Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing four methods for establishing native plants on urban vacant land

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban greening increases vegetation and can restore ecological functions to urban systems. It has ties to restoration ecology, which aims to return degraded land to diverse, functional ecosystems. Both practices can be applied to maximizing ecosystem services and habitat in vacant lots, which are abundant in post-industrial cities, including Chicago, Illinois (USA), where our study took place. We tested four methods for increasing native plant diversity in vacant lots, ranging from low input to resource-intensive: seed bombing, broadcast seeding, planting plugs, and gardening. After three growing seasons, we assessed the growth of eight target native species and all non-target species. We expected that intensive treatments would have more target species stems and flowers and fewer non-target species, but we found that less-intensive options often produce equal or better results. From this, we recommend broadcast seeding as a viable, low-cost method for improving habitat and biodiversity in vacant lots.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht, H., E. Eder, T. Langbehn, and C. Tschiersch. 2011. The soil seed bank and its relationship to the established vegetation in urban wastelands. Landscape and Urban Planning 100: 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvey, A. 2006. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forestry. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5: 195–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrey, C., J. Byrne, T. Matthews, A. Davison, C. Portanger, and A. Lo. 2017. Cultivating climate justice: green infrastructure and suburban disadvantage in Australia. Applied Geography 89: 52–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E.C., and E.S. Minor. 2017. Vacant lots: an underexplored resource for ecological and social benefits in cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 21: 146–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E.C., and E.S. Minor. 2020. Management effects on plant community and functional assemblages in Chicago’s vacant lots. Applied Vegetation Science 23: 266–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asbjornsen, H., G. Mora, and M. Helmers. 2007. Variation in water uptake dynamics among contrasting. Ecosystems & Environment 121: 343–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonthoux, S., M. Brun, F. Di Pietro, S. Greulich, and S. Bouché-Pillon. 2014. How can wastelands promote biodiversity in cities? A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 132: 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, D., L. Buyung-Ali, T. Knight, and A. Pullin. 2010. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning 97: 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretzel, F., F. Vannucchi, D. Romano, F. Malogio, S. Benvenuti, and B. Pezzarossa. 2016. Wildflowers: From conserving biodiversity to urban greening—a review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20: 428–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt, K.T., D.W. Tallamy, and W.G. Shriver. 2009. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23: 219–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, L. 2007. Habitat structure: A fundamental concept and framework for urban soil ecology. Urban Ecosystems 10: 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, L.B. 2008. Of looks, laws and lawns: How human aesthetic preferences influence landscape management, public policies and urban ecosystems. In Emerging issues along urban–rural interfaces: Linking science and society conference proceedings, ed. D. Laband, 42–46. Auburn, AL: Auburn University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J.A. 2018. Urban parks and greenspace. In Routledge handbook of environmental justice, ed. R. Holifield, J. Chakraborty, and G. Walker, 437–448. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chace, J., and J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 74: 46–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin, B., W. Shuster, A. Garmestani, B. Furio, S. Albro, M. Gardiner, M. Spring, and O. Green. 2016. A tale of two rain gardens: Barriers and bridges to adaptive management of urban stormwater in Cleveland, Ohio. Journal of Environmental Management 183: 431–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J.D., and C.M. D’Antonio. 2004. Can carbon addition increase competitiveness of native grasses? A case study from California. Restoration Ecology 12: 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahselt, D. 2007. Is transplanting an effective means of preserving vegetation? Canadian Journal of Botany 85: 1007–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenner, M. 1978. A comparison of the abilities of colonizers and closed-turf species to establish from seed in artificial swards. Journal of Ecology 66: 953–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, L.K., L. Neuenkamp, J. Lampinen, M. Tuomi, J.G. Alday, A. Bucharova, L. Cancellieri, I. Casado-Arzuaga, et al. 2020. Public attitudes toward biodiversity-friendly greenspace management in Europe. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godefroid, S., C. Piazza, G. Rossi, S. Buord, A. Stevens, R. Aguraiuja, C. Cowell, C. Weekley, et al. 2011. How successful are plant species reintroductions? Biological Conservation 144: 672–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckert, M., and J. Mennis. 2012. The economic impact of greening urban vacant land: A spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Environmental and Planning A 44: 3010–3027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, P., and W. Kotowski. 2010. New nature by sowing? The current state of species introduction in grassland restoration, and the road ahead. Journal for Nature Conservation 18: 304–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R., E. Higgs, and J. Harris. 2009. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 599–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, H., J. Hitchmough, and A. Jorgensen. 2017. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning 164: 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlburt, S. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: A critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A.J., D. Borowy, and C. Swan. 2018. Land use history and seed dispersal drive divergent plant community assembly patterns in urban vacant lots. Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 451–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, M.K., E.M. Hasle, K.R. Klinger, M.P. Lambruschi, A. Derby Lewis, D.F. Stoltz, A.M. Winter, M.J. Bouman, et al. 2019. Estimating milkweed abundance in metropolitan areas under existing and user-defined scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7: 210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D.S.W., and T.S. Carey. 2014. Heterogeneity in ragweed pollen exposure is determined by plant composition at small spatial scales. Science of the Total Environment 485–486: 435–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendle, A., and J. Rose. 2000. The aliens have landed! What are the justifications for ‘native only’ policies in landscape plantings? Landscape and Urban Planning 47: 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus, V. 2013. Urban grassland restoration: A neglected opportunity for biodiversity conservation. Restoration Ecology 21: 665–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Y. 2018. Trees and vegetation for residential energy conservation: A critical review for evidence-based urban greening. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34: 318–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kövendi-Jakó, A., M. Halassy, A. Csecserits, K. Hülber, K. Szitár, T. Wrbka, and K. Török. 2018. Three years of vegetation development worth 30 years of secondary succession in urban-industrial grassland restoration. Applied Vegetation Science 22: 138–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S.B., A.R. Contosta, J. Milam, and C. Bang. 2018. To mow or to mow less: Lawn mowing frequency affects bee abundance and diversity in suburban yards. Biological Conservation 221: 160–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., R. Wang, J. Paulussen, and X. Liu. 2005. Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: A case study in Beijing. China. Landscape and Urban Planning 72: 325–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm, J.T., and P.J. Richardson. 2010. MINI-REVIEW: Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 966–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiafico, S.S. 2016. Summary and analysis of extension program evaluation in R, version 1.18.1. http://rcompanion.org/handbook/.

  • Majidzadeh, H., B.G. Lockaby, R. Price, and R. Governo. 2018. Soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics beneath impervious surfaces. Soil Science of America Journal 82: 663.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mårtensson, L.-M. 2017. Methods of establishing species-rich meadow biotopes in urban areas. Ecological Engineering 103: 134–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathy, J., S. Rößler, J. Banse, I. Lehmann, and A. Bräuer. 2015. Brownfields as an element of green infrastructure for implementing ecosystem services into urban areas. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 141: A4015001.

  • Mattina, M., W. Lannucci-Berger, C. Musante, and J. White. 2003. Concurrent plant uptake of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants from soil. Environmental Pollution 124: 375–378.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mikadze, V. 2014. Ephemeral urban landscapes of guerilla gardeners: A phenomenological approach. Landscape Research 40: 519–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minor, E.S., E.C. Anderson, J.A. Belair, M. Garfinkel, and A.D. Smith. 2018. Urban green infrastructures and ecological networks for urban biodiversity conservation. In Urban biodiversity, 186–199. Routledge in association with GSE Research. https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.9781315402581_13.

  • Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14: 161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, G., A. Bowman, R.J. Lee, and B. Kim. 2016. A current inventory of vacant urban land in America. Journal of Urban Design 21: 302–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemczynowicz, J. 1999. Urban hydrology and water management—present and future challenges. Urban Water 1: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niinemets, Ü., and J. Peñuelas. 2008. Gardening and urban landscaping: Significant players in global change. Trends in Plant Science 13: 60–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, DJ. 2010. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: Chicago's urban forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Volume 37. Resource bulletin NRS.

  • Packard, S., and C.F. Mutel (eds.). 2005. The Tallgrass restoration handbook: For prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Washington, DC: First Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinhiro, J., D. Bates, S. DebRoy, D. Sarkar, S. Heisterkamp, and B. Van Willigen. 2017. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/nlme.pdf.

  • Prober, S.M., K.R. Thiele, I.D. Lunt, and T.B. Koen. 2005. Restoring ecological function in temperate grassy woodlands: Manipulating soil nutrients, exotic annuals and native perennial grasses through carbon supplements and spring burns. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 1073–1085.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rigolon, A., and J. Németh. 2018. “We’re not in the business of housing”: Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities 81: 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman, L., H. Pearsall, T. Eisenman, T. Conway, R. Fahey, S. Landry, J. Vogt, N. Van Doorm, et al. 2018. Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: A literature synthesis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 31: 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 2003. Win–win ecology: How the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R.L. 2015. The transformative power of engaging in urban greening projects. Cities and the Environment 8: 6.

  • Salisbury, A., J. Armitage, H. Bostock, J. Perry, M. Tatchell, and K. Thompson. 2015. Enhancing gardens as habitats for flower-visiting aerial insects (pollinators): Should we plant native or exotic species? Journal of Applied Ecology 52: 1156–1164.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schadek, U., B. Strauss, R. Biedermann, and M. Kleyer. 2008. Plant species richness, vegetation structure and soil resources of urban brownfield sites linked to successional age. Urban Ecosystems 12: 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharenbroch, B.C., J.E. Lloyd, and J.L. Johnson-Maynard. 2005. Distinguishing urban soils with physical, chemical, and biological properties. Pedobiologia 49: 283–296.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, R., and K. Kiehl. 2020. Ecological restoration of an urban demolition site through introduction of native forb species. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, K., N.T. Basta, and S.G. Grewal. 2015. Soil heavy metal contamination in residential neighborhoods in post-industrial cities and its potential human exposure risk. Urban Ecosystems 18: 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siwiec, E., A.M. Erlandsen, and H. Vennemo. 2018. City greening by rain gardens-costs and benefits. Environmental Protection and Natural Resources 29: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skubała, K. 2011. Vascular flora of sites contaminated with heavy metals on the examples of two post-industrial spoil heaps connected with manufacturing of zinc and lead produces in upper -Silesia. Archives of Environmental Protection 37: 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southon, G.E., A. Jorgensen, N. Dunnett, H. Hoyle, and K.L. Evans. 2017. Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landscape and Urban Planning 158: 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, O. 1932. The number and weight of seeds produced by weeds. American Journal of Botany 19: 784–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, E., and L.K. Campbell. 2008. Urban ecological stewardship: Understanding the structure, function, and network of community-based urban land management. Cities and the Environment 1: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Threlfall, C., K. Walker, N.S.G. Williams, A.K. Hahs, L. Mata, N. Stork, and S.J. Livesley. 2015. The conservation value of urban green space habitats for Australian native bee communities. Biological Conservation 187: 240–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, J. 2018. “Ships that pass in the night”: Does scholarship on the social benefits of urban greening have a disciplinary crosstalk problem? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 32: 195–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallin, L., B.M. Svensson, and M. Lönn. 2009. Artificial dispersal as a restoration tool in meadows: Sowing or planting? Restoration Ecology 17: 270–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolch, J., J. Byrne, and J. Newell. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 234–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, W., B. Egitto, I. Yesilonis, and R. Pouyat. 2017. Drivers of urban soil carbon dynamics. In Urban soils, ed. R. Lal and B.A. Stewart. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by a grant from the UIC Sustainability Fee. We also thank M. Midgley, P. Gobster, C. Whelan, and H. Howe for constructive comments during the revision process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 W. Taylor (MC O66), Chicago, IL, 60607, USA

    Elsa C. Anderson & Emily S. Minor

  2. Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, 2801 Sharon Turnpike, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA

    Elsa C. Anderson

  3. Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1088 SPHPI (MC 673), 1603 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Emily S. Minor

Authors
  1. Elsa C. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily S. Minor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elsa C. Anderson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 740 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, E.C., Minor, E.S. Assessing four methods for establishing native plants on urban vacant land. Ambio 50, 695–705 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01383-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01383-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation