That was my thought as well. Wildlife has adapted to the city life, but changing how trees work will definitely have unintended consequences.
If like the other comments note, the impact is lost within a few generations, it's of less risk. However, if that's not true and it starts to spread, we could be looking at a serious problem.
Personally, I don't know of how much benefit this is given the low consumption of LEDs. The trees will need energy from somewhere, so their requirements for soil/nutrients will likely be a lot greater than the current tree population, resulting in need to fertilize/upkeep. This could end up being a lot more expensive than LED light poles using electricity.
Environmental impact from the need for more nutrients/fertilizer could be significant as well.
I think it depends on city density. Many streets in SF have about as many trees as light poles, so you'd probably have to replace all those with the glowing ones to make enough light.
If like the other comments note, the impact is lost within a few generations, it's of less risk. However, if that's not true and it starts to spread, we could be looking at a serious problem.
Personally, I don't know of how much benefit this is given the low consumption of LEDs. The trees will need energy from somewhere, so their requirements for soil/nutrients will likely be a lot greater than the current tree population, resulting in need to fertilize/upkeep. This could end up being a lot more expensive than LED light poles using electricity.
Environmental impact from the need for more nutrients/fertilizer could be significant as well.