Topic Closed|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
| <James Causton>
|
Reply to post by Loretta, on September 30, 2002 at 21:35:59:
Hi Loretta, sounds to me like you might be walking on thin ice here but, the essential part of your post was, "Yet I do feel that their trees were appropriate choices for the planting when it was done, and the trees should not be discounted for the fact that they can be a problem in the wrong location." You need to take your feeling of "appropriety" of the planting choice to something more tangible. Document why you feel that, what the plants contributed to the site. You refer to them as being a weed in your area, are they native plants?? Are they on an "invasive plant" list somewhere? Plants which are native yet considered "weeds" can have a high species rating due to adaptability to, and tolerance of, local climatic and ecosystem requirements. Good Luck, James. |
||
|
| <Guy>
|
Reply to post by James Causton, on September 30, 2002 at 21:35:59:
Loretta, the issue as I see it is not what value they had when planted or even presence on lists, but what value they gave at the time they were cut. james is right re how they fit to the site being more important. Regional lists I use sometimes, more often not. Each property, each plant is unique. |
||
|
| <Lew Bloch>
|
Reply to post by Loretta, on September 30, 2002 at 21:35:59:
Loretta, I don't have a copy of a recent publication, but the 1992 Species Rating and Appraisal Factors Guide for the Rocky Mountain Chapter gives a species rating for Russian olive of 60-80%. Perhaps you should get a recent copy if you are going to be doing appraisals. Lew |
||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
| Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed© 1997-2003 Tree Tech Consulting. All messages are the property of the original author.
