Sustainable Horticulture

Trees for CO2 Sequestration?

Posted by sustainable_hort on April 14, 2010  |  No Comments

(This is the first part of a two-part post on trees and CO2 sequestration, which looks at whether trees actually play a positive role. The second part will discuss the actual trees we should be using for this perceived benefit)

Trees can play an important, positive role in helping control the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by absorbing that key greenhouse gas. The process, called “sequestration,” uses a tree’s photosynthesis to convert the problematic greenhouse gas to cellulose and oxygen.

As this concept has become more widely accepted and, as researchers continue to document trees’ benefits, it may expand market for some nursery crops. But, is all this excitement warranted, or do some recent questions contradict the enthusiasm?

What We Need to Know
The crucial questions at this stage become “does sequestration really work,” and if so, “which trees are most efficient at sequestration?” Research continues to delve into varietal and climate issues that affect how well a specific tree will capture CO2.

“We can certainly argue that trees, when they absorb CO2, buy us a period of sequestration,” said David Nowak, researcher at SUNY-CESF, Syracuse, New York.

But, Nowak, who has lead several major sequestration studies, points out there are many variables that need to be studied, including climate effects, tree species and age, and even the general maintenance issues.

“These all can impact the effectiveness of a tree to sequester CO2,” he said.

Other research has pointed out some distinct differences based on climate. In fact, recent computer models are even speculating that non-tropical trees might even increase planet temperatures.

But, planting trees in [any] climate is better than not. So, how does it work and what does research indicate as the best options for using trees to reduce atmospheric CO2?

What is Sequestration?…Removal of Air Pollutants
Air pollution can be reduced dramatically when plants take up CO2 and many airborne particles through their leaf stomata. Some other gases are removed by the plant leaf and stem surfaces. Gases absorbed by the plant stomata later diffuse into intercellular spaces. They then are absorbed and react with water films to form acids, or they react with inner-leaf surfaces. Some particles can be absorbed into the tree, though most particles that are intercepted are retained on the plant surface.

Some polluting particles may return to the air during transpiration or be washed off by rain. Later, the leaf and twigs may drop off the to the ground and start to decompose. This also releases some of the CO2 back, which offsets some of the early gains. Consequently, vegetation remains only a temporary site for retaining many atmospheric particles.

Benefits of Trees
Plant-It 2020 uses a ‘scientific estimate’ to develop the following statistics based upon the tree species, soil conditions and tree-planting methodology,

Their research indicated that 600 trees in the tropics would fill one acre, which could sequester up to 15 tons of CO2 annually. Other statistics include 40 trees (common varieties) will sequester one ton of CO2 each year; and that one million trees covering 1,667 acres could capture 25,000 tons of CO2 annually.

Research in major metropolitan areas showed the urban forests could have an impact. It was reported by David J. Nowak in “The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality” showed that in 1994, trees in New York City removed an estimated 1,821 metric tons (t) of air pollution at an estimated value to society of $9.5 million.

His research showed that while New York’s urban forests removed pollution more than Atlanta’s (1,196 t; $6.5 million) and Baltimore (499 t; $2.7 million), but pollution removal per square meter of canopy cover was similar among these cities (New York: 13.7g/m2/yr; Baltimore: 12.2 g/m2/yr; Atlanta: 10.6 g/m2/yr). These standardized pollution removal rates differ among cities according to the amount of air pollution, length of in-leaf season, precipitation, and other meteorological variables. Nowak’s work noted that large healthy trees (greater than 77 cm) annually remove about 70 times more air pollution (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy trees (less than 8 cm in diameter) at 0.02 kg/yr.

His 2002 work matched earlier research regarding total CO2 sequestered within the US. Total carbon storage by urban trees in the coterminous United States is estimated at 700 million tons. These data correspond with previous analyses that estimated national carbon storage by urban trees as between 350 and 750 million tons and between 600 and 900 million tons. Carbon storage by urban trees nationally is only 4.4% of the estimated 15,900 million tons stored in trees in USA non-urban forest ecosystems. The estimated carbon storage by urban trees in USA is equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted from USA population in about 5.5 months based on average per capita emission rates.

The research reported that “urban forests in the north central, northeast, south central and southeast regions of the USA store and sequester the most carbon, with average carbon storage per hectare greatest in southeast, north central, northeast and Pacific northwest regions, respectively. The national average urban forest carbon storage density is 25.1 t/ha, compared with 53.5 t/ha in forest stands.”

He felt this data could be used to help assess the actual and potential role of urban forests in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas.

Nowak’s research report stated the following:
“Air quality improvement in New York City due to pollution removal by trees during daytime of the in-leaf season averaged 0.47% for particulate matter, 0.45% for ozone, 0.43% for sulfur dioxide, 0.30% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.002% for carbon monoxide. Air quality improves with 2 increased percent tree cover and decreased mixing-layer heights. In urban areas with 100% tree cover (i.e., contiguous forest stands), short-term improvements in air quality (one hour) from pollution removal by trees were as high as 15% for ozone, 14% for sulfur dioxide, 13% for particulate matter, 8% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.05% for carbon monoxide.”

Meanwhile, www.plantit2020.org, has summarized recent forestry science studies in carbon sequestration related to trees, including the following:

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.

The US Forest Service also feels that large diameter; long-lived, leafy trees are more beneficial in regards to carbon sequestration. For example, they point to the fact that Atlanta’s 9 million-plus (mostly mature, broad-leafed) trees absorb about twice as much as Calgary, Canada nearly 12 million trees (many conifers).

They also noted that tree species is a strong determining factor regarding carbon sequestration, which vary by species in their rate of storing carbon, though research is still needed.
But, as a counter action, trees also vary in how many and how much harmful volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) they emit. One common example is isoprene, which produces the greenhouse gas ozone.

So, the best tree species is one that rapidly sequesters carbon but does not register high outputs of VOC’s. Long-lived trees (those living more than 50 years) are preferred by the Forest Service for carbon sequestration as dead trees rot – releasing all of the carbon that has been stored. US Forest Service recommends the following species for the United States…American basswood, dogwood, Eastern white pine, Eastern red cedar, gray birch, red maple and river birch.

Nowak does point out that the placement of trees actually has more impact that sequestration.
“The bigger impact comes from planting a tree in the proper location where it can provide cooling for buildings,” he said. “Just by preventing the added CO2 being emitted during air conditioning, trees can have four times the impact they have in sequestration.”

So, there are many functions to consider to maximize a tree’s impact on the environment, he cautioned.

Tropical Versus Temperate Zones
Another study, lead by Lawrence Livermore National Lab, indicated that trees planted closer to the equator sequester more carbon than those planted far to the North. Why this might have happened is still unclear. Some expert speculated that Southern tree species are often larger, long-lived, leafy trees compared to northern species.

Their computer models seem to confirm this observation. They built a model to determine the impact on temperatures forests have in different parts of the planet.

They focused on three key factors in their analysis:
• Forests can cool the planet by absorbing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide during photosynthesis.
• They can also cool the planet by evaporating water to the atmosphere and increasing cloudiness; a deck of white clouds reflects incoming solar radiation straight back out into space.
• But, trees might also have a warming effect. They are dark colored, absorb sunlight and hold heat near ground level

“Our study shows that tropical forests are very beneficial to the climate because they take up carbon and increase cloudiness, which in turn helps cool the planet,” explained Dr. Bala, an author on the Livermore study.

So, the further you move from the equator, the more these gains are eroded she stated. The team’s modeling predicts trees planted in mid- and high-latitude locations could cause a net warming of a few degrees within a hundred years.

“The darkening of the surface by new forest canopies in the high-latitude boreal regions allows absorption of more sunlight that warm the surface,” Dr Baal said.

Counter Views
But, despite the general excitement over planting trees, no, literally planting forests as a solution to global warming, has hit some speed bumps recently.

In addition to the Livermore computer model concerns, two other recent papers in the scientific literature raised questions about the benefits of terrestrial carbon sinks. One paper, by Frank Keppler, Max Planck Institute, discovered that plants emit significant amounts of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, which traps heat much more efficiently than CO2.

Another study, by Robert Jackson, Duke University, found that plantations could reduce stream flow and increase salinization of soils to a greater extent than previously recognized. It looked at existing conversions and showed that the growing trees had larger water demands than crops or pastures “dramatically decreased stream flow within a few years of planting,” the authors wrote.

They also found that water use within existing tree plantations of all ages resulted in average stream flow reductions of 38 percent. Losses increased as the trees age, and “13 percent of streams dried up completely for at least one year,” the study said.

Overall, the tree farming used about 20 percent more rainwater, the study estimated. So, additional tree planting for carbon mitigation could have large impacts on nation’s water resources. This is ore of an issue in nations that net less than 30 percent of their total annual supplies of fresh water from rain, the authors predicted.

This has lead to experts some questioning the overall tree planting strategy, but others view this speculation as overblown.
Nowak also cautioned that urban tree management practices could diminish the net effects of urban trees on atmospheric C02. Activities used to maintain vegetation structure and health (e.g. from chain saws, trucks, chippers, etc.) emit carbon via fossil fuel combustion. Thus, too much maintenance could cause urban forest ecosystems to become net emitters of carbon unless secondary carbon reductions (e.g. energy conservation) or limiting of decomposition via long term carbon storage (e.g. wood products, landfills) can be accomplished to offset the maintenance carbon emissions

“Carbon released through tree management activities needs to be accounted for to calculate the net effect of urban forestry on atmospheric carbon dioxide,” he said.

He argues that unless there are secondary carbon reductions (e.g., energy conservation) or limiting of decomposition via long-term carbon storage (e.g., wood products, landfills), urban forests lose much of the sequestration gains. This, in turn, affects the species composition and tree maintenance activities chosen for an urban forest.

Some Conclusions
So, where does all this leave with trees and their effects on CO2 sequestration?

To maximize the net benefits of urban forestry on atmospheric carbon dioxide, Nowak wrote that urban forest managers should focus on the following:
• Planting long-lived, low-maintenance, moderate to fast-growing species that are large at maturity and matched to site conditions;
• Using maintenance activities that increase tree survival and longevity;
• Minimizing fossil-fuel use related to management and maintenance activities;
• Using wood from removed trees to delay decomposition or decrease the need for energy from fossil-fuel-based power plants (e.g., develop long term wood products; burn wood to heat residences); and
• Planting trees in energy-conserving locations.

This was summarized clearly by Greg McPherson in a Arbor Age article “Urban Tree Planting and Greenhouse Gas Reductions.”

He wrote that…”The climate benefits of trees in mid-latitude cities are not an illusion, although they certainly feel good. Reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide are achieved directly through sequestration and indirectly through emission reductions. Still, planting trees in cities should not be touted as a panacea to global warming. It is one of many complementary bridging strategies, and it is one that can be implemented immediately. Moreover, tree planting projects provide myriad other social, environmental, and economic benefits that make communities better places to live.”

Thus, while CO2 absorption can be positive, putting the right tree in the right place remains critical to optimizing its benefits and minimizing conflicts with other aspects of the urban infrastructure.

Next part…coming soon. We will look at where trees work best, which trees might be the best, and include a long list of references on this topic. See you soon.

Plant Lists for Bioswales and Rain Gardens

Posted by sustainable_hort on March 18, 2010  |  No Comments

This post, as promised, presents a quick overview of the various plants used in bioswale and rain garden environments. It is not as simple as just throwing a few water tolerant plants in the ground. Careful plant choice and placement play key roles in successful “wet” landscapes.

Plant selection for these projects is driven by several key factors including the following:

Obviously, the basic site conditions play a huge role. Factors like sun exposure, soil depth, physical and chemical properties and moisture holding capacity can vary, so need to be understood for successful plantings.

What is the intended function of the project? For many projects, the landscape’s performance, including infiltration, pollutant removal and evapotranspiration rate will determine its success.
But, there can also be safety issues, which may require added protection such as surrounding hedges. Finally, aesthetics play a role since many working landscapes sit in neighborhoods and other public areas. While visible, they can seen as an amenity, and even provide some recreational opportunities.

No landscape is going to be maintenance free; so long term needs should be studied. This is one area where the plant material choice can have dramatically different cost impacts.
Finally, recognize each site’s natural water regime. Check the depth, frequency and duration of soil saturation, which will vary daily, seasonally or annually. For instance, Portland, Oregon, is considered a “wet” climate, but the summer is extremely dry. Plants in these urban, constructed wetland must survive extreme variations. A similar garden in Atlanta, Georgia, or Columbus, Ohio, would get significant summer rain.

Actually every rain garden or bioswale has its own “zones” that have different requirements, according to the Virginia Department of Forestry’s Rain Gardens Technical Guide. The guide points out that the center, and deepest, part of the garden best grows the very wet to wet-loving plants. Meanwhile, the middle of the garden’s side takes wet to dry plants, while the upper rim takes drier types of vegetation.

