• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Anyone know what type of tree this is?

 
Dan Koetter
Posts: 7
Location: New York
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Anyone know what type of tree this is?






BTW I took this pictures on an Autumn tree tour In Brooklyn with a New York Permaculture group. If anyone would like to see more pictures of the trees from the tour I wrote an article about it.

http://www.gridrebellion.com/2014/11/food-sustainablilty/permaculture-and-food-forests/urban-permaculture-tour/
 
Penny Dumelie
gardener
Pie
Posts: 194
Location: AB, Canada (Zone 4a - Canadian Badlands)
13
bee chicken food preservation forest garden fungi goat hugelkultur rabbit trees
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It could be a type of Saskatoon.
 
Denis Huel
Posts: 88
4
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It looks like Amur Corktree, Phellodendron amurense which is considered invasive in some areas including New York.
 
Dan Koetter
Posts: 7
Location: New York
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Denis Huel wrote:It looks like Amur Corktree, Phellodendron amurense which is considered invasive in some areas including New York.


Sure does look like it from the picture on Wikipedia. If so it has quite a few medicinal properties. I wouldn't doubt a lot of Chinese immigrants use spaces like this to plant some of the native species from their country.
 
siu-yu man
Posts: 99
Location: zone 6a, north america
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
wow, look at that, another dastardly "invasive" with supposedly super-medicinal properties

"Amur cork tree bark has a strong bitter taste and is best known as diuretic and cooling herb that stimulates the liver and gall bladder. It has been used traditionally to lower fever and to reduce blood pressure and blood sugar levels.

It has a strong antibacterial effect and has been used internally to treat diarrhea, dysentery, enteritis, vaginal infections, acute urinary tract infections, abscesses, tumors, jaundice, night sweats and skin diseases"

http://www.herbal-supplement-resource.com/amur-cork-tree.html

also, "A yellow plant color can be obtained from the tree’s inner bark. Oil can be extracted from the seeds and used as an herbal insecticide. The wood is hard and strong and is used in furniture making. The bark is often used as a substitute for cork."

sounds pretty useful. here's an interesting article on its invasive qualities:

http://blogs.nybg.org/plant-talk/2012/02/science/feb-7-ecology-of-a-new-england-forest-and-its-invasion-by-a-non-native-tree-species/

"Once established, other Amur cork trees cluster around the original specimen and colonize the area. In this way the Amur cork tree is spreading rapidly through the forest.

Another reason why the Amur cork tree is on the rise is because it is not being targeted by foraging deer. While deer will occasionally browse on this exotic species, they generally prefer native species. The only native tree that Morgan observed to be on the increase in the New England woodland areas is the American beech, which is actually deer resistant and has a suckering habit."

so it behaves like the beech without the suckers but with possible supposed alleopathic qualities (further down in article). what i don't understand is, if both species produce a monoculture if left undisturbed, why the beech is okay and the amur is not okay, other than the beech is "native" and amur is "exotic".

it would seem to me that, as long as one is practicing proper land management, one would want any tree sapling that isn't going to be eaten to death before it has a chance to develop into maturity. in the case of the amur, it seems that proper land management would be to harvest the females for useful purposes (of which there are many) and leave the males. at least with the amur, there is not a suckering issue, like with the beech.
 
Russell Olson
Posts: 179
Location: Zone 4 MN USA
10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I saw a few of these here in MN on the University of MN campus, I had no idea what it was. I thought walnut for sure.
Worth growing? The fruits are pretty nasty smelling very similar to black walnut fruit, I'd bet it's allelopathic.
Interestingly one of the three trees on campus over there was dying pretty dramatically with some disease so they're not bulletproof invasives.
 
Mike Haych
Posts: 216
Location: Eastern Canada, Zone 5a
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
siu-yu man wrote:so it behaves like the beech without the suckers but with possible supposed alleopathic qualities (further down in article). what i don't understand is, if both species produce a monoculture if left undisturbed, why the beech is okay and the amur is not okay, other than the beech is "native" and amur is "exotic".

it would seem to me that, as long as one is practicing proper land management, one would want any tree sapling that isn't going to be eaten to death before it has a chance to develop into maturity. in the case of the amur, it seems that proper land management would be to harvest the females for useful purposes (of which there are many) and leave the males. at least with the amur, there is not a suckering issue, like with the beech.


When it goes to seed, it produces immense numbers of seedlings that choke out everything else - http://www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=5479311
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic