打印

作者

Andrew K. Koeser;E. Thomas Smiley;Richard J. Hauer;Brian Kane;Ryan W. Klein;Shawn M. Landry;Michael Sherwood

来源

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING,Vol.52,Issue1,Article 126701

语言

英文

关键字

Arboriculture;Basic tree assessment;Hazard tree;Level 2 assessment;Natural disasters;Qualifications;Risk management;Storm damage;Urban forestry;Visual tree assessment

作者单位

Department of Environmental Horticulture, CLUE, IFAS, University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 14625 County Road 672, Wimauma, FL, 33598, United States;Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory, F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, NC 28278, United States;College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481, United States;Department of Environmental Conservation, 160 Holdsworth Way, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, United States;Department of Environmental Horticulture, CLUE, IFAS, University of Florida, 100A Mehrhof Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States;School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Ave., NES107, Tampa, FL, 33620, United States;Department of Environmental Horticulture, CLUE, IFAS, University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 14625 County Road 672, Wimauma, FL, 33598, United States;Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory, F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, NC 28278, United States;College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481, United States;Department of Environmental Conservation, 160 Holdsworth Way, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, United States;Department of Environmental Horticulture, CLUE, IFAS, University of Florida, 100A Mehrhof Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States;School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Ave., NES107, Tampa, FL, 33620, United States

摘要

Visual risk assessment remains the primary means of gauging urban tree safety and is a key facet of storm preparation and response. While past research has investigated the reproducibility of risk assessment methodologies (i.e., precision), few, if any, studies truly address the accuracy of current inspection practices – especially with regard to the characterization of likelihood of failure. In 2016, Hurricane Matthew made landfall in the Southeastern United States as a lower-intensity tropical storm, impacting several urban sites where tree risk assessments had been conducted in the recent past. After the storm, 2069 trees on 5 properties were revisited to assess storm damage. The vast majority (93%) of trees survived Matthew intact, with 6% of the assessed population suffering partial (i.e., branch) failure and the remaining 1% experiencing whole-tree failure. Failure rates differed by species, with age, and given the presence of external defects. The presence of dead branches (P-value < 0.001), deep planting (P-value < 0.001), severe stem-girdling roots (P-value = 0.020), and previous wounding (P-value = 0.016) were associated with increased likelihood of failure. The original risk assessments were fairly accurate: 94.1% of trees assessed as having an “imminent” likelihood of failure were damaged in the storm. In contrast, 38.8% of trees rated as “probable”, 15.3% of tree rated “possible”, 0.0% of trees rated “improbable” with regard to likelihood of failure were damaged during the storm.