Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of land use type and municipal context on urban tree species diversity

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research has focused on the ways urban forest patterns vary in relation to level of urbanization and socioeconomic characteristics, with most studies limited to one urban land use type or multiple non-differentiate land uses. Additionally, the majority of studies examining urban forest patterns focus on canopy cover extent, with less attention given to patterns of species diversity. This study explores how tree species diversity varies across different urban land uses and municipal boundaries to better understand the role of land use types in shaping urban forest patterns. The goal is addressed through an exploration of plot-level tree data in the urban municipalities of Peel Region located in the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario, Canada). Species composition and standard diversity metrics are calculated for eight land use types and four municipalities. Our results show that differences in diversity metrics and species composition are greater between urban land uses than municipalities. Moreover, Peel’s urban forest has relatively high alpha diversity but many species are present on only one land use type. The results suggest that different causal processes are associated with each land use type, and that urban forest managers should adopt land use-specific strategies to meet species composition goals within the urban forest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While plot size is constant, there is variation in the number of plots and method used to locate plots within cities.

References

  • Acar C, Acar H, Eroglu E (2007) Evaluation of ornamental plant resources to urban biodiversity and cultural changing: a case study of residential landscapes in Trabzon city (Turkey). Building Environ 42(1):218–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison L, Thompson K, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XII): the richness and composition of the flora in five UK cities. J Veg Sci 19:321–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvey AA (2006) Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban For Urban Green 5:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Small E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R, Thompson K (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Sci Total Environ 360:196–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berland A (2012) Long-term urbanization effects on tree canopy cover along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 15(3):721–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton ML, Samuelson LJ, Pan S (2005) Riparian woody plant diversity and forest structure along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 8(1):93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers S (2010) Social aspects of urban biodiversity- an overview. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 81–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen M, Baudoin R, Palibrk M, Persyn N, Rhein C (2012) Urban biodiversity and social inequalities in built-up cities: new evidences, next questions. The example of Paris, France. Land Urban Plann 106(3):277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway TM, Hackworth J (2007) Urban pattern and land cover variation in the Greater Toronto Area. Canadian Geog 51(1):43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway TM, Shakeel T, Attallha J (2011) Community groups and urban forestry activity: drivers of uneven canopy cover? Land Urban Plann 101(4):321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelis J, Hermy M (2004) Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Land Urban Plann 69(4):385–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dallimer M, Rouquette JR, Skinner AMJ, Armsworth PR, Maltby LM, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2012) Contrasting patterns in species richness of birds, butterflies and plants along riparian corridors in an urban landscape. Div Distrib 18(8):742–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmanuel R (1997) Urban vegetation change as an indicator of demographic trends in cities: the case of Detroit. Environ Plann B 42:415–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrar JL (1995) Trees of the Northern United States and Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Ltd, Markham

    Google Scholar 

  • Flocks J, Escobedo F, Wade J, Varela S, Wald C (2011) Environmental justice implications of urban tree cover in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environ Justice 4(2):125–134. doi:10.1089/env.2010.0018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):90–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godefroid S, Koedam N (2006) Urban plant species patterns are highly driven by density and function of built-up areas. Land Ecol 22:1127–1239

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey GW, Deneke FJ (1986) Urban forestry, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Grineski S, Bolin B, Boone C (2007) Criteria air pollution and marginalized populations: environmental inequity in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. Social Sci Quart 88(2):535–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge B, Jenkins MD (2002) World atlas of biodiversity: earth’s living resources in the 21st Century. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S, Ross SL, Lawton JH (1992) Beta diversity on geographic gradients in Britain. J Anim Ecol 61(1):151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heynen NC, Lindsay G (2003) Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: implications for local public works. Public Work Manage Pol 8(1):33–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heynen N, Perkins HA, Roy P (2006) The political ecology of uneven green space: the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff Rev 42(1):3–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs ER (1988) Species richness of urban forest patches and implications for urban landscape diversity. Land Ecol 1(3):141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope D, Gies C, Zhu W, Fagab WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Nat Acad Sci 100(15):8788–8792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hope D, Gies C, Casagrande D, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Martin C (2006) Drivers of spatial variation in plant diversity across the Central Arizona-Phoenix Ecosystem. Soc Nat Resour 19(2):101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosie RC (1979) Native trees of Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Ltd, Markham

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Cook EA (2000) Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst 4:105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jim CY, Chen WY (2009) Diversity and distribution of landscape trees in the compact Asian city of Taipei. Appl Geogr 29:577–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jim CY, Liu HT (2001) Species diversity of three major urban forest types in Guangzhou City, China. Forest Ecol Manage 146:99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney WA, Van Wassenaer PJE, Satel AL (2011) Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboric Urban Forest 37(3):108–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuruneri-Chitepo C, Shackleton CM (2011) The distribution, abundance and composition of street trees in selected towns of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Urban Forest Urban Green 10(3):247–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry SM, Charkraborty J (2009) Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ Plann A 41:2651–2670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubbe CS, Siebert SJ, Cilliers SS (2010) Political legacy of South Africa affects the plant diversity patterns of urban domestic gardens along a socio-economic gradient. Sci Res Essays 5(19):2900–2910

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Marco A, Barthelemy C, Dutoit T, Bertaudière-Montes V (2010) Bridging human and natural sciences for a better understanding of urban floral patterns: the role of planting practices in Mediterranean gardens. Ecol Soc 15(2):2

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK (2008) The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions. Land Ecol 23:1143–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecol 71:1232–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millard A (2010) Cultural aspects of urban biodiversity. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 56–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RH, Miller RW (1991) Planting survival of selected street tree taxa. J Arboric 17:185–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthulingam U, Thangavel S (2012) Density, diversity and richness of woody plants in urban green spaces: a case study in Chennai metropolitan city. Urban For Urban Green 11(4):450–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra H, Gopal D (2010) Street trees in Bangalore: density, diversity, composition and distribution. Urban For Urban Green 9(2):129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ningal T, Mills G, Smithwick P (2010) An inventory of trees in Dublin city centre. Irish Geogr 43(20):161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ (2010) In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 101–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Álvarez R, Rodríguez-Correa HA, MacGregor-Fors I (2011) Trees and the city: diversity and composition along a neotropical gradient of urbanization. Int J Ecol art. no. 704084

  • Pauleit S (2003) Urban street tree plantings: identifying the key requirements. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Munic Eng 156(1):43–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedlowski MA, Adell JJC, Heynen NC (2002) Urban forest and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosyst 6:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham TTH, Apparicio P, Séguin AM, Landry S, Gagnon M (2012) Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: an uneven distribution or environmental inequity? Land Urban Plann 107(3):214–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter EE, Forschner BR, Blair RB (2001) Woody vegetation and canopy fragmentation along a forest-to-urban gradient. Urban Ecosyst 5(2):131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramalho CE, Hobbs RJ (2012) Time for a change: dynamic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 27(3):179–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Region of Peel (2011) Emerald Ash Borer. Public Works, Region of Peel. http://www.peelregion.ca/pw/waste/eab-old.htm. Accessed 9 February 2012

  • Seaby RM, Henderson PA (2006) Species diversity and richness. Version 4. Pisces Conservation Ltd, Lymington

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöman H, Östberg J, Bühler O (2011) Diversity and distribution of the urban tree population in ten major Nordic cities. Urban For Urban Green 1:31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RM, Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K (2005) Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Land Ecol 20(2):235–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart GH, Meurk CD, Ignatieva ME, Buckley HL, Magueur A, Case BS, Hudson M, Parker M (2009) Urban biotopes of Aotearoa New Zealand (URBANZ) II: floristics, biodiversity and conservation values of urban residential and public woodlands, Christchurch. Urban For Urban Green 8(3):149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudha P, Ravindranath NH (2000) A study of Bangalore urban forest. Land Urban Plann 47:47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talarchek GM (1990) The urban forest of New Orleans- an exploratory analysis of relationships. Urban Geogr 11:65–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner RA, Gange AC (2005) Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity. Land Urban Plann 71:137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson K, Austin KC, Smith RM, Warren PH, Angold PG, Gaston KJ (2003) Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant diversity in context. J Veg Sci 14(1):71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trammell TLE, Carreiro MM (2011) Vegetation composition and structure of woody plant communities along urban interstate corridors in Louisville, KY, U.S.A. Urban Ecosyst 14(4):501–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TRCA (2011) Peel urban forest strategy. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Troy AR, Grove JM, O’Neil-Dunne JPM, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2007) Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ Manag 40:394–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S, Seeland K, De Vries S (2005) Benefits and uses of urban forest and trees. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (eds) Urban forests and trees: a reference book. Springer, New York, pp 81–115

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2011) i-Tree Eco. USDA Forest Service. http://www.itreetools.org/eco/index.php. Accessed 23 February 2012

  • Waite S (2000) Statistical ecology in practice. Pearson Education Ltd, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron G (2002) Trees of the Carolinian forest: guide to species, their ecology and uses. Boston Mills Press, Erin

    Google Scholar 

  • Weifeng L, Zhiyum O, Zuesong M, Ziaoke W (2006) Plant species composition in relation to green cover configuration and function of urban parks in Beijing, China. Ecol Res 21:221–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monograph 30:279–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipperer WC, Zipperer CE (1992) Vegetation responses to changes in design and management of an urban park. Land Urban Plann 22(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipperer WC, Rowntree RA, Stevens JC (1991) Structure and composition of streetside trees of residential areas in State of Maryland, USA. Arboric J 15(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lionel Nelson and Meaghan Eastwood at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for providing the tree data. This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Rd N, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada

    Kirstin S. Bourne & Tenley M. Conway

Authors
  1. Kirstin S. Bourne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tenley M. Conway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tenley M. Conway.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bourne, K.S., Conway, T.M. The influence of land use type and municipal context on urban tree species diversity. Urban Ecosyst 17, 329–348 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0317-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0317-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation