Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Ecological consequences of fragmentation and deforestation in an urban landscape: a case study

Abstract

Landscape change is an ongoing process even within established urban landscapes. Yet, analyses of fragmentation and deforestation have focused primarily on the conversion of non-urban to urban landscapes in rural landscapes and ignored urban landscapes. To determine the ecological effects of continued urbanization in urban landscapes, tree-covered patches were mapped in the Gwynns Falls watershed (17158.6 ha) in Maryland for 1994 and 1999 to document fragmentation, deforestation, and reforestation. The watershed was divided into lower (urban core), middle (older suburbs), and upper (recent suburbs) subsections. Over the entire watershed a net of 264.5 of 4855.5 ha of tree-covered patches were converted to urban land use—125 new tree-covered patches were added through fragmentation, 4 were added through reforestation, 43 were lost through deforestation, and 7 were combined with an adjacent patch. In addition, 180 patches were reduced in size. In the urban core, deforestation continued with conversion to commercial land use. Because of the lack of vegetation, commercial land uses are problematic for both species conservation and derived ecosystem benefits. In the lower subsection, shape complexity increased for tree-covered patches less than 10 ha. Changes in shape resulted from canopy expansion, planted materials, and reforestation of vacant sites. In the middle and upper subsections, the shape index value for tree-covered patches decreased, indicating simplification. Density analyses of the subsections showed no change with respect to patch densities but pointed out the importance of small patches (≤5 ha) as “stepping stone” to link large patches (e.g., >100 ha). Using an urban forest effect model, we estimated, for the entire watershed, total carbon loss and pollution removal, from 1994 to 1999, to be 14,235,889.2 kg and 13,011.4 kg, respectively due to urban land-use conversions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RE (1976) Land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensing data, Professional Paper 964. US Geological Survey, Washington

  2. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519

  3. Brush GS, Lenk C, Smith J (1980) The natural forest of Maryland: an explanation of the vegetation map of Maryland (with 1:250,000 map). Ecol Monogr 50:77–92

  4. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2000) Linking forest edge structure to edge function: mediation of herbivore damage. J Ecol 88:31–45

  5. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics. Cambridge University Press, New York

  6. Forman RTT, Collinge SK (1996) The ‘spatial solution’ to conserving biodiversity in landscapes and regions. In: DeGraaf RM, Miller RI (eds) Conservation of faunal diversity in forested landscapes. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 537–568

  7. Godron M, Forman RTT (1983) Landscape modification and changing ecological characteristics. In: Mooney HA, Godron M (eds) Disturbance and ecosystems: components of response. Springer, New York, pp 12–28

  8. Hobbs ER (1988) Species richness of urban forest patches and implications for urban landscape diversity. Landsc Ecol 1:141–152

  9. Hunter ML Jr (1990) Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

  10. Iverson LR (1988) Land-use change in Illinois, USA: the influence of landscape attributes on current and historic land use. Landsc Ecol 2:45–61

  11. Levenson JB (1981) Woodlots as biogeographic islands in Southeastern Wisconsin. In: Burgess RL, Sharpe DM (eds) Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer, New York, pp 13–40

  12. Marzluff JM, Ewing K (2001) Restoration of fragmented landscapes for conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restor Ecol 9:280–292

  13. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2000) The urban forest effect (UFORE) model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen M, Burk T (eds) Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century, Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference Held in Boise, Idaho 16–20 August 1998. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, pp 714–720

  14. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–389

  15. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32

  16. Sharpe DM, Stearns F, Leitner LA, Dorney JR (1986) Fate of natural vegetation during urban development of rural landscapes in southeastern Wisconsin. Urban Ecol 9:267–287

  17. Turner MG (1990) Landscape changes in nine rural counties in Georgia. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 56:379–386

  18. Wetzel RG (1983) Limnology. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia

  19. Zipperer WC, Burgess RL, Nyland RD (1990) Patterns of deforestation and reforestation in different landscape types in central New York. For Ecol Manag 36:103–117

  20. Zipperer WC, Foresman TW, Sisinni SM, Pouyat RV (1997) Urban tree cover: an ecological perspective. Urban Ecosyst 1:229–246

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to W. C. Zipperer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zipperer, W.C., Foresman, T.W., Walker, S.P. et al. Ecological consequences of fragmentation and deforestation in an urban landscape: a case study. Urban Ecosyst 15, 533–544 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0238-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deforestation
  • Fragmentation
  • Connectivity
  • Ecosystem benefits