Appendix Table 3.

Statistically significant factors associated with mortality.

Results from cohort monitoring studies (C), repeated inventories (RI), and other study designs (O) that qualitatively examined associated factors. Time period t is years since planting. Factors followed by (+) had a positive correlation with survival. Factors followed by (−) had a negative correlation with survival. Factors followed by (/) were examined, but a nonsignificant relationship with survival was observed. Factors followed by (varies) had a more complex relationship (e.g., mortality differences for three or more species).

CitationLocation (City and state)Sample type(s) and sample size (no)Time t (yrs)Significant factors
Gilbertson and Bradshaw (1985)°England, multiple communitiesN/A (10,000)N/A “newly planted”Human – Larger town size (−), new town (+)
Hickman et al. (1995)RILodi, CAPark trees (695)7Biophysical – Decline (−), trunk vigor (+), lean (−); higher risk rating for soil (/), wind (/), root (/), and butt (/)
Human – Irrigation frequency (/)
Nowak (1986)RISyracuse, NYStreet trees (1454)7Biophysical – Total sample: Acer saccharum (−), Acer platanoides (+), strip width (/)
Human – Total sample: curbing (/), type of utility wires (/), adjacent land use (/)
Syracuse andStreet trees (1160)9Biophysical – Total sample: crown closure on 3 sides (+); Acer platanoides: decline class 1.0 (+), class 2-5 (−)
Human – All maples: pruning (−); Acer platanoides: 1976 ground disturbance (−)
Nowak et al. (1990)COakland/Berkeley, CAStreet trees (480)2Human – Apartments (−), public greenspace (−), single family residence (+), subway station (+), unemployment rate (−)
Miller and Miller (1991)CWI
   Milwaukee, redeveloped
   Milwaukee, not redeveloped
   Stevens Point
   Waukesha
Street trees
(311)

(692)

(368)
(677)
4-6

4-6

4-9
4
Biophysical – Taxa (varied), planted in fall season (+) (Waukesha only)
Human – Redeveloped area (−) vs. non-redeveloped area (+)
Hauer et al. (1994)RIMilwaukee, WI
   Construction damage
   No construction damage
Street trees
(432)
(413)
10Human – Construction (−)
Duryea et al. (1996)°Trees on streets and in yards after storm (18,200)N/ABiophysical – Taxa (varies), nativity (+), size within species group (varies)
Human – Pruning (varies)
Nowak et al. (2004)RIBaltimore, MDTrees within various land use classes (1396)2BiophysicalMorus alba, Ailanthus altissima, Cornus florida, Acer negudo (−), dbh class of 0-7.6 cm (−) and 30.6-45.7 cm (+), tree condition of poor, critical, or dying (−), tree condition of excellent (−)
Human – Transportation (−), low-med. residential (+)
Thompson et al. (2004)CIA, 21 communitiesTrees in streets, parks, schoolyards(932)2-6Biophysical – Taxa (/)
Human – Quadrant (/), community size (/), project site location (/)
Jim (2005)RIHong Kong, ChinaHeritage trees in parks and roadsides (380)10Biophysical – Public greenspace habitat2 (−), roadside (−)
Human – Open space (−), government (−), institutional (−), community (−)
Duryea et al. (2007)OFL, various citiesTrees on streets and in yards after storm (18,200)N/ABiophysical – Taxa (varies), nativity (/), wood density (+), crown density (+), decurrent growth form (+), growing in cluster (+)
Boyce (2010)C,RINew York City, NYStreet trees in pits
   With stewardship
   Without stewardship
≤ 4 (mixed-aged cohort)
> 4 (repeated inventory)
Human – Stewardship (+)
Lu et al. (2010)CNew York, NYStreet trees
   Total (13,405)
   3-6 yrs. cohort (2417)
   6-8 yrs. cohort (5053)
   8-9 yrs. cohort (5935)
3-9
3-6

6-8
8-9
Biophysical – Taxa: Pyrus calleryana (+)
Human – Industrial (−), open space (−), vacant (−), one-and two-family residential (+), stewardship index (+), low traffic area (+), tree pit enhancement (+)
Staudhammer et al. (2011)RIHouston, TXTrees within various land use classes1 (305)8Biophysical – Tree density (−), hurricane (−), developed open space (−), developed high-density (−)
Jack-Scott (2012)CPhiladelphia, PACommunity planted trees~1-5Biophysical – Taxa: P. Virginiana and Platanus × acerifolia (+), C. canadensis (−)
Human – Street traffic intensity (−)
Lawrence et al. (2012)RIGainesville, FLVarious land use classes (754)3-4Biophysical – Tree density (−), Quercus nigra and Q. laurifolia (−)
Human – Institutional (−), commercial (+)
Jack-Scott et al. (2013)RINew Haven, CTCommunity planted trees (1393)4-16Biophysical – Tree age (−)
Human – Percent homeownership (varies), group experience (+), group longevity (+), group size (varies), group type (varies)
Koeser et al. (2013)CMilwaukee, WIStreet trees,
   0-10 yrs. (793)
   No construction (391)
   Construction (402)
   11-25 yrs. (895)
   No construction (686)
   Construction (219)
10

16
Biophysical – Taxa: Gleditsia triacanthos (+), Acer saccharum (−), trunk diameter (−), planting space width (+), tree condition (+)
Human – Adjacent to construction (−)
Lima et al. (2013)RISan Juan, Puerto RicoVarious land use classes (244)9Biophysical – Species nativity (varies), grass cover (+), species height, dbh, and CLE value (+), street tree (−), forested plots (+)
Human – Higher income neighborhoods (+), higher neighborhood population (−)
Koeser et al. (2014)CFL, various citiesTrees in parking lots, highways, streets, lawns, parks (2354)2-5Biophysical – Nursery stock: irrigated container-grown trees (+), taxa (varies)
Human – In-ground irrigation (+)
Roman et al. (2014a)RIOakland, VAStreet trees (995)5Biophysical – Larger tree dbh (+), better foliage health rating (+) (for smallest size class), planted in sidewalk cut-out (vs. strip) (+)
Roman et al. (2014b)CSacramento, CASingle-family residential yard trees (370)5Biophysical – Species water use demand (−), planted in front yard (+), planted in rainy season (+), mature tree size (−), days since planting (−)
Human – Homeowner stability (+), maintenance rating (+), number of trees delivered (−), neighborhood income (varies), neighborhood educ. attainment (+)
Ko et al. (2015a)CSacramento, CALawn trees (317)22Biophysical – Planted in backyard (−), small mature tree size (−), planted in rainy season (−)
Human – Highest and lowest net property values (−), unstable homeownership (−), number of trees delivered (−)
Vogt et al. (2015a)CIndianapolis, INCommunity planted street trees (1345)3-6Biophysical – Number of trees planted in project (−), fall planting season (−), percent impervious surface (−), planting year (+), nursery 3 (varies)
Human – Median household income ($1000) (+), percent renter occupied homes (+), percent moved in last 5 years (+), watering strategy (varies), watering strategy × fall planting (−)
Conway (2016)°Mississauga, CanadaSurvey of residentsN/AHuman – Neighborhood (/), length of residency (/), ownership status (/), university education (/), resident age (/), income (/), ethnicity (/)
Martin et al. (2016)RISan Francisco, CAStreet trees on right-of-way17-22Biophysical – Tree health (/), tree age (/), microclimate (/)
Boukili et al. (2017)RICambridge, MAStreet trees (592)3BiophysicalA. platanoides, A. rubrum, and T. cordata (+), initial tree diameter (/), percent permeable surface (/), growing season solar insolation (/)
Human – Street segment (/)
Morgenroth et al. (2017)°Christchurch, New ZealandMixed land use classes (1209)n/aBiophysical – Small trees (−), small trees closer than 0.7 m to demolished building (−), large trees closer than 20 m to driveway (−)
Steenberg et al. (2017)RIToronto, CanadaYard, street, public ROW (806)6-7Human – Presence and number of building permits (−), multi-unit housing (street-level scale) (−)
van Doom and McPherson (2018)RIClaremont, CAStreet trees, 21 species (community-level) (732)14Biophysical – Tree size (/), tree condition (/), growing space (/)
Human – Presence of overhead utility lines (+), sidewalk damage (/)
  • 1Staudhammer et al. (2011) conceptualize “developed open space” and “developed high-density” as “land use” categories, but for the purposes of consistency here, we consider these to be biophysical descriptions of the site (i.e., “Site characteristics” in Table 3 in the main text).

  • 2Jim (2005) uses “public greenspace” to describe the planting habitat, which is biophysical in nature. Others (e.g., Nowak et al. 1990) use this term to describe a human-related land use category. We acknowledge discrepancies between terminologies and how authors used them, but chose to keep the wording for factors and their categorization the same as the original publication in order to best summarize the literature.