The use of green infrastructure for reducing stormwater runoff is increasingly common. One under‐studied component of the green infrastructure network is the urban forest system. Trees can play an important role as the “first line of defense” for restoring more natural hydrologic regimes in urban watersheds by intercepting rainfall, delaying runoff, infiltrating, and transpiring captured stormwater. However, inadequate research quantifying the urban tree contribution to rainfall/runoff processes limits their promotion by stormwater managers. The purpose of this literature review is to highlight the limited research performed, document areas of need for quantifying the benefits of urban trees for stormwater management, and provide a basis for providing credits for trees in stormwater designs. Recent research has shown that urban trees can retain a sizable volume of annual rainfall in their crowns, delay the flow of stormwater runoff, substantially increase the infiltration capacity of urban soils, and provide transpiration of sequestered runoff for additional stormwater storage. Tree canopy effectiveness is highest during short, low‐intensity storms and lower as rainfall volume and intensity increases. While soils are the best medium to store and filter stormwater, trees may be integrated with other runoff reduction strategies to bring more natural hydrologic processes to urban watersheds by taking advantage of multiple points of retention. Gaps remain in the body of research, but there is a basis for considering trees an integral part of the watershed‐scale green infrastructure network that helps reduce the volume and intensity of urban stormwater runoff.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We hypothesized that physiological and morphological responses to prescribed fire support the post-scorch foliage recovery and growth of young longleaf pine. Two studies conducted in central Louisiana identified three means of foliage regrowth after fire that included an increase in the gas exchange rate of surviving foliage for 3 to 4 months after fire. Saplings also exhibited crown developmental responses to repeated fire that reduced the risk of future crown scorch. Starch reserves were a source of carbon for post-scorch foliage regrowth when fire was applied in the early growing season. However, the annual dynamics of starch accumulation and mobilization restricted its effectiveness for foliage regrowth when fire was applied late in the growing season. As such, post-scorch foliage regrowth became increasingly dependent on photosynthesis as the growing season progressed. Additionally, the loss of foliage by fire late in the growing season interrupted annual starch dynamics and created a starch void between the time of late growing season fire and mid-summer of the next year. The occurrence of drought during both studies revealed barriers to foliage reestablishment and normal stem growth among large saplings. In study 1, spring water deficit at the time of May fire was associated with high crown scorch and poor foliage and stem growth among large saplings. We attribute this lag in stem growth to three factors: little surviving foliage mass, low fascicle gas exchange rates, and poor post-scorch foliage recovery. In study 2, May fire during a short window of favorable burning conditions in the tenth month of a 20-month drought also reduced stem growth among large saplings but this growth loss was not due to poor post-scorch foliage recovery. Application of this information to prescribed fire guidelines will benefit young longleaf pine responses to fire and advance efforts to restore longleaf pine ecosystems.