Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Special Section
The Urban Forest and Ecosystem Services
Core Ideas
We sampled soil under tree canopy, tall grass, and short grass in
13 urban greenspaces.
Tree canopy soil had significantly greater soil C density and C/N
ratios.
Soil C/N ratios increased significantly with increasing green
space age.
Soil C and C/N were best modeled by tree basal area and understory vegetation.
Tree canopy areas can be managed to buffer nitrogen eutrophication.
urban green spaces may also relate to their vegetation characteristics, as is clearly evident for C stored in aboveground biomass
(Davies et al., 2011).
Urban soils mediate the balance between many ecosystem
services and disservices. Urban landscapes, and the soils that
support them, can accumulate heavy metals and other nutrient
chemicals through widespread atmospheric deposition or more
site-specific point and corridor pollution events. The source of
these heavy metals and nutrients may be local industry, vehicles
and transport corridors, and excess fertilizer use in public and
private green space (Carey et al., 2012; Milesi et al., 2005). If
the capacity of urban soils to buffer or retain these pollutants
is exceeded, the pollutants can percolate into the groundwater
or waterways with negative impacts on riparian ecology, local
human health, and food production (De Kimpe and Morel, 2000;
Groffman et al., 2009; Law et al., 2004; Valtanen et al., 2014).
The C/N ratio of a soil is a good indicator of its buffering capacity to retain nutrient pollutants such as nitrate, ammonium, and
phosphate (Dise et al., 1998). Soils with greater C/N ratio will
also have slower N ammonification and nitrification rates and
a greater ability to immobilize additional N inputs (Groffman
et al., 2006), although this capacity can vary according to soil
type and rainfall regime (Gundersen et al., 1998; Gurmesa et al.,
2013). Soil C/N ratios can change through (i) N decrease (plant
uptake), (ii) N increase (fertilizer addition), or (iii) a change in
the C quality of the organic matter inputs (higher or lower C/N
ratio) (Brady and Weil, 2008). Urban green space previously
dominated by grass or annual crops into which woody vegetation is then planted will receive organic matter of a high C/N
ratio and so will invariably develop soils of a greater C/N ratio
over time (Berthrong et al., 2009). It is also expected that trees
will take up more N and store it within their biomass rather than
the soil organic matter (Murty et al., 2002).
Urban green spaces take up a large area of most western cities,
and as they are often primarily designed for active and passive
recreation, they are dominated by intensely managed turf grass
(Milesi et al., 2005) interspersed with areas of tree or shrub cover.
The C storage of urban soils, especially under turf grass systems,
has been investigated in many previous studies (Edmondson et
al., 2012; Golubiewski, 2006; Raciti et al., 2011). However, there
have been few studies of soil C and soil C/N ratios in intensively
and extensively managed grass systems in comparison with that
in tree dominated urban green space. A golf course provides an
opportunity to investigate changes in soil properties under tree
canopy, tall grass, and short turf grass that have been consistently managed since the time it was established. By studying the
impact of these three different vegetation types on soil properties
within one site, the confounding effects of differing soil type and
differing green space age may be reduced.
This study uses a network of 13 urban green spaces on sandy
soils throughout southeast Melbourne, Australia to answer three
research questions:
1. Do urban green space soils under tree canopy have a greater
C/N ratio than soils under grass?
2. Is the variation in soil properties under tree canopy more
strongly related to green space age or vegetation attributes?
3. Does soil under grass store greater C than soil under tree
canopy in these green spaces?
tree stem density (trees per hectare). We also measured understory vegetation structure, recording vegetation forms that intercepted a 2.0-m-tall pole at 0-, 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-m
point locations along four parallel 30-m-long transects (e.g., four
transects at seven locations equals 28 points per plot). Vegetation
was recorded if it intercepted the pole at one of five height intervals: 0.0 to 0.2, 0.2 to 0.5, 0.5 to 1.0, 1.0 to 2.0, and >2.0 m. The
sum of vegetation intercepts in each height interval was used to
calculate vegetation volume:
VVEGHX = (PNIHX/PTHX) VSHX
where VVEGHX is estimated vegetation volume occupying a specific height interval, PNIHX is the actual number of times vegetation intercepted the pole for that height interval, PTHX is the
number of pole point locations surveyed (usually 28 for a 600 m2
plot), and VSHX is the total volume for that height interval based
on the area of the plot multiplied by the height of the sampled
height band interval. To estimate total understory vegetation
volume, tree intercepts were discarded and then the VVEGHX for
each height interval were summed together.
formed data at the plot level (n = 52). Furthermore, for each soil
property, the difference between tree canopy and short turf grass
areas were estimated through subtraction and presented in figures using untransformed data at the plot level (n = 52). Linear
regressions were performed on lognormal transformed soil and
vegetation parameters as a function of green space age.
A linear mixed model (LMM) was used to determine significant differences in soil properties (bulk density, percentage C,
percentage N, and C/N) among the three vegetation types (tree
canopy, tall grass, and short turf grass) A Chi-squared test with
Bonferroni correction was used as post-hoc test. Similarly, the
relationships between soil properties in the tree canopy areas and
vegetation attributes (understory vegetation volume, tree basal
area, and tree stem density) and green space age were investigated
using a series of LMMs, with golf course as a random effect. Soil
and vegetation parameters were lognormal transformed before
modeling. Models were ranked using the Akaike information
coefficient.
The level of significance was set to p 0.05 for all the statistical
analyses, which were performed using R (R Development
Core Team, 2012) and Genstat software (Vers. 14.0; VSN
International, 2011).
Soil C stored in the upper 0.3 m was summed for each vegetation type on a milligram-per-hectare basis and according to the
GIS digitized extent of the three vegetation types in each urban
green space scaled up to the soil C stored at the whole of green
space.
Results
Vegetation Attributes in Tree Canopy Areas
Tree basal area showed a marginally significant (p = 0.07)
increase in the initial decades after golf course establishment (Fig.
2B), increasing from <1.0 to >2.0 m2 ha1 tree canopy area after
approximately 100 yr. There was, however, large variation among
the golf courses and among plots within golf courses. There was
no significant relationship between either tree stem density or
understory vegetation volume and green space age (Fig. 2A,C).
Soil Properties
Soil bulk densities were significantly smaller, and soil C concentrations significantly greater (p 0.05) in the upper 0.2 m
of soil in the tree canopy areas than the tall grass and short turf
grass areas (Table 1). Similarly, soil N concentrations were significantly (p 0.05) greater in the tree canopy areas but only in
the upper 0.1 m. Soil C/N ratios were significantly (p 0.05) different among all three vegetation types: tree canopy > tall grass >
short turf grass (Table 1).
Soil bulk density in tree canopy areas did decrease with
increasing green space age, but this was not significant (Fig. 3A).
Soil bulk densities were approximately 0.25 g cm3 less in the tree
canopy areas than short turf grass, and there was no age effect
to this difference (Fig. 3E). There was a significant increase in
soil C concentration, C density, and C/N ratio in tree canopy
areas (00.1 m) with increasing green space age (Fig. 3BD),
markedly so for soil C/N (p 0.01). The difference in soil C/N
between tree canopy and short turf grass areas increased significantly (p 0.05) over time (Fig. 3H). The difference in soil percentage C concentrations also increased over time between tree
Discussion
Variation in Soil Properties among Urban
Green Space Types
Soil properties were significantly different between the tree
canopy areas and the tall grass or short turf grass areas. Soil bulk
density was significantly smaller, and soil percentage C and C/N
ratio were significantly greater under tree canopy than tall grass or
short turf grass areas in the upper 0.2 m. This high level of spatial
heterogeneity in soil properties is typical of urban landscapes
and has been observed in other urban soil studies (Ossola and
Livesley, 2015; Pouyat et al., 2006).
Fig. 2. (A) Understory vegetation volume, (B) tree basal area, and (C)
tree stem density in tree canopy areas as a function of green space
age. Tree basal area and stem density are presented on a per-hectare
of tree canopy area basis.
canopy and short turf grass areas (Fig. 3F), but this age effect was
not significant.
Table 1. Soil dry bulk density, C and N concentrations, and C/N ratio at three depth intervals in urban green space supporting tree canopy, tall grass
rough, and short turf grass fairway. Significant differences for a soil property among the three vegetation types is shown at p 0.05 using a, b, and c.
Depth
Soil bulk density (g cm3)
Canopy
Rough
Fairway
Soil C concentration (%)
Canopy
Rough
Fairway
Soil N concentration (%)
Canopy
Rough
Fairway
Soil C/N ratio
Canopy
Rough
Fairway
00.1 m
0.10.2 m
0.20.3 m
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
1.16a
1.37b
0.04
0.03
1.44a
1.60b
1.56b
0.05
0.03
0.04
1.49a
1.49a
1.57b
0.05
0.03
0.03
5.10a
3.26b
2.85b
0.61
0.27
0.26
2.38a
1.68b
1.67b
0.29
0.22
0.29
2.12
2.52
1.76
0.26
0.34
0.25
0.30a
0.21b
0.20b
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.10
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
18.92a
15.91b
14.68c
1.12
0.56
0.40
25.52
18.33
18.03
6.37
1.31
1.79
19.59
14.73
16.96
1.27
4.29
0.85
Fig. 3. (A) Soil bulk density, (B) C concentration, (C) C density, and (D) C/N ratio in tree canopy areas (00.1 m depth) as a function of green space
age. Similarly, the differences in soil (E) bulk density, (F) C concentration, (G) C density, and (H) C/N ratio between tree canopy and short turf grass
areas as a function of green space age.
Table 2. Linear mixed models predicting tree canopy soil (0 0.1 m) bulk density (g cm3), C density (kg m2), N density (kg m2), and C/N ratio. Fixed
effect variables were individuals and pairs of years since establishment (Age), tree basal area (BA), tree stem density (TrD), and understory vegetation volume (Vol). Model suitability is indicated by the Akaike information coefficient (AIC), the best being indicated with bold values and second
and third indicated with italicized values. Akaike weighting (AIC wt) represents the probability of each model being the best performing one (1.00
high; 0.00 low).
Bulk density
AIC
AIC wt
2.84
0.01
2.21
0.18
4.42
0.54
2.62
0.23
10.13
0.00
8.90
0.00
4.46
0.01
2.39
0.02
4.46
0.01
2.60
0.02
Fixed effects
Age
Vol
BA
TrD
Age + Vol
Age + BA
Age + TrD
Vol + BA
Vol + TrD
BA + TrD
C density
AIC
218.4
212.2
210.6
213.0
219.3
218.71
220.14
212.6
214.0
212.7
N density
AIC wt
0.01
0.16
0.34
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.06
0.12
AIC
28.4
38.1
35.7
35.8
23.4
21.0
21.2
30.1
30.6
28.3
C/N
AIC wt
0.00
0.60
0.18
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
AIC
239.0
232.9
235.6
235.2
237.9
241.2
240.6
233.3
234.1
237.1
AIC wt
0.01
0.27
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.22
0.15
0.03
Table 3. Soil C density (00.3 m) under the three vegetation types and scaled up to the whole-of-green-space according to area (ha) covered.
Age
Tree
canopy
yr
5
7
9
37
46
49
63
74
84
87
98
99
109
Mg ha1
113.9
104.7
127.9
67.7
59.8
72.2
82.6
58.4
55.7
80.0
90.3
66.5
157.9
84.0
62.8
103.3
69.4
59.9
171.9
135.9
118.6
107.0
84.6
79.3
109.2
75.0
90.0
137.5
137.3
147.5
136.4
103.6
88.3
120.7
101.6
99.4
91.3
73.1
49.8
Tall grass
rough
Short grass
fairway
Tree
canopy
Tall grass
rough
Short grass
fairway
ha
7.5
48.6
18.7
9.5
33.2
20.6
2.0
30.1
18.4
21.8
17.2
11.7
19.7
26.5
8.0
26.7
27.3
19.6
15.6
19.3
17.5
14.9
17.5
14.1
10.4
18.8
18.5
9.9
15.7
12.9
14.4
20.0
18.6
39.2
1.2
4.9
10.2
10.0
9.2
Tree
canopy
Tall grass
rough
Short grass
fairway
Green
space
Mg
858
5090
2394
8342
641
1987
1484
4112
165
1759
1026
2950
1748
1558
776
4082
3107
2224
501
5832
2756
1894
1175
5825
2684
2626
2078
7388
1589
1480
1118
4187
1136
1410
1669
4215
1366
2158
1906
5429
1964
2076
1640
5680
4731
124
489
5344
932
731
460
2123
Journal of Environmental Quality
Conclusions
Urban green space soil under tree canopies had significantly
lower bulk density but significantly greater soil C and N concentrations and C/N ratios than soil under tall grass rough or short
grass turf. Soil C/N ratios in tree canopy areas were related to
green space age, whereas surface soil C and bulk density related
better to understory vegetation volume and tree stem density.
Overall, tree canopy areas contribute the most soil C to urban
soils on a per-unit-area basis because of their greater soil C density (00.3 m depth). However, at the whole-of-green-space
scale, the contribution of short turf grass areas dominates the soil
C store because of the larger proportional area they occupy. The
greater soil C/N ratios of tree canopy areas mean they are better
able to buffer soil and water N pollution from poor fertilizer
management or cumulative atmospheric N deposition. They are
therefore providing an important ecosystem service more effectively than other green space types. The planting and placement
of trees within urban green spaces should consider management
options that also allow understory vegetation and litter to accumulate where possible.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Stephen Stewart and Lee Wilson for helping
with field work and the Australian Golf Course Superintendents
Association, in particular John Neylan and John Geary, for cofunding
the study and arranging site access and infrastructure support. The study
was funded through the ARC Linkage program (ARC LP 110100686),
with contributions from the Australian Golf Course Superintendents
Association and Royal Botanical Gardens Melbourne. AKH would like
to acknowledge support from the Baker Foundation. Soil analysis was
performed by Najib Ahmady at the Creswick campus laboratory of the
University of Melbourne.
References
Bae, J., and Y. Ryu. 2015. Land use and land cover changes explain spatial
and temporal variations of the soil organic carbon stocks in a constructed urban park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 136:5767. doi:10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2014.11.015
Berthrong, S.T., E.G. Jobbgy, and R.B. Jackson. 2009. A global meta-analysis
of soil exchangeable cations, pH, carbon, and nitrogen with afforestation.
Ecol. Appl. 19:22282241. doi:10.1890/08-1730.1
Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2008. The nature and properties of soils. Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Campbell, C.D., J.R. Seiler, E.P. Wiseman, B.D. Strahm, and J.F. Munsell. 2014.
Soil carbon dynamics in residential lawns converted from Appalachian
mixed oak stands. Forests 5:425438. doi:10.3390/f5030425
Carey, R.O., G.J. Hochmuth, C.J. Martinez, T.H. Boyer, V.D. Nair, M.D. Dukes,
et al. 2012. A review of turfgrass fertiliser management practices: Implications for urban water quality. Hortic. Tech. 22:280291.
Davies, Z.G., J.L. Edmondson, A. Heinemeyer, J.R. Leake, and K.J. Gaston. 2011. Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying aboveground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. J. Appl. Ecol. 48:11251134.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02021.x
De Kimpe, C.R., and J.L. Morel. 2000. Urban soil management: A growing concern. Soil Sci. 165:3140. doi:10.1097/00010694-200001000-00005
Dise, N.B., E. Matzner, and M. Forsius. 1998. Evaluation of organic horizon C:N
ratio as an indicator of nitrate leaching in conifer forests across Europe.
Environ. Pollut. 102:453456. doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(98)80068-7
Dungait, J.A.J., L.M. Cardenas, M.S.A. Blackwell, L. Wu, P.J.A. Withers, D.R.
Chadwick, et al. 2012. Advances in the understanding of nutrient dynamics and management in UK agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 434:3950.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.029
Edmondson, J.L., Z.G. Davies, N. McHugh, K.J. Gaston, and J.R. Leake. 2012.
Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Scientific Reports 2:963.
doi:10.1038/srep00963
Edmondson, J.L., O.S. OSullivan, R. Inger, J. Potter, N. McHugh, K.J. Gaston, et
al. 2014. Urban tree effects on soil organic carbon. PLoS ONE 9:e101872.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101872
Journal of Environmental Quality
Field, C.B., and M.R. Raupach. 2004. The global carbon cycle. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Foley, J.A., M.H. Costa, C. Delire, N. Ramankutty, and P. Snyder. 2003. Green
surprise? How terrestrial ecosystems could affect earths climate. Front.
Ecol. Environ 1:3844.
Golubiewski, N.E. 2006. Urbanization increases grassland carbon pools: Effects of landscaping in Colorados front range. Ecol. Appl. 16:555571.
doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0555:UIGCPE]2.0.CO;2
Grimm, N.B., S.H. Faeth, N.E. Golubiewski, C.L. Redman, J.G. Wu, X.M. Bai,
et al. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756760.
doi:10.1126/science.1150195
Groffman, P.M., R.V. Pouyat, M.L. Cadenasso, W.C. Zipperer, K. Szlavecz,
I.D. Yesilonis, et al. 2006. Land use context and natural soil controls on
plant community composition and soil nitrogen and carbon dynamics in
urban and rural forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 236:177192. doi:10.1016/j.
foreco.2006.09.002
Groffman, P.M., C.O. Williams, R.V. Pouyat, L.E. Band, and I.D. Yesilonis. 2009.
Nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide flux in urban forests and grasslands. J.
Environ. Qual. 38:18481860. doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0521
Gundersen, P., I. Callesen, and W. De Vries. 1998. Nitrate leaching in forest ecosystems is related to forest floor C/N ratios. Environ. Pollut. 102:403407.
doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(98)80060-2
Gurmesa, G.A., I.K. Schmidt, P. Gundersen, and L. Vesterdal. 2013. Soil carbon accumulation and nitrogen retention traits of four tree species grown
in common gardens. For. Ecol. Manage. 309:4757. doi:10.1016/j.
foreco.2013.02.015
Hutyra, L.R., R. Duren, K.R. Gurney, N. Grimm, E.A. Kort, E. Larson, et al.
2014. Urbanization and the carbon cycle: Current capabilities and research
outlook from the natural sciences perspective. Earths Future 2:473495.
doi:10.1002/2014EF000255
Jobbgy, E.G., and R.B. Jackson. 2000. The vertical distribution of soil organic
carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 10:423436.
doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2
Kaye, J.P., P.M. Groffman, N.B. Grimm, L.A. Baker, and R.V. Pouyat. 2006.
A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:192199.
doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.12.006
Law, N., L. Band, and M. Grove. 2004. Nitrogen input from residential lawn care
practices in suburban watersheds in Baltimore County, MD. J. Environ.
Plann. Manage. 47:737755. doi:10.1080/0964056042000274452
Livesley, S.J., B.J. Dougherty, A.J. Smith, D. Navaud, L.J. Wylie, and S.K. Arndt.
2010. Soil-atmosphere exchange of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide in urban garden systems: Impact of irrigation, fertiliser and mulch.
Urban Ecosyst. 13:273293. doi:10.1007/s11252-009-0119-6
Milesi, C., S.W. Running, C.D. Elvidge, J.B. Dietz, B.T. Tuttle, and R.R. Nemani. 2005. Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf
grasses in the United States. Environ. Manage. 36:426438. doi:10.1007/
s00267-004-0316-2
Millward, A.A., K. Paudel, and S.E. Briggs. 2011. Naturalization as a strategy
for improving soil physical characteristics in a forested urban park. Urban
Ecosyst. 14:261278. doi:10.1007/s11252-010-0153-4