# Habitat in Deadwood?



## treeseer (Aug 26, 2011)

I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates dead branches in living trees is essential habitat. 

Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats? 

Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?


----------



## Urban Forester (Aug 27, 2011)

i'm sure someone has done a study indicating that it is a POTENTIAL habitat for some specie. However I'm of the opinion that sometimes common sense and PRACTICAL knowledge outweigh "scientific studies". Deadwood removed is better for the tree and anyone/thing walking under it. Being a possible vector for numerous pests/pathogens is more a concern with me, but that's based on preservation of the URBAN forest. I think in natural/rural settings the window of experimentation on issues like this is larger.


----------



## Ed Roland (Aug 27, 2011)

treeseer said:


> I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates dead branches in living trees is essential habitat.
> 
> Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats?
> 
> Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?


 
Whats a Jewish Delima? A free ham. :biggrin: 

How can an arborist caring for urban trees believe that leaving or creating deadwood is beneficial to that environment? A big part of our assignment is not to create tree risk but to manage it.

“Stubs are food for organism that start rot and cankers” "sugar sticks" says the venerable Dr. Shigo.
With a natural target pruning cut we enable the axial zylem the opportunity to push out callus to close over the wound limiting oxygen to basidio activity. A stub obstruction prohibits this... at the benefit of a niche habitat? 
Hang a bird feeder. :msp_mellow:

Appropriate for ecology where it makes sense. Innapropriate for urban practice.


----------



## David (saltas) (Aug 28, 2011)

I agree with the need to reduce risk.
With exotic species this is easy peasy.
With natives it is less so providing habitat in urban environments is desirable.
To provide wild life corridors between pockets of remnant native vegetation.
Benefits are the prevention of isolation and preservation of the gene pool.

All of those things that are bad for the tree and cause rot forming hollows provide habitat for many of out native species.
Some of our eucalyptus that live for 800 years do not provide these hollows until they are 140~150 years old.
Pressure from pests like the Indian minor bird are aggressive and taking over what few suitable hollows are about.
Revegitation is important but I will never see its benefits, so we have to provide artificial habitats in these trees for the displaced species, each habitat needs to be suitable for the target but designed so as to exclude pest species.

So how to reconcile these competing needs tree health, habitat and safety.
Were people must have access under the drop zone prune it tree health and safety
Were people can be excluded from the drop zone by installing shrubs and other plantings Habit wins and risk has been managed.


On a slighty different situation we have lots of coconut trees in public places.
The risk of getting hit by a falling coconut depends on your exposure the practice of sleeping under them by mostly indigenous persons means sooner later it is almost certainly gonna happen.

Have the local municipalities gotten rid of the coconut trees no.
Have they excluded access no (capital expence)
I know of one example were the public space is light up at night so you cant sleep.
The municipalities are issuing contracts for the removal of the nuts, a never ending job (maintenance expense)


----------



## TreeTopKid (Sep 2, 2011)

treeseer said:


> I understand the importance of standing dead trees, fallen dead trees, and hollows for wildlife, so I conserve these whenever possible. However, I cannot find a scientific source that demonstrates dead branches in living trees is essential habitat.
> 
> Is it anywhere near as important as these other habitats?
> 
> Is it essential at all, and if so, for what?


 
I kind of agree with you, and although there may no direct scientific research benefits, just having as natural a habitat as possible can allow research to take place in an environment that is as true to nature as possible. This includes the preservation of dead/ dying plant materials.

For example; A conservation organization that I work with, wanted to keep a huge dead Water Oak that was leaning toward a public right of way. I advised them that if they _must_ keep the "monolithic" dead tree that they should re-route the trail to avoid the possibility of injury to any users of the preserve. If they had elected to remove the tree, the six to nine vultures that used to perch in the tree would have moved on, resulting in a less authentic environment for the biologists that work for the agency to perform their duties.

So concluding, although it may be a dead tree, it is as equally important in a conservation environment as a live tree. The key to an authentic environment is to remain exactly as nature intended, which is in a state of progression, untouched by human hands.

I hope this makes sense to you!


----------

