Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Yards increase forest connectivity in urban landscapes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Tree canopy connectivity is important for supporting biodiversity. In urban landscapes, empirical examinations of habitat connectivity often overlook residential land, though yards and gardens often comprise a large portion of urban forests.

Objectives

We quantify structural composition (patches and paths), connectivity and fragmentation of an entire tree canopy network spanning 1220 Boston’s neighborhoods to assess the configuration of the urban forest potentially affecting tree-dependent wildlife species, such as some birds and arboreal mammals.

Methods

The urban landscape was classified by land use, and residential yards were further subdivided into front yards, backyards, and corner yards. Structural composition, connectivity and fragmentation of the tree canopy was assessed using morphological spatial pattern and network analysis. Canopy metrics were then related to the land use of 349,305 property parcels.

Results

Back yard tree canopy cover was 65.23%. The majority of canopy links were on residential land (60.95% total), and particularly in backyards. Back yards contained the highest number of canopy fragments (48.65% total). Fragmentation of the canopy network peaked at ~ 23% of total canopy cover. Canopy fragmentation, distance among patches and their shape complexity were lower in neighborhoods with more tree canopy.

Conclusions

The important role that yards have in sustaining canopy connectivity across urban landscapes poses challenges and opportunities. Urban land management and planning need to protect connectivity links within urban forests when located on private residential realm. A prioritization strategy aimed at expanding urban tree cover could focus on yards to ensure that urban landscape connectivity is maintained and increased.

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

References

  • Baker PJ, Harris S (2007) Urban mammals: what does the future hold? An analysis of the factors affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain. Mamm Rev 37:297–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker PJ, Ansell RJ, Dodds PAA, Webber CE, Harris S (2003) Factors affecting the distribution of small mammals in an urban area. Mamm Rev 33:95–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates AJ, Sadler J, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, Baker D, Bridge M, Freestone R, Gardner D, Gibson C, Hemming R, Howarth S, Orridge S, Shaw M, Tams T, Young H (2014) Garden and landscape-scale correlates of moths of differing conservation status: significant effects of urbanization and habitat diversity. PLoS ONE 9(1):e86925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Belaire JA, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2014) Having our yards and sharing them too: the collective effects of yards on native bird species in an urban landscape. Ecol Appl 24:2132–2143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beninde J, Veith M, Hochkirch A (2015) Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol Lett 18:581–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bigsby KM, McHale MR, Hess GR (2014) Urban morphology drives the homogenization of tree cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC. Ecosystems 17:212–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Boal CW, Mannan RW (1998) Nest-site selection by Cooper’s hawks in an urban environment. J Wildl Manag 62:864–871

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaker S, Moretti M, Boesch R, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Bontadina F (2014) Assessing habitat connectivity for ground-dwelling animals in an urban environment. Ecol Appl 24:1583–1595

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter N, Cooke R, White JG, Whisson DA, Isaac B, Bradsworth N (2019) Joining the dots: how does an apex predator move through an urbanizing landscape? Glob Ecol Conserv 17:e00532

    Google Scholar 

  • Casalegno S, Anderson K, Cox DTC, Hancock S, Gaston KJ (2017) Ecological connectivity in the three-dimensional urban green volume using waveform airborne lidar. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45571

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • City of Boston (2017) Analyze Boston portal. https://data.boston.gov/. Accessed 1 Sept 2017

  • Colding J (2007) ‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 81(1):46–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2017) MASSgis. https://docs.digital.mass.gov/massgis. Accessed 1 Sept 2017

  • Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:19–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin RE, Mendes DC, Strong AL (1988) Local programs in the United States for preventing the destruction of trees on private land. Landsc Urban Plan 15:165–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Danford RS, Cheng C, Strohbach MW, Ryan R, Nicolson C, Warren PS (2014) What does it take to achieve equitable urban tree canopy distribution? A Boston case study. Cities Environ 7: Article 2

  • Daniel C, Morrison TH, Phinn S (2016) The governance of private residential land in cities and spatial effects on tree cover. Environ Sci Policy 62:79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans BS, Kilpatrick AM, Hurlbert AH, Marra PP (2017) Dispersal in the urban matrix: assessing the influence of landscape permeability on the settlement patterns of breeding songbirds. Front Ecol Evol 5:63

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans KL, Newson SE, Gaston KJ (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M (2011) How to manage the urban green to improve bird biodiversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 101:278–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Foo K, McCarthy J, Bebbington A (2018) Activating landscape ecology: a governance framework for design-in-science. Landsc Ecol 33:675–689

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldingay RL, Sharpe DJ, Beyer GL, Dobson M (2006) Using ecological studies to understand the conservation needs of the squirrel glider in Brisbane’s urban forest-remnants. Aust Mamm 28:173–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale JD, Fairbrass AJ, Matthews TJ, Sadler JP (2012) Habitat composition and connectivity predicts bat presence and activity at foraging sites in a large UK conurbation. PLoS ONE 7:e33300

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 13:167–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill E, Dorfman JH, Kramer E (2010) Evaluating the impact of government land use policies on tree canopy coverage. Land Use Policy 27:407–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landsc Urban Plan 79:266–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao L, Liu Y (2012) Analyzing the shape characteristics of land use classes in remote sensing imagery. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci I-7:135–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang W, Lee D, Park C-R (2012) Nest distribution of magpies Pica pica sericea as related to habitat connectivity in an urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 104:212–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang W, Minor ES, Park CR, Lee D (2015) Effects of habitat structure, human disturbance, and habitat connectivity on urban forest bird communities. Urban Ecosyst 18:857–870

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge DB, Short Gianotti AG, Hutyra LR, Foster DR, Getson JM (2015) Landowner conservation awareness across rural-to-urban gradients in Massachusetts. Biol Conserv 184:79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe JJ, VanMiddlesworth P, Battles AC, Stroud JT, Buffum B, Forman RTT, Losos JB (2016) Determinants of spread in an urban landscape by an introduced lizard. Landsc Ecol 31:1795–1813

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78:85–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Kang W, Han Y, Song Y (2018) Spatial and temporal patterns of microclimates at an urban forest edge and their management implications. Environ Monit Assess 190:93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin BB, Fuller RA (2013) FORUM: sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world’s cities? J App Ecol 50:1161–1168

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke DH, Grove MJ, Lu JWT, Troy A, O'Neil-Dunne J, Beck BD (2010) Prioritizing preferable locations for increasing urban tree canopy in New York City. Cities Environ 3:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke DH, Roy Chowdhury R, Grove JM, Martin DG, Goldman E, Rogan J, Groffman P (2018) Social norms, yard care, and the difference between front and back yard management: examining the landscape mullets concept on urban residential lands. Soc Nat Resour. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1481549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Loram A, Warren P, Gaston KJ (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XIV): the characteristics of gardens in five cities. Environ Manag 42:361–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Munshi-South J (2012) Urban landscape genetics: canopy cover predicts gene flow between white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) populations in New York City. Mol Ecol 21:1360–1378

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oprea M, Mendes P, Vieira TB, Ditchfield AD (2009) Do wooded streets provide connectivity for bats in an urban landscape? Biodivers Conserv 18:2361–2371

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossola A, Hopton ME (2018) Measuring urban tree loss dynamics across residential landscapes. Sci Total Environ 612:940–949

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ossola A, Locke DH, Lin BB, Minor E (2019) Greening in style: urban form, architecture and the structure of front and backyard vegetation. Landsc Urban Plan 185:141–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossola A, Schifman L, Herrmann DL, Garmestani AS, Schwarz K, Hopton ME (2018) The provision of urban ecosystem services throughout the private-social-public domain: a conceptual framework. Cities Environ (CATE) 11:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Paker Y, Yom-Tov Y, Alon-Mozes T, Barnea A (2014) The effect of plant richness and urban garden structure on bird species richness, diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 122:186–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirnat J, Hladnik D (2016) Connectivity as a tool in the prioritization and protection of sub-urban forest patches in landscape conservation planning. Landsc Urban Plan 153:129–139

    Google Scholar 

  • PRISM Climate Group (2015) 30-year Normals. http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Accessed 26 Sept 2016

  • Ren Y, Deng L, Zuo S, Luo Y, Shao G, Wei X, Hua L, Yang Y (2014) Geographical modeling of spatial interaction between human activity and forest connectivity in an urban landscape of southeast China. Landsc Ecol 29(10):1741–1758

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K, Wickham J, Costanza JK, Vogt P (2016) A global evaluation of forest interior area dynamics using tree cover data from 2000 to 2012. Landsc Ecol 31:137–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman LA, Pearsall H, Eisenman TS, Conway TM, Fahey R, Landry S, Vogt J, Van Doorn NS, Grove M, Locke DH, Bardekjian AC, Battles JJ, Cadenasso ML, ven den Bosch CK, Avolio M, Berland A, Jenerette D, Mincey SK, Pataki DE, Staudhammer CL (2018) Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: a literature synthesis. Urban For Urban Green 31:157–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Vogt P, Velázquez J, Hernando A, Tejera R (2011) Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses. For Ecol Manag 262:150–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Savard J-PL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48:131–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan DF, Miller C, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2011) The influence of patch area and connectivity on avian communities in urban revegetation. Biol Conserv 144:722–729

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Soille P, Vogt P (2009) Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recog Lett 30:456–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Stagoll K, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD (2012) Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conserv Lett 5:115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Rubio M, Ille C, Bruckner A (2018) Insectivorous bats respond to vegetation complexity in urban green spaces. Ecol Evol 8:3240–3253

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tannier C, Foltête J-C, Girardet X (2012) Assessing the capacity of different urban forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats. Landsc Urban Plan 105:128–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Threlfall CG, Law B, Banks PB (2012) Sensitivity of insectivorous bats to urbanization: implications for suburban conservation planning. Biol Conserv 146:41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Treby DL, Castley JG (2015) Distribution and abundance of hollow-bearing trees in urban forest fragments. Urban For Urban Green 14:655–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Turrini T, Knop E (2015) A landscape ecology approach identifies important drivers of urban biodiversity. Glob Change Biol 21:1652–1667

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2015). Geographic areas reference manual (GARM). https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch11GARM.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2019

  • Vergnes A, Kerbiriou C, Clergeau P (2013) Ecological corridors also operate in an urban matrix: a test case with garden shrews. Urban Ecosyst 16:511–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergnes A, Viol IL, Clergeau P (2012) Green corridors in urban landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 145:171–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Villaseñor NR, Driscoll DA, Escobar MAH, Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB (2014) Urbanization impacts on mammals across urban-forest edges and a predictive model of edge effects. PLoS ONE 9:e97036

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Riitters K (2017) GuidosToolbox: universal digital image object analysis. Eur J Remote Sens 50:352–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD (2007) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc Ecol 22:171–177

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors kindly acknowledge MASS-GIS and the City of Boston for providing geospatial datasets. The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875 supported this work. Findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the Authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or US Government determination or policy. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Dexter Locke

    Present address: USDA Forestry Service, Northern Research Station, Baltimore Field Station, Suite 350, 5523 Research Park Drive, Baltimore, MD, 21228, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Centre for Smart Green Cities, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Alessandro Ossola

  2. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), 1 Park Pl, Annapolis, MD, 21401, USA

    Dexter Locke

  3. CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia

    Brenda Lin

  4. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, 845 W. Taylor St, Chicago, IL, 60607-7060, USA

    Emily Minor

Authors
  1. Alessandro Ossola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dexter Locke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brenda Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily Minor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Ossola.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 5038 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ossola, A., Locke, D., Lin, B. et al. Yards increase forest connectivity in urban landscapes. Landscape Ecol 34, 2935–2948 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00923-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00923-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation