Search

Urban forests are being threatened by rapid urbanization, biodiversity crises, and climate variability. In response, governments are increasingly collaborating with the public for solutions to these mounting challenges. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are dominant players in these collaborations because of their ability to supplement governments' expertize and resources and bring social and ecological issues to the forefront of civic agendas. Despite their growing visibility in urban forest management, there is a lack of attention directed to the forms and range of NGO relationships. This study focuses on addressing this gap and examining collaborations between local governments and NGOs in urban forest programming by characterizing their components including mandates, relationship ties, accountability, resource exchange, and power dynamics. We collected data using semi-structured interviews with three groups: leaders of NGOs, municipal government officials in an urban forest or public works departments, and urban-forest experts who have observed their interactions. The participants represent 32 individuals in nine Canadian cities. Our results indicate that NGO-government collaborations have relational ties and accountability processes that are both formal and informal in nature. Formality in collaborations is often associated with the amount of funding, proximity to government, or size of the NGO. In addition, our findings suggest that NGOs present an opportunity for local governments to supplement their resources and capacity. While the strength and formality of collaborations may be a product of NGO size and budgets, public servants should not hesitate to engage smaller, grassroots NGOs to realize their public service mandates. Characterizing the components of these governance processes provides a benchmark for practitioners participating in similar public-civic interactions and arms them with the knowledge to navigate collaborative decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forest canopies support diverse assemblages of free-living mites. Recent studies suggest mite species complementarity between canopy and terrestrial soils is as high as 80–90%. However, confounding variation in habitat quality and resource patchiness between ground and canopy has not been controlled in previous comparative studies. We used experimental litter bags with standardized microhabitat structure and resource quality to contrast the colonization dynamics of 129 mite species utilizing needle accumulations on the ground vs in the canopy of Abies amabilis trees in a temperate montane forest in Canada. Mite abundance and species richness per litter bag were five to eight times greater on the ground than in the canopy, and composition differed markedly at family-, genus-, and species-level. Seventy-seven species (57%) were restricted to either ground or canopy litter bags, but many of these species were rare ( n<5 individuals). Of 49 ‘common’ species, 30.6% were entirely restricted to one habitat, which is considerably lower than most published estimates. In total, 87.5% of canopy specialists had rare vagrants on the ground, whereas only 51.9% of ground specialists had rare vagrants in the canopy. Canonical correspondence analysis of mite community structure showed high species turnover through time and a high degree of specialization for early-, mid-, and late-successional stages of litter decomposition, in both ground and canopy mites. In addition, distinct assemblages of ground-specialist mites dominated each elevation (800, 1000, and 1200 m), whereas few canopy-specialist mites had defined elevational preferences. This suggests that canopy mites may have greater tolerance for wide variation in environmental conditions than soil mites. The degree of species turnover between adjacent mountains also differed markedly, with 46.5% turnover of ground species, but 63.4% turnover of canopy species between the two montane areas. While ground and canopy assemblages are similar in total biodiversity, it appears that local mite richness (alpha diversity) is higher on the ground, whereas species turnover between sites (beta diversity) is higher in the canopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]