Species Selector Application: Community Forests
Species Selector Application: Community Forests
Species Selector
Application
Tools for assessing and managing
Community Forests
Written by:
David J. Nowak
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station
5 Moon Library, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210
Introduction
To optimize the environmental benefits of trees, an appropriate list of potential tree species
needs to be identified based on the desired environmental effects. To help determine the most
appropriate tree species for various urban forest functions, a database of 1,585 tree species
(see Appendix A) was developed by the USDA Forest Service in cooperation with Horticopia, Inc
(2007). Information from this database can be used to select tree species that provide desired
functional benefits. This information, in conjunction with local knowledge on species and site
characteristics, can be used to select tree species that increase urban forest benefits, but also
provide for long-tree life with minimal maintenance.
Methods
Tree Information
Information about the plant dimensions, and physical leaf characteristics (e.g., leaf size, type,
and shape) of 5,380 trees, shrubs, cactus and palms were derived from the Horticopia database
(www.horticopia.com). Based on this database and literature searches, the species were
classified by type, and all plants that were not classified as a tree or large shrub / small tree
were removed, leaving 2,236 plant species classified as trees. Of these trees, data (either from
the species itself, or genera, family, order or class averages) were obtained for all necessary
variables for 1,585 species. The following information was obtained for each tree species.
Hardiness zone. Of the 1,585 species, 527 species had hardiness zone information in the
Horticopia database based on USDA hardiness zones. As the database contained both maximum
and minimum hardiness zones information that sometimes contained fractional zone
information (e.g., 4.5), the zones with fractions were rounded up (e.g., 5) for minimum
February 2008 1
Species Selector Application
hardiness and down (e.g., 4) for maximum hardiness to be conservative in the hardiness zone
information.
For species without hardiness zone information, literature was searched for hardiness zone
values. Information for an additional 70 species was found in Dirr (1990) and Sunset (1985).
However, the hardiness zones information in these publication did not match exactly with the
USDA hardiness zone classes and extrapolations were made to the closest corresponding zone.
As there is some uncertainty to these hardiness zone, species with these hardiness values are
denoted with one asterisk.
For 983 of the remaining species, the hardiness zone was estimated based on genera average
of minimum and maximum hardiness zone based on Horticopia database and information from
Dirr (1990) and Sunset (1985). The average value was rounded to nearest hardiness zone class
(1 -11). These species are denoted with two asterisks due the moderate uncertainty of the
hardiness zone.
For the last 5 species, the hardiness zone was estimated based on family average of minimum
and maximum hardiness zone based on Horticopia database and information from Dirr (1990)
and Sunset (1985). The average value was rounded to nearest hardiness zone class (1 -11).
These species are denoted with three asterisks due the high uncertainty of the hardiness zone.
As hardiness zone is not used in any of the calculations, the uncertainty of the estimate is not
an issue for the species ranking. However, the hardiness zone information is used to limit the
amount of species given in the final list, based on the hardiness zone of the city selected in the
program. Thus, the hardiness of the actual species listed in the final output should be viewed
based on the certainty of the hardiness zone information. Users should use their local
knowledge of the plants hardiness to a region and the plants appropriateness for the area (e.g.,
invasive characteristics, maintenance needs, etc.) to help make the selection of the right
species for the right location that include information on desired ecosystem services.
Tree size and shading coefficients. Median species height and crown width (midpoint
between maximum and minimum estimates) at maturity were derived from the Horticopia
database. Crown height of each tree species was estimated as 0.78 of median tree height based
on field measurements of urban trees.
Species shading coefficients (percent light intensity intercepted by foliated tree crowns) were
derived from Nowak (1996). If data on individual species were not known, genus averages were
applied. If genus data were not available, family average data were applied.
Leaf area and leaf biomass. Leaf area and leaf biomass of individual tree species were
calculated using regression equations for deciduous urban species (Nowak 1996). For deciduous
trees that were too large to be used directly in the regression equation, average leaf-area index
(LAI: m2 one-sided leaf area per m2 projected ground area of canopy) was calculated by the
regression equation for the maximum tree size based on the appropriate height-width ratio and
shading coefficient class of the tree. This LAI was applied to the ground area (m2) occupied by
the tree to calculate leaf area (m2).
The regression equation was derived for trees with a height-to-width ratio between 0.5 and 2.0.
For deciduous trees with height-to-width ratios that were too large or too small to be used
directly in the regression equations, tree height or width was scaled downward to allow the
crown to the reach maximum (2) or minimum (0.5) height-to-width ratio. Leaf area was
calculated using the regression equation with the maximum or minimum ratio; leaf area was
February 2008 2
Species Selector Application
then scaled back proportionally to reach the original crown volume. Leaf area index was not
allowed to exceed 15 or be less than 1.
For conifer trees (excluding pines), average LAIs per height-to-width ratio class for deciduous
trees with a shading coefficient of 0.91 were applied to the tree’s ground area to calculate leaf
area. The 0.91 shading coefficient class is believed to be the best class to represent conifers as
conifer forests typically have about 1.5 times more LAI than deciduous forests (Barbour et al.
1980). As the average shading coefficient for deciduous trees is 0.83 (Nowak 1996), 1.5 times
the 0.83 class LAI is equivalent to the 0.91 class LAI. Because pines have lower LAIs than other
conifers and LAIs that are comparable to hardwoods (e.g., Jarvis and Leverenz 1983; Leverenz
and Hinckley 1990), the average shading coefficient (0.83) was used to estimate pine leaf area.
Leaf biomass was calculated by converting leaf-area estimates using species-specific
measurements of g leaf dry weight/m2 of leaf area based on the literature and field
measurements (e.g., Bacon and Zedaker, 1986; Box, 1981; Cregg, 1992; Gacka-Grzesikiewicz,
1980; McLaughlin and Madgwick, 1968; Monk et al., 1970; Reich et al., 1991; Shelton and
Switzer, 1984)
Relative transpiration rates. As actual transpiration rates are highly variable depending
upon site or species characteristics, and very limited data exist on transpiration rates for various
species under comparable conditions, relative transpiration factors were estimated for each
species based on estimated monthly water use (Costello and Jones, 1994). Each species was
classified into one of seven categories in a “water need” classification scheme: High water need
(H); High to Moderate need (MH); Moderate need (M); Moderate to Low need (ML); Low need
(L); Low to Very Low need (LVL); and Very Low need (VL). If the species was not included on
water use species list, the water need was estimated from water use classifications of other
species in the same genus or family.
A relative transpiration factor scale (Table 1) was developed, following an assumption that trees
requiring greater amounts of water (e.g., species in “H” or “MH” water use classes) transpire at
higher rates than those needing less water (“L” to “VL” classes). The relative transpiration
factors were generated from the maximum estimated species water need (inches per month)
associated with each water use classification (Costello and Jones, 1994).
Table 1. Relative transpiration factors corresponding to tree species’ water use
classification.
Water Use Classification Max. Water Use Relative Transpiration
(in. per month) Transpiration Rate Factor
High need (H) 0.9 High 1.50
High to moderate need (MH) - Moderate to high 1.25
Moderate need (M) 0.6 Moderate 1.00
Moderate to low need (ML) - Moderate to low 0.75
Low need (L) 0.3 Low 0.50
Low to very low need (LVL) - Low to very low 0.35
Very low need (VL) 0.1 Very low 0.20
Physical characteristics of leaves. To help rate relative differences in particulate pollution
removal by trees (particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM10), leaf and crown characteristics
of each species were summarized from the literature and given a score between 0 and 2, with
the higher the score indicating a higher probability of particle capture. The basic premise was
that dense and fine textured crowns and complex, small, and rough leaves would capture and
February 2008 3
Species Selector Application
retain more particles than open and coarse crowns, and simple, large, smooth leaves (Little,
1997; Smith, 1981). Six crown and leaf characteristics were assessed:
Crown density (from Horticopia database): Open crown = 0; medium density = 1; dense crown
= 2.
Crown texture (from Horticopia database): Coarse = 0, Medium = 1, Fine = 2.
Leaf complexity (from Horticopia database): Simple = 0, pinnately or palmately compound,
trifoliate, or palmate = 1, bi- or tri-pinnately compound = 2. This variable is used as a proxy for
leaflet size, as the compoundness of the leaf increases, the leaflet size tends to decrease
relative to the entire leaf size.
Leaf Size (from Horticopia database): Median leaf size was calculated as the average of the
minimum and maximum leaf size classes. If leaf size > 4” = 0; 2-4” = 1, <2” = 2
Leaf Surface Roughness (Dirr 1990; Elias 1980; Stein et al 2003; Williamson et al 1985;
University of Connecticut 2005): For surface ratings, average surface characteristics were used
if surface characteristics differed between young and old leaves. Dull, smooth, glossy, lustrous,
shiny, glabrous = 0; Ciliate, silky, velvety, pubescent, glaucous, pilose, felty, waxy, downy,
sometimes hairy, slightly hairy, fuzzy = 1; Rough, resinous, hairy, tomentose, scabrous, sticky,
sticky hairs, setose, floccose, scaly, villous, scurfy, glutinous, tufts (in axils of veins), “with
hairs”, long hair, or densely hairy = 2. Conifers were given a score of 1, unless noted as shiny
or notably smooth surface (0) or scale-like, ridged or glacous (2).
Leaf Margins (from Horticopia database): Entire, terminal spine, spiny, sinuate, or undulate = 0;
Cleft, crenate, dentate, incised, lobed, parted, pectinate, revolute, serrate, or unknown = 1;
Ciliate, serrulate, double serrate, or filamentous =2.
Leaf and crown scores were added to produce a potential leaf score between 0 and 12. Leaf
scores were standardized between 0 and 100. These leaf / crown scores will be used to help
determine standardized removal rates (per leaf surface area) among species. These
standardized rates will vary based on the assumption of scoring system, which is highly
subjective and uncertain, but assumes that denser crowns, with rougher and textured leaves,
and smaller leaves or leaflet will increase particulate removal relative to more open crowns with
smoother, larger leaves. Little (1977) notes that rough or hairy leaf discs collected 5 micron
particles seven times more effectively than smooth leaves, and that leaves of complex shape
with large circumference to area ratio could be expected to collect particles most efficiently.
More recent unpublished work with PM2.5 particles indicate that crown density may only have
minimal to no impact on particle removal; leaf veins and margins influence particulate removal;
and that dense pubescence on leaves may act similar to smooth leaf surfaces in terms of
removal (Whitlow, pers. comm., 2007). Thus, estimating relative particulate removal based on
leaf characteristics is an approximation based on the assumptions given. Much more research is
need on how species leaf and crown differences affect particulate removal rates.
Species VOC emissions. Base species emission factors (isoprene and monoterpene) were
derived from Benjamin et al., 1996; Geron et al., 2001; Kesselmeier and Staudt, 1999; and
Isebrands et al 1999. If species data were not available, the genera average for the species
values in the literature were averaged with genera values from Geron (1994) (if available) to
produce a mean genera value. If genus-specific information were not available, average
emission values from the next lowest taxon were used to estimate family, order, subclass, or
class values (e.g., average genera values were used to produce family values). For isoprene
February 2008 4
Species Selector Application
estimates, 36% of the species used family, order, subclass, or class values; for monoterpene,
37% of the species used family, order, subclass, or class values.
Species leaf biomass was multiplied by corresponding emission factors to produce emission
levels standardized to 30oC and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) flux of 1,000 µmol m-2
s-1. Standardized emissions are converted to actual emissions based on light and temperature
correction factors (Geron et al. 1994) based on average in-leaf daytime weather and pollution
concentration data from 53 U.S. cities in 1994 (Table 2).
VOC emission (E) (in μgC tree-1 hr-1 at temperature T (K) and PAR flux L (µmol m-2 s-1)) for
isoprene and monoterpenes are estimated as:
E = BE × B × γ
where BE is the base genus emission rate in μgC (g leaf dry weight)-1 hr-1 at 30oC and PAR flux
of 1,000 µmol m-2 s-1; B is species leaf dry weight biomass (g) and:
1
γ = [α ⋅ c L1 L /(1 + α 2 ⋅ L2 ) ] ⋅ [exp[cT 1 (T − TS ) / R ⋅ TS ⋅ T ] /(0.961 + exp[cT 2 (T − TM ) / R ⋅ TS ⋅ T ])]
2
for isoprene where L is PAR flux; α = 0.0027; cL1 = 1.066; R is the ideal gas constant (8.314 K-1
mol-1), T(K) is leaf temperature, which is assumed to be air temperature, TS is standard
temperature (303 K), and TM = 314K, CT1 = 95,000 J mol-1, and CT2 = 230,000 J mol-1 (Geron et
al. 1994; Guenther et al. 1995; Guenther 1997).
For monoterpenes: γ = exp[ β (T − TS )] where TS = 303 K, and β = 0.09.
Table 2. U.S. cities used for national average estimates for temperature, wind
speed, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) flux, transpiration, and pollutant
flux (1994). These cities represent the top 50 most populated cities in the United
States having adequate meteorological and EPA air quality data for UFORE analyses
(Nowak and Crane 2000). Additional cities were also added to the list to sufficiently
cover all geographic regions of the country.
CITY POLLUTANTS
Albuquerque, NM CO, NO2, O3, PM10
Atlanta, GA CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Baltimore, MD CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Baton Rouge, LA CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Boston, MA CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Bridgeport, CT CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Buffalo, NY CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Charleston, WV CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Chicago, IL CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Cincinnati, OH CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Cleveland, OH CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Columbia, SC CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Columbus, OH CO, O3, PM10, SO2
Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Denver, CO CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Detroit, MI CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
El Paso, TX CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
Fresno, CA CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2
February 2008 5
Species Selector Application
As the emission of volatile organic compounds from a species varies with air temperature, the
extent to which a tree lowers air (canopy, and therefore leaf) temperatures through
transpiration can have a direct effect on its VOC emissions. The change in air temperature per
hour due to transpiration (in degrees Celsius) was estimated, and the adjusted temperature was
used to recalculate the net emission of VOCs from each species.
To estimate differences in individual species temperature effects, an estimate of average tree
cover effects on air temperature was used. Given reported reductions in mid-day air
temperatures from an aggregate effect of all trees in a local area ranging from 0.036oC to 0.2oC
per percent increase in cover (Simpson 1998) and a national average urban tree cover of
27.4% (Nowak et al. 2001a), the average decrease in mid-day air temperatures due to urban
tree canopies would be about 1oC, assuming the minimum estimate of 0.036oC. The base
February 2008 6
Species Selector Application
estimate of change of 1oC assumes an average species transpiration factor of 1 and an average
leaf area index (LAI) of 6 (Nowak 1994).
To adjust for temperature changes due to individual species, the temperature change was
adjusted based in individual species transpiration factors and LAI, such that:
NewTempAdj = -1oC x (LAI/6) x (TF)
Where NewTempAdj = the new temperature adjustment; and TF = transpiration factor (Table
1).
The new air temperatures were input into the calculations for isoprene and monoterpene
emission equations for the species.
Leaf persistence. Each species was classified as deciduous, semi-deciduous, or evergreen to
estimate leaf persistence during a year. For functions where length of in-leaf season has a
significant impact on the tree effect, tree species values were weighted by a leaf persistence
value. Deciduous trees were multiplied by a factor of 1; evergreen trees were multiplied by a
factor of 365 / length of in-leaf season (days); and semi-deciduous were multiplied by a factor
of the midpoint between 365 and length of in-leaf season divided by length of in-leaf season.
For general comparison, an average length of in-leaf season of 180 days was used. As one
increases the length of growing season (moving farther south), impact of leaf persistence will
drop (i.e., evergreen vs. deciduous differences are reduced). As length of growing season
decreases, these differences will become more pronounced.
Pollutant sensitivity. To aid in knowing which species are sensitive to ozone, sulfur dioxide,
or nitrogen dioxide, each species in the database was noted if it is sensitive to each of these
pollutants based on species sensitivity lists found in Smith (1981), Treshow and Anderson
(1989), Appleton et al. (2000), Porter (2003), Oswalt and Clatterbuck (2005). “S” indicates
sensitive to pollutant; “I” indicates intermediate rating between sensitive and tolerant to
pollutant; and “S/I” indicates a mix of sensitive and intermediate ratings in the literature.”
Estimates of several tree functions were derived for each species based on the tree
characteristics and other ancillary data. All functional estimates were derived in relative form,
which is how each species compares with other species, and not in an absolute form (the actual
impact of the tree). Thus functional values were all standardized between 0 (lowest) to 100
(highest).
Particle Pollution Removal. Because the removal of particulate matter by trees is influenced
by the physical characteristics of their leaves (i.e., the size, complexity, and surface features),
the U.S. average PM10 flux (from the Urban Forests Effect (UFORE model: Nowak et. al. 2000,
2001a,b, 2002a,b, 2003; Nowak and Crane, 2000, 2002) had to be adjusted to reflect the leaf
characteristics of each evaluated species. Thus, overall leaf scores were assigned corresponding
particle deposition rates (Vd ), based on values from Little (1977). Average deposition velocities
for Nettle, Beech, and White poplar were used to develop a scale of relative particle deposition
velocities, based on their respective leaf characteristics. Nettle represented the tree species
with the stickiest/hairiest leaf surface, and had the highest overall leaf score (81-100). Beech
represented the species with the smoothest leaf surface, and had the lowest overall leaf score
(0-20). White poplar was given an overall leaf score of 41-60. The average particle deposition
velocities for these three species were standardized to the particle deposition velocity for Beech
February 2008 7
Species Selector Application
to determine a weighting factor (Table 3). PM2.5 may or may not have similar relative removal
rates among species, but more research is needed on species effects on particulate matter,
particularly PM2.5.
The U.S. average PM10 flux represents the PM10 removal rate for a species with average leaf
characteristics (i.e., moderate leaf size, surface, and complexity) and a leaf area index of 6. To
determine the appropriate PM10 removal rate for trees with different leaf characteristics (and
therefore different deposition velocities), the U.S. average PM10 flux was weighted by the
weighting factor for each species based on the species leaf score (Table 3).
Table 3. Range of overall leaf scores and the development of their associated
relative particle deposition rates (Vd).
Species Leaf Score Avg. Vd Weight Factor PM10 Removal Rate
(cm/sec) (g/m2/hr, LAI = 6)
Nettle 81-100 1.24 1.5 0.00111
61-80 1.25 0.00093
White poplar 41-60 0.82 1.0 0.00074
21-40 0.64 0.00047
Beech 0-20 0.23 0.28 0.00021
The final PM10 removal rate (g/tree/hr) was determined for each species by multiplying the
species’ canopy area projection (πr2) by its leaf area index and by the PM10 removal rate
corresponding to its relative particle deposition rate factor:
PM10 removal (g/tree/hr) = (Tree canopy area, m2) x (PM10 removal rate, g/m2/hr) x (LAI/6)
As particulate matter removal is a function of plant surface characteristics, PM10 removal for
each species was weighted by the leaf persistence value of the species to account for
differences in the amount of leaves throughout a year.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (O3), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Removal. As the
removal rates for NO2, O3, and SO2 are related to tree transpiration (Lovett, 1994), the removal
rates for these pollutants were determined for each species by using the average pollutant flux
from 53 cities using the UFORE model (Table 2); relative transpiration factor (Table 1); total
tree canopy area; and leaf area index (LAI). The U.S. average pollutant flux (g/m2/hr) was
used to represent the pollutant removal rate for a species with an average transpiration rate
(Table 1, TF = 1) and a leaf area index of 6. This base pollutant removal rate was multiplied by
each tree’s relative transpiration factor to yield appropriate pollutant removal rates for trees
with different transpiration rates (Tables 4-6).
Table 4. NO2 removal rates based on relative transpiration rate.
Water Use Classification Relative Transpiration NO2 Removal Rate
Factor (g/m2/hr)
High need (H) 1.50 0.00067
High to moderate need (MH) 1.25 0.00056
Moderate need (M) 1.00 0.00045
Moderate to low need (ML) 0.75 0.00033
Low need (L) 0.50 0.00022
Low to very low need (LVL) 0.35 0.00016
Very low need (VL) 0.20 0.00009
February 2008 8
Species Selector Application
The final pollutant removal (g/tree/hr) was determined by multiplying the species’ canopy
projection by its LAI and by the pollutant removal rate corresponding to its relative transpiration
factor:
Pollutant removal (g/tree/hr) = (pollutant removal rate (g/m2/hr)) x (tree canopy area) x
(LAI/6)
The relative rating of pollution removal assumes that there is adequate moisture for all species
and that transpiration is not limited.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Removal. CO removal was estimated for each species based on
average CO flux of the 53 U.S. cities (0.00007 g/m2/hr); total tree canopy area; and LAI. The
final CO removal rate (g/tree/hr) was calculated for each tree by multiplying the species’ canopy
projection area (m2) by its leaf area index and by the average CO flux of the 54 U.S. cities
(0.00007 g/m2/hr):
CO removal rate for tree (g/tree/hr) = (CO flux) x (Tree canopy area) x (LAI/6)
As carbon monoxide removal by leaves is not related to photosynthesis (Bidwell and Fraser,
1972), CO removal for each species was weighted by the leaf persistence value of the species
to account for differences in the amount of leaves throughout a year.
Net Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Effects. The potential increase of both carbon monoxide
and ozone due to tree VOC emissions were estimated by combining the total emission of
isoprene, and monoterpenes with their reactivity coefficients (yielding the potential of the VOC
to form either carbon monoxide or ozone) (Carter 1998; Madronovich, pers. comm., 1997).
February 2008 9
Species Selector Application
Carbon Monoxide. The VOC potential to form carbon monoxide is likely near 10% Madronovich,
pers. comm. 1997). Thus, the carbon monoxide forming potential (COFP) is:
COFP (g CO/tree/hr) = [0.1 * (VOC in g C/tree/hr) * (28 g CO/mol CO)/(12 g C/mol CO)]
Net CO removal rate was then calculated as:
Net CO removal rate (g CO/tree/hr) = CO removal (g CO/tree/hr) - COFP.
Ozone. VOC to ozone conversion was based on Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity (MOIR)
scenarios (Carter 1998). Base reactivity scales used were 3.85 g O3 / g isoprene, 1.4 g O3 / g
monoterpene, and 0.04 g O3 / g CO. These base scales were based on a NOx/VOC ratio of 8.
The average NOx/VOC ratio for 22 cities (National Research Council 1991) was 10.6. Data from
Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) scenarios (NOx/VOC ratio = 4) and Equal Benefit
Incremental Reactivity (EBIR) scenarios (NOx/VOC ratio = 15) were used to adjust the reactivity
scale to the national average NOx/VOC ratio (3.23 g O3 / g isoprene, 1.23 g O3 / g
monoterpene, and 0.036 g O3 / g CO).
VOC and CO emissions per tree/hr were multiplied by the appropriate reactivity scale to
estimate O3 formation due to tree VOC emissions and consequent CO formation. Net O3 removal
rate was then calculated as:
Net O3 removal rate (g O3/tree/hr) = O3 removal - O3 formation.
Overall Pollutant Rating. Each species received an overall pollutant rating, based on its
estimated effect for each pollutant. The overall score were based on removal values for
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide; and the net removal/emission values for
carbon monoxide and ozone. The net effect for each pollutant was weighted by the relative
effect of each pollutant based on California Ambient Air Quality Standards (California Air
Resources Board 2005) for the same measurement period (Table 7).
Table 7. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Weight was based on referencing
against the 1-hour ozone standard
Standards Ozone Particulate Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Carbon Monoxide
(O3) Matter (PM10) (NO2) (SO2) (CO)
1-hour 180 μg/m3 470 μg/m3 655 μg/m3 23,000 μg/m3
3 3
24-hour 50 μg/m 105 μg/m
Weight* 1.00 0.58 0.38 0.27 0.01
* weight = 180 / 1-hour standard. PM10 1-hour standard was estimated as 312 μg/m3 based on
the ratio of 1-hour to 24-hour standard of sulfur dioxide.
The overall pollutant score was calculated based on the weights in Table 7 as:
Overall Score = [(O3 effect (g/tree/hr)*1.0) + (PM10 effect*0.58) + (NO2 effect*0.38) + (SO2
effect*0.27) + (CO effect*0.01)]
Air Temperature Reduction. The relative effect of each species on air temperature was
estimated as the multiple of the species transpiration rating times the species leaf area at
maturity. This value indicates the potential evaporative cooling of the species.
Ultraviolet radiation reduction. An estimate of the total amount of light blockage was used
to estimate the relative effect of each tree species on reducing ultraviolet radiation load. As
plant leaves absorb approximately 90-95% of ultraviolet radiation (Grant et al., 2003), an
estimate of shading was based on species shading coefficients times the median crown width.
February 2008 10
Species Selector Application
As length of leaf persistence affects the amount ultraviolet radiation block throughout a year,
each value was weighted by the leaf persistence value of the species to arrive at a UV shade
index.
Carbon storage. Carbon storage estimates were based on estimated tree diameter at maturity
(calculated from tree height data using equations in Frelich, 1992), tree height, and species
allometric equation for biomass (in Nowak et al., 2002). Individual species data were input into
the UFORE model (Nowak and Crane, 2000) to estimate carbon storage at maturity. Tree
diameter data were derived from the equation for white pine (Frelich 1992) as this equation
produced the most conservative diameter estimates for large tree heights.
Pollen Allergenicity. Species allergenicity was based on species allergenicity rating (1-10)
(Ogren 2000) with 1 representing the most allergy free species and 10 representing the species
potentially producing the most allergies. Standard allergy values were weighted by the
standardized leaf area as larger trees have a greater potential to produce overall amounts of
allergens. For dioecious species with multiple values, the average value was used. For species
without values, genera or family averages were used.
Energy conservation. Estimates of the effects of trees on building energy use were based on
McPherson and Simpson (2000). Two parameters are used to estimate energy effects: 1) shade
effect (UV shade index was used) and 2) climate effects (Air temperature reduction index was
used). However, each parameter has a different effect on energy used based on tree type, size
and geographic location. To help determine the relative difference in these parameters, each
species was classified as evergreen or deciduous and into one of three height classes based on
median tree height at maturity: 1) 20-35 ft; 2) 35-50 ft; and 3) > 50 ft. Using data from all
climate zones in McPherson and Simpson (2000), the average ratio of shade to climatic effects
for both heating and cooling effects was calculated among all climate zones in the United States
by tree type and size (Table 8). For climate effects, the heating and cooling effects of individual
tree type was based on an average cover of 30%. To determine the final energy conservation
index for a species, the standardized species UV index (shade) was multiplied by the
appropriate ratio calculated from McPherson and Simpson (2000) and added to the
standardized air temperature reduction (climate) index.
Table 8. Average ratio of shade to climate effects per tree among all climate zones in
the United States (derived from McPherson and Simpson (2000)).
Tree type and size Ratio
Deciduous large 0.344
Deciduous medium 0.362
Deciduous small 0.280
Evergreen large 0.077
Evergreen medium -0.008
Evergreen small -0.114
Wind reduction. The relative effect of each species on blocking wind was estimated based on
the leaf surface area of the species at maturity. As length of leaf persistence affects the amount
wind reduction throughout a year, each value was weighted by the leaf persistence value of the
species.
Stream flow reduction – Two main effects that a species potentially has on stream flow are
through the interception of precipitation and the transpiration of water through leaf stomata. To
estimate the relative difference between these effects, the UFORE-Hydro model (Wang et al.,
February 2008 11
Species Selector Application
2008) was run for six watersheds and the average effects of doubling transpiration and leaf
interception on overall stream flow were contrasted. The average difference between the
transpiration and interception effects on these watersheds was a reduction in stream flow that
was 5.3 times greater for transpiration than for interception. Thus the standardized temperature
(transpiration) index was multiplied by 5.3 and added to the standardized leaf area
(interception) index. These values were subsequently restandardized to a scale of 0 – 100.
Based on user-supplied information of location (city and state), and minimum and maximum
tree height desired, the database is reduced to only tree species that are hardy to the hardiness
zone of the location and that are larger than the minimum tree height and smaller than the
maximum tree height specified (based on median tree height at maturity). Species are noted as
to the reliability of the hardiness zone data with increasing number of asterisks indicating an
increasing degree of uncertainty (see Hardiness Zone above). The user is also asked to rate the
importance of each tree function on a scale of 0 (not important) to 10 (very important). The
program weights the standardized functional values by the corresponding user-supplied value,
sums the weighted values for all functions, and standardizes the sum values on a range
between 0 (minimum value) and 100 (maximum values). The program then provides output of
species recommendations in 10% groupings. These groupings are to be used to make decisions
on the most appropriate species for an area given the desired tree functions. Actual decisions
on what trees to plant in the area need to incorporate local knowledge of species and
conditions to ensure that the proper species is selected to ensure long-term survival, health,
and environmental services.
February 2008 12
Species Selector Application
References
Appleton, B., J. Koci, R. Harris, K. Sevebeck, D. Alleman, and L. Swanson. 2000. Air Pollution.
Trees for Problem Landscapes. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publ. 430-022. 3 p.
Bacon, C.G. and S.M. Zedaker. 1986. Leaf area prediction equations for young southeastern
hardwood stems. Forest Science. 32(3): 818-821.
Barbour, M.G; Burk, J.H.; Pitts, W.D. 1980. Terrestrial plant ecology. Menlo Park, CA:
Benjamin/Cummings. 604 p.
Benjamin, M.T., M. Sudol, L. Bloch, and A.M. Winer. 1996. Low-emitting urban forests: a
taxonomic methodology for assigning isoprene and monoterpene emission rates.
Atmospheric Environment. 30(9):1437-1452.
Box, E.O. 1981. Foliar biomass: database of the International Biological Program and other
sources. In: Bufalini, J. J.; Arnts, R. R. eds. Atmospheric biogenic hydrocarbons. Volume
1. Emissions. Ann Arbor, MI: Science Publishers:121-148.
Bidwell, R.G.S.; Fraser, D.E. 1972. Carbon monoxide uptake and metabolism by leaves.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 50: 1435-1439.
California Air Resources Board. 2005. Ambient Air Quality Standards.
www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf
Carter, W.L. 1998. Updated maximum incremental reactivity scale for regulatory applications.
www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/r98tab.htm
Costello, L.R. and K.S. Jones. 1994. WUCOLS: Water Use Classification of Landscape Species --
A guide to the water needs of landscape plants. Half Moon Bay, CA: University of
California Cooperative Extension, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties. 90 p.
Cregg, B. M. 1992. Leaf area estimation of mature foliage of Juniperus. Forest Science. 38(1):
61-67.
Dirr, M.A. 1990. Manual of woody landscape plants: their identification, ornamental
characteristics, culture, propagation and uses. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing
Company. 1007 pp.
Elias, T.S. 1980. The complete trees of North America: field guide and natural history. Times
Mirror Magazine, Inc. New York, NY. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 948 p.
Frelich, L.E. 1992. Predicting dimensional relationships for Twin Cities shade trees. St. Paul, MN:
University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 33 p.
Gacka-Grzesikiewicz, E. 1980. Assimilation surface of urban green areas. Ekologia Polska. 28(4):
493-523.
Geron, C.D., A.B. Guenther, and T.E. Pierce. 1994. An improved model for estimating emissions
of volatile organic compounds from forests in the eastern United States. Journal of
Geophysical Research. 99(D6): 12,773-12,791.
Geron, C., P. Harley, and A. Guenther. 2001. Isoprene emission capacity for US tree species.
Atmospheric Environment. 35: 3341-3352.
February 2008 13
Species Selector Application
Grant, R.H., G.M. Heisler, W. Gao, and M. Jenks. 2003. Ultraviolet leaf reflectance of common
urban trees and the prediction of reflectance from leaf surface characteristics.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 120: 127-139.
Guenther, A. 1997. Seasonal and spatial variation in natural volatile organic compound
emissions. Ecological Applications. 7(1): 34-45.
Guenther, A.; Hewitt, C.N.; Erickson, D.; Fall, R.; Geron, C.; Graedel, T.; Harley, P.; Klinger, L.;
Lerdau, M.; McKay, W.A.; Pierce, T.; Scholes, B.; Steinbrecher, R.; Tallamraju, R.;
Taylor, J.; Zimmerman, P. 1995. A global model of natural volatile organic compound
emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research. 100 (D5): 8873-8892.
Horticopia, Inc. 2007. Horticopia® Professional. Horticopia Information Software. Purcellville,
VA. Horticopia, Inc. http://www.horticopia.com/ Last accessed. November 2007.
Jarvis, P.G., and J.W. Leverenz. 1983. Productivity of temperate, deciduous and evergreen
forests. In: Lange, O.L.; Nobel, P.S.; Osmond, C.B.; Ziegler, H., eds. Physiological plant
ecology IV, encyclopedia of plant physiology, volume 12D. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: 233-
280.
Isebrands J.G., A.B. Guenther, P. Harley, D. Helmig, L. Klinger, L.Vierling , P. Zimmerman, and
C. Geron 1999. Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rates from Mixed Deciduous and
Coniferous Forests in Northern Wisconsin, USA. Atmospheric Environment. 33: 2527-
2536.
Kesselmeier, J. and M. Staudt. 1999. Biogenic volatile organic compounds (VOC): an overview
on emission, physiology and ecology. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. 33:23-88.
Leverenz, J.W. and T.M. Hinckley. 1990. Shoot structure, leaf area index and productivity of
evergreen conifer stands. Tree Physiology. 6: 135-149.
Little, P. 1977. Deposition of 2.75, 5.0, and 8.5 μm particles to plant and soil surfaces. Environ.
Pollut. 12:293-305.
Lovett, G.M. 1994. Atmospheric deposition of nutrients and pollutants in North America: an
ecological perspective. Ecol. Appl. 4(4):629-650.
McLaughlin, S.B. and H.A. Madgwick. 1968. The effects of position in crown on the morphology
of needles of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). American Midland Naturalist. 80(2): 547-550.
McPherson, E.G. and J.R. Simpson. 2000. Carbon dioxide reductions through urban forestry:
guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. PSW GTR-171. Albany, CA: USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station
Monk, C.D., G.I. Child, and S.A. Nicholson. 1970. Biomass, litter and leaf-surface area estimates
of an oak-hickory forest. Oikos. 21: 138-141.
National Research Council. 1991. Rethinking the ozone problem in urban and regional air
pollution. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 500 p.
Nowak, D.J. 1994. Urban forest structure: the state of Chicago's urban forest. In: McPherson,
E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A., eds. Chicago's urban forest ecosystem: results of the
Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186, Radnor, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 3-
18; 140-164
February 2008 14
Species Selector Application
Nowak, D.J. 1996. Estimating leaf area and leaf biomass of open-grown urban deciduous trees.