The guide lists other factors affecting the choice of the plants for rain gardens:
• Decide on objectives, such which wildlife you want to attract, then decide on the varieties you would plant to attract those species. [Refer to reference list below]
• The rain garden’s location affects use of fruit-bearing plants and trees, since if it is near the driveway or walkway, it could create messes and maintenance issues. Trees next to a power line or too close to a house are not good choices.
• If the bioswale are near enough to receive runoff from a road that gets chemical treatments for ice in winter, choose plants that tolerant salt.
And then there is actual selection of species and varieties…and a common question, should we plant natives compared to introduced, commercial varieties?

Why Native Plants?
The majority of the web sites that deal with bioswales or rain gardens are also now recommending using natives. So, why is this the accepted trend?

As Withrow-Robison and Johnson point out in the OSU publication Selecting Native Plant Materials for Restoration Projects, “selecting appropriate plant materials for restoration projects helps make any of these projects more successful. They state that, “‘appropriate’ means choosing species that are suitable for the site, are grown from locally adapted sources, and have a solid genetic composition.” In many cases, this leads to using native species.

So, what is a “native plant?” Most definitions say a “native plant” occurs naturally or has existed for many years in an area, and they can be trees, flowers, grasses or any other plants. “Local adapted sources” can mean those plants have adapted to a very limited range, living in unusual environments, under very harsh climates, or growing in unique soil conditions. Yet, while some had a very limited range, many others live in diverse areas or easily adapt to different surroundings.

So, to summarize the strengths of using natives in bioswales and rain gardens.
• First, native plants are better adapted to the local climate. Once planted and established, do tend not to need extra water or fertilizer.
• Secondly, many are deep rooted, allowing them to survive droughts. This is especially important in the Northwest, where the normal wet weather can disappear for several months during the summer months.
• Third, native plants provide habitat and food for native wildlife and, are thus very attractive to the diverse native bees, butterflies, beetles and birds, all important pollinators.

These plants, which include many wildflowers, sedges, rushes, ferns, shrubs and small trees, grow on the edges of natural wetland, also have root systems that enhance infiltration, moisture redistribution, and diverse microbial populations involved in biofiltration.

A key point to remember is that rain gardens, unlike a water garden, will be dry most of the time. Plant selection should include those that tolerate short periods of inundation, but not require constant standing water. In areas that will have moist, well-drained soil, select plants with moderate moisture requirements. For drier sites like the edge of your rain garden, plant species with low or moderate moisture requirements.
Meanwhile, any perennial plants need to be hardy in your growing zone.

Each region has growers of appropriate native and related plants for rain gardens and bioswales.

In fact, some successful growers will collect seed their own seed from the local area. For example, one Oregon native plant producer has collected seed for plants such as snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and twinberry (Lonicera involucrate) in the immediate area, using on a couple of mother plants for each. Another grower collects all her Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) from two trees growing at a nearby park.
See references below for several recommendation lists.

These three urban plant technologies are just part of a wider set of alternative Best Management Practices (BMPs). Many are simple, practical designs, but provide effective storm water management. Some even add aesthetic enhancements to the urban, suburban, and rural landscapes. They can be cost effective to build while providing long-term sustainability for city infrastructure and conservation of a city’s water resources. These include filter strips, grassed swale, green roof, and infiltration basin, planters and trenches.

So, as the cost savings are identified, the demand for specific plant materials should increase. At this point, the trend seems to be moving toward regionalized, native plant materials. Since there are a number of operations already propagating this niche, they may have the best opportunity to benefit from this particular green movement.

References:

The following references are available online and have been updated relatively recently, so they contain more current research and data regarding various plant choices.

• Rain Gardens Technical Guide Virginia Department of Forestry
www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/resources/pub-Rain-Garden-Tech-Guide_2008-05.pdf

• Selecting Native Plant Materials for Restoration Projects by B. Withrow-Robinson and R. Johnson, OSU publication EM 8885-E, November 2006.
extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/em/em8885-e.pdf

• Plants for Stormwater Design
www.wildflower2.org
Native plant database and suppliers directory for North America.

• Rain Gardens Technical Guide – Virginia Department of Forestry
Central Office
900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 800, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
www.dof.virginia.gov
Phone: (434) 977-6555 – Fax: (434) 296-2369
VDOF P00127; 05/2008

• Brooklyn Botanic Gardens, Rain Garden Plants.
This web site offers regionalized lists of suggested plants for rain gardens. Not as extensive as other sites, its easy to use breakdown is a good starting place in identifying plants for an effective design palette. www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/design/2004sp_raingardens.html

• 10,000 Rain Gardens (www.rainkc.com) has an extensive site that features a diverse list of plants for rain garden situations. It also has a search feature that allows criteria selection from five categories, so a nursery could focus first on what it is already growing, expand to closely related varieties, and then look for new opportunities that would fit within existing production systems.

• Bluestem Services: (www.bluestemservices.com) Has numerous plants lists, but two feature nearly 100 plants for rain gardens and wetlands.

Trees Prove Valuable in Several Ways

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 21, 2010  |  No Comments

Several posts ago I mentioned several confirmed environmental benefits of planting trees. The good news keeps coming.

First, a study from the east coast indicates that trees are growing faster, probably due to the increase in CO2. The study, published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concentrated on hardwood stands in Maryland that were representative of east coast tree populations. The work showed trees were growing an additional two tons of plant material per acre annually as the CO2 levels have increased 12% in the last 22 years. This is another indication that plants may yet save the planet. Gaia in action.

Then, a recent article in the Oregonian (Portland, Oregon) cited a recent research study that estimated the added value of having full size trees in a yard was $7000! Of course, as the article points out, there are a lot of added costs. And, your neighbor that shares that shade tree also gains value from it presence…without the costs. I tended to focus more on the fact that trees improve land values, and not the article’s concern that the “neighbor” was not sharing the upkeep costs…only getting the value. This is definitely a positive study for those supporting more trees in our urban/suburban settings. Make them fruit trees and they are even more valuable.

Finally, another book to recommend…Between Earth and Sky by Nalini M. Nadkarni. Not another descriptive collection of trees for yards, this one specifically discusses trees and their “intimate connection” to us. It goes beyond economic value into a more spiritual connection that is demonstrated by our long relationship with trees.

References for New Plant Technologies

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 10, 2010  |  No Comments

This is in response to a comment on this blog’s post on new environmental uses of plants. The visitor had hoped for more specific information on the plants that the “new plant technology” required. When I speak on this topic, I include references that include commonly used plants. So, this is a quick list to help you identify the types of plants used for these new technologies.
Since I work directly with a green roof technology and system manufacturer, I have had exposure to the plants this unique environment requires. Two books will give most readers, and even growers, more than enough to get started. First, is Planting Green Roofs & Living Walls by Nigel Dunnet and Noel Kingsbury. In its second edition, this is a solid basic discussion of green roofs and walls, and contains a useful plant list.
Growers will find Ed Snodgrass’s Green Roof Plants a perfect place to start. Ed runs the most successful green roof plant nursery in the US, and has done much of the heavy lifting to summarize what we know works in green roofs, mainly the extensive or eco-roof models. Once the design moves into an “intensive” stage, it is treated much like any landscape, though the supporting technology is different.
Since an alternative technology for green walls involves wire frameworks covered in fast growing vines and climbing plants. Good resources include the Manual of Climbers and Wall Plants edited by J. K. Burras; and Vines and Climbers: A Gardener’s Guide to the Best Vertical Plants by Allan M. Armitage. All the above books are available through Timber Press at www.timberpress.com.

Green landscaping, restoration work and other ecological projects often focus on using natives, a whole different group of plants with regional differences. One useful publication is Rain Gardens: Managing Water Sustainably in the Garden and Designed Landscape (Timber Press) by Nigel Dunnett and Andy Clayden. Another related text is Wetland Ecosystems (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) by Mitsch, W.J., J.G. Gosselink, C.J. Anderson, and L. Zhang. (2009) A more general text on using natives is Selecting Native Plant Material for Restoration Projects, written by By B. Winthrow-Robinson and R. Johnson . It has additional references and can found at http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/em/em8885-e.pdf. I would suggest contacting your state Extension Service for regional lists of restoration and native plant material.
As I come across other related publications, I will post them on the site. Thanks for the question.

A Landscaper Looks at Sustainability

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 4, 2010  |  No Comments

In my recent post , New Opportunities in Sustainable Landscapes, the discussion centered on new landscape directions for the industry. This post looks at how one landscape firm looks at creating a different landscape, one focused on sounder environmental principles.

“Sustainability does mean change and that’s the reason we are hearing about it all the time,” said David Sandrock, owner of Sustainable Landscapes for the Pacific Northwest, Corvallis, Oregon.
“But, it is an opportunity,” he said during his presentation at last November’s OLCA Expo. “People are looking to us for solutions.”
Sandrock said that “sustainability” is based on several key concepts.
The former Oregon State University professor said the first concept is often used as a definition of sustainability.
“Sustainable action is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs,” he offered.
This, in turn, takes intelligent resource planning, he said, and added that this movement emerged in response to human misbehavior.
“These actions move toward landscapes that we can depend on, not landscapes that depend on us,” he concluded. “It will require a return to the art and science of horticulture.”

Trees Saving the Planet?

Posted by sustainable_hort on February 1, 2010  |  No Comments

The New York Times is reporting that a new research report, being published in today’s issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that trees are growing faster, perhaps in response to the atmosphere’s added carbon dioxide. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/science/earth/02trees.html)
This relates to my last three posts that discussed the increasing role plants will play in solving climate change issues. This plant and planetary reaction seems to confirm some of the Gaia theories of James Lovelock, see site: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis).
So, does this mean that the cooler temperate regions might actually see increased growth of not only the natural vegetation, but agricultural crops as well? There are already early olive ventures in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, moving up from California. Will Oregon start growing oranges next? Or maybe avocados!
Follow this site as we investigate, synthesize and report on the new “plant technologies,” including green roofs, green walls, bioswales, higher respirating plant varieties, plant site placement, etc.

New Opportunities in Sustainable Landscapes

Posted by sustainable_hort on January 30, 2010  |  1 Comment

This article appeared in the Oregon Landscape Contractor’s magazine. It is related to my last post that discussed how growers, retailers and landscapers might take advantage of new “green” trends and technologies. This focuses on how “Sustainable Development Offers New Opportunities for Landscape Contractors.”
And…thanks for your many positive comments on my content. Much more to come.

Many major developers are ‘going green,’ not just for good public relations, but also as an economically beneficial strategy. Innovative landscape firms have a tremendous opportunity to join this effort, position themselves as “green,” and dramatically increase their business.
“These are not little changes, but this is a sea change,” explained landscape architect Paul Morris, speaking at the annual meeting of Oregon Landscape Contractor Association in December. By 2010, industry studies predict a $19 to 38 billion in the residential green building market, he said.
Morris works on planning and sustainable issues for Cherokee Investment Services, Inc., an international development firm. He said that his company has long recognized the many benefits of incorporating sustainable technologies into their projects.
“These are no longer just warm-fuzzy things we’d like to do,” said Morris. “There are calculable benefit costs that can now be identified.”
In fact, his company, with $2 billion in assets, is the leading private investment firm in “brown field” development, working on abandoned and idle industrial and commercial urban sites often with environmental degradation and contamination, distinguished from “green fields,” undeveloped land outside urban areas. It plans to spend $250,000,000 on remediation projects, he said.

New Environmental Technologies Demand Plants

Posted by sustainable_hort on January 24, 2010  |  No Comments

This is an article I wrote about a year ago, but most of it still applies. Those of us that have worked in the plant industry are recognizing that, as the title says…”New Environmental Technologies Demand Plants.”

With both consumers and the nursery industry, 2009’s buzzword is still “green,” with “sustainability” close behind. This is a positive for the nursery industry in several ways.
In last year’s Nursery Book, we looked at how a “green” marketing opportunity was developing, and how some in the industry were responding. This trend only continues to expand as more companies and growers change their practices to match consumer demands.
But, an equally exciting are the new environmental “technologies” that depend, to varying degrees, on plants. Commonly, bioremediation uses wetland plants to clean water and soil. Now, smaller versions, or bioswales, are finding new uses in urban areas. First green roofs, and then newer vertical plant support products are creating a “green envelope” strategy where buildings are literally covered in a plant layer.
Environmental experts are recognizing that these “natural” technologies are actually less expensive than “hard” (concrete) alternatives. They can pay for themselves in reasonable timeframes and produce long-term savings. Even large corporations that deal in huge reclamation and developments have adopted these technologies because they work, and, more important, are cost effective.
“These are no longer just warm-fuzzy things we’d like to do,” said Paul Morris a landscape architect that works on planning and sustainable issues for Cherokee Investment Services, Inc., an international development firm. “There are calculable benefit costs that can now be identified.”
Innovative landscape firms have a tremendous opportunity to join this effort, position themselves as “green,” and dramatically increase their business.