A review of drivers of tree diversity in suburban areas: Research needs for North American cities

Abstract

Tree diversity is crucial to urban forest management. More diverse urban forests provide habitat for a wider range of organisms, increase resilience to pests and disease and, in cases where native tree species are well represented, contribute to local biodiversity protection. Studies have shown that tree diversity can peak in the low- to mid-density neighbourhoods found in suburban and peri-urban areas, emphasizing the potential for biodiversity enhancement during and after subdivision development. Most studies quantifying tree species composition in suburban areas focus on one or two major drivers of tree diversity, such as land use, socioeconomics and demographics, or the presence of natural features like parks or greenways. Furthermore, relatively little attention has been paid to the drivers of diversity for the variety of land types that make up the entire urban forest, which represent differences in tree planting and establishment practices, ownership, and maintenance. This paper presents an overview of drivers of tree species composition based on the literature, as well as factors that require further study because they play a role in determining the structure of the (sub)urban forest. These factors are examined in the context of four land types: street, residential property, park, and remnant woodland, and are organized under the following major themes: biophysical characteristics, community design, historical paradigms and influences, municipal management, and demographics and cultures. Based on what is known so far, a research agenda is also presented outlining major gaps in research on urban tree diversity in North America (USA and Canada). The information presented in this paper can thus serve as a guideline to inform urban forest management practices and strategically enhance tree diversity.

Urban development, land sharing and land sparing: the importance of considering restoration

“…In private residential areas, housing age, terrain slope, level of education and household income are also correlated with variation in tree cover, although housing density is thought to be most important (Daniel, Morrison & Phinn ). Species composition is affected by biophysical factors, as well as people's preferences (Nitoslawski, Duinker & Bush ). New developments are typically associated with less vegetation (Daniel et al .…”

Comparison of Attitudes towards Roadside Vegetation Management across an Exurban Landscape

“…Supporting our first hypothesis, AttProfessional and AttSafety scores illustrated variability among study areas, suggesting that location-specific differences may be influencing attitudes. For example, community planning in suburban areas has historically focused on planting trees along roads to create a closed canopy effect [86]. Appreciation for such planning may be supported by responses to GreenTunnel in the Southwest area, for which several towns are located within the New York City suburbs, as compared to the other three study areas.…”

The Legacy Effects of Colonial and Apartheid Imprints on Urban Greening in South Africa: Spaces, Species, and Suitability

“…According to Moran et al (2013), this is a widespread pattern in the southern Africa region as a whole, and can largely be attributed to the region's colonial history. In essence, tree species in cities located in areas colonized by Europeans have traditionally been chosen from a European species pool (Ignativea and Stewart, 2009;Nitoslawski et al, 2016), as well as transfers between colonies (Kemp et al, 2020). A substantial proportion of the nonnative urban flora in South Africa was introduced during the colonial period to provide, augment or restore specific ecosystem services (Bennett and Van Sittert, 2019;Potgieter et al, 2019;Shackleton et al, 2020).…”