Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Woody Plant–Soil Relationships in Interstitial Spaces Have Implications for Future Forests Within and Beyond Urban Areas

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Relatively unmanaged interstitial areas at the residential–wildland interface can support the development of novel woody plant communities. Community assembly processes in urban areas involve interactions between spontaneous and cultivated species pools that include native, introduced (exotic/non-native) and invasive species. The potential of these communities to spread under changing climate conditions has implications for the future trajectories of forests within and beyond urban areas. We quantified woody vegetation (including trees and shrubs) in relatively unmanaged “interstitial” areas at the residential–wildland interface and in exurban reference natural areas in six metropolitan regions across the continental USA. In addition, we analyzed soil N and C cycling processes to ensure that there were no major anthropogenic differences between reference and interstitial sites such as compaction, profile disturbance or fertilization, and to explore effects of novel plant communities on soil processes. We observed marked differences in woody plant community composition between interstitial and reference sites in most metropolitan regions. These differences appeared to be driven by the expanded species pool in urban areas. There were no obvious anthropogenic effects on soils, enabling us to determine that compositional differences between interstitial and reference areas were associated with variation in soil N availability. Our observations of the formation of novel communities in interstitial spaces in six cities across a very broad range of climates, suggest that our results have relevance for how forests within and beyond urban areas are assessed and managed to provide ecosystem services and resilience that rely on native biodiversity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

Data are available as Supporting Information. Data are also available in Environmental Data Initiative (EDI) Data Portal at https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/8b29dc7fd536f4649f8cf6a536421fc9 (DOI) reference number edi.309.1, and https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/c1f9302b4ccef46cbe003ac41f58ef4a (DOI) reference number edi.374.2.

References

  • Ayanu YZ, Jentsch A, Müller-Mahn D, Rettberg S, Romankiewicz C, Koellner T. 2014. Ecosystem engineer unleashed: Prosopis juliflora threatening ecosystem services? Regional Environmental Change 15:155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade R, Franklin J, Larson KL, Swan CM, Lerman SB, Bateman HL, Warren PS, York A. 2021. Predicting the assembly of novel communities in urban ecosystems. Landscape Ecology 36:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Gillespie TW, Jenerette GD, McCarthy HR, Pincetl S, Clarke LW. 2015. Tree diversity in southern California’s urban forest: the interacting roles of social and environmental variables. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3:e0073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio ML, Swan C, Pataki DE, Jenerette GD. 2021. Incorporating human behaviors into theories of urban community assembly and species coexistence. Oikos 130:1849–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson MF, Nilon CH, Lepczyk CA, Parker TS, Warren PS, Cilliers SS, Goddard MA, Hahs AK, Herzog CP, Katti M, La Sorte FA, Williams NS, Zipperer WC. 2016. Hierarchical filters determine community assembly of urban species pools. Ecology 97:2952–2963.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baeten L, Velghe D, Vanhellemont M, De Frenne P, Hermy M, Verheyen K. 2010. Early Trajectories of spontaneous vegetation recovery after intensive agricultural land use. Restoration Ecology 18:379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaury EM, Patrick M, Bradley BA. 2021. Invaders for sale: the ongoing spread of invasive species by the plant trade industry. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19:550–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglihn EC, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2021. Ecosystem services from urban forests: The case of Oslomarka. Norway. Ecosystem Services 51:101358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošĺk V, Wilson JR, Richardson DM. 2011. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26:333–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG, Johnson SM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM. 2005. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 15:1851–1863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. Running NMDS using ‘metaMDS’ [Internet]. RPubs brought to you by RStudio; 2019 August 5 [Cited 2022 July 21]. Retrieved from: http://rpubs.com/CPEL/NMDS

  • Brundu G, Pauchard A, Pyšek P, Pergl J, Bindewald A, Brunori A, Canavan S, Campagnaro T, Celesti-Grapow L, Dechoum MD, Dufour-Dror J, Essl F, Flory SL, Genovesi P, Guarino F, Guang-zhe L, Hulme PE, Jäger H, Kettle CJ, Krumm F, Langdon B, Lapin K, Lozano V, Le Roux JJ, Nóvoa A, Nuñez MA, Porte AJ, Silva J, Schaffner U, Sitzia T, Tanner RA, Tshidada NJ, Vítková M, Westergren M, Wilson JR, Richardson DM. 2020. Global guidelines for the sustainable use of non-native trees to prevent tree invasions and mitigate their negative impacts. NeoBiota 61:65–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blouin D, Pellerin S, Poulin M. 2019. Increase in non-native species richness leads to biotic homogenization in vacant lots of a highly urbanized landscape. Urban Ecosystems 22:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreiro MM, Tripler CE. 2005. Forest remnants along urban–rural gradients: examining their potential for global change research. Ecosystems 8:568–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavender-Bares J, Padullés Cubino J, Pearse WD, Hobbie SE, Lange AJ, Knapp S, Nelson KC. 2020. Horticultural availability and homeowner preferences drive plant diversity and composition in urban yards. Ecological Applications 30:e02082.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis JT, McIntosh RP. 1951. An Upland Forest Continuum in the Prairie-ForestBorder Region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deljouei A, Abdi E, Marcantonio M, Majnounian B, Amici V, Sohrabi H. 2017. The impact of forest roads on understory plant diversity in temperate hornbeam-beech forests of Northern Iran. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 189:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie IA, Bennett BM, Burrows L, Nuñez MA, Peltzer DA, Porte AJ, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Rundel PW, Wilgen BW. 2014. Conflicting values: ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biological Invasions 16:705–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doroski DA, Felson AJ, Bradford MA, Ashton MP, Oldfield EE, Hallett RA, Kuebbing SE. 2018. Factors driving natural regeneration beneath a planted urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29:238–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doroski DA, Ashton M, Duguid MC. 2020. The future urban forest—a survey of tree planting programs in the Northeastern United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 55:126816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foste DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J. 2005. Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Essl F, Lenzner B, Bacher S, Bailey SA, Capinha C, Daehler CC, Dullinger S, Genovesi P, Hui C, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Katsanevakis S, Kühn I, Leung B, Liebhold AM, Liu C, MacIsaac HJ, Meyerson LA, Nuñez MA, Pauchard A, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Roy HE, Ruiz GM, Russell JC, Sanders NJ, Sax DF, Scalera R, Seebens H, Springborn MR, Turbelin AJ, van Kleunen M, von Holle B, Winter M, Zenni RD, Mattsson BJ, Roura-Pascual N. 2020. Drivers of future alien species impacts: An expert-based assessment. Global Change Biology 26:4880–4893.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fenn M, Poth MA, Johnson DW. 1996. Evidence for nitrogen saturation in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California. Forest Ecology and Management 82:211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenn M, Allen E, Weiss S, Jovan SE, Geiser L, Tonnesen GS, Johnson RF, Rao LE, Gimeno BS, Yuan F, Meixner T, Bytnerowicz A. 2010. Nitrogen critical loads and management alternatives for N-impacted ecosystems in California. Journal of Environmental Management 91:2404–2423.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fratarcangeli C, Fanelli G, Testolin R, Buffi F, Travaglini A. 2022. Floristic changes of vascular flora in the city of Rome through grid-cell census over 23 years. Urban Ecosystems 25:1851–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frelich LE, Blossey B, Cameron EK, Dávalos A, Eisenhauer N, Fahey T, Ferlian O, Groffman PM, Larson E, Loss SR, Maerz JC, Nuzzo V, Yoo K, Reich PB. 2019. Side-swiped: ecological cascades emanating from earthworm invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:502–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner M, Wilson JR, Cadotte MW, Macivor JS, Zenni RD, Richardson DM. 2017. Non-native species in urban environments: patterns, processes, impacts and challenges. Biological Invasions 19:3461–3469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin JF, Espeland EK, Johnson C, Larson DL, Mangold JM, Mcgee R, Milner C, Paudel S, Pearson DE, Perkins LB, Prosser CW, Runyon JB, Sing SE, Sylvain ZA, Symstad AJ, Tekiela DR. 2020. Managing Invasive Plants on Great Plains Grasslands: A Discussion of Current Challenges. Rangeland Ecology and Management 78:235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey SM, Templer PH, Pierce EA, Reinmann AB, Hutyra LR. 2022. Diverging patterns at the forest edge: Soil respiration dynamics of fragmented forests in urban and rural areas. Global Change Biology 28:3094–3109.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Groffman PM, Holland EA, Myrold DD, Robertson GP, Zou X. 1999. Denitrification. Robertson GP, Bledsoe CS, Coleman DC, Sollin P, editors. Standard Soil Methods for Long Term Ecological Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p272–288.

  • Groffman PM, Pouyat RV, Cadenasso ML, Zipperer WC, Szlavecz K, Yesilonis ID, Brush Band LE, GS. 2006. Land Use Context and Natural Soil Controls on Plant Community Composition and Soil Nitrogen and Carbon Dynamics in Urban and Rural Forests. Forest Ecology and Management 246:296–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groffman PM, Cavender-Bares JM, Bettez ND, Grove JM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Larson KL, Morse JL, Neill C, Nelson KC, O’Neil-Dunne JP, Ogden LA, Pataki DE, Polsky C, Chowdhury RR, Steele MK. 2014. Ecological Homogenization of Urban USA. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groffman PM, Avolio ML, Cavender-Bares JM, Bettez ND, Grove JM, Hall SJ, Hobbie SE, Larson KL, Lerman SB, Locke DH, Heffernan JB, Morse JL, Neill C, Nelson KC, O’Neil-Dunne J, Pataki DE, Polsky C, Chowdhury RR, Trammell TL. 2017. Ecological homogenization of residential macrosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:0191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gucker CL. Fire Effects Information System [internet]. Missoula (MT): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory; c2023. Fraxinus pennsylvanica; 2005 [cited 2022 April 30]. Available from: https://www.fs.fed.us /database/feis/plants/tree/frapen/all.html

  • Hall SJ, Trujillo J, Nakase D, Strawhacker C, Kruse-Peeples M, Schaafsma H, Briggs J. 2013. Legacies of Prehistoric Agricultural Practices Within Plant and Soil Properties Across an Arid Ecosystem. Ecosystems 16:1273–1293.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hallett LM, Jones SK, MacDonald AA, Jones MB, Flynn DF, Ripplinger J, Slaughter P, Gries C, Collins SL. 2016. Codyn: An r package of community dynamics metrics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7:1146–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heneghan L, Rauschenberg CD, Fatemi FR, Workman M. 2004. European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and its Effects on Some Ecosystem Properties in an Urban Woodland. Ecological Restoration 22:275–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann DL, Schifman LA, Shuster WD. 2020. Urbanization drives convergence in soil profile texture and carbon content. Environmental Research Letters 15:114001.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Aricò S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein P, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton DA, Ojima DS, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vilà M, Zamora R, Zobel M. 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:599–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard JL. Fire Effects Information System [internet]. Missoula (MT): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory; c2023. Malosma laurina; 1992 [cited 2022 April 30]. Available from: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/mallau/all.html

  • Jäger H, Tye A, Kowarik I. 2007. Tree invasion in naturally treeless environments: impacts of quinine (Cinchona pubescens) trees on native vegetation in Galápagos. Biological Conservation 140:297–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkinson DS, Powlson DS. 1976. The Effects of Biocidal Treatments on Metabolism in Soil, V. A Method for Measuring Soil Biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 8:209–213.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang S, Sonti NF, Avolio ML. 2022. Tree communities in Baltimore differ by land use type, but change little over time. Ecosphere 13:e4054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson LR, Handel SN. 2016. Restoration treatments in urban park forests drive long-term changes in vegetation trajectories. Ecological Applications 26:940–956.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye JP, Groffman PM, Grimm NB, Baker LA, Pouyat RV. 2016. A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends Ecology & Evolution 21:195–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp S, Dinsmore LA, Fissore C, Hobbie SE, Jakobsdottir I, Kattge J, King JY, 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–S98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight KS, Kurylo JS, Endress AG, Reich Stewart JR, PB. 2007. Ecology and ecosystem impacts of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica): A review. Biological Invasion 9:925–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I, Hiller A, Planchuelo G, Seitz B, von der Lippe M, Buchholz S. 2019. Emerging Urban Forests: Opportunities for Promoting the Wild Side of the Urban Green Infrastructure. Sustainability 11:6318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumm F, Vítková, L, editors. 2016. Introduced tree species in European forests: opportunities and challenges. European Forest Institute. p423.

  • Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. 2008. FactoMineR: A Package for Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman SB, Narango DL, Avolio ML, Bratt AR, Engebretson JM, Groffman PM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Larson KL, Locke DH, Neill C, Nelson KC, Padullés Cubino J, Trammell TLE. 2021a. Residential yard management and landscape cover affect urban bird community diversity across the continental USA. Ecological Applications 31:e02455.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman SB, Narango DL, Andrade R, Warren PS, Grade AM, Straley K. 2021b. Wildlife in the city: Human drivers and human consequences. Barbosa P, editor. Urban ecology: its nature and challenges. Wallingford UK: CABI Publishing. p37–66

  • Locke DH, Polsky C, Grove JM, Groffman PM, Nelson KC, Larson KL, Cavender-Bares J, Heffernan JB, Chowdhury RR, Hobbie SE, Bettez ND, Hall SJ, Neill C, Ogden L, O’Neil-Dunne J. 2019. Residential household yard care practices along urban-exurban gradients in six climatically-diverse U.S. metropolitan areas. PLOS One 14:e0222630.

  • Legendre P, Legendre LF. 2012. Numerical Ecology. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Maitre DC, Versfeld DB, Chapman RA. 2000. The impact of invading alien plants on surface water resources in South Africa: A preliminary assessment. Water SA 26:397–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez BE, Urban D, White PS. 2018. Testing the effects of four urbanization filters on forest plant taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecological Applications 28:2197–2205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascaro J, Schnitzer SA. 2007. Rhamnus cathartica L. (common buckthorn) as an ecosystem dominant in southern Wisconsin forests. Northeastern Naturalist 14:387–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Motzkin G, Foster DR. 2008. Assessing the influence of historical factors, contemporary processes, and environmental conditions on the distribution of invasive species1. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 135:260–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcdonnell MJ, Pickett ST. 1990. Ecosystem Structure and Function along Urban-Rural Gradients: An Unexploited Opportunity for Ecology. Ecology 71:1232–1237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason RE, Craine JM, Lany NK, Jonard M, Ollinger SV, Groffman PM, Fulweiler RW, Angerer J, Read QD, Reich PB, Templer PH, Elmore AJ. 2022. Evidence, causes, and consequences of declining nitrogen availability in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 376:eabh3767.

  • Mejía GA, Groffman PM, Downey AE, Cook EM, Sritrairat S, Karty R, Palmer MI, McPhearson T. 2022. Nitrogen cycling and urban afforestation success in New York City. Ecological Applications 32:e2535.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morreale LL, Thompson JR, Tang X, Reinmann AB, Hutyra LR. 2021. Elevated growth and biomass along temperate forest edges. Nature Communications 12:7181.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller KE, Lodge AG, Roth AM, Whitfeld TJ, Hobbie SE, Reich PB. 2018. A tale of two studies: Detection and attribution of the impacts of invasive plants in observational surveys. Journal of Applied Ecology 55:1780–1789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munger GT. Fire Effects Information System [internet]. Missoula (MT): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory; c2023. Acer platanoides; 2003 [cited 2022 April 30]. Available from: https://www.fs.usda.gov /database/feis/plants/tree/acepla/all.html

  • Narango DL, Douglas WT, Marra pp. 2018. Nonnative plant reduce population growth of an insectivorous bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:11549–11554.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience 58:123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nóvoa A, Le Roux JJ, Robertson MP, Wilson JR, Richardson DM. 2015. Introduced and invasive cactus species: a global review. AoB Plants 7:plu078.

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Wagner H, Barbour M, Bedward M, Bolker B, Borcard D, Carvalho G, Chirico M, De Caceres M, Durand S, Evangelista H, FitzJohn R, Friendly M, Furneaux B, Hannigan G, Hill M, Lahti L, McGlinn D, Ouellette M, Ribeiro Cunha E, Smith T, Stier A, Ter Braak C, Weedon J. Vegan: community ecology package [Internet]; c2022. R package version 2.6–2. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Padullés Cubino J, Cavender-Bares J, Groffman PM, Avolio ML, Bratt AR, Hall SJ, Larson KL, Lerman SB, Narango DL, Neill C, Trammell TLE, Wheeler MM, Hobbie SE. 2020. Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional composition and homogenization of residential yard vegetation with contrasting management. Landscape and Urban Planning 202:103877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padullés Cubino JP, Cavender-Bares J, Hobbie SE, Hall SJ, Trammell TLE, Neill C, Avolio ML, Darling LE, Groffman PM. 2019a. Contribution of non-native plants to the phylogenetic homogenization of U.S. yard floras. Ecosphere 10:e02638.

  • Padullés Cubino JP, Cavender-Bares J, Hobbie SE, Pataki DE, Avolio ML, Darling LE, Larson KL, Hall SJ, Groffman PM, Trammell TLE, Steele MK, Grove JM, Neill C. 2019b. Drivers of plant species richness and phylogenetic composition in urban yards at the continental scale. Landscape Ecology 34:63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor J, Aber JD, McClaugherty CA, Melillo JM. 1984. Aboveground production and N and P cycling along a nitrogen mineralization gradient on Blackhawk Island, Wisconsin. Ecology 65:256–268.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor J, Post WM. 1986. Influence of Climate, Soil Mois- ture, and Succession on Forest Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles. Biogeochemistry 2:3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearse WD, Cavender-Bares JM, Hobbie SE, Avolio ML, Bettez ND, Chowdhury RR, Darling LE, Groffman PM, Grove JM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Learned J, Neill C, Nelson KC, Pataki DE, Ruddell BL, Steele MK, Trammell TLE. 2018. Homogenization of plant diversity, composition, and structure in North American urban yards. Ecosphere 9:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peña ED, Baeten L, Steel H, Viaene N, Sutter ND, Schrijver AD, Verheyen K

  • 2016. Beyond plant–soil feedbacks: mechanisms driving plant community shifts due to land-use legacies in post-agricultural forests. Functional Ecology 30:1073–1085.

  • Polsky C, Grove JM, Knudson C, Groffman PM, Bettez ND, Cavender-Bares JM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Larson KL, Morse JL, Neill C, Nelson KC, Ogden LA, O’Neil-Dunne JP, Pataki DE, Chowdhury RR, Steele MK. 2014. Assessing the homogenization of urban land management with an application to US residential lawn care. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:4432–4437.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat RV, Groffman PM, Yesilonis I, Hernández L. 2002. Soil carbon pools and fluxes in urban ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 11:107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat RV, Yesilonis ID, Russell-Anelli J, Neerchal NK. 2007. Soil chemical and physical properties that differentiate urban land-use and cover. Soil Science Society of America 71:1010–1019.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Yesilonis ID, Groffman PM, Schwarz K. 2010. Chemical, physical and biological characteristics of urban soils. Aitkenhead-Peterson J, Volder A, editors. Urban Ecosystem Ecology. Agronomy Monograh 55. Madison: American Society of Agronomy. p119–152.

  • Powlson D, Xu J, Brookes P. 2017. Through the Eye of the Needle — The Story of the Soil Microbial Biomass. KR Tate, editor. Microbial Biomass: A Paradigm Shift in Terrestrial Biogeochemistry. London: World Scientific. p1–40.

