Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 141–152 | Cite as

Unexpected connections between residential urban forest diversity and vulnerability to two invasive beetles

  • Adam BerlandEmail author
  • Grant P. Elliott
Research Article

Abstract

Invasive pests pose a threat to the key environmental and social benefits provided by urban forests, and diverse tree planting is a primary management strategy for reducing pest vulnerability. For example, past urban forest losses to Dutch elm disease (DED) prompted municipal foresters to emphasize diversification, but it is unclear whether residential properties developed after the peak DED outbreak are actually more diverse than older properties. To address this issue, we inventoried all public and private trees on 150 residential properties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, USA, and compared genus diversity on pre- and post-Dutch elm properties. We then quantified vulnerability to two current invasive pest threats, emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis) and Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) (Anoplophora glabripennis), to evaluate whether higher diversity corresponds with lower pest vulnerability. We assessed vulnerability based on two fundamental urban forest metrics–frequency and size of vulnerable trees. Surprisingly, properties developed after the peak DED outbreak were less diverse than older properties. At the same time, less diverse post-Dutch elm properties exhibited low ALB vulnerability and modest EAB vulnerability, while more diverse older sites were highly susceptible to ALB. The importance of pest host specificity in characterizing urban forest vulnerability was underscored by low EAB vulnerability and high ALB vulnerability on our oldest study sites. This research highlights an apparent disconnect between the theoretical notion that higher diversity should reduce invasive pest vulnerability, and our empirical data indicating that genus diversity does not necessarily correspond with pest vulnerability.

Keywords

Genus diversity Pest vulnerability Emerald ash borer Asian longhorned beetle Housing age Minnesota, USA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #1003138, and by the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota. We thank Tom Crist for helpful discussions of biodiversity metrics, and Brewster Malevich for field assistance. Three anonymous reviewers and the handling editor provided constructive comments that improved the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Adams JS, VanDrasek BJ (1993) Minneapolis-St. Paul: people, place, and public life. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker PA (1975) Ordinance control of street trees. J Arboric 1:212–216Google Scholar
  3. Berland A (2012) Long-term urbanization effects on tree canopy cover along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 15:721–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boone CG, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Schwarz K, Buckley GL (2010) Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: why the 60 s matter. Urban Ecosyst 13:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. US Census Bureau (2010) Demographic profile data. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed July 2013
  6. Carter JC (1975) Major tree diseases of the century. J Arboric 1:141–147Google Scholar
  7. Dodds KJ, Orwig DA (2011) An invasive urban forest pest invades natural environments—Asian longhorned beetle in northeastern US hardwood forests. Can J For Res 41:1729–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18:227–234Google Scholar
  9. French DW (1993) History of Dutch elm disease in Minnesota. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. http://purl.umn.edu/151957. Accessed July 2013
  10. Grey GW, Deneke FJ (1986) Urban forestry. Krieger, MalabarGoogle Scholar
  11. Grove JM, Troy AR, O‘Neil-Dunne JPM, Burch WR, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2006) Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9:578–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haack RA, Hérard F, Sun J, Turgeon JJ (2010) Managing invasive populations of Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Ann Rev Entomol 55:521–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hardin PJ, Jensen RR (2007) The effect of urban leaf area on summertime urban surface kinetic temperatures: a Terre Haute case study. Urban For Urban Green 6:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8788–8792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kovacs KF, Haight RG, McCullough DG, Mercader RJ, Siegert NW, Liebhold AM (2010) Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in U.S. communities, 2009–2019. Ecol Econ 69:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  17. McKenney DW, Pedlar JH (2012) To treat or remove: an economic model to assist in deciding the fate of ash trees threatened by emerald ash borer. Arboric Urban For 38:121–129Google Scholar
  18. McPherson EG (1998) Structure and sustainability of Sacramento’s urban forest. J Arboric 24:174–190Google Scholar
  19. McPherson EG (2000) Expenditures associated with conflicts between street tree root growth and hardscape in California, United States. J Arboric 26:289–297Google Scholar
  20. McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Maco SE, Xiao Q (2005) Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J For 103:411–416Google Scholar
  21. Metropolitan Council (2012) What lies ahead: population, household and employment forecasts to 2040. http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/stats/pdf/MetroStats_Forecasts.pdf. Accessed July 2013
  22. Miller RW (1997) Urban forestry: planning and managing urban greenspaces. Waveland, Long GroveGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller RH, Miller RW (1991) Planting survival of selected street tree taxa. J Arboric 17:185–191Google Scholar
  24. Nowak DJ, Pasek JE, Sequiera RA, Crane DE, Mastro VC (2001) Potential effect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United States. J Econ Entomol 94:116–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Dwyer JF (2002) Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. J Arboric 28:194–199Google Scholar
  26. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Green 4:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Payton S, Lindsey G, Wilson J, Ottensmann JR, Man J (2008) Valuing the benefits of the urban forest: a spatial hedonic approach. J Environ Plan Manag 51:717–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peper PJ, McPherson EG, Mori SM (2001) Equations for predicting diameter, height, crown width, and leaf area of San Joaquin Valley street trees. J Arboric 27:306–317Google Scholar
  29. Poland TM, McCullough DG (2006) Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J For 104:118–124Google Scholar
  30. Prasad AM, Iverson LR, Peters MP, Bossenbroek JM, Matthews SN, Sydnor TD, Schwartz MW (2010) Modeling the invasive emerald ash borer risk of spread using a spatially explicit cellular model. Landscape Ecol 25:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raupp MJ, Cumming AB, Raupp EC (2006) Street tree diversity in eastern North America and its potential for tree loss to exotic borers. Arboric Urban For 32:297–304Google Scholar
  32. Rebek EJ, Herms DA, Smitley DR (2008) Interspecific variation in resistance to emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) among North American and Asian ash (Fraxinus spp.). Environ Entomol 37:242–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards NA (1982/1983) Diversity and stability in a street tree population. Urban Ecol 7:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Santamour FS (1990) Trees for urban planting: diversity, uniformity, and common sense. In: Proceedings of the 7th conference of the metropolitan tree improvement alliance, pp 57–65Google Scholar
  35. Smith MT, Wu J (2008) Asian longhorned beetle: renewed threat to northeastern USA and implications worldwide. Int Pest Control 50(311):316Google Scholar
  36. Solow AR (1993) A simple test for chance in community structure. J Anim Ecol 62:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Summit J, McPherson EG (1998) Residential tree planting and care: a study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. J Arboric 24:89–97Google Scholar
  38. Sydnor TD, Subburayalu S, Bumgardner M (2010) Contrasting Ohio nursery stock availability with community planting needs. Arboric Urban For 36:47–54Google Scholar
  39. Tyrväinen L (1997) The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landsc Urban Plan 37:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. USDA APHIS (2013) Asian longhorned beetle. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. http://asianlonghornedbeetle.com/. Accessed July 2013
  41. Wang B (2012) Asian longhorned beetle: annotated host list. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/asian_lhb/downloads/hostlist.pdf. Accessed July 2013
  42. Wiens JA, Crist TO, Day RH, Murphy SM, Hayward GD (1996) Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine bird communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ecol Appl 6:828–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Environment and SustainabilityMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology Division, Sustainable Environments BranchUS Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations