Evaluation of an urban tree population for future scenarios

Author

Freeth, T., Martin, K., Bellan, P. & Sjoman, H.

Published

April 14, 2026

Section 1: City Climate Analysis

RQ1: How does Malmö’s climate change under future scenarios, and what are the primary dimensions of that change?

Malmö’s Köppen-Geiger Reclassification

Malmö’s observed climate has crossed a major classification boundary. Using the high-resolution (1 km) Köppen-Geiger maps of Beck et al. (2023), which estimate that approximately 5% of the global land surface shifted to a different major class between 1901–1930 and 1991–2020, and the CitiesGOER database (Kindt, 2023), which assigns Köppen-Geiger zones to >52,000 cities across four 30-year observed periods and 14 future scenarios, Malmö was classified as Dfb (continental, warm summer, zone 26) throughout the 20th century (1901–1990) before shifting to Cfb (temperate oceanic, zone 15) in the most recent period (1991–2020).

The critical threshold is the coldest month mean temperature crossing 0 °C — the boundary between the continental (D) and temperate (C) macroclimate groups. The C/D boundary was designed by Köppen to correspond to a biome transition (Köppen, 1936; Essenwanger, 2001). The distinction carries direct biological consequences:

  • Soil freezing regime. When coldest-month means are below 0 °C, soils regularly freeze, preventing root water uptake. Sempervirent (evergreen broadleaf) species cannot compensate for winter desiccation under these conditions, restricting them to the C (temperate) domain (Charrier et al., 2015). The loss of regular soil freezing alters the set of species that can persist at a site.
  • Root frost damage. Fine roots are the most frost-sensitive tree organ (lethal at approximately −5 °C) and rely on snow cover and frozen-soil insulation for protection. As Dfb sites transition to Cfb, the shift from stable frozen ground to freeze-thaw cycling exposes roots to new damage patterns (Charrier et al., 2015).
  • Tree growth responses. Across 35,217 trees in Canada, annual radial growth responses to freeze-day frequency varied by species, with gymnosperms (the dominant Dfb canopy trees) showing negative responses to high freeze-day frequency (D’Orangeville et al., 2022).

Malmö is not an isolated case. Across the CitiesGOER database, 1,742 cities made the same Dfb → Cfb transition between the 1961–1990 and 1991–2020 periods, concentrated along the continental/temperate frontier in northern Europe, the North American Great Lakes region, and East Asia (Figure 1). Under all SSP scenarios through both the 2050s and 2090s, Malmö remains classified as Cfb — the shift is irreversible within the projection horizon.

Figure 1. Global distribution of cities by Köppen zone under the 1991–2020 observed period, drawn from CitiesGOER (Kindt, 2023; n > 52,000 cities). Green points: cities classified as Cfb (zone 15, temperate oceanic) in 1991–2020. Blue points: cities classified as Dfb (zone 26, continental warm-summer) in 1991–2020. Orange points: the 1,742 cities that were Dfb in 1961–1990 and shifted to Cfb in 1991–2020. Black ring: Malmö. Layer controls allow each group to be toggled independently; hover labels show city name and country. Included to show the spatial pattern of the Dfb → Cfb transition and Malmö’s position within it; classification boundary follows Beck et al. (2023).

↑ Top


Variable Selection

From 48 to 11

Of the 48 bioclimatic variables in CitiesGOER (Kindt, 2023), 38 are forecastable. Many are algebraically related. Following Booth et al. (2014) and Dormann et al. (2013), 11 were retained based on ecological independence and semantic separation (see collapsible table below).

From 11 to 2

For species suitability screening (Section 2), two axes are used: bio01 (annual mean temperature, °C) and CMI (climatic moisture index, P/PET − 1). These represent thermal stress and water stress — the two independent modes of failure for established urban trees.

Resolution sensitivity

A PCA (principal component analysis — a method that compresses many correlated variables into a smaller number of summary axes) of the 11 variables was computed at two resolutions (Table 3, Figures 2–3). At the global scale (52,223 cities), bio01 aligns with PC1 (Pearson r — a linear correlation coefficient, where |r| = 1 is a perfect relationship and 0 is none — r = +0.957) and CMI with PC2 (r = +0.870). At the Cfb scale (8,079 cities), the variance structure changes: PC1 is dominated by bio04/continentality (|r| = 0.881) rather than bio01 (|r| = 0.735). For Malmö alone (n = 4 scenarios, p = 11 variables), PCA is not computable; Table 2 uses standardised change (SD — standard deviation, a measure of spread — of the Cfb peer-city distribution) instead.

Included (11 variables):

Variable Description Ecological role
bio01 Annual Mean Temperature (°C) Overall thermal regime; primary determinant of species range limits
bio05 Max Temperature of Warmest Month (°C) Heat stress ceiling; lethal thresholds for foliage and cambium
bio06 Min Temperature of Coldest Month (°C) Cold hardiness floor; frost-kill and overwinter survival
bio04 Temperature Seasonality (SD × 100) Continental vs oceanic regime; phenological cue reliability
bio12 Annual Precipitation (mm) Total water input to the system
bio15 Precipitation Seasonality (CV) Temporal distribution of rainfall; drought timing and duration
bio14 Precipitation of Driest Month (mm) Minimum water availability; drought floor
CMI Climatic Moisture Index (P/PET − 1) Net water balance integrating supply and atmospheric demand
MCWD Max Cumulative Water Deficit (mm) Drought severity; empirically linked to tree mortality thresholds
annualPET Annual Potential Evapotranspiration (mm) Evaporative demand; energy-driven water loss
continentality Continentality (°C) Maritime vs continental buffering; amplitude of seasonal extremes

Excluded (27 variables) — grouped by reason for exclusion:

Temperature derivatives redundant with bio01, bio05, bio06 (15 variables): bio02 (Mean Diurnal Range = bio05 − bio06 within months), bio03 (Isothermality = bio02/bio07), bio07 (Temperature Annual Range = bio05 − bio06), bio08–bio11 (quarterly temperature means recoverable from monthly data underlying bio01/bio05/bio06), thermicityIndex (linear combination of bio01, bio06, and min temp of coldest month), growingDegDays0 and growingDegDays5 (cumulative temperature sums directly derivable from the monthly temperature distribution captured by bio01/bio04/bio06), maxTempColdest and meanTempColdest (collinear with bio06, r > 0.90 in Köppen 15), meanTempWarmest and minTempWarmest (collinear with bio05, r > 0.85), monthCountByTemp10 (step function of the temperature distribution), PETColdestQuarter (dominated by temperature; collinear with bio06 and bio11).

Precipitation derivatives redundant with bio12, bio14, bio15 (6 variables): bio13 (Precipitation of Wettest Month), bio16–bio19 (quarterly precipitation totals recoverable from bio12/bio14/bio15 and monthly distribution).

PET derivatives redundant with annualPET and continentality (3 variables): PETDriestQuarter, PETWarmestQuarter, PETWettestQuarter (quarterly decompositions of annualPET; seasonal partitioning captured by continentality and bio04). PETseasonality (correlated with continentality, r > 0.5 in Köppen 15).

Composite indices redundant with CMI (3 variables): aridityIndexThornthwaite (alternative formulation of moisture balance using the same P and PET inputs as CMI), embergerQ (precipitation-temperature ratio; partially collinear with CMI and bio01).

Table 1: Malmö’s Climate Envelope

Table 2: Magnitude of Climatic Change (11 Selected Variables)

↑ Top

Table 3: PCA Variance Explained at Two Resolutions

↑ Top

Figure 2: PCA Loadings in 3D Space — Global vs Cfb

Figure 2. PCA loadings (the coefficients that define how each variable contributes to each principal component) for the 11 curated bioclimatic variables on the first three PCs, computed at two resolutions: all CitiesGOER cities (n = 52,223; Global tab) and validated Cfb cities only (n = 8,079; Cfb tab). Each point is one variable; its position on the three axes shows its loading on PC1, PC2, and PC3 respectively. Colour indicates ecological domain (red = temperature, blue = precipitation, green = moisture and energy). Interactive plots can be rotated. Included to show how the variable clustering changes between resolutions: at the global scale, bio01 loads on PC1 and CMI on PC2 with minimal overlap; at the Cfb scale, bio01’s loading shifts toward PC2 and bio04/continentality dominate PC1 (see Table 3 and Variable Selection narrative).

↑ Top

Figure 3: PC1 vs bio01, PC2 vs CMI — Global PCA

Figure 3. Scatter plots of the first two global PC scores against their strongest single-variable correlates, computed across 52,223 CitiesGOER cities. Left: PC1 (49.8% of variance) vs bio01 — annual mean temperature (°C). Right: PC2 (30.8%; cumulative 80.6%) vs CMI — climatic moisture index (dimensionless, P/PET − 1). Each point is one city; black lines are ordinary least-squares linear fits; Pearson r values are shown in each panel legend. Included to show the empirical alignment between the two suitability screening axes (bio01, CMI) and the two dominant global PCA axes.

↑ Top

Table 4: Selecting a Second Variable to Pair with bio01

↑ Top

Figure 4: Malmö’s Climate Trajectory in bio01 × CMI Space

Figure 4. Malmö’s climate trajectory in bio01 × CMI space across four scenarios (n = 4 points: baseline and three SSP projections), drawn from CitiesGOER (Kindt, 2023). Left panel: values expressed as z-scores (number of standard deviations from the Köppen 15 mean) to allow comparison across variables with different units. Right panel: absolute values (°C for bio01; dimensionless for CMI, where CMI = P/PET − 1). In both panels: points are colour-coded by scenario (blue = baseline, orange = SSP1-2.6 2050, red = SSP3-7.0 2050, dark red = SSP5-8.5 2090); warmer conditions plot rightward; drier conditions (more negative CMI) plot upward due to axis inversion. Included to show Malmö’s directional movement in the two-variable space used for species suitability screening in Section 2.

↑ Top

Figure 5: Malmö Among Cfb Peer Cities

Figure 5. Malmö’s four climate scenarios (coloured diamonds) against 8,079 validated Cfb peer cities (grey points), shown in two coordinate systems. Cfb PCA tab: x-axis is Cfb PC1 (40.7%), reversed; y-axis is Cfb PC2 (31.8%). bio01 × CMI tab: x-axis is bio01 (°C); y-axis is CMI (P/PET − 1), reversed so drier plots upward. Axes are oriented so Malmö’s trajectory runs in the same visual direction (rightward and upward) in both tabs. Point colours: blue = baseline, orange = SSP1-2.6 2050, red = SSP3-7.0 2050, dark red = SSP5-8.5 2090.

↑ Top

Figure 5c: Variable Correlates of PC1 and PC2 — Global PCA

Figure 5c. Pearson r between each of the 11 curated bioclimatic variables and the first two global PC scores, computed across 52,223 CitiesGOER cities. Each panel shows one PC; bars are sorted by absolute r, and the x-axis is fixed at −1 to 1 across both panels. Colour indicates ecological domain (red = temperature, blue = precipitation, green = moisture and energy). Included to show the full variable-loading structure of the global PCA and to confirm that PC1 aligns with bio01 (temperature) and PC2 with CMI (moisture balance).

↑ Top

Figure 5d: Marginal Distributions of bio01 and CMI across 52,223 Cities

Figure 5d. Frequency distributions (histograms) of bio01 (annual mean temperature, °C) and CMI (climatic moisture index, dimensionless, P/PET − 1) across all 52,223 CitiesGOER cities (grey bars). Each panel shows one variable; vertical lines show Malmö’s value under each of the four scenarios, colour-coded by scenario (blue = baseline, orange = SSP1-2.6 2050, red = SSP3-7.0 2050, dark red = SSP5-8.5 2090). Included to show where Malmö sits within the full global distribution of both screening variables, and to confirm that all projected values remain well within the observed range.

↑ Top


Section 2: The Urban Forest Composition

RQ2: What is the composition and diversity of Malmö’s urban tree population, and how does it vary across nomenclatural categories and geographic provenance?

Table 5: Urban Forest Inventory

(a) 817 unique supplied names from the Malmö inventory, classified into four mutually exclusive categories (wild, cultivated, hybrid, unknown) with geographic provenance (native, non-native, unknown).

(b) Names tab: unique supplied names (taxonomic diversity). Trees tab: individual trees (planting prevalence). All rows sum to the grand total.

(c) Separates the inventory into nomenclatural categories and geographic provenance to characterise urban forest composition.

Table 5a: Urban forest inventory — unique supplied names
Metric Count
Total supplied names 817
Accepted names (after WCVP cleaning) 401
Wild 287
Cultivated 476
Hybrid 18
Unknown 36
Native 161
Non-native 600
Unknown provenance 56
Table 5b: Urban forest inventory — individual trees
Metric Count
Total trees 83596
Wild 52128
Cultivated 20041
Hybrid 7306
Unknown 4121
Native 39204
Non-native 32922
Unknown provenance 11470

Figure 6: Urban Forest Diversity

Three figures complement Table 5 by visualising the taxonomic concentration, dominance structure, and provenance composition of Malmö’s 83,596 registered trees (401 accepted names from 817 supplied names). Colours: blue = wild/native, amber = cultivated/non-native, grey = hybrid, light grey = unknown.

(a) Tree counts for the 20 most-planted genera (of 116 total), split by name category (wild, cultivated, hybrid, unknown). Data: 817 supplied names aggregated to genus level; genus extracted from WCVP-accepted name (first word of binomial, or second word for intergeneric hybrids prefixed with ×). Top 20 genera account for 71,894 of 83,596 trees (86%).

(b) Horizontal stacked bars. Bar length = total trees per genus; colour segments show the proportion from each name category. Genera ordered top-to-bottom by descending total tree count. Hover for exact counts.

(c) Shows which genera dominate the urban forest and the degree to which each genus is represented by wild species versus cultivated selections, hybrids, or unresolved names.

(a) A rank-abundance curve (a standard ecological tool for visualising dominance structure; Whittaker 1965) for 402 WCVP-accepted names (consolidated from 817 supplied names), ranked by descending tree count (rank 1 = most planted). Y-axis is log₁₀-scaled. Points coloured by dominant name category (the category contributing most trees to each accepted name).

(b) Each point is one accepted name. X-axis = rank position (1–402); y-axis = number of trees on a logarithmic scale. A steep initial drop indicates high dominance by a few taxa; a flat tail indicates many rare taxa. Hover for species name and count.

(c) Visualises the evenness (or lack thereof) of the urban forest — whether tree planting is spread across many taxa or concentrated in a few.

(a) Tree counts (n = 83,596) split by name category (wild, cultivated, hybrid, unknown) and geographic provenance (native, non-native, unknown provenance).

(b) Stacked bars. X-axis = name category; y-axis = tree count; colour = provenance. Hover for exact counts.

(c) Shows how geographic origin intersects with nomenclatural type.

Figure 7: Top Taxa by Inventory Slice

Five views of the most-planted taxa, each filtered to a different nomenclatural or provenance subset of the inventory (n = 83,596 trees, 817 supplied names). Each tab is independent — taxa may appear in more than one tab where they meet the filter criteria.

(a) Accepted names: top 30 WCVP-accepted names by tree count (multiple supplied names may map to the same accepted name). Cultivars & hybrids: top 30 supplied names (vet_namn) classified as cultivated or hybrid, ranked by tree count; supplied names are shown because cultivar identity is lost at the accepted-name level. Native / Non-native / Unknown provenance: top 30 accepted names within each provenance class.

(b) Horizontal bars, ranked top-to-bottom by descending tree count. Hover for exact counts and name. Each tab uses a distinct bar colour.

(c) Provides taxon-by-taxon resolution at the top of each distribution, for sense-checking dominance patterns and identifying individual taxa that drive the inventory totals in Table 5 and Figure 6.


Section 3: Species Climate Suitability

RQ3: How climate-suitable is the current tree population under projected scenarios, and which species are most vulnerable?

Table 6: Climate Profile Coverage

(a) The 817 supplied names and 83,596 trees from Section 2 classified by whether a species-level climate envelope (Q05–Q95 of bio01 and CMI from wild-branch GBIF records) could be computed. Three mutually exclusive categories: “Profiled” (species with ≥3 cleaned GBIF occurrence records and climate data for both variables), “Genus-only” (names that resolve only to genus level — no species epithet available — and therefore cannot receive a species-level envelope), and “Species-level, no data” (names with a valid species epithet but zero or insufficient wild-branch GBIF records). Percentages are of the total inventory (83,596 trees).

(b) Names tab: unique supplied names. Trees tab: individual trees. Read row-by-row; the three categories sum to the total.

(c) Quantifies the proportion of the inventory that can be scored for climate suitability in the analyses that follow, and identifies the two sources of unscorable trees.

Table 6: Climate profile coverage of the Malmö inventory
Category Names Trees % of trees
Profiled (wild branch) 717 77,386 92.6%
Genus-only (unscorable) 82 5,464 6.5%
Species-level, no data 18 746 0.9%
Total 817 83,596

Scoring Methodology

The suitability assessment compares Malmö’s projected climate (bio01 and CMI, a climatic moisture index) against each species’ observed climate envelope (the statistical range of climate values recorded across the species’ wild GBIF occurrence locations — a standard proxy for a species’ climatic tolerance). The scoring follows the BIOCLIM percentile-envelope framework (Nix 1986; Booth et al. 2014) — a species distribution modelling approach that defines suitability as a function of percentile position within the species’ observed climate range, using the most limiting variable to determine the final score — with zone thresholds from the Kindt TreeGOER protocol (Kindt 2023).

Tables 7a–7b: Zone and Trajectory Definitions

(a) Table 7a defines the four-zone classification applied to each climate variable independently. Percentile thresholds (Q05 = 5th percentile, Q25 = 25th, Q75 = 75th, Q95 = 95th — the values below which 5%, 25%, 75%, and 95% of the species’ occurrence records fall; Min and Max are the absolute extremes) are derived per species from wild-branch GBIF occurrence records. The combined zone for each species is the minimum (i.e. worst) zone across bio01 and CMI — the “most limiting factor” rule standard to BIOCLIM and Kindt. Table 7b defines the trajectory categories that describe how a species’ combined zone changes between baseline and a future scenario.

(b) Read row-by-row: zone/trajectory label, numeric score or comparison rule, and what each category means. Zone scores run from 4 (best) to 1 (worst). Trajectory is determined by comparing the combined zone at a future scenario against the combined zone at baseline.

(c) Reference tables for interpreting all subsequent figures and tables in this section.

Table 7a. Zone definitions for per-variable climate suitability scoring. Each species is scored independently on bio01 (mean annual temperature) and CMI (climatic moisture index). The combined zone is the minimum across both variables.
Zone Score Rule Meaning
Core 4 Q25 ≤ value ≤ Q75 Central half of the species’ observed range
Suitable 3 Q05 ≤ value < Q25, or Q75 < value ≤ Q95 Within 90% of observations, but outside the central half
Marginal 2 Min ≤ value < Q05, or Q95 < value ≤ Max At or near the species’ recorded extremes
Outside 1 value < Min, or value > Max Beyond all recorded observations for this species
Table 7b. Trajectory definitions. Trajectory compares a species’ combined zone at a future scenario against its combined zone at baseline. Baseline rows have no trajectory (the comparison is undefined).
Trajectory Rule Meaning
Improving Future combined zone > baseline combined zone Climate is shifting towards a more favourable part of the species’ envelope
Stable Future combined zone = baseline combined zone No change in zone classification between baseline and future scenario
Declining Future combined zone < baseline combined zone, but future zone ≥ Marginal Climate is shifting towards a less favourable part of the species’ envelope
Critical Species was Marginal or better at baseline but is Outside in the future scenario Climate has moved beyond the species’ entire recorded range

Table 8: Malmö’s Climate Values per Scenario

(a) The bio01 and CMI values at Malmö for each of the four scored scenarios, sourced from CitiesGOER (Kindt 2023). These are the values compared against each species’ envelope thresholds. Bio01 = mean annual temperature (°C); CMI = climatic moisture index (Willmott & Feddema 1992), a dimensionless ratio where positive values indicate a water surplus and negative values indicate a deficit.

(b) Each row is one scenario. All 348 species are scored against the same four pairs of values.

(c) Makes explicit the inputs to the scoring — the climate trajectory that species envelopes are tested against.

Table 8. Malmö's bio01 and CMI values for each scored scenario. Source: CitiesGOER (Kindt, 2023).
Scenario bio01 (°C) CMI
Baseline (1970–2000) 8.53 -0.03
SSP1-2.6 (2050s) 10.60 -0.07
SSP3-7.0 (2050s) 11.10 -0.08
SSP5-8.5 (2090s) 13.30 -0.14

Table 9: Worked Example — Scoring Walkthrough

(a) Five species selected to illustrate the range of scoring outcomes: one that improves under warming, one that remains stable, one where bio01 (temperature) is the limiting variable, one where CMI (moisture) is the limiting variable, and one that is pushed beyond its recorded range. Envelope thresholds (Q25, Q75, Q05, Q95, Min, Max) are from wild-branch GBIF occurrence records; n = number of deduplicated GBIF records used to compute the envelope. Malmö’s bio01 and CMI values are from Table 8.

(b) For each species: the top row shows the envelope thresholds for bio01, the bottom row for CMI. The “BL Zone” and “2090 Zone” columns show the zone assigned by slotting Malmö’s value into the thresholds using the rules in Table 7a. “Combined” is the minimum zone across both variables. Trajectory compares the combined zone at baseline vs 2090 (Table 7b).

(c) Demonstrates the complete scoring chain from raw thresholds to final zone assignment — allows the reader to verify the methodology on known species.

Table 10: Zone Distribution Across Scenarios

(a) Distribution of 348 species and 77,386 trees across the four climate suitability zones (Table 7a) at each of the four scenarios (Table 8). Tree-weighted: percentages reflect the number of individual trees, not species counts.

(b) Each cell shows “trees (species)”. Read column-by-column to see how a zone’s share changes across scenarios, or row-by-row to see the full distribution at one scenario. Percentages are of the 77,386 scorable trees.

(c) Summarises the population-level shift in climate suitability from baseline to SSP5-8.5 (2090s).

Figure 8: Climate Suitability Across Scenarios

Three views of how the zone distribution shifts across scenarios: combined (minimum across bio01 and CMI), bio01-only, and CMI-only. Each bar represents one scenario; segments show the proportion of scored trees in each zone. The 77,386 scored trees are weighted equally (one tree = one unit).

Figure 9: Zone Transitions Across Scenarios

(a) A Sankey diagram (a flow-visualisation format where link width is proportional to quantity, used to trace how a population redistributes across categories over successive stages) showing the redistribution of 77,386 scored trees between climate suitability zones from baseline through SSP1-2.6 (2050s), SSP3-7.0 (2050s), and SSP5-8.5 (2090s). Each vertical column of nodes represents one scenario; each node is a zone within that scenario. Links between nodes represent trees moving from one zone to another (or remaining in the same zone).

(b) Node height is proportional to tree count. Link width is proportional to the number of trees making that transition. Link colour matches the destination zone. Hover over a link to see the tree count and source/destination zones.

(c) Visualises the progressive redistribution of the tree population across zones as climate projections intensify.

Table 11: 30 Most Vulnerable Species

(a) The 30 species with the greatest decline in climate suitability by the most extreme scenario (SSP5-8.5, 2090s), ranked by the product of zone decline and tree count — so that species with both large declines and large populations rank highest. Zone decline = baseline combined zone minus 2090 combined zone (a decline of 2 means, for example, moving from Suitable to Outside). Bottleneck = the variable (bio01 or CMI) with the lower zone at 2090.

(b) Sortable and searchable. Zone columns use the labels from Table 7a. Trajectory categories are defined in Table 7b. Trajectory describes the direction of change. Provenance = tree-weighted geographic origin (native, non-native, or unknown).

(c) Identifies the species-by-tree combinations that contribute most to the population-level vulnerability summarised in Table 10 and Figure 8.

Table 12: 30 Most Resilient Species

(a) The 30 highest-tree-count species that remain in the Core or Suitable zone (combined score ≥ 3) across all four scenarios. Ranked by tree count descending.

(b) Sortable and searchable. Same column structure as Table 11.

(c) Identifies species that the scoring indicates are well-matched to Malmö’s projected climate through to 2090 — the stable backbone of the urban forest under these scenarios.

Native vs Non-native Vulnerability

Figure 10: Native vs Non-native Zone Distribution

(a) Zone distribution of native versus non-native species across the four scenarios, weighted by tree count. “Native” and “non-native” are the tree-weighted majority provenance per accepted species name from the WCVP-TDWG Level 3 distribution data used in Section 2. Species with unknown provenance are excluded (n excluded shown in Table 13).

(b) Each panel is one scenario. Within each panel, two stacked bars (Native, Non-native) show the percentage of trees in each zone. Hover for tree counts.

(c) Compares whether native and non-native species respond differently to projected climate change.

Table 13: Native vs Non-native Summary Statistics

(a) Summary statistics by provenance class (native, non-native) and scenario. Mean zone = tree-weighted average of the combined zone score (4 = Core, 1 = Outside). % Declining and % Critical are the proportion of scored trees in each trajectory category relative to baseline.

(b) Read row-by-row within each provenance group. Baseline has no trajectory columns (trajectory is defined relative to baseline).

(c) Quantifies whether the native and non-native components of the urban forest diverge in their vulnerability profiles.


Section 4: Spatial Patterns of Diversity and Risk

RQ4: How do diversity and climate risk vary spatially across Malmö, and where do low-diversity and high-vulnerability areas coincide?

Figure 11: Spatial Distribution of Diversity and Climate Risk

(a) 478 hexagonal cells (500 m edge, SWEREF99 TM) covering 77,232 scored trees (cells with fewer than 10 trees excluded). Four map layers can be toggled independently: Shannon diversity index (H’ — an information-theoretic measure of species diversity that accounts for both richness and evenness; higher values indicate more diverse assemblages; Shannon 1948); mean combined climate suitability zone under SSP5-8.5 2090s (zone scale 1–4, where 4 = Core and 1 = Outside, as defined in Table 7a); zone change from baseline to 2090 (negative = deterioration, diverging colour ramp); and hotspot classification (tercile-based — a tercile divides the ranked values into three equal-sized groups; cells in the bottom tercile of both Shannon H’ and mean zone 2090 are classified as “Low diversity + High risk”).

(b) Each hex is coloured by the selected layer variable. Hover over a hex to see its summary statistics (tree count, species count, Shannon H’, mean zone at baseline and 2090, zone change, and hotspot category). Only one layer is visible at load; use the layer control (top-right) to switch views.

(c) Maps the spatial coincidence of low species diversity and high climate vulnerability across the city, identifying priority areas where both problems overlap.

Table 14: Hotspot Category Summary

(a) Summary of the 478 hexes by hotspot classification. Hotspot categories are defined by terciles: “Low diversity” = bottom tercile of Shannon H’; “High risk” = bottom tercile of mean zone under SSP5-8.5 2090s (i.e. lowest suitability). A hex in both bottom terciles is classified “Low diversity + High risk”.

(b) Columns: number of hexes, number of trees, share of total hexes and trees, and median values for Shannon H’ and mean zone (2090). Read the first row to identify the scale of the dual-problem areas.

(c) Quantifies how many hexes and trees fall into each priority category, supporting spatial resource allocation decisions.

Figure 12: Species Composition — Hotspot vs Non-Hotspot Hexes

(a) Top 20 species by tree count within “Low diversity + High risk” hexes (left tab) and all other hexes (right tab), drawn from the 77,232 scored trees assigned to the 478 hexes. Bar colour indicates the species’ climate trajectory under SSP5-8.5 2090s (improving, stable, declining, or critical — as defined in Table 7b).

(b) Each bar shows the number of trees of that species in the selected hex category. Species are ordered by descending tree count. Hover for exact counts and trajectory.

(c) Compares the dominant species in areas of concern against the rest of the city, showing whether hotspot areas are dominated by the same or different species, and whether those species are disproportionately climate-vulnerable.

Table 15: Hex-Level Metric Correlations

(a) Spearman rank correlations among six hex-level metrics for the 478 hexes: Shannon diversity (H’), species count, mean combined zone at baseline, mean combined zone at SSP5-8.5 2090s, zone change (2090 minus baseline), and percentage of trees with declining or critical trajectory. All variables computed per hex from scored trees only.

(b) Cells show Spearman’s rho (a non-parametric correlation coefficient ranging from −1 to +1; values near 0 indicate no monotonic relationship). Colour intensity scales with absolute correlation strength. Read off-diagonal cells to assess whether diversity and risk co-vary spatially.

(c) Tests whether hexes with low diversity also tend to have high climate risk, or whether the two dimensions are largely independent — informing whether spatial interventions can target one problem or must address both.

Table 15. Spearman rank correlations among hex-level diversity and climate risk metrics (n = 478 hexes). Lower triangle shown; blank cells = upper triangle or diagonal.
Variable Shannon H' Species count Mean zone (BL) Mean zone (2090) Zone change % Declining
Shannon H' Shannon H' NA NA NA NA NA NA
Species count Species count 0.94 NA NA NA NA NA
Mean zone (BL) Mean zone (BL) 0.01 0.02 NA NA NA NA
Mean zone (2090) Mean zone (2090) 0.41 0.36 -0.31 NA NA NA
Zone change Zone change 0.12 0.09 -0.90 0.65 NA NA
% Declining % Declining -0.46 -0.41 0.45 -0.85 -0.68 NA

References

Data sources (required by CitiesGOER / TreeGOER)

Beck, H.E., McVicar, T.R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Lutsko, N.J., Dufour, A., Zeng, Z., Jiang, X., van Dijk, A.I.J.M. & Miralles, D.G. (2023). High-resolution (1 km) Köppen-Geiger maps for 1901–2099 based on constrained CMIP6 projections. Scientific Data 10, 724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02549-6

Fick, S.E. & Hijmans, R.J. (2017). WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37(12), 4302–4315. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

Kindt, R. (2023). TreeGOER: A database with globally observed environmental ranges for 48,129 tree species. Global Change Biology 29, 6303–6318. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16914

Kindt, R. (2025). CitiesGOER: Globally Observed Environmental Data for 52,602 Cities with a Population ≥ 5000 (Version 2025.03) [Dataset]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15037379

Opendatasoft (2023). Geonames — All Cities with a population > 1000. https://public.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/geonames-all-cities-with-a-population-1000/ (accessed 22 July 2023).

Poggio, L., de Sousa, L.M., Batjes, N.H., Heuvelink, G.B.M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E. & Rossiter, D. (2021). SoilGrids 2.0: Producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. SOIL 7(1), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-217-2021

Title, P.O. & Bemmels, J.B. (2018). ENVIREM: An expanded set of bioclimatic and topographic variables increases flexibility and improves performance of ecological niche modeling. Ecography 41(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02880

Classification systems

Essenwanger, O.M. (2001). Classification of climates. In World Survey of Climatology Vol. 1C. Elsevier.

Köppen, W. (1936). Das geographische System der Klimate. In W. Köppen & R. Geiger (Eds.), Handbuch der Klimatologie Vol. 1, Part C. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.

Biological significance of the C/D boundary

Charrier, G., Ngao, J., Saudreau, M. & Améglio, T. (2015). Effects of environmental factors and management practices on microclimate, winter physiology, and frost resistance in trees. Frontiers in Plant Science 6, 259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00259

D’Orangeville, L., Duchesne, L., Houle, D., Kneeshaw, D., Côté, B. & Pederson, N. (2022). Cold-season freeze frequency is a pervasive driver of subcontinental forest growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(18), e2117464119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117464119

Diversity and community ecology

Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Whittaker, R.H. (1965). Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science 147(3655), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3655.250

Methodology and analysis

Booth, T.H., Nix, H.A., Busby, J.R. & Hutchinson, M.F. (2014). BIOCLIM: The first species distribution modelling package, its early applications and relevance to most current MaxEnt studies. Diversity and Distributions 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12144

Dormann, C.F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., … & Lautenbach, S. (2013). Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x

GBIF.org (2024). Global Biodiversity Information Facility. https://www.gbif.org

WCVP (2024). World Checklist of Vascular Plants. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. https://powo.science.kew.org/