Advertisement

Yards increase forest connectivity in urban landscapes

  • Alessandro OssolaEmail author
  • Dexter Locke
  • Brenda Lin
  • Emily Minor
Research Article

Abstract

Context

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.

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Urban forest Fragmentation Urban habitat Trees Landscape structure Socio-ecological systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_923_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 5038 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. Baker PJ, Ansell RJ, Dodds PAA, Webber CE, Harris S (2003) Factors affecting the distribution of small mammals in an urban area. Mamm Rev 33:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Belaire JA, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2014) Having our yards and sharing them too: the collective effects of yards on native bird species in an urban landscape. Ecol Appl 24:2132–2143PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Beninde J, Veith M, Hochkirch A (2015) Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol Lett 18:581–592PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigsby KM, McHale MR, Hess GR (2014) Urban morphology drives the homogenization of tree cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC. Ecosystems 17:212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boal CW, Mannan RW (1998) Nest-site selection by Cooper’s hawks in an urban environment. J Wildl Manag 62:864–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braaker S, Moretti M, Boesch R, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Bontadina F (2014) Assessing habitat connectivity for ground-dwelling animals in an urban environment. Ecol Appl 24:1583–1595PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter N, Cooke R, White JG, Whisson DA, Isaac B, Bradsworth N (2019) Joining the dots: how does an apex predator move through an urbanizing landscape? Glob Ecol Conserv 17:e00532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casalegno S, Anderson K, Cox DTC, Hancock S, Gaston KJ (2017) Ecological connectivity in the three-dimensional urban green volume using waveform airborne lidar. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45571 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. City of Boston (2017) Analyze Boston portal. https://data.boston.gov/. Accessed 1 Sept 2017
  12. Colding J (2007) ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 81(1):46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2017) MASSgis. https://docs.digital.mass.gov/massgis. Accessed 1 Sept 2017
  14. Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:19–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coughlin RE, Mendes DC, Strong AL (1988) Local programs in the United States for preventing the destruction of trees on private land. Landsc Urban Plan 15:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Daniel C, Morrison TH, Phinn S (2016) The governance of private residential land in cities and spatial effects on tree cover. Environ Sci Policy 62:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans BS, Kilpatrick AM, Hurlbert AH, Marra PP (2017) Dispersal in the urban matrix: assessing the influence of landscape permeability on the settlement patterns of breeding songbirds. Front Ecol Evol 5:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans KL, Newson SE, Gaston KJ (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M (2011) How to manage the urban green to improve bird biodiversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 101:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foo K, McCarthy J, Bebbington A (2018) Activating landscape ecology: a governance framework for design-in-science. Landsc Ecol 33:675–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldingay RL, Sharpe DJ, Beyer GL, Dobson M (2006) Using ecological studies to understand the conservation needs of the squirrel glider in Brisbane’s urban forest-remnants. Aust Mamm 28:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hale JD, Fairbrass AJ, Matthews TJ, Sadler JP (2012) Habitat composition and connectivity predicts bat presence and activity at foraging sites in a large UK conurbation. PLoS ONE 7:e33300PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 13:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill E, Dorfman JH, Kramer E (2010) Evaluating the impact of government land use policies on tree canopy coverage. Land Use Policy 27:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landsc Urban Plan 79:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jiao L, Liu Y (2012) Analyzing the shape characteristics of land use classes in remote sensing imagery. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci I-7:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kang W, Lee D, Park C-R (2012) Nest distribution of magpies Pica pica sericea as related to habitat connectivity in an urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 104:212–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kang W, Minor ES, Park CR, Lee D (2015) Effects of habitat structure, human disturbance, and habitat connectivity on urban forest bird communities. Urban Ecosyst 18:857–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Kittredge DB, Short Gianotti AG, Hutyra LR, Foster DR, Getson JM (2015) Landowner conservation awareness across rural-to-urban gradients in Massachusetts. Biol Conserv 184:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolbe JJ, VanMiddlesworth P, Battles AC, Stroud JT, Buffum B, Forman RTT, Losos JB (2016) Determinants of spread in an urban landscape by an introduced lizard. Landsc Ecol 31:1795–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li Y, Kang W, Han Y, Song Y (2018) Spatial and temporal patterns of microclimates at an urban forest edge and their management implications. Environ Monit Assess 190:93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin BB, Fuller RA (2013) FORUM: sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world’s cities? J App Ecol 50:1161–1168Google Scholar
  37. Locke DH, Grove MJ, Lu JWT, Troy A, O'Neil-Dunne J, Beck BD (2010) Prioritizing preferable locations for increasing urban tree canopy in New York City. Cities Environ 3:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loram A, Warren P, Gaston KJ (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XIV): the characteristics of gardens in five cities. Environ Manag 42:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Munshi-South J (2012) Urban landscape genetics: canopy cover predicts gene flow between white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) populations in New York City. Mol Ecol 21:1360–1378PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Oprea M, Mendes P, Vieira TB, Ditchfield AD (2009) Do wooded streets provide connectivity for bats in an urban landscape? Biodivers Conserv 18:2361–2371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ossola A, Hopton ME (2018) Measuring urban tree loss dynamics across residential landscapes. Sci Total Environ 612:940–949PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Ossola A, Locke DH, Lin BB, Minor E (2019) Greening in style: urban form, architecture and the structure of front and backyard vegetation. Landsc Urban Plan 185:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Paker Y, Yom-Tov Y, Alon-Mozes T, Barnea A (2014) The effect of plant richness and urban garden structure on bird species richness, diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 122:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pirnat J, Hladnik D (2016) Connectivity as a tool in the prioritization and protection of sub-urban forest patches in landscape conservation planning. Landsc Urban Plan 153:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. PRISM Climate Group (2015) 30-year Normals. http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Accessed 26 Sept 2016
  49. Ren Y, Deng L, Zuo S, Luo Y, Shao G, Wei X, Hua L, Yang Y (2014) Geographical modeling of spatial interaction between human activity and forest connectivity in an urban landscape of southeast China. Landsc Ecol 29(10):1741–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riitters K, Wickham J, Costanza JK, Vogt P (2016) A global evaluation of forest interior area dynamics using tree cover data from 2000 to 2012. Landsc Ecol 31:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Saura S, Vogt P, Velázquez J, Hernando A, Tejera R (2011) Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses. For Ecol Manag 262:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Savard J-PL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shanahan DF, Miller C, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2011) The influence of patch area and connectivity on avian communities in urban revegetation. Biol Conserv 144:722–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith RM, Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K (2005) Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landsc Ecol 20:235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soille P, Vogt P (2009) Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recog Lett 30:456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stagoll K, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD (2012) Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conserv Lett 5:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Suarez-Rubio M, Ille C, Bruckner A (2018) Insectivorous bats respond to vegetation complexity in urban green spaces. Ecol Evol 8:3240–3253PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tannier C, Foltête J-C, Girardet X (2012) Assessing the capacity of different urban forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats. Landsc Urban Plan 105:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Threlfall CG, Law B, Banks PB (2012) Sensitivity of insectivorous bats to urbanization: implications for suburban conservation planning. Biol Conserv 146:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Treby DL, Castley JG (2015) Distribution and abundance of hollow-bearing trees in urban forest fragments. Urban For Urban Green 14:655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turrini T, Knop E (2015) A landscape ecology approach identifies important drivers of urban biodiversity. Glob Change Biol 21:1652–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. US Census Bureau (2015). Geographic areas reference manual (GARM). https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch11GARM.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2019
  67. Vergnes A, Kerbiriou C, Clergeau P (2013) Ecological corridors also operate in an urban matrix: a test case with garden shrews. Urban Ecosyst 16:511–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vergnes A, Viol IL, Clergeau P (2012) Green corridors in urban landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 145:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Villaseñor NR, Driscoll DA, Escobar MAH, Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB (2014) Urbanization impacts on mammals across urban-forest edges and a predictive model of edge effects. PLoS ONE 9:e97036PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vogt P, Riitters K (2017) GuidosToolbox: universal digital image object analysis. Eur J Remote Sens 50:352–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD (2007) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc Ecol 22:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Centre for Smart Green CitiesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)AnnapolisUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forestry Service, Northern Research Station, Baltimore Field StationBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.CSIRO Land and Water FlagshipDutton ParkAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Illinois ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations