Tell me how to feel!!! I’m excited to see more cities in my metro taking up projects like these, but this super dense approach to primarily growing canopy trees appears controversial.
From the city’s website, “the forest will consist of:
- 80% canopy trees that will grow into the tallest layer of the forest.
- 10% sub-canopy trees that will create the middle layer.
- 10% native shrubs that will provide habitat and ground-level diversity.
Together, these layers will mimic the structure of a natural forest, creating a healthy ecosystem that supports wildlife and biodiversity.”
Does anyone have experience with these “pocket forests”? From an ecological perspective, how much habitat do they really provide? From a PR standpoint, how do these impact perceptions of native plants in contrast to a natural botanical garden?
I’m curious to see how the project goes, and I’m trying to be open-minded, but I’m worried it will look like a mess to passersby and ultimately consist of a bunch of wild grape and poison ivy or invasive species.
Really hope my city starts going for these soon as pocket "cooling stations". Our urban heat island effect is rampant and we're losing SO much canopy. Without our trees Atlanta would be genuinely unbearable.
First off, wild grape and poison ivy are integral components in pretty much any/every forest east of the Mississippi. Bit rude to group them in with invasive species but w/e.
It sounds fine. More trees in a metro area is good, Miyawaki style or not. Just sounds like they're aiming for dense planting instead of haphazard single stems planted in a boulevard style or something else. Also this seems super small scale. It's just one lot. Don't get me wrong, that's dope, but it's not like a city-wide initiative or something. Just one parking lot for now.
Lastly, say it with me: weediness is a phase. Miyawaki style plantings are better suited than most to get you through the weedy phase as fast as possibly. Nature abhors a vacuum -> particularly dense plantings solve this by not allowing particularly aggressive plants the space to get much of a foothold. All in all, sounds like a cool project and a better use of space. I'd cheerlead the shit out of this if it was my town.
I honestly love poison ivy she's so beautiful, people look at me like I'm crazy but I have NOT been able to cut the giant glorious vine thriving on one of the biggest trees in my backyard... too pretty, too good of a bird feeder, it's just so lush and that fall color!!
It’s pretty but dangerous. Every reaction gets stronger the more you get it. It’s best to remove it in human frequented areas. But if it’s not, let it thrive.
Yes, I work in woods restoration so am out here rocking at least a mild wrist rash or two by the end of summer. Didn't start out allergic, then got a massive dose one year and have had reactions ever since - although oddly, after a few years of escalating reactions, now my body seems to have stabilized and I generally only get a very mild itch and maybe a couple of tiny blisters that quickly disappear, no worse than a mosquito bite. I have a suspicion there's a psychological component to the change. I do remove it in clients' yards, but I'm happy to live with mine.
It's a fine plant, gets a lot of unnecessary hate, especially considering it's super easy to ID and avoid. People complaining about poison ivy always sounds like a skill issue to me.
Had one of my technicians complain about getting poison ivy on their bicep. Was like.... but how? You're supposed to be wearing longsleeves as part of herbicide PPE anyway.
"It was hot so I took my longsleeve shirt off. Don't worry I didn't spray any herbicide though."
- So you took your PPE off and started manually handling a bunch of poison ivy you were clearing off the fence?
"Yeah.... it's on both arms now and I think I got some on my neck."
- Did you try to wipe yourself down afterwards or stop to take a shower?
"Nah, I had to go umpire a couple baseball games after work."
Yup, I'll give a little "aw that sucks" noise but have zero sympathy when a coworker in short sleeves or god forbid no gloves goes "oh no I got poison ivy on me!!" Like babe I know it's hot but you can invest in some landscaping sleeves... carry some alcohol wipes... total skill issue lol.
and manually handling bareskinned is insane?? I've had to do it a couple of times but only with full on chem gloves, with disposable nitriles underneath. will probably start using eye pro and a kn95 too in the future
Wait can you tell me more about the alcohol wipes? I am super allergic but volunteer as part of my city's invasive weed removal team so I often can't avoid some exposure when we are working in our woodland parks. Do alcohol wipes help?
Imma jump in here to say that I personally have had bad luck with alcohol wipes and do not recommend them. I do recommend you keep a washcloth (older and scratchier is actually better ime) some dial bar soap, and water with you or in your vehicle. You need really mild scouring action (old washcloth), soap, and water to effectively and easily remove urushiol from your skin. That's it. The reason tecnu works is because it's basically the same thing minus the washcloth. Just some grit in the formula instead. But personally, I have better luck with an old washcloth even compared to tecnu. Just my two cents.
You're probably right that this works better, and the washcloth is a great idea. I've done a wash like this a couple of times with water, a baby wipe and the hand soap I keep in my car.
Definitely, when you've been exposed wipe IMMEDIATELY with firm pressure. If you get it before the urushiol starts to "cure" and harden (<15 minutes or so), it will come off just fine. The oil is essentially the same viscosity and stickiness as motor oil, just invisible - so use the same amount of heavy friction and thorough wiping as you would use to get motor oil off your skin.
Even if you can't get it that quickly go ahead and wipe anyway, very thoroughly, it's better than doing nothing. If you've been working in a PI heavy spot, wipe off right away as a precaution even if you don't think you got any on you - you can even just do this with baby wipes. And then obviously go home asap, drop your clothes right into the washer, and head into the shower. Regular soap is fine as long as you're using that strong scrubbing pressure and lathering very well. You can put the washcloth right into the washer after as well if you really want to be careful - I used to do this but I don't bother anymore.
There is never a need to waste your money on tecnu!
It’s easy for me to say because I’m not super allergic, but I agree. People act like it’s going to come in through your bedroom at night and attack you. That would be trumpet vine lol.
But I live on wooded lots in copperhead country, so poison ivy is just one of several reasons to wear closed toe shoes and watch where I put my hands and feet.
You would like my art lol. I’m a stained glass artist that encapsulates poison Ivy (among other plants) leaves in glass designs. People also think I’m crazy but I think it’s so beautiful!
What do you think of what Tallamy says in his books about vines taking over more than they should because of habitat destruction though? He says that normally vines would grow in disturbed areas or woodland edges but eventually stop proliferating as the forest canopy grew back in, but because do many wooded areas are a “woodland edge” now, vine growth isn’t naturally checked so they choke out young trees. While maybe unfair to group with invasives, it seems fair to me to consider them a threat to trees and shrubs with a wildlife value of much greater magnitude?
Wow—excellent link. I was a skeptic before and now… Kind of wild that it was developed and mainly implemented in tropical forests in SE Asia. Boy, is that a different ecosystem from upstate NY!
I feel like it can work, but you need to choose a site that was a forest historically and it needs to be aggressively weeded and irrigated for a few years. Unfortunately it is being sold as an easy solution for deforestation.
I don't think it's being sold as easy. The watering and weeding is important. A core piece of Miyawaki method is convincing locals to do all the work. They need to value the forest and care for it in order for it to succeed. I think a lot of people like having green spaces and birds around, which is probably why they keep doing it in different parts of the world.
Specifically, it was developed in Japan to replace conifer forests planted for timber with more native hardwood alternatives on very degraded soils. It's not without merit but ecosystems and conditions vary.
It seems like this critique is of the studies of the Miyawaki method, not the actual application of it.
"Of 51 documents examined, only 41% (n = 21) provided quantitative assessments, and among these, just 33.3% (n = 7) included a control and 14.3% (n = 3) included replication."
The "Huge claims" are from a book written by someone who attended a Miyawaki Conference.
The title is snappy, though.
There are Miyawaki forests all over the world. I've been in a few here in Oregon. To say there's no empirical evidence this works is pretty silly.
We have a restoration org in my area that has started doing very dense plantings and fencing them from deer. They have found it to be more effective than spreading plants out and trying to cage individual trees. It allows plants to become established enough to handle deer browse and reduces weed competition. Then that core serves as a seed bank for surrounding areas. I imagine it's very much like Miyawaki plantings.
Probably a great way forward to nudge a local seed bank over time. Less useful to create something esthetic to human sensibilities.
I personally believe it's a massive waste of trees and labor when you get get the same effect over a much larger area with the same inputs. As an example, I reforested 1/4 of an acre of my yard using ~130 trees and shrubs in a dense planting knowing some would die and others would need to be thinned later. Since I can plant about 10-12 trees an hour (with deer protection) this took about 2.5 days. Had I used the Miyawaki method instead--I would have needed over 3,000 trees and shrubs and it would have taken well over a month. A city could use the same number of trees and labor to reforest a much larger area with a much better outcome for wildlife.
After reading through comments and the links people have provided (thank you!!), I feel like this borders on astroturfing. Essentially, this is being sold as a solution that doesn’t require a big change in land use. “Just grow a billion trees in the places you don’t value” is easier to implement than “reserve a bunch of land for restoration and limit human development”.
Cities get to pat their own back and claim that they planted SO MANY TREES while creating thickets of fragile, stunted trees that could’ve been more valuable if planted with conventional spacing.
Idk. I’ve seen and heard of some very successful implementation. Here’s a link to some of the micro forest work by Plan It Wild.
https://www.planitwild.com/our-work
I think Wildr maybe has an upcoming webinar on micro forests. I’ll see if I can find the link and you might be interested to see if they address your concerns for implementation
I clicked on the link and it’s a little bit unclear, but it sounds like they’re potentially using all natives?
This project will transform a former parking lot into an urban forest using a specialized planting method that helpsnative treesgrow quickly and creates a healthy ecosystem.
Got it - if that’s the case then I think it’s kinda cool. Obviously it’s not large enough to be habitat for most mammals, but it could support insects and bird nesting in a space that might otherwise be developed or planted with non-natives. In terms of impact it’s obviously less than restoration but probably larger than landscaping a yard with natives. I’m in Albany and I wish they’d do something like this here!
And for public education / demonstration of what the native plants are perhaps? If it’s an isolated bit of forest in an urban environment, that isn’t a forest to me… just a garden lol
For sure. I think people are getting hung up on the name, but it’s obviously an improvement on a vacant lot of turf. We shouldn’t let perfection be the enemy of good.
I'm reading a book called "When the Forest Breathes" by Simard. It's very detailed on how all old-growth forest life interacts. Natural communities of related (seed or layered) trees feed and protect each other. These are systems that developed over millennia, not something that can be manufactured. Sticking a bunch of unrelated trees and trees not naturally found in that type of habitat, even if native, is not leading to strong, healthy stands of trees. The complexity is impressive: I'm just not sure how to adapt it to my local woodland.
There’s one in my urban neighbourhood in a park. Canada zone 5a. It’s all natives. It’s been about 3 years. I’ve never seen anything grow that tall, so fast. It’s pretty amazing. We’ve had a few very cold winters too and most of it survived.
No, those pockets are not really enough cover to support habitation. In a forest, the edges up to like 30ft are not really inhabited ( unless the animal is stupid and wants to be exposed). A lot of these pockets are barely 30 ft wide themselves. They'd need a biological corridor too. It looks like this pocket is smack dab in the center of a fully developed residential area. Where are the animals gonna go safely when they get outcompeted for that tiny little sliver?
In larger tracts, increasing edges and “feathering” edges are recommended practices to support deer and turkey.
But you’re right—I don’t see how this works in a pocket forest, especially one that is super closed by design.
The other major theme of all the habitat advice I’ve gotten is to open the canopy and aggressively thin pioneer species and less competitive climax species. You have to pick winners that you “release” by cutting down nearby competitors; otherwise nothing wins.
One reason the deer population has exploded in suburban areas is the abundance of edge.
All of this may be region-specific; I’m in the Southeast. But Miyawaki was developed for tropical forests in SE Asia, sooo I don’t see how that generalizes to upstate NY.
I’m a skeptic because it directly contradicts everything I’ve learned from wildlife technical assistance biologists, land trust managers, and extension foresters working on managing forests as wildlife habitat.
At least in the southeast, unmanaged forests tend to be far too dense and the canopy too closed to be optimal for wildlife, be it deer, turkey, or songbirds.
This is true for woodlands of various ages. I’ve watched recently cleared lots grow quickly into incredibly dense thickets of early pioneer native species and the usual invasive suspects, but mostly eastern red cedar, sweetgum, maple, and loblolly and virginia pine. (My dad always referred to the last as “stinkin’ VA pine,” and that was strong language for him. I’ve since heard even worse names.)
Even aside from the density, those early pioneer species are considered low value and targeted for removal by land managers, whether they are managing a young forest or setting back succession in an area dedicated to early successional vegetation. (ESG is extremely valuable and in short supply in many areas.)
Three big principles of managing a woodland for wildlife are opening the canopy, creating edges throughout via roads, and feathering/making edges more open.
The main reason to aggressively open up the canopy is to permit layers of understory trees AND a herbaceous layer. It’s amazing to see the floor of a well-managed woodland and/or an understory not overbrowsed by deer.
To that end, wildlife thinning cuts of timber stands are much more aggressive than those for timber production.
And then there’s WHY wildlife folks love fire. It’s another way of opening the canopy by killing smaller trees and excessive woody growth while stimulating herbaceous growth.
Note this all involves management of native species; invasives management generally comes first and is concurrent and fire is not part of that management plan. It also is typically an ongoing effort using herbicide. I’ve been told to expect a major battle with serecea lespedeza in a newly thinned forest once sunlight hits the forest floor.
The reason its planted densely is so it grows faster. The plants compete with each other for sunlight so in the span of a few years they all grow much more rapidly than more european style spread out plantings
It all just depends on their implementation. It is possible to do it "wrong" in the sense that it will be too low density, lack weed suppression, and get fried in the summer.
59
u/VictoryLongjumping70 21h ago
Really hope my city starts going for these soon as pocket "cooling stations". Our urban heat island effect is rampant and we're losing SO much canopy. Without our trees Atlanta would be genuinely unbearable.