Talking Trees: UVM Professors Weigh in on the Myriad Meanings of Trees

Walking about the University of Vermont’s campus, one will find it difficult to avoid encountering rooted beings of various shapes and sizes, whose animated limbsconvey their unique expressions to anyone willing to grant even a passing glance. University students across the country all have the privilege of participating in higher education, but here at UVM with a human population of about 13,000, we are also especially lucky to share our community with over 2,500 selfless contemporaries—the trees. Often we forget that trees are not simply passive structures that exist independently of ourselves, but are trulydynamic, active creatures that influence life around them. The trees on campus assist in providing the natural, welcoming, and tranquil atmosphere that has come to define UVM, but their value is not relegated to the campus borders. In fact, three UVM professors—plant and soil science professor Mark Starrett, natural resources professor Justin Waskiewicz, and Joshua Farley, an ecological economist and community development and applied economics professor—were interviewed about the relationship between trees and humans here at UVM and the world beyond, revealing deeper insights about the significance of trees in our lives.

Mark Starrett

Professor Mark Starrett’s expertise is in horticulture and plant pathology, specifically woody ornamental landscape plants and their propagation. To frame the interview, we began by asking about his first formative experience with trees as well as his favorite tree. He recounted, “A big storm came up and the giant weeping willow tree toppled over in our backyard and crushed our swing set. It was very memorable and made me think more about the trees in our yard.” His favorite tree is the Ginkgo because he is“amazed at how it is a survivor over millions of years, is a relatively pest-free tree, with edible seeds and beautiful yellow fall foliage. It is also a ‘survivor tree’ being the only tree in Hiroshima, Japan to survive the atomic bomb that was dropped there in WWII.”

This theme of survival was also broached when Professor Starrett was asked what he believes trees mean to people. “Trees often mean, ‘life,’” Starrett remarked, “but if you look back through history, you will see that humans have dominated trees and there has been much clear-cutting that has changed the entire landscape of certain countries like Scotland and Ireland or Easter Island. When the trees fail, often the civilization fails. This is also happening in South America at present.” However, he made it a point not to discount the importance of the ideal of mutualism, or interdependence between two species. He asserted, “If humans respected the trees, it would allow for us to continue to prosper on this earth, but without it, the human civilization will, in time, fail.”

We then asked about Professor Starrett’s thoughts on human-tree interactions here on campus, and received another espousal of the hard truth. Starrett explained, “Despite being a newly recognized, ‘Tree Campus USA’ university, UVM’s track record with trees is not the best. When a building needs to be constructed, the existing trees are given little regard. On the flip side of this, UVM does seem committed to replacing the trees removed during construction with new ones, but if you look around campus, there are very few ‘stately trees’ [impressive in appearance or age]. This is mostly attributed to the lack of preservation of trees during construction, and some is attributed to the ice storm of 1998 which severely damaged many older trees.”

However, Professor Starrett is very optimistic about recent tree-related research and projects he is involved in. He is currently working on the end stages of a 10 year nationwide study “looking at American elm selections resistant to Dutch elm disease [which] wiped out many American elms in the 1960’s across the U.S.” He also looked into grafting of sugar maples onto salt tolerant maples to see if the sugar maple could be made a more salt-tolerant tree, finding that though damage still occurred, the sycamore maple roots have become more tolerant of adverse soils.

The interview concluded with Professor Starrett describing his perception of the ideal tree-human relationship, and his opinion on how our current position measures up. He explained, “I think other cultures tend to respect and revere stately trees much more so than Americans do. European cultures are steeped in a much greater history than we are in America and that is dually reflected in how trees are valued there compared to here.Americans tend to think of the here and now. I guess I am a pessimist, but I don’t see that changing any time soon.”

Professor Starrett teaches Home and Garden Horticulture (PSS 010), Woody Landscape Plants (PSS 125), and Commercial Plant Propagation (PSS 138).

Justin Waskiewicz

Professor Justin Waskiewicz also had an enlightening take on the subject. His expertise is in forestry, specifically silviculture which is the art and science of managing stands of trees to meet multiple objectives over the long term. He described his first formative experience with trees: “When I was about five or six, my Dad—himself a forester—took me out to see a stand of big, old-growth white pine. I’ve seen much bigger trees since then, but at the time they were the most impressive, beautiful, towering things– unlike anything else I knew.” His favorite tree is red pine because, “it is so different from the other trees native to this region, and because I have fond memories of camping among red pines in the Adirondacks,” he said.

Also slightly cynical about the state of affairs regarding current human-tree relationships, Waskiewicz said, “For most people, I think trees are background—not something they think about, hardly ever, but that they expect to have around without realizing they expect it.For most trees, the relationship to humans is, frankly, a prey-predator relationship—we benefit from them, mostly at their expense. Some species, however, have unquestionably benefitted from humans, especially among those used for landscape planting, but some forestry species too.”

As for the value of trees to people, Waskiewicz explained, “Our management of trees yields all manner of tangible and intangible benefits to individuals and to society. For better or worse, ecosystems are altered by our management, too. If trees are maintained, then all the other plants and animals that use them are also maintained, even if not a direct subject of management. Even an intensively-managed plantation forest has far more conservation value than does a subdivision. In this way, the economic value of forests can be a force for conservation.”

When we discussed his thoughts about interactions here on campus, he did not hold back. “I’m disappointed at how few big trees there are on such an old campus—basically just the ones on the green—almost all the other trees on campus are pretty young, and also by some of the species choices. There are so many interesting tree species that are suitable in this environment, [with] the potential to develop the sense of permanence that I think an institution like this should cultivate. Most folks on campus, though, probably don’t consciously notice or care. Trees are background—like lawn and buildings and sidewalks. Most don’t think about them as long as they’re functioning.”

As for the ideal relationship between humans and trees, Waskiewicz described it as, “largely give-take, outside of urban and some forestry planting—and even then, these are arguably ‘takes’ from whatever species would otherwise be occupying those sites. The worst ‘taking’ is destructive cutting— logging which damages the soil, injures residual trees, or leaves only weak, small, or undesirable species. Forests are remarkably resilient, but can definitely be abused. Careful and thoughtful harvesting, in which the primary concern is the condition of what is left behind rather than the value of what is removed, has the potential to sustain and improve the land and its capacity to meet our needs as well as those of healthy ecosystems.”

Despite the harsh realities Professor Waskiewicz revealed, he left us with a sense of enduring optimism for the future as he explained his own relationship to trees:“To me, they’re important because they’re beautiful. That’s what it comes down to, with or without acknowledging all of the important and interesting things about them. Their beauty is what keeps me looking at them and caring about them and wanting to know more every day.”

Professor Waskiewicz teaches Dendrology (FOR 021) and Multi-Resource Silviculture (FOR 285).

Joshua Farley

Professor Joshua Farley also espoused strong beliefs on the vital importance of trees to human life and warned of the great consequences that will result if we continue to collectively damage this relationship. Professor Farley is an ecological economist, specializing in agro ecology and agroforestry—specifically rainforest restoration for the last three years. “I used to just plant seeds, but now I am looking for resources to make it happen on a broad scale,” he explained.

Before we got into these details, we also asked Professor Farley about his most significant experiences with trees. He expressed planting trees in general as genuinely molding his future conception of them. When he was eight years old, his family bought an old potato farm that had been totally degraded by blight. “We bought it extremely cheaply, hopped on the tractor and planted 10,000 seedlings on it as a family,” he explained.

He was also impacted by the destruction wrought by Dutch elm disease, as he recalled, “We lived on a street that was hit extremely hard and left completely barren. But Dad was a nut and went around asking people if they wanted trees, and started massive replanting in the neighborhood. He ended up planting so many that an older lady nearby would rather cross the street than walk down our sidewalk forest. People kind of thought my dad was crazy, but he really had a vision. He understood the inherent value of trees and just wanted to share that with the world. Later, I ended up doing work in Australian rainforest restoration and aided the construction of shade houses. This was like gardening on a mega scale and definitely a formative experience that helped instilled the value of the right trees, in the right place, at the right times, for the right reasons.”

Despite some difficulty on trying to pinpoint a favorite tree, Professor Farley settled on the giant strangler fig. He said, “You can climb up 80 or 90 feet inside the dead tree and look out of the holes. They are these huge 130 foot trees whose long hanging roots choke out the tree underneath, leaving a huge hollow host and a gorgeous lattice work of fig. Also, because I’m a woodworker, the wood honestly just fascinates me.”

He went on to speak about the mutualism that exists between trees and humans, saying, “I seriously follow the work of evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson who studied the effects of cooperation on evolution. He found that groups that were most cooperative out competed other groups and ecosystems with the most selfish species collapse. Ecosystems by definition emerge from the interaction of various forces and species, and depend on cooperation for survival. Thus, on the macro level, Earth functions as a ‘group,’ and successful homeostasis is achieved when all species interact in harmony. We absolutely could not survive without trees, however trees could definitely survive without us.”

Furthermore, Farley explained that trees are also invaluable for humans on the micro scale. He emphatically asserted, “Trees are the most sustainable building material ever developed, or harnessed by humans. They are not only a building source though and are also a source of energy and have great aesthetic value. They meet essential needs for food, fiber, energy, and are essential in life sustaining processes. We could not have built civilization without them. Additionally, biophilia [the instinctive bond between humans and other living things] is a crucial aspect of the human condition. Basically, we evolved to recognize some ecosystems are more conducive to survival than others, and we respond most positively to areas with water and trees which provide a sense of tranquility. For example, studies have proven that hospital patients with a window looking out toward a countryside or natural environment heal much faster than those with views of urban settings.”

When asked about his perception of tree relations here on campus, Farley had a positive outlook. He articulated, “I definitely see students congregate under the trees, and I believe exposure to trees and nature is incredibly important to development. In the absence of trees and nature, people don’t develop the capacity to appreciate or understand their environment. This understanding is very much linked to well-being, and I think a lot of students come here and learn this—either choosing the campus for its natural atmosphere that is very different from their home, or because they have already discovered their need for such exposure and found exactly what they were looking for here at UVM.”

Professor Farley has also taken part in many large scale agroforestry efforts across the globe, specifically describing his past work in the wet tropics region of Australia as well as current efforts at reforestation and simultaneous economic development in Brazil. Farley expounded upon recent work saying, “I am currently working in agroforestry and applying for grants to get resources to help farmers in Brazil adopt more sustainable agricultural practices. We are trying to encourage the growth of 60-80 species of trees with economic value ranging from shade, use for charcoal, timber, or as a source of food. The most valuable we are propagating is [an Acai cultivar] which produces an incredibly healthy and delicious berry, related to the fruit that has become kind of a fad food here. We want farmers to reforest with this tree to help provide shade for cattle, erosion buffers, and water filtration. We want to shift the mindset and show them that these trees will actually be more profitable than putting more cattle in these zones. The goal of this project is to restore the Atlantic forests of Brazil, which are 93 percent depleted and without massive restoration the whole ecosystem will collapse. These forests prevent landslides and flooding, and we are about to cross a critical threshold past which these life sustaining services may be beyond saving.”

Farley’s experiences clearly speak to his solution to the degradation of our global ecosystem as he asserted, “To create positive and sustainable environmental change, we need to become culturally attuned to the value of trees, we often just don’t realize how much we depend on them.”

Professor Farley’s take on the ideal representation of mutualism would be to “completely recognize that trees are essential to our survival and that we as humans also have a significant emotional attachment to them.” He offered the example that in forested cities, trees not only provide shade which reduces cooling costs, but also create better microclimates for people and boost morale as well as societal productivity.

Farley then offered his take on ameliorating the global predicament we have found ourselves in concerning environmental destruction. “We need to realize collectively that every time we convert a tree into an economic product, we sacrifice these other inherent values. Cutting down a tree now comes at the detrimental cost to future generations and our current economic system does not acknowledge the proper value of nature’s systems, nor have any regard for future generations. We have been straying from the ideal relationship by attempting to assign a monetary value to forests, but the market simply cannot manage this resource. How much forest we need to save from consumption in our economy is a moral and ethical choice, not one of market efficiency—a term we are becoming increasingly obsessed with at the detriment to nature.”

He continued, “When we acknowledge the true value of nature and the rights of future generations to have access to clean air, water, and properly functioning ecosystem services, we will realize that we cannot integrate nature into the market. Nature is the whole and the market should be a small constituent. Only when we can determine and carry out a just distribution of natural resources can we then safely integrate the market.”

Farley concluded by expounding upon the failures of the modern paradigm concerning human-tree relations. “Up to the present, we have been acting under the auspices of only humans and only now matter.We have systematically favored conversion over conservation, but natural resources and the services they provide cannot be owned by individuals. The benefits they offer to society, as well as the costs incurred when they are destroyed, are equally shared by all. Our current economic vision was shaped at a time when forest cover was immense and no one had to worry about scarcity, or the dangers associated with it. But now we do, and we must not only worry about it collectively, but also work together to do something about it.”