Abstract
Socio-economic and environmental drivers are important determinants urban plant richness patterns. The scale at which these patterns are observed in different regions, however, has not been explored. In arid regions, where forests are not native, the majority of the urban forest is planted, and trees are presumably chosen for specific attributes. Here, we investigate the role of spatial scales and the relative importance of environmental versus socio-economic drivers in determining the community structure of southern California’s urban forest. Second, we assess the usefulness of ecosystem service-based traits for understanding patterns of urban biodiversity, compared with species composition data. Third, we test whether resident preferences for specific tree attributes are important for understanding patterns of species composition and diversity. We studied tree communities in 37 neighborhoods in three southern California counties (Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside). The urban forest in southern California is very diverse with 114 species. Using multiple regression analyses we found socio-economic drivers were generally more important than environmental and the strength of the relationship between urban forest community structure and socio-economic drivers depended on whether we were analyzing within or across counties. There was greater tree richness in wealthier neighborhoods compared with less affluent neighborhoods across all counties and Orange County, but not in Los Angeles or Riverside counties alone. We also found a greater proportion of residential shade trees in hotter neighborhoods than in cooler neighborhoods, which corresponds with survey results of residents’ preferences for tree attributes. Ultimately our study demonstrates that the species richness and functional traits of urban tree communities are influenced by managers’ and residents’ preferences and perceptions of urban tree traits.
Highlights
Urban forests are unique in that they are novel assemblages of native and exotic tree species (Kunick, 1987; Jim, 1993; Sjöman et al, 2012; Aronson et al, 2015) that are influenced by both biophysical and human drivers
Ecosystem Service-Based Traits and Classifications Based on a previous survey of residents in southern California, we focused on ecosystem service-based traits that were found to be important to residents (Pataki et al, 2013; Avolio et al, 2015; Supplementary Table 2)
Southern California’s Urban Forest Overall we found 114 trees species in the surveyed neighborhoods
Summary
Urban forests are unique in that they are novel assemblages of native and exotic tree species (Kunick, 1987; Jim, 1993; Sjöman et al, 2012; Aronson et al, 2015) that are influenced by both biophysical (e.g., climatic factors) and human drivers (e.g., management and planting preferences; Sanders, 1984; Kunick, 1987; Talarchek, 1990) Both socio-economic and environmental drivers are necessary to explain patterns of urban forest composition and cover. In addition to overall tree cover, understanding how sociological and biophysical drivers affect species richness and measures of community diversity is necessary for understanding the composition and drivers of urban forests
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
