Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(1): January 2020 development can take much longer; for only 4 of 21 lots did average tree size exceed predevelopment tree size. Modeling cover as a function of basal area is a promising strategy. Through our modeling effort, we showed the potential to manage urban forests “on the ground” using traditional forestry metrics based on dbh measurement, and yet still relate results to can- opy cover when needed for code ordinances or com- mon understanding. Our growth model corroborated the current City of Falls Church practice of basing new tree planting upon 10-year tree-scale canopy cover. Data from the 21 lots sampled were insuffi- cient to fully develop a canopy growth projection sys- tem for widespread use, particularly for growth projections exceeding 10 years; the time-consuming task of securing access to private residential yards hampers collection of adequate data for studies such as this (Roman et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2017). Nev- ertheless, results were promising, and we feel strongly that arborists and urban foresters should use every opportunity to start measuring urban forest tree diam- eters accurately and on an area basis (e.g., lot area or smaller plot size where appropriate) in anticipation of more widespread use of basal area and quadratic mean diameter metrics—in other words, basal–area– based management. These professionals should take the lead in ensuring that measurements are accurate and precise (to nearest 0.50 cm or 0.1 inch), regard- less of immediate needs or contract specifications, so that solid management data will be available. As practitioners know, urban forestry affects the lives and health of the majority of the world popula- tion; most of us now live in cities (United Nations 2014). It is also a relatively new field (Miller et al. 2015). Our initial findings show that urban forestry research needs are great, as are the opportunities to improve practices in the field and support the forests in our communities. Because we found no similar residential urban forest inventory studies, we used a simple sampling scheme and borrowed heavily from conventional forest inventory techniques. Perhaps others can now improve upon our work to strengthen scientific foundations for municipal forest inventories and monitoring of residential city property. We applaud the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council for recognizing the need for more urban forestry research (NUCFAC 2015). We think that tree ordinances and other community practices 23 aimed to improve urban forests need to be backed by solid science in order to attain maximum effective- ness and avoid becoming mere quick fixes. LITERATURE CITED Alonzo, M., J.P. McFadden, D.J. Nowak, and D.A. Roberts. 2016. Mapping urban forest structure and function using hyperspectralimagery and lidar data. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17: 135-147. Abbey, B. 1998. U.S. Landscape Ordinances: An Annotated Ref- erence Handbook, 1st Edition. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. 456 pp. Alliance for Community Trees. 2011. Benefits of Trees and Urban Forests: A Research List. Accessed March 2016. Batcheler, C.L. 1985. Note on measurement of woody plant diameter distributions. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 8: 129-132. Berland, A. 2012. Long-term urbanization effects on tree canopy cover along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 15: 721-738. Bernhardt, E.A., and T.J. Swiecki. 1991. Guidelines for Develop- ing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances. Urban Forestry Program, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sac- ramento, California, USA. 76 pp. Chojnacky, D.C., and P. Rogers. 1999. Converting tree diameter measured at root collar to diameter at breast height. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14(1): 14-16. Chojnacky, D.C., J.C. Jenkins, and L.S. Heath. 2014. Updated generalized biomass equations for North American tree species. Forestry 87: 129-151. City of Falls Church. 2005. Comprehensive Plan. Accessed March 2017. City of Falls Church. 2008. Tree Preservation and Replacement Guide for Development and/or Redevelopment on Single Family Residential Lots. Accessed July 2016. Conway, T.M. 2016. Tending their urban forest: Residents’ moti- vations for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17: 23-32. Conway, T.M., and L. Urbani. 2007. Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: A case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6: 181-192. Curtis, R.O., and D.D. Marshall. 2000. Technical note: Why quadratic mean diameter? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 15(3): 137-139. Farrell, J.D., and S. Ware. 1991. Edaphic factors and forest veg- etation in the Piedmont of Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 118(2): 161-169. Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. 2015. FIA Data Mart: Download Files, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- vice. FIADB5.1.6 Accessed April 2015. Hauer, R., and W. Peterson. 2015. Municipal tree care and manage- ment in the United States. In: Conference Proceedings of the International Society of Arboriculture 91st Annual Conference ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture
January 2020
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