s. 0‘. a 1- .l. .u». o v. a... ”.3 3...}: 2 .2 3 2J3... >qu- tlti 2. H2. .. o u 2 . I . “22"“.- ‘P’V420fio 01..., 1% ‘u . in. on 2 ‘1..n’-.'o. ' ’2 .I . Set; a .2 ..31....2l.2oo$21.: .2... 0.. ‘0 do. 0‘ 9’2.‘ . . t . p o . o: 3.. .4... 3337'; ’3 ...} 0.03922. .‘tv‘n..2.c"lc o .3 .r!‘. I323 u‘ . inc, 3612..., 2 . 2 2 .C R: o2 $ 2. 2 222.... W. "main?” 2.”...21321. flufifimh O. H F (u: 0"!“ ... a. 2. C 2 . . . 2 . . .... . . .. .2-vdofic2...l.*.o.a . . Coat. 2 :10 ... -..-(.2... . .2...2ow , (2.1.2.2 1.2.051“.- .23”. . 00*. 2 3' 22‘. 2 p . o ..I 20! 2. 2 o . .bo .2 in. 9.2. 33‘! .. . . so 3 ‘ t...)« .24. 2 2.... 33‘ 1. ’Jhn‘no ll... 2-9.2.-\ won. o .22“. .‘i. 1.31.} h r.‘ .2 ....Jafirfifi ‘ fibre). .02 3'22l'2 II 8 . . 2o 2 . O L 2:. 6Q .- .. hfifgputu 3 (filmw 8 C2.- . Q 4 n l «I .. A 22 Vfiau .52.. . ?p 21.». 33 ’Udai 9.20.28.51.- uhn)‘ 3-39“? , .10.; .l .4.»- fi' .- 4.122142: 2.03- :Ovukcflm‘Soo .c 8'. I.“ woo . .- 233.24. ‘1' l . 2 . 'c'rci‘v-AJVL. (or. 9.2.." “In...“ 1.3 . 2...: ”roojtfanu‘38023N. O ...-l 2. -. 32} . o 8..-! ON”: 3 . :03 oo 2.2. ’13 .2 I‘s l- . via-.401. ..‘ul 2-‘2.’ [our ‘2 29.0”! Cs..ylvl.o2!.o.l.ufl2 2.! L ‘KHQ t‘b: L1. 2 190.... 28.83“”... I... . w 2”“ rmv'ul‘fizflvgv Pu mn20‘va‘3k do...“ .‘fnba fi"C'Q-¢b0\ ” 2”,: :‘u Oats-.10“! ‘o'to - A .u.‘ ..., . o .1... v2 2 I»... :Q!‘ . ...." 2&3? uuflwfimbkm. .25.... .. am....«......i.2_ . frag}.1......22....22.a..uu22.22...22522.12.321?2:... 2... ...n.......n....u.......2...... . . . . in . (i. 2 .. 2 9’. . ... ...H . . .20 2 c.3982. . .22 22.233.221.20: I. t: 9...... S ...-I u ‘03:. av . ‘3‘ u. .‘.at...9i$. 30:55.20. .0... .4. 3.2.3 Q to... .o . 2 . . . . p “2. 2.02.1. t... . ta. o... o . 2 . 2o. 2 I. .2" .3..- . ..2l31'.1. 2.2.21 :9. .20.... . 3201‘ , . ... . .72.. 0 .2 3... . ...! (I). 2 2.1.: .3. 2. .2911... . 33 I. .2 ‘2.- 2 . 5. t .«2 A: .2 9:... .322“ .2 2.2!. 81122.22. .. 2 . . . .I. .. 2.‘ 29¢ .24 _ ... 2:... .... ......222: ... .. 1.29.2 ... . .. .2. 2r... . .32.“...29. . 2.3.8... .... ... 2....u......«.u.-2.. 2.... . . 22.2.}... . . . . . . .2. . . 2 ...... 2 2.22.222. .2 )4. 5.223%”! 2.64.5: . f... ...-.3. ”VP.” .0 had". 5. 100‘. ..u... 2.2. 3.20:! 222.2.P\O2522a2 . 2.32m“..u...&'.aua.¢mo.atva::t a . ......22, (I 22. 6.3.2.0»... o .2. 2 . “Lo. . . x 3”,...H...” 2 . :20??? 26.8.8. 2. ‘o or. u 25 :22. . 22 1 Lu— Hui‘vih... 10.2. #3135. F. .. 3". 24. . 2-23.]. . 3..2Ill-..0..£!2. .1}..382.l.&:n228'.o00 l2 Io. 22...... 52"... O. 9...! .... L ......2 . fl. . 2.2 i‘ o 2 8 in!!!“ Q o 02.“..122‘ ... you”: puxlo.‘ ...N"!. :22! .. ..99Q.32v.2.olv.u:=22 ..2 .82.}... 2|}: c9102. ..loit. . . . . ....lifl 2 2"... 2.22.. |....\. .2: :2." . I 1 n2 32...}. f0 L". “2 2’...“ r o. , to“ a... PI ... . 30-. J a..¢9|....§"...l .O‘I'.I2~I. .2"; .5: ‘1‘ 2.2-21.9..302306 _.\2 b1“; Solo-3 .‘60 . . . .2. . 2. ..I2..) .2 o ‘3... o .223. 99“. '.\'l« ..I 2...! 2 p .. 0.... 3 0 ... f. . ..9. to 22.... fl 2...... 2"902 2.9..J2‘Ec22.l..v00.l3 €1!..5Q22.v2u.3.v¢. 2 .P 0.. f. .0. .. . 3 2. . ...-.....- A 9 .20} clfiiion'.‘ .2 e... 2193:“...3: . 20 a...) . .621 u o .. I no: 2.0.29gOI- .22 .13.... $428.. . . 2 tn . .o .2 ... . .30 2‘ .122 .22. ‘2 .8 2.4 ..| it o (2'... «.8131ng 2... I... 2 ...: _ ““2““.2 . "‘9‘ . . 2 . f ’22. 1-... o . . .... .\. O o. ' liig. o... v} 0“: . u‘ 2’... “‘2 2. 0‘ ..C.‘ . ch 2 . ‘92...) i0. . 2.02:“. “w 2 2222......”535222 .25 ...... .153... .2... . 2.... 2.22.... “...... 2 .222. . 2 .. . 222......222.....2.. . .2 2 ...22 o .2. .. :2. 2n”. 2 r l W... £22.22“. . 21' ...... “2.32.22.31.22 222.222.222.22. {.2 8.5.90... .... ...?) .. 2 . b 0‘. c"".. on.- .N 03. ‘5‘ ." .n't m"n|tv».3~i co 7....609L2 . 214‘! J... ..l'o..‘!3'o o s—A 22.2... V.tu.b§¢u.f '0‘ l4! . I; . . .....v. 2. 2.2-. ....v‘ 2 _ )" ...-'22:?“1u‘100-Q .062. . , 2 Quinn-.9 2221'". 2 IJngv’ouo 2 2.... r a .... .1 3’ucqnn h. .5. .. on 2... ¥J¢SGou~2 in... -..-00......02222-0 - ‘92 5021..) 2 .... .2.- ..n . 2or‘90v- )- ..."..OJTbHoI-ncouinxhl‘ 3‘3... Q... Q}, o . VA. . ..o 2 . . .00!!! " .- IOo-O .Jbo'2.;20.1020m0'0. 2.d u....‘. 20 a; _ Ia... . a: I}, .. a...” .so . a (522'... Ti: III ~03... .04 o 3.; . 2 I} . g 2. ) ¢fi . {Praflm -2o§:‘.2' Io .0200-32‘ ‘0 o .12niao uaacntl’v 20: I! o .0 o o C o- !" . . I - “€210.31”... 22:2‘0‘229 v. p .3. ...-O2 . o .922-2I .2...- 0- ca ‘0. ... 2 ‘6 I" 3‘. 2... ...-cl iii 2 20.“.- .‘n.’ 20.2 292b2lo3|i '22. . I o. o 2 1.0 2. 0.18 ‘I 0"...§‘.. (.... 28°. 0‘: '22 O2 {.080 2.2. . 2 2. $2....Uin...‘ J’O '4 .12..“‘92vt2 2... hfl‘rdft‘q..yu. . . List-1.. 2...“..2un...’ 28.2.2! .10. ......1......2 Iggéhduv.‘ .0. . 2.. o .. 2 2:3: 2 . q .2 o2 . p .2021; _ 2. 2.. 2 2 . 2 . 2.2 I. : 2 n2 2 .33- thv‘nokp.‘ ...JH-o: n. ‘h‘ Lfi“.€1‘h¢" ”ti‘tnrwqm‘h‘fl? “at-«“23. ..."VWCUWfikcnn‘LQ-lfi”t'nnfiuurn‘év! 2“. ...-:2... slu!‘d.03.4.‘.o‘ £130.33! 3?.2oorfcnu‘2 2 .SI .22 .8 22 . . ..2 in. o 2 . i .9 V pro 0.9. 222012.270... 2 3.2.33.9...122‘1322f. Iii-.....aozk.‘ . ' 5" '3‘. 9“ cl. ‘2 ....2. 4" . .1222 ‘20....vt‘z2.“u 7.3.022“... “\2o2‘22"‘. ...-0o \ 00).... 2.. 0:.t 22 222.... .. or . 2O- . . . 13.39.33." ”2. $.ol‘fi2ooouu’i‘c-os {qafl’blu’lolqafiuzo .2209 21‘...” 8'73.h3o~6§ 32 . 9.2 I .o 2 ‘2. . a. ”.1; .0 .....Q- 2.8. I. . Y. .2. 2.9!}... .vu. 1.32‘833-‘3132o1‘l..3. .....ll’i la§i8.§1a ..2.’. 2.2 2.022.913. cf: ..vioiao. a. 2. 2 2 . . 2, .o. . . o .2 . s r! a! 2 .3 2. . . $3. .02. . '2. 3.... . 2. 2.2.1.5331: 2 022...... .. .I..£.o.2i... .2 a 2. 2. 2 ..v t‘... 3:76“ 2 3 ‘0‘! .t 2“. suit-cl c2 0-. ......“Iv. (.01., A 2?! 0“..! 3.0.25. 2.2.9.19! 1? 22 o 9,. .2 . ’92,". out... “3....o‘a‘folfiz‘! 33.2222 ...-.0. I... 2 4603.30343.’ .8. ($2. 25 ..273.‘ ‘ '2 ....h! .10. . . It... 55.3.2.2»... 2 2.02.22... J.2.Q~ 9.0- !t‘. . 3 .2 . . Sonfig uVIgL42§flctJPIIO.J . Cu )fi‘lnfif Ioonvthmflnfiiwrn . 9...... I P.2:.JC‘DA“2O3.I‘2 2 0‘ «'0‘...- 0 2.0.0200.- .15 .0 -.. .-.. I. 2.0. C. . ’ .....2 9‘2 . J‘ONVQWM .1... 2‘ ’2 .‘s'.. ..u.‘ .. I a .0 Q ‘21 ... 2'. I: on a 2. $13.22 2 Quart... Choc-3.2.9 .0. o. A .. o... ....22 . 2 . 32.1.. :2 2: . 2. . . .3J’. o. 2.25.2”..39. .. 2-.lfia2. can iirlha “Mint-213‘ 9!? . - £03flan§2£7‘1 .32.... I... A .$.-l§! avohulo .... ...... 229.12 . . . .. .w...2032.lu.22. no... ..9 . . .3 2 .....99 .2 .80; Qf‘onv 2d“ I; ."c fwiflnv. .5‘0 . io-& ”a 02. (2.1.02... I...o".l. ...‘ol‘. .2... 0:“.00. 92 .21! to... 12. 20.? 2 30.1.. 0. .o . ' 22.} o 2: 2 - kl}.- .oo‘t 2 u L 2 (L .v . «2. its 2‘41... .1. (3! 2!.th . 2 .25.): . .Itv.to.vto.2 .232. .2: 22.... . . . o 2.212. . 2. I! .....2 . 2 ...)... . v. .vu r-Nfi‘v‘w‘ #3210 .51! 0.31.3.31222‘30} 1:1... in .QTO... ' 2 o w 2 s .2 II 99....020’! r .2oq...!\. ..2.f\. .2 .2083 i2 .2 c "2 02- ’ ...-:3... 3.. 51.21 2 2.2.3.3257 . 2.2-. 22. 3....741‘ ”I1 2 a If... . . nu .222 2 o . 22.. 32...... 1.11,. 1?... .....12 ...v2 220.). £320.23. 33‘0“...” E” g n. 2 .- ."n‘fbhr‘hf ...”3.Tu....«_o.:‘|,g . o: 253?. 3 3.2.0- cpns‘ooi‘co‘ . . . . In. on 20v".2'nm-un’2.onu2..ron.‘u.ubuo”3 n t 2. .2. . I. I ...u. luroura...2ou22 . or. .... .to...’$.;...! .Q 9...... p. . (291.'o '09 “A.I.-too" ‘...o..!r9. c on ‘22-... a: .‘O~‘.o.7“n . . , .2 Eve .lurJhnhum‘o.lo2 . 2 . . 2 .. 3 .....V0 u. a. 2... o O 9‘, .uvz...l2r 2.. .90.". 2... . 9'. .u ‘2 .2 0 v. I: 200.0.I‘ur u.".’i"l| J“... 2, I."'.O.v29.p.§u..~ muv." I "On .3“: . in 1 3’3. .2 :5...’:. .n . ‘3‘ 1...“..10‘2-2. .. . 2 . 02r2I2I02’2.. J... 9... . a 2} 322323: 0 9. .220 . ...! “0.2 .2. . . .2 I . 2 2.2.23... .. t ..3! 2” 2. .09}:- c..f.-3oauuc2'l.nwfl . .........c. 2 12.9.3.3'Au3 a) . 10.3.9.3. ~.... . 2. 3|. 012222. . 2.02"“ J a...“ (-1.2 (“2. ”Th-... .32.. 2.3.2“. u. . ... 2..,. on 2 . ¢ 23.229.03.071 2 3... . . . . . l. or» . .V. o 2: 2 2 , I... .29. v u 30. 2 2 lira 33.3.42- ... .a .l ... *2...noun-hunhUuauoouNqu-nfllluflh.5 “luflwflww “Jw.uo.£..3!i.o2.2 .20.”. .... 2:? ... 2...?!25. 22. .2 h1.2.9.226........zvnh2.2..222.u. 2.4: 2. . . 2 .132 as: .. ...-2vow...oo«ro.. . .v .. . 22 L 6(- . Inn-32.31.21: .. o: 0.5.2O2Q-042 cu!- .: 2.1.... 2.2 ...-I. A ‘ n . ...: . o . 2.0.2. o 20. . . .1. 1L1 Y . .0 1“ .a 2 tr. ‘2 4 «d. lJ-th‘kf ..i 12.25.?! 6930.20.59... .Q2.I222.!f... . :3; 3 . . .q o ..v 2.2... 2 . .o ..I. fl . 2 _ i 3.1”...» ..Ir .4. .0. M 2 ‘3?! l:0.2.|.... .Jo 9I‘12f!lu2. I... . 3.096....» I. .223. {2.212.121}! . I l . . 6...“...22‘21nn....trl...‘ 2 5.. 2.2.2. $023.. .83..!9.22un...28021~.’:. 2 . . . ... . ..v .... . . _..¢.}.v.l.to 2!: 3.. ...... ...... 3...! .1422: 2.. .r..2.l:u . . 2 . . 2 . . . . .r eh“... l..!l..lt.....§.t.€2 2 .23.... . . . . . . . ...O .3“: . t...‘.» 20“... .o ... { 33,1, . u 2 ‘3‘?! .0 2.23.... 2 .‘I 3.2.2.04: o:.\"ov‘\:” 21.2.. . .. .1... 2.2.1.. '8‘ .Q I»)... .22 2! .VOSQ...QI-.t;lo ..20 0- fdfist .'O.J.cC.-$’ '2. ... 0 29-7-9... .21.!- .‘na- .2 . 33‘2,203 {n-Scf ‘0 'E . . 2.. 3 . r . o ’20, .0. :0 'J . C - .o}....2.vA-ua! 2 2 . . 22 01.1.2.2... ... o :0 .32.:02f1v I tor-If.- .. .o . at nuns-.22.". .‘q‘l 2‘ "a. ~¢ I... a. C 2 . ... . 5.2.: I. § 3.0-...‘. -”A ”0" 2 2 .“Onoll ..w a... 2.3... niguooo Ibo-.2..." 9 22:22:27 .. .32 9 ..v. H ...-no. 3. Q. 9: so»... .. garth. I. 20.4..0‘I2 .2: 2.. 6.22-1.12? ‘2lf3121. 02-... .....2 .. 2 v2. 2 022$ 22.. . ‘3 I: 5.0385 008390.. 3.3.1.6.}. .92! 2 2: «I .. o .22.. 2. 2 V... .22.)! 2 3.2.1903... 2.7.0.2.” 2n“... . 2 ..v 22 I" n ‘0‘... 09"; :‘l120 I’d. ! U? Q. 2‘ ,‘I232" 20 ‘AT- «02. on. ‘21,. ...-0.2 2.2‘C'l.’ ...-o2 . . '- 6' ‘l2 .2. ....“ I . . acaa'o.o‘ 2““! 3.6022 .03.) . .2... 2:... . ...-1...," i 'l . s or . 2 . . . o... 2.2 a .21")... 32 .30 {$100,224} rt. ”J. 240.! do .n 4.0 1!...c22-0292. . . 2&2 ..c . v02".?.o3t.:2 ’9. .2. l I! Proo~ catch)“. ...?“ 221’. . ..L . n v. «5-21‘2'0fiiao “:9. I: gtu.r§~c¢"2of..ruuo.?.l .09..In2o.ont11..“o..JO.. . . '...l-..OU¢uO.$1‘-oou 42”....a22h.HA.v.an.2w22uO. I”...M.~3..3 .102 1-. F .02 00.2. .... .I. . t. d. .a .. . 2 . . . . . '4‘“ I ...?2‘ .2.”2.2u...2.n..2..2..22... -uxfiie. qua... 22.22.22...n12.22222.2253unquawfis . . 5. “loan... 3.2.2.2225? . Est. 222...... .....2..”......2..2u...2._22. ...2 . . 2.. . . . . . . _ ......é... .. .2 2... 2 2. . 22 2 . . .l . . 2 ... . .l 2 . 2! u t .02 | 2.2 22 . . .. 2 . . 2 2 . 5.. itiu‘. . 14.0.8 ...! 0 3.21:}. , 2 . 2 at; 21%.; sun-2n} rudimvuvi. . an!" ..30.ol\a:.nu-.vhuuuu ..Iuwuonumruhld. .3“...- . . 3.9.23.2.223 2% (.12 .2. .23 ...-.3351“? D. 2 . . ....dnuPJwMQWWI-V . 2 2.2 . o 0.2. 2.... .22 2.... ... v. . o. .0 C. 2’ ”fiance II $.- 2...l. (.7. P‘v‘h o. LESI.‘ 3‘1..lt§'¢t“fl6022u‘32 I.’ s. 2.3 2. 2.20.0.‘0303 ”.21 u I. o... . I . . 2.22"...- . . . ...2. $0.0... ..S~.l v3.1. ‘5. . .4 Q 1... 1 o . 3:...l20101. ...84 £.o§..3¥.cl.l. 2.3!..92flcu'2.......I..1o.|6...... ..'.;.f . . . (.2pInuvflfi2H. 20.0»u2I- .2 . . 222‘. 2. o...“ 9.2” .I 2 2882-20.... .22.: Iq 2 .. {09‘3lr21 2.3.32.0 2 . . . .. 9 to .22. o \ . Jou- J‘ra. Jo.-‘2..'2.l. 3.22.2 r 2 0.... 2.. t ..Ho.!!.fl‘ n.2, .... . ’92.“.9l \.Q.l\.9o: .ODCIK.... ‘B 2. ...... 21:22.2 2.... 2 I732 . . I... C... .30.... .2. x. . .12 G 2h .0. . . .... l2 .... r .1 2:... ... v. .‘l’o- .3 .t. 2.98.20.21.24 . ."oo3XI.u.2, . ob..:2< ... . ...-Ono s. f....ts. .l‘. . .22. .90.: . ... . o 2D..’¢2’ ..‘.J’..¢os...3..’ '5. Q... 9.293.912 .. .0. . l".&~2l2 092...... IV? no Truf$2z2 . . 2290 3.4.2.222. 2.... 9. 132.00.). - 2 L . w.ta.4.‘\ov.!do2‘ 9 3'. oar. 2 . . ‘6; ..Q.’ 2‘“ %it‘ 2 . _ H Qv d v 0.0.0‘ ......2201 “a.“ .20...)- v 1': ...-'0’. ‘302 . 5. ..o 0-. . ..v .0. 2.52.2.1! (.230... 5‘ 2 .U . 2 :I 2o. .2. 53525... 1.5.2.2.. -220. ...-”f . .0892822 ..l‘t)..v.1: on“. 7.1... 2.} 52.2.22 2‘... a 23. 2 . .22 I 520.7212 2b....Jt‘Ct 2022.212 2. ) 2. .12... 2.0:“ 1 ‘1... 302.2“... 2““!!! :14“? ...-......” J..C‘\232v‘\n." .(‘3 ..‘I... J'.‘2240:' 23'... ’h. 2 0...... Q 2 .2, .232 “21‘. 91.3.3121 2 2.0.0.0.... . . I 9.. r . ..u .... .bm-O‘ILQFI: 2.9.3. .32v.t'q!.a..t-‘I2C::: .....2. 3'5. . . 2.1.0.. 3 2 Q2232? .21....91 A. Iii-r? 6.258... 12.2.1.0:3. .o .0... 22.31.22. 22.....23 ,‘22. 2.21.122 . . l...’..vl22v2 .13.. . a :2. p. ‘o.\. ... luv.s2vb2....a ....1’9'? ... 33ril 22' \128‘. .. t‘u:2o.t 2182.122...) f...:..r.:.. 2 2 . 2 Z . 2 to .... . S 1.2.. . 0.12.5.1... . ...)!1T1c2o2uT 21.222 ... ‘3‘: 2|. .-.. “'251to5I2... 22 r .. 2....701: . . . . . . . or. .90. 2022.. .2233 22'. .1. 22.121.0202 .1. .....Xo.‘ . ... 39¢V‘2323. 2.02.21... .20. 3...!!! 12.0... .o . . . _ . . . . .. '0 1. 5:32.. . 25...! . 3 v5.0... . . .0 . . 1.6.3“: 2.... 23-22.. . ‘OA1’193K22093‘252 22’Sov 23‘. 5V I‘l? . . . . 2 2 . . . 56.11 .0! .2 b ... ...... 2209! . 1.: in“ u. Catt-#2922. 3.33.2.2. a. .3352! 3... ’...I23.! 1-3.6). . . I 2 .. : . . 2 . . .. . 2 . . . . ’27 . ”'92- :00. 42“ J 2.\o}.a2.2. . . . 2‘22... 0’. io- 22p..‘o.w§8. "vlu‘dl 2 . ’1‘! u ..iaé‘o' 2 .. 2. . . . .. . . . . . . . 2 . . .. . .1‘ 2 0‘20“ v.32! .03... .2. 2... ... 2.9}...15222. ¢I_I_ 'II‘P. 3:33.16 to: .2. o Ju‘lu‘uflhn o 2.1;. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . 2 a .2 l2 0‘; 1.3. 23‘1‘2 . 2!. on... . o"“..§¢ ... o..02'.o. 2 . o I . 2 2 . 2 2 . . . . . . . . o 2 . . . . .. 2 . . t...” ....2‘2212..:.r.‘ .(z-ng‘r.‘ ..8: ..a..:.,.¢.h112 .211... . . .34....‘1LJ‘:HU:J . .HLuZUrf ._ 2 . , . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .2I,oC.m..o..».u...fiu.¢.‘.2.2.flm.a. .ui’nfihn-ao‘o". .1052. .... . 22.. w .2. . .. . l .1 2 ., 22. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . .... c .15.“. 2 cu ..w! r... “a“ J\2”20Muamuu 2062.33.11-28: 2.9...‘02319‘ ...? .- . . . 2 . ._ . . 2. . . . v .2... ... .2». . 2:02 :2?! . 2.2|!.22.¢§¢.;.1.Yc .9. $2.. .20.} O2. «.1. .Q :12".....- .03.? 3 0521522... 3.3371 . . . . . . . .. 2 2 . . . . . . .. . . ., .. .. ...-29 0.2.... '3’. Q2 5 2 l‘...‘ 3‘22. (AlficJQKvg‘. ' I C 2'... .55.. 0 Q2. .pl.-....o-.7l. 2.0.2.002. .. .Luatg Iozoo «1...: 1’ ‘9‘... r coviD-Icoo . 2 2 . . .2 , . . 2 . 2 . . . . . . . g ’2. P: 2’v‘31 o ‘C’... O. ‘ t a ‘I 2‘.‘....:;b.. . . o to} 2 2.320.22-oloic’loh .. 3.. o 0‘ .226 ‘ . no-3... ‘. 3.22 o s u. . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 2 3'42). ‘9‘: .t f. C"’ '02:... 'a . 2 o. 21.. 2. (:33! z o ... $32.22.}..330318: 2.8!»: $2222.2‘432 ...-.«2Ja2oo2lab 22.22 . 22!: :2. 2 . . 2 . . ; . . . . , , . . . . . ...-112.221.0242 41‘... .2... it‘nfi o 2.. .9 .40.... - .wu. .2 ..1922... .... .-.00‘0332...‘ 0.02260... {21...}? 02.... 3 2- 2.02.2 6.20.... I . .h o. a. .2. ..‘ . .3. D 220. . . . . . . . ., . . . 2 .. . 41 ....32.:9‘.II Q-.. .23 2.02. ‘I ' .2 .. .4 . . 10.0.2” .C . .2 ‘1 0.9.02‘3201...‘ .Soo..v\:22.223, ..oilob3022. -.io.‘-£hflf.£. :2 . c.3000 ...... o o ....I‘S-PK-Il on... .Q.... 1.1.0.2. 212‘! 3C2 . a ._ . 2 02 .2 .. l. 0 90...;25... .. . . . . 2. . . v . ...).li’P. .4 20"},2: I. ta" g. b. ‘1 c. O h . I I n . cur?” v r. .... {2 -r v." . . .2 «2.00.9.7 o2. £C‘2...J. 23”? 028.....92irlu alt. . o 3 o. ... 9... ...-.0. 2! 1.1.1.2.... 20.22 20; ..l ...o. .0 C... q . vow: . ... ~ . o . . C a... . . . . , . 59.0.... 2.3.£.\1..2:! 0.. 2 U '23 t .7 . ‘2 . .2142. 22. . ".... . J .2 ....u....... .FGV 2.: 0‘. ML .... 22} 20.13....‘33‘82 C. ......2 2. .tr?t~.f.2.:. . .2 2 62.3.1... .I. ... . .22.: .. .22. . . 2.5.3.2.; ....Nurito..tr~ .11 visffvrftv. .272... .. . . . . . . . 2.225.qu 0} I5»... :2, Q'KNO fig; 0 V a \O...... c.“ outfit a ”0‘..." ..2 3.0.5.... -.3’0. o 21.1.. ‘4 :clono. (7“... v... a. 2113.2..‘22302tzca‘13. 0:26.91. 2 00- ..wbv 2 362.c- ..1 I. 2 2‘ I... o. \9‘...9. .. 2 Zulu-2.9.0 v02. . . . . . . . 2 ‘0‘.IC.u-.\x¢..- ‘I.|3o, 0‘. 0"." I22 2 o .0 .2 . ... 21...... .' 2. .1... 2.. .92 .v‘ .3 231‘, 5.2 22. .... 2 ..Il . 2222...." . 2... 2. 392.... o . . ... o .. 2.. ...... ..- ‘2 o 20 . o. u 2.2..- .- {"2922 2.1. ......2025: 3‘2"Y"z‘»2"§.: 2.0.30: 65...! 1 .. .zclxt:2lo2o.n (Icy! guns-... ‘22..“n44flfigvp. o 1......\~.. Ir923‘1..v‘1023u33.o~ 3.3032520. so... .0 3.2.8.2.. . ...owr.w.p2'.hfiont.f22 .. . .. v 2 o L c ..I I. .21 231;... It... 0» r . h to 863.1. . ..lilo...2.. 2.6.. . a! o... ... c .N... t2 2% 20.19.02,... '26.. ...2‘22 23.2.. in .2... 2 2 . '22 2. I . NM... 0 . .5328412. uvs~.1\ 20".. '2. ' n 609.9).-.302... 32.... o ‘2 IO?- . . o. 2 2" .00. k. -..-2 2.‘ czosfl‘ .o’ a ’9. 2-. 2-1- ;;uc‘o. . . . .§ ...... 2 . ... Y... c..- inlol... Q’Iv:,.nl ' I .. .‘13_’. . 3.2 .2. I . o . ... ‘yo’MYJ ......O‘Ih. .2 .l 9.2... ...-a. nol‘vfi‘i . cut. I .220... '.....o.“:.. . ... . 42¢... ... ’l...t.l .7 . 2:9. 305‘ A¢2!2¢.I).l.‘ O (SCI-2,. 0 7.22.. . .n ‘3. 2' o O n r .. . . . I a, E‘Q.".o 0’" 22 I’.,O“a.‘. 2". .03 .1. ~22... ...; 2o 2- :12. . 2-1.. a o .. 0.22.2. — 3' X. 2.1.. 9.2.2.... . ‘1‘ 6...... 1......01". 3.0.23.0 .049 {2" . 2 ' ... 2 a2 2 2 . .. ..2 .. . I 2. . 2.. . ta. 2 «A, . . : 0.. 2. 32?...2_1.Sz......2.2 0.3227... n ..o ...-.65 23...... ...v...22_fi.o.n 222... . . 2. .. c I. .32.. l!. ....11...1£.. «2 .2922. 2. 2 0:4 .189...-..,..?1¢OS&...ti.:2 ... 2 \_ w. um .32).”. 220 _. . 0 . . ~ . _ . 2213.. 2.. (L22. . . 2.20... x .2 v 22. .2 . .l 2 ... 2‘ r110. ... ...: ...:S is! .2 6-2 212.2 . . .. 22. 2 2 .2? 39"..Qul9v29v2‘113‘21 .92.: Q!!!) .11.:"QiGLIQT C 2“ o c .2 . . O. o 3‘95...“ ”1.... 2 2 21 ...". Inuhoxhohoééfiooié 2H3..J,§2.2uo.v§n..7 n... ....O...- 22: a. ..f‘vnleu....“6-' ....2“ 5.2....o2....~.2" 22"....22 . 2 . 2 ..u. . 2 .. . . .. . 2.‘~o.. ... . ..v'o.?‘... 0802. .53... ’93. .s‘.QI22Q.vQ‘¢QM . ..qa? . §" 2 '0. Iv 2 2 32.2. o 2 . . 2 2 2 . u v 0 ct$~v 2 .. I . l2. . 2.. . 2. 2 2 n . . 2. o b 2 I 21‘... .. .. 2 . . . C... . ... 222-2. '6 ~o:‘o 'fi’. 5224.00 7’ .‘mc 9." i m‘: .4. . 2 ”....be... .“22 2.2.12.2“...3... .rtoflu-n-u .mn‘a: ”...-mod, 2 LvtkbhwuvqfluPIriv .. . . . ld.“.t..o2l c hf .2. . . . 2. .2 . . 2 .. . 2 . 2 .. {.2 Yo. r22! 2 .11.".1'2.’ 2.03....0231. 03...!03136. ”2' I ’9 . a... o ‘0 .0 fl . .92 U o: I... ; u. o 20 o r 92.. o a 2 2 . ov‘l’x... a ....» co. .0? . 2 0O ... 2 .400. o .. 2 . 2 . . . . . 2. . . 2. . ...: ”29.0.1... ‘.§..2. Q. .3 ......I.‘ ;.'2.'. .‘tfl. ‘- o-oooovo . 2 c o 0.0 2.... do 2". - w o 93‘23. If...) .0 go“. 0“. I to... O’Co.. v.1... .. . . 2 . ... . 2 2 2 .ISI. . . . . . . . . 2 . ...-s3: 0 o 2 :7 . ,I.. 2 0.04 .... I ‘n “‘2. “ o‘.’& 2’ ‘ a. . 2 .93....v.:o.~. .,|.25. ‘01.: o 02": O 3.42. 2 .. an...‘ .8 . 5.20..“o. .220 0 v" a! . .. . 2 . . . 2 . . 2 2 ..-. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 2 . .-.??f. ¢~P‘.‘Q.¢2-O‘.2...r-2o 0‘00}..I.¢.2 .‘ ‘3’: :é 2... 22.02 2.43 ’20... .0: .....l. .222 ....2. 26.002. 7.22.. .l. 400‘... la!.-vt!..: 2 . .. . ... 2 .. .. 2 .. .. 2 . . Mo? ...-.23. 2. . 2 . 2. 2!, . 92.V..2. o-.$tI-.8a.2t.1’§( '2‘- t0§99§§£ 72.. . 2.0. .. .2... 2‘ x .v. ..-... o. ‘12:! .. 2. .. 2.20.10. . 1.2.2) 2-. 2. a ’0 22!... . . . . . . .. . .l. 2. 003 . . . , . . h ... ....zls.$'!¢.1.. 0‘. 3.2““. . 2.0.0.9‘. 2‘: 5L: 6 . _ 2...~20”.....u..‘o2..-u’5n.!2: U 0.. ...... 124292252. 2 y . 2 . .2 . . . . . 2 . 2 . . ... ..2 . 20.22 .. 3...... .l .. l .0! V. ‘9'. .391 :1. "tv 1" U .2 I ..90.....I o. | A. C u 0 'o o 0‘. 0“... ‘ .0211. v a At. 6 '0: .200 2 . .. 2 22 . . 2 . .. .. . . . Iii-On 3’; . u Q 2 o ....o‘ "0.25.6 c- ,“as' .1221" 30 I.“.Ou.‘§.'. 30.“ g ” a ‘2 ¢ 25.. 0" u I 2 ..2 ‘oolo 3.22... t‘.’.: 220": 0.2.2.0. .2 02!.10 2 2 . 2. . .V.. 9 I 20. .J.. . 4. .c 2 I . 22,2.“ Q. ‘ . :Q. ‘ .-‘CC25’-’ .029- ' 1'. .I-. lo. 0 o 9 O . o. Q02 u to... a." ‘4- ‘o.012‘- 2 . . 2 .2 . ...y 2 .’l‘.s.o29o 9i :10‘27-2 o‘p‘t’cv4.3:t’ .7: l2}; 1.. ’ .~ 9 i. ‘ .30. I 42 T .330. ‘25. '0 2' o c“ I... . . . 2 . . .. 2 ..2 l 92. s. . . ,0 .... ‘02.: .22’2031‘“... {sue-29...... . v'u R‘s. a. .9: F 9... 2. . 2 2 2 . . .2 120.22.. ...-.0 ’sVO-o "?.q“'. o. 3.20.0382. 2“ OI“9. 2. . . "V”’ ...??3‘ .§ . 0.2 .....- '2‘ 5‘. .02. 2. \L‘O.P,r ““2‘l’ 'fl'd . . ......l . . . . . . .... 2 . . «c. 1Q‘5.I022:I:o2o ......2... HA . . _ . 32.9...2Or... 90:109....13 .2 2 . . .. ‘0'). [’1\-A2P?I.-..‘ 2‘4 . . 9:02. 00......” 2'22... (‘0 0 "‘.c v . .0291; 5-2. . 0310.... ’9. 1.1.99 9.2. 21:22.." 1.. id. 25‘.” 02. .\. 2 ...-... v‘ C 5.. .02.r.2!uaolt ‘0“.9‘. :2... ‘17.}... 2 «J. o. it. I: .09.: 3...}‘1‘090 51.5“ . .i..".§lnw““"": 2 v CI... .‘ . r .2 I. 2.11 . . 2.....1322. I 2 1...? a 2 .... Q... 2- .3 . .... . . 2....‘ ...-02.3.1... .. .sr .5 to .....d? ....wbég. 22 2.. . .... on.o=v=-2o.v-. .2 . ...-‘1... o ...-.7. u”. 13.222.22.102 2‘. .. . . .2 o . 2 ...... 0.0 2.. l .... t. ‘.'.2-2..Z¢.O2. Quit . c 2.50 2. . \1-‘. .. 3.11.4325; 2.. {Io-.....V. _ . . . 'v‘5u.t. u2|.. . .. . . . . 2 . ... . .03.... 2 0.2.2.. 2 2 . 2. 1.3.... o“... o v . 2 2 . . . . . 2 . 2 . v ...Q. ‘2‘: .‘2 55.: . ~V2o.'O'-..-:‘ . . 2 . 2 2 2. . . . . J o ”.u. . 2 . 2 2‘. 2.5.. 2 2 12 u 1.1.! A262 - ...... Q1 ... . .22 . V . 3.2.1:... . . . .. , . .. . . .0. o... .9‘0‘23‘.‘ o ‘. .Y.¢’2v ‘. .!.2.:oc..:l.l . . ... o 0.: 2 , . . . . .. . . . . . . '0 .20....00u.‘ c...‘.¢.i‘.o\.o G. . . . . . . . . . 4 0.0.. 00.....‘292'0311. .unTyu'lu‘ .. . .. .. . . . . . . 22 . . . ....21‘..d .....2.... .. . . . ._ . .2 . .. . 2 . 120... 0'1 2 ‘20 2 . . .2. z 2. . . 2 2. 2 . 2 . . . .922... . Iii Q‘o 2.. . . .. .. . ..{leifi K‘2\‘n..‘ .1. ...- 92. 2420 to. r2202. 2 a. .o .22.} 2 .. .\.2 2 2 2. . . .2 2.2 ‘1 . t J 9 2.0.2:..3092r213 .3192.» ... c2o. .v.V.2o DI: wok-14.02.0102 .20.... . . . 2 2. 2 292. 2 .02.. . 2 . . 2. 2 ...-9.22.22 _ 32" .. . . . . 2 . .. . . . .. . ... ....DIO «..‘iflWw‘dflfl'ffi. ...lol2\? 9.911.219 ..‘Qunrxco‘blii.i. o 2...! 0:122.V9§ 2 .‘222‘ ‘3‘: it §§O.2.tvhrl) .3339... 2 V! . Q‘s-.1 .2 . as Ol‘uca o. .2-.‘ ll .Og‘2v. ..-~ I .0. oo.v.o|2 .222 2 .. II .1 ..-v‘ a 0.02.02‘ 2 2 2 .2 v3.22 .6...‘.. 12.0. 029... . . . . . . . .. 2 . 2... 2.2.2.2.... . 2....‘QPY'. 297‘... $2 ... .....020’.‘.0 '21....02‘ I. fl“.!arI 2. ’09.. ‘6 40.2 0.: . ... u . s .2 .- -.,.9p 6...... . 2. 2. ‘ n .294 . . lost. .21. 1a... .2 . 2 2 3.02 .1. ...-10.? . .2 .. O 2A .n- o 2 . . 2 . 2 I. . . . . . ., o .2 ..I.a2 2 2 2 .2 ' ali‘oiooo. 2 -20 2.... 2 2 ... .22 o 0.. ...‘Q'J at... . 2 0.15’7‘2’r~:o. . . 2 . C. . .2...vw._.. .. .. .. 2.222 2 ... . .2 21.22.293.229... . . . . . .. . . _ 2 . . ...2 .2 2. _ .. . . 2:26 o... 96...! . 2 . .. .. . . . 2. . . . .2 . ... 0!: u; .. ... 2 a2; 2,. 022.. . . .. ... . . . . .. . ... . . . . . .1. .. .. 2 . .. . .20. ..22 ._ “......2 02 . .o .. . .2 . ,2 .2. .. . . .. tfilfldzltdw‘ a 5". . 2 . 2 . 2. . . .2... v. s f -. ...? 2 . '2 .. .. . . . 2 . . .02 P £1. . . . . _ . .22 ... . . . . .6. . . ... . . . . .. . .. . . ¢ 2.4!;322..12109ia>79$o . 1 1.1.... 2 t... . ... 2. 1’. . .. _ _ . . . 2 . .-.;1‘I136... .. .2.... 2.2.22. . . , . .. $9.32... . . .292!Qe:.i.lr . . . ... . . .. ..0!..‘Qu‘v2u .. 2 . 2 . . . . . C.- ..2.".fl2".‘( In. . .. . 03.90.... ol.,“2 9:? . lv 2 . . til... V2.2 1 ...-aOIIO.2-.. 00.22.... 2‘.-|3t . J .2 :1 0; ‘2 4.?» o .‘ . .... 2.... 5.. .Vaa'... Wyn“. 2.3. o. . no ...-‘2 . OI... 2.2-2. i 9 . o .1 . ...... ...: 2 .2... f2“; 2 .....2 . s v .20 C: 0v. 2 ... 330.242- ., .26 .0.- .a {.23713 ..vo....2‘2... v... 28:02.. .. ..1. .....QO. . \ 07 ‘2. 3.21. ....l o . 2... 2. . 2.. .2... .....22' .26....253 .6.. 2.0 2’ I... to; 2 .2229321. v~.Q9.o..q .02....0-v .0. . Iv 'u.:.. 2 b .2... .... cul. - . .o 2.23.1...‘1. .2... 221. 2 ...-C .4 A's Q2. 0...... '0. n . n o t O to. 2 ~22...22920 .....‘t... o. ... . 2 .. o. o . 2w. 2 o... .. .2 . .M c. 2 92 a . .2... 2. .... .. 2 . . . . . .2... K 7 o u a 9 2 2‘, | 21. .22.. . . . - 2 ‘4. I. .9. 5.. .... ‘2... ... .. g 2 . . . ......2.2 2 o .2: .... 2 2 ... .2 4 . ......9..n~.:- ...-... .52... . .. .....L... . . . ......3...12...v2t... 2... -. 2.0.4.2...10. 0...... . .I.2O2< 0.0- . . 2. 2 . 9...’ou‘.b....a‘4t|. . $200.31.". U..;.“' c O ... . II...v2 .’.2~ .‘..‘o..o. ..I 9..- 40. . 2 2u‘ . 2 102022.92? 2 .... .. . 2 .. 2 2 ... .0... n . o. .. . .... a 2 . . ,. A. .... 2.....22. o 2 . .... .2222 0.... ... 01"... .o ... . ......2222 .. . u. . 2 . 1.3!: 22.20.... . . 22.2.22; lit... 2-. tot-01.0.27. 2 2 ..2 I. . 2. . . . .. . .‘g‘: .22 . . . . v2 .2 ... 4.. . . u ‘5 0'2. I 2. .2...... 21v 2.. .2 . . . . 2'...consc..-.‘..§.... . v.202-Q-2 . "IQI‘... 2:2 2... 2|. 11 ......2-22' 2 ...O u 2 .. o . . 2.. ... . 2270'... O... . 2 a .V O c 2 .I...’D..On.- Ah. .. 2 . in. 2. 2. 2 . .. c 2' .5. ' _ . .. . . _ . . .. . .2 .2. a t ..f. .22 ..., .. ‘22 0.21 v . 2 .. 21.. ....I u. . ... u. . ..9..2-.0~ 2.2 . . .‘aoc.o.. 2 . .... ‘ . . Q. ...t I». 2 . .2 '- ....va..2o.o onio. 2.2 .. .. 2 o I. .2 | .o 2 . .v-lw .0 . . 2 2D .1... 2 2.. ...I’ a- 0 2 .. 2... . . ..V I“ 20.. .. . 2 ...20 .....222 . 2 2 .v... . .. .v2 A..‘ -.‘I: 2|. 2 {< .5600; 50051— :Omcmnouzm 033209 mar—Nosm cop—O £2 :82 b6 em 2:38 seam use: ago .329 88% no woman moEQEonofl 36 A; 2an 19 8:2: E Ema m 28 be 38,—. N on?» .39: basic :occmzm _ 23m 0:95 _ 9 9:. _ 2 3.2 _ 9 N53 — 9 Se...” _ 9 NB _ 9 86. ~ 2 hwm _ 2 M36 E 8 v0.1 _ 8 mm.w _ o. No4V _ 9 mos _ 9 $6 9 83E SE m 3 am; owé ow: :6 3:9 Cd mmd emd No.2 $8 3.0 mud o2... .w>< 52250 N N Nm; 9: mm; w._ E; 3; 3V.— mm; no.“ m6.— Nm._ 8;. .w>< wN Nm m.©N tVON NdN WNM Ndm ohm cdm N.ON Nd— o.wN 0.0m Nbficom mmocnoE cc S No me No Sc mv ow cc mm Vm Nm 2. 86on m NNN Nd om.m 5mm coN ooN ON.m NN.m omN VNd RM cod ..EEoZQ 88,—. NM: 0 _ mN Nwm: ovo— mmo vmc vow m g mm chN _ _ _ _ ohm oNNN owNN ho 59:52 @2353 83 EN EN EN CNN 03 w: mm _ N5 RN wNN 9: SUN EN mo 35:52 moonooN wOON\mooN oma— moonOON owi moonOON owa moonooN oma— mooN\mOON Owfl moonOON emo— owEo>< .8803 58:5 8828.5 obese—on— méosm 520 =Eo>O w==30m moEO .mOGQmOON 9 owmfl .836 $0322 5m 2: 80¢ San Barony—o 528 535 vogue—om cognac—OD .NA Bank. 20 Table 1.3. Comparison of urban forest descriptor averages with and without Lincoln, NE data in 1980 and 2003/2005. 1 980 1 980 2003/ 2005 2003/2005 With Without With Without Uncoln's Data Lincoln's Data Lincoln's Data Lincoln's Data Basal area (sq. feet per acre) 6.49 6.25 V 13.95 14.02 Denistiy (trees per acre) 28.93 29.88 28.45 30.06 Average, size (inches) 7.44 7.10 10.13 9.83 ‘Average condition 153 1.49 1.65 1.64 Diversity (Shannon index) 3.29 3.26 3.13 3.10 Private tolpublic ratio 8.49 to 1 8.93 to 1 7.85 to 1 8.53 to 1 Average number oflots 182.2 189.4 261.8 270.2 Mange Species Richness 60.3 60.0 66.2 66.8 21 Literature Cited Baxter, J .W., S.T.A. Pickett, M.M. Carreiro and J. Dighton. 