This data publication contains urban tree inventory data for 929,823 street trees that were collected from 2006 to 2013 in 49 California cities. Fifty six urban tree inventories were obtained from various sources for California cities across five climate zones. The five climate zones were based largely on aggregation of Sunset National Garden Book's 45 climate zones. Forty-nine of the inventories fit the required criteria of (1) included all publicly managed trees, (2) contained data for each tree on species and diameter at breast height (dbh) and (3) was conducted after 2005. Tree data were prepared for entry into i-Tree Streets by deleting unnecessary data, matching species to those in the i-Tree database, and establishing dbh size classes. Data included in this publication include tree location (city, street name and number), diameter at breast height, species name and/or species code, and tree type.These data were used to calculate street tree stocking levels, species abundance, size diversity, function and value, which can be used to determine trends in tree number and density, identify priority investments and create baseline data against which the efficacy of future practices can be evaluated.

‘Tree – tree’ interactions are important structuring mechanisms for forest community dynamics. Forest management takes advantage of competition effects on tree growth by removing or retaining trees to achieve management goals. Both competition and silviculture have thus a strong effect on density and distribution of tree related microhabitats (TreMs) which are key features for forest taxa at the stand scale (e.g. Bouget et al. 2013, 2014). In particular, spatially explicit data to understand patterns and mechanisms of TreM formation in forest stands are rare. To train and eventually improve decision making capacities related to the integration of biodiversity aspects into forest management to date more than 100 usually 1 ha (100 m x 100m) permanent plots were established in different forest communities of Europe. Due to their demonstration character the selection of plots was non-systematic. They do, however, cover a broad range of forest types (e.g. beech-oak, beech-fir (-spruce), oak-hornbeam, pine-spruce, etc.), altitudinal gradients (from 25 m – 1850 m) and site conditions (e.g. oligotrophic Luzulo-Fagetum or Vaccinio-Pinetum to mesotrophic Galio-Fagetum or Milio-Fagetum). For each plot the following data is collected: (1) tree location as polar coordinates (stem base map), (2) tree species, (3) forest mensuration data (dbh in [cm], tree height in [m]), (4) tree related microhabitats (TreMs) and (5) tree status (living or standing dead). In addition to the spatial dendrometric data we provide information on plot establishment, forest type, plot location (state, region, country), elevation, means for annual precipitation and temperature, and the natural forest community (Kraus et al., 2018).

A database of phylogenetic trees of animal genes. It aims at developing a curated resource that gives reliable information about ortholog and paralog assignments, and evolutionary history of various gene families. TreeFam defines a gene family as a group of genes that evolved after the speciation of single-metazoan animals. It also tries to include outgroup genes like yeast (S. cerevisiae and S. pombe) and plant (A. thaliana) to reveal these distant members.TreeFam is also an ortholog database. Unlike other pairwise alignment based ones, TreeFam infers orthologs by means of gene trees. It fits a gene tree into the universal species tree and finds historical duplications, speciations and losses events. TreeFam uses this information to evaluate tree building, guide manual curation, and infer complex ortholog and paralog relations.The basic elements of TreeFam are gene families that can be divided into two parts: TreeFam-A and TreeFam-B families. TreeFam-B families are automatically created. They might contain errors given complex phylogenies. TreeFam-A families are manually curated from TreeFam-B ones. Family names and node names are assigned at the same time. The ultimate goal of TreeFam is to present a curated resource for all the families. phylogenetic tree, animal, vertebrate, invertebrate, gene, ortholog, paralog, evolutionary history, gene families, single-metazoan animals, outgroup genes like yeast (S. cerevisiae and S. pombe), plant (A. thaliana), historical duplications, speciations, losses, Human, Genome, comparative genomics

Street tree data from the TreesCount! 2015 Street Tree Census, conducted by volunteers and staff organized by NYC Parks & Recreation and partner organizations. Tree data collected includes tree species, diameter and perception of health. Accompanying blockface data is available indicating status of data collection and data release citywide.

The 2015 tree census was the third decadal street tree census and largest citizen science initiative in NYC Parks’ history. Data collection ran from May 2015 to October 2016 and the results of the census show that there are 666,134 trees planted along NYC's streets. The data collected as part of the census represents a snapshot in time of trees under NYC Parks' jurisdiction.

The census data formed the basis of our operational database, the Forestry Management System (ForMS) which is used daily by our foresters and other staff for inventory and asset management: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/browse?sortBy=most_accessed&utf8=%E2%9C%93&Data-Collection_Data-Collection=Forestry+Management+System+%28ForMS%29

To learn more about the data collected and managed in ForMS, please refer to this user guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PVPWFi-WExkG3rvnagQDoBbqfsGzxCKNmR6n678nUeU/edit. For information on the city's current tree population, use the ForMS datasets.

All taken form site: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Environment/2015-Street-Tree-Census-Tree-Data/uvpi-gqnh/about_data

In 2006, a complete inventory of all the City’s street trees, including trees located within sidewalks, between sidewalks and curbs, or within 6 feet of the street if no sidewalk existed was conducted. One hundred volunteers were trained to record address, location, tree species, tree diameter, condition, and other related information. Trees located in parks and other public property were not included. Approximately 25,000 street trees were counted and the data was loaded into a tree database that the Forestry Division uses daily to manage the trees, track tree work, and record constituent concerns.

This data publication contains urban tree growth data collected over a period of 14 years (1998-2012) in 17 cities from 13 states across the United States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and South Carolina.

Measurements were taken on over 14,000 urban street and park trees. Key information collected for each tree species includes bole and crown size, location, and age. Based on these measurements, 365 sets of allometric equations were developed for tree species from around the U.S. Each “set” consists of eight equations for each of the approximately 20 most abundant species in each of 16 climate regions. Tree age is used to predict a species diameter at breast height (dbh), and dbh is used to predict tree height, crown diameter, crown height, and leaf area. Dbh is also used to predict age. For applications with remote sensing, average crown diameter is used to predict dbh. There are 171 distinct species represented within this database. Some species grow in more than one region. The Urban Tree Database (UTD) contains foliar biomass data (raw data and summarized results from the foliar sampling for each species and region) that are fundamental to calculating leaf area, as well as tree biomass equations (compiled from literature) for carbon storage estimates. An expanded list of dry weight biomass density factors for common urban species is made available to assist users in using volumetric equations.Information on urban tree growth underpins models used to calculate effects of trees on the environment and human well-being. Maximum tree size and other growth data are used by urban forest managers, landscape architects and planners to select trees most suitable to the amount of growing space, thereby reducing costly future conflicts between trees and infrastructure. Growth data are used to develop correlations between growth and influencing factors such as site conditions and stewardship practices. Despite the importance of tree growth data to the science and practice of urban forestry, our knowledge is scant. Over a period of 14 years scientists with the U.S. Forest Service recorded data from a consistent set of measurements on over 14,000 trees in 17 U.S. cities.These data were originally published on 03/02/2016. The metadata was updated on 10/06/2016 to include reference to a new publication. Minor metadata updates were made on 12/15/2016. On 01/07/2020 this data publication was updated to correct a few species' names and systematic errors in the data that were found. A complete list of these changes is included (\Supplements\Errata_Jan2020_RDS-2016-0005.pdf). In addition, we have included a list of changes for the General Technical Report associated with these data (\Supplements\Errata_Jan2020_PNW-GTR-253.pdf).

List of dpw maintained street trees including: Planting date, species, and location

The Tallo database (v1.0.0) is a collection of 498,838 georeferenced and taxonomically standardized records of individual trees for which stem diameter, height and/or crown radius have been measured. Data were compiled from 61,856 globally distributed sites and include measurements for 5,163 tree species.

For a full description of the database, see: Jucker et al. (2022) Tallo – a global tree allometry and crown architecture database. Global Change Biology, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16302. If using the Tallo database in your work please cite the original publication listed above, as well as this repository using the corresponding DOI (10.5281/zenodo.6637599).

The GlobalUsefulNativeTrees database (GlobUNT; https://worldagroforestry.org/output/globalusefulnativetrees) was developed after a first step of combining native distribution data across 242 countries and territories from GlobalTreeSearch (accessed 8th May 2022; Beech et al. 2017; BGCI 2022) with information on ten categories of human usage documented in the World Checklist of Useful Plant Species (WCUPS; Diazgranados et al. 2020). GlobUNT was described in more detail in the following publication: Kindt et al. (2023) GlobalUsefulNativeTrees, a database of 14,014 tree species, supports synergies between biodiversity recovery and local livelihoods in restoration. Sci Rep 13, 12640. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39552-1. Version v.2023.01 of the database includes 14,014 useful tree species, representing roughly a quarter of the known tree species (as listed by GlobalTreeSearch) and a third of the plant species from WCUPS. The data set included here provides the taxonomic names for all tree species included in GlobUNT together with details on the process of standardization via the WorldFlora package (Kindt 2020). This taxonomic standardization process was completed during the preparation of the third major release of the Agroforestry Species Switchboard (as a consequence, all species listed in GlobUNT are included among the 230,000+ species from the Switchboard).

The development of GlobUNT was supported by the Darwin Initiative to project DAREX001 of Developing a Global Biodiversity Standard certification for tree-planting and restoration and by Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative through the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Ethiopia to the Provision of Adequate Tree Seed Portfolio project in Ethiopia. When using the GlobUNT species list in your work, please cite the publication (Kindt et al. (2023) provided above) as well as this repository using the DOI (https://zenodo.org/record/7994433).

Trees cared for and managed by the City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Works Forestry Division.

Tree Benefits are calculated using the National Tree Benefit Calculator Web Service.

NOTE: The data in this dataset has not updated since 2020 because of a broken data feed. We're working to fix it.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

The Fire and Tree Mortality (FTM) database includes standardized observations of fire injury and survival or mortality for 171,177 individual tree-level observations, representing 142 tree species across the United States. Of these, 7,191 trees have burned twice. These trees were burned in 420 prescribed fires and wildfires occurring in 35 years, from 1981 to 2016. The database was developed using 41 contributed datasets from researchers, managers, and archived data products. At a minimum, datasets had to contain measurements of individual trees, size, fire injury, and post-fire survival, but some datasets include additional data such as bark beetle attack. Only trees that were alive before the fire were included in the database. We included any trees where post-fire status was measured within 10 years of the fire. If a tree re-burned in a subsequent fire, and post-fire injury and status information were available after that fire, then a new record (row) was made for that tree aft ...

This data set was created by Transparent World, with the support of Global Forest Watch. Many studies depicting forest cover and forest change cannot distinguish between natural forests and plantations. This data set attempts to distinguish tree plantations from natural forest for seven key countries: Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Indonesia, Liberia, Malaysia, and Peru.Given the variability of plantations and their spectral similarity to natural forests, this study used visual interpretations of satellite imagery, primarily Landsat, supplemented by high resolution imagery (Google Maps, Bing Maps, or Digital Globe), where available, to locate plantations. Analysts hand-digitized plantation boundaries based on several key visual criteria, including texture, shape, color, and size.Each polygon is labelled with the plantation type and when possible, the species. A “gr” in front of the species name indicates a group of species, such as pines or fruit, where the individual species was not identifiable. The percentage of plantation coverage indicates a rough estimate of the prevalence of plantation within apolygon (as in the case of a mosaic). Types are defined as follows:* Large industrial plantation: single plantation units larger than 100 hectares* Mosaic of medium-sized plantations: mosaic of plantation units < 100 hectares embedded within patches of other land use* Mosaic of small-sized plantations: mosaic of plantation units < 10 hectares embedded within patches of other land use.* Clearing/ very young plantation: bare ground with contextual clues suggesting it will become a plantations (shape or pattern of clearing, proximity to other plantations, distinctive road network, etc)For more information on this data set and how it was produced, see the forthcoming WRI Technical Note associated with this project.

These points represent the individual trees that are managed by Three Rivers Park District. The majority of these trees are shade trees in picnic grounds, campgrounds, around buildings and in other maintained areas. The status of the trees is indicated by the "status" field. This indicates if a tree is planted, is in the process of being planted (tree spade), or if it has been removed. To visualize only the trees that are currently growing in the landscape, users must filter by "planted".This data set was first collected in 2010. The data are updated periodically, but some trees may have been removed and are still shown as "planted"

This database is a collation and digitization of witness tree attributes at PLS corners in four survey districts in southeastern Ohio: Old Seven Ranges, North of the Seven Ranges, United States Military Tract, Ohio Land Company.

The USDA Forest Service (USFS) builds two versions of percent tree canopy cover data, in order to serve needs of multiple user communities. These datasets encompass conterminous United States (CONUS), Coastal Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (PRUSVI). The two versions of data within the v2021-4 TCC product suite include: The initial model outputs referred to as the Science data; And a modified version built for the National Land Cover Database and referred to as NLCD data. The NLCD product suite includes data for years 2011 through 2021. The NCLD data are processed to remove small interannual changes from the annual TCC timeseries, and to mask TCC pixels that are known to be 0 percent TCC, non-tree agriculture, and water. A small interannual change is defined as a TCC change less than an increase or decrease of 10 percent compared to a TCC baseline value established in a prior year. The initial TCC baseline value is the mean of 2008-2010 TCC data. For each year following 2011, on a pixel-wise basis TCC values are updated to a new baseline value if an increase or decrease of 10 percent TCC occurs relative to the 2008-2010 TCC baseline value. If no increase or decrease greater than 10 percent TCC occurs relative to the 2008-2010 baseline, then the 2008-2010 TCC baseline value is caried through to the next year in the timeseries. Pixel values range from 0 to 100 percent. The non-processing area is represented by value 254, and the background is represented by the value 255. The Science and NLCD tree canopy cover data are accessible for multiple user communities, through multiple channels and platforms. For information on the Science data and processing steps see the Science metadata. Information on the NLCD data and processing steps are included here.

This study used data from field plots in urban areas to describe forest structure (e.g., tree numbers, density, basal area, species composition) for six land use categories in six California climate zones: Southern California Coast, Inland Empire, Inland Valley, Southwest Desert, Northern, and Interior West. Two types of field plot data were utilized. The first set of data include 702 randomly sampled 0.04 hectare (ha) plots obtained from i-Tree Eco plot data for Los Angeles (in 2007-2008), Santa Barbara (2012) and the Sacramento area (2007). The second set of data (687 plots, in 2011) consisted of 0.067 ha (four 0.017 ha subplots) plots based on the Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot design. The number of plots collected varied by climate zone and a total of 3,796 trees were sampled. Data collection included percentage of tree canopy cover over the plot, tree species, stem diameter at breast height (1.37 meters above ground, dbh), tree height, crown width, distance and azimuth to buildings that fit the requirements as specified in the i-Tree Eco and Urban FIA manuals.Plot data were used to assess forest structure and model energy effects, carbon storage, carbon sequestration, avoided emissions, rainfall interception, and property values.Original metadata date was 07/10/2017. On 12/11/2017 metadata were updated to include reference to a new publication related to these data. Minor metadata updates were made on 3/15/2021

Locations of all street trees in the City of San Jose. Street trees are trees along city right-of-way and sidewalk, but do not include trees on private property or large lots like parks. It is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to properly care for the street tree and comply with City laws and best practices. Permits must be obtained for most work on street trees to ensure it is done accordining to the requirements of the City code. Some street trees in City medians and road backups are maintained entirely by the City.Data is published on Mondays on a weekly basis.

In January of 2018, Charlottesville Parks & Recreation initiated a project with the goal of creating an inventory of all the trees that exist on public property within the City of Charlottesville. The foundation of the inventory is a GPS field survey conducted in 2008 of all the existing trees at that time. This 2008 survey recorded the coordinates and several other attributes of Individual trees located in parks, schools, and right-of-ways.

Tree Data Inventory 2020: 2020 Tree Inventory for TR Proctor Park and FT Proctor Park in the City of Utica. Data from Mohawk Valley Community College. Funding provided by NYSDEC Urban Forestry Grant Spatial Reference of Source Data: NAD 1983 StatePlane New York Central FIPS 3102 Feet Spatial Reference of Web Service: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere. Data current as of 2020. Tree Data Inventory 2019: 2019 Tree Inventory, locations include: RFA, MVCC, Griffiss Park and Mohawk Trail. Data from Mohawk Valley Community College. Funding provided by NYSDEC Urban Forestry Grant. Spatial Reference of Source Data: GCS WGS 1984. Spatial Reference of Web Service: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere. Data current as of 2019. Tree Data Inventory 2018: Summer 2018 Tree Data collection, around 3,400 trees were tagged and GPS using a Trimble Geo 7x, sites include 11 parks in the City of Utica, and MVCC Utica Campus. Data from Mohawk Valley Community College. Data obtained from a NYSDEC Urban Forestry Grant. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi7dr2NSOHOQLDcHOERSl8g?app=desktop Spatial Reference of Source Data: State Plane NAD83 Feet Central Zone. Spatial Reference of Web Service: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere. Data current as of 2018.Contact Information:Brian Judycki1101 Sherman DriveUtica, New York 13501PH: 315-792-5313FAX: 315-731-5862bjudycki@mvcc.edu