Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 1015–1030 | Cite as

Potential impacts of emerald ash borer invasion on biogeochemical and water cycling in residential landscapes across a metropolitan region

  • Cinzia Fissore
  • Joseph P. McFadden
  • Kristen C. Nelson
  • Emily B. Peters
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
  • Jennifer Y. King
  • Lawrence A. Baker
  • Ina Jakobsdottir


Trees provide important ecological services in cities, yet the vulnerability of the urban forest to massive tree losses from pest outbreaks could threaten those services, with unknown environmental consequences. The outbreak of emerald ash borer is an imminent threat to the ash population in North America. In the Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota, metropolitan area, ash trees are present in 50 % of residential landscapes in Ramsey and Anoka Counties. We used a large survey of household activities, a tree inventory, a Household Flux Calculator accounting tool, and a set of annual evapotranspiration measurements, to quantify the current carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus storage in ash trees, the cycling of these elements, and the total evapotranspiration from ash trees in residential areas in the metropolitan region. Ash represented 6 % of the trees in residential areas and the removal of the entire ash population would correspondingly reduce net primary production and carbon sequestration by only a few percent and would have negligible effects on losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from residential landscapes. Similarly, the effects of ash loss on the hydrologic cycle would be minimal and would depend largely on management choices for the ground currently underneath ash tree canopies. Overall, the percentage change in biogeochemical and hydrological fluxes corresponded closely with the percent of the total urban tree population that was represented by ash, suggesting that areas with higher densities of ash would experience correspondingly larger effects. A hypothetical tree replacement scenario with similar broadleaf species was determined to be likely to re-establish the original biogeochemical and hydrological conditions once the replacement trees reach maturity.


Urban landscape Households Carbon flux Nitrogen flux Phosphorus flux Agrilus planipennis Evapotranspiration Water flux 


