Yards increase forest connectivity in urban landscapes
Tree canopy connectivity is important for supporting biodiversity. In urban landscapes, empirical examinations of habitat connectivity often overlook residential land, though yards and gardens often comprise a large portion of urban forests.
We quantify structural composition (patches and paths), connectivity and fragmentation of an entire tree canopy network spanning 1220 Boston’s neighborhoods to assess the configuration of the urban forest potentially affecting tree-dependent wildlife species, such as some birds and arboreal mammals.
The urban landscape was classified by land use, and residential yards were further subdivided into front yards, backyards, and corner yards. Structural composition, connectivity and fragmentation of the tree canopy was assessed using morphological spatial pattern and network analysis. Canopy metrics were then related to the land use of 349,305 property parcels.
Back yard tree canopy cover was 65.23%. The majority of canopy links were on residential land (60.95% total), and particularly in backyards. Back yards contained the highest number of canopy fragments (48.65% total). Fragmentation of the canopy network peaked at ~ 23% of total canopy cover. Canopy fragmentation, distance among patches and their shape complexity were lower in neighborhoods with more tree canopy.
The important role that yards have in sustaining canopy connectivity across urban landscapes poses challenges and opportunities. Urban land management and planning need to protect connectivity links within urban forests when located on private residential realm. A prioritization strategy aimed at expanding urban tree cover could focus on yards to ensure that urban landscape connectivity is maintained and increased.
KeywordsUrban forest Fragmentation Urban habitat Trees Landscape structure Socio-ecological systems
Authors kindly acknowledge MASS-GIS and the City of Boston for providing geospatial datasets. The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875 supported this work. Findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the Authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or US Government determination or policy. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- Baker PJ, Harris S (2007) Urban mammals: what does the future hold? An analysis of the factors affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain. Mamm Rev 37:297–315Google Scholar
- Bates AJ, Sadler J, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, Baker D, Bridge M, Freestone R, Gardner D, Gibson C, Hemming R, Howarth S, Orridge S, Shaw M, Tams T, Young H (2014) Garden and landscape-scale correlates of moths of differing conservation status: significant effects of urbanization and habitat diversity. PLoS ONE 9(1):e86925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086925 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- City of Boston (2017) Analyze Boston portal. https://data.boston.gov/. Accessed 1 Sept 2017
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2017) MASSgis. https://docs.digital.mass.gov/massgis. Accessed 1 Sept 2017
- Danford RS, Cheng C, Strohbach MW, Ryan R, Nicolson C, Warren PS (2014) What does it take to achieve equitable urban tree canopy distribution? A Boston case study. Cities Environ 7: Article 2Google Scholar
- Kenney WA, Van Wassenaer PJE, Satel AL (2011) Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboric Urban For 37:108–117Google Scholar
- Lin BB, Fuller RA (2013) FORUM: sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world’s cities? J App Ecol 50:1161–1168Google Scholar
- Locke DH, Roy Chowdhury R, Grove JM, Martin DG, Goldman E, Rogan J, Groffman P (2018) Social norms, yard care, and the difference between front and back yard management: examining the landscape mullets concept on urban residential lands. Soc Nat Resour. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1481549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ossola A, Schifman L, Herrmann DL, Garmestani AS, Schwarz K, Hopton ME (2018) The provision of urban ecosystem services throughout the private-social-public domain: a conceptual framework. Cities Environ (CATE) 11:5Google Scholar
- PRISM Climate Group (2015) 30-year Normals. http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Accessed 26 Sept 2016
- Roman LA, Pearsall H, Eisenman TS, Conway TM, Fahey R, Landry S, Vogt J, Van Doorn NS, Grove M, Locke DH, Bardekjian AC, Battles JJ, Cadenasso ML, ven den Bosch CK, Avolio M, Berland A, Jenerette D, Mincey SK, Pataki DE, Staudhammer CL (2018) Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: a literature synthesis. Urban For Urban Green 31:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537Google Scholar
- US Census Bureau (2015). Geographic areas reference manual (GARM). https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch11GARM.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2019