Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

193 views

Published on

Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

Lara Roman, UC Berkley

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
193
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

  1. 1. Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for ResearcherPractitioner Partnerships 7 November 2013 Lara Roman, USDA Forest Service
  2. 2. Sacramento Shade Tree Program Reduce energy use through tree shade
  3. 3. 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 6.6% annual mortality 0.0 survivorship survivorship survivorship 71% survivorship (5 yrs) 0 1 500 2 10003 4 1500 time time (yearssince planting) (years since planting) time 5 2000
  4. 4. 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 unstable homeowners: 9.3% annual mortality stable homeownership PropertyStable2007Last=stable unstable homeownership PropertyStable2007Last=unstable 0.0 survivorship survivorship survivorship 0.8 stable homeowners: 5.2% annual mortality 0 1 500 2 1000 3 4 1500 time (years since time time (years sinceplanting) planting) 5 2000
  5. 5. West Oakland Street Trees Roman et al. 2013
  6. 6. Size-based Mortality 0.0600 0.0555 (n=572) annual mortality annual mortality rate 0.0500 0.0400 0.0300 0.0157 (n=158) 0.0200 0.0155 (n=133) 0.0085 (n=48) 0.0100 0.0114 (n=18) 0.0000 (n=11) 0.0000 [00.1,7.6] [07.7,15.2] [15.3,30.5] [30.6,45.7] DBH size class (cm) DBH size class [45.8,61.0] [>61.1]
  7. 7. Standing Dead Trees • Net population increase: 17% • Avg. proportion standing dead: 2% • Avg. proportion dead trees removed: 57%
  8. 8. Outline • • • • UTGL background Survey of practitioner-driven monitoring New monitoring protocols Data sets
  9. 9. Practitioner-driven urban tree monitoring: A national survey
  10. 10. Survey goals • Why do local organizations engage in urban tree monitoring? • How do these organizations conduct monitoring projects? • What are the common challenges? • How can researchers assist?
  11. 11. Reasons for monitoring • Track mortality, health & growth • Proactive tree care & management • Monitoring required by grant or contract
  12. 12. Reasons for monitoring • Track mortality, health & growth • Proactive tree care & management • Monitoring required by grant or contract “The sense that we were losing trees as fast as they were being planted made [us] want to see whether that was true, so getting some data together was essential to know if we were in fact gaining or losing ground.”
  13. 13. Monitoring methods • Limited external assistance • Field crews – Program staff – Volunteers – Arborists
  14. 14. Challenges • Resource limitation – 50% of organizations ≤ 6 staff • • • • Data management & technology Developing protocols Field crew training Implementing field work
  15. 15. “This is a great place to start. Update everyone as to your findings and get everyone together to talk about it.”
  16. 16. Urban tree monitoring protocols
  17. 17. New monitoring protocols • How are these protocols different? – Emphasis on locational accuracy – Longitudinal data – Training materials – Bottom-up process
  18. 18. Guiding principles • Keep it simple • Make it flexible • Seek input from practitioners • Answer key research questions • Promote management objectives
  19. 19. MANAGEMENT Data Set stewardship, program staff and funding resources TREE Data Set tree size, health, pests & diseases MINIMUM Data Set date, location, species , DBH COMMUNITY Data Set income, housing, educa tion, crime SITE Data Set sidewalks, roads, b uildings, soils
  20. 20. Minimum data set Project data Field crew Date
  21. 21. Minimum data set Project data Location data Field crew Date Location Site type Land use
  22. 22. Minimum data set Project data Location data Tree data Field crew Date Location Site type Land use Species DBH Mortality status Condition rating
  23. 23. Location: NYC example 1 AS 108 1st ST 108 2 AS 108 1st ST 1A 2A 1F 102 1 SA 2F 1st STREET 1 SX 1X 1st AV 100 101 102 2nd AV 102 103 1F X X X 104 106 1S 108 1S 2S 1F 2F 2S
  24. 24. Final products Training & Project Management • Technical manual • Field guide • Project set-up “choose your own adventure” • FAQ • Training materials Data Management • Mobile apps, field sheets • Relational database
  25. 25. Conclusions • The value of longitudinal data • Need for better monitoring tools • Collaborative process
  26. 26. www.urbantreegrowth.org lroman@fs.fed.us

×