Forestgarden: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= Hempforestry = | |||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
= Turtle Island = | = Turtle Island = | ||
As across almost all of the so-called United States the original settlers viewed the land as a wild untouched landscape absent of human intervention or cultivation. As time has gone on the western scientific communities are now realizing vast amounts of land across Turtle Island were managed and tended to including many plants considered "wild."<Ref name = "Armstrong">Armstrong, C. G., Dixon, W. M., & Turner, N. J. (2018). Management and Traditional Production of Beaked Hazelnut (k’áp’xw-az’, Corylus cornuta; Betulaceae) in British Columbia. Human Ecology. doi:10.1007/s10745-018-0015-x</Ref> | |||
== Fist Nations in the North West == | |||
Many Nations in the North West of Turtle Island ([[Cascadia]] bioregion), such as the Tsm'syen and Coast Salish First Nations, have cultivated forest gardens for thousands of years.<Ref>Leopold EB, Boyd R. 1999. An Ecological History of Old Prairie Areas | |||
in Southwestern Washington. Pages 139–163 in Boyd R eds. | |||
Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State | |||
University Press</Ref>The two nations listed above would clear spots next to native coniferous forests and plant perennial species and shrubs including: Crabapple, Wild Cherry, Plum, Soapberry, Wild ginger, Rice Roots, and medicinal herbs. The Nations would collect and transplant the plants while utilizing many techniques to keep the forest garden healthy such as pruning, fertilizing, coppicing, and controlled burns.<Ref>https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/indigenous-forest-gardens-remain-productive-and-diverse-for-over-a-century/</Ref> | |||
=== Hazelnut in Motion === | |||
<Blockquote>There is a fleeting ethnographic record of hazelnut in so-called British Columbia, however shell fragments can be found archaeologically throughout the province. '''Linguistic evidence also supports the hypothesis that long distance transplanting of hazelnut, from the Salish region to the Ts'msyen, Gitxsan and Wet'suwet’en regions resulted in ecologically disjunct populations (e.g., in Hazelton BC, hence the name).''' Hazelnut was traditionally managed by fire and has numerous uses for people including for food (nut), for fuel (oily shells), it was an important medicine, the root produced an intense blue dye, and young switches were used for weaving and construction. ...<Ref>https://www.chelseygeralda.com/traditional-hazelnut-management</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
<Blockquote>Beaked hazelnut and the closely related American hazelnut (C. americana Walt.) are valued as food and medicinal plants for Indigenous peoples across North America and were used by Algonquin, Cree, Mi’kmaq, and Maliseet peoples, and by many groups of British Columbia, including Straits Salish, Halq’eméylem, Squamish, and Nuu-chah-nulth on the Coast, and Nlaka’pamux, Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet), Syilx (Okanagan-Colville), Secwepemc (Shuswap), Ktunaxa (Kootenay) in the BC Interior, and the Nisga’a and Gitxsan in the north, as well as by virtually all Indigenous peoples of Western Washington.<Ref name = "Armstrong"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
Residential schools and ongoing colonialism have disrupted and in some cases erased deep place-based agriculture practices and for hazelnut the same is true.<Ref name = "Armstrong"></Ref> | |||
==== Squirrels ==== | |||
Squirrels depending on the nation are considered 'pesky' or 'helpful.' During interviews for a study<Ref>https://www.chelseygeralda.com/traditional-hazelnut-management</Ref> one of the interviewees, Elder Wal’ceckwu (Marion Dixon) from the Nlaka’pamux Nation, explained: | |||
<Blockquote>...to get them away you pick a whole bunch, the left-overs from last year that are not in the wrappers [involucres] anymore. We take them and we a dig a little trench far away from the trees where we had our bushes and then, we put them over there so the squirrels are all busy over there while we’re [picking]...<Ref name = "Armstrong"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
This practice is a clear example of [[Traditional Ecological Knowledge]] through observation a symbiotic solution to squirrels taking hazelnuts is created and deployed. | |||
Other nations view the squirrels as helpers: | |||
<Blockquote>In northern BC, some Gitxsan people had their own means for dealing with squirrels. Sim’oogit (Chief) T’enim Gyet (Art Matthews) remembers: <br><br> | |||
"...the squirrels help us…we don’t pick [the hazelnut], we cheat. We wait for the squirrels to clean and cache them so we don’t have to."<Ref name = "Armstrong"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
==== Hazelnut Benefits ==== | |||
<Blockquote>Hazelnuts are a high source of protein and are rich in unsaturated fats. They are a significant source of thiamine and vitamin B6 and other B vitamins. They can be eaten raw and stored for years without spoiling. Like Marion, Gitxsan Elders in northern BC remember hazelnut as a Christmas food, no doubt because nuts would keep for months when fresh food was scarce. Nuts were collected en masse and either left to dry as is (involucres can rot off the shells without turning the nut) or de-husked and processed all at once. Wintu people in California used willow switches to beat the involucres off the kernel. Marion recalls the hard work involved in collecting and processing nuts: <br><br> | |||
"When they’re ready, we pick a whole bunch of them and we’d put them in a basket or a box or whatever we had. And we get them dry. And we would sit there for days, and days, and days, cause we used to have bags and boxes and baskets of them, and then one day when its raining or snowing outside, I had my own little hammer and I’d sit there and break them, pick shells off them, and put them in the thing [a storage basket] and then my grandmother would prepare them… but it took days and days and days to pick them, never mind opening them and days and days to preserve them [when made into an oil], but then we could use them as we want to."<Ref name = "Armstrong"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
== Colorado Plateau == | |||
[[File:Tubers.jpg||thumb|right|"Four Corners potato (Solanum jamesii) growing in sand at the base of slick rock waterfall, just above site 42SA244, a two-story cliff dwelling in Bears Ears. The species reproduces only by tubers that have very limited dispersal capability. The situation repeats itself among archaeological sites in southern Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. Photos by Kari Gillen."<Ref name = "Pavlik"></Ref>]] | |||
A study published by Pavlik, Louderback, et al showed how past legacies of stewardship by Indigenous Nations in various parts of the Colorado Plateau have resulted in ecological diversity and richness distinct from the surrounding forested areas. The study explained some of the management techniques likely employed including: forest clearing and changes in canopy light regime, alterations of soil, and controlled burning. The study also suggested that many plant species in various stewarded areas were transported to the destination, because the species would not otherwise be present.<Ref name = "Pavlik">Pavlik BM, Louderback LA, Vernon KB, Yaworsky PM, Wilson C, Clifford A, Codding BF. Plant species richness at archaeological sites suggests ecological legacy of Indigenous subsistence on the Colorado Plateau. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 May 25;118(21):e2025047118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2025047118. PMID: 34001615; PMCID: PMC8166080.</Ref> <br> | |||
The authors explain their hypothesis: | |||
<Blockquote>we offer a formal evaluation of this archaeo-ecosystem approach by using paired archaeological and ecological survey data focused on Puebloan occupation of a region known as Bears Ears on the Colorado Plateau in southeastern Utah. Puebloan populations modified their environment by constructing terraces and check dams, developing blinds and wing traps, importing exogenous species, and setting fires, but investments were not uniform across the region. We test the hypothesis that locations with greater investment indicated by larger and more complex archaeological sites should today have higher richness of culturally significant plant species, here termed '''ethnographic species richness (ESR)''', as an enduring legacy of past investment.<Ref name = "Pavlik"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
In their discussion of results their hypothesis is found to be true and illustrates the lasting effects Indigenous Persons place-based [[Traditional Ecological Knowledge]]: | |||
<Blockquote>Our results reveal a clear ecological legacy of past human behavior: even when holding environmental variables constant, the richness of culturally important plants present today increases significantly as a function of site complexity and, therefore, past investment. As predicted, modern plant diversity is in part structured by the enduring legacy of past subsistence practices. <br><br> | |||
In the present study, high ESR was associated with the number of archaeological features, accompanied by substantial drainage systems (56) and the juxtaposition of several vegetation types (e.g., riparian forest, pinyon–juniper woodland, and semidesert scrub) that contained a broad range of ethnographic plant species. Many species would be present as wild populations occupying their own physiologically based environmental niches, and their resources would be easily gathered if widespread or locally abundant. These would include the high frequency pinyon, juniper, grass, and shrub species that characterize the dominant ecosystems of the region. However, low frequency species, especially those that are relatively rare or localized, but highly desirable, would require much greater effort to obtain. ... '''In other words, the most complex archaeo-ecosystems in Bears Ears resulted from once xenic, but subsequently localized, ecological diversity supporting clusters of people that depended on, and therefore enhanced, the available plant resource base. Perennial species, often known to have lifespans measured in centuries and millennia, would persist as relics or produce descendants even if habitat conditions were suboptimal.''' <br><br> | |||
'''Perhaps the best example of ESR enhancement from Bears Ears is that of the Four Corners potato. During surveys, it was found at seven archaeological sites, all of these beyond the climatic envelope modeled from 160 known occurrences across the entire range of the species (largely in central Arizona and New Mexico).''' Within Bears Ears, the extant populations are small (nine to 300 stems), associated with alluvial terraces and drainage features, and known to be genetically depauperate. '''At one site, plants grow out of pit houses along with an anomalous, small population of wolfberry (Lycium pallidum).''' Tubers of this potato species are produced in abundance and can persist for 14 y[ears] underground. They are nutritious and available during the winter and spring, therefore extending occupancy all year long. Because of such ecological legacies, models may not predict the location or condition of living resources, especially those associated with well-developed archaeological sites.<Ref name = "Pavlik"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
Concluding their article the authors explain why preserving these archaeological-botanical legacies of Indigenous Nations is important and should be done in collaboration with the Nations historically originating from these areas. They also suggest that further studies should be dedicated to these types of investigations to help increase the health of federal lands: | |||
<Blockquote>... Our model identifies specific locations within Bears Ears that will require special management regimes, especially in light of increased visitation and the proposed development or expansion of resource extraction activities in the recently downsized national monument. Those special regimes should be cross-cultural, developed with tribal input, to emphasize the conservation and restoration of archaeo-ecosystems that contain “high priority” plant species, especially those held sacred as lifeway medicines. It is likely that such rare or uncommon species indicate ancient habitation or cultivation and provide insight into human subsistence behaviors. These plant populations should be documented in detail, monitored and targeted for special actions (e.g., visitation restrictions, improved footpaths, limited grazing, interpretive signage, and designated tour guides) that ensure their remarkable persistence. Formally embedding traditional ecological knowledge into land management decisions would improve federal stewardship and promote the longstanding linkages between Indigenous people and their ancestral lands.<Ref name = "Pavlik"></Ref></Blockquote> | |||
== Lasting Legacy of Indigenous Forest Management == | |||
[[File:ForestGarden.jpg||thumb|right|"Total Species Richness and Species Richness by Lifeform. Richness is indicated overall between forest gardens and periphery forests (averaged across the four of the study areas) and among the three growth forms (trees, shrubs and herbs)."<Ref>https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/</Ref>]] | |||
<Blockquote>Our findings highlight that historical Indigenous land-use legacies can support long-persisting (e.g., 150+ years) high functional and taxonomic plant diversity relative to less intensively utilized or managed landscapes nearby. Notably, this contrasts with most studies of land-use legacies of human impact which often find negative effects from human influences (e.g., industrial land-use). The taxonomic diversity of forest gardens in our study region is similar to that in biodiversity studies of Indigenous village sites and forest gardens in other parts of the world, including the Amazonian neotropics, eastern Mexico, and northwestern Belize, where people increased the diversity of desired food plants or overall landscape (beta) diversity. This research builds on an increasing awareness among scientists that biodiverse ecosystems globally have been formed and maintained by Indigenous peoples. There is therefore a greater need to understand the role of Indigenous management practices, including their impacts and effects, and to comprehend the many variables that support the resilience and other functions of managed forest systems.<Ref>https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/#discussion14</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
= Benefits for Children = | |||
A study conducted in Sweden by Per Askerlund, Ellen Almers explored the benefits of forestgardens for children aged 7 to 8.<Ref>Per Askerlund, Ellen Almers, Forest gardens – new opportunities for urban children to understand and develop relationships with other organisms, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 20, 2016, Pages 187-197, ISSN 1618-8667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.007.</Ref> | |||
= City Forestgardens = | |||
<Blockquote>Trees improve the environment, save money, and improve people's lives. Urban forests are critical components of green infrastructure and cities, and they are important in providing ecosystem services to a large global population. A growing body of literature recognizes the important contributions of trees in urban forests. Urban trees reduce air pollution, removing one-quarter of harmful particulate matter and offsetting carbon emissions through carbon storage. They mitigate water pollution by reducing storm water runoff. Urban trees lower energy costs of buildings through shading and evaporative cooling, reducing building energy consumption by up to 40 percent. They also provide many health benefits to people. Views of trees are correlated with less pronounced ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) in children, reduced violence in public housing communities (25 percent fewer incidents), and 23 percent fewer employee sick days for those with views of trees.<Ref>Cavender, Nicole & Donnelly, Gerard. (2019). Intersecting urban forestry and botanical gardens to address big challenges for healthier trees, people, and cities. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET. 1. 10.1002/ppp3.38.</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
<Blockquote>There is a growing recognition that solutions are needed to ameliorate the environmental and social effects of an increasing urbanized world. Trees are critical components of green infrastructure and urban nature. Improving urban forests across metropolitan areas is a key solution that requires immediate and strategic action. To protect trees and ensure that people have the benefits trees provide, human intervention is needed. Priorities should focus on protecting existing trees, improving the selection and diversity of species, and improving planning, standards, and care for trees. Success in carrying out these priorities requires a more socially inclusive approach and is reliant on different interest groups. Botanical gardens and arboreta can greatly assist in these endeavors and many are already actively engaged. We encourage botanical gardens and arboreta to become more active and to take initiative to collaborate in urban forestry efforts, and we believe this will have growing relevance across the globe. Government officials, planners, and consultants should find and reach out to botanical gardens to collaborate at the local level. Botanical gardens have particular strengths in practical, horticultural knowledge and training, as well as public credibility and outreach. With their involvement, outcomes will likely be more successful. Protecting, planting, and caring for the world's urban forests will deliver great benefits environmentally, socially, and economically. Urban forest improvement is worth our attention and greater investment for a greener, healthier, and more beautiful world for people.<Ref>Cavender, Nicole & Donnelly, Gerard. (2019). Intersecting urban forestry and botanical gardens to address big challenges for healthier trees, people, and cities. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET. 1. 10.1002/ppp3.38.</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
= | = Cited = | ||
Latest revision as of 18:25, 10 August 2023
Summary
Hempforestry
Turtle Island
As across almost all of the so-called United States the original settlers viewed the land as a wild untouched landscape absent of human intervention or cultivation. As time has gone on the western scientific communities are now realizing vast amounts of land across Turtle Island were managed and tended to including many plants considered "wild."[1]
Fist Nations in the North West
Many Nations in the North West of Turtle Island (Cascadia bioregion), such as the Tsm'syen and Coast Salish First Nations, have cultivated forest gardens for thousands of years.[2]The two nations listed above would clear spots next to native coniferous forests and plant perennial species and shrubs including: Crabapple, Wild Cherry, Plum, Soapberry, Wild ginger, Rice Roots, and medicinal herbs. The Nations would collect and transplant the plants while utilizing many techniques to keep the forest garden healthy such as pruning, fertilizing, coppicing, and controlled burns.[3]
Hazelnut in Motion
There is a fleeting ethnographic record of hazelnut in so-called British Columbia, however shell fragments can be found archaeologically throughout the province. Linguistic evidence also supports the hypothesis that long distance transplanting of hazelnut, from the Salish region to the Ts'msyen, Gitxsan and Wet'suwet’en regions resulted in ecologically disjunct populations (e.g., in Hazelton BC, hence the name). Hazelnut was traditionally managed by fire and has numerous uses for people including for food (nut), for fuel (oily shells), it was an important medicine, the root produced an intense blue dye, and young switches were used for weaving and construction. ...[4]
Beaked hazelnut and the closely related American hazelnut (C. americana Walt.) are valued as food and medicinal plants for Indigenous peoples across North America and were used by Algonquin, Cree, Mi’kmaq, and Maliseet peoples, and by many groups of British Columbia, including Straits Salish, Halq’eméylem, Squamish, and Nuu-chah-nulth on the Coast, and Nlaka’pamux, Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet), Syilx (Okanagan-Colville), Secwepemc (Shuswap), Ktunaxa (Kootenay) in the BC Interior, and the Nisga’a and Gitxsan in the north, as well as by virtually all Indigenous peoples of Western Washington.[1]
Residential schools and ongoing colonialism have disrupted and in some cases erased deep place-based agriculture practices and for hazelnut the same is true.[1]
Squirrels
Squirrels depending on the nation are considered 'pesky' or 'helpful.' During interviews for a study[5] one of the interviewees, Elder Wal’ceckwu (Marion Dixon) from the Nlaka’pamux Nation, explained:
...to get them away you pick a whole bunch, the left-overs from last year that are not in the wrappers [involucres] anymore. We take them and we a dig a little trench far away from the trees where we had our bushes and then, we put them over there so the squirrels are all busy over there while we’re [picking]...[1]
This practice is a clear example of Traditional Ecological Knowledge through observation a symbiotic solution to squirrels taking hazelnuts is created and deployed.
Other nations view the squirrels as helpers:
In northern BC, some Gitxsan people had their own means for dealing with squirrels. Sim’oogit (Chief) T’enim Gyet (Art Matthews) remembers:
"...the squirrels help us…we don’t pick [the hazelnut], we cheat. We wait for the squirrels to clean and cache them so we don’t have to."[1]
Hazelnut Benefits
Hazelnuts are a high source of protein and are rich in unsaturated fats. They are a significant source of thiamine and vitamin B6 and other B vitamins. They can be eaten raw and stored for years without spoiling. Like Marion, Gitxsan Elders in northern BC remember hazelnut as a Christmas food, no doubt because nuts would keep for months when fresh food was scarce. Nuts were collected en masse and either left to dry as is (involucres can rot off the shells without turning the nut) or de-husked and processed all at once. Wintu people in California used willow switches to beat the involucres off the kernel. Marion recalls the hard work involved in collecting and processing nuts:
"When they’re ready, we pick a whole bunch of them and we’d put them in a basket or a box or whatever we had. And we get them dry. And we would sit there for days, and days, and days, cause we used to have bags and boxes and baskets of them, and then one day when its raining or snowing outside, I had my own little hammer and I’d sit there and break them, pick shells off them, and put them in the thing [a storage basket] and then my grandmother would prepare them… but it took days and days and days to pick them, never mind opening them and days and days to preserve them [when made into an oil], but then we could use them as we want to."[1]
Colorado Plateau
A study published by Pavlik, Louderback, et al showed how past legacies of stewardship by Indigenous Nations in various parts of the Colorado Plateau have resulted in ecological diversity and richness distinct from the surrounding forested areas. The study explained some of the management techniques likely employed including: forest clearing and changes in canopy light regime, alterations of soil, and controlled burning. The study also suggested that many plant species in various stewarded areas were transported to the destination, because the species would not otherwise be present.[6]
The authors explain their hypothesis:
we offer a formal evaluation of this archaeo-ecosystem approach by using paired archaeological and ecological survey data focused on Puebloan occupation of a region known as Bears Ears on the Colorado Plateau in southeastern Utah. Puebloan populations modified their environment by constructing terraces and check dams, developing blinds and wing traps, importing exogenous species, and setting fires, but investments were not uniform across the region. We test the hypothesis that locations with greater investment indicated by larger and more complex archaeological sites should today have higher richness of culturally significant plant species, here termed ethnographic species richness (ESR), as an enduring legacy of past investment.[6]
In their discussion of results their hypothesis is found to be true and illustrates the lasting effects Indigenous Persons place-based Traditional Ecological Knowledge:
Our results reveal a clear ecological legacy of past human behavior: even when holding environmental variables constant, the richness of culturally important plants present today increases significantly as a function of site complexity and, therefore, past investment. As predicted, modern plant diversity is in part structured by the enduring legacy of past subsistence practices.
In the present study, high ESR was associated with the number of archaeological features, accompanied by substantial drainage systems (56) and the juxtaposition of several vegetation types (e.g., riparian forest, pinyon–juniper woodland, and semidesert scrub) that contained a broad range of ethnographic plant species. Many species would be present as wild populations occupying their own physiologically based environmental niches, and their resources would be easily gathered if widespread or locally abundant. These would include the high frequency pinyon, juniper, grass, and shrub species that characterize the dominant ecosystems of the region. However, low frequency species, especially those that are relatively rare or localized, but highly desirable, would require much greater effort to obtain. ... In other words, the most complex archaeo-ecosystems in Bears Ears resulted from once xenic, but subsequently localized, ecological diversity supporting clusters of people that depended on, and therefore enhanced, the available plant resource base. Perennial species, often known to have lifespans measured in centuries and millennia, would persist as relics or produce descendants even if habitat conditions were suboptimal.
Perhaps the best example of ESR enhancement from Bears Ears is that of the Four Corners potato. During surveys, it was found at seven archaeological sites, all of these beyond the climatic envelope modeled from 160 known occurrences across the entire range of the species (largely in central Arizona and New Mexico). Within Bears Ears, the extant populations are small (nine to 300 stems), associated with alluvial terraces and drainage features, and known to be genetically depauperate. At one site, plants grow out of pit houses along with an anomalous, small population of wolfberry (Lycium pallidum). Tubers of this potato species are produced in abundance and can persist for 14 y[ears] underground. They are nutritious and available during the winter and spring, therefore extending occupancy all year long. Because of such ecological legacies, models may not predict the location or condition of living resources, especially those associated with well-developed archaeological sites.[6]
Concluding their article the authors explain why preserving these archaeological-botanical legacies of Indigenous Nations is important and should be done in collaboration with the Nations historically originating from these areas. They also suggest that further studies should be dedicated to these types of investigations to help increase the health of federal lands:
... Our model identifies specific locations within Bears Ears that will require special management regimes, especially in light of increased visitation and the proposed development or expansion of resource extraction activities in the recently downsized national monument. Those special regimes should be cross-cultural, developed with tribal input, to emphasize the conservation and restoration of archaeo-ecosystems that contain “high priority” plant species, especially those held sacred as lifeway medicines. It is likely that such rare or uncommon species indicate ancient habitation or cultivation and provide insight into human subsistence behaviors. These plant populations should be documented in detail, monitored and targeted for special actions (e.g., visitation restrictions, improved footpaths, limited grazing, interpretive signage, and designated tour guides) that ensure their remarkable persistence. Formally embedding traditional ecological knowledge into land management decisions would improve federal stewardship and promote the longstanding linkages between Indigenous people and their ancestral lands.[6]
Lasting Legacy of Indigenous Forest Management
Our findings highlight that historical Indigenous land-use legacies can support long-persisting (e.g., 150+ years) high functional and taxonomic plant diversity relative to less intensively utilized or managed landscapes nearby. Notably, this contrasts with most studies of land-use legacies of human impact which often find negative effects from human influences (e.g., industrial land-use). The taxonomic diversity of forest gardens in our study region is similar to that in biodiversity studies of Indigenous village sites and forest gardens in other parts of the world, including the Amazonian neotropics, eastern Mexico, and northwestern Belize, where people increased the diversity of desired food plants or overall landscape (beta) diversity. This research builds on an increasing awareness among scientists that biodiverse ecosystems globally have been formed and maintained by Indigenous peoples. There is therefore a greater need to understand the role of Indigenous management practices, including their impacts and effects, and to comprehend the many variables that support the resilience and other functions of managed forest systems.[8]
Benefits for Children
A study conducted in Sweden by Per Askerlund, Ellen Almers explored the benefits of forestgardens for children aged 7 to 8.[9]
City Forestgardens
Trees improve the environment, save money, and improve people's lives. Urban forests are critical components of green infrastructure and cities, and they are important in providing ecosystem services to a large global population. A growing body of literature recognizes the important contributions of trees in urban forests. Urban trees reduce air pollution, removing one-quarter of harmful particulate matter and offsetting carbon emissions through carbon storage. They mitigate water pollution by reducing storm water runoff. Urban trees lower energy costs of buildings through shading and evaporative cooling, reducing building energy consumption by up to 40 percent. They also provide many health benefits to people. Views of trees are correlated with less pronounced ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) in children, reduced violence in public housing communities (25 percent fewer incidents), and 23 percent fewer employee sick days for those with views of trees.[10]
There is a growing recognition that solutions are needed to ameliorate the environmental and social effects of an increasing urbanized world. Trees are critical components of green infrastructure and urban nature. Improving urban forests across metropolitan areas is a key solution that requires immediate and strategic action. To protect trees and ensure that people have the benefits trees provide, human intervention is needed. Priorities should focus on protecting existing trees, improving the selection and diversity of species, and improving planning, standards, and care for trees. Success in carrying out these priorities requires a more socially inclusive approach and is reliant on different interest groups. Botanical gardens and arboreta can greatly assist in these endeavors and many are already actively engaged. We encourage botanical gardens and arboreta to become more active and to take initiative to collaborate in urban forestry efforts, and we believe this will have growing relevance across the globe. Government officials, planners, and consultants should find and reach out to botanical gardens to collaborate at the local level. Botanical gardens have particular strengths in practical, horticultural knowledge and training, as well as public credibility and outreach. With their involvement, outcomes will likely be more successful. Protecting, planting, and caring for the world's urban forests will deliver great benefits environmentally, socially, and economically. Urban forest improvement is worth our attention and greater investment for a greener, healthier, and more beautiful world for people.[11]
Cited
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Armstrong, C. G., Dixon, W. M., & Turner, N. J. (2018). Management and Traditional Production of Beaked Hazelnut (k’áp’xw-az’, Corylus cornuta; Betulaceae) in British Columbia. Human Ecology. doi:10.1007/s10745-018-0015-x
- ↑ Leopold EB, Boyd R. 1999. An Ecological History of Old Prairie Areas in Southwestern Washington. Pages 139–163 in Boyd R eds. Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press
- ↑ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/indigenous-forest-gardens-remain-productive-and-diverse-for-over-a-century/
- ↑ https://www.chelseygeralda.com/traditional-hazelnut-management
- ↑ https://www.chelseygeralda.com/traditional-hazelnut-management
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Pavlik BM, Louderback LA, Vernon KB, Yaworsky PM, Wilson C, Clifford A, Codding BF. Plant species richness at archaeological sites suggests ecological legacy of Indigenous subsistence on the Colorado Plateau. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 May 25;118(21):e2025047118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2025047118. PMID: 34001615; PMCID: PMC8166080.
- ↑ https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/
- ↑ https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/#discussion14
- ↑ Per Askerlund, Ellen Almers, Forest gardens – new opportunities for urban children to understand and develop relationships with other organisms, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 20, 2016, Pages 187-197, ISSN 1618-8667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.007.
- ↑ Cavender, Nicole & Donnelly, Gerard. (2019). Intersecting urban forestry and botanical gardens to address big challenges for healthier trees, people, and cities. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET. 1. 10.1002/ppp3.38.
- ↑ Cavender, Nicole & Donnelly, Gerard. (2019). Intersecting urban forestry and botanical gardens to address big challenges for healthier trees, people, and cities. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET. 1. 10.1002/ppp3.38.