Ecosystems

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 568–582 | Cite as

Forest Remnants Along Urban-Rural Gradients: Examining Their Potential for Global Change Research

Mini Review

Abstract

Over the next century, ecosystems throughout the world will be responding to rapid changes in climate and rising levels of carbon dioxide, inorganic N and ozone. Because people depend on biological systems for water, food and other ecosystem services, predicting the range of responses to global change for various ecosystem types in different geographic locations is a high priority. Modeling exercises and manipulative experimentation have been the principle approaches used to place upper and lower bounds on community and ecosystem responses. However, each of these approaches has recognized limitations. Manipulative experiments cannot vary all the relevant factors and are often performed at small spatio-temporal scales. Modeling is limited by data availability and by our knowledge of how current observations translate into future conditions. These weaknesses would improve if we could observe ecosystems that have already responded to global change factors and thus presage shifts in ecosystem structure and function. Here we consider whether urban forest remnants might offer this ability. As urban forests have been exposed to elevated temperature, carbon dioxide, nitrogen deposition and ozone for many decades, they may be ahead of the global change “response curve” for forests in their region. Therefore, not only might forests along urbanization gradients provide us with natural experiments for studying current responses to global change factors, but their legacy of response to past urbanization may also constitute space-for-time substitution experiments for predicting likely regional forest responses to continued environmental change. For this approach to be successful, appropriate criteria must be developed for selecting forest remnants and plots that would optimize our ability to detect incipient forest responses to spatial variation in global change factors along urbanization gradients, while minimizing artifacts associated with remnant size and factors other than those that simulate global change. Studying forests that meet such criteria along urban-to-rural gradients could become an informative part of a mixed strategy of approaches for improving forecasts of forest ecosystem change at the regional scale.

Keywords

global change climate change, urban-rural gradients urban forests nitrogen deposition ozone elevated CO2 space-for-time substitution 

References

  1. Aber JD, McDowell W, Nadelhoffer K, Magill A, Berntson G, Kamakea M, McNulty S, Currie W, Rustad L, Fernandez I. 1998. Nitrogen saturation in temperate forest ecosystems: hypotheses revisited. Bioscience 48:921–34Google Scholar
  2. Aber J, Neilson RP, McNulty S, Lenihan JM, Bachelet D, Drapek RJ. 2001. Forest processes and global environmental change: predicting the effects of individual and multiple stressors. Bioscience 51:735–51Google Scholar
  3. Amthor JS. 1999. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, water use, and water stress: scaling up from the plant to the landscape. Luo Y, Mooney HA, Eds. Carbon dioxide and environmental stress. California: Academic Press San Diego. P 33–59Google Scholar
  4. Baumbach G, Baumann K, Droscher F. 1989. O3 and NOx measurements in forest and urban areas. In: Bojkov RD, Fabian P, Eds. Ozone in the atmosphere. VA: Deepak Publishers Hampton, p 502–7Google Scholar
  5. Bazzaz FA, Miao SL. 1993. Successional status, seed size, and responses of tree seedlings to CO2, light, and nutrients. Ecology 74:104–12Google Scholar
  6. Bonan G. 2002. Ecological climatology: concepts and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 678 pGoogle Scholar
  7. Brazel A, Selover N, Vose R, Heisler G. 2000. The tale of two climates– Baltimore and Phoenix urban LTER sites. Climate Res 15:123–35Google Scholar
  8. Bunce JA. 1992. Stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and respiration of temperate deciduous tree seedlings grown outdoors at an elevated concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant Cell Environ 15:541–9Google Scholar
  9. Cardelino CA, Chameides WL. 1990. Natural hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. J Geophys Res 95:13971–9Google Scholar
  10. Carreiro MM, Sinsabaugh RL, Repert DA, Parkhurst DF. 2000. Microbial enzyme shifts explain litter decay responses to simulated nitrogen deposition. Ecology 81:2359–65Google Scholar
  11. Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA. 1995. Growing-season microclimate gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86Google Scholar
  12. Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayers MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D, Swanson FJ, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723–34Google Scholar
  13. De’ath G, Fabricus KE. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–92Google Scholar
  14. DeLucia EH, Hamilton JG, Naidu SL, Thomas RB, Andrews JA, Finzi AC, Lavine M, Matamala R, Mohan JE, Hendrey GR, Schlesinger WH. 1999. Net carbon storage in an intact forest under experimental CO2 enrichment. Science 284:1177–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon M, Lethiec D, Garrec JP. 1995. The growth and gas exchange response of soil-planted Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst) and red oak (Quercus rubra L.) exposed to elevated CO2 and to naturally occurring drought. New Phytologist 129:265–73Google Scholar
  16. Dongarra G, Varrica D. 2002. 13C variations in tree rings as an indication of severe changes in the urban air quality. Atmos Environ 96:5887–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EPA National Air Quality Trends. 2000. http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd00/)
  18. Findlay S, Carreiro MM, Krischik V, Jones CG. 1996. Effects of damage to living plants on leaf litter quality. Ecological Applications 6: 269–75Google Scholar
  19. Finzi AC, Van Breeman N, Canham CD. 1998. Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:440–6Google Scholar
  20. Finzi AC, DeLucia EH, Hamilton JG, Richter DD, Schlesinger WH. 2002. The nitrogen budget of a pine forest under air CO2 enrichment. Oecologia 132:567–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Friedland AJ, Johnson AH, Siccama TG. 1984. Trace metal content of the forest floor in the Green Mountains of Vermont: spatial and temporal patterns. Water Air Soil Pollut 21:161–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuentes JD, Gillespie TJ, den Hartog G, Neumann HH. 1992. Ozone deposition onto a deciduous forest during dry and wet conditions. Agr Forest Meteorol 62:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galloway JN, Schlesinger WH, Levy II H, Michaels A, Schnoor JL. 1995. Nitrogen fixation: anthropogenic enhancement-environmental response. Global Biogeochem Cy 9:235–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galloway JN, Cowling EB, Seitzinger SP, Socolow RH. 2002. Reactive nitrogen: too much of a good thing? Ambio 31:60–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gehlhausen SM, Schwartz MW, Augspurger CK. 2000. Vegetation and microclimatic edge effects in two mixed-mesophytic forest fragments. Plant Ecol 147:21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregg JW, Jones CG, Dawson TE. 2003. Urbanization effects on tree growth in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424:183–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimmond CSB, King TS, Cropley FD, Nowak DJ, Souch C. 2003. Local-scale fluxes of carbon dioxide in urban environments: methodological challenges and results from Chicago. Environ Pollution 116:S243–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groffman PM, Pouyat RV, McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Zipperer WC. 1995. Carbon pools and trace gas fluxes in urban forest soils. In: Lal R, Kimble J, Levine E, Stewart BA, Eds. Soil management and greenhouse effect. Boca Raton: CRC Lewis Publishers. p 147–58Google Scholar
  29. Hansen AJ, Neilson RP, Dale VH, Flather CH, Iverson LR, Currie DJ, Shafer S, Cook R, Bartlein PJ. 2001. Global change in forests: responses of species, communities, and biomes. Bioscience 51:765–79Google Scholar
  30. Idso SB, Idso CD, Balling RC Jr. 2002. Seasonal and diurnal variations of near-surface atmospheric CO2 concentration within a residential sector of the urban CO2 dome of Phoenix, AZ, USA. Atmospheric Environ 36:1655–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC Working Group I. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. 881 pGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC Working Group II. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. 1032 pGoogle Scholar
  33. Iverson LR, Prasad AM. 1998. Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecol Monogr 68:465–85Google Scholar
  34. Jenkins JC, Kicklighter DW, Aber JD. 2000. Regional impacts of climate change and elevated carbon dioxide on forest productivity. Mickler RA, Birdsey RA, Hom J, editors. Responses of Northern U.S. Forests to Environmental Change. New York: Springer-Verlag New York. p 383–423Google Scholar
  35. Johnson DW, Thomas RB, Griffin KL, Tissue DT, Ball JT, Strain BR, Walker RF. 1998. Effects of carbon dioxide and nitrogen on growth and nitrogen uptake in ponderosa and loblolly pine. J Environ Qual 27:414–25Google Scholar
  36. Keeling CD, Whorf TP. 2003. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Körner C. 2000. Biosphere responses to CO2 enrichment. Ecol Appl 10:1590–619Google Scholar
  38. Lajtha K, Marshall JD. 1994. Sources of variation in the stable isotopic composition of plants. In: Lajtha K, Michener RH, Eds. Stable Isotopes in Ecology and Environmental Science. Massachusetts: Blackwell Scientific Publications. p 1–21Google Scholar
  39. Laurance JA, Ollinger SV, Woodbury PB. 2000. Regional impacts of ozone on forest productivity. Mickler RA, Birdsey RA, Hom J, Eds. Responses of Northern U.S. Forests to Environmental Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. p 425–53Google Scholar
  40. Lovett GM, Traynor MM, Pouyat RV, Carreiro MM, Zhu W, Baxter JW. 2000. Atmospheric deposition to oak forests along an urban-rural gradient. Environ Sci and Technol 34:4294–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacKenzie JJ, El-Ashry MT. 1989. Tree and crop injury: a summary of the evidence. MacKenzie JJ, El-Ashry MT, Eds. Air pollution’s toll on forests and crops. Connecticut: Yale University Press. p 1–21Google Scholar
  42. Magill AH, Aber JD. 1998. Long-term effects of experimental nitrogen additions on foliar litter decay and humus formation in forest ecosystems. Plant Soil 203:301–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maruyama GM. 1998. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Sage California. Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  44. Matlack GR. 1993a. Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States. Biol Conserv 66:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matlack GR. 1993b. Sociological edge effects: spatial distribution of human impact in suburban forest fragments. Environ Manage 17:829–835Google Scholar
  46. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K. 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNulty S, Aber JD. 2001. US national climate change assessment on forest ecosystems: an introduction. Bioscience 51:720–2Google Scholar
  48. Medley KE, McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA. 1995. Forest-landscape structure along an urban-to-rural gradient. Prof Geogr 47:159–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller GT. 2002. Living in the environment: principles, connections, and solutions. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Group. 758 pGoogle Scholar
  50. Nadelhoffer KJ, Fry B. 1994. Nitrogen isotope studies in forest ecosystems. In: Lajtha K, Michener RH, Eds. Stable Isotopes in Ecology and Environmental Science. Massachusetts: Blackwell Scientific Publications. p 22–44Google Scholar
  51. National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2000. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. U.S. Global Change Research Program. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press. 612 pGoogle Scholar
  52. Norby RJ. 1996. Oaks in a high-CO2 world. Annales des Sciences Forestières 53:413–29Google Scholar
  53. Oke TR. 1995. The heat island of the urban boundary layer: characteristics, causes and effects. In: Cermak JE, Davenport AG, Plate EJ, Viegas DX, Eds. Wind Climate in Cities. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p 81–107Google Scholar
  54. Pataki D, Ellsworth DS, Evans RD, Gonzalez-Meler M, King J, Leavitt SW, Lin G, Matamala R, Pendall E, Siegwolf R, Van Kessel C, Ehleringer JR. 2003a. Tracing changes in ecosystem function under elevated carbon dioxide conditions. Bioscience 53:805–18Google Scholar
  55. Pataki DE, Bowling DR, Ehleringer JR. 2003b. Seasonal cycle of carbon dioxide and its isotopic composition in an urban atmosphere: anthropogenic and biogenic effects. J Geophys Res 108 (D23) ACH 8:1–8Google Scholar
  56. Pickett STA. 1990. Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. In: Likens GE, Ed. Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. New York: Springer-Verlag. p 110–35Google Scholar
  57. Pouyat RV. 1992. Soil characteristics and litter dynamics in mixed deciduous forests along an urban rural gradient. Doctoral Dissertation. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  58. Pouyat RV, McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA. 1995. Soil characteristics of oak stands along an urban rural land-use gradient. J of Environ Qual 24:516–26Google Scholar
  59. Rastetter EB. 1996. Validating models of ecosystem response to global change. Bioscience 46:190–8Google Scholar
  60. Rötzer T, Wittenzeller M, Haeckel H, Nekovar J. 2000. Phenology in central Europe–differences and trends of spring phenophases in urban and rural areas. Int J Biometeorol 44:60–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Rogers HH, Runion GB, Prior SA, Torbert HA. 1999. Responses of plants to elevated atmospheric CO2: root growth, mineral nutrition, and soil carbon. In: Luo Y Mooney HA, Eds. Carbon dioxide and environmental stress. California: Academic Press San Diego. p 215–44Google Scholar
  62. Rustad LE, Melillo JM, Mitchell MJ, Fernandez IJ, Steudler PA, McHale PJ. 2000. Effects of soil warming on carbon and nitrogen cycling. In: Mickler RA, Birdsey RA, Hom J, Eds. Responses of Northern U.S. Forests to Environmental Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. p 357–81Google Scholar
  63. Saurer M, Siegwolf R, Borella S, Schweingruber F. 1998. Environmental information from stable isotopes in tree rings of Fagus sylvatica. In: Beniston M, Innes JL, Eds. The Impacts of Climate Variability on Forests. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences no. 74. Germany: Springer Press Berlin. p 241–54Google Scholar
  64. Shaver GR, Canadell J, Chapin FS III, Gurevitch J, Harte J, Henry G, Ineson P, Jonasson S, Melillo J, Pitelka L, Rustad L. 2000. Global warming and terrestrial ecosystems: a conceptual framework for analysis. BioScience 50:871–82Google Scholar
  65. Smith WH. 1990. Air pollution and forests: Interactions between air contaminants and forest ecosystems. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag. p 618Google Scholar
  66. Suess HE. 1970. Bristlecone-pine calibration of the radiocarbon time-scale 5200 B. C. to the present. In: Olsson IU, Ed. Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Uppsala, August 11–15, 1969. Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell Stockholm, and New York: John Wiley & Sons New York. p 303–12Google Scholar
  67. Takahashi HA, Konohira E, Hiyama T, Minami M, Nakamura T, Yoshida N. 2002. Diurnal variation of CO2 concentration, Δ14C and δ13C in an urban forest: estimate of the anthropogenic and biogenic CO2 contributions. Tellus 54B:97–109Google Scholar
  68. Upmanis H, Eliasson I, Lindqvist S. 1998. The influence of green areas on nocturnal temperatures in a high latitude city (Göteborg, Sweden). Int J Climatology 18:681–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. USDA Forest Service. 2001. U.S. forest facts and historical trends. Publication FS-696-M. http://fia.fs.fed.us
  70. VEMAP Members. 1995. Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project: Comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Global Biogeochem Cyc 9:407–37Google Scholar
  71. Volin JC, Reich PB, Givnish TJ. 1998. Elevated carbon dioxide ameliorates the effects of ozone on photosynthesis and growth: species respond similarly regardless of photosynthetic pathway or plant functional group. New Phytologist 138:315–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wahlen M. 1994. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane in the atmosphere: abundance and isotopic composition. In: Lajtha K, Michener RH, Eds. Stable Isotopes in Ecology and Environmental Science. Boston (MA): Blackwell Scientific Publications. p 93–113Google Scholar
  73. Weathers KC, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA. 2001. Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies, and the atmosphere. Conserv Biol 15:1506–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. White MA, Nemani RR, Thornton PE, Running SW. 2002. Satellite evidence of phenological differences between urbanized and rural areas of the eastern United State deciduous broadleaf forest. Ecosystems 5:260–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wigley TML, Raper SCB. 2001. Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293:451–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Zak DR, Pregitzer KS, Curtis PS, Vogel CS, Holmes WE, Lussenhop J. 2000. Atmospheric CO2, soil-N availability, and allocation of biomass and nitrogen by Populus tremuloides. Ecological Appl 10:34–46Google Scholar
  77. Ziska LH, Gebhard DE, Frenz DA, Faulkner S, Singer BD, Straka JG. 2003. Cities as harbingers of climate change: common ragweed, urbanization, and public health. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunol 111:290–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret M. Carreiro
    • 1
  • Christopher E. Tripler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations