It looks like this company, link below..

The tree the company was supposed to cut down still has to go. The Park Service says it's dead and could fall during a storm. The question they have is should they keep this contractor or hire someone they consider more reliable.

This is a question?

There are Maple people and there are Oak people. I'm a Ginkgo for sure.

That is the tree I'd select to be planted near my burial site if I had a choice.

So do urban-adapted trees, for longer, for urban-adapted fauna.

What is urban adapted fauna? Squirrels?

I agree that urban landscapes aren't natural.

sometimes non-native trees fill that niche in a more healthy manner not only for the tree but bugs and birds

What non-native trees fill that niche for native bugs? I agree that birds probably do eat some non-native plant berries. But bugs are a huge part of bird diets, both as adults and for chicks. Bugs eat native plants, non-native ones not very much. Reduce the amount of native plants in an urban area and you reduce the bug population and that reduces the bird population.

As I said, A native tree has at least some chance to contribute to the natural environment in terms of food support for bugs and birds.

Non-native trees have very little chance that I know of. But I'm willing to be enlightened.

The technical term is "synanthropic" - tolerating or living with humans.

Nurtered landscapes are much different environments and trees in these landscapes must tolerate being open-grown, crappy soils, dry, hot, etc etc etc.

Just because it is native doesn't mean it is suited.

I agree! I wouldn't put a Carolina silverbell in a hot urban environment exposed to pollution from nearby traffic. But I might put another ash or an oak or a maple that is native to the mid-Atlantic.

Point is, it's not so simple.

Arktrees

Of course the designer would want to consider native trees that are a) urban tolerant and b) well suited for the region.

Sure generalist insects have more capacity to adapt. But the vast majority of insects are not generalists.

There was a recent study done on raising generalist insect larvae on equal batches on native and non-native plants ... I'll see if I can find it. Bottom line, the insects failed to thrive when raised on the non-native foliage. They didn't all die, but they produced fewer adults and the ones they did produce were not as robust as those raised on the native foliage.

Bottom line, planting non-native trees vs. native trees reduces the insect population. We can argue by "how much", but it definitely reduces it. And that reduces bird populations as well.

Artrees

And yes, wxDano, I hope that designers today are more likely to choose native trees by design. Thanks to continued discussion by those that advocate native plants for a variety of reasons, city, county, state and federal requirements are more including some consideration of native species.

For many years, choices like gingko, Asian cherries, Asian ornamental pears, goldenrain, and non-native conifers, crape myrtles, and Japanese maples were the trees of choice in landscaped areas, even in parks and "natural" areas Perhaps the trend is turning back to natives by design now. We have beautiful and unique native trees in North America, I am always glad to see them used and appreciated in professional designs.

And yes calliope, non-native bugs, blights, fungi and diseases have wreaked havoc on many of our natives once they got imported here. Those were unfortunately a by-product of bringing plant material from other places; the chestnut blight, for example, came in on an Asian chestnut stock that was brought over as a new landscape plant. Their ability to eat and affect the American cousins of their host plant was unfortunate.

It is a bonus if you can get natives to survive in urban altered landscapes. Generally in large cities, you try and preserve corridors and exclude invasives in order to have native fauna move around and survive in refugia. Very difficult and costly to do as the land-use intensity increases. And with the direction that the Landscape Architecture field is going in, the job becomes even harder.

"Ideals are like the stars: we never reach them, but like the mariners of the sea, we chart our course by them." -- Schurz

Just because it was published does not mean it was a good study....
Case in point - The authors compare Norway Maple to Black Cherry stating that the Maple was an inferior host. True, but a more accurate comparison might have been Black Cherry to Sweet Cherry OR Norway Maple to Silver Maple. Over and over again, cross genus comparison were made to support the hypothesis.
While clearly there are non-native trees that are remarkably insect resistant one should not forget that the same applies to many native species.

The native/non-native argument is complex and must be addressed appropriately for each context. One is not always better than the other.....

"insect resistant" isn't the concept. It is "unpalatable" or "inedible", meaning the plant does not support insect life (herbivore) in the new land in which it lives.

What native American species are unpalatable to insects in their native environment? Now, I will agree that if you plant Colorado blue spruce in Georgia, for example, you won't have many native insects eating it because they were left behind in Colorado. But a Georgia native plant should have an insect herbivore eating it while living in the area of Georgia that is native.

The native/non-native argument is complex and must be addressed appropriately for each context.

Absolutely agree. This all started with a simple wish: I hope they plant a native tree in place of it.

Prior to doing so (planting a native tree), of course much consideration needed to be done. I never said it (consideration) wouldn't/shouldn't be done.

I didn't see any problems with the paper esh provided. Rather workmanlike and professional.

This is what I am getting at, not only can alien insects thrive on our native trees, our native insects can thrive on alien trees. It works both ways. I'm in your camp actually about introduced species, but pandora's box is already open now. Yes, yes, yes there are overused non-native trees and many of them are weeds when they reach our shores. I live near a city where urban planting is rife with bradford pear they replace and replace as they die. Burning bushes run ramplant through the landscapes from escape from gardens. We absolutely need to rethink it and I support that movement. But it lacks credibility when it's applied too broadly to an either/or choice.

1. Never saw an Asian Magnolia that the Magnolia Scale didn't like.
2. White Pine Weevil isn't particularly discriminating...attacking Norway Spruce, Blue Spruce, Austrian Pine, Scots Pine
3. Wouldn't want to the the Eastern Spruce Budworm escape North America...it's quite happy on ~60 conifer species.
4. Fall Webworm is a fine example of a generalist. Doesn't really care if your Walnut, Cherry, Birch, or Apple is an immigrant or not.

Insects, especially generalists, are well adapted to feeding off non-native species in the same genera as their native host plants.

If you need an example of adaptability, turn the tables around...the Fall Webworm is doing very well feeding on those same exotic trees on their home turf in Europe and Asia. The most damaging alien insect pests in North America also demonstrate an adaptability to exotic hosts...proven by their continued success here and aggravated by the lack of biological controls.