ARTICLE IN PRESS

Urban Forestry: An Underutilized

Tool in Water Management
John T. Van Stan, II*, 1, S. Jeffrey Underwoodx and Jan Friesen{
*Department of Geology and Geography, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, United States
x
Office of the Vice President for Research, California State University, Los Angeles, CA, United States
{
Department of Catchment Hydrology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research e UFZ,
Leipzig, Germany
1
Corresponding author: E-mail: jvanstan@georgiasouthern.edu

Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Relevance of Urban Forests to Water Management 4
3. Precipitation Partitioning and Its Manageable Influences 4
3.1 Common Urban Forest Settings 6
3.2 Canopy Trimming Practices 9
3.3 Species Selection 10
4. Extreme WeatherdA Case Study 13
5. Net Precipitation Chemistry and Water Quality 17
6. Concluding Remarks 20
Acknowledgments 21
References 21

Abstract
Urban forestry widely affects urban environments, impacting a city’s microclimate,
recreational value, and water resources. With regard to water resources, urban trees
and forests can, for example, dampen the effects of extreme precipitation or help
evaporate precipitation to reduce stormwater runoff. Yet, urban planners rarely
consider urban forestry as a tool in integrated water resource management
(IWRM). This chapter focuses on how urban forest setting, canopy manipulation,
and tree species selection can significantly alter urban hydrologic processes, using
as an example the first interaction between urban forests and the terrestrial hydrolog-
ic cycle: canopy precipitation partitioning. We detail the economic relevance of urban
canopy precipitation partitioning to IWRM and review research quantifying its
connection to manageable urban forest traits. Since many urban forests around
the globe face increased extreme storm frequency, a case study of precipitation
partitioning among different forest settings during an extreme storm is presented.

Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental Management and Protection, Volume 3

© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
j
ISSN 2468-9289
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apmp.2018.04.003 All rights reserved. 1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

Major factors that influence the urban forest’s role in stormwater quality are also
discussed. Conclusions and future directions on how urban water managers may in-
fluence urban canopy precipitation partitioning to assist in achieving management
goals are provided.

Keywords: Interception; IWRM; Precipitation; Stemflow; Throughfall; Urban forestry

1. INTRODUCTION
Forest cover in urban watersheds around the globe often exceeds 30%,
and can be as high as 62%, of the land area.1e3 Greening initiatives are
expanding urban forest cover in most developed regions of the world,3
requiring consideration of forest management during urban development
planning.4 Integrating forest management and urban development planning
is, however, a complex task. This is because the urban landscapes’ spatial and
temporal vegetation patterns are not simply constrained by physical variables
(climate, soil types, etc.) but are also intimately tied to political,5 socioeco-
nomic,6 public safety,7,8 and cultural (plant selection for privacy screening,
aesthetics, etc.) variables.9 The compromise between these variables can
result in vegetation patterns that significantly alter urban hydrological
processes (Fig. 1). This is because management actions select (sometimes
inadvertently) for specific physical and physiological canopy traits, many
of which control urban forest water relations.11,12

Figure 1 Urban forests interact with major elements of integrated water resource
management (IWRM). Maintenance of urban forests (and other urban vegetation)
may require a percentage of the potable water demand. The canopy also alters
hydrological processes influencing stormwater management and, thus, the quality
and quantity of runoff and rainwater for reuse. For combined urban sewere
stormwater systems, urban forests may influence wastewater management via regula-
tion of stormwater overflows. However, factors driving urban forestry are numerous
and complex.10
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 3

The need for managers to balance societal water practices (especially

stormwater management)13 with the forest hydrological processes that
support the multitude of ecosystem services provided by urban forests14
is a relatively recent circumstance (and challenge) in the history of urban
watershed management. Water availability, our proficiency in managing
it, and the associated costs have long regulated the establishment and
expansion of urban landscapes.15 In addition, forests have been linked to
critical hydrological processesdsuch as stormwater runoff reduction16
and water filtration17dyet a global assessment of cities revealed that
most do not report the extent to which water quality depends on their
forest cover, structure, or health.15 This lack of documentation limits
monitoring and assessment of the hydrological consequences of urban
forest alterations or development.
Perhaps the lack of extensive geographical documentation, regarding
urban forest interactions with water resources, is in part a product of urban
forest management practices that have not been thoroughly integrated into
water resource management. Thus, the aim of this chapter is to synthesize
results on how urban forest setting, canopy manipulation, and species selec-
tion may be used by urban water managers to influence the first interaction
between forests and meteoric water (canopy precipitation partitioning).
The structure of the chapter begins with Section 2 detailing the economic
relevance of urban forestry to IWRM (Fig. 1). Then, Section 3 intro-
duces precipitation partitioning and its connection to the urban canopy’s
manageable structural traits, including forest setting (Section 3.1),
trimming practices (Section 3.2), and species selection (Section 3.3).
As many urban forests face increased extreme storm frequency due to hy-
drological intensification,18e22 Section 4 details a case study of precipita-
tion partitioning among different forest settings during an extreme
storm. Since precipitation partitioning affects the elemental composition
of water entering the urban environment, Section 5 presents major factors
that influence canopy capture and exchange of atmospheric deposi-
tion. Finally, Section 6 concludes with discussion on how urban water
managers can influence forests to assist to achieve management goals.
The focus on the waterevegetation interactions that initiate the rain-to-
runoff flow path is a critical and logical step toward the integration of
urban forestry into IWRM, as it influences the precipitation available to
subsequent surficial processes,23 its spatiotemporal patterning,24 and its
initial nutrient concentrations.25
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

2. RELEVANCE OF URBAN FORESTS TO WATER

MANAGEMENT
Comprehensive economic valuation of the benefits that urban
forests provide to communities shows that they can exceed installation
and maintenance costs. For example, a survey done in five American cities
estimated annual benefits ranging from $1.37 to $3.09 for every invested
dollar in urban forest management.13 Recently, a small portion of
California’s urban forest (street trees in the public right-of-way for 50 cities)
was estimated to have a total asset value of $2.49 billion ($75.1 million,
standard error), returning an average benefit of $5.82 per dollar invested.26
This asset value is very high and was based on a wide range of benefits
(energy, air pollution mitigation, etc.), including ecosystem services from
urban forest impacts on the hydrological processes controlling stormwater
runoff.26 Despite the street trees of California’s urban forest being approxi-
mately one-third of stocking capacity, their canopies reduced precipitation
reaching the soil surface by over 26 million m3/year, returning a monetary
value of $41.5 million annually.26
Although that monetary value is very high, it can be considered
conservative since street trees in urban forests generally account for only
one-fourth of a city’s canopy cover.27 This value, when standardized by
the number of trees in statewide urban forest studies, found stormwater
control services to be highly valued, ranging from $4.55 to $29.91
tree.26,28,29 Likewise, the inclusion of stormwater quality variables in
economic analyses adds to these values: i.e., $39.81 for every 1000 metric
tons of reduced suspended sediment, corrected for inflation.30 Conse-
quently, urban forest management is of substantial quantitative and eco-
nomic relevance to IWRM. It is also noted that the stormwater-related
economic benefits per tree range substantially by over six times between
the maximum and minimum estimated standardized per tree value,26,28,29
indicating managers may manipulate attributes of the urban forest structure
to achieve maximal stormwater management benefits.

3. PRECIPITATION PARTITIONING AND ITS

MANAGEABLE INFLUENCES
Precipitation over urban watersheds is physically and physiologically
“partitioned” by forests (Fig. 2). When precipitation falls over an urban
forest canopy, it is physically partitioned into interception (evaporated
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 5

Figure 2 Urban forests partition gross precipitation (Pg) physically and physiologically.
Physical partitioning of Pg includes the evaporation (E) of water stored (S) on canopy
surfaces31 and from other aerodynamic/splash-related phenomena32 and the resulting
“net” precipitation (Pnet) that reaches the surface as throughfall (Pt) and stemflow (Ps).
Some Pnet is physiologically partitioned when it is taken up by roots and transpired (T).

water and water stored on canopy surfaces), throughfall (water falling from
canopy surfaces and through canopy gaps), and stemflow (water that drains
to the surface down tree stems). Precipitation that reaches the surface,
throughfall plus stemflow, is called “net” precipitation. As the net precip-
itation enters the soil, some is physiologically partitioned and moves back
to the atmosphere via transpiration. On the one hand, some literature exists
on transpiration impacts to urban hydrology33e36 and transpiration
demands are integrated into the hobbyist’s,37 professional,38 and govern-
mental guidebooks for landscape design.39 On the other hand, few studies
have addressed the physical partitioning of precipitation in urban forest
canopies, and the authors are unaware of synthesis work focusing on the
subject.
Information on interception, throughfall, and stemflow across urban
forest ecosystems is needed since canopy and meteorological attributes
(controlling the partitioning) can drastically affect the magnitude,
patterning, and chemistry of net precipitation. In general, precipitation
interception returns 10%e50% of annual-scale precipitation back to the
atmosphere40 although it can vary drastically across individual storms,
maximizing at 100% of precipitation for small storms.41 For green cities
in arid and semiarid climates (where small storms are frequent), intercep-
tion can return substantial amounts of the limited precipitation supply to
the atmosphere.42 Throughfall often represents the greatest proportion
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

of annual precipitation, 60%e90%,43 and its spatiotemporal variability is

exceptionally high44 with consequences for the spatial patterning of urban
surface water processes.45,46 The smallest proportion of precipitation is
typically stemflow, which rarely exceeds 2%.47 However, even modest-
seeming stemflow percentages (3%e10% of precipitation) should not be
ignored by watershed managers as the outlying canopy acts like a funnel,
creating concentrated infiltration points under such conditions.48,49 In nat-
ural forests, net precipitation can be further altered through interaction
with litter layers,50 yet urban forests are rarely permitted to accumulate
litter. Thus, litter interception is not included in the chapter.
Precipitation partitioning by forests is a timely and important topic for
hydrological forecasting as it is the literal front line between climate change
and surface hydrobiogeochemical processes. The canopyeprecipitation
interactions controlling net precipitation are linked to storm conditions43
that are being altered by the anthropogenic acceleration of the global water
cycle,51 a process that has been intensifying global precipitation52 over the
past decade.53 Developing theoretical foundations to support comprehen-
sive integration of urban forestry into IWRM is therefore, urgent,
particularly in regions impacted by shifts in precipitation regime. For
example, the intensely urbanized (and urban forested) megalopolis of the
Northeastern United States has experienced a 70% increase in heavy
precipitation events over the past 55 years,21 and it is projected to
increase.18 Likewise, urban forested regions throughout the world are
projected to experience significant changes in precipitation amount and
extremes.19,20,22 In these cases, management of precipitation partitioning
by urban forest canopies may be an appropriate and practical complement
to other climate resiliency and adaptation strategies. Many manageable
urban forest attributes have been found to influence the interchange
between interception, throughfall, and stemflow, including (1) setting of
the urban forests planted, (2) canopy structural manipulation of existing
urban forests, and (3) consideration of traits during tree selection.
Urban watershed managers may be able to tailor forests to assist in
achieving local water goals by considering at least these major urban forest
structural factors, along with other urban forestry guidelines.

3.1 Common Urban Forest Settings

Because of standard urban planning, engineering, and forestry practices,
urban forest settings typically assume one of the several common forms
(Fig. 3). Forest fragments have the greatest canopy closure and the lowest
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 7

(A) (B) (C)

(D) (E) (F)

Figure 3 Typical urban forest settings. Urban forests are generally of the following
structural types, in order of the degree of canopy closure: (A) forest fragment, (B)
park forest, (C) residential forest, (D) open row forest, (E) sheltered row forest, and (F)
isolated trees. Each of them may have different impacts on physical precipitation
partitioning.

internal disturbance, at least locally (Fig. 3A). In park forests, walking

paths and lawn spaces form a mosaic of isolated canopies and small copses,
or tree clusters (Fig. 3B). Residential, often periurban, forests maintain a
distributed pattern of isolated canopies and copses, but the residential canopy
space is shared with urban structures: roofs, poles, wiring, etc (Fig. 3C).
Row forests represent the most common setting as they line transportation
corridors, from the “unsheltered” open highway (Fig. 3D) to inner-city
street canyons that can provide many stories of shelter (Fig. 3E). As such,
it is no surprise that street trees in row forest settings are the most
studied.26,54 Isolated tree canopies are also abundant in the urban forest
setting, particularly in locations requiring substantial impervious cover,
like parking lots (Fig. 3F).
Even though forest fragments (Fig. 3A) are similar to natural closed-
canopy forests internally, they can differ significantly in perimeter-to-area
ratio,55 a metric that has ecological consequences.56,57 For precipitation par-
titioning, however, no significant “edge” effect on throughfall volume and
interception amount has been found yet.58e60 Investigations on whether,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

and to what degree, the “edge” effect impacts stemflow volume have
not been performed,61 but, as observed for throughfall and interception,
stemflow volumes are not expected to significantly respond to forest edge
effects. Note that edge effects can significantly alter throughfall and stem-
flow quality (see Section 4). Forest fragments generally have the highest
overall water storage capacity of urban forest settings, which is directly
related to canopy closure.62 Reduced canopy ventilation of forest fragments
may constrain evaporation rates,63 but greater evaporative surface area will
likely increase total interception compared with other urban forest settings.
Canopy structure of closed-canopy forests (like the interior of a forest frag-
ment) typically does not favor stemflow (see Section 3.2); thus, throughfall is
expected to dominate forest fragment net precipitation.
For park and residential forests, the mosaic of isolated trees and copses
reduces the competitive factors that pressure canopies to vertically thin-
outdi.e., branch drop64 or crown shyness.65 If conditions allow, this
setting can increase the density per unit canopy area, which, in turn,
increases interception per unit canopy area: e.g., to 20%e60% of precipi-
tation.45,66 The increased interception is likely a product of (1) greater
interception surface area enhancing water storage and (2) greater canopy
exposure permitting better ventilation and, therefore, increased evapora-
tion rates from leaf and bark surfaces.67,68 Reduction of canopy overlap
may also permit greater woody biomass production, which can favor
stemflow production.69 Increased storage, evaporation, and stemflow
production in urban park and residential forests may result in lower
throughfall proportions beneath the canopy. These conditions are also
typical for tree rows (Fig. 3D,E) and, of course, isolated trees (Fig. 3F).
However, the degree of sheltering by urban structures can alter the cano-
py’s water, and related energy, budget.
Residential and sheltered row forests experience a range of impacts
from nearby structures in the “urban canopy layer” that alter their precipi-
tation partitioning. This is because urban structures significantly differ than
forest canopies in their interaction with meteorological variables: (1) being
impermeable to wind and precipitation; (2) having a greater range of
albedo/emissivity values; (3) storing substantially greater heat; and (4)
presenting diurnal thermal dynamics linked to engineering controls, such
as heating and ventilation.33 Shelter from urban structures reduces the
canopy’s access to precipitation and, thus, determines the amount of
precipitation intercepted and drained. Once precipitation water is stored
on a canopy, being surrounded by urban structures can change the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 9

meteorological evaporation drivers (wind and energy). Sheltered tree row

and residential forests may experience greater shortwave radiation flux
from reflection off building structures or increased longwave radiation
flux due to overhead exposure to heat-emitting building surfaces rather
than the open sky.70 This greater available energy in the canopy can fuel
evaporation of entrained precipitation.71 Heated building facades and
ground surfaces may also alter the atmospheric circulation patterns,72 which
drive evaporation from wet canopies during storms. It is also noteworthy
that sheltering of tree row and residential forests can alter a tree’s structural
developmentde.g., Moser et al.73 found that crown area, volume, and
openness were smallest for Robinia pseudoacacia in urban street canyons
than in less-sheltered or unsheltered settings in Bavaria, Germany. These
dense, narrow canopies are efficient precipitation interceptors and stemflow
generators.

3.2 Canopy Trimming Practices

Little research has been performed to quantitatively evaluate how canopy
trimming practices affect physical precipitation partitioning,74,75 and no
studies known to the authors have been performed in urban forests.
Only Kaushal et al.75 evaluate the impact of the three most common
canopy trimming practices simultaneously. Most knowledge on canopy
structural influences over interception, throughfall, and stemflow is based
on research in undisturbed or plantation forests (see review by Pypker
et al.76). Still, these results indicate that there are several canopy manipula-
tion methods currently employed for aesthetic and safety purposes that
could be used to change the forest’s precipitation partitioning behavior.
It is common to (1) thin tree canopies by pruning back to the second-order
branch level, (2) pollard canopies by the removal of woody material back
to the primary branches or trunk, and (3) cut trees back to the stem base in
a process called coppicing. The regrowth response to these varying levels
of woody material removal is structurally similar at the pruning sited
production of multitudinous, thin, ramified, and fast-growing
branchesdwith impacts on the canopy hydrology, which will vary tempo-
rally as the cut areas regrow (Table 1).
An immediate increase in the proportion of the canopy occupied by
gaps, after any level of canopy trimming, produces a short-term increase
in throughfall, specifically “gap” throughfall, and a reduction in stemflow,
canopy water storage, and evaporation (Table 1). The severity of these
short-term shifts in precipitation partitions is linked to the degree of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

Table 1 Hydrological Impacts of Canopy Trimming

Hydrological Variable Short Term Long Term

Canopy water storage  þ

Canopy evaporation  þ
Throughfall þ 
Stemflow  þ
Studies on canopy trimming are few,74,75 but this table summarizes direct (þ) and indirect ()
relationships between the short- and long-term hydrological effects.

trimming, where coppicing elicits the greatest changes and pruning of

higher-order branches, the least. Due to the production of multitudinous,
thin, steeply inclined and ramified branches after pruning,77 the forest
canopy eventually becomes efficient at capturing precipitation.75 This
long-term increase in efficiently intercepting branches boosts canopy water
storage, evaporation, and stemflow generation. Therefore, in forests where
canopy trimming has regrown, throughfall decreases (Table 1). It is also
important to note that periodic pruning of trees for water management
also may reduce subsequent costs accrued during treatment of defects that
develop as trees mature.26
Urban forests can host significant vegetation on their canopies as
epiphytes (lichens, mosses, bromeliads, etc.) or parasites (mistletoe, Cuscuta,
etc.). By increasing the intercepting surface area, the vegetation inhabiting
forest canopies generally increases the water storage and evaporation of
precipitation while reducing throughfall and stemflow inputs.78 Thus,
their trimming (or removal) may be useful in maximizing water receipt at
the surface, or for stormwater management, the additional storage in epi-
phytes may be beneficial.

3.3 Species Selection

Urban development typically results in the replacement of native with
nonnative plant species,79 although many programs exist promoting
reintroduction of native species, and the identification and removal of
invasive species, as well as assisting communities and landowners in accom-
plishing these tasks.80,81 Whether species selection favors native or nonnative
plants, it results in vegetation compositions and structures that impact
(perhaps inadvertently at present) the patterning of canopy traits long known
to influence precipitation partitioning.76 These canopy traits include species’
leaf shape/configuration,82 bark morphology,83,84 and whether/to what
extent they host epiphytes.85,86 Currently, the aesthetic arrangement of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 11

these canopy traits and its relationship to consumer preferences and public
safety design primarily drive species selection and management in urban
forestry.7e9 However, precipitation storage and evaporation estimates exist
for most of these canopy traits, so managers can use these alongside aesthetic,
safety, and other criteria to aid in tree selection (Table 2). When considering
a species’ impact on precipitation partitioning, note that bark and epiphytes
merit close attention, as they can store large amounts of water (Table 2).
General relationships between species-specific canopy traits and nearly every
component of the canopy water balance have been described (Table 3)
and may be useful for urban water managers interested in collaborating
with urban foresters during species selection.
The large ranges in water storage and evaporation for each canopy
trait (Table 2) drives in part, differences in precipitation partitioning be-
tween species that can be significant.42,46,89 For example, Pinus species
with archetypical thick bark and dense evergreen needles tend to intercept
the greatest portion of precipitation compared with seasonal broadleaved
species with low bark water storage, like some Fraxinus species (Fig. 4).
These species-specific canopy traits also translate to low (3% of precipitation)
and high (9% of precipitation) stemflow generation for the Pinus spp. versus
the Fraxinus spp., respectively (Fig. 4). As mentioned in Section 3, although
the precipitation that contacts the canopy becoming stemflow (9%) seems

Table 2 Range of Precipitation Storage Capacity and Evaporation Rates for Major
Canopy Traits
Evaporation
Element Storage (mm) (mm/h) Citation(s)

Broadleaves 0.2e2.0* 0.1e4.000 *Leyton et al.,101 André et al.,119

Chen and Li,120 N
avar121
Needleleaves 0.1e4.3* 0.1e4.200 *Llorens and Gallart,122 link et al.,123
N
avar,121 Van stan et al.68
Bark 1.3e5.9* 0.0e0.300 *Herwitz,83 Van stan et al.68
Epiphytes 0.1e16.6* 0.1e0.500 *Van stan et al.,11,86 Van stan and
Pypker,78 Jarvis,124 Ah-Peng
et al.125
^Deadwood/ 1.1e20* 0.1e0.600 *Pypker et al. (2006), Sexton and
organics Harmon88, Unsworth et al.,87
Sexton and Harmon88
Depth equivalent units (mm) represent L/m2 surface area. Note that (1) most of these values are from
natural (closed-canopy) forests due to the lack of data on urban forests11,68 and (2) deadwood/organics
studies cited correspond to “coarse woody debris”87 and “decaying logs.”88
^In actively managed urban forests, this is minimized.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

Table 3 Hydrological Impacts of Major Species-specific Canopy Traits

Hydrological Variable
Canopy Trait Storage Evaporation Throughfall Stemflow
Leaf
Hydrophobic1   þ þ/
Hydrophilic1 þ þ þ/ þ/
Density/closure/LAI2 þ þ  
Bark
Smooth3   þ/ þ
Rough3 þ þ þ/ 
Branch/Trunk
Size (DBH)4 þ þ  þ/
Inclination4 n.a. n.a. * þ*
Biomass/WAI2 þ þ  þ
Epiphyte host?5 þ þ  
Previous research has found that canopy hydrological variables tend to directly (þ) or indirectly ()
relate to common leaf, bark, and woody structural traits and the potential for a species to host epiphytes.
This summary may be used as a general guide for tree selection.
*Inclination over w45 can result in stemflow reduction.76
1
Rosado and Holder (2013).
2
Sadeghi et al.69
3
Van Stan et al.126
4
Pypker et al.76
5
Van Stan and Pypker.78

Figure 4 Example of between-species differences in canopy precipitation partitioning.

Four examples of tree species commonly selected for urban forestry around the globe
show that the proportion of precipitation partitioned into interception, throughfall, and
stemflow can significantly differ among species. Data from Sadeghi et al.42 and photos
from commons.wikimedia.org: from left to right, AlixSaz,90 Luidger,91 Rhinomind,92 Pedro
Felipe.93
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 13

modest, it can produce a significantly concentrated hydrological flux at the

base of the stem. For example, the 9% of a 25 mm storm across a modest
30 m2 canopy area results in a stemflow input >60 mm over a 1 m2 area
around the trunk. Thus, if water management goals for a region include
increasing infiltration, canopy traits favoring stemflow generation should
be considered. Although not yet fully quantified, there is a direct relation-
ship between stemflow generation and branch inclination angle to a tipping
point whereafter stemflow drips off as throughfall.12,94 Of course, canopy
area is also important in diverting precipitation to stemflow. This is apparent
for the 7% stemflow generating Cupressus spp. (Fig. 4), whose canopy
produces inclined branches, but the narrow canopy area limits its access to
precipitation compared with Fraxinus spp.
The precipitation interception and drainage efficiency of the species
may also depend on less conspicuous canopy traits, such as leaf hydropho-
bicity.89(Table 3) However, the degree of hydrophobicity can sometimes
be intuited by the presence and structure of waxy leaf cuticles.95
Species-specific leaf habits also appear to be linked to temporal trends in
leaf hydrophobicity, where longer-lived leaves tend to become less water
repellant over time.96e98

4. EXTREME WEATHERdA CASE STUDY

Many urban forests face an increase in extreme storm frequency due
to hydrological intensification.18e22 The authors are unaware of research
comparing precipitation partitioning across different urban forest settings
during extreme storms. Little research exists on this subject in general,99
likely because canopy water storage is rapidly overwhelmed (see Table 2)
by intense storms. Canopy structure controls more than storage; however,
as it affects the time for precipitation to drain and micrometeorological
conditions driving evaporation. Thus, here we share observations from
an example extreme rain event, w100 mm, starting February 3, 2016,
with maximum 5-min intensities >50 mm/h (Fig. 5) across three sites
along a natural-to-urban gradient in the Southeastern United States, near
Statesboro, Georgia: 32.45 N, 81.78 W (Table 4). The relevance of
this case study is that, for the past half decade, the underlying synoptic
conditions have become very common in the winter: an extensive ridging
of height contours in approximate alignment with the US west coast
(Figs. 6A). This circulation anomaly has been observed in a long-lived
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

Figure 5 Storm meteorological conditions for an example rain event (starting 1700
EST, February 3, 2016) during which precipitation partitioning was monitored across
a natural-to-urban gradient in forest setting. Meteorological conditions are plotted
every 5 min, and a summary of even-scale rain conditions is provided in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of Rainfall and Precipitation Partitioning Characteristics Across a

Natural-to-Urban Forest Structural Gradient in Georgia (United States) for February
3, 2016
Site
Storm Characteristics Natural Fragment Row
Rainfall
Amount (mm) 97.8 88.1 105.8
Storm intensity (mm/h) 5.3 4.9 5.9
Maximum intensity (mm/h) 55.2 66.1 77.6
Throughfall
% of rain amount 83.8% 81.6% 75.3%
% of storm intensity reduction 17.0% 28.6% 32.2%
Interception
% of rain amount 16.2% 18.4% 24.7%
Storage (mm) 1.2 1.7 2.8
Evaporation (mm/h) 0.11 0.14 0.18
Total storage and event maximum evaporation rate were estimated via Aston100 and Leyton et al.101
Stemflow was negligible in these pine stands41 and was excluded.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Figure 6 Upper troposphere and surface plots for example storm. (A) 500 hPa geopoten-
tial height field observations (50 gpm contour interval) and superimposed dashed and
solid lines to indicate trough and ridge axes, respectively. (B) In surface analyses where
station models are standard, fronts are shown as blue (cold) and red (warm), and contours
are MSLP at 4 hPa intervals. (C) NOAA HYSPLIT back trajectories of air masses proximal to
the study sites. Red, blue, and green trajectory traces are 1000, 3000, and 6000 m AGL,
respectively. Below trajectory map is a time graph illustrating relative humidity estimates
for each of the trajectory traces at 6 h intervals for the 72 h before the storm starts.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

quasistationary position so frequently that it has been called the “ridicu-

lously resilient ridge.”102 With this configuration, the North American
dipole (alternating continental pattern of surface temperature) has been
observed in a rather intense phase: with warmer than normal temperature
coinciding with the west coast ridge and colder than normal temperature
observed in conjunction with the downstream trough.103 Increasing
frequency of this configuration with a poleward displacement of the
Bermuda High suggests that storms like in this case study may become
more frequent.
The storm intensity in the case study was extreme, but its duration was
also anomalous (Fig. 5). Rainfall was forced by a frontal boundary (Fig. 6B);
however, the lack of atmospheric translation provided a very slow advance
of the cold frontal boundary across the state of Georgia. In addition to the
slow movement of the tropospheric wave, cold air advected southward to
the Gulf of Mexico behind the front, and the air in advance of the cold front
was warm and extremely moist (Fig. 6C). The warm moist air was moved
into southeast Georgia by the return flow around the surface high pressure
ridge over the western Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 6C). The air masses at 1000 and
3000 m were highly charged with moisture at their origins and remained
>50% relative humidity for the 72-h period of the analysis (Fig. 6C).
Thus, Fig. 6AeC shows the interconnectivity of scales that is becoming
more frequent and resilient than in preceding decades,102,104 with the con-
tinental scale wave impacting the synoptic scale frontal boundary and
mesoscale moisture advection (and precipitation) across southeast Georgia.
It is this configuration that altered the advancement speed of surface fronts
and allowed for long-duration rainfall (as observed in this case study).
One can, thus, argue that the change in frequency of west coast ridging
along with the poleward shift of the Bermuda high during the winter season
(i.e., Fig. 6) portends more extreme rainfall events across the southeast
portion of the United States.
Storm conditions were similar across sites: Rain amount was 88e
106 mm and total storm intensity was 5e6 mm/h (Table 4). Sites were
Pinus species in a natural, fragment, and tree row forest setting (Fig. 5,
bottom panels). No sites produced significant stemflow. Throughfall inten-
sity across sites was lower than rain intensity, but intensity “dampening”
differed: 33%, 28%, and 17% beneath the tree row, fragment, and natural
forest, respectively (Table 4). Wet canopy evaporation rates per unit can-
opy area (derived indirectly from rain v. interception regressions) were
higher for the row, 0.18 mm/h, than for the fragment, 0.14 mm/h, and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 17

the natural setting, 0.11 mm/h (Table 4). Water storage per unit canopy
area was highest and lowest for the row and natural forest, respectively
(Table 4). Rainfall interception percentages per unit canopy area decreased
from urban-to-natural stand structures, 25%e16% (Table 4).
Rain-to-throughfall intensity reductions of the magnitude observed at
these forest sites have been reported previously from modeling work,
where the throughfall response to extreme storms (>80 mm rainfall)
with short-duration, high-intensity rainfall periods reduced intensity by
up to w30%.99 This intensity reduction for large magnitude extreme
storms appears to be driven primarily by the way water transfers through
the canopy and secondarily by evaporation.99 The pathways and timing
of rainfall transfer through the canopy are tied to canopy structure,44,105
and thus, it is reasonable that the assumedly lengthier rainfall transfer
through the densest, most “layered” tree row canopy would result in the
greatest intensity reduction (Table 4). Tree row canopies are better venti-
lated/more exposed to wind compared with the fragment and natural
stand, in part explaining higher evaporation rates per unit canopy aread
more details on evaporation from this site can be found in Van Stan
et al.68 Settings that permit dense canopy development (parks, residential,
rows, isolated canopies: Fig. 3) may best reduce rain intensity during
extreme storm events. Rain intensity reduction is connected to several
important surface processes in urban IWRM. For example, on impervious
surfaces, rain and throughfall intensity can control, in part, the rapidity of
the runoff and streamwater discharge response. In parks, intense through-
fall can saturate soils, aiding the destabilization and uprooting of trees.106
Careful consideration of urban forest setting, alongside other landscaping
requirements, therefore, may be useful in mitigating the runoff response
and associated sediment loads from extreme storms.

5. NET PRECIPITATION CHEMISTRY AND WATER

QUALITY
The journey of precipitation water from first canopy contact to net
precipitation (throughfall and stemflow) often results in substantial chemical
alteration.25 During the dry period between storms, particulate and gaseous
aerosols (including air pollutants) suspended in the passing winds are depos-
ited on the urban canopy surfaces (Fig. 7). Deposited aerosols can undergo
significant bio- and photochemical transformations on canopy surfacesda
notable example is sulfur.107,108 Dry deposition also consists of materials
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

Figure 7 Major processes that alter precipitation quality during contact with the
canopy. Atmospherically transported materials that influence stormwater quality,
including natural and pollutant aerosols, solutes, and gasses, are deposited onto urban
forest canopies during dry and wet periods. Many of these materials are exchanged
with the canopy during wash-off by precipitation, resulting in net precipitation quality
being drastically altered compared with bulk precipitation.

(1) respired and exuded from the canopy, particularly for potassium109,110
and dissolved organic matter,111 (2) excreted from canopy fauna,112 or (3)
from microbial communities hosted on canopy surfaces.113 Precipitation,
or wet deposition, brings further solutes and particulates to the urban forest
canopy while also scouring dry deposited compounds from canopy surfaces,
in a process called “wash-off” (Fig. 7). During transport through the canopy
as throughfall and stemflow, the chemically enriched precipitation water ex-
changes with leaf, bark, and epiphyte surfaces (Fig. 7). The result of these
chemical alterations is, generally, that the concentration of many solutes
can be enhanced by 500 (e.g., Kþ) to 5000 (e.g., NO3  ) times that of gross
precipitation.114 Canopyeprecipitation interactions controlling throughfall
and stemflow chemical quality often generate 100 s kg/ha year of nutrient
supply to the surfaces below the urban forest canopy (e.g., dissolved organic
carbon.111 In addition to generating nutrient supply to the surface, these
processes have been found to capture air pollutants and to magnify their
deposition to the surface via throughfall115 and stemflow.116
Although no edge effects on throughfall and stemflow volume have been
found (see Section 3.1), the edge of forest fragments, and assumedly copses
in park and residential settings, have been found to affect the chemical
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 19

quality of throughfall60 and stemflow acid neutralizing capacity.117 For

throughfall, solutes most significantly affected by the edge effect were
primarily from atmospheric deposition, such as sea salts, Cl, and potentially
acidifying ions, SO4 2 and NO3  .60 An “edge enhancement” factor devel-
oped by Wuyts et al.60 observed that sea salt concentrations could double
along the edge compared with the interior and that potentially acidifying
ions increased up to 1.5 times along the edge. Species should also be consid-
ered in edge effects for urban forest planning, as coniferous trees have been
found to capture and concentrate aerosols more effectively along the forest
edge than broadleaved trees.60 The effect of potentially acidifying ions on
stemflow, along the edge, may be offset by increased acid neutralization
capacity (ANC) of trees along the edge.117 In fact, edge enhancement factors
for potentially acidifying ions are generally <2,60,118 but Shiklomanov and
Levia117 reported an edge-to-interior ANC multiplier of 2.44 for stemflow.
Studies on edge-related shifts in throughfall chemistry are numerous enough
to have merited a review a decade ago118; however, research on edge effects
for stemflow is limited. Insights from the limited stemflow literature, but
ample throughfall literature, indicate that magnification of aerosol pollutant
load along urban forest edges may be substantial (throughfall is the bulk of
precipitation reaching the surface). Thus, managers may consider mini-
mizing the perimeter length of urban forests.
These quality-related findings regarding urban forest canopy interactions
with precipitation raise many important questions for IWRM. Principally,
how does the urban canopy’s scavenging of aerosol and chemical exchange
with precipitation influence stormwater quality? Unfortunately, this is a
knowledge gap for urban forests. If air pollutants are spatially magnified
by throughfall and stemflow processes, should urban forest planning and
management consider common air mass provenances and trajectories for
storms that carry these pollutants when determining where and what to
plant? Alternatively, can the nutrients transported by net precipitation
from the canopy to soils (in the absence of impervious surfaces, like in parks)
improve the urban soil ecosystem services? The answers to these questions
are not known yet and need further research. This is because, to the authors’
knowledge, connections between the urban forest’s alteration of precipita-
tion chemistry and surface hydrological processes (soilwater, runoff, and
streamwater quality) have not been previously researched. This may be an
important nexus between urban forestry and IWRM for urban catchments
(see Fig. 1), and investigations on this topic are arguably necessary for the
holistic integration of these two fields.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Urban forestry is a valuable, but underutilized, tool for managing the
amount, quality, and timing of precipitation supply to the surface of urban
watersheds. The physical partitioning of precipitation by canopies into
interception, throughfall, and stemflow can be affected by the (1) urban
forest setting, (2) trimming of canopy structures, and (3) consideration of
traits’ hydrological interactions when selecting tree species. It is important
to note that manipulating canopies’ precipitation partitioning only
addresses hydrologic processes at start of the terrestrial water cycle, and
urban forestry practices can manipulate vegetation-related factors further
down the rainfall-to-runoff pathway (understory cover, transpiration,
root growth forms, etc.). Although the literature is sparse, it appears that
by considering at least these major urban forest structural factors, along
with other urban forestry guidelines, urban watershed managers may be
able to tailor forests to assist in achieving local stormwater goals. When
the aim is net precipitation reduction, past research indicates that managers
should select tree species with traits that favor water storage and evapora-
tion such as thicker and rougher bark, denser leaf coverage that persists
throughout the year, and relatively flat branching architecture that hosts
epiphytes. An urban forest setting that allows maximum canopy biomass
production (greater between-tree spacing) may allow denser canopy devel-
opment and, therefore, greater interception efficiency. If the goal is to
maximize net precipitation, managers can consider canopy traits, setting
and trimming techniques to maximize either the areally diffuse flux
(throughfall) or the concentrated flux (stemflow), depending on whether
deep infiltration (via stemflow) is desired. Promotion of throughfall versus
stemflow will primarily depend on branching architecture, where a greater
number of steeper branches with minimal bark thickness will promote
stemflow, and the opposite for throughfall. Although increased stemflow
production may result in deeper infiltration of precipitation, there are
many considerations to enable meaningful stemflow management. In
fact, excellent recommendations regarding urban forestry and stemflow
have been made by Schooling and Carlyle-Moses94 “to promote stemflow
production while also minimizing stormwater runoff in urban environ-
ments.” Recommendations from Schooling and Carlyle-Moses,94 in
addition to those discussed in this chapter, include ensuring that sufficient
infiltration capacity be provided at the trunk base and considering the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 21

regional storm regime and mature size of selected species during planning
(i.e., smaller trees will generate stemflow under lower storm sizes). It is
also prudent for managers to consider precipitation projections, including
increased extreme storm size and frequency, when considering the urban
forest setting, species selection, and canopy management. In the extreme
storm case study for the southeastern United States, the tree row setting
more effectively stored and evaporated rainfall and reduced rainfall inten-
sity per unit canopy area than the fragment or natural stand structure.
Further research should examine the precipitation partitioning of the
various urban forest settings and their common canopy manipulations
during extreme storms. Regarding stormwater quality, urban managers
should be mindful that precipitation’s interaction with the urban forest
canopy can (1) significantly increase or deplete solute concentrations, (2)
transfer substantial bacteria and fungal spores to the surface, (3) concentrate
nutrients/pollutants to near-stem soils via stemflow, and (4) direct greater
aerosol deposition along forest edges. Other questions regarding urban
forests’ role in urban stormwater quality remain, particularly across scales
(i.e., city-scale forest interactions with synoptic meteorological conditions
in the face of anthropogenic change), and where throughfall and stemflow
intersect with soil, riparian, and stream processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Collaboration between Van Stan, Underwood, and Friesen on this chapter was supported by
US-NSF (EAR-1518726).

REFERENCES
1. Konijnendijk CC. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For Policy Econ 2003;5:173e86.
2. Nowak DJ, Stein SM, Randler PB, Greenfield EJ, Comas SJ, Carr MA, et al. Sustaining
America’s urban trees and forests. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;
2010. General Technical Report 2010; NRS-62.
3. McGovern M, Pasher J. Canadian urban tree canopy cover and carbon sequestration
status and change 1990e2012. Urban For Urban Green 2016;20:227e32.
4. Miller RW, Hauer RJ, Werner LP. Urban forestry: planning and managing urban greenspa-
ces. 3rd ed. Long Grove: Waveland Press; 2015.
5. Campbell LK. Constructing New York City’s urban forest: the politics and governance
of the Million Trees NYC campaign. In: Sandberg L, Bardekjian A, Butt S, editors.
Urban forests, trees & greenspace, a political ecology perspective. New York: Routledge;
2014. p. 242e60.
6. Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Gillespie TW, Jenerette GD, McCarthy HR, Pinceti S, et al.
Tree diversity in southern California’s urban forest: the interacting roles of social and
environmental variables. Front Ecol Evol 2015;3:73.
7. Turner DS, Mansfield ER. Urban trees and roadside safety. J Transp Eng 1990;116.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1990)116:1(90).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

8. Wolf KL, Bratton N. Urban trees and traffic safety: considering US roadside policy and
crash data. Arboric Urban For 2006;32:170e9.
9. Clarke LW, Jenerette GD, Davila A. The luxury of vegetation and the legacy of tree
biodiversity in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc Urban Plan 2013;116:48e59.
10. Steenberg JWN, Millward AA, Nowak DJ, Robinson PJ. A conceptual framework of
urban forest ecosystem vulnerability. Environ Rev 2017;25:115e26.
11. Van Stan JT, Levia DF, Jenkins RB. Forest canopy interception loss across temporal
scales: implications for urban greening initiatives. Prof Geogr 2015a;67:41e51.
12. Gotsch SG, Draguljic D, Williams CJ. Evaluating the effectiveness of urban trees to
mitigate storm runoff via transpiration and stemflow. Urban Ecosyst 2017. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0693-y.
13. McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Maco SE, Xiao Q. Municipal forest benefits
and costs in five US cities. J For 2005;103:411e6.
14. Livseley SJ, McPherson EG, Calfapietra C. The urban forest and ecosystem services:
impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. J
Environ Qual 2016;45:119e24.
15. McDonald RI, Douglas I, Revenga C, Hale R, Grimm N, Groenwall J, et al. Global
urban growth and the geography of water availability, quality, and delivery. Ambio
2011;40:437e46.
16. Xiao Q, McPherson EG. Rainfall interception by Santa Monica’s municipal urban
forest. Urban Ecosyst 2003;6:291e302.
17. Neary DG, Ice GG, Jackson CR. Linkages between forest soils and water quality and
quantity. For Ecol Manage 2009;258:2269e81.
18. Horton R, Yohe G, Easterling W, Kates R, Ruth M, Sussman E, et al. Northeast. In:
Melillo JM, Richmond T, Yohe GW, editors. Climate change impacts in the United States:
the third national climate assessment. Washington: US Global Change Research Program;
2014. p. 371e95.
19. Madsen H, Lawrence D, Lang M, Martinkova M, Kjeldsen TR. Review of trend anal-
ysis and climate change projections of extreme precipitation and floods in Europe. J
Hydrol 2014;519D:3634e50.
20. Melillo JM, Richmond T, Yohe GW. Climate change impacts in the United States: the
Third National Climate Assessment. Washington: US global change research program. 2014.
21. Walsh J, Wuebbles D, Hayhoe K, Kossin J, Kunkel K, Stephens G, et al. Our changing
climate. In: Melillo JM, Richmond T, Yohe GW, editors. Climate change impacts in the
United States: the third national climate assessment. Washington: US Global Change
Research Program; 2014. p. 19e67.
22. Loo YY, Billa L, Singh A. Effect of climate change on seasonal monsoon in Asia and its
impact on the variability of monsoon rainfall in Southeast Asia. Geosci Front 2015;6:
817e23.
23. Savenije HHG. The importance of interception and why we should delete the term
evapotranspiration from our vocabulary. Hydrol Process 2004;18:1507e11.
24. Keim RF, Skaugset AE, Weiler M. Temporal persistence of spatial patterns in
throughfall. J Hydrol 2005;314:263e74.
25. Parker GG. Throughfall and stemflow in the forest nutrient cycle. Adv Ecol Res 1983;
13:57e133.
26. McPherson EG, van Doorn N, de Goede J. Structure, function and value of street trees
in California, USA. Urban For Urban Green 2016;17:104e15.
27. McPherson EG, Nowak D, Heisler G, Grimmond S, Souch C, Grant R, et al. Quan-
tifying urban forest structure, function and value: the Chicago urban forest climate
project. Urban Ecosyst 1997;1:49e61.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 23

28. Davey Resource Group. Indiana’s street tree benefits summary. 2010. http://www.in.gov/
dnr/forestry/files/Fo-INSpeciesDistributionUrbanTrees709.pdf.
29. Treiman T, Kuhn N, Gartner JT, Koenig A. Missouri’s 2010 street tree economics.
Columbia, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation; 2010.
30. Holmes TP. The offsite impact of soil erosion on the water treatment industry. Land
Econ 1988;64:356e66.
31. Klaassen W, Bosveld F, de Water E. Water storage and evaporation as constituents of
rainfall interception. J Hydrol 1998;212e213:36e50.
32. Dunkerley DL. Evaporation of impact water droplets in interception processes: histor-
ical precedence of the hypothesis and a brief literature overview. J Hydrol 2009;376:
599e604.
33. Oke TR. The micrometeorology of the urban forest. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1989;
324:335e49.
34. Kjelgren R, Montague T. Urban tree transpiration over turf and asphalt surfaces. Atmos
Environ 1998;32:35e41.
35. Bartens J, Day SD, Harris JR, Wynn TM, Dove JE. Transpiration and root develop-
ment of urban trees in structural soil stormwater reservoirs. Environ Manage 2009;44:
646e57.
36. Pataki DE, McCarthy HR, Litvak E, Pincetl S. Transpiration of urban forests in the Los
Angeles metropolitan area. Ecol Appl 2011;21:661e77.
37. Rubin G, Warren L. The drought-defying California garden. Portland: Timber Press; 2016.
38. Ingels JE. Landscaping: principles and practices. 7th ed. Clifton Park: Delmar Cengage
Learning; 2009.
39. California Department of Water Resources. A guide to estimating irrigation water needs of
landscape plantings in California. Sacramento: University of California Cooperative
Extension; 2000.
40. Carlyle-Moses DE, Gash JHC. Rainfall interception loss by forest canopies. In: Levia D,
Carlyle-Moses D, Tanaka T, editors. Forest hydrology and biogeochemistry. Heidelberg:
Springer; 2011. p. 407e23.
41. Van Stan JT, Coenders-Gerrits AMJ, Dibble M, Bogeholz P, Norman Z. Effects of
phenology and meteorological disturbance on litter rainfall interception for a Pinus
elliottii stand in the Southeastern US. Hydrol Process 2017a;31:3719e28.
42. Sadeghi SMM, Attarod P, Van Stan JT, Pypker TG. The importance of considering
rainfall partitioning in afforestation initiatives in semiarid climates: a comparison of
common planted tree species in Tehran, Iran. Sci Total Environ 2016;568:845e55.
43. Levia DF, Keim RF, Carlyle-Moses DE, Frost EE. Throughfall and stemflow in
wooded ecosystems. In: Levia D, Carlyle-Moses D, Tanaka T, editors. Forest hydrology
and biogeochemistry. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 425e43.
44. Voss S, Zimmermann B, Zimmermann A. Detecting spatial structures in throughfall
data: the effect of extent, sample size, sampling design, and variogram estimation
method. J Hydrol 2016;540:527e37.
45. Guevara-Escobar A, Gonzalez-Sosa E, Veliz-Chavez C, Ventura-Ramos E, Ramos-
Salinas M. Rainfall interception and distribution patterns of gross precipitation around
an isolated Ficus benjamina tree in an urban area. J Hydrol 2007;333:532e41.
46. Inkil€ainen ENM, McHale MR, Blank GB, James AL, Nikinmaa E. The role of the res-
idential urban forest in regulating throughfall: a case study in Raleigh, North Carolina,
USA. Landsc Urban Plan 2013;119:91e103.
47. Van Stan JT, Gordon DA. Mini-review: stemflow may be more famine than feast for
forests’ near-stem soil communities. Front Plant Sci 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2018.00248.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

48. Johnson MS, Lehmann J. Double-funneling of trees: stemflow and root-induced pref-
erential flow. Ecosci 2006;13:324e33.
49. Livesley SJ, Baudinette B, Glover D. Rainfall interception and stemflow by eucalypt
street trees e the impacts of canopy density and bark type. Urban For Urban Green
2014;13:192e7.
50. Gerrits AMJ, Savenije HHG. Forest floor interception. In: Levia D, Carlyle-Moses D,
Tanaka T, editors. Forest hydrology and biogeochemistry. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011.
p. 445e54.
51. Huntington TG. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: review and
synthesis. J Hydrol 2006;319:83e95.
52. Trenberth KE. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim Res 2011;47:123e38.
53. Coumou D, Rahmstorf S. A decade of weather extremes. Nat Clim Chan 2012;2:491e6.
54. Soares AL, Rego FC, McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Xiao Q. Benefits and
costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban For Urban Green 2011;10:69e78.
55. Hurd JD, Wilson EH,Lammey SG, Civco DL. Characterization of forest fragmentation
and urban sprawl using time sequential Landsat imagery. Proc ASPRS Ann Conv April
2001:1e12.
56. Game M. Best shape for nature reserves. Nat Lond 1980;287:630e2.
57. Laurance WF, Yensen E. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats.
Biol Conserv 1991;55:77e92.
58. Neal C, Robson AJ, Bhardwaj CL, Conway T, Jeffrey HA, Neal M, et al. Relationships
between precipitation, stemflow and throughfall for a lowland beech plantation, Black
Wood, Hampshire, southern England: findings on interception at a forest edge and the
effects of storm damage. J Hydrol 1993;146:221e33.
59. Klaassen W, Lankreijer HJM, Veen AWL. Rainfall interception near a forest edge. J
Hydrol 1996;185:349e61.
60. Wuyts K, De Schrijver A, Staelens J, Gielis L, Vandenbruwane J, Verheyen K. Com-
parison of forest edge effects on throughfall deposition in different forest types. Environ
Pollut 2008;156:854e61.
61. Levia DF, Germer S. A review of stemflow generation dynamics and stemflow-envi-
ronment interactions in forests and shrublands. Rev Geophys 2015;53:673e714.
62. Fathizadeh O, Hosseini SM, Zimmermann A, Keim RF, Boloorani AD. Estimating
linkages between forest structural variables and rainfall interception parameters in
semi-arid deciduous oak forest stands. Sci Total Environ 2017;601e602:1824e37.
63. Pereira FL, Valente F, David JS, Jackson N, Minunno F, Gash JH. Rainfall interception
modelling: is the wet bulb approach adequate to estimate mean evaporation rate from
wet/saturated canopies in all forest types? J Hydrol 2016;534:606e15.
64. Harris RW. Summer branch drop. J Arboric 1983;9:111e3.
65. Putz FE, Parker GG, Archibald RM. Mechanical abrasion and intercrown spacing.
Amer Midl Nat 1984;112:24e8.
66. Xiao Q, McPherson EG, Ustin SG, Grismer ME, Simpson JR. Winter rainfall intercep-
tion by two mature open-grown trees in Davis, California. Hydrol Process 2000;14:763e
84.
67. Pereira FL, Gash JHC, David JS, Valente F. Evaporation of intercepted rainfall from
isolated evergreen trees: do the crowns behave as wet bulbs? Agric For Meteorol 2009;
149:667e79.
68. Van Stan JT, Norman Z, Meghoo A, Friesen J, Hildebrandt A, C^ oté J-F, et al. Edge-to-
stem variability in wet-canopy evaporation from an urban tree row. Bound-Layer Mete-
orol 2017b;165:295e310.
69. Sadeghi SMM, Van Stan JT, Pypker TG, Friesen J. Canopy hydrometeorological dy-
namics across a chronosequence of a globally invasive species, Ailanthus altissima (Mill.,
tree of heaven). Agric For Meteorol 2017;240e241:10e7.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 25

70. Harman IN, Best MJ, Belcher SE. Radiative exchange in an urban street canyon.
Bound-Layer Meteorol 2004;110:301e16.
71. van Dijk AIJM, Gash JH, van Gorsel E, Blanken PD, Cescatti A, Emmel C, et al. Rain-
fall interception and the coupled surface water and energy balance. Agric For Meteorol
2015;214e215:402e15.
72. Allegrini J, Dorer V, Carmeliet J. Wind tunnel measurements of buoyant flows in street
canyons. Build Environ 2013;59:315e26.
73. Moser A, Roetzer T, Pauliet S, Pretzsch H. Structure and ecosystem services of small-
leaved lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) in urban
environments. Urban For Urban Green 2015;14:1110e21.
74. Giacomin A, Trucchi P. Rainfall interception in a beech coppice (Acquerino, Italy). J
Hydrol 1992;137:141e7.
75. Kaushal R, Kumar A, Alam NM, Mandal D, Jayaparkash J, Tomar JMS, et al. Effect of
different canopy management practices on rainfall partitioning in Morus alba. Ecol Eng
2017;102:374e80.
76. Pypker TG, Levia DF, Staelens J, Van Stan JT. Canopy structure in relation to hydro-
logical and biogeochemical fluxes. In: Levia D, Carlyle-Moses D, Tanaka T, editors.
Forest hydrology and biogeochemistry. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 371e88.
77. Follett M. Branch growth response to pruning: development and testing of a new approach to
measuring branch extension in trees [M.Sc. thesis]. University of Quebec; 2016. 59 pp..
78. Van Stan JT, Pypker TG. A review and evaluation of forest canopy epiphyte roles in
the partitioning and chemical alteration of precipitation. Sci Total Environ 2015;536:
813e24.
79. Kowarik I. On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In: Pysek P,
Prach K, Rejm
anek M, Wade PM, editors. Plant invasionsdgeneral aspects and special
problems. Amsterdam: SPB Academic; 1995. p. 85e103.
80. Hawthorne TL, Elmore V, Strong A, Bennett-Martin P, Finnie J, Parkman J, et al.
Mapping non-native invasive species and accessibility in an urban forest: a case study
of participatory mapping and citizen science in Atlanta, Georgia. Appl Geog 2015;56:
187e98.
81. Brancalion PHS, Garcia LC, Loyola R, Rodrigues RR, Pillar VD, Lewinsohn TM. A
critical analysis of the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012): updates and
ongoing initiatives. Nat Conserv 2016;14:1e15.
82. Horton R. Rainfall interception. Mon Weather Rev 1919;47:603e23.
83. Herwitz SR. Interception storage capacities of tropical rainforest canopy trees. J Hydrol
1985;77:237e52.
84. Herwitz SR. Raindrop impact and water-flow on the vegetative surfaces of trees
and the effects on stemflow and throughfall generation. Earth Surf Proc Landf 1987;
12:425e32.
85. Blum OB. Water relations. In: Ahmadjian V, Hale ME, editors. The lichens. New York:
Academic Press; 1973. p. 381e400.
86. Van Stan JT, Stubbins A, Bittar T, Reichard JS, Wright KA, Jenkins RB. Tillandsia
usneoides (L.) L. (Spanish moss) water storage and leachate characteristics from two mari-
time oak forest settings. Ecohydrol 2015b;8:988e1004.
87. Unsworth MH, Phillips N, Link T, Bond BJ, Falk M, Harmon ME, et al. Components
and controls of water flux in an old-growth Douglas-firdwestern hemlock ecosystem.
Ecosyst 2004;7:468e81.
88. Sexton JM, Harmon ME. Water dynamics in conifer logs in early stages of decay in the
Pacific Northwest, USA. Northwest Sci 2009;83:131e9.
89. Holder CD, Gibbes C. Influence of leaf and canopy characteristics on rainfall intercep-
tion and urban hydrology. Hydrol Sci J 2017;62:182e90.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
26 John T. Van Stan, II et al.

90. AlixSaz, 2011: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%AD%D0%BB%D1%

8C%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%
D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0_-_Pinus_eldarica.jpg.
91. Luidger, 2006: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20061227-Figueres_
Teatre-Museu_Dal%C3%AD_MQ.jpg.
92. Rhinomind, 2017: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vestergade_(Aarhus)
_03.jpg.
93. Pedro Felipe, 2013: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avenida_Ciudad_de_
Lima_-_Bogot%C3%A1.JPG.
94. Schooling J, Carlyle-Moses DE. The influence of rainfall depth class and deciduous tree
traits on stemflow production in an urban park. Urban Ecosyst 2015;18:1261e84.
95. Rosado BHP, Holder CD. The significance of leaf water repellency in ecohydrological
research: a review. Ecohydrol 2012;6:150e61.
96. Crockford RH, Richardson DP. Partitioning of rainfall in a eucalypt forest and pine
plantation in southeastern Australia: III. Determination of the canopy storage capacity
of a dry sclerophyll eucalypt forest. Hydrol Process 1990;4:157e67.
97. Schreuder M, van Hove LWA, Brewer CA. Ozone exposure affects leaf wettability and
tree water balance. New Phytol 2001;152:443e54.
98. Sase H, Takahashi A, Sato M, Kobayashi H, Nakata M, Totsuka T. Seasonal variation
in the atmospheric deposition of inorganic constituents and canopy interactions in a
Japanese cedar forest. Environ Pollut 2008;152:1e10.
99. Keim RF, Skaugset AE, Link TE, Iroumé A. A stochastic model of throughfall for
extreme events. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2004;8:23e34.
100. Aston AR. Rainfall interception by eight small trees. J Hydrol 1979;42:383e96.
101. Leyton L, Reynolds ERC, Thompson FB. Rainfall interception in forest and
moorland. In: Sopper WE, Lull HW, editors. International symposium on forest
hydrology. New York: Pergamon Press; 1967. p. 163e78.
102. Swain DL, Singh D, Horton DE, Mankin JS, Ballard TC, Diffenbaugh NS. Remote
linkages to anomalous winter atmospheric ridging over the Northeastern Pacific. J Geo-
phys Res Atmos 2017;122:12194e209.
103. Singh D, Swain DL, Mankin JS, Horton DE, Thomas LN, Rajaratnam B. Diffenbaugh,
NS. Recent amplification of the North American winter temperature dipole. J Geophys
Res Atmos 2016;121:9911e28.
104. Seager R, Hoerling M, Schubert S, Wang H, Lyon B, Arun K, et al. Causes of the
2011e14 California drought. J Clim 2015;28:6997e7024.
105. Keim RF, Link TE. Linked spatial variability of throughfall amount and intensity
during rainfall in a coniferous forest. Agric For Meteorol 2018;248:15e21.
106. Schaetzl RJ, Johnson DL, Burns SF, Small TW. Tree uprooting: review of terminol-
ogy, process, and environmental implications. Can J For Res 1989;19:1e11.
107. Baldocchi DA. multi-layer model for estimating sulfur dioxide deposition to a decid-
uous oak forest canopy. Atmos Environ 1988;22:869e84.
108. Erisman JW, Draaijers G. Deposition to forests in Europe: most important factors influ-
encing dry deposition and models used for generalisation. Environ Pollut 2003;124:
379e88.
109. Lindberg SE, Shriner DS, Hoffman WA. The interaction of wet and dry deposition
with the forest canopy. In: D’Itri FM, editor. Acid precipitation: effects on ecological
systems. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publications; 1982. p. 385e410.
110. Lovett GM, Lindberg SE. Dry deposition and canopy exchange in a mixed oak forest as
determined by analysis of throughfall. J Appl Ecol 1984;21:1013e27.
111. Van Stan JT, Stubbins A. Tree-DOM: dissolved organic matter in throughfall and
stemflow. Limnol Oceanogr Lett 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10059.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Urban Forestry 27

112. Michalzik B, Levia DF, Bischoff S, N€athe K, Richter S. Effects of aphid infestation on
the biogeochemistry of the water routed through European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)
saplings. Biogeochem 2016;129:197e214.
113. Bittar T, Pound P, Whitetree A, Moore LD, Van Stan JT. Estimation of throughfall and
stemflow bacterial flux in a subtropical oak-cedar forest. Geophys Res Lett 2018;45:
1410e8. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075827.
114. Germer S, Zimmermann A, Neill C, Krusche AV, Elsenbeer H. Disproportionate sin-
gle-species contribution to canopy-soil nutrient flux in an Amazonian rainforest. For
Ecol Manage 2012;267:40e9.
115. Rodrigo A, Avila A, Roda F. The chemistry of precipitation, throughfall and stemflow
in two holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) forests under a contrasted pollution environment in
NE Spain. Sci Total Environ 2003;305:195e205.
116. Klucariakov
a D, Marton P, Pichler V, Marton E, Tunyi I. Pollution detection by mag-
netic susceptibility measurements aided by the stemflow effect. Water Air Soil Pollut
2008;189:213e23.
117. Shiklomanov AN, Levia DF. Stemflow acid neutralization capacity in a broadleaved
deciduous forest: the role of edge effects. Environ Pollut 2014;193:45e53.
118. De Schrijver A, Devlaeminck R, Mertens J, Wuyts K, Hermy M, Verheyen K. On the
importance of incorporation forest edge deposition for evaluating exceedance of critical
pollutant loads. Appl Veg Sci 2007;10:293.
119. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q. Precipitation water storage capacity in a temperate
mixed oak-beech canopy. Hydrol Process 2008;22:4130e41.
120. Chen Y-Y, Li M-H. Quantifying rainfall interception loss of a subtropical broadleaved
forest in Central Taiwan. Water 2016;8:14.
121. N
avar J. Fitting rainfall interception models to forest ecosystems of Mexico. J Hydrol
2017;548:458e70.
122. Llorens P, Gallart F. A simplified method for forest water storage capacity
measurement. J Hydrol 2000;240:131e44.
123. Link TF, Unsworth MH, Marks D. The dynamics of rainfall interception by a seasonal
temperate rainforest. Agric For Meteorol 2004;124:171e91.
124. Jarvis A. Measuring and modelling the impact of land-use change in tropical hillsides:
the role of cloud interception to epiphytes. Adv Environ Model 2000;1:118e48.
125. Ah-Peng C, Cardoso AW, Flores O, West A, Wilding N, Strasberg D, et al. The role of
epiphytic bryophytes in interception, storage, and the regulated release of atmospheric
moisture in a tropical montane cloud forest. J Hydrol 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2017.03.043.
126. Van Stan JT, Lewis ES, Hildebrandt A, Rebmann C, Friesen J. Impact of interacting
bark structure and rainfall conditions on stemflow variability in a temperate beech-
oak forest, central Germany. Hydrol Sci J 2016;61:2071e83.