A city forester I know told me after her city's annual tree sale, she was left with an abundance of unsold bur oak trees. This surprised her, as bur oak is a beautiful, native tree. Could it be that bur oaks are perceived as a slow grower and rejected?

Several studies of tree rings have found that the oldest surviving trees are those that have maintained relatively slow growth throughout their lives. This finding is surprising because faster growth makes bigger plants, which one might imagine would survive better, but the cost of faster growth seems to be poorer resistance to stress. Trees that grow fast invest little in wood strength, chemical defenses or strong compartmentalization (closing a wound) response. The strategy of fast growers is to survive as long as they can add new wood faster than decay fungi can digest it. Those that grow fast, live only decades before they decay and die. Slow-growing individuals stored away resources that faster growing ones used in growth and, under stressful conditions, the savers had an edge in recovery over the spenders. Ginkgo, for example, is not bothered by any known disease or pest vs. honeylocust which has a disease rap sheet a mile long. Perhaps it is not surprising that chemically defended species live longer than their chemically defenseless relatives. The rule seems to be "Live fast, die young".

So next time you need to make a decision about what tree to plant, remember faster is not always better.