Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 63–77 | Cite as

Drivers of plant species richness and phylogenetic composition in urban yards at the continental scale

  • Josep Padullés CubinoEmail author
  • Jeannine Cavender-Bares
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
  • Diane E. Pataki
  • Meghan L. Avolio
  • Lindsay E. Darling
  • Kelli L. Larson
  • Sharon J. Hall
  • Peter M. Groffman
  • Tara L. E. Trammell
  • Meredith K. Steele
  • J. Morgan Grove
  • Christopher Neill
Research Article

Abstract

Context

As urban areas increase in extent globally, domestic yards play an increasingly important role as potential contributors to ecosystem services and well-being. These benefits largely depend on the plant species richness and composition of yards.

Objectives

We aim to determine the factors that drive plant species richness and phylogenetic composition of cultivated and spontaneous flora in urban yards at the continental scale, and how these potential drivers interact.

Methods

We analyzed plant species richness and phylogenetic composition of cultivated and spontaneous flora of 117 private yards from six major metropolitan areas in the US. Yard plant species richness and phylogenetic composition were expressed as a function of biophysical and socioeconomic variables and yard characteristics using linear mixed-effects models and spatially explicit structural equation modeling.

Results

Extreme temperatures largely determined yard species richness and phylogenetic composition at the continental scale. Precipitation positively predicted spontaneous richness but negatively predicted cultivated richness. Only the phylogenetic composition of the spontaneous flora was associated with precipitation. The effect of lower temperatures and precipitation on all yard diversity parameters was partly mediated by yard area. Among various socioeconomic variables, only education level showed a significant effect on cultivated phylogenetic composition.

Conclusions

Our results support the hypothesis that irrigation compensates for precipitation in driving cultivated yard plant diversity at the continental scale. Socioeconomic variables among middle and upper class families have no apparent influence on yard diversity. These findings inform the adaptation of US urban vegetation in cities in the face of global change.

Keywords

Private gardens Socioeconomics Horticulture Homogenization Spatial autocorrelation Structural equation modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research funding was provided by the National Science Foundation Macrosystems Biology Program in the Emerging Frontiers Division of the Biological Sciences Directorate and Long Term Ecological Research Program. The senior author was supported by the “Yard Futures” project from the NSF Macrosystems Program (EF-1638519). Data collection was supported by the “Ecological Homogenization of Urban America” project, funded by a series of collaborative grants from the NSF Macrosystems Program (EF-1065548, 1065737, 1065740, 1065741, 1065772, 1065785, 1065831 and 121238320); and additionally by grants from the NSF Long Term Ecological Research Program supporting work in Baltimore (DEB-0423476), Phoenix (BCS-1026865, DEB-0423704 and DEB-9714833), Plum Island (Boston) (OCE-1058747 and 1238212), Cedar Creek (Minneapolis-St. Paul) (DEB-0620652) and Florida Coastal Everglades (Miami) (DBI-0620409). We are grateful to the botanical field teams involved in yard sampling and data organization: BAL-Charlie Davis, Dan Dillon, Erin Mellenthin, Charlie Nicholson, Hannah Saunders, Avery Uslaner; BOS-Emma Dixon, Roberta Lombardiy, Pamela Polloni, Jehane Semaha, Elisabeth Ward, Megan Wheeler; LA-Aprille Curtis, La’Shaye Ervin; MIA-Bianca Bonilla, Stephen Hodges, Lawrence Lopez, Gabriel Sone; MSP-Chris Buyarksi, Emily Loberg, Alison Slaats, Kelsey Thurow; PHX-Erin Barton, Miguel Morgan.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_744_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1627 kb)

References

  1. Anderson DR (2008) Model based inference in the life sciences: a prime on evidence. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson MFJ, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH et al (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20133330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson MF, Nilon CH, Lepczyk CA et al (2016) Hierarchical filters determine community assembly of urban species pools. Ecology 97:2952–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balvanera P, Siddique I, Dee L et al (2014) Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. Bioscience 64:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bigirimana J, Bogaert J, De Cannière C et al (2012) Domestic garden plant diversity in Bujumbura, Burundi: role of the socio-economical status of the neighborhood and alien species invasion risk. Landsc Urban Plan 107:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bivand R, Keitt T, Rowlingson B, et al (2017) rgdal: bindings for the geospatial data abstraction library. R Package Version 12-8Google Scholar
  7. Brelsford C, Abbott JK (2017) Growing into water conservation? Decomposing the drivers of reduced water consumption in Las Vegas, NV. Ecol Econ 133:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadotte MW, Cardinale BJ, Oakley TH (2008) Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17012–17017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron RWF, Blanuša T, Taylor JE et al (2012) The domestic garden: its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For Urban Green 11:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cayuela L, Stein A, Oksanen J (2017) Taxonstand: taxonomic standardization of plant species names. R Package Version 20Google Scholar
  11. CLARITAS (2013) CLARITAS PRIZM market segmentationGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen DT, Hatchard GW, Wilson SG (2015) Population trends in incorporated places: 2000 to 2013. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:19–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Currie DJ (1991) Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-and plant-species richness. Am Nat 137:27–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahmus ME, Nelson KC (2014) Yard stories: examining residents’ conceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota. Urban Ecosyst 17:173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehnen-Schmutz K (2011) Determining non-invasiveness in ornamental plants to build green lists: determining non-invasiveness in ornamental plants. J Appl Ecol 48:1374–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DÍaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickson TL, Foster BL (2011) Fertilization decreases plant biodiversity even when light is not limiting: fertilization, light and plant biodiversity. Ecol Lett 14:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunne T, Zhang W, Aubry BF (1991) Effects of rainfall, vegetation, and microtopography on infiltration and runoff. Water Resour Res 27:2271–2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ESRI (2017) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Fine PVA (2015) Ecological and evolutionary drivers of geographic variation in species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:369–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman C, Dickinson KJM, Porter S, van Heezik Y (2012) “My garden is an expression of me”: exploring householders’ relationships with their gardens. J Environ Psychol 32:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2005) Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grace JB (2006) Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grace JB (2008) Structural equation modeling for observational studies. J Wildl Manag 72:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE et al (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groffman PM, Cavender-Bares J, Bettez ND et al (2014) Ecological homogenization of urban USA. Front Ecol Environ 12:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groffman PM, Grove JM, Polsky C et al (2016) Satisfaction, water and fertilizer use in the American residential macrosystem. Environ Res Lett 11:034004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guisan A, Lehmann A, Ferrier S et al (2006) Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J Appl Ecol 43:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1995) Multivariate data analysis, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall SJ, Learned J, Ruddell B et al (2016) Convergence of microclimate in residential landscapes across diverse cities in the United States. Landscape Ecol 31:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hilaire RS, Arnold MA, Wilkerson DC et al (2008) Efficient water use in residential urban landscapes. HortScience 43:2081–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 24:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. J Bus Res Methods 6(1):53–60Google Scholar
  36. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W et al (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8788–8792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Isbell F, Reich PB, Tilman D et al (2013) Nutrient enrichment, biodiversity loss, and consequent declines in ecosystem productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:11911–11916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jenerette GD, Clarke LW, Avolio ML et al (2016) Climate tolerances and trait choices shape continental patterns of urban tree biodiversity: toward a macroecology of urban trees. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:1367–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kembel SW, Ackerly DD, Blomberg SP et al (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kendal D, Williams KJH, Williams NSG (2012a) Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc Urban Plan 105:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kendal D, Williams NSG, Williams KJH (2012b) A cultivated environment: exploring the global distribution of plants in gardens, parks and streetscapes. Urban Ecosyst 15:637–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kissling WD, Carl G (2007) Spatial autocorrelation and the selection of simultaneous autoregressive models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:59–71Google Scholar
  43. Knapp S, Kühn I, Schweiger O, Klotz S (2008) Challenging urban species diversity: contrasting phylogenetic patterns across plant functional groups in Germany. Ecol Lett 11:1054–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knapp S, Dinsmore L, Fissore C et al (2012) Phylogenetic and functional characteristics of household yard floras and their changes along an urbanization gradient. Ecology 93:S83–S98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kühn I, Klotz S (2006) Urbanization and homogenization: comparing the floras of urban and rural areas in Germany. Biol Conserv 127:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. La Sorte FA, Aronson MFJ, Williams NSG et al (2014) Beta diversity of urban floras among European and non-European cities: beta diversity of urban floras. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:769–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lamb EG, Mengersen KL, Stewart KJ et al (2014) Spatially explicit structural equation modeling. Ecology 95:2434–2442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Larson KL, Nelson KC, Samples SR et al (2016) Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst 19:95–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leduc A, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y, Legendre P (1992) Study of spatial components of forest cover using partial Mantel tests and path analysis. J Veg Sci 3:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or NEW PARADIGM? Ecology 74:1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  52. Leong M, Dunn RR, Trautwein MD (2018) Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: a review of the luxury effect. Biol Lett 14:20180082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape Ecol 22:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Loram A, Thompson K, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XII): the richness and composition of the flora in five UK cities. J Veg Sci 19:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luck GW, Smallbone LT, O’Brien R (2009) Socio-economics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 12:604–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marco A, Dutoit T, Deschamps-Cottin M et al (2008) Gardens in urbanizing rural areas reveal an unexpected floral diversity related to housing density. C R Biol 331:452–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin CA, Warren PS, Kinzig AP (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc Urban Plan 69:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martini NF, Nelson KC, Hobbie SE, Baker LA (2015) Why “feed the lawn”? Exploring the influences on residential turf grass fertilization in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. Environ Behav 47:158–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mazerolle MJ (2017) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.1-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
  60. McKinney ML (2002) 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 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Naimi B, Hamm NA, Groen TA et al (2014) Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography 37:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nychka D, Furrer R, Paige J, Sain S (2017) Fields: tools for spatial data. R Package Version 90Google Scholar
  66. O’brien EM, Field R, v RJ (2000) Climatic gradients in woody plant (tree and shrub) diversity: water-energy dynamics, residual variation, and topography. Oikos 89:588–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, et al (2017) vegan: community ecology package. R Package Version 24-4Google Scholar
  68. Padullés Cubino J, Kirkpatrick JB, Vila Subirós J (2017) Do water requirements of Mediterranean gardens relate to socio-economic and demographic factors? Urban Water J 14:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paradis E, Blomberg S, Bolker B et al (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pearse WD, Cadotte MW, Cavender-Bares J et al (2015) pez: phylogenetics for the environmental sciences. Bioinformatics 31:2888–2890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pearse WD, Cavender-Bares J, Hobbie SE et al (2018) Homogenization of plant diversity, composition, and structure in North American urban yards. Ecosphere 9:e02105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, et al (2018) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package versionGoogle Scholar
  73. Politi Bertoncini A, Machon N, Pavoine S, Muratet A (2012) Local gardening practices shape urban lawn floristic communities. Landsc Urban Plan 105:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Polsky C, Grove JM, Knudson C et al (2014) Assessing the homogenization of urban land management with an application to US residential lawn care. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:4432–4437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pyšek P (1993) Factors affecting the diversity of flora and vegetation in central European settlements. Plant Ecol 106:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Qian H, Jin Y (2016) An updated megaphylogeny of plants, a tool for generating plant phylogenies and an analysis of phylogenetic community structure. J Plant Ecol 9:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  78. Raciti SM, Groffman PM, Jenkins JC et al (2011) Nitrate production and availability in residential soils. Ecol Appl 21:2357–2366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ricotta C, Godefroid S, Celesti-Grapow L (2008) Common species have lower taxonomic diversity evidence from the urban floras of Brussels and Rome: common species have lower taxonomic diversity. Divers Distrib 14:530–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith RM, Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K (2005) Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecol 20:235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Trammell TLE, Pataki DE, Cavender-Bares J et al (2016) Plant nitrogen concentration and isotopic composition in residential lawns across seven US cities. Oecologia 181:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tredici PD (2010) Spontaneous urban vegetation: reflections of change in a globalized world. Nat Cult.  https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2010.050305 Google Scholar
  84. Troy AR, Grove JM, O’Neil-Dunne JPM et al (2007) Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ Manage 40:394–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tsiros IX (2010) Assessment and energy implications of street air temperature cooling by shade tress in Athens (Greece) under extremely hot weather conditions. Renew Energy 35:1866–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. van Heezik Y, Freeman C, Porter S, Dickinson KJM (2013) Garden size, householder knowledge, and socio-economic status influence plant and bird diversity at the scale of individual gardens. Ecosystems 16:1442–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vilela B, Villalobos F (2015) letsR: a new R package for data handling and analysis in macroecology. Methods Ecol Evol 6:1229–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wheeler MM, Neill C, Groffman PM et al (2017) Continental-scale homogenization of residential lawn plant communities. Landsc Urban Plan 165:54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams NSG, Schwartz MW, Vesk PA et al (2009) A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. J Ecol 97:4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zanne AE, Tank DC, Cornwell WK et al (2013) Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature 506:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josep Padullés Cubino
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeannine Cavender-Bares
    • 1
  • Sarah E. Hobbie
    • 1
  • Diane E. Pataki
    • 2
  • Meghan L. Avolio
    • 3
  • Lindsay E. Darling
    • 4
  • Kelli L. Larson
    • 5
  • Sharon J. Hall
    • 6
  • Peter M. Groffman
    • 7
    • 8
  • Tara L. E. Trammell
    • 9
  • Meredith K. Steele
    • 10
  • J. Morgan Grove
    • 11
  • Christopher Neill
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Earth & Planetary SciencesJohn Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.The Morton ArboretumLisleUSA
  5. 5.School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  6. 6.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  7. 7.City University of New York Advanced Science Research Center at the Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA
  9. 9.Department of Plant and Soil SciencesUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  10. 10.Department of Crop and Soil Environmental SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  11. 11.Baltimore Field StationUSDA Forest ServiceBaltimoreUSA
  12. 12.Woods Hole Research CenterFalmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations