Vacant urban lot soils and their potential to support ecosystem services

Abstract

Aims

Urban soils are the basis of many ecosystem services in cities. Here, we examine formerly residential vacant lot soils in Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan, USA for their potential to provide multiple ecosystem services. We examine two key contrasts: 1) differences between cities and 2) differences within vacant lots created during demolition, specifically pre-existing (i.e., prior to demolition) soils outside of the building footprint and fill soils added within the former building’s footprint.

Methods

Deep soil cores were collected from vacant lots in Cleveland and Detroit. Soil properties that are proxies for three ecosystem services were measured: hydraulic conductivity for stormwater retention, topsoil depth and soil nitrogen (N) level for support for plant growth, and soil carbon (C) content for C storage.

Results

Both city and soil group contrasts created distinct ecosystem service provisioning based on proxy measures. Cleveland soils had greater hydraulic conductivity and greater soil C and N levels but thinner topsoil layers than Detroit. Within vacant lots of both cities, pre-existing soils had greater soil C and N levels, but lower hydraulic conductivity values than fill soils.

Conclusions

Soil properties of vacant lots were generally suitable for providing multiple ecosystem services. City-level differences in soil properties created differences in ecosystem service potential between cities and these differences were evident in pre-existing and fill soils. When comparing between cities, though, fill soils were more similar than pre-existing soils indicating some homogenization of ecosystem service potential with greater redistribution of soil.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Amoozegar A (1989) Comparison of the Glover solution with the simultaneous-equations approach for measuring hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:1362–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Mitchell JP (2002) A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agric Ecosyst Environ 90:25–45. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00174-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beard JB (1973) Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berland A, Schwarz K, Herrmann DL, Hopton ME (2015) How environmental justice patterns are shaped by place: terrain and tree canopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Cities Environ 8(1):Article 1

  5. Bowen CK, Schuman GE, Olson RA, Ingram J (2005) Influence of topsoil depth on plant and soil attributes of 24-year old reclaimed mined lands. Arid L Res Manag 19:267–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowman AO, Pagano MA (2004) Terra Incognito: Vacant Land and Urban Strategies. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  7. Detroit Future City (2012) 2012 Detroit Strategic Framework Plan. Inland Press, Detroit, MI

    Google Scholar 

  8. City of Detroit (2014) Detroit Blight Removal Task Force Plan. Detroit, MI

    Google Scholar 

  9. Craul PJ (1992) Urban Soil in Landscape Design. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Craul PJ (1999) Urban Soils: Applications and Practices. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dunne T, Leopold LB (1978) Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman Co., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  12. Effland WR, Pouyat RV (1997) The genesis, classification, and mapping of soils in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:217–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Furio B, Grosshans J, Bratko J, et al (2013) On the road to reuse: residential demolition bid specification development tool. US Environmental Protection Agency Report 560K13002. US EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL, USA

  14. Gee GW, Or D (2002) Particle size analysis. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 255–289

    Google Scholar 

  15. Golubiewski NE (2006) Urbanization increases grassland carbon pools: effects of landscaping in Colorado’s Front Range. Ecol Appl 16:555–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Green OO, Garmestani AS, Albro S, et al. (2016) Adaptive governance to promote ecosystem services in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosytems 19:77–93. doi:10.1007/s11252-015-0476-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Groffman PM, Cavender-Bares J, Bettez ND, et al. (2014) Ecological homogenization of urban USA. Front Ecol Environ 12:74–81. doi:10.1890/120374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haase D (2008) Urban ecology of shrinking cities: an unrecognized opportunity? Nat Cult 3:1–8. doi:10.3167/nc.2008.030101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haase A, Rink D, Grossmann K, et al. (2014a) Conceptualizing urban shrinkage. Environ Plan A 46:1519–1534. doi:10.1068/a46269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haase D, Haase A, Rink D (2014b) Conceptualizing the nexus between urban shrinkage and ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 132:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Herrmann DL, Pearse IS, Baty JH (2012) Drivers of specialist herbivore diversity across 10 cities. Landsc Urban Plan 108:123–130. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hopkins KG, Morse NB, Bain DJ, et al. (2015) Assessment of regional variation in streamflow responses to urbanization and the persistence of physiography. Environ Sci Technol. doi:10.1021/es505389y

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huyler A, Chappelka AH, Prior SA, Somers GL (2014) Drivers of soil carbon in residential “pure lawns” in Auburn, Alabama. Urban Ecosyst 17:205–219. doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0294-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jenny H (1941) Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kremer P, Hamstead ZA (2015) Transformation of urban vacant lots for the common good: an introduction to the special issue. Cities Environ 8(2):Article 1

  26. Martinez-Fernandez C, Audirac I, Fol S, Cunningham-Sabot E (2012) Shrinking cities: urban challenges of globalization. Int J Urban Reg Res 36:213–225. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01092.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. NRCS (2013) Pedon descriptions. in: National Soil Survey Handbook. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC, p. 627.08

    Google Scholar 

  29. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, et al (2015) Vegan: community ecology package

  30. Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, et al. (2011) Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36. doi:10.1890/090220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pavao-Zuckerman MA (2008) The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities. Restor Ecol 16:642–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pavao-Zuckerman MA (2012) Urbanization, soils, and ecosystem services. In: Wall DH, Bardgett RD, Behan-Pelletier V, et al. (eds) Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 270–281

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pavao-Zuckerman MA, Byrne LB (2009) Scratching the surface and digging deeper: exploring ecological theories in urban soils. Urban Ecosyst 12:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2009) Altered resources, disturbance, and heterogeneity: a framework for comparing urban and non-urban soils. Urban Ecosyst 12:23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pouyat R, Groffman P, Yesilonis I, Hernandez L (2002) Soil carbon pools and fluxes in urban ecosystems. Environ Pollut 116:S107–S118

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pouyat RV, Pataki DE, Belt KT, et al. (2007) Effects of urban land-use change on biogeochemical cycles. In: Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 45–58

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pouyat RV, Yesilonis ID, Golubiewski NE (2009) A comparison of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass and native soil. Urban Ecosyst 12:45–62. doi:10.1007/s11252-008-0059-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Yesilonis ID, et al. (2010) Chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of urban soils. In: Aitkenhead-Peterson J, Volder A (eds) Urban Ecosystem Ecology. Agronomy M. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 119–152

    Google Scholar 

  39. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  40. Raciti SM, Groffman PM, Jenkins JC, et al. (2011a) Nitrate production and availability in residential soils. Ecol Appl 21:2357–2366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Raciti SM, Groffman PM, Jenkins JC, et al. (2011b) Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen in residential soils with different land-use histories. Ecosystems 14:287–297. doi:10.1007/s10021-010-9409-3

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rhea L, Shuster W, Shaffer J, Losco R (2014) Data proxies for assessment of urban soil suitability to support green infrastructure. J Soil Water Conserv 69:254–265. doi:10.2489/jswc.69.3.254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schilling J, Logan J (2008) Greening the Rust Belt. J Am Plan Assoc 74:451–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schwarz K, Cutts BB, London JK, Cadenasso ML (2016) Growing gardens in shrinking cities: a solution to the soil lead problem? Sustainability 8:141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shuster WD, Dadio S, Drohan P, et al. (2014a) Residential demolition and its impact on vacant lot hydrology: implications for the management of stormwater and sewer system overflows. Landsc Urban Plan 125:48–56. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shuster WD, Dadio SD, Burkman CE, et al. (2014b) Hydropedological assessments of parcel-level infiltration in an arid urban ecosystem. Soil Sci Soc Am J. doi:10.2136/sssaj2014.05.0200

    Google Scholar 

  47. Soil Survey Staff (1993) Soil Survey Manual, Handbook 1. USDA-Soil Conservation Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  48. Soil Survey Staff (2010) Keys to soil taxonomy, 11th edn. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Burns MJ (2012) Urban stormwater runoff: a new class of environmental flow problem. PLoS one 7:e45814

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Knerl and K. Gilkey for research assistance. Previous versions of this paper were greatly improved by the comments of three anonymous reviewers. Partial financial support was provided by an appointment of D.L. Herrmann to the research participation program with the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through the US DOE and US EPA. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dustin L. Herrmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Stephen John Livesley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herrmann, D.L., Shuster, W.D. & Garmestani, A.S. Vacant urban lot soils and their potential to support ecosystem services. Plant Soil 413, 45–57 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2874-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cleveland
  • Detroit
  • Ecosystem services
  • Vacant lots
  • Shrinking cities