus excelsior Good 4 10 Road ID confirm





50985 7

Fraxinus




51125 10 Fraxinus americana Fair 6 18 treated

51197 10 Fraxinus excelsior Good 0 0 seedling


Documents

Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery A ... · ii Future of Ash genus (Fraxinus spp.) in Prospect Cemetery —A Management Plan Yuqi Yang Master of Forest Conservation