Upload
coe-roberts
View
73
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships Lara Roman, UC Berkley
Citation preview
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