Evaluation 3 Evaluation Date: 30 May, 2012. Evaluators: Claudia Green. Committee Summary: Growth has been variable in this planting but the trees seem to have improved since the last evaluation. Interestingly the trees at the top end of the street are considerably healthier, with denser and darker foliage than those further down including the evaluated tree. The only obvious site differences are the slope of the road and the fact that the top of the street is enclosed on both sides with taller buildings. Why this would increase growth in those trees is unclear but it is possible that the extra shelter from wind has improved their growing conditions. Other possibilities include higher moisture levels and possible waterlogging in trees down the slope negatively affecting their growth and general health. The healthy trees at the top of the street are a good example of this species potential as an elegant street tree. Management Inputs: None apparent. Maintenance Requirements: Pruning for shape and removal of underplanting to reduce root and resource competition. Look into reasons for performance variation and address these differences. Technical information Foliage Length: 340mm. Foliage Width: 180mm. Foliage Density: Fair to good. Foliage Colour: Good - some brown tips. Tree Height: 5 metres (variable). Tree Width: 3.5 metres (variable). Caliper: 110mm (variable). Self Supporting: Yes. Visible Roots: None. Visible Pests: None. Limb Structure: Fair to good. Soil Type: Dark Grey Sand over Clay Clay sub soil, top soil whether dry moist or wet. Non sticky, in winter perched waterable may occur above the clay, affecting drainage.

Evaluation 2 Evaluation Date: 2 May, 2007. Evaluators: Ian Rogers, Nick Archer, Ian Brown. Committee Summary: These Jacarandas have not progressed in any degree from the initial evaluation apart from some width and branch development. The trees were also questioned as to their species, and it was agreed that they are actually acutifolia not mimosifolia. All specimens are planted in cut outs off the footpath. Container Size: 100 litre. Planting Date: Winter 2001. Maintenance Requirements: Suggestion to take out underplanting, possible irrigation required. Technical information Foliage Density: Very good. Foliage Colour: Very good. Tree Height: 4.0 metres, variable along the street. Tree Width: 2.0 metres. Caliper: 50 mm. Self Supporting: Yes. Support Notes: The cut outs are underplanted with grasses which are inhibiting the extension growth potential. Visible Roots: None evident. Visible Pests: None evident. Limb Structure: Typical for species. Soil Type: Dark Grey Sand over Clay Clay sub soil, top soil whether dry moist or wet. Non sticky, in winter perched waterable may occur above the clay, affecting drainage.

Evaluation 1 Evaluation Date: 10 Nov, 2003. Evaluators: Nick Archer, Stewart Campbell, Mick Dalton, Meg Jones. Committee Summary: These trees were planted prior to a hot summer season and have established well into the soil conditions on site. Extension growth, however, has been minimal indicating the requirement for further irrigation and/or liquid nutrition. It is expected that these trees will contribute significantly to this landscape. Container Size: 100 Litre. Planting Date: Winter, 2001. Management Inputs: Irrigated for 2 years after planting. Maintenance Requirements: It was suggested that an application of liquid nutrition may assist the performance of these trees. Technical information Foliage Length: na. Foliage Width: na. Foliage Density: na. Foliage Colour: na. Tree Height: 3.5 - 4.0 metres. Tree Width: 1.0 metre (approx). Caliper: 45 - 55 mm. Self Supporting: Yes. Visible Roots: None. Visible Pests: Aphid damage visible on selected trees. Limb Structure: Apical dominance lost on selected trees. Minimal extension growth observed. Soil Type: Dark Grey Sand over Clay Clay sub soil, top soil whether dry moist or wet. Non sticky, in winter perched waterable may occur above the clay, affecting drainage.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Information contained herein is presented for information purposes only with the sole intention of providing a forum for general information sharing relating to the urban street tree evaluation undertaken and observed by a number of participants and interested third parties. All information is believed to be correct and is the result of private enquiries and experiences and is given in good faith and, as such, the accuracy of this information is not warranted in any way. The information on this site is current at the date of publication but may be subject to change without notice. AUSTEP® and every person / party associated with the production of or contribution to this website disclaims all liability for loss suffered as a result of reliance on the matters set out in this document. Any user of this information should seek their own independent advice. Please refer to the 'Terms of Use' on this website (http://www.austep.net.au/terms_of_use.asp).