Significance of the Natural Area
Frederick Law Olmsted, a landscape designer, drew the blueprint of Prospect Park with a focus around “a sense of enlarged freedom” through “the general impression of undefined limit.” 1 By emphasizing on paving greens with trees, groves, and lake, he redefined the boundaries of the park with heavy vegetation.Olmsted.1 intended to deliver a paradoxical feeling to the visitors of Prospect Park. In the visitors’ perspective, the landscape is constantly bounded by water and woodland. Yet when the visitors take a step out of their boundaries, new areas would be opened and a few endless paths would become visible.
The heavy vegetation in Olmsted’s Prospect Park does not only make the boundaries obscure. It also serves as a massive oxygen-producing machine, a provider of food and habitat for the animals in the park. With the 30,000 trees spread distributed over 585 acres, Prospect Park provides shelter for thousands of its native animals and thousands of migratory birds.3 Out of the 30,000 trees, over 11,000 of them require regular pruning and care. The trees in the park also have symbolic values, as around 250 acres of the natural forest in Prospect Park are Brooklyn’s only forest. 4 Since the forest have such important functional and symbolic values, it is required to know the composition of the forest in order to fully understand the structure of Prospect Park.
The Past of the Forest in Prospect Park
Around 15,000 years ago, there was no forest in Brooklyn due to the glacial activities.5 However, after the glaciers retreated out of New York and the climate become less hostile, grasses, mosses, and other hardy plants were growing and begun the first stage of soil development.6 After ages of soil accumulation, increases of organic matter in the soil and the warming climate, heavy vegetation were developed around 8,000 years ago. 6 The developed forests attracted many other animals to become part of the ecology, and the new species had cultivated a self-sustaining forest.6 The forest that developed 8,000 years ago is the first model of the 250 acres of natural area in Prospect Park today.
The forest in Prospect Park continues to experience changes in species diversity and forest composition. By the time of the construction of Prospect Park in 1866, the woodland in that area was generally composed of various oak trees, hickory, chestnuts, for the upland section, while the lowland section consisted of red maple, sweet gum, and sour gum.9 There are also a number of native trees in the area, such as tulip, white and green ash, and American elm.6
Influences from the Park Designers
Since it was in their philosophies to use heavy vegetation, Olmsted and Vaux took advantage of the existing forest in the area. 11. To preserve the pure, simple beauty of nature, Olmsted left one of the two areas, Midwood, as mostly unaltered.12 It is apparent that past reformer followed this ideology at some degree. Although the Midwood today has many small paths paved with shredded bark, most of it preserves the unrefined beauty of woodland…well, except the fact that visitors may find trash and condoms on the forest floor.
Although Olmsted has left the large woodland unchanged in his project, in order to create a new contour for his design, Olmsted has made drastic changes to the ecology of Prospect Park. He commanded his workers to pave the long meadow, plant over 70,000 trees and shrubs, transplant over hundreds of trees, some of which were massive in size. 13. In order to enrich the park’s soil, Olmsted and Vaux also commanded the workers to add tons of peat and other soil enrichment, such as human waste, horse manure, bamboo fiber, fish guano, lime and marl. 6 Beliving that they will give an exotic variety to the existing ecology, Olmsted and Vaux also introduced a variety of species to the park, such as Norway Maple, Sycamore Maple, Japan honeysuckle, and common privet. Unfortunately, some of those species prove to be problematic today. 15
The Present of the Forest in Prospect Park
As mentioned above, Prospect Park contains all the forest in Brooklyn Having a 50.9% of tree coverage, it is the only area in Brooklyn to have a tree coverage above 40%.16 This tree coverage percentage is partially credited to Olmsted and Vaux’s deigns.
The Prospect Park today mainly consists of various oaks, hickory and maple trees. 17 Chestnuts trees have disappeared due to the a fungal disease that wiped out the chestnuts in New York. According to NYC Department of Parks & Recreation, these trees, along with other variety of trees, absorb almost all of the sunlight, sometimes to the point of having only 1% filtered through to the floor.6 The smaller plants are more abundant in the areas with less tree density to avoid competition for sunlight. These smaller plants, such as Canada mayflowers, ferns, clovers, Joe Pye weed, and woodland shrubs, comprise the ground level that occupies the sides of man-created roads. 6
Land Usage:20
Total Area: 585 acres
* Tree/shrub: 50.9%
* Grass/soil: 23.6%
* Building: 5.5%
* Impervious: 9.1%
* Water:10.9%
* Total Greenspace: 74.5%
* Canopy Greenspace: 68.3%
Problems of the Present
The forest in Prospect Park are experiencing some difficulties in regenerating naturally on its own. There are three major threats: 1) non-native species, 2) soil compaction, and 3) soil erosion. 6
Non-native Species: The non-native species were brought over by settlers, the general populations in history, and introduced by Olmsted and Vaux’s design. 6 The most problematic species are Norway Maple and Sycamore Maple, because they are able to grow fast and out-compete the other native trees. Norway Maple present extra threats because it’s highly susceptible of fungal disease called verticillium wilt, and it’s also a host to Asian longhorn beetle, a very destructive forest pest. 23 The destructive diseases they carry and competitions would result in the reduction of forest quality and species diversity.
Soil Compaction: Forest soil needs to be loose and porous for the plants to obtain air, water, and nutrients. Since Prospect Park constantly have joggers and visitors stepping on the soil. The soil would become more dense and less capable of growing plants.
Soil Erosion: Evidences have suggested that Prospect Park have a serious problem with soil erosion. These evidences include exposed roots, fallen limbs, peeling bark, and bare soil with no vegetation. Soil erosion is a serious issue to the plants because it would prevent them from reproducing their next generation. This problem is getting more severe due to the constant disturbance from the eight million visitors every year.
Citations:
- Murphy, Joseph C. “Distant Effects: Whitman, Olmsted, and the American Landscape.”Mickle Street Review 17/18 (2005). Web. . ↩
- Murphy, Joseph C. “Distant Effects: Whitman, Olmsted, and the American Landscape.”Mickle Street Review 17/18 (2005). Web. . ↩
- Prospect Park Official Website. “Woodland”. ↩
- Prospect Park Official Website. “Woodland”. <http://www.prospectpark.org/environment/woodlands> ↩
- NYC Department of Parks & Recreation “Prospect Park Highlights – The Forests of New York City.” http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/prospectpark/highlights/12455 ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Berenson, Richard J. The Complete Guidebook to Prospect Park and the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens. New York: Silver Lining, 2001. P. 28 ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Berenson, Richard J. The Complete Guidebook to Prospect Park and the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens. New York: Silver Lining, 2001. P. 28 ↩
- NYC Department of Parks & Recreation “Prospect Park Highlights – The Forests of New York City.” ↩
- Berenson, Richard J. The Complete Guidebook to Prospect Park and the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens. New York: Silver Lining, 2001. P. 29 ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Prospect Park Official Website. “Woodland” http://www.prospectpark.org/environment/woodlands ↩
- David J. Nowak, Daniel E. Crane, Jack C. Stevens, Myriam Ibarra. “Brooklyn’s Urban Forest”. Page 7. Print. ↩
- Prospect Park Official Website. “Woodland” http://www.prospectpark.org/environment/woodlands ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- David J. Nowak, Daniel E. Crane, Jack C. Stevens, Myriam Ibarra. “Brooklyn’s Urban Forest”. Page 37. Print. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- “New York City Trees- A Field Guide for the Metropolitan Area.” ↩