Record tree planting in 2022
A record 53,000 trees were planted last year in town, both on public and private lands. At the same time, we continue to lose ash trees to the emerald ash borer. As mentioned in the following item, despite the record planting, ultimately the city gained a net 25,000 trees last year, taking into account the ongoing removal of afflicted ash trees.
An account of the damage to trees in the April 5 ice storm was also given. Nine hundred trees were lost to the storm – the damage not being, as pointed out, anything close to the losses from the ash borer.
Chris 19:30 on 2023-06-05 Permalink
Not all trees are equal. Comparing only net count is deceiving. The trees we’ve lost are (presumably, mostly) large and old. The trees we’re planting are (definitely) small. Shame the article does not address this.
Kate 19:43 on 2023-06-05 Permalink
Chris, I think that’s generally understood.
Chris 20:49 on 2023-06-05 Permalink
By smart folk like you and your eminent readers, sure; but by Joe Average newspaper reader? Not so sure. I suspect they see “net increase in trees; yay, we’re advancing”.
Also, I note they chose a headline like “Record de plantation d’arbres à Montréal” instead of something like “Tree CO₂ absorption in Montreal decreasing/stagnant” (assuming it’s the case, someone would need to calculate the different tree sizes, etc. We used to have journalists for that, but…).
Kate 09:31 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
Chris, nobody was making claims about square footage of leaves or projected CO2 throughput. They just mentioned numbers of trees.
Chris 10:29 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
>Chris, nobody was making claims about square footage of leaves or projected CO2 throughput
Yes, I know. That’s clear. Like I said already: Shame the article does not address this.
Joey 11:12 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
Chris, it’s not like the City cut down 30K trees out of spite or something…
DeWolf 15:26 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
Exactly. The trees chopped down are trees that would have died soon anyway.
Another aspect of the story that isn’t being told is that the city is planting a much more diverse array of trees than in the past. It’s a break from the old tradition of planting monocultures, which is one of the reasons Dutch elm disease and now the ash borer have had such a big impact. When you look at the most recent plantings, like on St-Hubert and Pine Avenue, there’s a variety of several different trees.
Kate 15:45 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
The ash that was taken down outside my place was replaced a couple of summers ago by a silver maple that’s doing quite well. Then last year, city workers punched a new hole in the sidewalk only a short distance away and planted a new elm. I was surprised, but one of the workers told me that it’s a variety that’s resistant to Dutch elm disease.
We’ll have to stay ahead of new pests and diseases, especially as climate change moves faster.
DeWolf 16:16 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
I did a story for the Gazette last summer about how elms are making a comeback:
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/green-cathedrals-iconic-american-elms-are-making-a-comeback-in-montreal/wcm/98a39235-ae19-4574-84c7-0ee384fbe499/amp/
Unfortunately the Gazette’s website is so terrible, I’m not sure if anyone actually read it.
Kate 21:54 on 2023-06-06 Permalink
Nice piece, DeWolf. Thank you.
DeWolf 17:05 on 2023-06-07 Permalink
I also came across this follow-up article in Metro today that alludes to what Chris is talking about. The city is planting more and more trees, but the tree canopy has actually shrunk since 2017, because so many mature ash trees are being felled.
https://journalmetro.com/actualites/montreal/3092337/le-verdissement-de-montreal-ralenti-malgre-les-efforts/
Of course it’s a temporary situation and in a decade or so, the canopy should be even more robust than before. Unless something catastrophic happens…