Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

The Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies

Glenn Sandiford
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 1989, 15 (9) 222-228; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1989.049
Glenn Sandiford
323 Bray Hall, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

The Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies brought together the U.S. Forest Service and as many as twelve northeastern universities to collaborate on urban forestry research. The Consortium was organized into nine working groups of scientists in the areas of forest amenities, air quality, genetics, insects and disease, planning and management, social and behavioral issues, soils, water resources, and wildlife. Between 1971-84, the Forest Service awarded these working groups more than $2.8 million in research grants. Their research gave rise to a whole new body of information, several important symposia, and a number of major texts. The Consortium also facilitated communication and interaction in urban forestry. In 1986, the Consortium ceased to function, though not before it had provided a new component of forestry with a strong sense of identity and direction, established a permanent constituency of professional contacts and organizations, and generated a wealth of knowledge about how the urban forest can best meet the demands of urbanite populations.

Urban forestry today is well-established in the United States. Numerous local and regional government agencies employ urban and community foresters, arborists, and other related professionals. Volunteer tree planting and maintenance programs have sprung up in many communities, and several schools and institutions offer degree programs. The American Forestry Association (AFA) disseminates information through regular publications as well as sponsoring the National Urban Forest Council, while the Society of American Foresters (SAF) has maintained an urban forestry unit since 1972.

In each instance, the intent is to provide for effective management of urban vegetation systems. Such management requires detailed and accurate information. If we look at the studies from which much of this information was orginally drawn, we find that many were funded with research grants from the Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies (originally known as the Pinchot Institute).

Formed in March 1971, the Consortium brought together scientists from the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station (NEFES) and as many as twelve northeastern universities to collaborate on urban forestry research. Nine working groups were formed in the areas of air quality, forest amenities, genetics, insects and disease, planning and management, social and behavioral issues, soils, water resources, and urban wildlife. Between 1971-84, these working groups received more than $2.8 million in research grants from the NEFES (for a much more detailed analysis of the Consortium, as well as a complete bibliography, see 37).

In their early studies, Consortium scientists defined the urban forest as a flexible concept encompassing a number of distinct sub-systems: streetside, residential, park, commercial, industrial, and vacant lands, all located within megalopolis. They also found the urban forest to be a unifying concept, one that included public and private woodlands, individual specimens and entire forests, and street trees and park trees.

Having established a basis from which to start, the working groups went on to contribute and/or consolidate information in most aspects of urban forestry science, planning, and management. Their main research achievements can be summarized in the following nine categories.

Air Quality

Listen

Air quality is especially critical in metropolitan areas because of the tremendous aggregation of people, motor vehicles, industries, and refineries. Though the primary objective must always be to reduce air pollution at the source, vegetation can be used to abate air pollution effects as well (39).

Scientists in the Air Quality Working Group studied how plants provide a major filtration and reaction surface that acts to trap particulates (38), and how woody plants in particular remove a number of different gases through absorption.

The impact of air pollution on urban trees was also examined. Researchers at Rutgers University identified a number of pine and oak species that suffered extensive damage from exposure to hydrogen fluoride, others that successfully resumed growth following defoliation, and several that exhibited extreme resistance to fluoride damage (35). This study was one of several funded by the Consortium that contributed valuable information to the Environmental Protection Agency’s current air quality criteria (47).

Scientists at Cornell University found that species with higher stomatal conductances exhibited greater negative repsonses to ozone than those with low stomatai conductance because of their higher potential for pollutant uptake (34). Sensitivity to ozone can also be suppressed by factors such as poor soils and drought (21), while data from a recent study of eastern white pine contradicted the widely held view that this very common species is invariably sensitive to ozone pollution (11).

Amenities

Listen

The Physical Amenities Working Group studied the contribution of urban forest vegetation toward human comfort. In particular, they focused on meteorology, energy conservation, and acoustics. Scientists at Pennsylvania State University showed that urban forests can significantly reduce home energy costs throughout the year. Trees lower heat amounts lots to air infiltration in winter by sheltering houses from the wind, while leafy shade in summer decreases the amount of sunlight absorbed on the outer surfaces of homes, thereby lowering air conditioning needs (10). David Miller from the University of Connecticut also found that forests can dissipate as much as 10-20 percent of the heat produced on adjacent parking lots (27).

Other studies by Gerhard Reethof and Gordon Heisler of the Forest Service demonstrated how urban vegetation can dissipate sound by at least 6-8 decibels for every hundred feet of forest. The trunks and branches scatter the sound, which is then absorbed by the forest floor (33). However, trees planted in narrow bands are not nearly so effective and, unless used in conjunction with terrain features and urban structures, are not feasible mechanisms for noise reduction in urban areas with limited space for small forests (3).

Amenities Working Group scientists were closely involved in the program development for a 1975 symposia on the use of urban vegetation, space, and structures to improve physical amenities (29). Lee Herrington from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry also served as chairperson of the much larger 1978 National Conference on Urban Forestry (24). The latter was especially noteworthy in that it provided the first opportunity for urban forestry managers, educators, and scientists to get together in one place, to talk, and to listen.

Genetics

Listen

Urban areas are stressful environments for trees. Cramped growing space, inadequate water, soil compaction, and temperature extremes are among the many hazards encountered in city locations, and developing trees to withstand this onslaught was the mandate of the Genetics Working group (18).

David Karnosky from the Cary Arboretum in New York conducted a large study of common city tree species and their relative sensitivity to sulfur dioxide and ozone. Comparing chamber test results with field observations, he found that among the most resistant were several maple cultivars, European ash, European beech, ginkgo, and white ash cultivars, while the more sensitive London plane tree and cultivars of common honeylocust offered potential as bioindicators of the presence of ozone (25).

Kim Steiner from Pennsylvania State University headed a small investigation of iron chlorosis resistance in pin oak, a popular ornamental tree. His results showed a weak but definite geographic pattern, with populations from northcentral and northwestern parts of the species’ range consistently among those most resistant to chlorosis (2).

Also from Pennsylvania State University was Henry Gerhold. In addition to conducting his own tests on stress tolerance in trees, Gerhold developed a ‘genetic information system’ with data collected through a survey of municipal arborists, nurserymen, and other professionals. This facilitated the selection and breeding of trees for specific uses and conditions (16) and was later used in the Municipal Tree Restoration Program (50). Gerhold also helped establish the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA), a coalition of nurserymen, arborists, and other urban tree specialists, as well as playing a key role in the exchange program between the United States and Holland to promote the international exchange of urban tree cultivars and related technical data (17).

Insects and Disease

Listen

The Insect & Disease Working Group set out to enhance the various “yield” aspects of urban forests through development of a sound biological understanding of how to insure maximum productivity from urban tree populations. Members of the group acknowledged that the benefits of urban forestry cannot be achieved without first reducing the destructive effects of various insects and diseases.

A study showing great potential for Dutch elm disease control programs was led by Gerald Lanier of SUNY CESF. Poisoned trap trees baited with pheromones effectively eliminated more than four-fifths of an hatching elm bark beetle population before they reached the adult stage (30). Another research team compared red oak and sugar maple injuries caused by chemical injections, and found that injections in the trunk and large root flares were the least damaging (49).

Planning and Management

Listen

Urban forestry can be practiced properly only in the context of a comprehensive understanding of metropolitan land use. The Planning and Management Working Group looked at how the quality of urban life can be improved through the rational planning and management of urban vegetation.

Researchers at Princeton University showed that state and local government ordinances are quite ineffective in preserving urban forests and open spaces. Few detailed the human, ecological, and physical constraints on removal of urban forest vegetation, and even those that did were rarely evaluated, and seldom enforced (20). According to a study by Teuvo Airola of Rutgers University, local planners and decision makers also tend to overlook residual open spaces (ROS) despite their potential as recreation resources (1).

On a more positive note, Peter Pizor and George Nieswand from Rutgers University reviewed one innovation in land use planning known as transfer of development rights (TDR). Their work, and particularly that of Pizor, has recently drawn renewed interest from planners in northeastern New Jersey where urban spill-over from New York City is causing serious land-use problems (32).

Social and Behavioral Issues

Listen

The Social and Behavioral Issues Working Group addressed significant questions about the use, perception, and meaning of urban forested lands. They felt it important that the Consortium recognize the needs of people, who, after all, are one half of the urban forestry equation.

Their work had many indirect applications, often providing background material for city park management plans (23). One team of scientists from the University of Massachusetts looked at the economic benefits of urban parks. Their work confirmed that urban parks frequently add to property values in surrounding neighborhoods but the group also cautioned that heavy park usage can actually reverse this pattern and cause a decrease in house prices (28). Related to this was a study by Brian Payne from the NEFES research unit in Amherst MA, who noted a significant increase in the value of properties endowed with individual or small clusters of trees (31). Payne won an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) merit award for this research.

Jeff Hayward from the University of Massachusetts headed an investigation into public awareness and perceptions of neighborhood parks. On finding that local residents were frequently uninformed or mistaken about their local recreational facilities, he designed a series of information brochures to remedy the problem (22).

Another University of Massachusetts scientist was Julius Fabos, who received two Consortium grants for his work on the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (METLAND). This important planning tool predicts land and water resource use changes caused by alternative development programs. Decisionmakers can thereby draw a much more complete picture when considering proposals for urban development (14).

Perhaps no other study demonstrated the breadth of urban forestry applications as well as that undertaken by Roger Ulrich from the University of Delaware. His work on restorative influences in hospitals revealed that patients assigned to a room overlooking a natural setting enjoyed significantly shorter postoperative stays than those convalescing in rooms facing a brick wall. The results had important implications for hospital design (46).

Soils

Listen

Recognizing that urbanization has drastically disturbed millions of acres of soil, the Soils Working Group focused their efforts on the unique properties of urban soils. In particular, they investigated the effects of urbanization on soils, how to avoid or reduce those effects, and how to rehabilitate soils that were formerly rich and productive.

Scientists from the University of Massachusetts evaluated and classified urban soils on the basis of compaction, nutrient loss, and water loss, all of which influence the development of tree root systems (36). Another team from Massachusetts showed that removal of trees, particularly when combined with a tendency for developers to cut trees on the basis of size alone, decreases the survival chances of small forests on urban housing developments (48). On the other hand, tree stress caused by other factors such as soil nutrient deficiencies can be alleviated through application of composts like the one developed by George Estes at the University of New Hampshire from ground hardwood bark and sewage sludge (13).

One of the most effective technology transfer projects ever undertaken by the Consortium was the 1982 workshop on urban soils developed in part by Phillip Craul at SUNY CESF. This workshop proved to be so successful that during the next year, another seven were held around the country, enabling the working group to reach over 500 practitioners in total. Furthermore, large numbers of the text prepared for the workshop were subsequently sold to persons who could not attend in person (5).

Water Resources

Listen

The Water Resources Working Group set out to examine the impact of land use changes, especially at the urban frontier, on water quality and quantity. Urban development invariably changes the natural topography, reduces vegetative cover, and increases the area covered by buildings and pavement. These changes cause decreased infiltration of water into the soil, and increased surface run-off, erosion, sediment pollution, and flooding (43).

The NEFES’ Edward Corbett directed studies that illustrated how the quantity and quality of water supplies could be increased by cutting selectively on key watersheds to reduce transpiration, or by planting selected species that transpire at a low rate (4).

Other scientists at Pennsylvania State University concentrated on in-depth analyses of land application of treated municipal wastewater and sludge. William Sopper showed that forests can purify effluent from treated municipal wastewater, with the additional benefit of substantially increased tree growth (40). He also demonstrated that urban sludges can be used in an environmentally safe manner to revegetate surface mined land (26).

The Water Quality Working Group used two of the more than twenty grants awarded to its proposals to fund symposia that each gave rise to important handbooks on wastewater and sludge applications (41, 42). Both these and many of the working group’s research projects were later used as reference materials for the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1981 Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Wastewater (12).

Wildlife

Listen

Most of the thirteen grants awarded to the Wildlife Working Group supported studies of avian distribution patterns and diversity in urban areas. In a study of oak forest patches in New Jersey, for example, Richard Forman at Rutgers University found that a single large woodlot contained more bird species than the same area subdivided into smaller woodlots, leading him to suggest that protecting large forests should be a primary priority of land use planners interested in preserving local avian diversity (15).

Several cooperative projects were undertaken in conjunction with Richard DeGraaf, NEFES scientist at the research unit in Amherst, MA. The results of a five-year study in Amherst, MA, showed that woody vegetation volume alone accounted for 50% of all the variation in breeding bird species numbers (19). The results of another study in the same town looking specifically at vegetation types in the suburbs suggested that native forest is far more attractive to insectivorous bird species than planted habitats (8). DeGraaf also co-authored four popular articles and a book which have proved very useful to (sub)urban homeowners interested in attracting wildlife to their properties (6, 7, 9, 44, 45).

Summary

Listen

Consortium grants provided “seed money” for projects such as these that, once established and productive, showed sufficient promise for other sources to accept responsibility for future funding. The result was a rippling effect whereby small but strategic federal investments totalling almost three million dollars contributed to research which benefited millions of people living in the urban and suburban areas of the northeast, elsewhere in the country, and even abroad. The Consortium provided a relatively new component of forestry with a strong sense of identity and direction, and helped establish a permanent constituency of professional contacts and organizations. Were it in existence today, though, the Consortium would be the first to admit that much remains to be done in urban forestry research.

Acknowledgements

Listen

The research was supported by funds provided by the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station through the Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies. The author would also like to acknowledge comments and revisions by Albert Foulger, Lee Herrington, and Robert Romancier, respectively, Assistant Station Director, South, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, OH; Professor of Computer Applications and Resource Information Management, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY; and Deputy Station Director, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Broomall, PA.

  • © 1989, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Citations

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    1. Airola, T.M. and
    2. D. Wilson
    . 1982. Recreational benefits of residual open space: A case study of four communities In northeastern New Jersey. Environmental Management 6(6):47l–484.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Berrang, P.C. and
    2. K.C. Steiner
    . 1982. Pin oak chlorosis control promising via seed source. Science in Agriculture 29(3):29–38.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Borthwick, J.O. G. Reethof.
    2. O.H. McDaniel and
    3. D.E. Carlson
    . 1977. The attenuation of highway noise by narrow forest belts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62 (suppl. 1:) S42–S43.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Corbett, E.S.,
    2. J.A. Lynch and
    3. W.E. Sopper
    . 1975. Forest management practices as related to nutrient leaching and water quality. In: Proc. Conf. on Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: 157–173.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Craul, P.J.
    (ed.). 1982. Urban Forest Soils: A Reference Workbook. USDA Forest Service, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, and USDI National Park Service. 185pp.
  6. 6.↵
    1. DeGraaf, R.M. and
    2. J.W. Thomas
    . 1974. A banquet for the birds. Natural History 83:40–45.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. DeGraaf, R.M. and
    2. J.W. Thomas
    . 1974. Toward nongame management. Massachusetts Wildlife 25:14–15.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. DeGraaf, R.M. and
    2. J.M. Wentworth
    . 1986. Avian guild structure and habitat associations In suburban bird communities. Urban Ecology 9(3/4): 399–412.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. DeGraaf, R.M. and
    2. G.M. Witman
    . 1979. Trees, Shrubs and Vines for Attracting Birds—A Manual for the Northeast. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 194pp.
  10. 10.↵
    1. DeWalle, D.R. and
    2. E.P. Farrand
    . 1978. Windbreaks and Shade Trees—Their Use in Home Energy Conservation. Pennsylvania State University Agr. Ext. Ser., Special Circular 245. University Park, PA. 8pp.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Eberhardt, J.C.,
    2. E. Brennan,
    3. J. Kuser and
    4. R. Harkov
    . 1988. Ozone tolerance in New Jersey field-grown eastern white pine. Journal of Arboriculture 14(8):185–192.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    EPA. 1981. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Wastewater. EPA Publ. 625/1-81-013. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. The Environmental Protection Agency decided that the preferred treatment of wastewater was application through the living filter of the ground.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Estes, G.O. and
    2. R.H. Harter
    . 1974. Preparation, Characterization, and Use of Park Sewage Compost; final report. Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies, Broomall, PA. 82pp. (unpublished)
  14. 14.↵
    1. Fabos, J.G. and
    2. K.H. Ferris
    . 1977. A computerized model for integrating the physical environmental factors into metropolitan landscape planning. In: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Proc. Conf. on Metropolitan Physical Environment. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-25. NE. For. Exp. Sta., Broomall, PA: 422–431.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Forman, R.T.,
    2. A.E. Galli and
    3. C.F. Leek
    . 1976. Forest size and avian diversity in New Jersey woodlots, with some land-use implications. Oecologia 26(1): 1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gerhold, H.D.
    1985. Performance testing of street tree cultivars: a model project. Journal of Arboriculture 11 (9):263–271.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Gerhold, H.D.,
    2. D.F. Karnosky and
    3. H.M. Heybroek
    . 1983. Urban tree cultivar exchange program of the Netherlands and the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 9(12):309–316.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Gerhold, H.D.,
    2. K.C. Steiner,
    3. F.C. Cech, and
    4. D. Karnosky
    . 1982. A problem analysis for environmental forestry research: genetic improvement of urban trees. NE. For. Exp. Sta., Broomall, PA. 65pp.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Goldstein, E.L.,
    2. M. Gross and
    3. R.M. DeGraaf
    . 1986. Breeding birds and vegetation: a quantitative assessment. Urban Ecology 9(3/4):377–385.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Gutman, R. and
    2. J. Landry
    . 1977. An analysis of tree ordinance: the example of New Jersey. Journal of Arboriculture 3(10): 191–197.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Harkov, R. and
    2. E. Brennan
    . 1980. The influence of soil fertility and water stress on the ozone response of hybrid poplar trees. Phytopathology 70(10):99l–994.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Hayward, D.G. and
    2. W.H. Weitzer
    . 1984. The public’s image of urban parks: past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban Ecology 8:243–268.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hayward, D.G. and
    2. W.H. Weitzer
    . 1983. Understanding urban park users: a key to effective planning and management. Parks and Recreation Resources 2(2):24–27.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Hopkins, G.
    (ed.). 1980. Proc. First National Conf. on Urban Forestry. Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. ESF publ. 80-003. 2 vol. 874pp.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Karnosky, D.F.
    1981. Chamber and field evaluations of air pollution tolerance of urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture 7(4):99–105.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Kerr, S.N. and
    2. W.E. Sopper
    . 1981. Utilization of municipal sludge for woody biomass production on mined land. In: Proc. Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY: 313–317.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Miller, D.R.
    1977. Structure of the microclimate at a woodland/parking lot interface. In: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Proc. Conf. on Metropolitan Physical Environment. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-25. NE. For. Exp. Sta., Broomall, PA: 109–114.
  28. 28.↵
    1. More, T.A.,
    2. T.H. Stevens and
    3. P.G. Allen
    . 1982. The economics of urban parks: a benefit/cost analysis. Parks and Recreation Journal 17(8):31–33.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 1977. Proc. Conf, on Metropolitan Physical Environment. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-25. NE. For. Exp. Sta., Broomall, PA. 447pp.
  30. 30.↵
    1. O’Callaghan, D.P.,
    2. E.M. Gallagher and
    3. G.N. Lanier
    . 1979. Field evaluation of pheromone-baited trap trees to control elm bark beetles. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 86(4):312.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Payne, B.R.
    1973. The twenty-nine tree home improvement plan. Natural History 82(9):74–75.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Pizor, P.J. G.,
    2. H. Nieswand and
    3. J.A. Swanson
    . 1979. A transfer of development rights sampler: a collection of TDR ordinance from municipalities in eight states. New Jersey Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 612. New Brunswick, NJ.
  33. 33.↵
    1. F.S. Santamour, Jr.,
    2. H.D. Gerhold and
    3. S. Little
    1. Reethof, G. and
    2. G.M. Heisler
    . 1976. Trees and forests for noise abatement and visual screening. In: F.S. Santamour, Jr., H.D. Gerhold and S. Little (eds.), Better Trees for Metropolitan Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-22. NE. For. Exp. Sta., Broomall, PA: 39–48.
  34. 34.↵
    1. Reich, P.B. and
    2. R.G. Amundson
    . 1985. Ambient levels of ozone reduce net photosynthesis in tree and crop species. Science 230 (4725):566–570.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Rhoads, A.F. and
    2. E. Brennan
    . 1975. Flouride damage to woody vegetation in New Jersey in 1974. Plant Disease Reporter 59(5):427–429.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Ruark, G.A.,
    2. D.L. Mader and
    3. T.A. Tattar
    . 1982. The influence of soil compaction and aeration on the root growth and vigour of trees—a literature review, Part 1. Arboricultural Journal 6(4):251–265; 1983. The influence of soil moisture and temperature on the root growth and vigour of trees—a literature review. Part II. Arboricultural Journal 7(1):39-51.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    1. Sandiford, G. and
    2. L.P. Herrington
    . 1989. The Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies: A Lesson in Cooperation. Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA. 127 pp.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Smith, W.H.
    1977. Removal of atmospheric particulates by urban vegetation: implications for human and vegetative health. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 50:185–191.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Smith, W.H. and
    2. L.S. Dochinger
    (eds.). 1975. A problem analysis for environmental forestry research: air pollution and metropolitan woody vegetation. Yale University Printing Service, New Haven, CT. 74pp.
  40. 40.↵
    1. R.L. Sanks and
    2. T. Asana
    1. Sopper, W.E.
    1975. Use of the Soil-Vegetation Biosystem for Wastewater Recycling. In: R.L. Sanks and T. Asana (eds.), Land Treatemtn and Disposal of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI: 17–43.
  41. 41.↵
    1. Sopper, W.E. and
    2. L.T. Kardos
    (eds.). 1973. Proc. symp. on recycling treated municipal wastewater and sludge through forest and cropland. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. 479pp.
  42. 42.↵
    1. Sopper, W.E. and
    2. S.N. Kerr
    (eds.). 1978. Proc. symp. on utilization of municipal sewage effluent and sludge on forest and disturbed land. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. 560pp.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Sopper, W.E.,
    2. J.A. Lynch and
    3. E.S. Corbett
    (eds.). 1976. A problem analysis for environmental forestry research: water resources at the forest-urban interface. NE. For. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. PA-2. USDA Forest Service, Broomall, PA. 47pp.
  44. 44.↵
    1. Thomas, J.W.,
    2. R.O. Brush and
    3. R.M. DeGraaf
    . 1973. Invite wildlife to your backyard. National Wildlife Magazine 11 (3):5–16.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Thomas, J.W. and
    2. R.M. DeGraaf
    . 1974. Raccoons on the roof. In: Gardening With Wildlife. National Wildlife Federation, Washington DC: 153–168.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Ulrich, R.S.
    1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery Science 224 (4647):420–421.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other PhotoChemical Oxidants. EPA/600/8-84. USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. Vol. 3.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Van der Grinten, M.,
    2. B.F. Wilson and
    3. B.C. Fischer
    . 1977. Forest structure, composition, and vigor in housing developments. Journal of Forestry 75(10):653–655.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    1. Wisniewski, S.G. and
    2. R.O. Blanchard
    . 1982. Effect of injection site on Injury sustained from chemical injections Inoak and maple. Phytopathology 72(2):267. (abstract).
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Initiated in 1987, the Municipal Tree Restoration Program is an attempt by scientists to disseminate their research results among a wider audience. It includes representatives from Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec). Various utility companies, including Penelec, have donated grants toward the restoration and preservation of urban trees. A research component has also been funded. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University, where the program is based, suggest that work they did as Consortium members was instrumental in getting the original program off the ground.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 15, Issue 9
September 1989
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
The Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies
Glenn Sandiford
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1989, 15 (9) 222-228; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1989.049

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Consortium for Environmental Forestry Studies
Glenn Sandiford
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1989, 15 (9) 222-228; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1989.049
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Air Quality
    • Amenities
    • Genetics
    • Insects and Disease
    • Planning and Management
    • Social and Behavioral Issues
    • Soils
    • Water Resources
    • Wildlife
    • Summary
    • Acknowledgements
    • Literature Citations
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Urban Trees and Cooling: A Review of the Recent Literature (2018 to 2024)
  • Aerial Imagery as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Tree Retention: Applications, Strengths and Challenges for Backyard Tree Planting Programs
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire