The future is FEMALE trees
Botanical sexism is slowly suffocating us
t
he battle between genders is a tale as old as time, but could you imagine this debate has even involved plants? That’s right; plants can experience gender bias, a discourse that happens much more frequently than you think. Botanical sexism, a term coined by American horticulturist and allergy researcher Tom Ogren, could be why our seasonal allergies have become unbearable. Firstly, botanical sexism, Ogren argues, refers to planting practices in urban areas where pollen-producing male plants are favored over pollen-absorbing female plants. Ogren contends that a large influx of male plants preferred over female ones leads to a higher concentration of pollen making illnesses like allergies and asthma more substantial. Trees can be one of three sexes: monecious, dioecious males, or dioecious females. With dioecious trees, the male and female flowers appear separately. Monecious trees can produce both flowers. Although many trees can be multi-sex, many single-sex male trees contribute to illness aggravated by an abnormal amount of pollen. Male trees are marketed as less maintenance and messy, resulting in them consistently being planted at more significant amounts. But are they as convenient as they seem?
Despite this, urban planners nationwide find female trees too complicated. I know, triggering; we have all been female trees at some point. VeryWell Health News says this has been happening for over 60 years. In 1949, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a yearbook of agriculture recommending replanting only male plants for specific species so that cities would not have to worry about cleaning fallen seeds and fruit from female trees. They stated that the pollen seeds from male trees would be easier to deal with than seed pods from the opposite gender. The issue with pollen is that it just falls and clings to all surfaces without female trees to absorb it. As reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pollen contributes to symptoms for nearly 60 million people in the United States with seasonal allergies and 25 million with asthma. Because emission is so closely related to environmental factors, climate change could influence an influx of pollen production and lead to a rising number of people impacted by allergenic diseases. Other factors like climate change only aggravate this issue, as rising global temperatures are causing poor air quality and the extension of allergy season to last an extra 20 days. Climate variability will drive longer and more severe pollen seasons. Following a journal published by Nature Communications in May of 2022, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels may promote an influx of pollen production.