Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban Forest Ecosystems

Nowak, David J.; Dwyer, John F.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4191-2_2

Cited by 76 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Managing these resources for the benefit of the physical environment (Nowak and Dwyer, 2000) and for native wildlife and biodiversity are common goals (Nilon and Pais, 1997;Marzluff and Ewing, 2001). Moreover, maintaining functional relationships among species is an important aspect of the overall health of these ecosystems (Mooney et al, 1996;Gering and Blair, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Silphids in urban forests: Diversity and function

Wolf

Gibbs

2004

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many ecologists have examined the process of how urbanization reduces biological diversity but rarely have its ecological consequences been assessed. We studied forest-dwelling burying beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae)-a guild of insects that requires carrion to complete their life cycles-along an urban-rural gradient of land use in Maryland. Our objective was to determine how forest fragmentation associated with urbanization affects (1) beetle community diversity and structure and (2) the ecological function provided by these insects, that is, decomposition of vertebrate carcasses. Forest fragmentation strongly reduced burying beetle diversity and abundance, and did so far more pervasively than urbanization of the surrounding landscape. The likelihood that beetles interred experimental baits was a direct, positive function of burying beetle diversity. We conclude that loss of burying beetle diversity resulting from forest fragmentation could have important ecological consequences in urban forests.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Silphids in urban forests: Diversity and function

Wolf

Gibbs

2004

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trees close to buildings could affect local microclimate directly by shading and blocking wind, as well as influencing energy use and consequently reducing carbon emissions from power plants thus affect climate indirectly (Jo & McPherson, 2001;Nowak & Crane, 2002). At the city/regional level, vegetation cover would influence incoming solar radiation (Heisler, 1986), relative humidity, surface roughness and albedo, and heights of boundary-layer, hence affects various aspects of local meteorology (Arnfield, 2003;Nowak & Dwyer, 2007). At the global level, vegetation in urban green infrastructure can act as passive carbon sinks by assimilating carbon through photosynthesis and storing carbon as biomass (Nowak & Crane, 2002;Nowak, Greenfield, Hoehn, & Lapoint, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of urban green infrastructure in offsetting carbon emissions in 35 major Chinese cities: A nationwide estimate

Chen

2015

Cities

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Current guidelines regarding nonattainment zones in NAAQS appropriately link air pollution to highway construction; it could very well be that highway locations might be informed by the kinds of trees and other BVOC emitters that potentially line roadways. Local tree planting programs (Nowak and Dwyer, 2007), in addition to considering native plants ( Thomas Ledig and Kitzmiller, 1992), may also consider the potential of trees in contributing to visibility and PM.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%