Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 1487–1497 | Cite as

Effects of Urbanization on Tree Species Functional Diversity in Eastern North America

  • Charles A. Nock
  • Alain Paquette
  • Matt Follett
  • David J. Nowak
  • Christian Messier
Article

Abstract

Urban forests provide ecosystem services for millions of people. Numerous introductions have elevated tree species richness in cities, which may enhance functional diversity. However, few studies have examined changes in tree community composition or functional diversity with urbanization, even though functional diversity, and not species number per se, is directly linked with ecosystem function and associated services. We combined tree abundance data from both urban and extra-urban forest inventory plots for seven metropolitan areas in eastern North America to analyze changes in species composition, Shannon’s diversity, and functional diversity with urbanization. As expected, urban tree diversity was reduced at local scales, and the effect varied with land use. Rarefaction analysis indicated that at large scales, urban tree species pools were equal with respect to species or functional diversity compared to extra-urban forests, but in urban areas at small scales this diversity is not realized because of low tree density. Ordination revealed that with urbanization, introduced species increased in importance, and regional variation in species composition became more homogenous. Increasing tree density and/or tree cover through changes in management practices and urban design could facilitate local scale urban tree diversity using existing species pools, which are functionally diverse. Monitoring of forests at large spatial scales that include urban areas, and the use of methods that account for abundance and functional trait variation can provide insights into the effects of urbanization on tree diversity at multiple scales.

Keywords

functional diversity land-use change functional traits tree species diversity urban forest urbanization gradient rarefaction 

Supplementary material

10021_2013_9697_MOESM1_ESM.docx (51 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 51 kb)

References

  1. Aubin I, Ouellette M, Legendre P, Messier C, Bouchard A. 2009. Comparison of two plant functional approaches to evaluate natural restoration along an old-field: deciduous forest chronosequence. J Veg Sci 20:185–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botta-Dukát Z. 2005. Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. J Vegetation Sci 16:533–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cadotte M, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N. 2011. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L, Balvanera P, O’Connor MI, Gonzalez A. 2011. The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Botany 98:572–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Swenson NG, Zanne AE. 2009. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Repository DD, editor. Ecol Lett 12:351–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornelissen JHC, Cerabolini B, Castro-Díez P, Villar-Salvador P, Montserrat-Martí G, Puyravaud JP, Maestro M, Werger MJA, Aerts R. 2003. Functional traits of woody plants: correspondence of species rankings between field adults and laboratory-grown seedlings? J Vegetation Sci 14:311–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornelissen JHC, Diez PC, Hunt R. 1996. Seedling growth, allocation and leaf attributes in a wide range of woody plant species and types. J Ecol 84:755–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornelissen JHC, Quested HM, Gwynn-Jones D, Van Logtestijn RSP, De Beus MAH, Kondratchuk A, Callaghan TV, Aerts R. 2004. Leaf digestibility and litter decomposability are related in a wide range of subarctic plant species and types. Braarvig J, Hartmann J-U, Matsuda K, Sander L, editors. Funct Ecol 18:779–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornelissen JHC. 1996. An experimental comparison of leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate plant species and types. J Ecol 84:573–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K. 2008. Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craine JM, Elmore AJ, Aidar MPM. 2009. Global patterns of foliar nitrogen isotopes and their relationships with climate, mycorrhizal fungi, foliar nutrient concentrations, and nitrogen availability. New Phytol 183:980–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Díaz S, Hodgson JG, Thompson K. 2004. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. J Vegetation Sci 15:295–304.Google Scholar
  13. Díaz S, Cabido M. 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flynn DF, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, Molinari N, Richers BT, Lin BB, Simpson N, Mayfield M, DeClerck F. 2009. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecology 12:22–33.Google Scholar
  15. Freschet GT, Cornelissen JHC, Van Logtestijn RSP, Aerts R. 2010. Evidence of the “plant economics spectrum” in a subarctic flora. J Ecol 98:362–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garnier E, Lavorel S, Ansquer P. 2007. Assessing the effects of land-use change on plant traits, communities and ecosystem functioning in grasslands: a standardized methodology and lessons from an application to 11 European sites. Annal Botany 99:967–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grabosky J, Bassuk N. 1996. Testing of structural urban tree soil materials for use under pavement to increase street tree rooting volumes. J Arboricult 22:255–63.Google Scholar
  18. Green W. 2009. USDA PLANTS Compilation, version 1, 09-02-02 (http://bricol.net/downloads/data/PLANTSdatabase/). NRCS: The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 1 Feb 2009). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
  19. Han W, Fang J, Guo D, Zhang Y. 2005. Leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across 753 terrestrial plant species in China. New Phytol 168:377–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kattge J, Díaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice IC. 2011. TRY: a global database of plant traits. Glob Chang Biol 17:2905–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kattge J, Knorr W, Raddatz T, Wirth C. 2009. Quantifying photosynthetic capacity and its relationship to leaf nitrogen content for global-scale terrestrial biosphere models. Glob Chang Biol 15:976–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerkhoff AJ, Fagan WF, Elser JJ, Enquist BJ. 2006. Phylogenetic and growth form variation in the scaling of nitrogen and phosphorus in the seed plants. Am Nat 168:103–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleyer M, Bekker RM, Knevel IC. 2008. The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. J Ecol 96:1266–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knapp S, Dinsmore L, Fissore C, Hobbie SE, Jakobsdottir I, Kattge J, King J, Klotz S, McFadden JP, Cavender-Bares JM. 2012. Phylogenetic and functional characteristics of household yard floras and their changes along an urbanization gradient. Ecology 93:S83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knapp S, Kühn I, Schweiger O, Klotz S. 2008. Challenging urban species diversity: contrasting phylogenetic patterns across plant functional groups in Germany. Ecol Lett 11:1054–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kühn I, Durka W, Klotz S. 2004. BiolFlor: a new plant-trait database as a tool for plant invasion ecology. Divers Distrib 10:363–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kühn I, Klotz S. 2006. Urbanization and homogenization: comparing the floras of urban and rural areas in Germany. Biol Conserv 127:292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laliberté E, Wells JA, DeClerck F. 2010. Land-use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in plant communities. Ecol Lett 13:76–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laliberté E, Shipley B. 2011. FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.0-11.Google Scholar
  30. Laughlin DC, Leppert JJ, Moore MM, Sieg CH. 2010. A multi-trait test of the leaf-height-seed plant strategy scheme with 133 species from a pine forest flora. Funct Ecol 24:493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manes F, Incerti G, Salvatori E, Vitale M, Ricotta C, Costanza R. 2011. Urban ecosystem services: tree diversity and stability of tropospheric ozone removal. Ecol Appl 22:349–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayfield MM, Bonser SP, Morgan JW, Aubin I, McNamara S, Vesk PA. 2010. What does species richness tell us about functional trait diversity? Predictions and evidence for responses of species and functional trait diversity to land-use change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:423–31.Google Scholar
  33. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–7.Google Scholar
  34. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Pouyat RV (1993) The application of the ecological gradient paradigm to the study of urban effects. In: McDonnell MJand STAP, editor. Humans as components of ecosystems: subtle human effects and the ecology of populated areas. New York: Springer, pp. 175–189.Google Scholar
  35. McKinney ML. 2008. Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKinney ML. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52:883–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Medlyn BE, Badeck F-W, De Pury DGG. 1999. Effects of elevated [CO2] on photosynthesis in European forest species: a meta-analysis of model parameters. Plant, Cell Environ 22:1475–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moles A, Leishman MR. 2008. The seedling as part of a plant’s life history strategy. In: Leck MA, Parker VT, Simpson RL, Eds. Seedling ecology and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 217–37.Google Scholar
  40. Moles A, Warton D, Warman L, Swenson N, Laffan S, Zanne A, Pitman A, Hemmings F, Leishman M. 2009. Global patterns in plant height. J Ecol 97:923–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moles A, Westoby M. 2006. Seed size and plant strategy across the whole life cycle. Oikos 113:91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moles AT, Ackerly DD, Webb CO, Tweddle JC, Dickie JB, Westoby M. 2005. A brief history of seed size. Science 307:576–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moles AT, Falster DS, Leishman MR, Westoby M. 2004. Small-seeded species produce more seeds per square metre of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime. J Ecol 92:384–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Niinemets Ü. 2001. Global-scale climatic controls of leaf dry mass per area, density, and thickness in trees and shrubs. Ecology 82:453–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nowak DJ (2010) Urban biodiversity and climate change. In: Muller N., P. W, J.G. K, editors. Urban biodiversity and design. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing inc. pp. 101–117.Google Scholar
  46. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC, Hoehn RE, Walton JT, Bond J. 2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboric Urban For 34:347–58.Google Scholar
  47. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC. 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Green 4:115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nowak DJ. 2012. Contrasting natural regeneration and tree planting in fourteen North American cities. Urban For Urban Green 11(4):374–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ogaya R, Peñuelas J. 2003. Comparative field study of Quercus ilex and Phillyrea latifolia: photosynthetic response to experimental drought conditions. Environ Exp Bot 50:137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H. 2007. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 1. p. 17–9. Google Scholar
  51. Olden JD, Poff NL, McKinney ML. 2006. Forecasting faunal and floral homogenization associated with human population geography in North America. Biol Conserv 127:261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ordoñez JC, van Bodegom PM, Witte J-PM, Bartholomeus RP, van Hal JR, Aerts R. 2010. Plant strategies in relation to resource supply in mesic to wet environments: does theory mirror nature? Am Nat 175:225–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, Grulke NE, Jennings V, Pincetl S, Pouyat RV, Whitlow TH, Zipperer WC. 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paula S, Arianoutsou M, Kazanis D, Tavsanoglu Ç, Lloret F, Buhk C, Ojeda F, Luna B, Moreno JM, Rodrigo A. 2009. Fire-related traits for plant species of the Mediterranean basin. Ecology 90:1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pautasso M. 2007. Scale dependence of the correlation between human population presence and vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol Lett 10:16–24.Google Scholar
  56. Preston KA, Cornwell WK, DeNoyer JL. 2006. Wood density and vessel traits as distinct correlates of ecological strategy in 51 California coast range angiosperms. New Phytol 170:807–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pyšek P, Chocholousková Z, †Pyšek A, Jarošík V, Chytrý M, Tichý L. 2004. Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades. J Veg Sci 15:781–8.Google Scholar
  58. Quested HM, Cornelissen JHC, Press MC, Callaghan TV, Aerts R, Trosien F, Riemann P, Gwynn-Jones D, Kondratchuk A, Jonasson SE. 2003. Decomposition of sub-arctic plants with differing nitrogen economies: a functional role for hemiparasites. Ecology 84:3209–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Team RDC, editor. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 1(2.11.1):409. http://www.r-project.org.
  60. Reich P, Oleksyn J, Wright I. 2009. Leaf phosphorus influences the photosynthesis–nitrogen relation: a cross-biome analysis of 314 species. Oecologia 160(2):207–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reich PB, Tjoelker MG, Pregitzer KS, Wright IJ, Oleksyn J, Machado J-L. 2008. Scaling of respiration to nitrogen in leaves, stems and roots of higher land plants. Ecol Lett 11:793–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ricotta C, Pavoine S, Bacaro G, Acosta ATR. 2012. Functional rarefaction for species abundance data. Methods Ecol Evol 3:519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Royal Botanical Gardens KEW. 2008. Seed Information Database (SID), Version 7.1. http://data.kew.org/sid/.
  64. Sack L. 2004. Responses of temperate woody seedlings to shade and drought: do trade-offs limit potential niche differentiation? Oikos 107:110–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G. 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52:891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwartz MW, Thorne JH, Viers JH. 2006. Biotic homogenization of the California flora in urban and urbanizing regions. Biol Conserv 127:282–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Searle SY, Turnbull MH, Boelman NT, Schuster WSF, Yakir D, Griffin KL. 2012. Urban environment of New York City promotes growth in northern red oak seedlings. Tree Physiol 32:389–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E. 1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walker JS, Grimm NB, Briggs JM, Gries C, Dugan L. 2009. Effects of urbanization on plant species diversity in central Arizona. Front Ecol Environ 7:465–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Williams N, Schwartz M, Vesk P, McCarthy M, Hahs A, Clemants S, Corlett R, Duncan R, Norton B, Thompson K. 2009. A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. J Ecol 97:4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Willis CG, Halina M, Lehman C, Reich PB, Keen A, McCarthy S, Cavender-Bares J. 2010. Phylogenetic community structure in Minnesota oak savanna is influenced by spatial extent and environmental variation. Ecography 33:565–77.Google Scholar
  72. Wirth C, Lichstein JW. 2009. The imprint of species turnover on old-growth forest carbon balances: insights from a trait-based model of forest dynamics. In: Wirth C, Gleixner G, Heimann M, Eds. Old-growth forests, Vol. 207. Berlin: Springer. p 81–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles A. Nock
    • 1
  • Alain Paquette
    • 1
  • Matt Follett
    • 1
  • David J. Nowak
    • 2
  • Christian Messier
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Forest ResearchUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Northern Research StationSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations