Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Plant Diversity in Cities:Call for Assessment and Conservation


Affiliations
1 Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, India
 

Urbanization destroys natural habitats, displaces native ecosystems and results in regional extinction of native species. Urbanization is also argued to cause homogenization during which native species are replaced with non-native species. Negative impact of urbanization on ecosystems and biodiversity is usually focused upon while the fact that high levels of biodiversity may flourish inside cities are frequently ignored. Cities comprise a mixture of remnants of the pre-existing urban habitats and new urban habitats. The remaining fragments of natural landscapes, and other vegetation areas constitute the green infrastructure supporting the biological diversity of cities. Several biotopes such as lawns, hedges, parklands and street trees occur in the cities. In the cities ambient temperatures are higher than those of the surrounding rural areas, exhibiting the phenomenon of urban heat island. Urban vegetation experiences longer growing seasons and exhibits earlier greening than vegetation in the surrounding rural areas. Trees comprise the natural capital assets for cities as they provide immense benefits and ecosystem services for the wellbeing of city dwellers, although there are some disservices also. Studies on urban vegetation are very few in the tropics and particularly in India. In this article we review several aspects of plant diversity in cities in order to sensitize scientists, city managers and lay public to the need for more research on socioeconomic benefits and costs of city vegetation and to augment the vegetation within cities through conservation.

Keywords

Benefits and Cost of City Trees, Non-Native Species, Plant Diversity, Urbanization.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Smith, R. M., Gaston, K. J., Warren, P. H. and Thompson, K., Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecol., 2005, 20, 235–253.

  • Marco, A., Dutoit, T., Deschamps-Cottin, M., Mauffrey, J. F., Vennetier, M. and Bertaudière-Montes, V., Gardens in urbanizing rural areas reveal an unexpected floral diversity related to housing density. C.R. Biol., 2008, 331, 452–465.

  • Beninde, J., Veith, M. and Hochkirch, A., Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol. Lett., 2015, 18, 581–592.

  • Aronson, M. F. et al., A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc. R. Soc. B, 2014, 281, 20133330.

  • Anderson, E., In Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (ed. Thomas Jr, W. L.), Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956, pp. 763–777.

  • Whitney, G. G. and Adams, S. D., Man as a maker of new plant communities. J. Appl. Ecol., 1980, 431–448.

  • Crowther, T. W. et al., Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature, 2015, 525, 201.

  • Troy, A. R., Grove, J. M., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P., Pickett, S. T. and Cadenasso, M. L., Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ. Manage., 2007, 40, 394–412.

  • Landry, S. and Pu, R., The impact of land development regulation on residential tree cover: an empirical evaluation using highresolution IKONOS imagery. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2010, 94, 94–104.

  • Apparicio, P., Séguin, A. M., Landry, S. and Gagnon, M., Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: an uneven distribution or environmental inequity? Landsc. Urban Plan., 2012, 107, 214–224.

  • Bigsby, K. M., McHale, M. R. and Hess, G. R., Urban morphology drives the homogenization of tree cover in Baltimore, MD, and Raleigh, NC. Ecosystems, 2014, 17, 212–227.

  • Cook, E. M., Hall, S. J. and Larson, K. L., Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst., 2012, 15, 19–52.

  • Locke, D. H., Landry, S. M., Grove, J. M. and Roy Chowdhury, R., What’s scale got to do with it? Models for urban tree canopy. J. Urban Ecol., 2016, 2, juw006.

  • Jonsson, P., Vegetation as an urban climate control in the subtropical. Int. J. Climatol., 2004, 24, 1307–1322.

  • Song, X. P., Richards, D., Edwards, P. and Tan, P. Y., Benefits of trees in tropical cities. Science, 2017, 356, 1241.

  • Lal, C. B., Annapurna, C., Raghubanshi, A. S. and Singh, J. S., Effect of leaf habit and soil type on nutrient resorption and conservation in woody species of a dry tropical environment. Can. J. Bot., 2001, 79, 1066–1075.

  • Mishra, S. K. and Srivastava, G. K., Vegetative and reproductive phenology of some Indian Cassiinae. Phytomorphology, 2010, 60, 46–54.

  • Singh, J. S., Net aboveground community productivity in the grasslands at Varanasi. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Advances in Tropical Ecology (eds Misra, R. and Gopal, B.), International Society for Tropical Ecology, Varanasi, 1968, vol. 773, pp. 631–654.

  • Roth, M., Review of urban climate research in (sub) tropical regions. Int. J. Climatol., 2007, 27(14), 1859–1873.

  • Landsberg, H. E., The Urban Climate, Academic Press, 1981, 28.

  • Montavez, J. P., Jimenez, J. I. and Sarsa, A., A Monte Carlo model of the nocturnal surface temperatures in urban canyons. Bound.Lay. Meteorol., 2000, 96, 433–452.

  • Takebayashi, H. and Moriyama, M., Surface heat budget on green roof and high reflection roof for mitigation of urban heat island. Build. Environ., 2007, 42, 2971–2979.

  • Imhoff, M. L., Zhang, P., Wolfe, R. E. and Bounoua, L., Remote sensing of the urban heat island effect across biomes in the continental USA. Remote Sens. Environ., 2010, 114, 04–513.

  • Akbari, H. and Konopacki, S., Calculating energy-saving potentials of heat-island reduction strategies. Energy Policy, 2005, 33, 721–756.

  • Zhang, X., Friedl, M. A., Schaaf, C. B. and Strahler, A. H., Climate controls on vegetation phenological patterns in northern midand high latitudes inferred from MODIS data. Global Change Biol., 2004, 10, 1133–1145.

  • White, M. A., Nemani, R. R., Thornton, P. E. and Running, S. W., Satellite evidence of phenological differences between urbanized and rural areas of the eastern United States deciduous broadleaf forest. Ecosystems, 2002, 5, 260–273.

  • Franken, P. A., A theoretical analysis of the field of random noise source above an infinite plane, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Technical Note 3557, NACA, Washington, 1955, p. 21.

  • Roetzer, T., Wittenzeller, M., Haeckel, H. and Nekovar, J., Phenology in central Europe–differences and trends of spring phenophases in urban and rural areas. Int. J. Biometeorol., 2000, 44, 60–66.

  • Akbari, H., Rose, L. S. and Taha, H., Analysing the land cover of an urban environment using high-resolution orthophotos. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2003, 63, 1–14.

  • Oberndorfer, E. et al., Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience, 2007, 57, 823–833.

  • Koppen, W., VersucheinerKlassifikation der Klimate, vorzugsweisenachihren Beziehungenzur Pflanzenwelt (Attempted climate classification in relation to plant distribution). Geographische, 1900.

  • Aguado, E. and Burt, J., Understanding Weather and Climate, 2006; ebook ID OV75388.

  • Mazerolle, M. J. and Villard, M. A., Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: a review. Ecoscience, 1999, 117–124.

  • McKinney, M. L., Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv., 2006, 127, 247–260.

  • Marzluff, J. M. and Ewing, K., Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecol., 2001, 9, 280–292.

  • Ignatieva, M., Meurk, C. D. and Newell, C., Urban biotopes: the typical and unique habitats of city environments and their natural analogues. In Urban biodiversity and ecology as a basis for holistic planning and design: proceedings of a workshop held at Lincoln University, 2000, pp. 46–53.

  • Zerbe, S., Choi, I. K. and Kowarik, I., Characteristics and habitats of non-native plant species in the city of Chonju, southern Korea. Ecol. Res., 2004, 19, 91–98.

  • Mathieu, R., Freeman, C. and Aryal, J., Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very highresolution satellite imagery. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2007, 81, 179–192.

  • Gaston, K. J., Warren, P. H., Thompson, K. and Smith, R. M., Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodivers. Conserv., 2005, 14, 3327–3349.

  • Werner, P., The ecology of urban areas and their functions for species diversity. Landsc. Ecol. Eng., 2011, 7, 231–240.

  • Varshney, C. K., Observations on the Varanasi wall flora. Vegetatio, 1971, 22(6), 355–372.

  • Lundholm, J. T. and Marlin, A., Habitat origins and microhabitat preferences of urban plant species. Urban Ecosyst., 2006, 9, 139–159.

  • Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. and Swift, M. J., Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science, 1997, 277, 504–509.

  • McKinney, M. L. and Lockwood, J. L., Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol., 1999, 14, 450–453.

  • Rahel, F. J., Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 2002, 33, 291–315.

  • Olden, J. D. and Poff, N. L., Toward a mechanistic understanding and prediction of biotic homogenization. Am. Nat., 2003, 162, 442–460.

  • Chesson, P., General theory of competitive coexistence in spatiallyvarying environments. Theor. Popul. Biol., 2000, 58, 211–237.

  • Sukopp, H. and Starfinger, U., Disturbance in urban ecosystems. Ecosystems of the World, 1999, pp. 397–412.

  • Godefroid, S. and Koedam, N., Urban plant species patterns are highly driven by density and function of built-up areas. Landscape Ecol., 2007, 22, 1227–1239.

  • Bertin, R. I., Losses of native plant species from Worcester, Massachusetts. Rhodora, 2002, 325–349.

  • DeCandido, R., Muir, A. A. and Gargiullo, M. B., A first approximation of the historical and extant vascular flora of New York City: implications for native plant species conservation. J. Torrey Bot. Soc., 2004, 243–251.

  • Kowarik, I., Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems, 1995, pp. 15–38.

  • McKinney, M. L., Do exotics homogenize or differentiate communities? Roles of sampling and exotic species richness. Biol. Invasions, 2004, 6, 495–504.

  • McKinney, M. L., Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience, 2002, 52(10), 883–890.

  • Alberti, M., Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C. and Zumbrunnen, C., Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. AIBS Bull., 2003, 53, 1169–1179.

  • Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T. and Dinetti, M., Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. AIBS Bull., 2004, 54, 585–590.

  • Peev, D., Plant biodiversity in Rila National Park: species and coenotic levels. Bulgaria GEF Biodiversity Project, 1999.

  • Hill, M. O., Roy, D. B. and Thompson, K., Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bio indicators of disturbance and human impact. J. Appl. Ecol., 2002, 39, 708–720.

  • Hahs, A. K. et al., A global synthesis of plant extinction rates in urban areas. Ecol. Lett., 2009, 12, 1165–1173.

  • Duncan, R. P. et al., Plant traits and extinction in urban areas: a meta-analysis of 11 cities. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2011, 20(4), 509–519.

  • Lonsdale, W. M., Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology, 1999, 80, 1522–1536.

  • Williams, N. S., Morgan, J. W., Mcdonnell, M. J. and Mccarthy, M. A., Plant traits and local extinctions in natural grasslands along an urban–rural gradient. J. Ecol., 2005, 93, 1203–1213.

  • Knapp, S. et al., How species traits and affinity to urban land use control large-scale species frequency. Divers. Distrib., 2009, 15, 533–546.

  • Korneck, D., Schnittler, M., Klingenstein, F., Ludwig, G., Takla, M., Bohn, U. and May, R., Warumverarmtunsere flora? Auswertung der rotenliste der farn-und Blutenpflanzen Deutschlands. SchriftenreihefurVegetationskunde., 1998, 29, 299–444.

  • Romermann, C., Tackenberg, O., Jackel, A. K. and Poschlod, P., Eutrophication and fragmentation are related to species’ rate of decline but not to species rarity: results from a functional approach. Biodivers. Conserv., 2008, 17, 591–604.

  • Sukopp, H., Blume, H.-P. and Kunick, W., The soil, flora, and vegetation of Berlin’s waste lands. Nature in cities: the natural environment in the design and development of urban green space (ed. Laurie, I. C.), Wiley, Chichester, 1979, pp. 115–132.

  • McDonnell, M. J. and Hahs, A. K., The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions. Landscape Ecol., 2008, 23, 1143–1155.

  • McKinney, M. L., Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst., 2008, 11, 161–176.

  • Faeth, S. H., Bang, C. and Saari, S., Urban biodiversity: patterns and mechanisms. Ann. New York Acad. Sci., 2011, 1223, 69–81.

  • Dubey, N. K., Flora of BHU campus, Banaras Hindu University Varanasi, India, 2004.

  • Radford, J. Q., Bennett, A. F. and Cheers, G. J., Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol. Conserv., 2005, 124, 317–337.

  • Hedblom, M. and Soderstrom, B., Landscape effects on birds in urban woodlands: an analysis of 34 Swedish cities. J. Biogeogr., 2010, 37, 1302–1316.

  • Niemela, J. and Kotze, D. J., Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: a review. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2009, 92, 65–71.

  • Willis, K. J. and Petrokofsky, G., The natural capital of city trees. Science, 2017, 356, 374–376.

  • McPherson, E. G., van Doorn, N. and de Goede, J., Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban For. Urban Gree., 2016, 17, 104–115.

  • Roy, S., Byrne, J. and Pickering, C., A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For. Urban Gree., 2012, 11, 351–363.

  • Jim, C. Y. and Liu, H. T., Species diversity of three major urban forest types in Guangzhou City, China. Forest Ecol. Manage., 2001, 146, 99–114.

  • McPherson, E. G. and Rowntree, R. A., Using structural measures to compare twenty-two US street tree populations. Landscape J., 1989, 8, 13–23.

  • Richards, N. A., Diversity and stability in a street tree population. Urban Ecol., 1983, 7, 159–171.

  • Taha, H., Akbari, H., Rosenfeld, A. and Huang, J., Residential cooling loads and the urban heat island – the effects of albedo. Build. Environ., 1988, 23, 271–283

  • Grimmond, C. S. B. and Oke, T. R., An evapotranspirationinterception model for urban areas. Water Resour. Res., 1991, 27, 1739–1755.

  • Oke, T. R., Crowther, J. M., McNaughton, K. G., Monteith, J. L. and Gardiner, B., The micrometeorology of the urban forest. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B: Biol. Sci., 1989, 324, 335–349.

  • Bonan, G. B., Effects of land use on the climate of the United States. Clim. Change, 1997, 37, 449–486.

  • Nowak D. J. and Dwyer, J. F., Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast (ed. Kuser, J.), Springer Science and Business Media, New York, 2007, pp. 25–46.

  • Ahmad, F. and Goparaju, L., Geospatial technology in urban forest suitability: analysis for Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. Ecol. Questions, 2017, 24, 45–57.

  • Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W. and Rowntree, R. A., Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboric., 1992, 18, 227–227.

  • Good, T., Benefits of Trees, Retrieved 25 May 2010.

  • Soares, A. L., Rego, F. C., McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J. and Xiao, Q., Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban For. Urban Gree., 2011, 10, 69–78.

  • Nagendra, H. R., Gopal, D., Street trees in Bangalore: Density, diversity, composition and distribution. Urban For. Urban Gree., 2010, 129–137.

  • Shah, M. A. et al., Conyza canadensis suppresses plant diversity in its nonnative ranges but not at home: a transcontinental comparison. New Phytol., 2014, 202, 1286–1296.

  • Hiremath, A. J. and Sundaram, B., Invasive plant species in Indian protected areas: conserving biodiversity in cultural landscapes. In Plant Invasions in Protected Areas, Springer, Dordrecht, 2013, pp. 241–266.

  • McPherson, E. G. and Simpson, J. R., A comparison of municipal forest benefits and costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA. Urban Forest. Urban Green., 2002, 1(2), 61–74.

  • McPherson, G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., Maco, S. E. and Xiao, Q., Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J. Forest., 2005, 103(8), 411–416.

  • Davey Resource Group, Indiana’s Street Tree Benefits Summary, 2010; http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/Fo-INSpecies Distribution Urban-Trees709.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2017).

  • Treiman, T., Kuhn, N., Gartner, J. T. and Koenig, A., Missouri’s 2010 Street Tree Economics, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO, 2011, p. 52.


Abstract Views: 3039

PDF Views: 138




  • Plant Diversity in Cities:Call for Assessment and Conservation

Abstract Views: 3039  |  PDF Views: 138

Authors

Ashutosh Kumar Singh
Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, India
Hema Singh
Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, India
J. S. Singh
Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, India

Abstract


Urbanization destroys natural habitats, displaces native ecosystems and results in regional extinction of native species. Urbanization is also argued to cause homogenization during which native species are replaced with non-native species. Negative impact of urbanization on ecosystems and biodiversity is usually focused upon while the fact that high levels of biodiversity may flourish inside cities are frequently ignored. Cities comprise a mixture of remnants of the pre-existing urban habitats and new urban habitats. The remaining fragments of natural landscapes, and other vegetation areas constitute the green infrastructure supporting the biological diversity of cities. Several biotopes such as lawns, hedges, parklands and street trees occur in the cities. In the cities ambient temperatures are higher than those of the surrounding rural areas, exhibiting the phenomenon of urban heat island. Urban vegetation experiences longer growing seasons and exhibits earlier greening than vegetation in the surrounding rural areas. Trees comprise the natural capital assets for cities as they provide immense benefits and ecosystem services for the wellbeing of city dwellers, although there are some disservices also. Studies on urban vegetation are very few in the tropics and particularly in India. In this article we review several aspects of plant diversity in cities in order to sensitize scientists, city managers and lay public to the need for more research on socioeconomic benefits and costs of city vegetation and to augment the vegetation within cities through conservation.

Keywords


Benefits and Cost of City Trees, Non-Native Species, Plant Diversity, Urbanization.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi3%2F428-435