For. Sci. 42(4): 504-507.
Nowak, D.J., K.L. Civerolo, S.T. Rao, G. Sistla, C.J. Luley, and D.E. Crane. 2000. A modeling
study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmos. Environ. 34: 1601-1613.
Nowak, D.J., and D.E. Crane. 2000. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: quantifying urban
forest structure and functions. In: Hansen, M. and T. Burk (Eds.) Integrated Tools for
Natural Resources Inventories in the 21st Century. Proc. Of the IUFRO Conference. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report NC-212. North Central Research Station, St.
Paul, MN. pp. 714-720.
Nowak, D.J. and D.E. Crane. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the
United States. Environ. Poll. 116(3): 381-389.
Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and M. Ibarra. 2002a. Brooklyn’s Urban Forest. USDA
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. 290. 107 p.
Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, and J.F. Dwyer. 2002b. Compensatory value of urban trees in the
United States. J. Arboric. 28(4): 194-199.
Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and R. Hoehn. 2003. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE)
model: field data collection procedures. USDA Forest Service, Syracuse, NY. 30 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Tools/downloads/UFORE_Manual.pdf
Nowak, D.J., M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni, and J.F. Dwyer. 2001a. Assessing the U.S. urban forest
resource. J. For. 99(3):37-42
Nowak, D.J., J. Pasek, R. Sequeira, D.E. Crane, and V. Mastro. 2001b. Potential effect of
Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United
States. J. Econon. Entomol. 94(1): 16-22.
Ogren, T.L. 2000. Allergy-Free Gardening. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA.
Oswalt, C.M. and W.K. Clatterbuck. 2005. University of Tennessee Extension Publication SP-
657-15M-9/05. 4 p.
Porter, E. 2003. Ozone sensitive plant species on National Park Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service lands: Results of a June 24-25, 2003 Workshop. Baltimore, Maryland.
National Park Service Air Resources Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Air Quality
Branch. www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/BaltFinalReport1.pdf Last Accessed: March
2007.
Reich, P.B., M.B. Walters, and D.S. Ellsworth. 1991. Leaf age and season influence the
relationships between leaf nitrogen, leaf mass per area and photosynthesis in maple and
oak trees. Plant, Cell and Environment. 14: 251-259.
Shelton, M.G. and G.L. Switzer. 1984. Variation in the surface area relationships of loblolly pine
fascicles. Forest Science. 30(2): 355-363.
Simpson, J.R. 1998. Urban forest impacts on regional cooling and heating energy use:
Sacramento County case study. J. Arboric. 24(4):201-214.
Smith, W.H. 1981. Air Pollution and Forests. Springer-Verlag, New York. 379 p.
Stein, J., D. Binion, and R. Acciavatti. 2003. Field guide to native oak species of eastern North
America. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team FHTET-2003-01. Newtown Square,
February 2008 15
Species Selector Application
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private
Forestry: 161 pp.
Sunset. 1985. New Western Garden Book, Lane Publ. Co. Menlo Park, CA. 512 p.
Treshow, M. and F.K. Anderson. 1989. Plant Stress from Air Pollution. John Wiley and Sons,
New York. 293 p.
Williamson, J.F., J.R. Dunmire, and M.W. Zimmerman. (eds.) 1985. Sunset new western garden
book. Menlo Park, CA: Lane Publishing Company. 512 pp.
University of Connecticut. 2000. Plant Database of Trees, Shrubs, and Vines.
http://www.hort.uconn.edu/plants/
Wang, J., T.A. Endreny, and D.J. Nowak. 2008. Mechanistic simulation of urban tree effects in
an urban water balance model. Journal of American Water Resource Association.
44(1):75-85.
February 2008 16
Species Selector Application
February 2008 17
Species Selector Application
February 2008 18
Species Selector Application
February 2008 19
Species Selector Application
February 2008 20
Species Selector Application
February 2008 21
Species Selector Application
February 2008 22
Species Selector Application
February 2008 23
Species Selector Application
February 2008 24
Species Selector Application
February 2008 25
Species Selector Application
February 2008 26
Species Selector Application
February 2008 27
Species Selector Application
February 2008 28
Species Selector Application
February 2008 29
Species Selector Application
February 2008 30
Species Selector Application
February 2008 31
Species Selector Application
February 2008 32
Species Selector Application
February 2008 33
Species Selector Application
February 2008 34
Species Selector Application
February 2008 35
Species Selector Application
February 2008 36
Species Selector Application
February 2008 37
Species Selector Application
February 2008 38
Species Selector Application
February 2008 39
Species Selector Application
February 2008 40
Species Selector Application
February 2008 41
Species Selector Application
February 2008 42
Species Selector Application
February 2008 43
Species Selector Application
February 2008 44
Species Selector Application
February 2008 45
Species Selector Application
February 2008 46
Species Selector Application
February 2008 47
Species Selector Application
February 2008 48
Species Selector Application
February 2008 49
Species Selector Application
February 2008 50
Species Selector Application
February 2008 51
Species Selector Application
February 2008 52
Species Selector Application
February 2008 53
Species Selector Application
February 2008 54