1999. Ectomycorrhizal diversity and community structure in oak forest stands exposed to contrasting anthropogenic impacts. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77: 771—782. Blair, R. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Application. 6: 506-519. Bradshaw, A.D., B Hunt and T Walmsley. 1995. Trees in the Urban Landscape: Principles and Practice. Spon, London. Brady, R.F., T. Tobias, P.F.J. Eagles, R. Ohmer, J. Micak, B. Veale and RS. Domey. 1979. A typology for the urban ecosystem and its relationship to larger biogeographical landscape units. Urban Ecology. 4: 11—28. Braun, EL. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey. pp. 334—336. Broshot, NE. 2007. The influence of urbanization on forest stand dynamics in northwestern Oregon. Urban Ecosystems. 10: 285-298. Carreiro, M.M. 2008. Introduction: the growth of cities and urban forestry. Pp. 1-9. In Carreiro, M.M., Y.C. Song and J. Wu (eds.). Ecology, Planning and Management of Urban Forests: International Perspectives. Springer Science, New York. Chacalo, A., A. Aldama and J. Grabinsky. 1994. Street tree inventory in Mexico City. Journal of Arboriculture. 20(4): 222-226. Clemens, J ., C. Bradley and CL. Gilbert. 1984. Early development of vegetation on urban demolition sites in Sheffield, England. Urban Ecology. 8: 139—147. Domey, J .R., G.R. Gunterspergen, J .R. Keough and F. Steams. 1984. Composition and structure of an urban woody plant community. Urban Ecology. 8: 69—90. Dowson, J .O. and MA. Khawaja. 1985. Changes in street-tree composition of two Urbana, Illinois neighborhoods after fifty years: 1932-1982. Journal of Arboriculture. 11: 344-348. Dwyer, J .F., D]. Nowak, M.H. Noble and SM. Sisinni. 2000. Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21St century: an assessment of our nation’s urban forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW—GTR-490. Ponland, OR: US. department of agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest research station. p. 105. Gartner, J .T., T. Treiman and T. Frevert. 2002. Missouri urban forest: a ten-year comparison. Journal of Arboriculture. 28: 76-83. 22 Gilbert, CL. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman and Hall, London. Grey, G.W. 1996. The Urban Forest: Comprehensive Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Grove, J .M., K.E. Hinson and RJ. Northrop. 2003. A social approach to understanding urban ecosystems and landscapes. In A.R. Berkowitz, C.H. Nilon and KS. Hollweg (eds.). Understanding Urban Ecosystems. NY, Springer. pp. 167—186. lakovoglou, V, J. Thompson, L. Burras and R. Kipper. 2001. Factors related to tree growth in the Midwest, USA. Urban Ecosystems. 5: 71-85. Impens, R. and E. Delcarte. 1979. Survey of urban trees in Brussels, Belgium. Journal of Arboriculture. 5: 169-176. Jaenson, R., N. Bassuk, S. Schwager and D. Headley. 1992. A statistical method for the accurate and rapid sampling of urban street tree population. Journal of Arboriculture. 18: 171-183. Jim, CY. 1986. Street trees in high-density urban Hong Kong. Journal of Arboriculture. 12: 257-263. Jim, CY. 2002. Heterogeneity and differentiation of the tree flora in three major land uses in Guangzhou City, China. Annuls of Forest Science. 59: 107-118. Kendle, T. and S. Forbes. 1997. Urban Nature Conservation: Landscape Management in the Urban Countryside. E and EN Spon, London, UK. p. 352. Kielbaso, 1.]. 2008. Management of urban forests in the United States. Pp. 240-258. In Carreiro, M.M., Y.C. Song and J. Wu (eds.). Ecology, Planning and Management of Urban Forests: International Perspectives. Springer Science, New York. Kielbaso, J .J ., B.S. Beauchamp, K.F. Larison and C.J. Randall. 1988. Trends in urban forestry management. Baseline Data Report, 20: 1. Washington, DC: International City Management Association. Kielbaso, J.J., M.N. de Araujo, A.J. de Araujo and W.N. Cannon, Jr. 1993. Monitoring the growth and development of urban forests in Bowling Green, Ohio and Lincoln, Nebraska. American Forests National Urban Forest Inventory. p. 99. Kinzig, AP. and J .M. Grove. 2001. Urban-suburban ecology. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Vol. 5. Academic Press. pp. 733—745. Kowarik, I. 2005. Wild urban woodlands: towards a conceptual framework. In: I. Kowarik and S. Korner (editors). Wild Urban Woodlands: New Perspectives for Urban Forestry. Springer-Velag, New York. pp. 1-32. 23 Laukaitis, A.J. 2003. ‘Forest in a Prairie’ national survey checks up on city’s trees. Journal Star. 15 July, 2003. p. Bl. Lesser, L.M. 1996. Street tree diversity and dbh in southern California. Journal of Arboriculture. 22(4): 180-186. Lundholm, J .T. and A. Marlin. 2006. Habitat origins and microhabitat preferences of urban plant species. Urban Ecosystems. 9: 139-159. Maco, SE. and E.G. McPherson. 2003. A practical approach to assessing structure, function and value of street tree populations in small communities. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(2): 84-97. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Science Company, Oxford, UK. Mcbride, J .R. and DP. Jacobs. 1976. Urban forest development: a case study, Menlo Park, California. Urban Ecology. 2: 1—14. McBride, J .R. and DE. Jacobs. 1986. Pre-settlement forest structures as a factor in urban forest deve10pment. Urban Ecology. 9: 245—266. McDonnell, M.J. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology. 71(4): 1231-1237. McDonnell, M.J. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1991. Comparative analysis of ecosystems along gradients of urbanization: opportunities and limitations. In: 1.]. Cole, G.M. Lovett and S. Findley (editors). Comparative Analysis of Ecosystems: Patterns, Mechanisms and Theories. Springer-Velag, New York. pp. 351—355. McDonnell, M.J., S.T.A. Pickett, P. Groffman, P. Bohlen, R.V. Pouyat, W.C. Zipperer, R.W. Parmelee and M.M. Carreiro. 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban- to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems. 1: 21-36. McPherson, E.G. and RA. Rowntree. 1989. Using structural measures to compare twenty-two US street tree populations. Landscape Journal. 8: 13-23. Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planningand Managing Urban Greenspaces, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. pp. 27—261. 24 Mills, ES. and B.W. Hamilton. 1984. Urban Economics. Glenview, IL: Foresman and Company. Nowak, DJ. 1994. Understanding the structure of the urban forest. Journal of Forestry. 92: 42-46. Nowak, D.J., M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni and IF. Dwyer. 2001. Assessing the US urban forest resource. Journal of forestry. 99(3): 37-42. Parlange, M. 1998. The city as an ecosystem. Bioscience. 48(8): 581—585. Partyka, R.E., J.W. Rimelspach, B.G. Joyner, and SA. Carver. 1980. Woody Omamentals: plants and problems. Hammer Graphics, Inc. Piqua, OH. p. 143. Pickett. S.T.A. 2003. Why is developing a broad understanding of urban ecosystems important to science and scientistists? In A.R. Berkowitz, C.H. Nilon and KS. Hollweg (eds.). Understanding Urban Ecosystems. NY, Springer. pp. 58-72. Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, C.H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat, W.C. Zipperer and R. Costanza. 2001. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 32: 127-157. Pirone, PP. 1978. Tree Maintenance, 5‘h ed. Oxford University Press. New York. p. 379. Poracsky, J. and M. Scott. 1999. Industrial-area street trees in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Arboriculture. 25: 9-17. Porter, E.E., B.R. Forschner, R.B. Blair. 2001. Woody vegetation and canopy fragmentation along a forest-to-urban gradient. Urban Ecosystems. 5: 131-151. Rebele, F. 1994. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystem. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 4: 173-187. Register, R. 2006. Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature, revised edition. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada. New Society Publishers. p. 371. Rowntree, RA. 1984. Ecology of the urban forest — Introduction to part one. Urban Ecology. 8: 1—1 1. Rowntree, RA. 1988. Ecology of the urban forest — Introduction to part three. Landscape and Urban Planning. 15: l—lO. Sanders, RA. 1981. Diversity in the street trees of Syracuse, New York. Urban Ecology. 5: 159-171. 25 Schroeder, H.W. and W.N. Cannon, Jr. 1987. Visual quality of residential streets: both street and yard trees make a difference. Journal of Arboriculture. 13: 236-239. Sharpe, D.M., F. Steams, L.A. Leitner and J.R. Domey. 1986. Fate of natural vegetation during urban development of rural landscapes in southeastern Wisconsin. Urban Ecology. 9: 267-287. Smiley, ET. and FA. Baker. 1988. Options in street tree inventories. Journal of Arboriculture. 14:36-42. Solotaroff, W. 191]. Shade Trees in Towns and Cities. New York, John Wiley and Sons. p. 287. Stevens, J.C. and NA. Richard. 1986. Village and city street tree resources: Comparisons of Structure. Arboriculture Journal. 10: 45-52. Tudge, CT. 2005. The Secret Life of Trees: How They Live and Why They Matter. Penguin Books. London, England. p. 404. Turner, K, L. Lefler and B. Freedman. 2005. Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, NS, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning. 71:191-206. White, PS. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: S.T.A. Pickett and PS. White eds. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic, Orlando, Florida. pp. 279—338. Whitney, G.G. and SD. Adams. 1980. Man as a maker of new plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 17: 431-448. Wittig, Rudiger. 2004. The origin and development of the urban flora of central Europe. Urban Ecosystems. 7: 323-339. Wray, PH. and DR. Prestemon. 1983. Assessment of street trees in Iowa’s small communities. Iowa State Journal of Research. 58(2): 261-268. Wu, J. 2008. Towards a landscape ecology of cities: beyond buildings, trees, and urban Forests. Pp. 10-28. In Carreiro, M.M. Y.C. Song and J. Wu (eds.). Ecology, Planning and Management of Urban Forests: International Perspectives. Springer Science, New York. Wyman, D. 1965. Trees for American Gardens. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. p. 235. Vitousek, RM. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology. 75: 1861—1876. 26 Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco and J .M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science. 277: 494-499. Zipperer, W.C., T.W. Foresman, S.M. Sisinni and RV. Pouyat. 1997. Urban tree cover: an ecological perspective. Urban Ecosystems. 1: 229-247. Zipperer, W.C., J. Wu, R.V. Pouyat and S.T.A. Pickett. 2000. The application of ecological principles to urban and urbanizing landscapes. Ecological Applications. 10(3): 685—688. 27 Chapter 2 Changes in Urban Forest Structure in Six Cities in the Midwest Region of the United States 28 Abstract Urban forest structure and dynamics are largely driven by both public and private tree planting and removal processes as trees interact with site limitations, insects, diseases, and competition, yet joint consideration of forests on both public and private property is rare. This report summarizes changes in forest structure in six Midwestern cities (Bowling Green, Bucyrus, Delaware, and Wooster, OH; Lincoln, NE and Hutchinson, MN) based on surveys conducted on public and private land in 1980, then again in 2003/2005. The public to private ratio of trees in all six cities was 8.5 private trees to] public tree in 1980 and 7.9 to l in 2003/2005. Species richness, in all six of the cities, combined, increased from 97 in 1980 to 100 in 2003/2005, while species diversity (Shannon index) basically remained the same over time in both studies. When species richness in urban forests was compared to natural forests in the vicinity, urban forests contained many more species (47 to 82) than the natural forests in the vicinity of the cities (18 to 23). In the urban forests of this study, the most common tree genus in both surveys, 1980 and 2003/2005, was Acer, which comprised 22% in 1980 of all tree species and 24% in 2003/2005. The genus Acer accounted for nearly 40% of the public trees and about 20% of the private trees in both 1980 and 2003/2005. In 1980, 27% and in 2003/2005, 42% of the tree taxa were considered overplanted. Many of the most common species in the urban forest may be considered overplanted, consisting of more than 5% of the total species richness. Intriguingly, 89% and 75% of the overplanted trees in the urban forests surveyed in 1980 and 2003/2005, respectively, are considered native to North America. This study also shows the importance of including the private trees in these studies because nearly 90% of the urban forest is private trees. 29 Key Words: urban forest density; species richness; diversity; urban succession 3O Introduction Most studies examining the structure of the urban forests include only public street tree data (Sanders, 1981; Wray and Prestemon, 1983; McPherson and Rowntree, 1989; Lesser, 1996; Maco and McPherson, 2003). While useful for many purposes, these studies ignore approximately 90% of the trees in the urban ecosystem that are on private land (Kielbaso et al., 1988; Miller, 1988; M011, 1989; Kielbaso and Cotrone, 1990; Kielbaso et al., 1993; M011 and Kollin, 1993; Maco and McPherson, 2002; Kielbaso, 2008). It is generally accepted that tree species diversity in the city should be maintained and is important in order to reduce the chance of a catastrophic, species specific disease or pest outbreak (Raupp et al., 2006). In 1975, Barker recommended that no single species should make up more than 5% of the total species richness. M011 (1989) suggested a guideline for maximum diversity in urban forests at no more than 5% of any one species and no more than 10% of any one genus. In 1991, Miller and Miller proposed that Barker’s recommendation be modified to no more than one species comprising more than 10% of total species richness. A more encompassing approach was proposed by Santamour (1990), with no more than 10% of any one species, no more than 20% in any one genus and no more than 30% from any one family should be planted. A different approach was taken when Richards (1983, 1993) proposed that a species may be considered overused if it is often planted where other proven species are likely to be better suited. All of these guidelines are based on street trees and do not take into 31 consideration the trees in private yards that make up the majority of urban forests (M011 and Kollin, 1993; Clark et al., 1997). Urban forests, like natural forests, can be defined by species composition. Likewise, urban forest development to some extent follows natural forest succession. However, urban forest succession is greatly influenced by people living within these forest communities. Successional development starts with a distinct tree species composition and is characterized by an extended period of time of “slow, subtle, but continuous and irreversible change” (Oliver and Larson, 1996). Urban forest development can be altered by sporadic, unexpected, and extraordinary destructive disturbances (Botkin, 1990; Frelich, 2002). When one lives in an urban area, it is hard to observe these subtle changes, but sudden destructive changes are easily noticed. In the absence of destructive changes, one may think that the urban forest is stable and not changing. But, when comparative surveys are performed over times, the changes are discernible and can be documented. When these manifestations are compared, the urban forest is quite dynamic. Species richness in urban forests is considerably higher than in surrounding natural forest (Gilbert, 1989; Zipperer et al., 1997; Pickett et a1. 2001; Nowak, 2007). Similarly, post- settlement urban forests are also more diverse when compared to pre-settlement natural forests (McBride and Jacobs, 1986; Zipperer et al., 1991; Nowak, 1993). The increase is generally attributable to the introduction of exotic plant species. However, the influx of aliens only accounts for a portion of the large species richness in cities. The increase in species richness does not peak as it does in a natural forest (Nowak, 1993), but 32 continually increases as new species are planted. Another component that increases the species diversity in a city is the heterogeneity of the small-scale habitats that are created by individual developments within the city (Brady et. al., 1979; Gilbert, 1989; Zipperer, 2000). Because of urbanization, the tree density, trees per acre, of the urban forest tends to be lower than similar natural forest. This is generally true because of the removal of the understory and shrub layer for the establishment of lawns and other open areas in private yards. The only real exception to this are stands growing where large estates once were and where there are remnants of large stands in very large urban parks (Lawrence, 1995; Pickett et al., 2001). I hypothesized that there were no changes in density, species richness, and the public to private ratio of the urban trees of the six cities that were examined over the years of this study. Also, I hypothesized that there were no changes in the urban tree diversity and the composition of the trees over the study period. The six specific null hypotheses that were tested in this study are: H. There has been no change in density of the trees in the urban forest in the six cities examined over the years of this study; H2 There has been no change in tree species richness in the urban forest in the six cities examined over the years of this study; 33 H3 There has been no change in the public to private ratio of trees in the urban forest in the six cities examined over the years of this study; H4 There has been no change in the urban tree diversity of the trees in the urban forest in the six cities examined over the years of this study; H5 There has been no change in the urban tree species composition in the urban forest in the six cities examined over the years of this study; and H6 There is no difference in the species richness between the urban forest in the urban forest in the six cities examined over the years of this study. Methods I quantified the urban forest structure, richness, composition and changes in these attributes over time based on repeated surveys (1980 and 2003/2005) of both public and private property in six Midwestern cities (Bowling Green, Bucyrus, Delaware, and Wooster, OH; Lincoln, NE and Hutchinson, MN). This study follows the procedures that were established in the original study by W.M. Cannon, Jr. and DP. Worley at the USDA-Forest Service in 1980, and replicated in part by Kielbaso, et al. in 1993. In 2003/2005 I surveyed these cities again. 1 revisited each of the cities and inventoried the blocks again. I documented every tree on public and private land in the study areas as to species, size (diameter at breast height, dbh) and tree category (e. g. large deciduous, intermediate deciduous, etc.). In this study, I defined a tree as being a woody perennial plant with a dbh greater than 2 in. (5.1 cm). Shrubs were not considered in this study with the exception of a few Taxus Sp. (yews) that were included because they had a dbh greater than 2 in. and a height greater than 12 feet. The trees in this study were also 34 classified as being: large deciduous, intermediate deciduous, small deciduous, large evergreen, intermediate evergreen, and small evergreen. This classification is based on tree descriptions from Dirr, 1998. In Cannon and Worley’s study, nine city blocks were randomly selected and inventoried in each of ten different cities, Bowling Green, Bucyrus, Delaware, and Wooster, OH; Lincoln, NE and Hutchinson, MN, West Springfield, MA, Jamestown, NY, Grand Junction, CO and Charlottesville, VA . These nine blocks were sampled from three age categories: less than 10 years; 10 to 40 years; and older than 40 years in 1980. The blocks that were older than 40 years in 1980 may be as old as the cities. The reason for these age categories was to insure diversity in the trees based on cultural and planting practices. The goal was to generate a data set that was typical or representative of the entire urban forest. The trees were also categorized by land ownership, public or private. Private ownership refers to trees located in the front, side and back yards of private residences and public ownership refers to trees located in the public right—of—way which is usually between the sidewalk and the street in front of private residences. If there was no sidewalk, then the trees within the street right-of-way, per plat maps, typically 15 feet off the street, were considered public. Each tree was surveyed by gaining prior permission from the owners of all 1571 properties and visiting every single tree on each of the properties. Of the original study in 1980, only 6 of those cities were resurveyed. This was due to committee decision based on time and accessibility to the cities. In the original surveys, 35 9 city blocks were studied in each of the cities. In 1992, one additional block was added to each of the age categories in Lincoln and Bowling Green, making a total of 12 blocks surveyed (Kielbaso et a1. 1993). In 2003; Lincoln, NE, Bowling Green, OH and Hutchinson MN were resurveyed. In Lincoln and Bowling Green the same 12 blocks were surveyed as in 1992. Only seven of the original blocks could be resurveyed due to redevelopment of the city in Hutchinson. In 2005, l resurveyed Bucyrus, Delaware and Wooster, OH. However, none of the actual blocks could be relocated due to fugitive data. So, the blocks were reestablished using the same criteria for picking the blocks that were employed by Cannon and Worthy in 1980. In each of these cities, 5 city blocks for each of the different age categories were chosen, making a total of 15 blocks in each city. In Delaware, a new age category, less than 5 years old in 2005, with 5 city blocks was added. This was prompted by the large amount of newly constructed neighborhoods and subdivisions in the city since 2000, and a specific city request. For the purpose of calculating tree density (trees per acre), city plat maps were used to compute the areas of different city blocks. To determine the public tree density, the entire street right-of-way was used, from the center of the street to the inside of the sidewalk. Much of the right-of-way area is covered by the street, leaving only the tree lawn for tree growth. Using the complete right-of—way area is justified because the total private area was used and it is also partially covered by impermeable surfaces; houses and other structures, driveways, pools, etc. 36 Basal area is a measurement of stand density developed by foresters. It is a way of measuring the total cross-sectional area of the trees in a stand. The basal area is expressed as square feet per acre and was calculated with the formula: Basal Area = (((0.005454) (avg. dbh)2) (number of trees)) / total acres, where 0.005454 is a constant calculated for the area of a one foot diameter dbh tree. To predict species richness throughout the six cities, a nonparametric estimate of the original data was derived by jackknifing, a re-sampling technique without replacement (Heltshe and Forrester, 1983; Smith and Belle, 1984; Heltshe, 1985; Palmer, 199.1; Gimaret-Carpentier et al., 1998; Cao et al., 2004; Magurran, 2004). By re-sampling the collected data multiple times and taking an average value based on the acres surveyed, I predicted the number of species that may be found when randomly surveying acres in the city. I used the Shannon index (H' = -Z‘p,- ln p,) to measure tree diversity where the quantity p,- is the proportion of individuals found in the ith species. The Shannon index is an expression of a community’s diversity which is calculated by taking into account species richness or abundance and evenness among species (Elliott, 1989). A t-test was conducted to determine if there were any differences in Shannon index values between 1980 and 2003/2005 (Magurran, 1988). Other statistical comparisons were also performed using ANOVA with a Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) Post Hoc 37 test to determine differences in the categories of species richness. Chi-square was also used to test 1980 to 2003/2005 data. Results The six cities of this study are all found in the Midwest region of the United States. However, that does not mean the cities are similar. See Table 2.1 for a comparison of the six cities. Total Density and Number of Trees — In 1980, there were 409.77 acres in the sample area and 8,980 trees. This is a density of 21.9 trees per acre. In 2003/2005, there were 493.04 acres sampled with 10,924 total trees. This is a density of 22.2 trees per acre, an increase of 0.25 trees per acre, or 1.13%. On public land, in 1980, the density was 12.6 trees per acre and in 2003/2005 it was 13.3 trees per acre, a gain of 5.7%. The private trees had a density of 24.1 trees per acre in 1980 and 24.4 trees per acre in 2003/2005, a small gain of roughly 0.9%. The basal area in 1980 for all of the trees was 35.36 square feet per acre while in 2003/2005 the basal area was more than double, at 76.78 square feet per acre. The basal area for the public area in 1980 was 43.19 and in 2003/2005 it was 58.23 and the private tree basal area was 33.01 in 1980 and it was almost tripled in 2003/2005, at 82.90. 38 The ratio of private trees to public trees in the urban forest was 8.49 private trees to 1 public tree in 1980 meaning that the private trees made up 89.5% of the urban forest. In 2003/2005 the ratio had decreased to 7.85 private trees to 1 public tree, signifying that the private trees make up 88.7% of the urban forest. During this time period, the land area ratio remained basically the same at 5.10 and 5.01 private acres to 1 public acre in 1980 and 2003/2005 respectively. Species Richness and Diversity —- The total number of tree species counted in the six cities was 97 in 1980 and was 100 in 2003/2005. There were 40 species on public land and 95 species on private land in 1980 compared to 51 and 97, respectively, in 2003/2005 (Table 2.2). When comparing species per acre, there were 0.236 species per acre in the 409.8 acres in 1980 and 0.211 species per acre in the 493.0 acres in 2003/2005 for all trees in all cities. Neither of these are statistically different from one another (x2 = 2.74, p > 0.05). The genus Acer accounted for the most individual trees in 1980 and 2003/2005 (Figure 2.1). There were eight different species in the genus Acer in 1980, with Acer saccharinum L, silver maple, being the most common. In 2003/2005 there were eight different Acer species with A. saccharinum L, being the most common also. In both surveys, 13 genera made up at least 2% of the total tree species, which accounted for approximately 80% of all trees (Figure 2.1). 39 The public (Figure 2.2) and private (Figure 2.3) trees follow the same trend with Acer being the most common genus. Acer made up 39.7% of the public trees in 1980 and 22.1% of the private trees. In 2003/2005 the genus Acer made up 40.0% of the public trees and 21.1% of the private trees. In 1980, the most abundant tree in all six cities was silver maple, with 10.4% of the total, followed by blue spruce (Picea pungens Engelm.), with 6.9% and crabapple (Malus sp.), with 5.1%. In the latest survey of all six cities, 2003 and 2005, the two most abundant trees were arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis L.) with 9.0% and silver maple with 8.6%, respectively. The third most abundant tree species in the latest survey was Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.) with 6.4% (Table 2.3). One species of note that has been disappearing consistently from all of the cities since 1980 is the American elm (Ulmus americana L.). In 1980, the American elm was the fourth most abundant tree species in all of the cities, making up 4.7% of the total composition. In the 2003/2005 survey the American elm had fallen to the 31St most abundant tree species making up only 0.8% of the total species composition. The estimation of the total species richness per acre was similar in 1980 and 2003/2005, even though many more acres were surveyed in 2003/2005 (Figure 2.4). The species richness estimation for the public and private trees is also similar between the years, and private trees estimation is similar between the years. The private species richness is comparable to the values of the total trees species richness, which is not surprising, since this survey shows that about 90% of the total tree species richness is private. 40 Trees were divided into categories based on their size and leaf type (e. g. evergreen vs. deciduous). An analysis of the differences in species richness among the categories of trees (e. g. large deciduous, large evergreen, etc.) in 1980 and 2003/2005 indicates that the large deciduous and intermediate deciduous trees were essentially the same (Table 2.4). All of the other comparisons of the species richness in the different categories of trees were significantly different from one another (F 5, 6 = 198.24, p < 0.01). However, there were no differences between 1980 and 2003/2005. The Shannon index for the entire urban forest decreased, insignificantly (t = 0.31, p > 0.05), from 3.69 in 1980 to 3.62 in 2003/2005. However, the public trees had a significant increase (I = 1.39, p < 0.05) in the value of the Shannon index. In 1980 the value was 2.92 and in 2003/2005 the value was 3.59. The private tree Shannon index values were similar to the total values; 1980 was 3.67 and in 2003/2005 it was 3.61 (t = 0.32, p > 0.05). This study also shows that not every acre in a city needs to be surveyed in order to account for the majority of the species richness. In 1980, 21.7 acres of the average 55.7 acres per city, accounted for 83.6% of all the species richness. In order to account for 90.2% of the species richness, 35.9 acres needs to be surveyed. In 2003/2005, 27.3 acres of the average 63.8 acres per city, accounted for 80.3% of the species richness. To account for 90.1% of the species richness, 45.5 acres needs to be surveyed. Surveying more acres will probably only detect unique and novelty species. This demonstrates that. 41 the entire city does not need to be inventoried in order to reveal the majority of the species richness. Urban Forests Compared to Natural Forests — By comparing the average species richness of all six cities, in 2003/2005 the urban forest has approximately 3 times more tree species than the natural forest. The species richness between the urban forest in 1980 and 2003/2005, and the natural forest is statistically different, (F 2‘ 13 = 45.89, p < 0.01 ), and a Tukey’s comparison of the tree groups indicate that the natural forest species richness is significantly less (p < 0.05) than the urban forest in both 1980 and 2003/2005. However, the urban forest data are essentially the same between 1980 and 2003/2005. Discussion Tree Distribution - Many authors (Kielbaso et al., 1988; Miller, 1988; M011, 1989; Kielbaso et al., 1993; Moll and Kollin, 1993) have reported that about 90% of the urban forest consists of private trees and the remaining 10% are public trees or street trees. This study found similar percentages. In 1980 the private to public tree ratio for all six of the cities in this study was 8.49 to 1, which means 89.5% of the trees are private trees, in 2003/2005 the ratio was 7.85 to 1, which denotes that 88.7% of the trees are private. Dwyer et a1. (2000) stated that the national average ratio is about 62 non—street trees for every one street tree in urban areas across the United States. This current study does not support this liberal estimate. The probable explanation for this great difference is in how the data were derived. Dwyer et a1. (2000) used “data on percentage of the tree cover for the conterminous United States derived through geographical information systems 42 (GIS) analysis of forest cover maps and maps of census-designated entities”. These estimates were then compared with aerial photographs. These GIS/aerial photographs combined urban residential areas, parks, cemeteries, riparian and suburban areas that may still have been forested in order to calculate the ratio of public to private trees. The current study is limited to urban residential areas only, and the data was collected on the ground. Tree Density - The total tree density increased slightly due primarily to an increase in the private trees. During this time, homeowners were buying trees to enhance their properties. At the same time, more warehouse franchises and discount stores were offering inexpensive trees. This is one of the reasons for the substantial increase in the number of arborvitae that was seen in this study. In general, the basal area increased from 1980 to 2003/2005. The total tree basal area basically doubled while the public tree basal area increased by 34.8% and the private tree basal area increased by 151.8%. A natural woodlot under harvest management is usually maintained at a basal area of around 80—100 square feet per acre (Mr. Bob Cool, personal communication). The total tree basal area is approaching this, at 76.8 square feet per acre and the private tree basal area in within this range, at 82.9 square feet per acre. This indicates that, with time, the urban forest basal area approaches the basal area found in managed natural forests with essentially a closed canopy, which would leave few places to plant new trees. 43 Species Richness/Diversity - When species richness was compared, there was basically no difference between 1980 and 2003/2005. This was true when comparing the public, private and total species richness for both years. There was also no substantial difference in species richness among the different age groups in 1980 and 2003/2005. If the recommended species planting rules proposed by Miller and Miller, (1991) and Santamour, (1990) are followed, some species and genera are overplanted, Acer in particular. According to these rules, no one species should comprise more than 10% of the total population species richness. When considering total species richness in all cities in 1980, only silver maple was overplanted. In 2003/2005, no species made up more than 10% of the total species. If, instead, the species composition rules proposed by Barker, (1975) and M01], (1989) are followed, then no single species sh0uld be more than 5% of the total composition. With their suggested rules for the composition of the total urban forest, in 1980 silver maple, blue spruce (Picea pungens Engelm.), crabapple and ash (F raxinus spp.) were overplanted. In 2003/2005, arborvitae, silver maple, Norway maple, blue spruce, ash and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) are all overplanted (Table 2.4). The implication is that more tree species are being overplanted and this is being driven by individual property owners because they control approximately 90% of the urban trees, not city arborists or foresters. The only real solution to this is education. Property owners need to be provided an expanded list of trees to rely on, and growers need to alter their production to meet these needs. 44 In 1980, 27%, and in 2003/2005, 42% of the tree taxa were considered overplanted (Table 2.5). This indicates that we are relying on fewer tree species today than we were in 1980. In 1980, silver maple, blue spruce, crabapple and ash made up more than 5% of the total trees in the urban forest. In 2003/2005, Arborvitae, silver maple, Norway maple, blue spruce, ash and Norway spruce made up more than 5% or the total urban forest. When considering which trees were overplanted in 1980, in the public trees there were four species that each accounted for 10% or more of the species; sugar maple, silver maple, ash and crabapple. In 2003/2005 there were three species where each comprised more than 10% of the public species; ash, Norway maple and sugar maple. In total, there were eight species on public land that comprised more than 5% of the tree composition in both 1980 and in 2003/2005 (Table 2.5). The private trees in 1980, only silver maple accounted for more than 10% of the species, and in 2003/2005 only arborvitae was overrepresented in the private species. One reason the arborvitae is growing in popularity with homeowners is the availability of the species at low prices at such places as large discount warehouses and nurseries (Kielbaso and Kennedy, 1983). Another reason for arborvitae to be over planted in recent years is the fact that they are often planted in rows for screening and homeowners like a “living fence”. In 1980, four species comprised more than 5% of the total private tree composition, and in 2003/2005, six species made up more than 5% of the private tree composition (Table 2.5). 45 When comparing the genera, it is apparent that Acer is overrepresented. In 1980, Acer made up over 22% of the total urban forest and in 2003/2005 it was 24% of the total. Of the public trees, the genus Acer is even more overrepresented. In both years, 1980 and 2003/2005 Acer represents nearly 40% of the public trees. The amount of Acer in private trees is similar to the amounts in the total trees. In 1980 the percentage of Acer was almost 20% and in 2003/2005, Acer was just over 21% of the private trees. These percentages indicate that the genus Acer is over planted. Other authors have also observed this (Kielbaso and Kennedy, 1983). There are very good reasons for avoiding mass plantings of the same species and genera; e.g. American elm (Ulmus americana L.) with Dutch elm disease and ash (F raxinus sp.) with emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairemaire) are two examples. It seems that the genus Acer has replaced the American elm as being overplanted and may now be waiting for a calamity to happen, e. g. Asian longhomed beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis Motschulsky), an exotic insect believed to be from China that primarily attacks and kills the genus Acer (Becker, 2000). If it becomes established in these Midwest cities, it would dramatically change the urban forest by decimating 24% of the II'CCS. One speculation as to why Acer is overplanted is that it is a proven genus for surviving the extreme environment of the urban forest: temperature extremes, root space, compacted soils, etc. The genus has also not had many known pests that destroy the trees. Acer is known as a hardy genus with a variety of different species that can tolerate 46 the urban forest conditions. It is also widely grown and available at local nurseries. One species, Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.), may be questioned about its appropriateness as a species for planting in urban areas because it is invasive (Wyckoff and Webb, 1996; Webb et al., 2001; Webster et a1, 2004). This is acknowledged, but not addressed here. Instead of planting more Acer species, I suggest the planting of other species that can be added to the urban forest palate that have been proven to do well in the overall urban forest. For example large trees: pin oak, Quercus palustris Muenchh.; saw-tooth oak, Quercus acutissima Carruth.; northern hackberry, Celtis occidentalis L.; and hardy rubber trees, Eucommia ulmoides Oliv. For medium trees: linden or basswood, Tilia americana L.; Hop-hombeam, Ostrya virginiana (Mill) Koch;American yellow-wood, Cladrastis kentuckea (Dum.-Cours.) Rudd ; and Japanese Zelkova, Zelkova serrata (Thunb.) Mak. For small or ornamental trees: Cornelian cherry, Camus mas L.; serviceberry, Amelanchier spp.; Japanese tree lilac, Syringa reticulate (Bl.) Hara; and redbud, Cercis Canadensis L. There is a question, or concern, about native versus exotic tree species. Some advocate that only native species of trees should be planted in urban forests. However, many native tree species simply do not do well in urban situations. Clinging to the few proven native species may have already led to certain species and genera being overplanted. This can lead to devastation by uncontrolled pests or diseases, not necessarily of native origin. American elm and ash are both native species that were overplanted in many 47 cities and today both are being or have been destroyed by exotics. Interestingly, in 1980, 89% of the public and private species of trees that are considered overplanted in this study are native, with the exception of the Norway maple. In 2003/2005, most (75%) of the public and private species of trees that are considered overplanted in this study are native, with the exceptions of the Norway maple; Norway spruce; and linden (Tilia sp. most of which were little-leaf linden, Tilia cordata Mill.) (Table 2.5). The total diversity as measured by the Shannon index has not changed. This is true for the entire urban forest as well as the public and private trees. This simply means that the diversity of the urban forest is being maintained and should not be used as a measure for maintaining the overplanting of the species that already account for more than five percent of the urban forest. Urban Forests Compared to Natural Forests - Urban forests generally have greater species richness than existing natural forest (Zipperer et al., 1997; Pickett et al., 2001). In a natural forest, less competitive species begin to die off over time and are replaced by more competitive, shade tolerant Species. Eventually, as succession approaches a climax community, species richness approaches to a steady-state. In the urban forest, there is initially a loss of species richness due to site construction. When construction or development is completed, species richness increases. This increase in species richness is due to the planting of new species by home owners and property developers. Zipperer et al. (1997) hypothesizes that the urban forest species richness does not peak as it would in a natural forest. Instead, the species richness continues to increase as new species are 48 planted. The continual planting of new species in urban forests will generally offset any species richness lost over time, although the species composition may change over time. This phenomenon was true in these cities studied. In North America, species richness of the natural forests is quite varied when comparing forests in the north to the forests in the south. In Northern Canada, as few as five species make up the composition of these distinct forests (Raup and Argus, 1982). As one moves south to the warm, humid, floodplain forests of the southeastern United States as many as 70 different tree species can be found (Putnam et al., 1960). A comparison of the species richness in the urban forest to the natural forests growing in the vicinity of the six cities in 1980 and 2003/2005 (Table 2.6) revealed that urban forest species richness was greater than in natural forest. All four of the Ohio cities, Bowling Green, Bucyrus, Delaware and Wooster are in the “beech-maple forest region” (Braun, 1950), Hutchinson, MN is in the “big woods” area of the “maple-basswood forest region” and Lincoln, NE is in the “tall— grass prairie region” (Barbour and Christensen, 1993). When the average species richness of all six cities in 2003/2005, the urban forest has approximately three times more tree species than the natural forest. This supports Zipperer et a1. (1997) in their proposition that the species richness of the urban forest is greater than the natural forest. Table 2.5 also generally supports Nowak (1993) in his speculation that species richness or diversity does not peak as it does in the natural forest, but gradually increases as new species are planted. This is true for the different aged blocks. All of the cities increased slightly in species richness between 1980 and 2003/2005 except Hutchinson, MN, which actually lost one species. 49 Conclusion Interestingly, it was the demise of the American elm (Ulmus americana L.) that precipitated the original study back in 1980 until that study was abandoned. The majority of trees in the urban forest are privately owned and most of the data in recent studies have been collected from public trees only. This study demonstrates that both public and private trees must be surveyed and studied in order to understand the true structure and dynamics of the entire urban forest. Examining only public trees would have resulted in missing 89.5% of the trees in 1980 and 88.7% in 2003/2005, which means many of the overall trends would not be evident. Over time, the urban tree species composition has also changed. Most of the common trees have remained dominant with one exception, arborvitae. Arborvitae has become the most common tree in the cities studied. The perplexing issue is that it is not necessarily a proven tree that is known for its good growth habit. Arborvitae is also being used as a living fence in many private yards. The diversity, species richness, and density in the urban forest were not very dynamic over the years of this study. However, comparing individual cities does reveal some changes. As noted, these differences can be produced by a variety of factors; latitude, original forest condition, dedicated forest professional, availability of trees, etc. Density, species richness and diversity (Shannon index) of the total trees all remained moderately constant over the years. The private trees also followed this tendency with the forest 50 structure remaining basically steady. This is not surprising, because the private trees account for such a preponderance of the total trees. Differences in species richness and diversity are seen in the public trees. This may be because some individual cities have tree professionals making decisions about their trees regardless of what is happening on private property. The difference between the urban forest and natural forest species richness is notable. Those that work with the urban forest have suspected for years that this was true, but lacked data on the private trees. With this study, it is very apparent that the urban forest has a species richness that exceeds the natural forest many times over. The reason for this varies, but one revelation is personal choice and the variety of trees that are available to the private land owner. Personal choice is also one of the driving forces behind the introduction of many exotics and unproven species to the urban forest. This study suggests that, in these six cities, an adequate number of acres were surveyed in order to explain the species richness. When analyzing the tree species richness per acre, only about 35 acres, of the average 65.8 acres per city, needed to be surveyed in order to account for at least 90% of the species richness. More acreage surveyed only turns up rarities and unique species that were not represented by more than a single tree or two. One change that is going to continue to take place in the urban forests of North America is the elimination of the ash due to the devastation by the emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis Fairemaire). The EAB was discovered in Michigan in 2002 and by 51 2004 was found in Bowling Green, Ohio. By the end of 2008, the EAB had spread to all of the cities that were studied in Ohio. Thus far, as of the summer of 2009, the EAB has not been identified in Hutchinson, Minnesota or Lincoln, Nebraska. The eastern United States urban forests were at one time dominated by the American elm and Dutch elm disease wiped them out. Ash replaced many of the elms and became one of the primary urban forest trees, and the EAB is currently wiping them out. If the diversity of the urban forest is not maintained, in some cases enhanced, other species may be in jeopardy. The genus Acer could be the next. 52 Table 2.1. A comparison of selected urban forest descriptor data of the six Midwestern, USA cities in 1980 and 2003/2005. 1980 2003/2005 Bowling Green. OH Number of Trees 2280 g 2279 Lots Surveyed ----- 237 1 Diversity 3.6 3.57 Species Richness 75 82 2 Density 36.9 28.9 Private to Public Ratio 6.89 to 1 7.63 to 1 Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $15.32 Bucyrus, OH Number of Trees I 876 1111 Lots Surveyed ----- 228 g 1 Diversity 3.24 2.39 Species Richness 54 58 2 Density 19.2 20.7 Private to Public Ratio 4.92 to l 8.58 to 1 Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $1.51 ‘Delaware. OH Number ofTrees 2486 3515 Lots Surveyed ----- 442 Divers ity 3.22 3.2 Species Richness 66 80 2 Density 30.6 35.9 Private to Public Ratio 14.54 to 1 6.98 to 1 Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $9.59 Hutchinson, MN Number of Trees 704 654 Lots Surveyed ----- 155 1 Diversity 2.96 2.96 Species Richness 43 47 2 . Density 36.2 32.5 ‘ Private to Public Ratio 3.57 to 1 3.06 to 1 Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $9.59 Lincoln. NE Number ofTrees 953 1049 Lots Surveyed ----- 220 1 Diversity ‘ 3.47 3.36 Species Richness 62 63 2 Density 24.2 20.4 .. _‘ Private to Public Ratio. “6.27 to 1 4.41 to 1 ‘ Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $7.90 53 Table 2.1. Cont’d. 1980 2003/2005 Wooster, OH Number of Trees 1682 2316 Lots Surveyed ----- 289 1 Diversity 3.27 3.27 Species Richness 62 67 2 Density 26.5 32.3 Private to Public Ratio 14.72 to 1 16.41 to 1 Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $2.60 Summary ofthe urban Average Number ofTrees 1497 1821 forest discriptors Total Number of Trees 8981 10924 Average Lots Surveyed ----- 262 Total Lots Surveyed ----- 1571 1 Diversity 3.29 3.13 Species Richness 60 66 2 Density 28.9 28.5 Private to Public Ratio 8.49 to 1 7.85 to 1 Money Spent on Trees per capita ----- $7.75 1 Diversityas calculated with the Shannon index 2 Trees Per Acre 54 :E:30 :2: E 06: :0: 860% 80.6%: :0 63:5: :39 05 2 2 3:530 622365 05 :0 E3. 05 .o: 2 :39 06: :0: 80:32: 8625 80:: 083:: 2.: 23:: E 80:32: 360% 05 2 2 ”80:32: 360% 000: 0063:: 0:: 23:: 05 :0 6:0 05 8: 2 000:9. =< :0: 06: :0: 30:32: 0060:m @0533 5603 20003833046: 2 000:0: .6 0w< 60:02:50 006: 05 .3 =: :o 3:388 m N _ _ 6.: 6mm: 6%.: 8m: 8m: 68.: ~93 34.: 8388 82 moose =< cmNd \ind cwwd mood $40.0 mowd 890 50.0 mooN\moON cm:— 000::. 063:: 0:0< :0: 000563 m060:w 3m: coed use: 83 cm _ ._ 26 28» con £3 ES 26 as: 9. 2 2 26.: 0%.: 26 e3: 2v 8388 So. :63. :62: 000;. 23:: EU mOONROON 0:: owm: 2 02:6 9 o o 0 4° *9 ‘1 4° xfi’ ‘1» Q G, + .140 c, ‘1» co 0‘ 58 a A hm.— m.— mm.— 53.— m4 New; EMA mm; mm; mod m. .N RN m3.m 9mm bod 3d 8m , $4 a: we 2 e .33 new R.» 3 m2 m: t: . _2 § E 2: A in 3:33m3v5 £0:me 20. £503 :85. 333033330 332.5 goo—80$ Re. eat 52.: . A in 3.2093333 0&5; 2333303303 uEmUV E03003 A .%. 355$ 0Ea< 235333.23 32.33.53 33003030: A 3.3%.»: 0.33333 3503 x035 A in “.3525 E06 A 33to§§530v uoonoQ A in .223: 50n— A .3. 2:35 DBL—32 A553»: 3005 0302 30m 2.23033333 3.8.30.3 3.530% A 3.22.33m maoxwzmv v.00 Em A 0,333.20. 3355 0:3 0:55 A5333<333n L033 0302 swam A 0.033 303.3% 035$ .33qu A in 0.53:3 039580 A in 0.33.3.3ka :93. Anzmwzzm 303?: 00:.am 02m 2033333330035 0302 A0332 .A 5331333333033 0302 02% A 3333303333 3.5335 0.335933. E080m “ 008%.? 0095.2 2 @030 40 years old, F 1,6 = 11.64, p < 0.05. When comparing the tree size categories per block age, in 1980 the smallest trees, less than 4 inches dbh, were the most common at almost every block age (Figure 3.5) However, in 2003/2005 the 4 to 10 inch trees were the most common (Figure 3.6). In the comparison of the urban forest to a natural forest, there is a sizeable difference between the percentages of each size category in the urban forest for the early years compared to the natural forest (Figure 3.7). As time goes on, though, the percentage value of each size category in the urban forest begins to approach the percentage of values seen in a natural forest. Tree Size and Condition Relationship — The Cramer’s V value was 0.338 (p < 0.05) for the 2003/2005 data. There was a strong negative relationship between size and condition, as the trees get larger, the health condition gets worse. 82 Discussion Tree Condition — The tree condition was a measure of categories and it was not a measure of continuous data for the condition of the trees. Therefore, the average conditions are not precise, but approximate values. When comparing the average values for condition for each species, it is hard to discern any differences. However, if the average total condition is compared for all trees over the years, then differences can be observed. When comparing the six cities to one another in 1980, there were three cities where the mean values for the condition were different from one another, the tree condition was worse: Delaware, Hutchinson, and Lincoln. In the other three cities, Bowling Green, Bucyrus, and Wooster, there was no real difference. Delaware, Hutchinson, and Lincoln have had urban tree ordinances since the beginning of this study and have had an urban forester or arborist to oversee the care of each city’s trees. These differences may also simply be the result of geography, Nebraska vs. Minnesota vs. Ohio. Or, it may be the dissimilarities involving the particular ecosystems that these cities are situated in, Lincoln is in the prairie; Hutchinson is found in the “Big Woods” section of the “Maple- Basswood Region” (Braun, 1950) and Delaware “Beech-Maple Region” (Braun, 1950). Then in 2003/2005, mean conditions were identified in Bowling Green and Delaware. One explanation is that Delaware is where the USDA—Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is located and is the hometown of the original researchers for this study, each of whom was, and still is, active in the planning and oversight of the urban forest. Bowling Green has had a few different urban foresters or arborists and at times 83 has had no one to help and counsel about tree issues. Next, the mean condition in Wooster is different from Bucyrus, Bowling Green, Delaware and Hutchison. Wooster’s mean condition is similar to the mean condition in Lincoln. No explanation for this is evident. The reasons for the decline in percentage of condition 1 in the greater than 40 year old blocks trees are not apparent, but one suggestion is that the older the blocks, the older and larger the trees, and the more the chance the trees will have decline signs and/or be damaged. The reason for the differences in percentages between 1980 and 2003/2005 may be bias by the data collectors or the inexperience of the students who did the survey in 1980, or the trees may simply be in a worse condition today. Another explanation may be that in 1980 huge numbers of trees were in the smallest dbh class which indicates that they were relatively new, young, vigorous trees. In 2003/2005 the greatest percentage of tree size shifted, and the largest size category was the 4 to 10 inch dbh. This means there are fewer small trees. Tree Size — It should not be surprising to see that as time goes on, the average tree size gets larger. In a comparison between the tree sizes in the different years that data were collected, Delaware, Bucyrus, Hutchinson and Wooster were statistically different in the size between years, which generally indicates that the trees are growing. It can alternatively be interpreted that not as many small trees were being added to the urban 84 forest. If trees were continuously being planted or volunteer trees were becoming established, there would not be that significant of an increase in tree size over the years. In 1980, the trees in Wooster and Hutchinson were notably larger than in all of the other cities. The tree sizes in the other four cities were basically the same. In 2003/2005 there were no real recognizable differences in the tree sizes in any of the cities or geographical areas. The reasons why it was so hard to detect any specific reason why a city’s tree sizes are similar or different are numerous. First, the environment must be taken into consideration. Lincoln, NE is situated in a prairie where the trees are subjected to strong seasonal droughts and relentless competition from perennial herbs and graminoids; Hutchinson, MN is in the “Big Woods” section of the “Maple-Basswood Region” of the eastern deciduous forest (Braun, 1950) where the winters are relatively long and severe; and the other four cities, Bowling Green, Bucyrus, Delaware and Wooster, Ohio are in the “Beech—Maple Region” of the eastern deciduous forest (Braun, 1950) which has relatively mild summers and winters compared to the other two cities. So the individual cities’ environments are varied and some conditions are more conducive for tree growth than other conditions. Second, urban trees are under tremendous amounts of stress, and some microclimates are simply more favorable for tree growth than others. These stresses stem from manmade conditions such as soil compaction, improper pruning, soil pH irregularities, etc., to 85 natural phenomena like competition, diseases, and parasites (Close et al., 1996a; Close et al., 1996b). Third, are new trees being planted? Some cities have comprehensive plans and budgets for the planting of new trees and the replacement of dead or hazardous trees. If the city is not planting new trees, then the average size will continue to get larger. If new trees are being added to the urban forest, usually trees with a relatively small dbh, then the average size of the city’s trees will remain roughly the same or even decrease. All of the cities in this study have a comprehensive tree planting plan except for Bucyrus, OH. Finally, does the public value trees? If so, then trees are going to be cared for and their growth will be valued. It has recently been shown that the presences of trees in urban settings generate many psycho-social benefits, including: lower levels of fear, less violent behaviors, and better neighbor relationships (Kuo, 2003). When people understand this, they will be more apt to value the trees that are currently growing in cities and to spend money to plant and care for more trees. With this, it is hard to quantify how the public values trees (Kuo, 2003). The main difference in the size categories, when comparing the age of blocks between 1980 and 2003/2005 was that the 4 to 10inch dbh size category was the largest category in 2003/2005, where in 1980 the less than 4 inch category was the largest. This was due in part to in-growth; the trees in the smallest size category have grown. Another explanation is that this may indicate that fewer trees were being planted since 1980, so 86 there were fewer small trees. This trend was evident in all of the block ages, and in both the public and private trees. In the comparison of the percentage of the tree sizes of the urban forest to the natural forest, there is a large difference in the beginning of the urban forest with many more small trees than are in the natural forest. Remember that the natural forest is in the midst of a later successional stage and the urban forest is in the beginning or early stage of development. The complex of the urban forest trees percentage at 60 years of development is beginning to resemble the percentage of the tree sizes at the first measurement of the mature forest of the natural forest. This phenomenon is an example of succession, and over time the urban forest is increasingly more similar to the natural forest. Tree Size and Condition Relationship — Intuitively, many think that as trees get larger, they become hazards because their health conditions worsen. This mindset has been brought about because as the trees get larger, there is more chance that they will become damaged or diseased. Testing the association between tree size and tree condition tells us if the variables are dependent or independent of each other. It was found that the association between the tree size and tree condition is a moderately strong relationship. Therefore, we can state with certainty, that there is a strong negative correlation between the size and health condition of urban trees. Conditions decrease or worsen as size increases. This may simply be, not surprising, as the trees age there are more chances of damage or pests. 87 Conclusion The importance of this research is to assess the entire urban forest, not just the street trees. The trees growing on privately owned property make up a preponderance of the trees in the urban forest and need to be included in any summaries and conclusions that are made about the urban forest. This study has shown statistically that over time, the condition of the trees is worsening and not surprisingly, the tree dbh has increased, but if trees were being planted at the same earlier rates this would not likely be the case. What is surprising is the number of trees in each of the size categories. In 2003/2005 there were many more trees in the 4 to 10 inch category than in the less than 4 inch category, as opposed to in 1980, when most of the trees were in the less than 4 inch size category. This indicates that fewer trees were being planted; even if the urban forester or arborist has increased the public tree planting, the private property owners have not. The initial percentages of the size categories were not very similar when a natural forest was compared to an urban forest. This was because so much of the urban area was altered and so many of the trees have been removed due to the development of the urban area. As time goes on, the percentage of trees in the different size categories of the urban forest began to approximate the percentage of trees in the different size categories in a natural forest through succession. 88 Table 3.1. A comparison of selected urban forest descriptor data of the six Midwestern, USA cities in 1980 and 2003.2005. 1980 2003/2005 Bowling Green, OH Number of Trees 2280 2279 Lots Surveyed ----- 237 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.32 1.66 Average Tree Size (inches) 5.73 9.61 Bucyrus, OH Number of Trees 876 1111 Lots Surveyed ----- 228 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.65 1.59 Average Tree Size (inches) 7.48 11.02 Delaware, OH Number ofTrees 2486 3515 Lots Surveyed ----- 442 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.44 1.51 Average Tree Size (inches) 6.334 9.33 Hutchinson. MN; Number ofTrees 704 654 Lots Surveyed ----- 155 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.74 1.80 Average Tree Size (inches) 9.17 10.34 Lincoln, NE Number ofTrees 953 1049 Lots Surveyed ----- 220 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.73 1.69 Average Tree Size (inches) 9.11 11.56 Wooster, OH Nunber ofTrees 1682 2316 Lots Surveyed ----- 289 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.32 1.66 Average Tree Size (inches) 6.80 8.89 Summary ofthe urban Number of Trees 2486 796 forest discriptors Lots Surveyed ----- 567 Average Tree Condition Rating 1.53 1.65 Average Tree Size (inches) 7.44 10.13 89 Figure 3.1. Tree condition rating in the six Midwestern, USA cities’ urban forests that were surveyed in 1980 and in 2003/2005. 7000 6823 1980 6382 2003/2005 All Trees Tree Conditions 1980 2003/2005 Public Trees 6201 5694 1980 2003/2005 Private Trees lExcellent(l) EGood(2) IFair(3) IPoor(4) IDead(5)j 90 Figure 3.2. Tree size distribution in the six Midwestern, USA cities’ urban forests that were surveyed in 1980 and in 2003/2005. 8 o I- E-‘ h- o I- o .a S l1980 Z 2003/2005 Tree Size (dbh) 91 Figure 3.3. 1980 tree health condition in the six Midwestern, USA cities by location and age of blocks (All, Public and Private Trees). 1980 All Trees 3000 § 2500 a: 2000 1.. 1500 303 '2 1000 175 1717133 :1 Z 500 25 0 <10 years old 10 to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks IExcellent (1) I Good (2) I Fair (3) I Poor (4) I Dead (5) 1980 Public Trees 300 272 v: E 250 "5 200 g 150 g 123 24 17 32 24 Z 7 8 4 0 <10 years old 10 to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks IExcellent (1) DGood (2) IFair (3) I Poor (4) I Dead (5) 1980 Private Trees 3000 2447 8‘3 2500 ,1; 2000 1.. 1500 E 1000 158 147 :1 Z 500 68 58 21 0 <10 yeais old 10to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks IExcellent (1) 13 Good (2) I Fair (3) I Poor (4) I Dead (5) 92 Figure 3.4. 2003/2005 tree health condition in the six Midwestern, USA cities by location and age of blocks (All, Public and Private Trees). Number of trees 2003/2005 All Trees 3000 2500 2000 1500 917 1000 502 506 500 58 31 62 17 49 <10years old 10to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks IExcellent(1) IGood(2) IFair(3) IPoor(4) IDead(5) Number of trees 2003/2005 Public Trees 300 250 200 150 100 15 50 0 1 <10 years old 10 to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks IExcellent(1) ElGood(2) IFair(3) IPoor(4) ll‘Dead(5) Number of trees 2003/2005 Private Trees 2294 2500 2000 1 500 1 000 500 1564 866 846 704 433 464 415 46 31 47 16 34 17 <10years old 10to40 years old >40years old Age of city blocks IExcellent(1) IGood(2) IFair(3) IPoor(4) IDead(5) 93 Figure 3.5. 1980 tree size distribution in the six Midwestern, USA cities (All, Public and Private Trees). 1980 All Trees 3500 § 3000 1:: 2500 “5 2000 g 1308 g l O 329 341 z 500 2] 0 <10years old 10to40 years old >40years old Age of city blocks I<4 in. dbh E410 101n. dbh I 10m 16 in. dbh I>l6in. dbh 1980 Public Trees 350 8 300 O b 250 “5 200 g 150 E 100 . 49 :1 z 50 l 0 <10 years old 10 to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks I<4 in. dbh B4to101n.dbh I 10to 16 in. dbh I>l6in. dbh 1980 Private Trees 3000 2646 § 2500 I: g 2000 1530 1.. 1500 916 3 1000 9 S 500 295 214 265 340 Z 21 0 <10 years old 10 to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks I<4 in. dbh I4to 10in. dbh I 101016 in. dbh I>l6in. dbh 94 Figure 3.6. 2003/2005 tree size distribution in the six Midwestern, USA cities (All, Public and Private Trees). 2003/2005 All Trees ,,, 2500 2014 3 2000 h “5 1500 In [‘2’ 1000 500 2 0 <10years old 10to40 years old >40years old Age of city blocks I<4 in. dbh I4to 10in. dbh I 101016 in. dbh I>l6in. dbh 2003/2005 Public Trees 250 m 8 200 I: ‘3 150 l- E 100 E 50 i5 0 <10 years old 10 to 40 years old >40 years old Age of city blocks I<4 in. dbh B41010in.dbh I 1010 16 in. dbh I>l6in. dbh 2003/2005 Private Trees 2000 1838 U) 8 b “-1 O I- Q) ..n E :1 Z <10years old 10to40 years old >40years old Age of city blocks I<4 in. dbh E4to IOin. dbh I 10to 16 in. dbh I>l6in. dbh 95 Figure 3.7. Comparison of urban forest and natural forest tree size succession over time. Adapted from Boyce, 1981, in Wenger, 1984. Boyce's 1981 2003/2005 Urban Natural Forest Data Forest Data 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Classes (percent) . - - )0.-- Distribution of Size Classes (percent) Distribution of Size 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Time (years) . Time (years) Solid line is dbh less than 4 inches Small dashed line is dbh 4 to 10 inches Large dashed line is dbh 10 to 16 inches Dotted line is dbh greater than 16 inches Note: As time goes on, the percentage of tree sizes in urban forests approaches that of tree sizes in Boyce’s natural forest. Also note that Boyce begins with a mature forest. 96 Table 3.2. The 25 most common tree taxa in 1980 and 2003/2005 and their overall average condition** in the six Midwestern, USA cities; reported by public, private and total trees. 1980 2003/2005 Average Average Condition Condition 8 _. E __ 41) u 2 N D o 93 N g 3 § "9:3 ‘52 “:3- : g Taxa 2 E E {-0- ITaxa 2 51’ E 13 ,Silver Maple 957 2.7 1.4 1.6 Arborvitae 980 1.8 1.5 1.5 (Acer saccharinum) (Thuja occidentalis) Blue Spruce 621 1.0 1.1 1.1 Silver Maple 942 1.9 1.8 1.8 (Picea pungus) (Acer saccharinum) Crabapple . 458 1.1 1.2 1.2 Norway Maple 701 1.9 1.6 1.7 ‘ (Malus sp.) (A. plataniodes) American Elm 418 2.6 1.5 1.8 Blue Spruce 676 1.1 1.3 1.3 V (Ulmus americana) (Picea pungus) Ash . 389 1.5 1.4 1.4 Ash 634 1.5 1.6 1.5 (Fraxinus sp.) (Fraxinus sp.) Sugar Maple 355 1.7 1.6 1.6 Crabapple 523 1.7 1.7 1.7 (A. saccharum) (Malus sp.) Arborvitae 327 1.0 1.1 1.1 Norway Spruce 506 1.0 1.7 1.7 (Thuja occidentalis) (P. abies) Norway Spruce 323 1.6 1.1 1.2 Sugar Maple 334 2.2 1.8 2.0 ' (P. abies) (A. sacchanim) . Norway Maple 305 1.6 1.4 1.5 White Pine 321 1.0 1.6 1.6 (A. plataniodes) (Pinus strobus) Cherry 276 1.7 1.8 1.8 Pin Oak 292 1.9 1.6 1.6 (Prunus sp.) (Quercus palustris) Red Maple 262 2.0 1.5 1.6 Redbud 280 1.9 1.6 1.6 (A. rubrum) (Cercis canadensis) Pin Oak 254 1.4 1.4 1.4 Red Maple 268 1.9 1.6 1.7 _ (Quercus palustris) (A. rubrum) ' Dogwood . . 246 2.0 1.5 1.5 AM'ulberry 265 1.0 ' 1.7 1.7 V . (Comus florida) . . (Moris sp.) Apple , 237 1.5 1.5 ‘ Pear 248 1.7 1.5 1.5 (Malus sp.) (Pyrus sp.) (Table 3.2 cont’d) 1 Private tree conditions are highly significantly worse between 1980 and 2003/2005. p < 0.01 2 . Total tree conditions are significantly worsebetween 1980 and 2003/2005. p < 0.05 **Conditions: 1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor, and 5 = dead 98 White Pine 233 1.5 1.1 1.1 Dogwood 238 1.0 1.3 1.3 (Pinus strobus) (Cornus flon'da) Redbud 207 1.0 1.5 1.5 Cherry 224 2.3 1.7 1.7 (Cercis canadensis) (Prunus sp.) Plum 203 1.7 1.5 1.5 Black Walnut 200 1.5 1.4 1.4 . (Prunus sp.) (Juglans nigra) , Birch (Betula 75p. ) 195 2.2 1.5 1.5 Honeylocust 193 1.5 1.7 1.7 (Betula sp.) ‘ (Gliditsia triacanthus) Scotch Pine , 187 1.0 1.3 1.3 Apple . . 171 2.0 1.8 1.8 (P. sylvestris) (Malus sp.) . Juniper 171 1.5 1.5 Hackbeny 164 2.4 1.6 1.7 (Juniperus sp.) (Celtis occidentalis) Honeylocust 161 1.1 1.4 1.3 Juniper 161 2.3 1.4 1.4 ‘ (Gliditsia triacanthus) (Juniperus sp.) Black Walnut , 149 2.5 1.4 1.6 Linden 147 1.7 1.5 1.6 ‘ (Juglans nigra) (Tilia sp.) _ Lombardy Poplar » 136 1.0 1.8 1.8 Hemlock 145 1.6 1.6 (Populus nigra 'ltalica') (Tsuga canadensis) Mulberry 1 17 1.9 1.9 Birch 139 2.0 1.5 1.5 (Moris sp.) (Betula sp.) Hawthorn 112 1.1 1.2 1.2 Magnolia 130 1.2 . 1.2 (Crataegus sp.) (Magnolia sp.) Total trees 7299 1.6 1.4 1.5 Total trees 8882 1.7 1.6 1.6 Sum of all trees 8.980 Sum of all trees 10.924 Table 3.3. The six Midwestern, USA cities 25 most common tree species in 1980 and 2003/2005 and the overall average size**; public, private and total trees. 1980 2003/2005 Average Average Size Size 1- m N :- J: N Taxa 2 “5 a if 12 Taxa 2 :’5 51’ E i 12 Silver Maple 957 3.2 2.1 2.2 Arborvitae 980 1.9 1.6 .‘ 1.6 (Acer saccharinum) (Thuja occidentalis) Blue Spruce 621 1.1 1.3 1.3 Silver Maple 942 3.2 3.3 3.2 (Picea pungus) (Acer saccharinum) Crabapple 458 1.1 1.3 1.3 Norway Maple 701 2.2 2.2 2.2 (Malus sp.) (A. plataniodes) American Elm 418 3.3 2.0 2.4 Blue Spruce 676 2.7 2.1 2.1 (Ulrms americana) (Picea pungus) Ash 389 1.5 1.8 1.7 Ash 634 2.3 2.5 2.4 (Fraxinus sp.) (Fraxinus sp.) Sugar Maple 355 2.5 1.7 2.0 Crabapple 523 1.9 1.9 1.9 (A. saccharum) (Malus sp.) Arborvitae 327 1.0 1.2 1.2 Norway Spruce 506 4.0 2.5 2.5 (Thuja occidentalis) (P. abies) Norway Spruce 323 2.0 1.7 1.7 Sugar Maple 334 2.9 2.9 2.9 (P. abies) (A. saccharum) Norway Maple 305 1.6 1.7 1.7 White Pine 321 3.0 2.2 2.2 (A. plataniodes) (Pinus strobus) Cherry 276 1.7 1.5 1.5 Pin Oak 292 3.7 3.4 3.5 (Prunus sp.) (Quercus palustris) Red Maple 262 1.5 1.8 1.7 Redbud 280 2.1 1.6 1.7 (A. rubrum) (Cercis canadensis) Pin Oak 254 3.3 2.3 2.5 Red Maple 268 2.1 2.2 2.2 (Quercus palustris) (A. rubrum) Dogwood 246 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mulberry 265 1.0 1.8 1.8 (Cornus florida) (Moris sp.) Apple , . 237 1.6 1.6 Pear 248 2.2 1.8 1.9 (Malus sp.) (Pyrus sp.) 9 99 (Table 3.3 cont’d) White Pine 233 ' 1.0 1.3 1.3 Dogwood 238 1.3 1.5 1.5 (Pinus strobus) ‘ V (Comus llorida) ‘ Redbud 207 1.2 1.3 1.3 Cheny 224 2.6 2.1 2.1 (Cercis canadensis) (Prunus sp.) Plum . 203 I 1.0 1.2 1.2 Black Walnut 200 3.7 2.3 ' 2.4 (Pmnus sp.) (Juglans nigra) , , Birch (Betula sp. ) 195 1.2 1.3 1.3 Honeylocust 193 2.7 2.9 2.9 (Betula sp.) _ . . (Gliditsia triacanthus) Scotch Pine ’ 187 1.0 1.2 1.2 Apple 171 2.0 1.9 1.9 (P. sylvestris) (Malus sp.) Juniper ‘ 171 1.6 1.6 Hackbeny 164 4.0 2.0 2.1 (Juniperus sp.) . (Celtis occidentalis) Honeylocust ‘ 161 1.5 2.1 2.0 Juniper 161 2.0 1.6 1.6 (Gliditsia triacanthus) (Juniperus sp.) Black Walnut ‘ q 149 2.0 2.3 1.3 Linden 147 2.5 2.4 2.5 (Juglansnigra) (Tilia sp.) Lombardy Poplar 136 2.0 1.5 1.5 Hemlock 145 1.6 1.6 (Populus nigra 'Italica') I ' (Tsuga canadensis) Mulberry. . 117 1.9 1.9 Birch 139 3.0 2.1 2.1 (Mom's sp.) (Betula sp.) Hawthorn 112 1.1 1.2 1.2 Magnolia 130 1.6 1.6 (Crataegus sp.) (Magnolia sp.) Total trees 7299 1.7 1.6 1.6 Total trees 8882 2.6 2.2 2.2 Sum of all trees 8,980 Su m of all trees 10,924 1 Public tree sizes were highly significantly bigger between 1980 and 2003/2005, p < 0.001 2 Private tree sizes were highly significantly bigger between 1980 and 2003/2005, p < 0.0001 3 Total tree sizes were highly significantly bigger between 1980 and 2003/2005, p < 0.0001 **Sizes: 1 = <4 in. dbh, 2 = 4 to 10 in. dbh, 3 = 10 to 16 in. dbh, and 4 = >16 in. dbh 100 Literature Cited Beckett, K.P., P. Freer-Smith, and G. Taylor. 2000. Effective tree species for local air- quality management. Journal of Arboriculture. 26: 12-19. Boyce, S.G. and ND. Cost. 1978. Forest Diversity: New Concepts and Applications. US. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service Research Paper, SE-194. pp. 11- 14. Boyce, S.G. 1984. Biological diversity and its use in silviculture. In Wenger ed. Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop. USDA Forest Service. pp. 163-181. Braun, EL. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey. pp. 334-336. Chick, TA. and J.J. Kielbaso. 1998. Allelophathy as an inhibition factor in ornamental tree growth: Implications from the literature. Journal of Arboriculture 24(5):274- 279. Close, R.E., J .J. Kielbaso, P.V. Nguyen, and RE. Schutzki. 1996a. Urban vs. natural sugar maple growth: 1. Stress symptoms and phenology in relation to site characteristics. Journal of Arboriculture 22(3): 144-150. Close, R.E., J .J . Kielbaso, P.V. Nguyen, and RE. Schutzki. 1996b. Urban vs. natural sugar maple growth: 11. Water relations. Journal of Arboriculture 22(4): 187-192. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Ed. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, Illinois. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cumming, A.B., M.F. Galvin, R.J. Rabaglia, J.R. Cumming, and DB. Twardus. 2001. Forest health monitoring protocol applied to roadside trees in Maryland. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(3): 126-138. Day, S.D, J .R. Seiler, R. Kreh, and D.W. Smith. 2001. Overlaying compacted or uncompacted construction fill has no negative impact on white oak and sweetgum growth and physiology. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 31: 100-109. Fox, J .C., 111. Bi, and PK. Ades. 2007. Spatial dependence and individual-tree growth models: I. Characterizing spatial dependence. Forest Ecology and Management 245: 10—19. 101 Grautter, F.J., and LB. Wallnau. 2007. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 7’h ed. Thompson Wadsworth, Belmont, California. Harris, R.W., J .R. Clark and NP. Matheny. 1999. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines, 3rd Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. pp. 303-330. lakovoglou, V., J. Thompson, L. Burras and R. Kipper. 2001. Factors related to tree growth across urban-rural gradients in the Midwest, USA. Urban Ecosystems. 5:71-85. Kielbaso, J.J. and MK. Kennedy. 1983. Urban forestry and entomology: a current appraisal. In Frankie, G.W. and CS. Koehler (eds.) Urban Entomology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. PraegerPublishers. New York. pp. 423-440. Kielbaso, J .J ., M.N. de Araujo, A.J. de Araujo and W.N. Cannon, Jr. 1993. Monitoring the growth and development of urban forests in Bowling Green, Ohio and Lincoln, Nebraska. American Forests National Urban Forest Inventory. p. 99. Kuo, EB. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3): 148-155. Matheny, NP. and J .R. Clark. 1991. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. International society of Arboriculture, Urbana, Illinois. McPherson, E.G. 1990. Creating an ecological landscape. In: P. Rodbell (ed.) Proceedings of the forth Urban Forestry Conference. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC. pp. 63-67. McPherson, E.G. 1993. Monitoring urban forest health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 26:165-174. McPherson, E.G. 1994. Energy-saving potential of trees in Chicago. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and RA. Rowntree (eds.). Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, General Technical Report NE-186. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. pp. 95-110. Metzger, J.M and R. Oren. 2001. The effects of crown dimensions on transparency and the assessment of tree health. Ecological Applications. 11(6): 1634-1640. Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces, 2"d Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 102 Nowak, DJ. 1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and RA. Rowntree (eds.). Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, General Technical Report NE-186. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. pp 83-94. Peper, P.J., E.G. Mcpherson and SM. Mori. 2001. Equations for predicting diameter, height, crown width, and leaf area of San Joaquin Valley street trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 27: 306-317. Qi, Y., J. Favorite, and A. Lorenzo. 1998. Forestry: A community tradition. National Association of Community Foresters. Joint Publications of USDA Forest Service, the National Association of State foresters and the Southern University and A&M College. 3Ird Edition. 35 pp. Rowntree, R.A., and DJ. Nowak. 1991. Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture. 17: 269-275. Scott, K.I., J .R. Simpson, and E.G. McPherson. 1999. Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions. Journal of Arboriculture. 25: 129-142. Shigo, AL. 1991. Modern Arboriculture: A System Approach to the care of trees and their associates. Shigo and Tree, Associates, Durham, New Hampshire. pp. 315- 352. Wade, CA and J.J Kielbaso. 2010. The effects of an early snowstorm on the urban forest ecosystem in Lincoln, NE. (in preparation). Ware, G. 1990. Constraints to tree growth by urban soil alkalinity. Journal of Arboriculture. 16(2): 35-38. Webster, BL. 1978. Guide to judging the condition of a shade tree. Journal of Arboriculture. 4(1 1): 247-249. Wen er, K.F. 1984. Forestry Handbook, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. . 45-48. g PP Xiao, Q. and E.G. McPherson. 2002. Rainfall interception of Santa Monica’s municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosystem. 62291-302. Xiao, Q. and E.G. McPherson. 2005. Tree health mapping with multispectral remote sensing data at UC Davis, California. Urban Ecosystems. 8:249-361. 103 Chapter 4 Effects of an Early Snowstorm on the Urban Forest Ecosystem in Lincoln, NE 104 Abstract On October 24, 1997, before leaf senescence, a severe snowstorm swept through Lincoln, NE resulting in 33.5 cm (13.2 inches) of accumulation over roughly two days. The weight of the snow caused devastating damage to trees. It was reported that 90 to 95 percent of trees in southeastern Nebraska were damaged (IANR News Service 2001). This snowstorm cause dramatic changes in the urban forest. A survey in 2003 found that 48% of the trees recorded in a 1992 survey were lost. A comparison of trees by sizes revealed that the smallest trees were devastated while larger trees were not, and a comparison of trees by condition showed substantial losses in all condition classes. Losses varied among species. Species such as mugo pine (Pinus mugo), mulberry (Moms sp.) and plum (Prunus sp.) had losses greater than 80%, while some others, white pine (P. strobus) and pin oak (Quercus palustris), had losses 0f 20% or less. Using the Shannon diversity index, there was a loss of approximately 6% of the total diversity of trees. Species richness decreased by nearly 10%. There were no correlations between specific tree species’ vulnerability to snow damage and tree physical properties: wood density, specific gravity, modulus of rupture or modulus of elasticity. 105 den lie) lll'u'l! ,1 {J fl lllllti Key Words: Lincoln, NE; snowstorm; urban forest ecosystem; urban trees; wood density; specific gravity; modulus of rupture; modulus of elasticity. 106 R: 10 re; 1111 $11 111 1111 Introduction The effect of snowstorms on the urban forest has not been well documented, unlike the effects of ice storms. Ice storms resulting in accumulations of several centimeters of ice on trees happen periodically throughout the Midwest and northeast United States and much has been written about ice damage to forest trees in these areas: Abell 1934; Croxton 1939; Lemon 1961; Bruederle 1985; Hauer et a1. 1993; Sisinni et a1. 1995; Rebertus 1997; Rhoads et al. 2002; Hauer et a1. 2006. Individual tree species vary in response to snow and ice loading on branches, with some species being more susceptible to breakage under the weight of the snow and ice buildup (Croxton 1939; Cannell and Morgan 1989; Lilly and Sydnor 1995; Valinger and Fridman 1997; Warrillow and Mon 1999). Many past reports on ice and snow damage to trees have reported a comparison of the damaged forest area to an adjacent area that was not disturbed by the storm (Rogers, 1923; Croxton, 1939; Dueber, 1940; Whitney, 1984). However, nothing has been reported about snowstorm damage to the urban forest and none of these papers address the ice or snow loading on trees that still have their leaves present. This paper addresses the effects of a late October 1997 snowstorm on the urban forest in Lincoln, NE and started with data that had been collected in an earlier study of the same sample areas. This is also the first study to deal with the effects of a snowstorm on an urban forest. Another unique feature of this study is that it takes into account all trees in the urban forest, both public and private trees, not just street trees. 107 The size of a tree is usually expressed as height, crown spread, or diameter of trunk (dbh). This study utilizes the dbh as the size of the tree. Small trees, depending on the species, may be weak and less able to withstand snow load and wind while larger trees, depending on the species, may be more prone to decay and breakage. Tree health conditions directly affect the ecosystem services of the urban forest (McPherson, 1990; Rowntree and Nowak, 1991; McPherson, 1993; McPherson, 1994; Nowak, 1994; Qi et al., 1998; Scott et al., 1999; Beckett et al., 2000; Cumming et al., 2001; Xiao and McPherson, 2002). The urban forest provides aesthetics that can increase property values and recreational benefits, and it reduces air pollution and storm runoff, conserves energy, stores carbon, provides protection from ultraviolet radiation, creates habitat for wildlife, and moderates temperatures (Xiao and McPherson, 2005). The diversity of the urban forest should be maintained and it is important to maintain the diversity as high as possible to reduce the chance of a catastrophic event destroying the forest. Wood properties vary between the different tree species. The wood density is the dry weight per unit volume of wood. It is an important parameter that can be used to indicate strength. Specific gravity can be thought of as the relative hardness of different wood. It is the wood density divided by the density of water. The modulus of rupture is the measure of the force necessary to cause failure in a given beam or it is the maximum load of a carrying capacity of a beam which is a measurement of strength. The modulus of 108 elasticity is the measurement of a force that can be applied to bend an object and the object can return to its former position (Green et al., 1999). I hypothesized that the snowstorm, in October 1997, had no effect on the size and condition of the urban trees. I also hypothesized that the diversity and number of trees did not change because of the snowstorm and that the physical and mechanical wood properties of trees did not play a role in the survival of the individual tree species. H1 — The average size of the urban forest trees did not change because of the snowstorm. H2 — The average condition of the urban forest trees did not change because of the snowstorm. H3— The Shannon diversity index of the urban forest trees did not change because of the snowstorm. H4 — The number of trees in the urban forest did not change because of the snowstorm. H5 — The physical and mechanical wood properties, per species, determined percentage lost of trees due to the snowstorm. History From October 24 to October 26, 1997, it snowed in Lincoln, NE, as it did in many other locations ranging from Colorado to Michigan. The storm left 33.5 cm (13.2 inches) of snow in Lincoln, NE. Snow build up on trees was unusually heavy because most of the 109 leaves were still present and this caused devastating damage to the trees. It was estimated that 90 to 95 percent of the trees in southeastern Nebraska were damaged (IANR News Service, 2001). When the snow started falling the temperature was hovering around 0°C (32°F) and three days later, the temperature had dropped to -13.3°C (8°F). This is the earliest single digit temperature ever recorded in Lincoln, NE. It took until the summer of 1998 to completely clean up the debris from this storm in Lincoln. This storm did not lose much of its strength as it moved across the plains states. The storm stretched all the way to Lansing, MI and as an example of this snowstorm’s size and strength, it did so much “natural pruning” that it took until February to clean up, according to the city of Lansing Forester Mr. Paul Dykema (2004). When the clean up was completed, the city of Lansing had six million pounds of wood chips and the city of Lincoln had many more. Methods Twelve sample blocks in Lincoln, NE, that were chosen during an original survey in 1980, were divided into age categories based on the age of the homes according to an earlier survey (Kielbaso, 1993) which in turn was based on an original survey by William Cannon in 1980. The age categories were: younger than 10 years; 10 to 40 years; and older than 40 years in 1980. Four entire city blocks were surveyed from each of the age categories; a total of 12 blocks. All trees, on both public and private land, over 5.1 cm (2 inches) dbh were measured and placed into a size class. The design of this study follows the criteria established in 1980. So, in 1992, the identification of all trees in each of these blocks, by house was possible. Also, in 2003, I 110 could precisely determine which trees had been added, or lost, between studies. The data collected for each tree were: ownership (public/private); species or genus; diameter category; and overall tree health condition. Trees between the street and the sidewalk were considered public. If there was no sidewalk, then the trees that were within 15 feet of the street were considered public. All other trees in the yards, front, back and sides, were private. The diameter at breast height (dbh) for each tree was measured and each tree was put into a size class: 1 - 5.1 to 10.2 cm (2 to 4 inches); 2 - 10.2 to 25.4 cm (4 to 10 inches); 3 - 25.4 to 40.6 cm (10 to 16 inches); and 4 - greater than 40.6 cm (16 inches). The health conditions were assessed by looking for signs of decline; the fewer signs of decline, the better the health of the tree. The specific decline signs were evaluated by looking at the crown, trunk and branches, and the base and roots. Some examples of decline signs are: decay, girdling roots, broken branches/limbs, included bark, etc. Once the tree was evaluated, the decline signs were added up. If the tree had zero or one sign of decline, it was rated a 1; if the tree had two decline signs, it was rated a 2, if it had three or four decline signs, .it was rated a 3, if it had five or more decline signs it was rated a 4, and if it was dead or was in the process of dying, it was rated a 5. This system was unique to the original study by Cannon and has produced reasonably consistent comparison with current ISA/CTLA evaluation guide procedures. Chi-square statistical analyses were used to test for significant differences in the data between 1992 and 2003 (p < 0.05). In the case of the species diversity, a t-test was used to compare differences in the Shannon index values. 111 A multiple regression was performed to see if there was any correlation between the percent of tree species lost and the reported wood property. The specific wood property values that were used were from published data and a multiple regressions was performed to illustrate any relationships. The focus of a multiple regression is to illustrate any relationship between several independent variables, in this case the wood density, specific gravity, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, and size (dbh). The dependent variable was the percent loss of the specific tree species. Results Numbers of Trees — Individual species were recorded and the twenty-five most common tree species are shown in Table 4.1. In 1992 there were 1346 trees in the 12 block sample while in 2003 there were 697. Overall there was a loss of 48.2% of the original 1992 trees (x2 = 9.04 (df = 1) p < 0.05). The 2003 count does not include the number of new trees that were planted following the snowstorm. 352 new trees were detected in 2003. These were identifiable as they did not appear in the 1992 study. In 1992 there were 212 public trees and in 2003 there were 147 public trees, which is a loss of 30.7% of the public trees. The private trees did not fare as well as the public trees. In 1992 there were 1134 private trees and in 2003 there were 550 private trees (Figure 4.1), a loss of 51.5%. Newer neighborhoods, based on plat map dates, lost more trees than older neighborhoods. The newest neighborhoods (less than 10 years old in 1980) lost 69%, and 112 the net oldest 101 all Mr. 5 6.8111 dens 11118 plan snnn non 51:6 4.3) 1035 Whi “‘61 the i 1an £1611 the next oldest aged neighborhoods (10 to 40 years old in 1980) lost 45%, whereas the oldest neighborhoods lost only 19.0% (Figure 4.2), which is a significantly smaller loss for all of the age groups, (x2 = 64.77 (df = 2) p < 0.0001). Mr. Steve Schwab, the City Arborist of Lincoln, reported that when the city was established in the 1800’s, there were only 6 trees within the city (Laukaitis, 2003). The density was 24.0 trees per acre in 1992 and in 2003, there were only 12.2 trees per acre. This is a loss of 49.1% of the trees. In 2003, that loss had been lessened by an active tree planting program. In these 12 city blocks, 404 trees have been planted since the snowstorm. As a result, there were 18.7 trees per acre in 2003, improving the tree population losses to 22.1% of that of 1992. Size of Trees — The losses between 1992 and 2003 were greatest in the small trees (Figure 4.3). In 1992 there were 381 trees in the size 1 class and in 2003 there were 25 trees, a loss of 93.4%. Size class 2, had 477 trees in 1992 while in 2003 there were 251 trees, which is a loss of 47.4%. Size class 3, had 222 trees in 1992 and 160 trees in 2003, which is a loss of 27.9%. The largest trees, size class 4, had 266 trees while in 2003 there were 262, which is a loss of 1.9%. During this time period, 288 trees that were lost from the three smaller trunk sizes actually grew and are now accounted for in the next larger trunk size class. There was 139 tree that grew from the size category 1 to 2, 101 trees grew from size category 2 to 3, and 48 trees grew from size category 3 to 4. 113 There was a correlation between dbh and the percentage of trees lost, as the dbh increased, the percentage of tree lost decreased. So many small trees died in the snowstorm that the average dbh of the surviving trees changed dramatically. The average dbh of all the trees present in 1992 was 24.4 cm (9.6 inches). After the snowstorm in 2003, the average dbh of all of the trees remaining from 1992 was 39.4 cm (15.5 inches). However, when you take into account the 352 new trees planted since the snowstorm, the average dbh of all of the trees in 2003 is 27.7 cm (10.9 inches). With the addition of the new trees, the average dbh is now more similar to what the dbh was before the storm. The tree size data for the different years, 1992 and 2003, shows there was a significant loss of trees in all of the size categories (x2 = 207.17 (df = 3) p < 0.0001). There is a direct correlation with age of city block and size of the trees. In general, the youngest city blocks have the youngest trees which are also the smallest trees. The older city blocks have the oldest and the largest trees. When considering just age, the youngest blocks experienced a 69% loss of trees, while the middle-aged blocks lost 45% of the trees and the oldest blocks lost only 19% of their trees. This is a highly significant loss of trees in all of the age categories (x2 = 64.77 (df = 2) p < 0.0001). The size of the trees shows the same trend as did the age. In the case of this snowstorm, the size and the age of the trees mattered, statistically. The larger the trees and the older the trees, as measured by block age, the better the chance of surviving this snowstorm. Condition of Trees — In 1992 there were 587 trees that were rated a 1, the best health condition (Figure 4.5) and in 2003 there were 345, a loss of 41.2% of the trees. There 114 w 1991 1111' 161' 011 81,91. 4.1 3 \9‘6 were 508 trees rated as a 2 in 1992, and 219 trees in 2003, a reduction of 56.9%. In 1992, 170 trees received a rating of 3, and in 2003 there were 117, a loss of 31.2%. There were 58 trees rated as a 4 in 1992, and in 2003 there were 14, a reduction of 75.9%. In 1992 there were 23 trees with a health condition rating of 5; this means the trees were dead or nearly so, in 2003, there were only two dead trees standing which is a reduction of 91.3%. All of the condition categories show significant losses, ()8 = 28.77 (df= 4)p < 0.0001). The number of trees in each of the health conditions showed a similar trend as above. The trees in the best health condition had the smallest percentage of losses, while each consecutive lower health condition category had a greater percentage of loss than the previous health condition. The average health condition of allthe trees in 1.992 was 1.88. After all of the dead and damaged trees from the snowstorm were removed, the average health condition of the trees that were present in 1992 and still alive in 2003, was 1.99. This means that the surviving trees from 1992 have a slightly worse average health condition. In 2003, the average health condition of all the trees (surviving 1992 trees plus trees planted since the snowstorm) is 1.59, slightly better than in 1992. Diversity of Trees — Species richness was also affected by the snowstorm, but not significantly. Species richness went from 62 in 1992 to 56 in 2003, a loss of 9.7%. Table 4.1 shows results for individual species. The Shannon index for diversity (Magurran, 1988; Marurran, 2004) based on species richness and evenness, was 3.5 in 1992 and 3.25 115 in 2003. This is a loss of 6.1%, which indicates that between 1992 and 2003 the loss in species diversity was nonsignificant. Individual tree species were analyzed in the study. Table 4.1 shows the twenty-five most common tree species in the city blocks that were studied. Some trees; mugo pine (Pinus mugo), plum (Prunus sp.) and mulberry (Moms sp.) show a loss of more than 80% from 1992. Also on this list, are ten additional species that lost more than 50% of their population: redbud (Cercis canadensis), birch (Betula sp.), arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis), cherry (Prunus sp.), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), apple (Malus sp.), crabapple (Malus sp.), juniper (Juniperus sp.), pear (Pyrus sp.), and hackberry (Celtus occidentalis). The species and/or genera that fared the best were: pin oak (Quercus palustris), white pine (Pinus Strobes) and ash (F raxinus sp.). Ash was mostly green ash (F. pennsylvanica Marsh), but white ash (F. Americana) and Hessei European ash (F. excelsior ‘hessei ’) were also noted. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Wood — The relationship of wood properties to the percentage lost of individual tree species (Table 4.1) was analyzed by multiple regression. The percentage loss of each species was the dependent variable and the wood density, specific gravity, modulus of rupture and the modulus of elasticity were the independent variables. The relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables was not significant. None of the independent variables helps to explain the value of the dependent variable, namely the percentage of trees lost owing to the snowstorm (wood density — F1, 19 = 0.798, p > 0.05; specific gravity — F1, 20 = 0.0015, 116 p > 0.05; modulus of elasticity — Fl, ,5 = 0.0034, p > 0.05; modulus of rupture — F], 16 = 0.1965, p > 0.05). Discussion Number of Trees -The urban forest of Lincoln, NE lost nearly half of the trees during this snowstorm. This left large areas of the city without much tree cover. When comparing the percent of tree loss by the age of the city blocks, the older the block, the better the chance of tree survival, the younger the block the better the chance of tree failure. This may be because of resilience. Only the most resilient trees survive to old age and the rest, less resilient trees died earlier in life. Presumably after the snowstorm and before 2003, 352 new trees were planted in order to replace the dead and removed trees. The urban forest will continue to recover in number and density, as the trees that were lost in the snowstorm are replaced. Size of Trees — During the snowstorm, 93% of the smallest trees were damaged to the point where they were removed during the cleanup after the snowstorm. The city forester of Lincoln was questioned about these high losses. He stated that there was a conscious effort to save as many of the public trees as possible and it was up to each property owner to decide what happened to the private trees. So, small public trees were not simply removed, but instead, when possible, the small trees were pruned and maintained in a manner that would help guarantee their survival. 117 So many small trees died in the snowstorm that the average dbh of the surviving trees changed dramatically. However, because of all of the replanting that has taken place, the average dbh of all of the trees including the 352 new ones is getting close to what it was in 1992. The reason for the substantial increase in the average dbh in the trees that survived the snowstorm, 24.4 cm in 1992 to 39.4 cm in 2003, was that more than 90% of the smallest trees died and 288 of the surviving trees grew into the next larger size class. Given this, we can predict snowstorm damage based on the size of the trees with some certainty, the smaller trees do not fare as well as larger trees in this situation. Condition of Trees — All conditions categories lost many trees. In general, as the condition of the trees gets decreased, the percent of trees lost increased. This was not surprising, since I expected that trees with disease or defects would be more susceptible to the heavy snow load. Diversity of Trees — In general, species richness and species diversity did not change much. However, Hauer et al. (1993) summarized 12 studies along with their own research to produce a list of 11 storm susceptible trees from urban and natural forests. Of the trees that were considered “susceptible” to damage in Hauer’s report, only cherry (Prunus sp.), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila L.) and pear (Pyrus sp.) lost more than 50% of their population in this study. One difference in the current study from Hauer et a1. is that they considered arborvitae to be “resistant” to damage, whereas in this study, arborvitae lost over 67% of its population in the snowstorm. These trees were one hundred percent 118 private trees and were probably out down due to the snow load causing disfigurement to the trees. Many of these arborvitae were small and in hedges. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Wood — The susceptibility of snowstorm damage appears to be a product of the size and age of the trees rather than the physical and mechanical properties of the wood. This concurs with the findings of Hauer et al. (1993) where they compared wood properties to the susceptibility to ice storm damage in Urbana, Illinois. Conclusion The severe snowstorm that hit Lincoln, NE and many other parts of the Midwest was devastating to trees. Some trees fared better than others, but the entire urban forest was affected, particularly the small trees. Physical signs of the storm can still be seen today, but with time, these wounds are healing and replacement trees are being planted by both the city and individual home-owners. A diverse urban forest, that includes tree species that are more resistant to snow and ice loads, that are maintained on a regular basis so that the tree architecture is sound, and where any structural weaknesses in the trees are removed, will minimize the dangers from these types of storms (Hauer et. al. 2006). 119 120 8m.mm- _ 80¢ 89% 94.0 ovmiomv 80.. : A&M.— : 3593:; .865 cam—2 tom 68.98 88 8mm 4 88 may 685m 8 $3 3. NA 38:3 86.8 88m 2.8 A&VNV. _ v :46 c mmwioom oxebd 9 8nd mm :23: maziv 05n— .8525. 8.8- 88 89. 9.8 8w 68d 2 682 cm A 383838 .2538 838.5 6% .%- . . o 888 883 2 683 mm A .5. 22.8 38 88.8- 8Q 88 38 o? 882“ 8. 8.0 No A .5. 88828 .822 . some- 89 22m Ed 08 . s? 0m 88w 8 A. as 335 28380 8.8- 9.8 £2 n 5o 98 as: A: a; .m 8 A .8 2:35 can? 0858- v ovd 680.— A A 8nd mm A 3.33m “SEAN: E—m :mtonmm _ 68.8- 88 88m $8 80 688 m 8A.: 2 AS ages: .8er 68:8- 8.3. 88 ado em a: mm a? _A: 2:823:68 8:8 63E0€< 68.8- 28 mmmmm who as 688 . m 682. E ......A in 3:88 :85 68.2.- 4 who o 3.88 so; 2 son 3 34:36:28 86:8 886”— 88.8- 88 m 682 A: A owns 3:8 2.: 832 68.8- 88 88m 38 8A.. 688 m 683 P. A. S. 45:28 :55 .88- m and o 88$ sac m a; .m a. A .3. .2285 9332 . 68.13- 8:. 88m . _ 85 com .88 _ . a? t 49:85:“ 3:8 :56 58954 :3 . A828 A58 A :88 . A E3: .98 .6 86.: .88 eo 38: 868m _Eooeem . Emu: mam mo oesumnm .«o M8330 . Amiga owflcooeom moom owficeoeem. N09 5 . A3:632 . 32.632 #3025 . @035. _ ASE Ea 333 much own—05 Hos moon: Emcee; 8 @828 88%on 803 32852: use Bambi 05 5; mac? 888325 33 .3 $860 05 9 26 .880 wcmwmoeooc E .82 :8ch :05 23 m2 .5884 .8 8.8 88m 05 E 393 out .8888 808 mm 2E. .EV 033. rr macow 2.: 59¢ 86on A8035 EPA-A AquaAsoAao 32A; own-823.2. 8.85 A0: Una omaoflv an @0260 soon 02E >9: eunuch? emanfima 53ch coo-30 coon .xoowhom m voow ....W .3 Fine—- v .39 508—8% can 3.32: m Saw cos-am :cmEkocmA N 82 Jade coo-Irv A 80¢? 80 08069 Sum A Ago-A- oxoodm- QoAAc-A Am 802 Q: 850 A&M: A- 8A0 coon-n who m Aw A&M: A mm okfid mo AwA-AAnaAcm mxuumamv VAaO :AnA 050.8- 8% 80va Sad oov 085A NA ex: .A 2 2.53?- nzfilv ucAnA 22>? 080.3- . omow oomwm Amd one §wNA ow Amend m A A ......A .3 nzfixskv .Aw< 83H- 80m 88» 9o o8 089v mm aid we 83:383.»: 32:59 33235: akin-om- m cook. n Nod $56 mm $0M mv Anmnmotsfim 895 035—2 33.52 8.3.- 8m» 83 $8 an $3 8 $3 on 2.2223. “.258 8E 58an .. 8.;- 88, o8¢m m8 5. $3. om gem.»- 3. A. an 3A5 :25: _ excmfim- A 88 oooov 33 05‘ $50 no $.1- om Afizztuauua 395 29:2 .535 8288 .3. 29¢ 121 Figure 4.1. Comparison of tree counts in Lincoln, NE by ownership (1992 and 2003). I400 1200 - 1000* 800j Public I Private Number of Trees 200' 1992 2003 122 Figure 4.2. Age categories of homes and the number of trees compared by blocks in Lincoln, NE in 1992 and 2003. 1400 1200 1 1000 * g Age of Homes {‘5 800 - g 600 I<22 years old 5 I22 to 52 years old Z 400 - I>52 years old 200 ~ 0 - 1992 Years Surveyed 123 Figure 4.3. Comparison of the number of trees in each trunk size class in 1992 and 2003 in Lincoln, NE. 600 477 500 381 400 266261 300 a I 1992 2003 200 Number of Trees 100 ' Trunk Size Classes Size class 1 = less than 10.2 cm (4 inches) Size class 2 = 10.7 to 25.4 cm (4 to 10 inches) Size class 3 = 25.4 to 40.6 cm (10 to 16 inches) Size class 4 = more than 40.6 cm (16 inches) 124 Figure 4.4. Comparison of the number of trees in each dbh category that grew into the next larger size category from 1992 to 2003 in Lincoln, NE. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Number of Trees 1to2 2to3 3to4 Size Class Changes EINumber of trees that grew into larger dbh classes form 1992 to 2003 Size class 1 = less than 10.2 cm (4 inches) Size class 2 = 10.7 to 25.4 cm (4 to 10 inches) Size class 3 = 25.4 to 40.6 cm (10 to 16 inches) Size class 4 = more than 40.6 cm (16 inches) 125 Figure 4.5. Comparison of the number of trees in each health condition category in 1992 and 2003 in Lincoln, NE. 700 587 600 500 400 300 I 1992 2003 Number of Trees 200 58 14 23 LF-jh‘ l 2 3 4 5 100 Health Condition Categories Condition 1 = zero or one signs of decline Condition 2 = two signs of decline Condition 3 = three or four signs of decline Condition 4 = five or more signs of decline Condition 5 = dead 126 Literature Cited Abel], GA. 1934. Influence of glaze storms upon hardwood forests in the southern Appalachians. Journal of Forestry. 32:35-37. Beckett, K.P., P. Freer—Smith, and G. Taylor. 2000. Effective tree species for local air— quality management. Journal of Arboriculture. 26: 12—19. Bruederle, L.P., and F.W. Steams. 1985. Ice storm damage to a southern Wisconsin mesic forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 112(2): 167-175. Cannell, M.G.R. and J. Morgan. 1989. Branch breakage under snow and ice loads. Tree Physiology. 52307-317. Croxton, WC. 1939. A study of the tolerance of trees to breakage by ice accumulation. Ecology. 20(1):71-73. Cumming, A.B., M.F. Galvin, R.J. Rabaglia, J.R. Cumming, and DB. Twardus. 2001. Forest health monitoring protocol applied to roadside trees in Maryland. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(3): 126-138. Deuber, CG. 1940. The glaze storm of 1940. American Forest. 46:210-211, 235. Dykema, P. 2004. Personal Communication. Green, D.W., J.E. Winandy and DE. Kretschmann. 1999. Mechanical properties of wood. In: Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-113. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. pp. 463 Hauer, R.J., W. Wang and J .O. Dawson. 1993. Ice storm damage to urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 19(4): 187-194. l-Iauer, R.J., J .O. Dawson and LP. Werner. 2006. Trees and ice storms: The development of ice-resistant urban tree populations, 2nd Ed. Joint Publication 06- 1, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and the Department of Natural Recourses and Environmental Sciences and the Office of Continuing Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. pp. 20. Horacek, P. 2000. Introduction to tree statics and static assessments. Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry. Brno, Czech Republic. IANR News Service. 2001. Trees shaping up well four years after October storm. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska — Lincoln. http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/O1 12191 .shtml. 127 Kielbaso, J .J ., M.N de Araujo, A.J. de Araujo and W.N. Cannon, Jr. 1993. Monitoring the growth and development of urban forest in Bowling Green, Ohio and Lincoln, Nebraska. American Forest National Urban Forest Inventory. pp. 99. Laukaitis, A.J. 2003. ‘Forest in a prairie’ national survey checks up on city’s trees. Journal Star. 15 July, 2003. B1. Lemon, PC. 1961. Forest ecology of ice storms. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 88(1):21-29. Lilly, S. and TD. Sydnor. 1995. Comparison of branch failure during static loading of silver and Norway maples. Journal of Arboriculture. 21(6):302—305. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurements. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. Pp. 7-46. Magurran,A.E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, UK. Pp. 100-159. McPherson, E.G. 1990. Creating an ecological landscape. In: P. Rodbell (ed.) Proceedings of the forth Urban Forestry Conference. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC. pp. 63-67. McPherson, E.G. 1993. Monitoring urban forest health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 26:165-174. McPherson, E.G. 1994. Energy-saving potential of trees in Chicago. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and RA. Rowntree (eds.). Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, General Technical Report NE-186. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. pp. 95-110. Nowak, DJ. 1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and RA. Rowntree (eds.). Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, General Technical Report NE-186. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. pp 83-94. Rebertus, A.J., S.R. Shifley, R.H.Richards and L.M. Roovers. 1997. Ice storm damage to an old-growth oak —hickory forest in Missouri. American Midland Naturalist. 137(1):48-61. Rhoads, A.G., S.P. Hamburg, T.J. Fahey, T.G. Siccama, E.N. Hane, J. Battles, C. Cogbill, J. Randall, and G. Wilson. 2002. Effects of an intense ice storm on the structure of a northern hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32(10): 1763-1775. 128 Rogers, W.E. 1923. Resistance of trees to ice storm injury. Torreya. 23:95-99. Rowntree, R.A., and DJ. Nowak. 1991. Quantifying the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture. 17: 269-275. Qi, Y., J. Favorite, and A. Lorenzo. 1998. Forestry: A community tradition. National Association of Community Foresters. Joint Publications of USDA Forest Service, the National Association of State foresters and the Southern University and A&M College. 3rd Edition. 35 pp. Scott, K.I., J .R. Simpson, and E.G. McPherson. 1999. Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions. Journal of Arboriculture. 25: 129-142. Sisinni, S.M., W.C. Zipperer and AG. Pleninger. 1995. Impacts form a major ice storm: street-tree damage in Rochester, New York. Journal of Arboriculture. 21(3): 156- 167. Valinger, E. and J. Fridman. 1997. Modeling probability of snow and wind damage in Scots pine stands using tree characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management. 97:215-222. Warrillow, M and P. Mon. 1999. Ice storm damage to forest species in the ridge and valley region of southern Virginia. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 126(2): 147-158. Whitney, HE. and WC. Johnson. 1984. Ice storms and forest succession in southwestern Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 111:429-437. Wood Density Database. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Products/AFDbases/ WD/Index.htm. Xiao, Q. and E.G. McPherson. 2002. Rainfall interception of Santa Monica’s municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosystem. 62291-302. Xiao, Q. and E.G. McPherson. 2005. Tree health mapping with multispectral remote sensing data at UC Davis, California. Urban Ecosystems. 8:249-361. 129 Chapter 5 Summary 130 Diversity Total diversity of the urban forests studied here, as measured by Shannon index and species richness, basically remained the same over the years. The Shannon index values for the total and private trees changed very little. However, the public tree Shannon index value indicates that there was a significant increase in the Shannon index values. This increase is probably due to the efforts of the city trying to increase diversity in the public trees. Greater diversity must be maintained in order to insure urban forest vitality. Species richness also did not change much over the years. In 1980 there were 97 species of trees, while in 2003/2005 there were 100 species. One very interesting fact was how similar the species richness was in the different tree categories (i.e. large deciduous, intermediate deciduous, small deciduous, large evergreen, intermediate evergreen and small evergreen) between 1980 and 2003/2005. Only when the individual tree categories, such as large deciduous versus large evergreen, compared within the years, do we find significant differences. Overplanted Species The most conservative percentage for being considered an overplanted species is 5% of the total urban forest. Of the species in this study that would be considered overplanted, many of them, 89% are native to North America. Organizations (Native Plant Society of America), State Departments of Natural Resources (North Carolina, Texas, Maryland, etc.) and State Cooperative Extension Services (Ohio, Hawaii, Florida, etc.) suggest planting native trees. The main reason given for the “go native” agenda is to help control 131 the spread of invasive plants that may alter or impact the native environment in an adverse way. I recommend that these organizations should suggest planting proven native trees in the urban forest before using exotics. There is an assumption that native species are best because they have evolved in or acclimated to that area. The pool of proven native trees has been narrowed over the years, and there is a reliance on fewer native tree species which are now becoming overplanted. The selection of proven native trees should be broadened so that native species are not overplanted. Another consideration that needs to be explained is what exactly is a native species? To most, native means it grows naturally in North America or in the United States. Some would say it is native if it is found in the Midwest. But a more conservative definition for being a native tree would be one that grows in the vicinity or region of the city. Tree Size and Condition I have shown that when trees are larger, there is a negative relationship with the condition or tree health. Larger trees are generally in worst condition. However, larger trees have a better chance to survive storms. So, trees need to be maintained in a manner which promotes faster growth in order for the trees to get past the vulnerable small sized stage. By promoting fertilization, good tree structure by proper pruning and selecting good plant material for the specific sites, urban foresters can more quickly get the tree larger in order to for them able to resist storm damage. 132 Recommendations It is recommended that the urban forest be maintained as an integral part of the infrastructure of all cities and treated as an ecosystem. A vigorous, healthy urban forest provides many ecological services that are necessary for urbanites to enjoy a standard of living and a sense of community that is better than what it would be if the trees were not there. As people become educated about these benefits of trees, public and private, more trees will be planted and the existing trees may be valued and better taken care of. If this study was started today, several things should be done differently. First, ALL trees should be identified, leaving no trees identified as “unknown”, as was the case in several instances in 1980. Second, classifying all trees to the precise species is important and just classifying to the genus (e. g. F raxinus or Pinus) should not be allowed. These genera are too diverse, and species can be identified with a little work or with the help of other professionals. Finally, the tree sizes should not be measured on broad dbh size categories in order to calculate more precise averages. Each and every tree’s dbh should be measured to the inch or centimeter. Additionally, it may be desirable to measure the height and/or possibly crown spread of each tree in order to calculate carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services that are provided by the trees. Since this study is unique in tracking the trends and patterns in succession, and provides insight into the dynamics of the entire urban forest, this study should be continued in the future. It is one of the first, if not the first, long term studies on the entire urban forest. Several authors have studied street trees over the years (Kielbaso, 1989; Sun, 1991; 133 Goodwin, 1996; Lesser, 1996; Poracsky and Scott, 1999) but there is a lack of reports on the total urban forest (all trees, not just street trees). All-inclusive inventories and monitoring of the urban forest is necessary if the diverse urban landscape ecosystem is to be understood and these inventories can be used to encourage management techniques (Dwyer, 2002). There are four other cities that were surveyed in 1980 and the data from these cities should be reported along with the current cities that are reported on here. This study should continue in order to capitalize on this unique long term study; all of these cities should be resurveyed every 12 to 15 years in order to monitor the dynamics of the urban forests. Once trends are established in each of the cities, then comprehensive management programs can be developed. It will also be veryinteresting to see what the effects have been on the urban forest structure because of the introduction of the emerald ash borer and the Asian longhomed beetle. None of these cities had been invaded by either insect as of 2005, but in 2010, only Lincoln, NE had not been plagued by the emerald ash borer. The Asian longhomed beetle is still not known from any of the six cities. Since this study began, a new tool has been developed that can be used to help manage urban tree data. This tool is a computer program for ecosystem analysis from the USDA- Forest Service called i-Tree. It was developed to provide urban forestry analysis and tree benefit assessments. This tool is beginning to be used by many urban foresters, arborist and researchers. One such example that was published on-line in 2008 is the i-Tree 134 h. 181. (rec Ecosystem Analysis: Milwaukee Urban Forest Effects and Values. I recommend that i- Tree be considered to aid in the analysis of the tree data if this study is continued. In this way we can calculate not only urban forest structure, but also urban ecosystem services. Conclusion Technically, only the public trees are managed. Private trees, which make up the largest segment of the urban forest, are in essence unmanaged. This unmanaged forest is controlled by individual property owners, which represents a “tyranny of small decisions”. The property owners are making individual decisions for their lands, usually without any regard for what is happening in the rest of the neighborhood or city. These individual decisions are partially driving the increased diversity in species that is seen in the urban forest. This also includes the introductions of exotic or weedy species such as: Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), buckthorn (Rhmnus sp.), Tree-of—heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Amur maple (Acer gimzala). It falls on the urban forester/arborist or other public officials to educate the property owners as to what trees are appropriate and how to properly maintain them. Many of the cities have a species richness that is weighted to one or two species (silver maple, Acer saccharinum L. and arborvitae, Thuja occidentalis L.). It is the suggestion here that more diversity of species should be the goal. Many of the species with only a few individuals may actually become proven species that grow and thrive in urban settings, making them good candidates for being planted more often (e. g. hardy rubber tree, Eucommia ulmoides Oliv.; saw-toothed oak, Quercus acutissima Carruth.; or 135 Japanese Zelkova, Zelkova serrata (Thunb.) Mak.), but for some reason have not yet w" become popular. By adding individuals of these, and other proven species, their presence can add diversity to the urban forest and can help to alleviate the threat and damage from devastating, invasive pests and diseases. In general, the biggest, healthiest trees seem to have an advantage in surviving catastrophic events. This was the case in Lincoln, NE after the 1997 snowstorm, where larger, healthier trees fared better than smaller trees or those in worse health conditions. This particular snowstorm produced enough snow to push the tolerance of these big, healthy trees to their limits, but they still survived and continue to thrive. 136 Literature Cited Dwyer, J .F., D]. Nowak and G.W. Watson. 2002. Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(5):231-236. Goodwin, D.W. 1996. A street tree inventory for Massachusetts using a geographical information system. Journal of Arboriculture. 2227—15. Kielbaso, J .J . 1989. City tree care programs: a status report. pp. 35—46. In Moll, G. and S. Ebenreck (eds.). Shading Our Cities. Island Press. Washington, DC. Lesser, L.M. 1996. Street tree diversity and dbh in southern California. Journal of Arboriculture. 22: 180—186. Poracsky, J. and M. Scott. 1999. Industrial—area street trees in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Arboriculture. 25:9-17. Sun, W.Q. and N.L. Bassuk. 1991. Approach to determine effective sampling size for urban street tree survey. Landscape and Urban Planning. 20:277—283. 137 g} Appendix A Bowling Green, Ohio 138 Table A-1. Selected data of the urban forest in Bowling Green, OH. Number of trees Number of acres sampled Density (trees per acre) Public to private tree ratio Diversity (Shannonindex) Species richness per block age <10 yrs old 10 - 40 yrs old >40 yrs old Total * 1980 1992 2003 Total Public Private Total Public Private Total Public Private 2280 289 1991 2965 332 2633 2279 264 2015 67.2 82.6 82.6 36.85 4.18 32.64 37.52 3.94 33.64 28.92 3.21 25.70 6.89/l 7.39/1 7.63/l 3.60 3.64 3.57 56 28 56 63 26 61 64 23 62 57 18 56 64 26 63 62 19 61 51 14 50 63 18 62 58 17 58 75 35 74 82 42 80 82 37 80 * Totals are not the sum ofthe columns, they are the total number of different species in that column 139 Figure A-1. and 2003. Species richness per acre in the urban forest of Bowling Green, OH, in 1980 Bowling Green, OH Total Species Richness 80 70 1980 Total Species Number of Different Species ------- 2003 Total Species l 20 - - A A— A —-- - a 10 -~—— —— —- ~— ~————— — O I I I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Acres Bowling Green, OH Public and Private Tree Species Richness 90 f— — 80 *r‘ - — ______ g 70 -- ' , , a- '— ____________ - r53" 60 , .-’ — - ’ ’ § 50 1.." 7‘ _ _ _ 1980 Public Species _A g . _{./—”"' ----2003 Public Species “5 40 +— ,'i":/ _ _ H i 1 M m I l ------- 1980 Private Species—C i; 30 l/ -- - - - - - 2003 Private Species 2 20 / ~ ~ 10 7 O r r I T 1 t T t 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Acres 140 Figure A-2. Richness by genus in Bowling Green, OH in 1980, 1992 and 2003. 1 BOWIIDg Green, OH, 1980 Silver Maple 93% Norway Maple 5.7% Red Maple 1.7% Other, 213170 Acer, ”82% Box-elder 1.6% , V 7 ' Sugar Maple 1.5% Juglans, 215% Japanese Maple 0.3% Betula,2.50% Gleditsia, 2.54% Picea, l254% Quercus, 2.81% Ulmus, 2.98% Malus,8.82% Populus, 3.20% Thuja.6.01% Prunus,7.32% PanS,7.50% Bowlin Green OH 2003 g ’ ’ Silver Maple 8.6% Norway Maple 8.4% _ .7: Sugar Maple 1.6% 0th ,21.33‘7 was, , ', Fraxinus,er 0 :3 ACCT, 22 07% Box-elder 1.3% 2.76% 5 Red Maple 1.2% 32‘ Japanese Maple 0.9% Quercus, 2.76% 5 Amur Maple 3 Juglans, 2.76% Gleditsia, 4.12% Morus, 3.60% Ulmus,2.l 1% Prunus,3.03% Pinus, 5.27% M81U8.7.50% Picea, 13.25% Thuja,9.43% 141 Table A-2. Ownership of all Trees, Bowling Green, OH: 1980 - 1992 - 2003. 1980* 1993 2003 Number Number Number Ownership of Trees Percent of Trees Percent of Trees Percent Private 1991 87.32 2633 88.80 2015 88.42 Public 289 12.68 332 1 1.20 264 l 1.58 Total 2280 100.00 2965 100.00 2279 100.00 *Does not include blocks J, K and L because they were not part of the study in 1980 142 Table A-3. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Bowling Green, OH: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 209 9.30 Blue Spruce 196 8.72 Crabapple 14 1 6. 28 Arborvitae 137 6.10 Norway Maple 129 5.74 Norway Spruce 88 3.92 White Pine 73 3.25 Cherry 66 2.94 Plum 66 2.94 Scotch Pine 63 2.80 Apple 60 2.67 Honeylocust 58 2.58 Birch 57 2.54 American Elm 55 2.45 Lombardy Popular 52 2.31 Black Walnut 49 2.18 Mulberry 45 2.00 Pin Oak 42 1.87 Redbud 41 1.82 Red Maple 39 1.74 Pear 38 1.69 Box-elder 35 1.56 Mountain Ash 34 1.51 Sugar Maple 34 1.51 Sweetgum 34 1.51 Dogwood 33 1.47 Austrian Pine 32 1.42 Ash 30 1.34 Peach 29 1.29 Sycamore 28 l .25 Hawthorn 26 1.16 Russian Olive 22 0.98 Linden 20 0.89 Willow 19 0.85 Tree-of-heaven 16 0.7 1 Red Oak 15 0.67 Douglas Fir 13 0.58 Siberian Elm 13 0.58 Cottonwood I 2 0.53 Tulip Tree 1 1 0.49 Black Locust 10 0.45 Ginkgo 10 0.45 Number SJ)ecies of Trees Percent Magnolia 8 0.36 Hackberry 7 0.31 American Chestnut 6 0.27 Apricot 6 0.27 Japanese Maple 6 0.27 White Oak 6 027 Aspen 5 0.22 Juniper 5 0.22 Catalpa 4 0.18 Serviceberry 4 0. 18 White Popular 4 0.18 Dawn Redwood 3 0.13 Mugo Pine 3 0.13 Unknown 3 0.13 White Fir 3 0.13 Almond 2 0.09 Bald Cypress 2 0.09 Blue Beech 2 0.09 Butternut 2 0.09 Fir 2 0.09 Holly 2 0.09 Horsechestnut 2 0.09 Tamarack 2 0.09 White Spruce 2 0.09 Beech 1 0.04 Bur Oak 1 0.04 Golden-chain Tree 1 0.04 Hemlock 1 0.04 Hickory l 0.04 Persimmon l 0.04 Sassafras 1 0.04 Staghorn Sumac l 0.04 Yellow-wood 1 0.04 Total 2247 100.00 I43 ‘-I" . Table A-4. Public Tree Species, Bowling Green, OH: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Crabapple 25 17.73 Norway Maple 25 17.73 Pear 13 9.22 Blue Spruce 12 8.51 Honeylocust 1 l 7.80 Red Maple 9 6.38 Pin Oak 7 4.96 Linden 6 4.26 American Elm 4 2.84 Sycamore 4 2.84 Scotch Pine 3 2.13 Birch 2 1.42 Cherry 2 1.42 Dogwood 2 1.42 Sugar Maple 2 1.42 White Pine 2 1.42 Ash 1 0.71 Austrian Pine 1 0.71 Hawthorn l 0.71 Japanese Maple 1 0.71 Lombardy Popular 1 0.71 Norway Spruce 1 0.71 Plum 1 0.71 Red Oak 1 0.71 Redbud 1 0.7] Silver Maple l 0.71 Sweetgum 1 0.71 White Oak 1 0.71 Total 141 100.00 144 Table A-5. Private Tree Species, Bowling Green, OH: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Blue Spruce 77 9.28 Silver Maple 69 8.31 Arborvitae 64 7.7 1 Crabapple 50 6.02 White Pine 41 4.94 Birch 40 4.82 Scotch Pine 39 4.70 Lombardy Popular 38 4.58 Plum 36 4.34 Norway Spruce 30 3.61 Norway Maple 29 3.49 Apple 24 2.89 Cherry 24 2.89 Mountain Ash 24 2.89 Honeylocust 21 2.53 Ash 18 2.17 Sweetgum 18 2.17 Austrian Pine 17 2.05 Russian Olive 16 1.93 Redbud 15 1.81 Peach 14 1.69 Pin Oak 14 1.69 Douglas Fir 13 1.57 Pear 1 1 1.33 Sycamore 1 1 1.33 Red Maple 10 1.20 Dogwood 9 1.08 Hawthorn 9 1.08 Willow 7 0.84 Magnolia 5 0.60 Red Oak 5 0.60 Sugar Maple 5 0.60 Tulip Tree 5 0.60 American Elm 4 0.48 Linden 4 0.48 Mugo Pine 3 0.36 Siberian Elm 3 0.36 Apricot 2 0.24 Bald Cypress 2 0.24 Black Locust 2 0.24 Black Walnut 2 0.24 Number SJgecies of Trees Percent Blue Beech 2 0.24 Fir 2 0.24 Japanese Maple 2 0.24 Mulberry 2 0.24 Unknown 2 0.24 White Oak 2 0.24 Box-elder 1 0.12 Cottonwood 1 0. 12 Ginkgo ,1 0.12 Hemlock 1 0.12 Horsechestnut 1 0. l 2 Juniper l 0.12 White Fir 1 0.12 White Spruce 1 0.12 Yellow-wood l 0.12 Total 830 100.00 145 Table A-6. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Bowling Green, OH: 1992. Number Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 285 9.61 Blue Spruce 217 7.32 Crabapple 199 6.7 1 Silver Maple 192 6.48 Norway Maple 176 5.94 Mulberry 107 3.61 Honeylocust 93 3.14 Norway Spruce 88 2.97 Black Walnut 77 2.60 Cherry 77 2.60 White Pine 77 2.60 Apple 76 2.56 American Elm 64 2.16 Redbud 62 2.09 Ash 61 2.06 Red Maple 60 2.02 Box-elder 57 1.92 Plum 57 1.92 Tree-of-heaven 55 1 .85 Austrian Pine 53 1.79 Hawthorn 49 1 .65 Siberian Elm 49 1.65 Birch 47 1.59 Pear 46 1.55 Pin Oak 46 1.55 Dogwood 44 1.48 Sugar Maple 43 1.45 Willow 37 1.25 Sweetgum 36 1.21 Scotch Pine 30 1.01 Mountain Ash 26 0.88 Russian Olive 26 0.88 Lombardy Popular 24 0.81 Linden 23 0.78 Hemlock 20 0.67 Sycamore 20 0.67 Ginkgo 18 0.61 Mugo Pine 17 0.57 White Spruce 17 0.57 Magnolia 16 0.54 Aspen 14 0.47 Juniper 12 0.40 Number Species of Trees Percent Red Oak 12 0.40 Autumn Olive 1 1 0.37 Japanese Maple l l 0.37 Peach 1 1 0.37 Douglas Fir 10 0.34 Serviceberry 10 0.34 Tulip Tree 9 0.30 Cottonwood 8 0.27 Hackberry 8 0.27 White Oak 8 0.27 Chinese Elm 7 0.24 Smoke-tree 5 0.17 Black Locust 4 0.13 Catalpa 4 0.13 Horsechestnut 4 0. 13 Staghorn Sumac 4 0.13 Unknown 4 0.13 White Popular 4 0.13 Black Oak 3 0.10 Fraser Fir 3 0.10 Kentucky Coffee Tree 3 0.10 American Chestnut 2 0.07 Black Maple 2 0.07 Butternut 2 0.07 Chestnut Oak 2 0.07 Hickory 2 0.07 Sassafras 2 0.07 Slippery Elm 2 0.07 Tamarack 2 0.07 White Fir 2 0.07 Yellow-wood 2 0.07 Bald Cypress 1 0.03 Blue Beech 1 0.03 Dawn Redwood 1 0.03 Fir l 0.03 Holly 1 0.03 Hop-Hornbeam l 0.03 Japanese Zelkova 1 0.03 Red Pine 1 0.03 Yellow Buckeye 1 0.03 Total 2965 100.00 146 I_‘ W'— - Table A-7. Public Tree Species, Bowling Green, OH: 1992. Number Species of Trees Percent Norway Maple 28 21.05 Crabapple 21 15.79 Pear 13 9.77 Blue Spruce 10 7.52 Honeylocust 10 7.52 Red Maple 10 7.52 Linden 6 4.51 Pin Oak 6 4.51 Sycamore 4 3.01 American Elm 3 2.26 Cherry 3 2.26 Birch 2 1.50 Cottonwood 2 1 .50 Silver Maple 2 1.50 White Pine 2 1.50 Ash 1 0.75 Austrian Pine 1 0.75 Catalpa 1 0.75 Hawthorn 1 0.75 Japanese Maple 1 0.75 Mountain Ash 1 0.75 Peach 1 0.75 Red Oak 1 0.75 Redbud 1 0.75 Scotch Pine 1 0.75 White Oak 1 0.75 Total 133 100.00 147 Table A-8. Private Tree Species, Bowling Green, OH: 1992. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 138 13.62 White Oak 3 0.30 Blue Spruce 99 9.77 Black Locust 2 0.20 Crabapple 71 7.01 Black Maple 2 0.20 Silver Maple 64 6.32 Black Oak 2 0.20 Apple 42 4.15 Black Walnut 2 0.20 Plum 39 3.85 Ginkgo 2 0.20 Norway Maple 37 3.65 Juniper 2 0.20 White Pine 35 3.46 Smoke-tree 2 0.20 Austrian Pine 30 2.96 White Popular 2 0.20 Birch 30 2.96 American Elm 1 0.10 Honeylocust 29 2.86 Bald Cypress 1 0.10 Ash 28 2.76 Blue Beech 1 0.10 Norway Spruce 28 2.76 Cottonwood 1 0.10 Willow 28 2.76 Dawn Redwood 1 0.10 Red Maple 27 2.67 Fir 1 0.10 Siberian Elm 19 1.88 Horsechestnut 1 0.10 Cherry 18 1.78 Tree-of-heaven 1 0.10 Scotch Pine 18 1.78 Unknown 1 0.10 Pin Oak 17 1.68 Yellow-wood 1 0.10 Russian Olive 17 1.68 Mountain Ash 16 1.58 Pear 16 1.58 Total 1013 100.00 Sweetgum 16 1.58 Hawthorn 15 1 .48 Mugo Pine 13 1.28 Redbud 12 1.18 Mulberry 1 1 1.09 Aspen 9 0.89 Linden 9 0.89 Lombardy Popular 9 0.89 Magnolia 9 0.89 White Spruce 9 0.89 Peach 8 0.79 Sycamore 8 0.79 Autumn Olive 7 0.69 Dogwood 7 0.69 Sugar Maple 7 0.69 Douglas Fir 6 0.59 Box-elder 3 0.30 Hemlock 3 0.30 Japanese Maple 3 0.30 Tulip Tree 3 0.30 148 Table A-9. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Bowling Green, OH: 2003. Number _Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 215 9.43 Blue Spruce 196 8.60 Silver Maple 196 8.60 Norway Maple 191 8.38 Crabapple 1 35 5 .92 Honeylocust 94 4. 12 Mulberry 82 3.60 Norway Spruce 80 3.51 Ash 63 2.76 Black Walnut 63 2.76 White Pine 58 2.54 Redbud 42 1.84 Pear 38 1.67 Apple 36 1.58 Sugar Maple 36 1.58 Pin Oak 35 1.54 Birch 34 1.49 Hawthorn 34 1 .49 Tree-of-heaven 33 1 .45 Austrian Pine 32 1.40 Box-elder 30 1 .32 Dogwood 29 1.27 Plum 27 1.18 Red Maple 27 1.18 Sweetgum 27 1 . 18 Siberian Elm 26 1.14 Cherry 25 1.10 Linden 22 0.97 American Elm 21 0.92 Hemlock 21 0.92 Japanese Maple 21 0.92 Red Oak 19 0.83 Ginkgo 18 0.79 Magnolia 17 0.75 Scotch Pine 17 0.75 White Spruce 16 0.70 Serviceberry l 5 0.66 Sycamore 1 5 0.66 Hackberry 1 3 0.57 Mugo Pine 13 0.57 Tulip Tree 1 1 0.48 Alberta Spruce 10 0.44 Number Species of Trees Percent Juniper 9 0.39 Mountain Ash 9 0.39 Taxus 9 0.39 Cherry 8 0.35 Douglas Fir 8 0.35 Peach 8 0.35 White Oak 8 0.35 Cottonwood 7 0.3 1 Willow 7 0.31 Russian Olive 6 0.26 Black Locust 5 0.22 Horsechestnut 5 0.22 Smoke-tree 5 0.22 Aspen 4 0.18 Japanese Zelkova 4 0.18 White Fir 4 0.18 Catalpa 3 0.13 Kentucky Coffee Tree 3 0.13 Lombardy Popular 3 0.13 Sassafras 3 0. 1 3 White Popular 3 0.13 Butternut 2 0.09 Golden-rain Tree 2 0.09 Holly 2 0.09 Hop-Hornbeam 2 0.09 Tamarack 2 0.09 Yellow-wood 2 0.09 American Chestnut 1 0.04 Apricot 1 0.04 Amur Maple l 0.04 Autumn Olive 1 0.04 Bald Cypress 1 0.04 Balsam Fir 1 0.04 Beech 1 0.04 Black Maple 1 0.04 Blue Beech 1 0.04 Chestnut Oak 1 0.04 Hickory l 0.04 Noble Fir 1 0.04 Slippery Elm 1 0.04 Total 2279 100.00 149 Table A-10. Public Tree Species, Bowling Green, OH: 2003. Number Species of Trees Percent Norway Maple 29 27.88 Crabapple 14 1 3 .46 Honeylocust l2 1 1.54 Pear 10 9.62 Red Maple 7 6.73 Linden 6 5.77 Pin Oak 5 4.81 Silver Maple 4 3.85 American Elm 2 1.92 Cottonwood 2 1 .92 Ash 1 0.96 Blue Spruce 1 0.96 Catalpa 1 0.96 Cherry 1 0.96 Hawthorn 1 0.96 Hop-Hornbeam 1 0.96 Mountain Ash 1 0.96 Mugo Pine 1 0.96 Plum 1 0.96 Red Oak 1 0.96 Sugar Maple 1 0.96 White Oak 1 0.96 White Pine 1 0.96 Total 104 100.00 150 Table A—1 1. Private Tree Species, Bowling Green, OH: 2003. Number Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 202 10.73 Blue Spruce 194 10.31 Silver Maple 178 9.46 Norway Maple 146 7.76 Crabapple 97 5. 15 Mulberry 82 4.36 Norway Spruce 79 4.20 Honeylocust 72 3.83 Black Walnut 60 3.19 White Pine 57 3.03 Ash 49 2.60 Redbud 41 2.18 Apple 36 1.91 Birch 33 1.75 Tree-of-heaven 33 1 .75 Austrian Pine 32 1.70 Box-elder 30 1.59 Pin Oak 30 1.59 Dogwood 29 1.54 Pear 28 1.49 Sugar Maple 28 1.49 Hawthorn 27 1 .43 Plum 26 1.38 Cherry 25 1.33 Siberian Elm 25 1.33 Hemlock 21 1.12 Japanese Maple 21 1.12 Red Oak 18 0.96 Magnolia 17 0.90 Red Maple 17 0.90 Scotch Pine 17 0.90 American Elm 16 0.85 Sweetgum 16 0.85 White Spruce 16 0.85 Sycamore 1 5 0.80 Hackberry 1 3 0.69 Serviceberry 13 0.69 Mugo Pine 12 0.64 Linden 1 1 0.58 Alberta Spruce 10 0.53 Tulip Tree 10 0.53 Number Species of Trees Percent Taxus 9 0.48 Ginkgo 8 0.43 Mountain Ash 8 0.43 Peach 8 0.43 Douglas Fir 7 0.37 Juniper 7 0.37 White Oak 7 0.37 Willow 7 0.37 Russian Olive 6 0.32 Black Locust 5 0.27 Cottonwood 5 0.27 Horsechestnut 5 0.27 Smoke-tree 5 0.27 Aspen 4 0.2] White Fir 4 0.21 Kentucky Coffee Tree 3 0.16 Lombardy Popular 3 0.16 White Popular 3 0.16 Butternut 2 0.1 1 Catalpa 2 0.1 1 Golden-rain Tree 2 0.1 1 Holly 2 0.1 1 Japanese Zelkova 2 0.1 1 Sassafras 2 0.1 1 Tamarack 2 0.1 l Yellow-wood 2 0.1 1 American Chestnut 1 0.05 Apricot 1 0.05 Amur Maple 1 0.05 Autumn Olive 1 0.05 Bald Cypress 1 0.05 Balsam Fir 1 0.05 Beech l 0.05 Black Maple 1 0.05 Blue Beech 1 0.05 Chestnut Oak 1 0.05 Hickory 1 0.05 Noble Fir 1 0.05 Slippery Elm 1 0.05 Total 1882 100.00 151 Appendix B Bucyrus, Ohio 152 Table B-1. Selected data of the urban forest in Bucyrus, OH. Number of trees Number of acres sampled Density of trees (per acre) Public to private tree ratio Diversity (Shannonindex) Species richness per block age <10 yrs old 10 - 40 yrs old >40 yrs old Total * 1980 2005 Total Public Private Total Public Private 876 148 728 1111 116 995 45.71 53.78 19.16 3.24 15.93 20.66 2.16 18.50 4.92/1 8.58/1 3.24 3.39 34 6 34 46 2 45 45 9 44 45 6 44 41 13 40 48 14 45 54 19 54 58 16 58 * Totals are not the sum of the columns, they are the total number ofdifferent species in that column 153 Figure B-l. 2005. Species richness per acre in the urban forest of Bucyrus, OH, in 1980 and Bucyrus, OH Total Species Richness ... 70 — _— .2 8 60 8' C E 30 / “ 1980 Total Species o . E 20 ' ‘ ------- 2005 Total Species — g 10 ——— — Z 0 — I f I I‘—'— I I _ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Acres Bucyrus, OH Public and Private Tree Species Richness 70 r— —~ - i _ __ E 60 - —— ,,,,,, _- 33 -.--'.'.‘. 933 50 ‘ _ ., - -— - 17.- .f35:-**-’ E .3 40 3,7527: " 1980Public Species —« o v / . - :3 £- 30 .' ,5 ----2005Publrc Specres — ..C I// . . E 20 f ‘ ------- 1980 anate Specres “‘ 2 10 .1 / - . ‘. .. / - - - - - 2005 anate Specres O 3.3—7,5-v. "—" * —r'——-— - " 1 ‘ r ' ' *‘ * 'r-rww _-. “fl 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 L Acres 154 I Figure B-2. Richness by genus in Bucyrus OH in 1980 and 2005. Silver Maple 15.1% Sugar Maple 8.9% Bucyrus, OH, 1980 Norway Maple 3.4% Red Maple 3.1% Box-elder 2.7% Japanese Maple 0.6% Other, 22.40% , Pinus, 2.85% Acre, 33.78% U1mus,3.08% Fraxinus, 5 . 3.54% . '5 , Thuja.3.65% Quercus, 3.77% Picea, 5.48% Prunus, 8.67% Malus,6.39% Gleditsia, 6.39% Silver Maple 11.1% Bucyrus, OH, 2005 Norway Maple 7.4% Sugar Maple 5.0% Box-elder 2.0% Red Maple 1.4% Acer, 27.54% Japanese Maple 0.6% Juglans, 2.61% Fraxinus, 2.70% Pinus, 2.97% Picea, 9.81% Prunus, 4.86% Quercus 7 02% Malus,9.45% Thuja,7.29% 155 Table B-2. Ownership of all Trees, Bucyrus, OH: 1980 — 2005. 1980* 2005** Number Number Ownership of Trees Percent of Trees Percent Private 728 83.1 1 995 89.56 Public 148 16.89 1 16 10.44 Total 876 100.00 1 l l 1 100.00 *9 City Blocks **15 City Blocks 156 Table B-3. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Bucyrus, OH: 1980. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 132 15.07 Serviceberry 3 0.34 Sugar Maple 78 8.90 Tree-of-heaven 3 0.34 Arborvitae 56 6.39 Buckeye 2 0.23 Crabapple 48 5.48 Hawthorn 2 0.23 Norway Spruce 42 4.79 Hemlock 2 0.23 Honeylocust 32 3.65 Sycamore 2 0.23 Blue Spruce 31 3.54 Tulip Tree 2 0.23 Norway Maple 30 3.42 Hackberry 1 0.1 1 Plum 27 3.08 Sassafras 1 0.1 1 Red Maple 27 3.08 Shingle Oak 1 0.1 1 Pin Oak 25 2.85 Sweetgum 1 0.11 Apple 24 2.74 White Oak 1 0.1 1 Box-elder 24 2.74 Elm 24 2.74 Ash 22 2.51 Total 876 100.00 Cherry 22 2.51 Redbud 17 1.94 Walnut 17 1.94 Dogwood 16 1.83 Pear 16 1.83 Birch 15 1.71 Russian Olive 14 1.60 Mountain Ash 13 1.48 Peach 10 1.14 White Pine 10 1.14 Austrian Pine 9 1.03 Fir 8 0.91 Juniper 8 0.91 Black Locust 7 0.80 Red Oak 6 0.68 Japanese Maple 5 0.57 Scotch Pine 5 0.57 Sumac 5 0.57 Lombardy Popular 4 0.46 Magnolia 4 0.46 Willow 4 0.46 Catalpa 3 0.34 Cottonwood 3 0.34 Hickory 3 0.34 Horsechestnut 3 0.34 Linden 3 0.34 Mulberry 3 0.34 157 Table B-4. Public Tree Species, Bucyrus, OH: 1980. Number of Species Trees Percent Silver Maple 60 40.54 Sugar Maple 44 29.73 Norway Maple 13 8.78 Honeylocust 6 4.05 Red Maple 4 2.70 Ash 3 2.03 Crabapple 3 2.03 Blue Spruce 2 1.35 Mountain Ash 2 1.35 Norway Spruce 2 1.35 Austrian Pine 1 0.68 Cherry 1 0.68 Elm l 0.68 Hickory 1 0.68 Pear 1 0.68 Pin Oak 1 0.68 Russian Olive 1 0.68 Scotch Pine 1 0.68 Tulip Tree 1 0.68 Total 148 100.00 158 Table B-5. Private Tree Species, Bucyrus, OH: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 72 9.89 Arborvitae 56 7.69 Crabapple 45 6. 1 8 Norway Spruce 40 5.49 Sugar Maple 34 4.67 Blue Spruce 29 3.98 Plum 27 3.71 Honeylocust 26 3.57 Apple 24 3.30 Box-elder 24 3.30 Pin Oak 24 3.30 Elm 23 3.16 Red Maple 23 3.16 Cherry 21 2.88 Ash 19 2.61 Norway Maple 17 2.34 Redbud 17 2.34 Walnut 17 2.34 Dogwood 16 2.20 Birch 15 2.06 Pear 15 2.06 Russian Olive 13 1.79 Mountain Ash 1 1 1.51 Peach 10 1.37 White Pine 10 1.37 Austrian Pine 8 1.10 Fir 8 1.10 Juniper 8 1.10 Black Locust 7 0.96 Red Oak 6 0.82 Japanese Maple 5 0.69 Sumac 5 0.69 Lombardy Popular 4 0.55 Magnolia 4 0.55 Scotch Pine 4 0.55 Willow 4 0.55 Catalpa 3 0.41 Cottonwood 3 0.4 1 Horsechestnut 3 0.41 Linden 3 0.41 Mulberry 3 0.41 Serviceberry 3 0.4 l Number Species of Trees Percent Tree-of—heaven 3 0.41 Buckeye 2 0.27 Hawthorn 2 0.27 Hemlock 2 0.27 Hickory 2 0.27 Sycamore 2 0.27 Hackberry l 0.14 Sassafras l 0.14 Shingle Oak 1 0.14 Sweetgum 1 0.14 Tulip Tree 1 0.14 White Oak 1 0.14 Total 728 100.00 159 L... Table B-6. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Bucyrus, OH: 2005. Number Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 123 l 1.07 Norway Maple 82 7.38 Arborvitae 8 1 7.29 Blue Spruce 64 5.76 Crabapple 64 5.76 Sugar Maple 56 5.04 Norway Spruce 43 3.87 Apple 41 3.69 Pin Oak 33 2.97 Cherry 32 2.88 Ash 30 2.70 Walnut 29 2.61 Red Oak 28 2.52 Magnolia 23 2.07 Box-elder 22 1.98 Pear 22 1.98 Redbud 22 1.98 Plum 21 1.89 Mulberry 18 1.62 Honeylocust 16 1.44 Juniper 16 1.44 Red Maple 16 1.44 Dogwood 15 1.35 Hemlock 15 1.35 Hickory 15 1.35 Birch 14 1.26 White Oak 14 1.26 White Pine 13 1.17 American Elm 12 1.08 Austrian Pine 9 0.81 Cottonwood 9 0.8 1 Linden 8 0.72 Mountain Ash 8 0.72 Siberian Elm 8 0.72 Catalpa 7 0.63 Douglas Fir 7 0.63 Hackberry 7 0.63 Japanese Maple 7 0.63 Scotch Pine 7 0.63 Serviceberry 7 0.63 Ironwood 5 0.45 Sweetgum 5 0.45 Number Species of Trees Percent Ailanthus 4 0.36 Mugo Pine 4 0.36 Willow 4 0.36 Beech 3 0.27 Ginkgo 3 0.27 Hawthorn 3 0.27 Tulip Tree 3 0.27 Buckeye 2 0.18 Bur Oak 2 0.18 Smoke-tree 2 0.18 White Spruce 2 0.18 Japanese Zelcova 1 0.09 Peach 1 0.09 Sassafras 1 0.09 Swamp White Oak 1 0.09 White Fir l 0.09 Total 1 1 l 1 100.00 160 Table B-7. Public Tree Species, Bucyrus, OH: 2005. Number of _Species Trees Percent Norway Maple 29 25.00 Red Oak 1 0.86 Silver Maple 27 23.28 Sugar Maple 29 25.00 Linden 3 2.59 Red Maple l 0.86 Blue Spruce 2 1.72 Plum 4 3.45 Dogwood 2 1.72 Mountain Ash 2 1.72 Crabapple 3 2.59 Pear 4 3.45 Pin Oak 6 5.17 Ginkgo 1 0.86 Honeylocust 1 0.86 Sweetgum 1 0.86 Total 1 16 100.00 161 Table B-8. Private Tree Species, Bucyrus, OH: 2005. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Sgecies of Trees Percent Silver Maple 96 9.65 Mugo Pine 4 0.40 Arborvitae 81 8.14 Sweetgum 4 0.40 Blue Spruce 62 6.23 Willow 4 0.40 Crabapple 61 6.13 Beech 3 0.30 Norway Maple 53 5.33 Hawthorn 3 0.30 Norway Spruce 43 4.32 Tulip Tree 3 0.30 Apple 41 4.12 Buckeye 2 0.20 Cherry 32 3.22 Bur Oak 2 0.20 Ash 30 3.02 Ginkgo 2 0.20 Walnut 29 2.91 Smoke-tree 2 0.20 Pin Oak 27 2.71 White Spruce 2 0.20 Red Oak 27 2.7] Japanese Zelcova 1 0.10 Sugar Maple 27 2.71 Peach 1 0.10 Magnolia 23 2.31 Sassafras 1 0.10 Box-elder 22 2.21 Swamp White Oak 1 0.10 Redbud 22 2.21 White Fir 1 0.10 Mulberry 18 1.81 Pear 18 1.81 Plum 17 1.71 Total 995 100.00 Juniper 16 1.61 Hemlock 15 1.51 Hickory 15 1.51 Honeylocust 15 1.51 Red Maple 15 1.51 Birch 14 1.41 White Oak 14 1.41 Dogwood 13 1.31 White Pine 13 1.31 American Elm 12 1.21 Austrian Pine 9 0.90 Cottonwood 9 0.90 Siberian Elm 8 0.80 Catalpa 7 0.70 Douglas Fir 7 0.70 Hackberry 7 0.70 Japanese Maple 7 0.70 Scotch Pine 7 0.70 Serviceberry 7 0.70 Mountain Ash 6 0.60 Ironwood 5 0.50 Linden 5 0.50 Ailanthus 4 0.40 162 Appendix C Delaware, Ohio 163 Table C-l. Selected data of the urban forest in Delaware, OH. 1980 2005 Total Public Private Total Public Private Number of trees 2486 160 2326 3515 440 3075 Number of acres 81.37 97.97 sampled Density of trees 30.55 1.97 28.59 35.88 4.49 31.39 (per acre) Public to private 14.54/1 6.98/1 tree ratio Diversity 3.22 3.30 (Shannonindex) Species richness <10 years old in 2005 32 1 1 26 <10 yrs old 48 7 52 11 50 10 - 40 yrs old 47 9 57 12 56 >40 yrs old 54 15 68 29 62 Total * 66 22 80 37 75 * Totals are not the sum of the columns, they are the total number of different species in that column 164 Figure C-l. Species richness per acre in the urban forest of Delaware, OH, in 1980 and 2005. Delaware, OH Total Species Richness 90 80 70 602. 50 40 . 30- -,'7 20 ' 10 0 7 T 1 T T T If T "F t _17 r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130 Acres 1980 Total Species ------- 2005 Total Species Ml Number ofDifferent Species Delaware, OH Public and Private Tree Species Richness I - -.. - _- 5 1980 Public specie:1 _ _ _ — 2005 Public Species 5 ------- 1980 Private Species — - - — - 2005 Private Species4 I I" _ TI— ___j—:-I_;—__7_‘I—~"‘— 60 70 80 90 100 1 Number of Different Sperces 165 Figure C-2. Richness by genus in Delaware, OH in 1980 and 2005. Delaware, OH, 1980 Silver Maple 14.9% Sugar Maple 4.1% Red Maple 3.8% Other, 19.09% .. . Norway Maple 1.6% -' Acts-350970 Box-elder 0.5% Juglans, 2.08% Quercus, 2.89% Japanese Maple 0.3% Crataegus, 3.04% Picea, 9.97% Cercis, 3.76% Fraxinus, 3.88% Pinus, 4.85% Ulmus, 9.90% Prunus,7.28% Malus,8.17% Delaware, OH, 2005 . Silver Maple 11.3% Norway Maple 6.0% Other, 15697" 1.: Sugar Maple 4.2% Morus,2.73% ' Acre, 26.63% Red Maple 2.3% Celtis, 2.91% . Japanese Maple 1'1"" .~ Box-elder 1.1% Pyrus, 3.27% Hedge Maple 0.5% Juglans, 3.67% Picea, 10.11% Quercus, 4.15% Thuja,8.34% Malus,5.29% Prunus, 2.48% Pinus,4.35% Fraxinus, 5.63% Cercis, 4.75% 166 Table C-2. Ownership of all Trees, Delaware, OH: 1980 — 2005. 1980* 2005** Number Number Ownership of Trees Percent of Trees Percent Private 2326 93.56 3075 87.48 Public 160 6.44 440 12.52 Total 2486 100.00 3515 100.00 *9 City Blocks **20 City Blocks 167 Table C-3. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Delaware, OH: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 371 14.92 Elm 235 9.45 Blue Spruce 153 6.15 Crabapple 1 23 4.95 Cherry 103 4.14 Sugar Maple 102 4.10 Ash 97 3.90 Red Maple 94 3.78 Redbud 94 3.78 Norway Spruce 93 3.74 Apple 81 3.26 Hawthorn 76 3.06 Scotch Pine 60 2.41 White Pine 57 2.29 Walnut 52 2.09 Dogwood 49 1.97 Plum 45 1.81 Mulberry 42 1.69 Norway Maple 40 1.61 Sweetgum 40 1 .61 Arborvitae 38 1.53 Peach 34 1.37 Pin Oak 25 1.01 Birch 24 0.97 White Oak 23 0.93 Hemlock 21 0.84 Juniper 21 0.84 Lombardy Popular 21 0.84 Hickory 20 0.80 Red Oak 20 0.80 Cottonwood 19 0.76 Hackberry 17 0.68 Honeylocust 16 0.64 Mountain Ash 14 0.56 Box-elder 13 0.52 Magnolia 13 0.52 Pear 12 0.48 Russian Olive 12 0.48 Tulip Tree 1 1 0.44 Willow 1 1 0.44 Catalpa 10 0.40 Sycamore 10 0.40 -031. Number Species of Trees Percent Tree-of-heaven 10 0.40 Linden 8 0.32 Japanese Maple 7 0.28 Buckeye 5 0.20 Austrian Pine 4 0.16 Chestnut 4 0.16 Fir 4 0.16 Golden-rain Tree 3 0.12 Horsechestnut 3 0.12 Persimmon 3 0.12 White Spruce 3 0.12 Beech 2 0.08 Bur Oak 2 0.08 Holly 2 0.08 Hop-hornbeam 2 0.08 Hornbcam 2 0.08 Paw Paw 2 0.08 Shingle Oak 2 0.08 Bald Cypress 1 0.04 Black Locust 1 0.04 Ginkgo 1 0.04 Tamarack 1 0.04 White Popular 1 0.04 Yellow-wood 1 0.04 Total 24 86 100.00 168 Table C-4. Public Tree Species, Delaware, OH: 1980. Number of Species Trees Percent Silver Maple 38 23.75 Crabapple 35 21 .88 Red Maple 18 1 1.25 Sugar Maple 1 1 6.88 Ash 9 5.63 Peach 7 4.38 Sweetgum 7 4.38 Plum 6 3.75 Redbud 6 3.75 Norway Maple 4 2.50 Cherry 3 1.88 Linden 3 1.88 Red Oak 2 1.25 Russian Olive 2 1.25 White Oak 2 1.25 Box-elder 1 0.63 Catalpa 1 0.63 Cottonwood 1 0.63 Dogwood l 0.63 Elm 1 0.63 Mountain Ash 1 0.63 Walnut 1 0.63 Total 1 60 100.00 169 Table C-5. Private Tree Species, Delaware, OH: 1980. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 333 14.32 Catalpa 9 0.39 Elm 234 10.06 Japanese Maple 7 0.30 Blue Spruce 153 6.58 Buckeye 5 0.21 Cherry 100 4.30 Linden 5 0.21 Norway Spruce 93 4.00 Austrian Pine 4 0.17 Sugar Maple 91 3.91 Chestnut 4 0.17 Ash 88 3.78 Fir 4 0.17 Crabapple 88 3.78 Golden-rain Tree 3 0.13 Redbud 88 3.78 Horsechestnut 3 0. 13 Apple 81 3.48 Persimmon 3 0.13 Hawthorn 76 3.27 White Spruce 3 0.13 Red Maple 76 3.27 Beech 2 0.09 Scotch Pine 60 2.58 Bur Oak 2 0.09 White Pine 57 2.45 Holly 2 0.09 Walnut 51 2.19 Hop-hornbeam 2 0.09 Dogwood 48 2.06 Hornbcam 2 0.09 Mulberry 42 1.81 Paw Paw 2 0.09 Plum 39 1.68 Shingle Oak 2 0.09 Arborvitae 38 1.63 Bald Cypress 1 0.04 Norway Maple 36 1.55 Black Locust l 0.04 Sweetgum 33 1.42 Ginkgo 1 0.04 Peach 27 1 . 16 Tamarack 1 0.04 Pin Oak 25 1.07 White Popular 1 0.04 Birch 24 1 .03 Yellow-wood 1 0.04 Hemlock 21 0.90 Juniper 21 0.90 Lombardy Popular 21 0.90 Total 2326 100.00 White Oak 21 0.90 Hickory 20 0.86 Cottonwood 1 8 0.77 Red Oak 18 0.77 Hackberry 17 0.73 Honeylocust 16 0.69 Magnolia 13 0.56 Mountain Ash 13 0.56 Box-elder 12 0.52 Pear 12 0.52 Tulip Tree 1 1 0.47 Willow 1 '1 0.47 Russian Olive 10 0.43 Sycamore 10 0.43 Tree-of-heaven 10 0.43 170 Table C-6. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Delaware, OH: 2005. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 391 11.12 Austrian Pine 12 0.34 Arborvitae 293 8.34 Smoke-tree 12 0.34 Norway Maple 210 5.97 Japanese Lilac Tree 1 1 0.31 Ash 198 5.63 Cottonwood 10 0.28 Blue Spruce 169 4.81 Green Mountain Maple 10 0.28 Redbud 167 4.75 Hawthorn 10 0.28 Sugar Maple 138 3.93 Siberian Elm 10 0.28 White Pine 133 3.78 Beech 9 0.26 Crabapple 130 3.70 Bur Oak 9 0.26 Walnut 129 3.67 Ginkgo 8 0.23 Pear 1 15 3.27 White Spruce 8 0.23 Norway Spruce 1 12 3.19 Willow 8 0.23 Hackberry 102 2.90 Scotch Pine 7 0.20 Mulberry 96 2.73 Shingle Oak 7 0.20 Red Maple 82 2.33 Celebration Maple 6 0.17 Dogwood 70 1.99 Peach 5 0.14 Cherry 57 1.62 Buckeye 4 0.1 1 Apple 56 1.59 Black Gum 3 0.09 Catalpa 54 1.54 Hop-hornbeam 3 0.09 Juniper 52 1.48 Horsechestnut 3 0.09 Pin Oak 52 1.48 Black Locust 2 0.06 Magnolia 47 1.34 Butternut 2 0.06 Hemlock 44 1.25 Douglas Fir 2 0.06 Japanese Maple 40 1.14 Katsura 2 0.06 Box-elder 39 1.1 1 Russian Olive 2 0.06 Sweetgum 39 1.1 1 Arum Maple 1 0.03 Birch 29 0.83 Autumn Olive 1 0.03 Tree-of-heaven 29 0.83 Bald Cypress 1 0.03 Red Oak 28 0.80 Black Spruce 1 0.03 Plum 25 0.71 Blue Beech l 0.03 Hardy Rubber Tree 24 0.68 Dawn Redwood l 0.03 Linden 21 0.60 English Holly 1 0.03 White Oak 21 0.60 Golden-rain Tree | 0.03 Hedge Maple 19 0.54 Japanese Zelcova 1 0.03 Serviceberry 19 0.54 Mountain Ash 1 0.03 Honeylocust 18 0.51 Mugo Pine 1 0.03 American Elm 17 0.48 Sassafras 1 0.03 Saw-toothed Oak 16 0.46 Tamarack 1 0.03 Tulip Tree 16 0.46 Hickory 14 0.40 Swamp White Oak 13 0.37 Total 3515 100.00 Sycamore 13 0.37 171 Table C-7. Public Tree Species, Delaware, OH: 2005. Number of SJXEClCS Trees Percent Ash 74 16.82 Silver Maple 56 12.73 Sugar Maple 51 1 1.59 Norway Maple 39 8.86 Pear 32 7.27 Hardy Rubber Tree 24 5.45 Red Maple 20 4.55 Hedge Maple 18 4.09 Saw-toothed Oak 16 3.64 Crabapple 1 3 2.95 Linden 12 2.73 Green Mountain Maple 10 2.27 Japanese Lilac Tree 10 2.27 Sweetgum 9 2.05 Serviceberry 8 1 .82 Celebration Maple 6 1.36 Red Oak 5 1.14 Ginkgo 4 0.91 Tulip Tree 4 0.91 Catalpa 3 0.68 Pin Oak 3 0.68 Redbud 3 0.68 Walnut 3 0.68 Black Gum 2 0.45 Mulberry 2 0.45 Siberian Elm 2 0.45 Apple 1 0.23 Arborvitae 1 0.23 Black Locust 1 0.23 Cherry 1 0.23 lDawn Redwood 1 0.23 Honeylocust 1 0.23 Horsechestnut 1 0.23 Juniper 1 0.23 Katsura l 0.23 Shingle Oak 1 0.23 Smoke-tree 1 0.23 Total 440 100.00 172 Table C-8. Private Tree Species, Delaware, OH: 2005. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Silver Maple 335 10.89 Beech 9 0.29 Arborvitae 292 9.50 Bur Oak 9 0.29 Norway Maple 171 5.56 Linden 9 0.29 Blue Spruce 169 5.50 Siberian Elm 8 0.26 Redbud 164 5.33 White Spruce 8 0.26 White Pine 133 4.33 Willow 8 0.26 Walnut 126 4.10 Scotch Pine 7 0.23 Ash 124 4.03 Shingle Oak 6 0.20 Crabapple 1 17 3.80 Peach 5 0.16 Norway Spruce 1 12 3.64 Buckeye 4 0.13 Hackberry 102 3.32 Ginkgo 4 0.13 Mulberry 94 3.06 Hop-hornbeam 3 0.10 Sugar Maple 87 2.83 Butternut 2 0.07 Pear 83 2.70 Douglas Fir 2 0.07 Dogwood 70 2.28 Horsechestnut 2 0.07 Red Maple 62 2.02 Russian Olive 2 0.07 Cherry 56 1.82 Arum Maple 1 0.03 Apple 55 1.79 Autumn Olive 1 0.03 Catalpa 51 1.66 Bald Cypress l 0.03 Juniper 51 1.66 Black Gum 1 0.03 Pin Oak 49 1.59 Black Locust 1 0.03 Magnolia 47 1.53 Black Spruce 1 0.03 Hemlock 44 1.43 Blue Beech 1 0.03 Japanese Maple 40 1.30 English Holly 1 0.03 Box-elder 39 1.27 Golden-rain Tree 1 0.03 Sweetgum 30 0.98 Hedge Maple 1 0.03 Birch 29 0.94 Japanese Lilac Tree 1 0.03 Tree-of-heaven 29 0.94 Japanese Zelcova 1 0.03 Plum 25 0.81 Katsura 1 0.03 Red Oak 23 0.75 Mountain Ash 1 0.03 White Oak 21 0.68 Mugo Pine 1 0.03 American Elm 17 0.55 Sassafras 1 0.03 Honeylocust 17 0.55 Tamarack 1 0.03 Hickory 14 0.46 Swamp White Oak 13 0.42 Sycamore 13 0.42 Total 3075 100.00 Austrian Pine 12 0.39 Tulip Tree 12 0.39 Serviceberry 1 l 0.36 Smoke-tree 1 1 0.36 Cottonwood 1 0 0.33 Hawthorn 10 0.33 173 Appendix D Hutchinson, Minnesota 174 Table D-l. Selected data of the urban forest in Hutchinson, MN. 1980 2003 Total Public Private Total Public Private Number of trees 704 154 550 654 161 493 Number of acres 32.73 32.73 sampled Density 36.16 8.81 27.45 32.52 9.02 23.50 (trees per acre) Public to private 3.57/1 3.06/l tree ratio Diversity 2.96 2.96 (Shannonindex) Species richness <10 yrs old 36 9 36 36 8 35 10 — 40 yrs old 23 6 23 23 6 21 >40 yrs old 22 8 21 27 13 23 Total * 43 15 43 47 15 44 * Totals are not the sum of the columns, they are the total number of different species in that column 175 Figure D-l. Species richness per acre in the urban forest of Hutchinson, MN, in 1980 and 2003. Hutchinson, MN Total Species Richness m 50 d.) '8 (5:). 40 g .. 5 '.. 20 _ E 1980 Total Species '1) E 10 ------- 2005 Total Species —“ 2 O I 1 fi 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 Acres Hutchinson, MN Public and Private Tree Species Richness 50 § 40 -— ...... §:'.'—_‘::;1"-"'”;"_ ‘81:: m """"" ;; _'/'- a g 30 ,-' 1980Public Species a... .. .' _. E 3. ."..__.—'/ —---2005Public Species o m 20 — , , —r E / fl, ._ ------- 1980 anate Specres :2 10 -/// —' * —---- 2005 Private Species "1 O ’.. 7 I I I 7 — I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Acres 176 Figure D-2. Richness by genus in Hutchinson, MN in 1980 and 2003. Hutchinson, MN, 1980 , Sugar Maple 7.5% Other, 16.62% mes’ Silver Maple 6.1% ”44% Norway Maple 2.8% Box-elder 1.6% Red Maple 0.4% Betula,4.12% Juglans, 4.26% Malus,4.40% Quercus. 4.69% Acer, 18.47% Populus, 6.53% Ulmus, 8.10% Picea, 9.38% Hutchinson, MN, 2003 Norway Maple 8.0% Other, 12.85% . Sugar Maple 6.9% .— Acre, 21.71% Silver Maple 4.9% Amur Maple 0.9% Red Maple 0.8% Box-elder 0.3% Betula,2.29% Celtis, 2.29% Juglans, 2.60% Eleagnus, 5.20% Malus,5.50% Fraxinus, Quercus, 5.96% 21.41% Thuja,6.12% Picea, 14.07% 177 Table D-2. Ownership of all Trees, Hutchinson, MN: 1980 -— 2005. 1980 1980* 2003* Number Number Number Ownership of Trees Percent of Trees Percent of Trees Percent Private 923 78.55 550 78.13 493 75.38 Public 252 21.45 154 21.88 161 24.62 Total 1 175 100.00 704 100.00 654 100.00 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003 178 F'SL‘ 1. A r- vii.- Table D-3. Species (Public and Private) of trees (all blocks), Hutchinson, MN: 1980. Number Number of Species Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Ash 231 19.66 Peach 1 0.09 Elm 137 1 1.66 Pear 1 0.09 Sugar Maple 94 8.00 Ponderosa Pine 1 0.09 Blue Spruce 82 6.98 Red Oak 1 0.09 Bur Oak 77 6.55 White Oak 1 0.09 Silver Maple 67 5.70 White Pine 1 0.09 Lombardy Popular 56 4.77 White Popular 1 0.09 Juniper 50 4.26 Birch 41 3.49 Norway Maple 38 3.23 Total 1 175 100.00 Crabapple 32 2.72 Apple 26 2.21 Walnut 26 2.21 Norway Spruce 20 1.70 Hackberry 16 1 .36 Mountain Ash 13 1.1 1 Box-elder 12 1 .02 Honeylocust 1 2 1 .02 Plum 12 1.02 Scotch Pine 12 1.02 Willow 12 1.02 Russian Olive 1 1 0.94 Fir 10 0.85 Buckeye 9 0.77 Cherry 8 0.68 Linden 8 0.68 Red Maple 7 0.60 Butternut 6 0.51 Populus sp. 6 0.51 White Spruce 6 0.51 Catalpa 5 0.43 Dogwood 5 0.43 Pinus sp. 5 0.43 Mulberry 3 0.26 Arborvitae 2 0. 17 Cottonwood 2 0. 17 Hemlock 2 0.17 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.17 Picea sp. 2 0.17 Viburnum 2 0.17 Acer sp. 1 0.09 179 Table D-4. Public Tree Species, Hutchinson, MN: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Ash 81 32.14 Sugar Maple 59 23.41 Elm 57 22.62 Silver Maple 8 3.17 Hackberry 8 3.17 Bur Oak 7 2.78 Norway Maple 6 2.38 Blue Spruce 5 1.98 Lombardy Popular 4 1.59 Birch 3 1.19 Norway Spruce 3 1.19 Red Maple 3 1.19 Walnut 3 1.19 Linden 2 0.79 Box-elder 1 0.40 Juniper 1 0.40 Catalpa 1 0.40 Total 252 100.00 180 Table D-5. Private Tree Species, Hutchinson, MN: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Ash 150 16.25 Elm 80 8.67 Blue Spruce 77 8.34 Bur Oak 70 7.58 Silver Maple 59 6.39 Lombardy Popular 52 5.63 Juniper 49 5.31 Birch 38 4.12 Sugar Maple 35 3.79 Crabapple 32 3.47 Norway Maple 32 3.47 Apple 26 2.82 Walnut 23 2.49 Norway Spruce 17 1.84 Mountain Ash 13 1.41 Honeylocust 12 1.30 Plum 12 1.30 Scotch Pine 12 1.30 Willow 12 1.30 Box-elder 1 1 1.19 Russian Olive 1 l 1.19 Fir 10 1.08 Buckeye 9 0.98 Cherry 8 0.87 Hackberry 8 0.87 Butternut 6 0.65 Linden 6 0.65 Populus sp. 6 0.65 White Spruce 6 0.65 Dogwood 5 0.54 Pinus sp. 5 0.54 Catalpa 4 0.43 Red Maple 4 0.43 Mulberry 3 0.33 Arborvitae 2 0.22 Cottonwood 2 0.22 Hemlock 2 0.22 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.22 Picea sp. 2 0.22 Viburnum 2 0.22 Acer sp. 1 0.1 l Peach 1 0.1 1 181 Number Species of Trees Percent Pear 1 0.1 l Ponderosa Pine 1 0.1 1 Red Oak 1 0.1 1 White Oak 1 0.1 1 White Pine 1 0.1 1 White Popular 1 0.1 1 Total 923 100.00 Table D-6. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Hutchinson, MN: 1980. 1&1 Number Number Species* of Trees Percent Species* of Trees Percent Ash 165 23.44 Pear 1 0.14 Elm 57 8.10 Mulberry 1 0.14 Sugar Maple 53 7.53 Blue Spruce 46 6.53 Silver Maple 43 6.1 1 Total 704 100.00 Lombardy Popular 42 5.97 Bur Oak 32 4.55 Juniper 30 4.26 Birch 29 4.12 Crabapple 22 3. 13 Norway Maple 20 2.84 Walnut 14 1.99 Norway Spruce 13 1.85 Box-elder 1 1 1.56 Scotch Pine 10 1.42 Hackberry 10 1 .42 Willow 9 1.28 Plum 9 1.28 Mountain Ash 9 1.28 Apple 9 1.28 Russian Olive 8 1.14 Buckeye 7 0.99 Honeylocust 6 0.85 White Spruce 5 0.71 Linden 4 0.57 Fir 4 0.57 Dogwood 4 0.57 Cherry 4 0.57 Red Maple 3 0.43 Populus sp. 3 0.43 Pinus sp. 3 0.43 Catalpa 3 0.43 Viburnum 2 0.28 Picea sp. 2 0.28 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.28 Cottonwood 2 0.28 Butternut 2 0.28 Arborvitae 2 0.28 White Popular 1 0.14 Red Oak 1 0.14 Ponderosa Pine 1 0.14 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003. 182 Table D-7. Public Tree Species, Hutchinson, MN: 1980. Number fleciefi of Trees Percent Ash 64 41.56 Sugar Maple 31 20.13 Elm 27 17.53 Silver Maple 6 3.90 Hackberry 5 3.25 Bur Oak 2 1.30 Norway Maple 3 1.95 Blue Spruce 5 3.25 Lombardy Popular 4 2.60 Birch 2 1.30 Norway Spruce 1 0.65 Walnut 1 0.65 Linden 1 0.65 Juniper 1 0.65 Catalpa 1 0.65 Total 154 100.00 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003. 183 Table D-8. Private Tree Species, Hutchinson, MN: 1980. Number Species* of Trees Percent Ash 101 18.36 Blue Spruce 41 7.45 Lombardy Popular 38 6.91 Silver Maple 37 6.73 Bur Oak 30 5.45 Elm 30 5.45 Juniper 29 5.27 Birch 27 4.91 Crabapple 22 4.00 Sugar Maple 22 4.00 Norway Maple 17 3.09 Walnut 13 2.36 Norway Spruce 12 2.18 Box-elder 1 1 2.00 Scotch Pine 10 1.82 Apple 9 '1 .64 Mountain Ash 9 1.64 Plum 9 1.64 Willow 9 1.64 Russian Olive 8 1.45 Buckeye 7 1.27 Honeylocust 6 1 .09 Hackberry 5 0.91 White Spruce 5 0.91 Cherry 4 0.73 Dogwood 4 0.73 Fir 4 0.73 Linden 3 0.55 Pinus sp. 3 0.55 Populus sp. 3 0.55 Red Maple 3 0.55 Arborvitae 2 0.36 Butternut 2 0.36 Catalpa 2 0.36 Cottonwood 2 0.36 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.36 Picea sp. 2 0.36 Viburnum 2 0.36 Mulberry 1 0.18 Pear 1 0.18 Ponderosa Pine 1 0.18 Number Smciesi‘ of Trees Percent Red Oak 1 0.18 White Popular 1 0.18 Total 550 100.00 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003. 184 Table D-9. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Hutchinson, MN: 2003. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Ash 140 21.41 Golden-rain Tree 1 0.15 Norway Spruce 65 9.94 Cottonwood 1 0.15 Norway Maple 52 7.95 Buckthorn 1 0.15 Sugar Maple 45 6.88 Black Gum 1 0.15 Arborvitae 40 6.12 Alberta Spruce 1 0.15 Bur Oak 36 5.50 Russian Olive 34 5.20 Silver Maple 32 4.89 Total 654 100.00 Crabapple 29 4.43 Blue Spruce 18 2.75 Black Walnut 17 2.60 Hackberry 15 2.29 Birch 15 2.29 Linden 13 1.99 Elm 12 1.83 Apple 7 1.07 Juniper 6 0.92 Amur Maple 6 0.92 Red Maple 5 0.76 Plum 5 0.76 Mugo Pine 5 0.76 White Spruce 4 0.61 Serviceberry 4 0.61 Pear 4 0.61 Mulberry 4 0.61 Honeylocust 4 0.61 Blue Spruce 4 0.61 White Oak 3 0.46 Tree-of-heaven 3 0.46 Mountain Ash 3 0.46 Willow 2 0.31 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.31 Catalpa 2 0.31 Buckeye 2 0.31 Box-elder 2 0.31 Balsam Fir 2 0.31 Aspen 2 0.31 Yew 1 0.15 White Pine 1 0.15 Ponderosa Pine 1 0.15 Hop-Hornbcam 1 0. 15 Hemlock 1 0.15 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003. 185 Table D—10. Public Tree Species, Hutchinson, MN: 2003. Number Species* of Trees Percent Ash 77 47.83 Sugar Maple 33 20.50 Norway Maple 18 1 1.18 Linden 6 3.73 Elm 4 2.48 Blue Spruce 4 2.48 White Oak 3 1.86 Silver Maple 2 1.24 Black Walnut 2 1.24 Serviceberry 1 0.62 Hop-Hornbcam 1 0.62 Catalpa 1 0.62 Hackberry 2 1.24 Bur Oak 6 3.73 White Spruce 1 0.62 Total 161 100.00 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003. 186 Table D-11. Private Tree Species, Hutchinson, MN: 2003. Number Species* of Trees Percent Norway Spruce 65 13.18 Ash 63 12.78 Arborvitae 40 8.1 1 Norway Maple 34 6.90 Russian Olive 34 6.90 Bur Oak 30 6.09 Silver Maple 30 6.09 Crabapple 29 5.88 Blue Spruce 18 3.65 Birch 15 3.04 Black Walnut 15 3.04 Hackberry 13 2.64 Sugar Maple 12 2.43 Elm 8 1.62 Apple 7 1.42 Linden 7 1.42 Amur Maple 6 1.22 Juniper 6 1.22 Mugo Pine 5 1.01 Plum 5 1.0] Red Maple 5 1.01 Honeylocust 4 0.81 Mulberry 4 0.81 Pear 4 0.81 Mountain Ash 3 0.61 Serviceberry 3 0.61 Tree-of—heaven 3 0.61 White Spruce 3 0.61 Aspen 2 0.41 Balsam Fir 2 0.41 Box-elder 2 0.41 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.41 Willow 2 0.41 Buckeye 2 0.41 Alberta Spruce 1 0.20 Black Gum l 0.20 Buckthorn l 0.20 Catalpa '1 0.20 Cottonwood 1 0.20 Golden-rain Tree 1 0.20 Hemlock 1 0.20 Number Smcies’“ of Trees Percent Ponderosa Pine 1 0.20 White Pine 1 0.20 Yew 1 0.20 Total 493 100.00 *Does not include blocks D, E, G and J because they could not be relocated in 2003. 187 Appendix E Lincoln, Nebraska 188 ‘5'.“ Table E-l. Selected data of the urban forest in Lincoln, NE. 1980 1992 2003 Total Public Private Total Public Private Total Public Private Number of trees 952 131 821 1346 212 1 132 1049 194 855 Number of acres 40.47 56.03 56.03 sampled Density 24.23 3.76 20.47 24.79 3.97 20.82 20.4 3.89 16.51 (trees per acre) Diversity 3.47 3.46 3.36 (Shannonindex) Public to private 6.27/1 5.34/1 4.41/1 tree ratio Species richness <10 yrs old 39 5 38 43 7 43 42 6 42 10 - 40 yrs old 54 5 53 54 10 53 47 9 45 >40 yrs old 40 16 37 46 17 42 42 14 38 Total * 62 20 62 62 23 62 63 15 62 * Totals are not the sum of the columns. they are the total number ofdifferent species in that column 189 Figure E- 1. Species richness per acre in the urban forest of Lincoln, NE in 1980 and 2003. Lincoln, NE Total Species Richness ... 70 --— 8 s 60 —r 5: .. 50 1: e 40 :35 / g 30 / 1980Tota1 Species a g 20 __ ------- 2003Tota1 Species _s E 3 10 z 0 I '1 r j T T J 0 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 80 Acres Lincoln, NE Public and Private Tree Species Richness 70 - - E 60 I ---------- _' Z ' '____L' :13 w 50 ”Ln-m"? """"" ___w____ E? E 40 H— 7.7"" T 1980 Public Species .3 g 55). 30 -~—-- ——‘7"” — ————-——~-~ 5 — - — - 2003 Public Species fl '3 20 fi____z_ :—- -—+~—~~# ------- 1980P1ivate Species a :2 10 ~;/é’/_ -» _5 _- - - - -_ 2003 Private Species J J () ~- -—-«~ —r— T —— -~ T- ,i.______fi_ --—-——-.- -——- a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Acres 190 Figure E-2. Richness by genus in Lincoln, NE in 1980 and 2003. Quercus, 9.44% Picea, 5.53% Malus,7.63% Pinus, 8.77% Thuja,8.10% 191 Lincoln, NE, 1980 Silver Maple 8.7% Elaeagunus, Other, 12.82% Norway Maple 1.5% 200% Acer, 12.50% Sugar Maple 08% . , Red Maple 0.7% (281118522170 J _ Box-elder 0.4% Forums, 231% “mp”: Amur Maple 0.3% Fraxinus, 11.24% 3.68% Thuja,3.78% GledItSIa, Quercus, 9.66% 3. 9 8 % Cercis, 4.41% Prunus, 5.46% Pinus, 7.56% new: 557% Ulmus, 5,99% Malus,6.93% LlnCOIH, NE) 2003 Silver Maple 8.1% Norway Maple 3.7% Celtis, 2.00% Omen 113-86% . Acer, 15.54% Red Maple 1.9% 253-157” Amur Maple 0.9% Prunus, 229% Sugar Maple 0.8% Pyrus,2.67% Japanese Maple 0.2% (3161111813, Fraxinus, 353% 12.77% Tilia, 4.10% Juniperus, 4.77% Table E-2. Ownership of all Trees, Lincoln, NE: 1980 - 1992 - 2003. 1980* 1993 2003 Number Number Number Ownership of Trees Percent of Trees Percent of Trees Percent Private 821 86.24 1134 84.25 855 81.51 Public 131 13.76 212 15.75 194 18.49 Total 952 100.00 1346 100.00 1049 100.00 *Does not include blocks J, K and L because they were not part of the study in 1980 192 Table E-3. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Lincoln, NE: 1980. Number Number Species* of Trees Percent Species* of Trees Percent Red Cedar 107 1 1.24 Dogwood 3 0.32 Pin Oak 83 8.72 Mugo Pine 3 0.32 Silver Maple 83 8.72 Sweetgum 3 0.32 Redbud 42 4.41 Unknown 3 0.32 Crabapple 39 4.10 Catalpa 2 0.21 Honeylocust 37 3.89 Hawthorn 2 0.21 Arborvitae 36 3.78 Sumac 2 0.21 Blue Spruce 36 3.78 White Popular 2 0.21 Ash 35 3.68 Beech 1 0.1 1 Scotch Pine 33 3.47 Black Oak 1 0.1 1 Siberian Elm 29 3.05 Hop-hornbeam 1 0.11 American Elm 28 2.94 Hornbcam 1 0.1] Apple 27 2.84 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.1 l Hackberry 21 2.21 Limber Pine 1 0.1 1 Plum 21 2.21 Lombardy Popular 1 0.1 1 Russian Olive 19 2.00 Magnolia 1 0.1 1 Cherry 18 1.89 Red Pine 1 0.11 Mulberry 18 1.89 Tulip Popular 1 0.1 ‘1 Austrian Pine 17 1.79 White Fir 1 0.1 1 Pear 17 1.79 Witch Hazel 1 0.1 1 Norway Maple 14 1.47 Aspen 13 1.37 Total 952 100.00 Birch 13 1.37 Peach 13 1.37 White Spruce 13 1.37 Linden 1 1 1.16 Willow 10 1.05 Walnut 9 0.95 White Pine 9 0.95 Ponderosa Pine 8 0.84 Red Oak 8 0.84 Sugar Maple 8 0.84 Mountain Ash 7 0.74 Red Maple 7 0.74 Cottonwood 6 0.63 Box-elder 4 0.42 Douglas Fir 4 0.42 Norway Spruce 4 0.42 Sycamore 4 0.42 Ailanthus 3 0.32 Amur Maple 3 0.32 Balsam Fir 3 0.32 *Does not include data from plots J, K, and L, they were not part of the study in 1980. 193 Table E-4. Public Tree Species, Lincoln, NE: 1980. Number Species* of Trees Percent Pin Oak 59 45.04 American Elm 12 9.16 Hackberry 1 1 8.40 Ash 9 6.87 Siberian Elm 7 5.34 Norway Maple 4 3.05 Red Maple 4 3.05 Red Oak 4 3.05 Aspen 3 2.29 Pear 3 2.29 Silver Maple 3 2.29 Walnut 3 2.29 Redbud 2 1.53 Catalpa 1 0.76 Cherry 1 0.76 Crabapple 1 0.76 Honeylocust 1 0.76 Linden 1 0.76 Mountain Ash 1 0.76 Sugar Maple 1 0.76 Total 131 100.00 *Does not include data from plots J, K, and L, they were not part of the study in 1980. 194 Table E-5. Private Tree Species, Lincoln, NE: 1980. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Red Cedar 107 13.03 Mugo Pine 3 0.37 Silver Maple 80 9.74 Red Maple 3 0.37 Redbud 40 4.87 Sweetgum 3 0.37 Crabapple 38 4.63 Unknown 3 0.37 Arborvitae 36 4.38 Hawthorn 2 0.24 Blue Spruce 36 4.38 Sumac 2 0.24 Honeylocust 36 4.38 White Popular 2 0.24 Scotch Pine 33 4.02 Beech 1 0.12 Apple 27 3.29 Black Oak 1 0.12 Ash 26 3.17 Catalpa 1 0.12 Pin Oak 24 2.92 Hop-hornbeam 1 0.12 Siberian Elm 22 2.68 Hornbcam 1 0.12 Plum 21 2.56 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.12 Russian Olive 19 2.31 Limber Pine 1 0.12 Mulberry 18 2.19 Lombardy Popular 1 0.12 Austrian Pine 17 2.07 Magnolia 1 0.12 Cherry 17 2.07 Red Pine 1 0.12 American Elm 16 1.95 Tulip Popular 1 0.12 Pear 14 1.71 White Fir 1 0.12 Birch 13 1.58 Witch Hazel l 0.12 Peach 13 1.58 White Spruce 13 1.58 Aspen 10 1.22 Total 821 100.00 Hackberry 10 1.22 Linden 10 1.22 Norway Maple 10 1.22 Willow 10 1.22 White Pine 9 1.10 Ponderosa Pine 8 0.97 Sugar Maple 7 0.85 Cottonwood 6 0.73 Mountain Ash 6 0.73 Walnut 6 0.73 Box-elder 4 0.49 Douglas Fir 4 0.49 Norway Spruce 4 0.49 Red Oak 4 0.49 Sycamore 4 0.49 Ailanthus 3 0.37 Amur Maple 3 0.37 Balsam Fir 3 0.37 Dogwood 3 0.37 *Does not include data from plots J , K, and L, they were not part of the study in 1980. 195 Table E-6. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Lincoln, NE: 1992. Number Species of Trees Percent Ash 1 15 8.54 Arborvitae 101 7.50 Silver Maple 99 7.36 Pin Oak 93 6.9] Red Cedar 92 6.84 Crabapple 80 5.94 Norway Maple 45 3.34 Blue Spruce 44 3.27 Linden 44 3.27 Redbud 44 3.27 Honeylocust 42 3.12 Mulberry 42 3.12 Plum 37 2.75 Pear 35 2.60 Austrian Pine 33 2.45 Siberian Elm 33 2.45 Hackberry 30 2.23 Scotch Pine 29 2.15 Apple 28 2.08 Mugo Pine 18 1.34 American Elm 17 1.26 Red Maple 17 1.26 Birch 16 1.19 Cherry 15 1.1 1 White Pine 15 1.11 Amur Maple 14 1.04 White Spruce 14 1.04 Ponderosa Pine 12 0.89 Sugar Maple 12 0.89 Willow 12 0.89 Cottonwood 10 0.74 Hawthorn 10 0.74 Red Oak 10 0.74 Russian Olive 9 0.67 Walnut 9 0.67 Norway Spruce 7 0.52 Ailanthus 6 0.45 Black Oak 4 0.30 Dogwood 4 0.30 Mountain Ash 4 0.30 Peach 4 0.30 Smoke-tree 4 0.30 Number Species of Trees Percent Unknown 4 0.30 Black Locust 3 0.22 Douglas Fir 3 0.22 Magnolia 3 0.22 Aspen 2 0.15 Bald Cypress 2 0.15 Box-elder 2 0.15 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.15 Sweetgum 2 0.15 Sycamore 2 0.15 White Fir 2 0.15 White Popular 2 0.15 Balsam Fir 1 0.07 Butternut l 0.07 Catalpa 1 0.07 Gingko 1 0.07 Horse Chestnut l 0.07 Limber Pine 1 0.07 Red Pine 1 0.07 White Oak 1 0.07 Total 1346 100.00 196 Table E-7. Public Tree Species, Lincoln, NE: 1992. Number Species of Trees Percent Pin Oak 62 29.25 Ash 38 17.92 Norway Maple 27 12.74 Linden 21 9.91 Hackberry 13 6.13 Pear 12 5.66 Siberian Elm 7 3.30 Red Oak 5 2.36 American Elm 4 1.89 Red Maple 3 1.42 Silver Maple 3 1.42 Walnut 3 1.42 Honeylocust 2 0.94 Redbud 2 0.94 Sugar Maple 2 0.94 Apple 1 0.47 Aspen 1 0.47 Cherry 1 0.47 Cottonwood 1 0.47 Crabapple 1 0.47 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.47 Mountain Ash 1 0.47 Unknown 1 0.47 Total 212 100.00 197 Table E-8. Private Tree Species, Lincoln, NE: 1992. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 101 8.91 Douglas Fir 3 0.26 Silver Maple 96 8.47 Magnolia 3 0.26 Red Cedar 92 8.11 Mountain Ash 3 0.26 Crabapple 79 6.97 Unknown 3 0.26 Ash 77 6.79 Bald Cypress 2 0.18 Blue Spruce 44 3.88 Box-elder 2 0.18 Mulberry 42 3.70 Sweetgum 2 0.18 Redbud 42 3.70 Sycamore 2 0.18 Honeylocust 40 3.53 White Fir 2 0.18 Plum 37 3.26 White Popular 2 0.18 Austrian Pine 33 2.91 Aspen l 0.09 Pin Oak 31 2.73 Balsam Fir l 0.09 Scotch Pine 29 2.56 Butternut 1 0.09 Apple 27 2.38 Catalpa 1 0.09 Siberian Elm 26 2.29 Gingko 1 0.09 Linden 23 2.03 Horse Chestnut l 0.09 Pear 23 2.03 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.09 Mugo Pine 18 1.59 Limber Pine 1 0.09 Norway Maple 18 1.59 Red Pine 1 0.09 Hackberry 17 1.50 White Oak 1 0.09 Birch 16 1.41 White Pine 15 1.32 Amur Maple 14 1.23 Total 1 134 100.00 Cherry 14 '1 .23 Red Maple 14 1.23 White Spruce 14 1.23 American Elm 13 1.15 Ponderosa Pine 12 .1 .06 Willow 12 1.06 Hawthorn 10 0.88 Sugar Maple 10 0.88 Cottonwood 9 0.79 Russian Olive 9 0.79 Norway Spruce 7 0.62 Ailanthus 6 0.53 Walnut 6 0.53 Red Oak 5 0.44 Black Oak 4 0.35 Dogwood 4 0.35 Peach 4 0.35 Smoke-tree 4 0.35 Black Locust 3 0.26 198 Table E-9. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Lincoln, NE: 2003. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Ash 134 12.77 Black Locust 2 0.19 Arborvitae 85 8.10 Douglas Fir 2 0.19 Pin Oak 85 8.10 Japanese Maple 2 0.19 Silver Maple 85 8.10 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 0.19 Crabapple 68 6.48 Lombardy Popular 2 0.19 Red Cedar 50 4.77 Mountain Ash 2 0.19 Linden 42 4.00 Peach 2 0. 19 Norway Maple 39 3.72 Russian Olive 2 0.19 Honeylocust 37 3.53 Sweetgum 2 0.19 Blue Spruce 31 2.96 Sycamore 2 0.19 Scotch Pine 29 2.76 Weeping Cherry 2 0.19 Pear 28 267 White Popular 2 0.19 Hackberry 21 2.00 Bald Cypress 1 0.10 Mugo Pine 20 1.91 Catalpa 1 0.10 Red Maple 20 1.91 Dogwood 1 0.10 Austrian Pine 19 1.81 Gingko 1 0.10 Redbud 17 1.62 Hemlock 1 0.10 White Pine 15 1.43 Horse Chestnut 1 0.10 Alberta Spruce 14 1.33 Red Pine 1 0.10 Birch 14 1.33 Silver Linden 1 0.10 Taxus 14 1.33 White Fir 1 0.10 Plum 13 1.24 Apple 12 1.14 Mulberry 12 1.14 Total 1049 100.00 Red Oak 1 1 1.05 Siberian Elm 1 l 1.05 White Spruce 10 0.95 Amur Maple 9 0.86 American Elm 8 0.76 Ponderosa Pine 8 0.76 Sugar Maple 8 0.76 Cherry 7 0.67 Smoke-tree 6 0.57 Walnut 6 0.57 Cottonwood 5 0.48 Ailanthus 4 0.38 Hawthorn 4 0.38 Magnolia 4 0.38 Black Oak 3 0.29 Norway Spruce 3 0.29 Willow 3 0.29 Balsam Fir 2 0.19 199 Table E-10. Public Tree Species, Lincoln, NE: 2003. Number Species of Trees Percent Ash 54 27.84 Pin Oak 52 26.80 Linden 27 13.92 Norway Maple 19 9.79 Pear 9 4.64 Hackberry 8 4.12 Crabapple 5 2.58 Red Maple 5 2.58 Red Oak 5 2.58 Redbud 3 1.55 Walnut 3 1.55 American Elm 1 0.52 Honeylocust 1 0.52 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.52 Sugar Maple 1 0.52 Total 194 100.00 200 Table E-l 1. Private Tree Species, Lincoln, NE: 2003. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 85 9.94 Black Locust 2 0.23 Silver Maple 85 9.94 Douglas Fir 2 0.23 Ash 80 9.36 Japanese Maple 2 0.23 Crabapple 63 7.37 Lombardy Popular 2 0.23 Red Cedar 50 5.85 Mountain Ash 2 0.23 Honeylocust 36 4.21 Peach 2 0.23 Pin Oak 33 3.86 Russian Olive 2 0.23 Blue Spruce 31 3.63 Sweetgum 2 0.23 Scotch Pine 29 3.39 Sycamore 2 0.23 Mugo Pine 20 2.34 Weeping Cherry 2 0.23 Norway Maple 20 2.34 White Popular 2 0.23 Austrian Pine 19 2.22 Bald Cypress 1 0.12 Pear 19 2.22 Catalpa 1 0.12 Linden 16 1 .87 Dogwood 1 0.12 Red Maple 15 1.75 Gingko 1 0.12 White Pine 15 1.75 Hemlock 1 0.12 Alberta Spruce 14 1.64 Horse Chestnut 1 0.12 Birch 14 1.64 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.12 Redbud 14 1.64 Red Pine 1 0.12 Taxus 14 1.64 White Fir 1 0.12 Hackberry 13 1 .52 Plum 13 1.52 Total 855 100.00 Apple 12 1.40 Mulberry 12 1.40 Siberian Elm 1 1 1.29 White Spruce 10 1.17 Amur Maple 9 1.05 Ponderosa Pine 8 0.94 American Elm 7 0.82 Cherry 7 0.82 Sugar Maple 7 0.82 Red Oak 6 0.70 Smoke-tree 6 0.70 Cottonwood 5 0.58 Ailanthus 4 0.47 Hawthorn 4 0.47 Magnolia 4 0.47 Black Oak 3 0.35 Norway Spruce 3 0.35 Walnut 3 0.35 Willow 3 0.35 Balsam Fir 2 0.23 201 Appendix F Wooster, Ohio 202 Table F-l. Selected data of the urban forest in Wooster, OH. 1980 2003 Total Public Private Total Public Private Number oftrees 1682 107 133 2316 1575 2183 Number of acres 63.42 71.65 sampled Density 26.52 1.69 1.86 32.32 24.83 30.47 (trees per acre) Public to private 14.72/l 16.41/1 tree ratio Diversity 3.27 3.27 (Shannonindex) Species richness <10 yrs old 47 8 47 49 15 48 10 - 40 yrs old 54 3 54 46 2 46 >40 yrs old 39 13 36 51 20 - 45 Total * 62 17 61 67 25 64 * Totals are not the sum of the columns, They are the total number ofdifferent species in that column 203 Figure F—l. Species richness per acre in the urban forest of Wooster, OH in 1980 and 2005. Wooster, OH Total species Richness 80 .313 8 70 -~ CL m 60 g 50 e e a: E .20 1980Tota1 Species ‘1) ‘E ------- 2005 Total Species 3 10 ___L z 0 T T f r t —T”‘"—‘ r 1 0 10 20 3O 40 50 60 70 80 90 Acres Wooster, OH Public and Private Tree Species Richness 70 -—— --———-— —— — :5» 6° , "—. Teri—1"" '''' g ... 50 ~- — ., ,-;::—';—"-:"-‘-'i;'_ _._._ _.. e .3 40 -_ fife-— 1980 Public Species _-4 E (as 30 5- 4,.» —— --—-2005Public Species ‘1) 9 20 / - —- ------- 1980 Private Species _. . S ./// - - - - - 2005 Private Species Z 10 “*7/ ____fi._ _, _5 _———i 0 ‘1—"— r 1 fi— _1— ‘T' "—7—1 fi’ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Acres 204 Figure F—2. Richness by genus in Wooster, OH in 1980 and 2005. Wooster, OH, 1980 Silver Maple 7.1% Red Maple 5.5% Acer, 22.42% Sugar Maple 4.8% Norway Maple 4.3% Japanese Maple 0.4% Box-elder 0.4% Hedge Maple 0.1% Other, 18.49% . Fraxinus, " 3' 2.38% Betula.3.39% Thuja.4.79% Picea, 14.63% Prunus.6.30% Malus, 7.19% Quercus, 7.13% Comus,6.38% Pinus, 6.90% WOOSter, OH, 2005 ' Norway Maple 5.5% Red Maple 5.0% Silver Maple 5.0% A061, 20.47% Sugar Maple 2.2% Japanese Maple 1.6% Box-elder 1.1% Hedge Maple 0.3% Amur Maple 0.1% Tsuga , 2.69% Fraxinus. 2.95% Prunus, 4.36% Comus.4.66% P1063. 17.44% Malus,4.96% Quercus, 5.47% Thuja,11.38% Pinus, 6.03% 205 Table F-2. Ownership of all Trees, Wooster, OH: 1980 — 2005. 1980* 2005** Number Number Ownership of Trees Percent of Trees Percent Private 1575 93.64 2183 94.26 Public 107 6.36 133 5 .74 Total 1682 100 2316 100 *9 City Blocks ** 15 City Blocks 206 Table F-3. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Wooster, OH: 1980. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Blue Spruce 159 9.45 Hickory 4 0.24 Dogwood 141 8.38 Serviceberry 4 0.24 Silver Maple 1 19 7.07 Spruce 4 0.24 Red Maple 92 5.47 Black Gum 3 0.18 Crabapple 85 5.05 White Oak 3 0.18 White Pine 84 4.99 Black Locust 2 0.12 Norway Spruce 83 4.93 Holly 2 0.12 Sugar Maple 80 4.76 Sycamore 2 0.12 Pin Oak 79 4.70 Apricot 1 0.06 Norway Maple 72 4.28 Bald Cypress 1 0.06 Cherry 63 3.75 Beech 1 0.06 Arborvitae 58 3.45 Big-tooth Aspen 1 0.06 Birch 57 3.39 Buckeye 1 0.06 Ash 40 2.38 Ginkgo 1 0.06 Red Oak 38 2.26 Golden-chain Tree 1 0.06 Apple 36 2.14 Golden-rain Tree 1 0.06 Plum 35 2.08 Hackberry 1 0.06 Hemlock 31 1.84 Hedge Maple 1 0.06 Sweetgum 26 1.55 Japanese Zelkova 1 0.06 Pear 22 1.31 Tree-of-heaven 1 0.06 Elm 19 1.13 Mountain Ash 18 1.07 Tulip Tree 17 1.01 Total 1682 100.00 Austrian Pine 16 0.95 Lombardy Popular 16 0.95 Scotch Pine 16 0.95 Chestnut 15 0.89 Russian Olive 14 0.83 Redbud 13 0.77 Honeylocust 12 0.71 Catalpa 10 0.59 Magnolia 9 0.54 Fir 8 0.48 Linden 8 0.48 Mulberry 8 0.48 Walnut 8 0.48 Willow 8 0.48 Japanese Maple 7 0.42 Peach 7 0.42 Box-elder 6 0.36 Hawthorn 6 0.36 White Popular 5 0.30 207 Table F—4. Public Tree Species, Wooster, OH: 1980. Number Species of Trees Percent Crabapple 26 24.30 Norway Maple 16 14.95 Sugar Maple 14 13.08 Red Maple 13 12.15 Silver Maple 9 8.41 Linden 6 5.61 Red Oak 5 4.67 Pear 3 2.80 Plum 3 2.80 Ash 2 1.87 Dogwood 2 1.87 Elm 2 1.87 Redbud 2 1.87 Birch l 0.93 Hawthorn 1 0.93 Japanese Zelkova 1 0.93 Sweetgum 1 0.93 Total 107 100.00 208 Table F-5. Private Tree Species, Wooster, OH: 1980. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Blue Spruce 159 10.10 Serviceberry 4 0.25 Dogwood 139 8.83 Spruce 4 0.25 Silver Maple 1 10 6.98 Black Gum 3 0.19 White Pine 84 5.33 White Oak 3 0.19 Norway Spruce 83 5.27 Black Locust 2 0.13 Pin Oak 79 5.02 Holly 2 0.13 Red Maple 79 5.02 Linden 2 0.13 Sugar Maple 66 4.19 Sycamore 2 0.13 Cheny 63 4.00 Apricot 1 0.06 Crabapple 59 3.75 Bald Cypress 1 0.06 Arborvitae 58 3.68 Beech l 0.06 Birch 56 3.56 Big-tooth Aspen 1 0.06 Norway Maple 56 3.56 Buckeye 1 0.06 Ash 38 2.41 Ginkgo l 0.06 Apple 36 2.29 Golden-chain Tree 1 0.06 Red Oak 33 2.10 Golden-rain Tree 1 0.06 Plum 32 2.03 Hackberry 1 0.06 Hemlock 31 1.97 Hedge Maple 1 0.06 Sweetgum 25 1 .59 Tree-of-heaven 1 0.06 Pear 19 1.21 Mountain Ash 18 1.14 Elm 17 1.08 Total 1575 100.00 Tulip Tree 17 1.08 Austrian Pine 16 1.02 Lombardy Popular 16 1.02 Scotch Pine 16 1.02 Chestnut 15 0.95 Russian Olive 14 0.89 Honeylocust 12 0.76 Redbud 1 1 0.70 Catalpa 10 0.63 Magnolia 9 0.57 Fir 8 0.51 Mulberry 8 0.51 Walnut 8 0.51 Willow 8 0.51 Japanese Maple 7 0.44 Peach 7 0.44 Box-elder 6 0.38 Hawthorn 5 0.32 White Popular 5 0.32 Hickory 4 0.25 209 Table F—6. Species (Public and Private) of trees, Wooster, OH: 2005. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 266 1 1.49 White Oak 5 0.22 Norway Spruce 203 8.77 Blackgum 4 0.17 Blue Spruce 194 8.38 Tree-of-heaven 4 0.17 Norway Maple 127 5.48 Beech 3 0.13 Red Maple l 15 4.97 Golden-rain Tree 3 0.13 Silver Maple 1 15 4.97 Japanese Lilac Tree 3 0.13 Dogwood 109 4.71 Kentucky Coffee Tree 3 0.13 White Pine 101 4.36 Smoke-tree 3 0.13 Crabapple 97 4.19 Amur Maple 2 0.09 Pin Oak 87 3.76 Black Spruce 2 0.09 Cherry 71 3.07 Dawn Redwood 2 0.09 Ash 69 2.98 Japanese Yew 2 0.09 Hemlock 63 2.72 Paw Paw 2 0.09 Sugar Maple 51 2.20 Quaking Aspen 2 0.09 Linden 41 1.77 White Fir 2 0.09 Magnolia 39 1.68 Balsam Fir l 0.04 Japanese Maple 38 1.64 Black Oak 1 0.04 Mulberry 36 1.55 Buckthorn 1 0.04 Walnut 36 1.55 English Holly 1 0.04 Red Oak 34 1.47 Hop-Hornbeam 1 0.04 Birch 33 1 .42 Horsechestnut 1 0.04 Pear 31 1.34 Mountain Ash 1 0.04 Plum 31 1.34 Shingle Oak 1 0.04 Austrian Pine 30 1.30 Sycamore 1 0.04 Juniper 28 1.21 Willow 1 0.04 Box-elder 25 1.08 Honeylocust 24 l .04 American Elm 21 0.91 Total 2316 100.00 Redbud 20 0.86 Apple 19 0.82 Sweetgum 18 0.78 Black Locust 17 0.73 Serviceberry 16 0.69 Tulip Tree 1 1 0.47 White Spruce 9 0.39 Amur Cork Tree 6 0.26 Hackberry 6 0.26 Hedge Maple 6 0.26 Siberian Elm 6 0.26 Hawthorn 5 0.22 Mugo Pine 5 0.22 Scotch Pine 5 0.22 210 Table F-7. Public Tree Species, Wooster, OH: 2005. Number Species of Trees Percent Red Maple 23 17.29 Crabapple 15 1 1 .28 Linden 10 7.52 Norway Maple 10 7.52 Sugar Maple 10 7.52 Ash 9 6.77 Amur Cork Tree 6 4.51 Hedge Maple 6 4.51 Pear 6 4.51 Silver Maple 5 3.76 Sweetgum 5 3.76 Blackgum 3 2.26 Honeylocust 3 2.26 Red Oak 3 2.26 Serviceberry 3 2.26 Arborvitae 2 1 .50 Blue Spruce 2 1.50 Dogwood 2 1.50 Hawthorn 2 1.50 Kentucky Coffee Tree 2 1.50 Norway Spruce 2 1.50 American Elm 1 0.75 Hop-Hornbeam 1 0.75 Japanese Lilac Tree 1 0.75 Tulip Tree '1 0.75 Total 133 100.00 211 Table F-8. Private Tree Species, Wooster, OH: 2005. Number Number Species of Trees Percent Species of Trees Percent Arborvitae 264 12.09 Golden-rain Tree 3 0.14 Norway Spruce 201 9.21 Hawthorn 3 0.14 Blue Spruce 192 8.80 Smoke-tree 3 0.14 Norway Maple 1 17 5.36 Amur Maple 2 0.09 Silver Maple 1 10 5.04 Black Spruce 2 0.09 Dogwood 107 4.90 Dawn Redwood 2 0.09 White Pine 101 4.63 Japanese Lilac Tree 2 0.09 Red Maple 92 4.21 Japanese Yew 2 0.09 Pin Oak 87 3.99 Paw Paw 2 0.09 Crabapple 82 3.76 Quaking Aspen 2 0.09 Cherry 71 3.25 White Fir 2 0.09 Hemlock 63 2.89 Balsam Fir 1 0.05 Ash 60 2.75 Black Oak 1 0.05 Sugar Maple 41 1.88 Blackgum 1 0.05 Magnolia 39 1 .79 Buckthorn 1 0.05 Japanese Maple 38 1.74 English Holly l 0.05 Mulbeny 36 1 .65 Horsechestnut 1 0.05 Walnut 36 1.65 Kentucky Coffee Tree 1 0.05 Birch 33 1.51 Mountain Ash 1 0.05 Linden 31 1.42 Shingle Oak 1 0.05 Plum 31 1 .42 Sycamore l 0.05 Red Oak 31 1.42 Willow 1 0.05 Austrian Pine 30 1.37 Juniper 28 1.28 Box-elder 25 1.15 Total 2183 100.00 Pear 25 1.15 Honeylocust 21 0.96 American Elm 20 0.92 Redbud 20 0.92 Apple 19 0.87 Black Locust 17 0.78 Serviceberry 1 3 0.60 Sweetgum 13 0.60 Tulip Tree 10 0.46 White Spruce 9 0.4 '1 Hackberry 6 0.27 Siberian Elm 6 0.27 Mugo Pine 5 0.23 Scotch Pine 5 0.23 White Oak 5 0.23 Tree-of-heaven 4 0. 1 8 Beech 3 0.14 212