  • Pregitzer CC, Charlop-Powers S, Bibbo S, Forgione HM, Gunther B, Hallett RA, Bradford MA. 2019. A city-scale assessment reveals that native forest types and overstory species dominate New York City forests. Ecological Applications 29:e1819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raciti SM, Groffman PM, Jenkins JC, Pouyat RV, Fahey TJ, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML. 2011. Nitrate production and availability in residential soils. Ecological Applications 21:2357–2366.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing, c2020. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

  • Reinhart KO, Gurnee J, Tirado R, Callaway RM. 2006. Invasion through quantitative effects: intense shade drives native decline and invasive success. Ecological Applications 16:821–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinmann AB, Hutyra LR. 2017. Edge effects enhance carbon uptake and its vulnerability to climate change in temperate broadleaf forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:107–112.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, van Wilgen BW. 2004. Invasive alien plants in South Africa: how well do we understand the ecological impacts? South African Journal of Science 100:45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan CD, Groffman PM, Grove JM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Locke DH, Morse JL, Neill C, Nelson KC, O’Neil-Dunne JP, Chowdhury RR, Steele MK, Trammell TLE. 2022. Ecological homogenization of soil properties in the American residential macrosystem. Ecosphere 13:e4208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurman JS, Baltzer JL. 2012. Environmental correlates of tree species distributions vary among age classes in a northern temperate forest. Plant Ecology 213:1621–1632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenenberger N, Conedera M. 2013. Invasive neobiota in forest ecosystems: opportunity or threat? D. Kraus D, Krumm D, editors. Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute. p 224–231.

  • Scott DF, Versfeld DB, Lesch W. 1998. Erosion and sediment yield in relation to afforestation and fire in the mountains of the western cape province, South Africa. South African Geographical Journal 80:52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Nuñez MA, Ledgard NJ, Pauchard A, Richardson DM, Sarasola M, van Wilgen BW, Zalba SM, Zenni RD, Bustamante RO, Peña EA, Ziller SR, Blanca B. 2010. Spread and impact of introduced conifers in South America: Lessons from other southern hemisphere regions. Austral Ecology 35:489–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Hallett R, Groffman PM. 2020. The state factor model and urban forest restoration. Journal of Urban Ecology 6:1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Hallett RA, Deeb M, Groffman PM. 2021. Fine-scale soil heterogeneity at an urban site: Implications for forest restoration. Restoration Ecology 29:e13409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith MS, Tiedje JM. 1979. Phases of denitrification following oxygen depletion in soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 11:262–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomou AD, Topalidou ET, Germani R, Argiri A, Karetsos G. 2019. Importance, Utilization and Health of Urban Forests: A Review. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 47:10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallamy DW, Narango DL, Mitchell AB. 2020. Do non-native plants contribute to insect declines? Ecological Entomology 46:729–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton LK, Neel MC, Groffman PM, Cadenasso ML, Sullivan JH. 2019. Changes in vegetation structure and composition of urban and rural forest patches in Baltimore from 1998 to 2015. Forest Ecology and Management 454:117665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JR, Carpenter DN, Cogbill CV, Foster DR. 2013. Four centuries of change in northeastern United States forests. PloS One 8:72540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirmenstein DA. Fire Effects Information System [internet]. Missoula (MT): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory; c2023. Acer rubrum; 1991 [cited 2022 April 30]. Available from: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/acerub/all.html

  • Trammell TLE, Carreiro MM. 2011. Vegetation composition and structure of woody plant communities along urban interstate corridors in Louisville, KY, USA. Urban Ecosystems 14:501–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trammell TLE, Pataki DE, Cavender-Bares JM, Groffman PM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Morse JL, Neill C, Nelson KC. 2016. Plant nitrogen concentration and isotopic composition in residential lawns across seven US cities. Oecologia 181:271–285.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trammell TLE, Pataki DE, Pouyat RV, Groffman PM, Rosier C, Bettez ND, Cavender-Bares JM, Grove M, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Morse JL, Neill C, Steele MK. 2020a. Urban soil carbon and nitrogen converge at a continental scale. Ecological Monographs 90:e01401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trammell TLE, D’amico V, Avolio L, Mitchell JC, Moore ER. 2020b. Temperate deciduous forests embedded across developed landscapes: Younger forests harbour invasive plants and urban forests maintain native plants. Journal of Ecology 108:2366–2375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trammell TLE, Pouyat RV, D’amico V. 2021. Soil chemical properties in forest patches across multiple spatiotemporal scales in mid-Atlantic U.S. metropolitan areas. Urban Ecosystems 24:1085–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trammell TLE, Pouyat RV, D ’Amico V. 2022. Heterogeneity in soil chemistry relates to urbanization while soil homogeneity relates to plant invasion in small temperate deciduous forests. Landscape Ecology 37:1417–1429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uchytil RJ. Fire Effects Information System [internet]. Missoula (MT): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory; c2023. Prunus serotina; 1991 [cited 2022 April 30]. Available from: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pruser/all.html

  • USDA, NRCS. 2023. The PLANTS Database National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC, USA; 2023. [cited 06/12/2023]. Available from: http://plants.usda.gov.

  • van Wilgen BW, Reyers B, Le Maitre DC, Richardson DM, Schonegevel L. 2008. A biome-scale assessment of the impact of invasive alien plants on ecosystem services in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 4:336–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira R, Finn JT, Bradley BA. 2014. How does the landscape context of occurrence data influence models of invasion risk? A comparison of independent datasets in Massachusetts, USA. Landscape Ecology 29:1601–1612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelmann JE. 1995. Assessment of forest fragmentation in southern New England using remote sensing and geographic information systems technology. Conservation Biology 9:439–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward EB, Pregitzer CC, Kuebbing SE, Bradford MA. 2020. Invasive lianas are drivers of and passengers to altered soil nutrient availability in urban forests. Biological Invasions 22:935–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler MM, Neill C, Groffman PM, Avolio ML, Bettez ND, Cavender-Bares JM, Chowdhury RR, Darling LE, Grove JM, Hall SJ, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Larson KL, Morse JL, Nelson KC, Ogden LA, O’Neil-Dunne J, Pataki DE, Polsky C, Steele MK, Trammell TLE. 2017. Continental-scale homogenization of residential lawn plant communities. Landscape and Urban Planning 165:54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziter C, Turner MG. 2018. Current and historical land use influence soil-based ecosystem services in an urban landscape. Ecological Applications 28:643–654.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zouhar K. Fire Effects Information System [internet]. Missoula (MT): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory; c2023. Rhamnus cathartica; 2011 [cited 2022 April 30]. Available from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/rhaspp/all.html

  • Zhu WX, Carreiro MM. 2004. Temporal and Spatial Variations in Nitrogen Transformations in Deciduous Forest Ecosystems along an Urban-Rural Gradient. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36:267–278.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Macrosystems Biology program of the Biological Sciences Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF) through collaborative awards: DEB-1638648 (Baltimore), DEB-1638606 (Los Angeles), DEB-1638560 (Boston), DEB-1638725 (Phoenix), DEB-1638657 (Miami), DEB-1638519 (Minneapolis/St. Paul), DEB-1638690, DEB-1836034 and DEB-1638676. The authors are appreciative of all the field coordinators and assistants that helped collect the data that made this project possible. In Boston, the authors thank the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and Mass Audubon for providing permission to work in natural and interstitial sites. In Minneapolis-St. Paul, the authors thank Christopher Buyarski for helping to coordinate the field campaign and data management, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Nature Conservancy, Three Rivers Park District, the cities of Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Arden Hills, and Ramsey County Parks and Recreation for providing permission to work in natural and interstitial areas. In Baltimore, the authors thank Laura Templeton for coordinating the field campaign and data management, Ben Glass-Seigel, Dan Dillon, Juan Botero, Katherine Ralston and Alyssa Wellman Houde for fieldwork and Baltimore City, Baltimore County and the State of Maryland for providing permission to work in interstitial and natural sites. In Miami, the authors thank Martha Zapata, Sarah Nelson, Sebastian Ruiz for fieldwork and Miami-Dade County Parks, Florida State Parks and Pine Ridge Sanctuary for providing permission to work in natural and interstitial areas. In Los Angeles, the authors thank UCLA/La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, National Park Service, Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks, the Audubon Center, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Palos Verdes Peninsula Conservancy for providing permission to work in natural and interstitial sites. In Phoenix, the authors thank Laura Steger for coordinating the field campaign and data management, Alicia Flores, John Talarico and Brittany Strobel for fieldwork and Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department, City of Scottsdale and City of Phoenix for providing permission to work in natural and interstitial sites. The authors are also thankful to the subject-matter editor, and anonymous reviewers for their thorough review, and constructive, thoughtful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, Dartmouth College, 6182 Steele Hall, Hanover, New Hampshire, 03755, USA

    Gisselle A. Mejía

  2. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 365 5th Ave, New York, 10016, USA

    Gisselle A. Mejía & Peter M. Groffman

  3. Advanced Science Research Center at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 85 St. Nicholas Terrace, New York, 10031, USA

    Peter M. Groffman

  4. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 2801 Sharon Turnpike, Millbrook, New York, 12545, USA

    Peter M. Groffman

  5. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, 227 Olin Hall, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Meghan L. Avolio

  6. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 9 Circuit Drive, Box 90328, Durham, North Carolina, 27708, USA

    Anika R. Bratt & James Heffernan

  7. Department of Environmental Studies, Macalester College, Olin-Rice 158A, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55105-1899, USA

    Anika R. Bratt

  8. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55108, USA

    Jeannine Cavender-Bares & Sarah E. Hobbie

  9. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Walton Center for Planetary Health, 777 E University Dr, Tempe, Arizona, 85281, USA

    Noortje H. Grijseels

  10. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874601, Tempe, AZ, 85287–4601, USA

    Sharon J. Hall

  11. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, Massachusetts, 01003, USA

    Susannah B. Lerman

  12. Department of Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, 1825 SW Broadway, Portland, Oregon, 97201, USA

    Jennifer L. Morse

  13. Vermont Center for Ecostudies, PO Box 420, Norwich, Vermont, 05055, USA

    Desiree L. Narango

  14. Woodwell Climate Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts, 02540-1644, USA

    Christopher Neill

  15. Centre for Ecological Research and Applied Forestries (CREAF), Campus de Bellaterra Edifici C 0819, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

    Josep Padullés Cubino

  16. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, 161 Townsend Hall, Newark, Delaware, 19716, USA

    Tara L. E. Trammell

Authors
  1. Gisselle A. Mejía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter M. Groffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meghan L. Avolio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anika R. Bratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeannine Cavender-Bares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noortje H. Grijseels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sharon J. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James Heffernan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sarah E. Hobbie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Susannah B. Lerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jennifer L. Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Desiree L. Narango
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Christopher Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Josep Padullés Cubino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Tara L. E. Trammell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gisselle A. Mejía.

Additional information

Author contributions Gisselle A. Mejía and Peter M. Groffman, equally conceived of study methodology, conducted formal analysis, data visualization and writing—original draft. Meghan L. Avolio, Jeannine Cavender-Bares, Sharon J. Hall, James Heffernan, Sarah E. Hobbie, Susannah B. Lerman, Jennifer L. Morse, Christopher Neill and Tara L.E. Trammell jointly conceived and supervised the experimental designs, data collection methods and contributed to funding acquisition and writing—review and editing of the manuscript. Anika R. Bratt, Noortje Grijseels and Josep Padullés Cubino contributed to data curation, project administration, investigation and writing—review and editing of the manuscript. Desiree L. Narango contributed to data curation and writing—review and editing of the manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 3640 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 13 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mejía, G.A., Groffman, P.M., Avolio, M.L. et al. Woody Plant–Soil Relationships in Interstitial Spaces Have Implications for Future Forests Within and Beyond Urban Areas. Ecosystems 27, 185–206 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-023-00881-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-023-00881-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation