Street Tree Diversity in Massachusetts, USA

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Bailey, R.G.

   2016. Bailey’s ecoregions and subregions of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive. Accessed September 2018. <https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/Product/RDS-2016-0003>
2. ↵
   1. Ball, J.

   2015. The 5 percent rule. American Nurseryman January: 8-11.
3. ↵
   1. Ball, J.,
   2. S. Mason,
   3. A. Kiesz,
   4. D. McCormick, and
   5. C. Brown

   . 2007. Assessing the hazard of Emerald Ash Borer and other exotic stressors to community forests. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(5): 350-359.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Barker, P.

   1975. Ordinance control of street trees. Journal of Arboriculture 1(11): 212–215.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Bassuk, N.,
   2. D.F. Curtis,
   3. B.Z. Marranca, and
   4. B. Neal

   . 2009. Recommended Urban Trees: Site Assessment and Tree Selection for Stress Tolerance. Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
6. ↵
   1. Berland, A., and
   2. M.E. Hopton

   . 2016. Asian longhorned beetle complicates the relationship between taxonomic diversity and pest vulnerability in street tree assemblages. Arboricultural Journal 38(1): 28-40.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Buzas, M.A., and
   2. T.G. Gibson

   . 1969. Benthonic foraminifera in western North Atlantic. Science 163: 72-75.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
8. ↵
   1. City of Northampton, MA

   . 2015. Public Tree Commission Meeting Minutes. Accessed September 2019. <http://www.northamptonma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/2100?MOBILE=ON>
9. ↵
   1. Clark, J.R.,
   2. N.P. Matheny,
   3. G. Cross, and
   4. V. Wake

   . 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): 17-30.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Colwell, R.K.

    2009. Biodiversity: Concepts, patterns, and measurement. pp. 257-263. The Princeton Guide to Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
11. ↵
    1. Couch, S.M.

    1992. The practice of avenue planting in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Garden History 20(2): 173-200.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Cowett, F.D., and
    2. N.L. Bassuk

    . 2014. Statewide assessment of street trees in New York State, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13(2): 213-220.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. ↵
    1. Cowett, F.D., and
    2. N.L. Bassuk

    . 2017. Street tree diversity in three northeastern U.S. states. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 43(1): 1-14.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Cumming, A.B.,
    2. D.B. Twardus, and
    3. W.D. Smith

    . 2006. Maryland and Massachusetts Street Tree Monitoring Pilot Projects. National Forest Health Monitoring Program, USDA Forest Service. Accessed January 2018. <https://www.fs.usda.gov/naspf/sites/default/files/md_ma_street_tree_proj_hr.pdf>
15. ↵
    1. Dodds, K.J., and
    2. D.A. Orwig

    . 2011. An invasive urban forest pest invades natural environments—Asian longhorned beetle in northeastern US hardwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41(9): 1729-1742.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. D.J. Nowak,
    3. M.H. Noble, and
    4. S.M. Sisinni

    . 2000. Connecting People with Ecosystems in the 21st Century: An Assessment of our Nation’s Urban Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland, Oregon, U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 483 pp. Accessed January 2018. <https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr490/pnw_gtr490.pdf>
17. ↵
    1. Favretti, R.J.

    1982. The ornamentation of New England towns: 1750-1850. Journal of Garden History 2(4): 325-342.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Freilicher, M.E.,
    2. B.C. Kane,
    3. H.D.P. Ryan III., and
    4. D.V. Bloniarz

    . 2008. Trees in Peril: Responding to the Asian Longhorned Beetle. A Report on the Status of Street Trees in Worcester, Massachusetts. Accessed December 2017. <http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dcr/stewardship/forestry/urban/docs/worcester-report.pdf>
19. ↵
    1. Freilicher, M.E.

    2010. Evaluating federal urban forestry performance measures in Massachusetts (USA). University of Massachusetts Amherst. Accessed January 2018. <https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=theses>
20. ↵
    1. Freilicher, M.E.

    2011. Tree by tree, yard by yard: Replanting Worcester’s trees. Arnoldia 69(1): 2-13.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Gartner, J.T.,
    2. T. Treiman, and
    3. T. Frevert

    . 2002. Missouri urban forest—A ten-year comparison. Journal of Arboriculture 28(2): 76-83.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Halpin, C.R., and
    2. C.G. Lorimer

    . 2017. A demographic approach to evaluating tree population sustainability. Forests 8(46): 1-26.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Hammer, Ø.,
    2. D.A.T. Harper, and
    3. P.D. Ryan

    . 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 1-9.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Harcombe, P.A.

    1987. Tree death: Cause and consequence. Bio-Science 37: 557-568.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. ↵
    1. Harper, R.W.,
    2. D.V. Bloniarz,
    3. S. DeStefano, and
    4. C.R. Nicholson

    . 2017. Urban forest management in New England: Towards a contemporary understanding of tree wardens in Massachusetts communities. Arboricultural Journal 39(3): 162-178.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Hauer, R.J.,
    2. C.J. Casey, and
    3. R.W. Miller

    . 2008. Advancement in state government involvement in urban and community forestry in the 50 United States: Changes in program status from 1986 to 2002. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1): 5-12.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Hu, J.,
    2. S. Angeli,
    3. S. Schuetz,
    4. Y. Luo, and
    5. A.E. Hajek

    . 2009. Ecology and management of exotic and endemic Asian long-horned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 11(4): 359-375.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Kendal, D.,
    2. C. Dobbs, and
    3. V.I. Lohr

    . 2014. Global patterns of diversity in the urban forest: Is there evidence to support the 10/20/30 rule? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13(3): 411-417.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Kotsopoulos, N.

    2017. Beetle infestation to claim more trees in Worcester. Worcester Telegram & Gazette, January 9, 2017. Accessed December 2017. <http://www.telegram.com/news/20170109/beetle-infestation-to-claim-more-trees-in-worcester>
30. ↵
    1. Laćan,
    2. I., and
    3. J.R. McBride

    . 2008. Pest vulnerability matrix (PMV): A graphic model for assessing the interaction between tree species diversity and urban forest susceptibility to insects and diseases. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7(4): 291-300.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Lohr, V.I.

    2013. Diversity in landscape plantings: Broader understanding and more teaching needed. HortTechnology 23(1):126–129.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. MacDonagh, L.P.

    2015. The high cost of urban monocultures. Deep Root Blog, March 16, 2015. Accessed December 2018. <http://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/the-high-cost-of-urban-monocultures>
33. ↵
    1. Manes, F.,
    2. G. Incerti,
    3. E. Salvatori,
    4. M. Vitale,
    5. C. Ricotta, and
    6. R. Costanza

    . 2012. Urban ecosystem services: Tree diversity and stability of tropospheric ozone removal. Ecological Applications 22(1): 349-360.

    OpenUrlPubMed
34. ↵
    1. Massachusetts DCR

    . 2017. Selecting Trees for Your Urban and Community Forest. Massachusetts Urban & Community Forestry Program. Accessed December 2017. <http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dcr/stewardship/forestry/urban/tree-selection.pdf>
35. ↵
    1. Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources

    . 2018. Prohibited Plant List—Background. Accessed February 2018. <https://www.mass.gov/service-details/prohibited-plant-list-background>
36. ↵
    1. Massachusetts General Laws

    . 2018. Scenic Roads Act. Accessed April 2018. <https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40/Section15C>
37. ↵
    1. MassGIS

    . 2017. Bureau of Geographic Information, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services. Accessed January 2018. <https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-community-boundaries-towns-survey-points>
38. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G., and
    2. R.A. Rowntree

    . 1989. Using structural measures to compare twenty-two U.S. street tree populations. Landscape Journal 8(1): 13-23.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
39. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.,
    2. N.S. van Doorn, and
    3. J. de Goede

    . 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17(1): 104-115.

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    1. Mincey, S.K.,
    2. M. Hutten,
    3. B.C. Fischer,
    4. T.P. Evans,
    5. S.I. Stewart, and
    6. J.M. Vogt

    . 2013. Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustainable urban forest management. Urban Ecosystems 16(3): 553-571.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
41. ↵
    1. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

    . 2017. Urban Forest Resource Analysis: The State of Montana. Accessed September 2018. <http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/docs/assistance/urban/docs-urban-fact-sheets/montana-urban-forest-resource-analysis-2017.pdf/view>
42. ↵
    1. New Jersey Forest Service

    . 2000. Trees in Crisis: A Statewide Assessment on the Health of New Jersey’s Street Trees. NJDEP, Division of Parks and Forestry, NJ Forest Service, Urban and Community Forestry Program, New Jersey, USA.
43. ↵
    1. Polakowski, N.R,
    2. V.I. Lohr, and
    3. T. Cerny-Koenig

    . 2011. Survey of wholesale production nurseries indicates need for more education on the importance of plant species diversity. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(6): 259-264.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Raupp, M.J.,
    2. A.B. Cumming, and
    3. E.C. Raupp

    . 2006. Street tree diversity in eastern North America and its potential for tree loss to exotic borers. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(6): 297-304.

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Ricard, R.M.

    2005. Shade trees and tree wardens: Revising the history of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry 103(5): 230-233.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Richards, N.A.

    1983. Diversity and stability in a street tree population. Urban Ecology 7(2): 159-171.

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. Riley, C.B.,
    2. D.A. Herms, and
    3. M.M. Gardiner

    . 2018. Exotic trees contribute to urban forest diversity and ecosystem services in inner-city Cleveland, OH. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29: 367-376.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Roman, L.A.,
    2. J.J. Battles, and
    3. J.R. McBride

    . 2014. The balance of planting and mortality in a street tree population. Urban Ecosystems 17(2): 387-404.

    OpenUrl
49. ↵
    1. Roman, L.A.,
    2. J.J. Battles, and
    3. J.R. McBride

    . 2016. Urban Tree Mortality: A Primer on Demographic Approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-158. Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Accessed March 2018. <https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs158.pdf>
50. ↵
    1. Santamour, F.S., Jr.

    . 1990. Trees for urban planting: Diversity, uniformity, and common sense. Proceedings 7th Conference Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance. METRIA 7: 57-65.

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    1. Shannon, C.E.

    1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Simberloff, D., and
    2. M. Rejmánek

    . 2011. Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California Press, Oakland, California, USA.
53. ↵
    1. Simpson, E.H.

    1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
54. ↵
    1. Sjöman,
    2. H.,
    3. J. Östberg, and
    4. O. Bühle

    . 2012. Diversity and distribution of the urban tree population in ten major Nordic cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(1): 31-39.

    OpenUrl
55. ↵
    1. Sjöman,
    2. H.,
    3. J. Morgenroth,
    4. J.D. Sjöman,
    5. A. Sæbø, and
    6. I. Kowarik

    . 2016. Diversification of the urban forest: Can we afford to exclude exotic tree species? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 18(1): 237-241.

    OpenUrl
56. ↵
    1. Sreetheran, M.,
    2. M. Adnan, and
    3. A.K. Khairil Azuar

    . 2011. Street tree inventory and tree risk assessment of selected major roads in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(5): 226-235.

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Steiner, J.E.

    2016. Guardians of municipal public trees: Commonwealth of Massachusetts tree wardens’ authority and accountability. Western New England Law Review 38(3): 377-395.

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    1. Stephens, M.

    2010. Tree procurement contracts: New York City’s quest for amazing trees. City Trees May/June: 10-12.
59. ↵
    1. Subburayalu, S., and
    2. T.D. Sydnor

    . 2012. Assessing street tree diversity in four Ohio communities using the weighted Simpson index. Landscape and Urban Planning 106(1): 44-50.

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Sun, W.Q.

    1992. Quantifying species diversity of streetside trees in our cities. Journal of Arboriculture 18(2): 91-93.

    OpenUrl
61. ↵
    1. Tang, Y.,
    2. A. Chen, and
    3. S. Zhao

    . 2016. Carbon storage and sequestration of urban street trees in Beijing, China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4(53): 1-8.

    OpenUrl
62. ↵
    1. Thaiutsa, B.,
    2. L. Puangchit,
    3. R. Kjelgren, and
    4. W. Arunpraparut

    . 2008. Urban green space, street tree and heritage large tree assessment in Bangkok, Thailand. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7(3): 219-229.

    OpenUrl
63. ↵
    1. Trowbridge, P.J., and
    2. N.L. Bassuk

    . 2004. Trees in the Urban Landscape: Site Assessment, Design, and Installation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
64. ↵
    1. USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map

    . 2012. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed January 2018. <http://prism.oregonstate.edu/projects/plant_hardiness_zones.php>
65. ↵
    1. United States Census Bureau

    . 2016. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Accessed January 2018. <http://factfinder2.census.gov>
66. ↵
    1. United States Census Bureau

    . 2017a. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017. Accessed September 2018. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>
67. ↵
    1. United States Census Bureau

    . 2017b. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Accessed January 2018. <https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html>
68. ↵
    1. United States Forest Service

    . 2010. An Assessment of the Forest Resources of Massachusetts. Accessed September 2018. <https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/qi/assessment-of-forest-resources.pdf.
69. ↵
    1. Vander Vecht, J., and
    2. T.M. Conway

    . 2015. Comparing species composition and planting trends: Exploring pest vulnerability in Toronto’s urban forest. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41(1): 26-40.

    OpenUrl
70. ↵
    1. Ward, J.S.

    2011. Connecticut’s Street Trees: A Preliminary Analysis. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.