Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 199–213 | Cite as

Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: The case of Central Arizona—Phoenix

  • Nancy B. Grimm
  • Charles L. Redman

Abstract

CAP LTER focuses on an arid-land ecosystem profoundly influenced, even defined, by the presence and activities of humans and is one of only two LTER sites that specifically studies the ecology of an urban system. In this large-scale project, biological, physical, and social scientists are working together to study the structure and function of the urban ecosystem, to assess the effects of urban development on surrounding agricultural and desert lands, and to study the relationship and feedbacks between human decisions and ecological processes.

Our interdisciplinary investigations into the relationship between land-use decisions and ecological consequences in the rapidly growing urban environment of Phoenix are of broad relevance for the study of social ecological systems and cites in particular. Refinements in our conceptual model of social ecological systems focuses our attention on recognizing the scales and periodicities of ecological and human phenomena, understanding the means and impacts of human control of variability in space and time, and finally an evaluation of the resilience of various aspects of socio-ecological systems especially their vulnerabilities and their potential for adaptive learning.

long-term studies data mining nutrient cycling diversity ecological footprint urban climate socioecosystem resilience urban landscape urbanization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, Baker, L.A., Hope, D., Xu, Y., Edmonds, J. and Lauver, L. (2001) Nitrogen balance for the central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP) ecosystem. Ecosystems 4, 582–602.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, L.A., Brazel, T., Selovar, N., Martin, C.A., Steiner, F., McIntyre, N.E., Nelson, A. and Musacchio, L. (2003) Local warming: Feedbacks from the urban heat island. Urban Ecosystems 6, 183–203.Google Scholar
  3. Brazel, A., Selover, N., Vose, R. and Heisler, G. (2000) The tale of two climates—Baltimore and Phoenix urban LTER sites. Clim. Res. 15, 123–135Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S.R. (1998) The need for large-scale experiments to assess and predict the response of ecosystems to perturbation. In Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in EcosystemScience (M.L. Pace and P.M. Groffman eds.), pp. 287–312. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Cleveland, C.C., Townsend, A.R., Schimel, D.S., Fisher, H., Howarth, R.W., Hedin, L.O., Perakis, S.S., Latty, E.F., VonFischer, J.C., Elseroad, A. and Wasson, M.F. (1999) Global patterns of terrestrial biological nitrogen (N2) fixation in natural ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 623–645.Google Scholar
  6. Fagan, W.F., Meir, E., Carroll, S.S. and Wu, J.G. (2001) The ecology of urban landscapes: Modeling housing starts as a density-dependent colonization process. Landsc. Ecol. 16, 33–39.Google Scholar
  7. Gammage, G., Jr. (1999) Phoenix in Perspective: Reflection on Developing the Desert. Herberger Center for Design Excellence, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
  8. Gober, P. and Burns, E.K. (2002) The size and shape of Phoenix's urban fringe. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 21, 379–390.Google Scholar
  9. Gregg, J.W., Jones, C.G. and Dawson, T.E. (2003) Urbanization effects on tree growth in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424, 183–187.Google Scholar
  10. Grimm, N.B., Grove, J.M., Pickett, S.T.A. and Redman, C.L. (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50, 571–584.Google Scholar
  11. Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W.F., Redman, C.L., Grimm, N.B., Nelson, A., Martin, C. and Kinzig, A. (2003) Socio-economics drive urban plant diversity. PNAS 100, 8788–8792.Google Scholar
  12. Hope, D., Zhu, W., Gries, C., Oleson, J., Kaye, J., Grimm, N.B. and Baker, B. (In review) Spatial variation in soil inorganic nitrogen across an arid urban ecosystem. Urban Ecosystems.Google Scholar
  13. Kinzig, A.P. and Grove, J. (2001) Urban-suburban ecology. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 5, 733–745.Google Scholar
  14. Kinzig, A.P., Warren, P., Hope, D., Katti, M. and Martin, C. (In preparation for Conservation Ecology) Under-standing patterns of urban biodiversity. Conservation Ecology.Google Scholar
  15. Knowles-Yanez, K., Moritz, C., Fry, J., Redman, C.L., Bucchin, M. and McCartney, P.H. (1999) Historic land use: Phase 1 report on generalized land use Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, p. 21.Google Scholar
  16. Kupel, D.E. (2003) Fuel for Growth: Water and Arizona's Urban Environment.The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  17. Luck, M.A., Jenerette, G.D., Wu, J.G. and Grimm, N.B. (2001) The urban funnel model and the spatially hetero-geneous ecological footprint. Ecosystems 4, 782–796.Google Scholar
  18. Luck, M. and Wu, J.G. (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 17, 327–339.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, C.A. and Stabler, L.B. (2002) Plant gas exchange and water status in urban desert landscapes. J. Arid. Environ. 51, 235–254.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, C.A., Peterson, K.A. and Stabler, L.B. (2003) Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona: Practices, preferences and covenants codes and restrictions (CC&Rs). Journal of Arboriculture 29, 9–17.Google Scholar
  21. Oke, T.R. (1982) The Energetic Basis of the Urban Heat-Island. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 108, 1–24.Google Scholar
  22. Redman, C.L. (1999) Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystems 2, 269–298.Google Scholar
  23. Redman, C.L., Grove, J.M. and Kuby, L.H. (2004) Integrating social science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems. Online First: http://0-www.springerlink.com.library.lib.asu.edu:80/link.asp?id xre6r5q9f0bnf50pGoogle Scholar
  24. Rees, W.E. and Wackernagle, M. (1994) Ecological footprints and appropriate carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. In Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability (A.M. Jansson, M. sHammer, C. Folke and R. Costanza, eds.) pp. 362–390. Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  25. Rees, L.W. (1996) Our Ecology Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth.New Society Publication, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  26. Stabler, L.B. and Martin, C.A. (2004) Irrigation and pruning affect growth and water use efficiency of two desert adapted shrubs. Acta Horticulturae 638, 255–258.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000) Census 2000. (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cendy2000.html).Google Scholar
  28. West, N.E. and Skujins, J. (1978) Nitrogen in Desert Ecosystems.Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
  29. Wu, J.G. and David, J.L. (2002) Aspatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: Theory and applications. Ecol. Model. 153, 7–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy B. Grimm
    • 1
  • Charles L. Redman
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.The Center for Environmental StudiesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations