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

Monitoring the Urban Forest:A National Network for Researcher-

Practitioner Partnerships

7 November 2013Lara Roman, USDA Forest Service

Sacramento Shade Tree Program

Reduce energy use through tree shade

0 1 2 3 4 5

time (years since planting)

surv

ivor

ship

time (years since planting)

surv

ivor

ship

71% survivorship (5 yrs)

6.6% annual mortality

0 1 2 3 4 5

time (years since planting)

surv

ivor

ship

stable homeownershipunstable homeownership

time (years since planting)

surv

ivor

ship

unstable homeowners:9.3% annual mortality

stable homeowners:5.2% annual mortality

West Oakland Street Trees

Roman et al. 2013

Size-based Mortality

[00.1,7.6] [07.7,15.2] [15.3,30.5] [30.6,45.7] [45.8,61.0] [>61.1]0.0000

0.0100

0.0200

0.0300

0.0400

0.0500

0.0600 0.0555(n=572)

0.0157(n=158)

0.0155(n=133)

0.0085(n=48)

0.0114(n=18)

0.0000 (n=11)

DBH size class (cm)

an

nu

al m

ort

alit

y r

ate

DBH size class

annu

al m

orta

lity

• Net population increase: 17%• Avg. proportion standing dead: 2%• Avg. proportion dead trees removed: 57%

Standing Dead Trees

Outline

• UTGL background• Survey of practitioner-driven monitoring• New monitoring protocols• Data sets

Practitioner-driven urban tree monitoring:A national survey

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?

Reasons for monitoring

• Track mortality, health & growth• Proactive tree care & management• Monitoring required by grant or contract

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.”

Monitoring methods

• Limited external assistance• Field crews

– Program staff– Volunteers– Arborists

Challenges

• Resource limitation– 50% of organizations ≤ 6 staff

• Data management & technology• Developing protocols• Field crew training• Implementing field work

“This is a great place to start. Update everyone as to your findings and get everyone together to talk about it.”

Urban tree monitoring protocols

• How are these protocols different?– Emphasis on locational accuracy– Longitudinal data– Training materials– Bottom-up process

New monitoring protocols

• Keep it simple

• Make it flexible

• Seek input from practitioners

• Answer key research questions

• Promote management objectives

Guiding principles

MINIMUM Data Setdate, location, species, DBH

MANAGEMENT Data Setstewardship, program

staff and funding resources

COMMUNITY Data Setincome, housing, education, crime

SITE Data Setsidewalks, roads, buildings, soils

TREE Data Settree size, health, pests & diseases

Field crew

Date

Minimum data set

Project data

Field crew Date Location Site type Land use

Minimum data set

Project data

Location data

Field crew Date Location Site type Land use Species DBH Mortality status Condition rating

Minimum data set

Project data

Location data

Tree data

Location: NYC example

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

Final products

• The value of longitudinal data

• Need for better monitoring tools

• Collaborative process

Conclusions

www.urbantreegrowth.orglroman@fs.fed.us