The Effects of Residential Street Tree Spacing and Crown Interactions on Crown Dimensions and Canopy Cover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban trees provide people with a range of ecosystem services. Trees planted along streets have been a large focus of urban forest research and practice, and municipalities invest significant resources in their survival. However, the optimal spacing of street trees is not addressed in the scientific literature, and existing municipal street tree spacing standards are highly variable and poorly enforced. In this study, we examine variability in crown shape and size for street trees to test for possible interaction effects at closer spacings. We measured variability in crown diameters both parallel and perpendicular to street tree rows to test whether changes in crown dimensions can be explained by interaction effects with neighbouring trees, and whether crown interactions lead to a reduction in total crown projection area (i.e., canopy cover). We measured the crown dimensions and diameter at breast height of 1,338 street trees in Halifax, Canada. We used two-way analysis of variance to test whether crown shape and crown projection area were affected by crown interactions and spacing. We found that the effect of narrower spacing and interactions (i.e., crowns touching/overlapping) among trees translated to crowns extending away from the direction of interaction. We also found that these changing crown dimensions were associated with increases in canopy cover. Urban forest ecosystems are a vital resource for the increasingly urban population. There is a need for empirical research on spacing standards and practices that investigate their influence on the supply of ecosystem services, such as stormwater retention, air pollution removal, and cooling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".