Lima2019ecologicaltransactions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin Natural Areas Inventory/ Land Cover Mapping September 2016
Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin Natural Areas Inventory/ Land Cover Mapping September 2016 Prepared for: Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. TOWN OF ST. JOSEPH, WISCONSIN NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY/ LAND COVER MAPPING SEPTEMBER 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. III 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NRI .......................................................................... 1.1 2.0 A BRIEF LOOK AT THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA ..................................2.4 2.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY AND GLACIAL LANDSCAPES .................................................. 2.4 2.2 AFTER THE GLACIERS ...................................................................................................... 2.4 2.3 INFLUENCE OF LANDFORM AND CLIMATE ON VEGETATION TYPES ......................... 2.9 2.4 PRE-HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF HUMANS ON THE LANDSCAPE ................................. 2.10 2.5 VEGETATION AT THE TIME OF LAND SURVEY ............................................................. 2.10 2.6 POST-SETTLEMENT INFLUENCES ON THE LANDSCAPE ............................................... 2.10 3.0 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................3.12 3.1 GATHER AND REVIEW BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................ -
Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services
POSTbrief Number 26, July 2017 Urban Green By Jonathan Wentworth Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services Inside: The Urban Environment 3 What Constitutes an Urban Area? 3 Environmental Effects of Urbanisation 4 Urban Natural Capital 8 Key Services for Urban Ecosystems 8 Assessing Levels of Service Provision 14 Planning Green Infrastructure 17 Urban Green Space Strategies 18 www.parliament.uk/post | 020 7219 2840 | [email protected] | @POST_UK POSTbriefs are responsive policy briefings from the Parliamentary Office of Science Cover page image: and Technology based on mini literature reviews and peer review. DCMS, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons 2 Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services Background Human health and subjective wellbeing (emotional states and life satisfaction) can be considered the overarching outcome of optimal ecosystem service provision.1 Ecosystem services are the benefits provided to humans by natural systems that range from food and water to recreation and climate regulation. Those elements of the natural environment that provide benefits to humans are referred to as ‘natural capital’. The UK Natural Capital Committee have defined natural capital as ‘elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals, the air and oceans’ (POSTnote 542). In urban areas, the elements of the natural environment providing ecosystem services are referred to as ‘green infrastructure’. Urban green infrastructure is not just open spaces such as parks, playing fields, cemeteries, allotments, and private gardens, but also green roofs and walls, street trees and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs), as well as ponds, rivers and canals. The EU green infrastructure strategy defines it as: ‘a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. -
Vulnerability of the Biota in Riverine and Seasonally Flooded Habitats to Damming of Amazonian Rivers
Received: 11 December 2019 Revised: 8 April 2020 Accepted: 5 June 2020 DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3424 SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE Vulnerability of the biota in riverine and seasonally flooded habitats to damming of Amazonian rivers Edgardo M. Latrubesse1 | Fernando M. d'Horta2 | Camila C. Ribas2 | Florian Wittmann3 | Jansen Zuanon2 | Edward Park4 | Thomas Dunne5 | Eugenio Y. Arima6 | Paul A. Baker7 1Asian School of the Environment and Earth Observatory of Singapore (EOS), Nanyang Abstract Technological University (NTU), Singapore 1. The extent and intensity of impacts of multiple new dams in the Amazon basin on 2 National Institute of Amazonian Research specific biological groups are potentially large, but still uncertain and need to be (INPA), Manaus, Brazil 3Institute of Floodplain Ecology, Karlsruhe better understood. Institute of Technology, Rastatt, Germany 2. It is known that river disruption and regulation by dams may affect sediment sup- 4 National Institute of Education (NIE), plies, river channel migration, floodplain dynamics, and, as a major adverse conse- Nanyang Technological University, Singapore quence, are likely to decrease or even suppress ecological connectivity among 5Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California (UCSB), populations of aquatic organisms and organisms dependent upon seasonally Santa Barbara, California, USA flooded environments. 6Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas at Austin, 3. This article complements our previous results by assessing the relationships Austin, Texas, USA between dams, our Dam Environmental Vulnerability Index (DEVI), and the biotic 7 Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke environments threatened by the effects of dams. Because of the cartographic rep- University, Durham, North Carolina, USA resentation of DEVI, it is a useful tool to compare the potential hydrophysical Correspondence impacts of proposed dams in the Amazon basin with the spatial distribution of Edgardo Latrubesse, Asian School of the Environment and Earth Observatory of biological diversity. -
3 Wildlife in the City: Human Drivers and Human Consequences
3 Wildlife in the City: Human Drivers and Human Consequences 1 2 3 4 Susannah B. Lerman *, Desiree L. Narango , Riley Andrade , Paige S. Warren , Aaron M. Grade5 and Katherine Straley5 1 USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA; 2Advanced Science Research Center, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA; 3School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA; 4Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA; 5Graduate Program in Organismic and EvolutionaryBiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA Abstract on how built structures, species interactions and socio-cultural factors further influence The urban development process results in the local species pool. Within this context, we the removal, alteration and fragmentation of assess the ecosystem services and disservices provided by urban wildlife, how management natural vegetation and environmental features, decisions are shaped by attitudes and exposure which have negatively impacted many wildlife to wildlife, and how these decisions then feed species. With the loss of large tracts of intact back to the local species pool. By understanding wildlands (e.g. forests, deserts and grasslands), why some animals are better able to persist in and the demise of specific habitat features (e.g. human modified landscapes than others, land early successional habitat or native plants), managers, city planners, private homeowners many specialist species are filtered out from and other stakeholders can make better urban ecosystems. As a result, some argue that informed decisions when managing properties urbanization has a homogenizing effect on in ways that also conserve and promote wildlife. -
Urban Wilds Final Report
Interactive Qualifying Project 2000 Inventory of Boston’s Urban Wilds Boston Project Center D-Term 2000 Sponsored by: The City of Boston Environment Department Liaison: Richard McGuinness Project Group: Chris Brassard Bonnie Henderson Ryan Kilgore Clark Magnan WPI Faculty Advisors: Professor Steve Pierson Professor Fabio Carrerro May 5, 2000 This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The views and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Worcester Polytechnic Institute or the City of Boston Environment Department. Abstract Urban Wilds are crucial areas of natural land that are being lost to development. This project was designed to overcome the lack of communication and information currently undermining Boston’s protective attempts in order to minimize further loss. Data collected through visiting unprotected Wilds was used to determine each Wild’s importance and recorded in a database that included images and current ownership information for each Wild, thus creating a source of centralized information. 2 Acknowledgements As a group, there are many individuals we would like to thank for their invaluable assistance with our project. First, we express our gratitude to our liaison Richard McGuinness and the rest of the Environment Department staff for their constant support and guidance. We would also like to thank Tim Smith of the Boston Parks and Recreation Department for providing us with essential information regarding Boston’s open space plan. In addition, we would like to show our appreciation to the staff of the Boston Natural Areas Fund for allowing us access to their office and files as well as to David Lavelle for his aid in our Urban Wild ownership research effort. -
Ann Forsyth DESIGNING SMALL PARKS
Ann Forsyth DESIGNING SMALL PARKS DESIGNING SMALL PARKS r -. A Manual Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns B~ An-f1? Musacchi. With Frank I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. This book is printed on acid-free paper. @ Copyright O 2005 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada This project was supported by the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program on the recommendation of the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council. Except where noted, all drawings are from the Metropolitan Design Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and used by permission. All photographs without additional credits are available in the Metropolitan Design Center's Image Bank at www.designcenter.umn.edu. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com1golpermission. Limit of LiabilitylDisclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and the author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. -
Draft 1/13/2020
Ecological Assessment of the 91st Street and College Avenue Property For Schmidt Associates By Kevin Tungesvick Senior Ecologist Eco Logic LLC Ecological Assessment of the 91st and College Property Background This approximately 52 acre property is located at the southwest corner of 91st Street and College Ave on the north side of Indianapolis, Indiana. Approximately 28 of these acres are mowed turf containing soccer fields with an accompanying parking lot. The remaining acreage is occupied by unmanaged woodlands and a detention basin. This report is an assessment of current ecological condition of these unmanaged areas. Soils and Geology This property is located on the Tipton Till Plain of central Indiana, a region covered by Wisconsin age glacial till. All of the soils on the site are derived from this till. The three soil types that occur on this property are Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MmB2), Crosby silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (CrA), and Treat silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes (ThrA). Of these soils, the Miami is considered moderately well drained, the Crosby is considered somewhat poorly drained, and the Treaty is considered poorly drained. Treaty soils are considered hydric soils and harbor most of the probable wetlands on the site. A map showing the locations of these soil types is attached to this report and labeled with the above abbreviations for each soil type. Heritage Trees Heritage Trees are defined below: The majority of the woodlands on this property are in an early successional state, mostly containing trees less than 75 year old and in many cases, less than 50 years old. -
During More Than 50% of Sampling Events in Flint Creek at County Road 400 West, County Road 700 South, and Turner Road
Region of the Great Bend of the Wabash River Watershed Management Plan 10 May 2011 during more than 50% of sampling events in Flint Creek at County Road 400 West, County Road 700 South, and Turner Road. Concentrations measured as high as 3,500 colonies/100 mL. Undersaturated conditions were observed in Flint Creek at County Road 700 South and at County Road 375 West. Dissolved oxygen saturations measured between 45 and 55% at both sites during multiple sampling events. Turbidity routinely measured higher than the target concentration at all sites where observations occur. This suggests that Flint Creek may contain a high background suspended sediment concentration or that the high sinuosity and prevalence of easily erodible soils results in elevated suspended sediment concentrations on a routine basis. Figure 135. Water quality impairments in the Flint Creek subwatershed. Data used to create this map are detailed in Appendix A. Habitat Volunteer monitors assessed habitat at nine sites within the Flint Creek subwatershed using the Citizen’s Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (CQHEI). As previously detailed, the CQHEI scores sites based on the presence or absence of specific natural characteristics within a stream reach. Although a comparison scale for the CQHEI has not yet been developed, Hoosier Riverwatch indicates that scores greater than 60 rate as habitat conducive to supporting warm-water biota (IDNR, 2004). Scores ranged from 40.5 at County Road 700 South (west of SR 25) to 75.5 at County Road 700 South (SR 25). Volunteer assessments of Flint Creek at County Road 700 South (west of SR 25), County Road 375 West, and County Road 700 South (west of CR 700 West) indicate that habitat rated poorer than the level at which habitat is conducive to supporting warm-water biota. -
Boston “Emerald Necklace” Case Study
Report MIT Wescoat Boston “Emerald Necklace” Case Study Product of research on “Enhancing Blue-Green Environmental and Social Performance in High Density Urban Environments” Sponsored by the Ramboll Foundation 20 July 2015 Authors: Alex Marks, James L. Wescoat Jr., Karen Noiva, and Smita Rawoot Massachusetts Institute of Technology Page 1 Report MIT Wescoat CONTENTS 1. PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 2. DEFINING BLUE-GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (BGI) IN BOSTON ............................................ 5 3. SITUATING BOSTON’S BLUE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN A LOCAL, REGIONAL & COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 9 4. CHALLENGES THAT CITIES LIKE BOSTON FACE TODAY .................................................... 24 5. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON HOW BOSTON HAS ADDRESSED SUCH CHALLENGES USING BGI: THE EXPANDED PROCESS MODEL APPROACH ...................................................... 31 6. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON THE VALUES ADDED BY BGI IN BOSTON .............................. 37 7. RESEARCH FINDINGS ON INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS .......................................................... 48 8. RESEARCH FINDINGS RELEVANT FOR IMPLEMENTING FUTURE BGI PROJECTS ... 56 9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 58 10. ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. -
View the Protecting Natural Areas Design Guide
protecting natural areas design guide 1 Copyright © 2004 Nature Heritage Fund This report may be freely copied provided that the Nature Heritage Fund is acknowledged as the source of the information. Design guide compiled by a landscape architecture team including Jeremy Head, Leona deRidder and Claire Findlay. ISBN 0-478-22470-2 reprinted 2005 Nature Heritage Fund P.O.Box 10-420 Wellington Phone 04 471 3214 Fax 04 471 3018 www.nhf.govt.nz [email protected] 2004 protecting natural areas – a design guide introduction identifying natural values & significance design factors & recommendations Page 1. natural areas cue to original landscape character 7 2. remnants of original functioning eco-systems 8 3. extend across ecological sequences 9 4. underlying land systems analysis 10 5. catchment-based design 11 6. natural boundaries the most effective 13 7. respect natural change 14 8. seek self-sustaining areas 15 9. link isolated areas to enhance value 15 10. maximise the core and minimise the edge 16 11. consider buffers at the same time as boundaries 17 12. access requirements for management and maintenance 20 13. site fence-lines according to landform 21 14. consider carefully plant pests…. 23 15. … and the risks of animal pests 23 16. natural regeneration or vegetation restoration? 24 17. be aware of cultural needs 25 18. public access to protected natural areas can have advantages 25 summary and checklist 26 3 introduction Most of our “lived in landscapes” comprise a mix of productive and remnant natural areas but it is the natural areas that characterise our unique New Zealand landscape identity and ecological diversity. -
Natural Heritage Strategy Phase 1 Report
Submitted to the City of Guelph City of Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy Phase 1: Terrestrial Inventory Design & Defining Locally Significant Natural Areas Tree preservation on Grange Hill Torrance Creek PSW from Bathgate Drive Hanlon Creek Swamp PSW Homes backing onto Preservation Park FINAL REPORT March 2005 Dougan & Associates Submitted by Ecological Consulting Services Dougan & Associates 7 Waterloo Ave. Guelph, ON N1H 3H2 Tel. (519) 822-1609 Fax (519) 822-5389 Email: [email protected] In association with Web: www.dougan.ca Ecological Outlook City of Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy Phase 1: Terrestrial Inventory Design & Defining Locally Significant Natural Areas Acknowledgements We would like to thank the members of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) who have been an excellent resource and have guided and assisted in the development of this study and the overall Natural Heritage Strategy (NHS). The TSC has been structured to include members from diverse backgrounds with expertise in ecology and natural heritage planning, and will continue to play a key guiding role in subsequent phases. Currently, the TSC is comprised of the following individuals: ¾ Drew Cherry – Planner (Wellington County Stewardship Council) ¾ Astrid Clos – Planner (Guelph Development Association / Guelph and Area Homebuilder’s Association) ¾ Andrew Lambden – Developer (Guelph Development Association /Guelph and Area Homebuilder’s Association) ¾ Glynis Logue – Local Environmentalist (Green Plan Steering Committee/Guelph Environmental Leadership) ¾ Don Kudo – Manager of Infrastructure Planning (City of Guelph) ¾ Terry Schwan – Forester (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – OMNR) ¾ Helen White – Park Planner (City of Guelph) ¾ Val Wyatt – Local Naturalist/Consulting Ecologist (Guelph Field Naturalists) ¾ Tony Zammit – Ecologist or Fred Natolochny – Senior Planner (Grand River Conservation Authority – GRCA) In addition to their input through the TSC, the GRCA and OMNR (Guelph District) have provided base natural heritage data for this study. -
Urban Plant Diversity in Los Angeles, California: Species and Functional Type Turnover in Cultivated Landscapes
Received: 30 November 2018 | Revised: 13 June 2019 | Accepted: 9 July 2019 DOI: 10.1002/ppp3.10067 RESEARCH ARTICLE Urban plant diversity in Los Angeles, California: Species and functional type turnover in cultivated landscapes Meghan Avolio1 | Diane E. Pataki2 | G. Darrel Jenerette3 | Stephanie Pincetl4 | Lorraine Weller Clarke3,5 | Jeannine Cavender‐Bares6 | Thomas W. Gillespie7 | Sarah E. Hobbie6 | Kelli L. Larson8 | Heather R. McCarthy9 | Tara L. E. Trammell10 1Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA 3Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA 4University of California Los Angeles Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, Los Angeles, CA, USA 5Prince George’s Community College, Largo, MD, USA 6Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA 7Department of Geography, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA 8School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA 9Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA 10Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA Correspondence Meghan Avolio, Department of Earth Societal Impact Statement & Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins People plant, remove, and manage urban vegetation in cities for varying purposes University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA. and to varying extents. The direct manipulation of plants affects the benefits peo‐ Email: [email protected] ple receive from plants. In synthesizing several studies of urban biodiversity in Los Funding information Angeles, we find that cultivated plants differ from those in remnant natural areas.