Don’t Just Plant and Walk Away TM
Neglect - A top 5 reason urban trees die
Our first story on tree neglect features an urban tree support product designed to be reused over and over again.
How does this tie into urban tree neglect? In an interesting way, I promise.
Most trees are staked with wood poles that sometimes rot or loosen before the tree they support is strong enough to stand upright. This causes trees to lean or break along the trunk.
A reusable tree stake could save a city thousands of dollars a year, and lead to straight, upright trees.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? A reusable tree stake. I mean, we are all about repurposing now a days and saving tax dollars, etc. Use and reuse, right?
“The concept of reusing tree stakes was great in theory, but not so good in practice.”
Roots growing around the tree stake.
Unfortunately, this tree support product failed, and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars. We never saw a return on our investment. To make matters worse, the tree supports did damage some of the young urban trees. The concept of reusing tree stakes was great in theory, but not so good in practice.
Why?
Let’s investigate the standard practices of urban tree planting. This is what happens in the field, at times, contrary to city standards or ordinances. (These practices are not what I recommend but are typical of urban planting in my area.)
“Most urban trees need staking 1-2 years
before they can stand without support.”
Typical tree staking requirement.
A subdivision is created, houses are built, front yards are landscaped and parkway strips planted with trees.
Two wood stakes and two flexible tree ties (sometimes wrongly used wire) are installed to keep the tree upright until it can establish a root system.
Sometimes tree trunks need support too. Trees generally take 1-2 growing seasons to stand without support.
Wood tree stakes are pounded into the edges of the planting hole. If the planting hole was dug too deep the stakes may not anchor enough into the parent soil to support the tree.
Still, landscapers installed the stakes as per city details. Most tree stakes are 8 (2.4 m)feet tall. Ten-foot-tall stakes (3.05 m) are needed to properly support a 6 foot (1.8 m) to 8 foot (2.4 m) tall tree.
“I knew the way the prevailing winds blew by the lean of the street trees.”
The stake design didn't eliminate lean.
Over the months the tree stakes loosened causing some trees to lean. The roots grew into the parent soil and permanently affix the trees into a leaning position.
When driving through a new subdivision I could tell which way the prevailing winds blew by the lean of the street trees. Sad but true.
I assume this is where the reusable tree stake idea came from. There was a need to provide better staking ability for newly planted trees to keep them from leaning during the establishment period.
Unfortunately, the reusable stake wasn’t engineered well enough to prevent trees from leaning.
“ The reusable design contributed to its failure.”
Something this elaborate would only be cost effective if it could be reused many times. It would be cost prohibitive otherwise and have to be made from metal to withstand repeated use without significant deterioration. The need to be reusable, is one reason it failed, mostly because it was expensive.
Let me explain ~ There are several additional factors that made this idea a failure. One reason it failed was due to human nature and how city staffing works.
Most city parks and recreation departments are understaffed because of budget constraints and priority staffing. Their scope of responsibility encompasses more than just urban trees.
“The reusable stakes quickly became cost prohibitive.”
The collection of the reusable tree stakes takes time and equipment, a place to repair and store the used stakes. All this takes money and staff which reduces the cost effectiveness of the already high-priced reusable tree stakes. The reusable stakes quickly became cost prohibitive.
I recently removed one that had not wrapped around a trunk or roots and it took me 30 minutes to remove, being careful not to damage the tree. Granted, the stake had been in the ground for about 15 years.
Another consideration was the installation factor. Landscape contractor crews had to be provided with the reusable stakes. Who oversaw getting the reusable stakes to the job sites? There was some confusion. The reusable stakes were much heavier than wood and the installation time was longer than conventional wood stakes.
The auger tip on the tree stake.
Part of the installation design was the metal stake had to be screwed into the ground manually. The stake had auger-like ridges that would screw into the ground if the soil wasn’t too hard or compacted from the street paving.
Many city ordinances require 95% compaction under the street. House pads also need to be compacted so the foundation doesn’t settle. All this compaction can make planting trees more difficult, including trying to auger a metal stake into the ground and keep it straight.
“ The zip ties used to hold the tree to the stake often broke. ”
The tree tie mechanism broke.
The way the metal stakes tied to the tree was subject to failure causing an untied trunk to sway and at times break, costing more money and manpower to replace the damaged tree. Zip ties were used to secure the rubber hose-like material to the metal stake. A number of zip ties failed.
City employee turnover also contributed to the failure of the reusable tree stake.
I’ve witnessed this in my own business. You make connections with corporate or government employees that backs your product or services. They champion your ideas and implement them into the working fabric of their entity.
Everything is going great, sales are climbing, then there is a change of leadership, and the new leaders initiate their own vision. Basically, it’s out with the old and in with the new. If there isn’t a person representing the product or service, it dies in committee.
Corporations and government agencies focus on the bottom line more than the benefits a budget item possesses. I suspect this contributed to the discontinuation of the reusable tree stake. There was no quantitative way to show the reusable tree stakes were saving the city money. All they saw was red.
Tree damage from leaving the stake on too long.
The negative impact on the trees The reusable metal stakes caused mild to considerable physical damage to the trees, especially as they grew.
The tree stakes are an eye sore and represent a hazard, especially the ones that still have the metal arm attached. Many are at face level and blend in with the trees (green).
Maybe that’s a big reason the stakes were not removed? They were painted green to blend in when they should have been painted orange or yellow to attract attention. Maybe then they would have been removed as soon as possible.
“In some areas, the trees with the “reusable” stake outnumbered the trees without them - 15 years later.”
A reusable tree stake cut near the ground. The pin stuck in the roots.
The remaining stakes should have been carefully removed by cutting the stake with a saw, then the sharp edges filed to reduce injury to people and animals without damaging the trees.
Instead, the stakes stayed in the ground and in some areas the trees with the “reusable” stake out number the trees without them - 15 years later.
“The remaining stakes, some 15 years later, are still in the ground.”
The trees were removed but the stakes were left in the ground. Baffling.
In other areas the stakes remain but the trees have been removed. That doesn’t make sense.
Why wouldn’t the person removing the dead tree remove the stake at the same time? Maybe the roots grew around the stake?
The city didn’t remove the reusable stakes, nor did the inventor. Many were removed by homeowners.
The remaining stakes, some 15 years later, are still in the ground.
Hypothesis The original idea was based on sustainability, coupled with a better way to stake trees leading to healthy, structurally sound young urban forest for the community. Where is that idea now? Is there a touch of altruism left? Apparently not. The neglected remnants of the reusable tree stake can be seen throughout the subdivisions and parkway strips built during its era.
“ Neglect is a lack of responsibility TM”
I get it. Money is our main motivator but at some point, there needs to be more. We should clean up our own mess even if it’s technically not our responsibility. I feel this is where the reusable tree stake idea broke down. The lack of responsibility coupled with no actionable consequences.
Our story’s real meaning is exposed – neglect. Neglect is a lack of responsibility.
“In the end, the human condition collided with human nature as they planted trees and then just walked away...”
A neglected tree for over a decade.
Our urban forests are being neglected. When they get the attention they need it is often late or incorrect.
We must understand, we are living beneath living organisms put here to give us some resemblance of nature, even if it is transplanted.
In the end, the human condition collided with human nature as they planted trees and then just walked away.
Neglecting the clean up of the failed tree stakes is the same as neglecting the trees themselves. It resonates a message throughout the city. A message our urban forest certainly agrees with - neglect.
Look for more stories with this title