Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez , Rachael Gallagher , Niels Souverijns , Quentin Lejeune , Carl-Friedrich Schleussner , Mark G. Tjoelker
{"title":"Response to Guerin et al. Comment on ’Mapping the climate risk to urban forests at city scale’","authors":"Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez , Rachael Gallagher , Niels Souverijns , Quentin Lejeune , Carl-Friedrich Schleussner , Mark G. Tjoelker","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Urban forests are broadly considered as a nature-based solution; however, they are also vulnerable to climate change, highlighting the need to identify species and cities at risk. A novel approach was developed to identify species and locations at potential climatic risk using the safety margin (i.e., a metric of species’ climate sensitivity) (<span><span>Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2024a</span></span>). A recent comment on this approach by <span><span>Guerin et al. (2025)</span></span> found no relationship between safety margin estimates with hydraulic vulnerability; therefore, they raised caution about using climate-based methods to assess species’ climate risk. Here, we present evidence that a relative tolerance rank (i.e., a metric of performance that spans multiple traits) does indeed show a positive relationship with safety margin. We also found evidence that the species safety margin correlated negatively to crown dieback observed during extreme heat and drought. While caveats are advised when using climate-based methods, we suggest that these methods can provide context-specific insights for urban forest management, bridging the gap between broad climatic tolerances and local environmental conditions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":"258 ","pages":"Article 105324"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204625000313","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Urban forests are broadly considered as a nature-based solution; however, they are also vulnerable to climate change, highlighting the need to identify species and cities at risk. A novel approach was developed to identify species and locations at potential climatic risk using the safety margin (i.e., a metric of species’ climate sensitivity) (Esperon-Rodriguez et al., 2024a). A recent comment on this approach by Guerin et al. (2025) found no relationship between safety margin estimates with hydraulic vulnerability; therefore, they raised caution about using climate-based methods to assess species’ climate risk. Here, we present evidence that a relative tolerance rank (i.e., a metric of performance that spans multiple traits) does indeed show a positive relationship with safety margin. We also found evidence that the species safety margin correlated negatively to crown dieback observed during extreme heat and drought. While caveats are advised when using climate-based methods, we suggest that these methods can provide context-specific insights for urban forest management, bridging the gap between broad climatic tolerances and local environmental conditions.
期刊介绍:
Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.