  1. Barr Engineering (2004) Minnesota phosphorus study. Conducted for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockerhoff EG, Liebhold AM, Jactel H (2006) The ecology of forest insect invasion and advances in their management. Can J Forest Resour 36:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elliott ET (1986) Aggregate structure and carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in native and cultivated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:627–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fairfield (2007) Emerald ash borer management plan, City of Fairfield, Ohio pgs. 1–6.
  6. Fechtelkotter S, Kropp R, MacKenzie J, Terwilliger P, Woodside A (2010) Residential tree inventory and assessment. Report 5/8 for the City of St. Louis Park, December 14, 2010.
  7. Fissore C, Baker LA, Hobbie SE, King JY, McFadden JP, Nelson KC, Jakobsdottir I (2011) Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus fluxes in household ecosystems in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota, urban region. Ecol Appl 21:619–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fissore C, Hobbie SE, King JY, McFadden JP, Nelson KC, Baker LA (2012) The residential landscape: fluxes of elements and the role of household decisions. Urban Ecosyst 15:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Granier A (1987) Evalutation of transpiration in a Douglas-fir stand by means of sap flow measurements. Tree Physiol 3:309–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gulsvig A, Frieder A, Wilson K, Potter S, Hertel W (2010) Residential tree inventory and assessment. Report 3/8 for the City of St. Louis Park, December 14, 2010.
  11. Heimlich J, Sydnor TD, Bumgardner M, O’Brien P (2008) Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Arboriculture Urban Forest 34(1):47–51Google Scholar
  12. Horgan BP, Branham BE, Mulvaney RL (2002) Mass balance of N-15 applied to Kentucky blue grass including direct measurement of denitrification. Crop Sci 42:1595–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkins JC, Aber JD, Canham CD (1999) Hemlock woolly adelgid impacts on community structure and N cycling rates in eastern hemlock forests. Can J Forest Resour 29:630–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jorgensen Z, Coyle, R, Mueller K, Cunningham N (2010) Residential survey of Emerald ash borer in Saint Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  15. Kenis M, Auger-Rozenberg M-A, Roques A, Timms L, Péré C, Cock MJW, Settele J, Augustin S, Lopez-Veemonde C (2009) Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. J Biol Invasion 11:21–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobe RK, Lepczyk CA, Iyer M (2005) Resorption efficiency decreases with increasing green leaf nutrients in a global data set. Ecology 86:2780–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Kuo FE (2001) Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environ Behav 33:5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leuzinger S, Vogt R, Körner C (2010) Tree surface temperature in an arid environment. Agr Forest Meteorol 150:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Tarnai J, Dillman D (2004) How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J Arboriculture 30(1):28–35Google Scholar
  21. Lu P, Urban L, Zhao P (2004) Granier’s thermal dissipation probe (TDP) method for measuring sap flow in trees: theory and practice. Acta Bontanica Sinica 46(6):631–646Google Scholar
  22. MacFarlane DW, Meyer S (2003) Characteristics and distribution of potential ash tree hosts for Emerald ash borer. For Ecol Manag 213:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McPherson G, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Maco SE, Xiao Q (2005) Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J For 103(8):411–416Google Scholar
  24. Milesi C, Elvidge CD, Dietz JB, Tuttle BT, Nemani RR, Running SW (2005). Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. J Environ Manage 36:426–438Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell VG, Cleugh HA, Grimmond CSB, Xu J (2008) Linking urban water balance and energy balance models to analyse urban design options. Hydrol Process 22:2891–2900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson KC, Grayzeck S, King J, Hobbie S, Baker L, McFadden JP (2008) Our household choices in urban living survey, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
  27. Nowak DJ, Pasek JE, Sequeira RA, Crane DE, Mastro VC (2001) Potential effect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United States. Forest Entomol 94:116–122Google Scholar
  28. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Steven JC, Hoehn RE, Walton JT, Bond J (2008) A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture Urban Forest 34:347–358Google Scholar
  29. Oke TR (1989) The micrometeorology of the urban forest. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B 324:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parker JH (1983) Landscaping to reduce the energy used in cooling buildings. J For 81:82–85Google Scholar
  31. Peters EB, McFadden JP (2010) Influence of seasonality and vegetation type on suburban microclimates. Urban Ecosyst 13:443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peters EB, McFadden JP, Montgomery RA (2010) Biological and environmental controls on tree transpiration in a suburban landscape. J Geophys Res 115:G04006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peters EB, Hiller RV, McFadden JP (2011) Seasonal contributions of vegetation types to suburban evapotranspiration. J Geophys Res 116:G01003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poland TM (2007) Twenty million ash trees later: current status of Emerald ash borer in Michigan. Newslett Mich Entomol Soc 52:10–14Google Scholar
  35. Poland TM, McCullough DG (2006) Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resources. J For 104:118–124Google Scholar
  36. Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100(2):81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodin LE, Bazilevich NI (1967) Production and mineral cycling in terrestrial vegetation. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Rutter AJ, Morton AJ, Robins PC (1975) Predictive model of rainfall interception in forests, 2. Generalization of model and comparison with observation in some coniferous and hardwood stands. J Appl Ecol 12(1):367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saint Paul Department of Parks and Recreation (2009)
  40. Schlarbaum SE, Hebard F, Spaine PC, Kamalay JC (1999) Three American tragedies: chestnut blight, butternut canker, and Dutch elm disease. USDA Forest Service srs.fs.usda.govGoogle Scholar
  41. Sower P, Balla E, Graves S, Macziewski W, Prock K, Reuss R (2009) Urban forest assessment. Report 7/8 prepared for the City of Shoreview. December 17, 2009.
  42. Valente F, David JS, Gash JHC (1997) Modeling interception loss for two sparse eucalypt and pine forests in central Portugal using reformulated Rutter and Gash analytical models. J Hydrol 190(1–2):141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang J, Endreny TA, Nowak DJ (2008) Mechanistic simulation of tree effects in an urban water balance model. Proc Am Water Resour Assoc 44(1):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Westman WE (1977) How much are nature's services worth? Science 197:960–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright IJ et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cinzia Fissore
    • 1
  • Joseph P. McFadden
    • 2
  • Kristen C. Nelson
    • 3
  • Emily B. Peters
    • 4
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
    • 5
  • Jennifer Y. King
    • 2
  • Lawrence A. Baker
    • 6
  • Ina Jakobsdottir
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Environmental ScienceWhittier CollegeWhittierUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  4. 4.Institute on the EnvironmentUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  5. 5.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  6. 6.Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations