24 Muller and Bornstein: Maintaining the Diversity of California’s Municipal Forests use trees already “in the ground” as a basis for evaluation. * Build partnerships among local and regional groups to promote and seek out new species. In the case of this study, possible partners may include the California Urban Forests Council, the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, the California Native Plant Society, and the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC). * Build informal alliances within communities among urban foresters, landscape design professionals, regional arboreta and botanic gardens, colleges and universities, and the nursery industry. * Identify the specific values of increased urban forest diversity to each community, and proactively build upon those values (e.g., develop educational and outreach programs to enhance public awareness). * Build specific protocols for evaluating local invasive potential for all species on approved planting lists. In addition, evaluate inventory species with known invasive qualities. Acknowledgments. We thank the urban foresters of the many communi- ties who provided information for this analysis. D. Nowak and K. Knight provided valuable comment on earlier versions of the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Alvey, A.A. 2006. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 5:195–201. Avalos, G., K. Hoell, J. Gardner, S. Anderson, and C. Lee. 2006. Impact of the invasive plant Syzigium jambos (Myrtaceae) on patterns of un- derstory seedling abundance in a Tropical Premontane Forest, Costa Rica. International Journal of Tropical Biology 54:415–421. American Forestry Association. 1990. 1989 Street Tree Survey of U.S. Cities and Towns. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC. Barker, P. 1975. Ordinance control of street trees. Journal of Arboricul- ture 1:212–215. Beatty, R.A. 1991. Why street trees? Pacific Horticulture 52:19–26. Botkin, D., and L. Talbot. 1992. Biological diversity and forests, pp. 47–54. In N. P. Sharma (Ed.). Managing the world’s forests: Look- ing for balance between conservation and development. Kendall/Hall Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. Cal-IPC. 2009. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Maintained by the California Invasive Plant Council. Accessed August 26, 2009. Chen, W.Y. and C.Y. Jim. 2008. Assessment and Valuation of the Ecosys- tem Services Provided by Urban Forests, pp. 53–83. In: M.M. Car- reiro, Y. Song, and J. Wu (Eds.). Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests. Springer, New York. Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G.C. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23:17–30. Clay, J.W., and C.R. Clement. 1993. Selected species and strategies to enhance income generation from Amazonian forests. Food and Ag- riculture Organization of the United Nations. Working Paper FAO- Misc/93/6. Accessed 27 July, 2009. Coppen, J.J.W. 1995. Gums, resins and latexes of plant origin. Non-Wood Forest Products, Volume 6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. . Accessed September 24, 2008. Dwyer, J.F., H.W. Schroeder, and P.H. Gobster 1991. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture 17:276–284. Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, H.W. Schroeder, and R.A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18:227–234. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, and M.H. Noble. 2003. Sustaining urban for- ests. Journal of Arboriculture 29:49–55. Elmendorf, W. 2008. The importance of trees and nature in community: A review of the relative literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:152–156. Frank, D.A., and S.J. McNaughton. 1991. Stability increases with diver- sity in plant communities: empirical evidence from the 1988 Yellow- stone drought. Oikos 62:360–362. Gilbert, O.L. 1991. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Gilman, E.F., and D.G. Watson. 1993. Fraxinus velutina: Arizona Ash. Fact Sheet ST-271. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. 3 pp. Accessed September 24, 2008. Grey, G.W., and F.J. Deneke. 1986. Urban Forestry, Second Edition. Wiley, New York. Hagan, A.K. 2004. Common diseases of crapemyrtle. Alabama Coopera- tive Extension System. ANR-1047. 4 pp. Heidt, V., and M. Neef. 2008. Benefits of urban green space for improv- ing urban climate, pp. 84–96. In: M.M. Carreiro, Y. Song, and J. Wu (Eds.). Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests. Springer, New York. Heynen, N.C. 2003. The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode 35:980-998. Hope, D., C. Gries, W. Zhu, W.F. Fagan, C.L. Redman, N.B. Grimm, A.L. Nelson, C. Martin, and A. Kinzig. 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 100:8788–8792. Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. The Ameri- can Naturalist 113:81–101. Kaplan, S. 1995. The urban forest as a source of psychological well-be- ing. pp. 100–108. In G. A. Bradley (Ed.). Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Kielbaso, J.J. 2008. Management of urban forests in the United States, pp. 240–258. In: M.M. Carreiro, Y. Song, and J. Wu (Eds.). Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests. Springer, New York. Kühn, I., R. Brandl, and S. Klotz. 2004. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:749–764. Kuo, F. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Jour- nal of Arboriculture 29:148–155. Lesser, L.M. 1996. Street tree diversity and DBH in Southern California. Journal of Arboriculture 22:180–185. Löfvenhaft, K., C. Björn, and M. Ihse. 2002. Biotope patterns in urban areas: a conceptual model integrating biodiversity issues in spatial planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:223–240. McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52: 883–890. McPherson, E.G., D. Nowak, G. Heisler, S. Grimmond, C. Souch, R. Grant, and R. Rowntree. 1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Ur- ©2010 International Society of Arboriculture
January 2010
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
