Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 637–652 | Cite as

A cultivated environment: Exploring the global distribution of plants in gardens, parks and streetscapes

  • Dave Kendal
  • Nicholas S. G. Williams
  • Kathryn J. H. Williams
Article

Abstract

Plants cultivated in gardens, parks and streetscapes are becoming increasingly important to peoples’ experience of biological life, and have been the recent focus of research in ecology, invasion biology, human geography and sociology. However patterns of distribution have not previously been explored at a global scale. In this study, global patterns in the distribution of cultivated floras were explored to determine the significance of biophysical and social factors driving species distributions. The taxonomic similarity of 72 published species lists was examined, covering a wide geographic and climatic range and a variety of land uses. Cultivated floras across urban and rural settlements were found to be very different and unsurprisingly to be strongly filtered by temperature. However we found that human behaviour may overcome other physical drivers of plant distribution such as rainfall in some instances. Social factors were also found to be important. Having a different dominant language (a proxy for cultural background) and difference in GDP per person (a proxy for household income) were also related to the dissimilarity of cultivated floras. Differences in both the social and physical environment are related to floristic differences between cities. However, we recognise that other factors identified in the literature but unsuited to meta-analysis, may also influence the composition of cultivated landscapes. These include changes in policy relating to the provision of street and park vegetation, the availability of plants from nurseries and the preferences of influential gardeners and landscape designers. The significance of the relationship between temperature and species composition suggests that cultivated floras are likely to change in response to climate change. The high level of dissimilarity observed between settlements suggests that patterns of potential naturalisation of cultivated plants are likely to be more complex than currently accepted.

Keywords

Climate change Biotic homogenization Globalization Urban floras Invasion biology Colonialism 

Supplementary material

11252_2011_215_MOESM1_ESM.doc (122 kb)
Online Resource 1(DOC 121 kb)

References

  1. Acar C, Acar H, Eroğlu E (2007) Evaluation of ornamental plant resources to urban biodiversity and cultural changing: a case study of residential landscapes in Trabzon city (Turkey). Build Environ 42(1):218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attorre F (2000) Landscape changes of Rome through tree-lined roads. Landsc Urban Plann 49(3–4):115–128. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00069-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks J, Brack C (2003) Canberra’s urban forest: evolution and planning for future landscapes. Urban Forestry Urban Green 1:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beinart W, Middleton K (2004) Plant transfers in historical perspective: a review article. Environ Hist 3–29Google Scholar
  5. Bhatti M, Church A, Claremont A, Stenner P (2009) ‘I love being in the garden’: enchanting encounters in everyday life. Soc Cult Geogr 10(1):61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisgrove R, Hadley P (2002) Gardening in the global greenhouse: the impacts of climate change on gardens in the UK Technical Report. The UK Climate Impacts Programme, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanckaert I, Swennen RL, Paredes Flores M, Rosas López R, Lira Saade R (2004) Floristic composition, plant uses and management practices in homegardens of San Rafael Coxcatlán, Valley of Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, Mexico. J Arid Environ 57(2):179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley B, Blumenthal D, Wilcove D, Ziska L (2010) Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol 25(5):310–318. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.12.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breton C, Guerin J, Ducatillion C, Medail F, Kull C, Berville A (2008) Taming the wild and wilding the tame: tree breeding and dispersal in Australia and the Mediterranean. Plant Sci 175(3):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brook I (2003) Making here like there: place attachment, displacement and the urge to garden. Ethics Place Environ 6(3):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Central Intelligence Association (2009) The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Association. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. Accessed 20 July 2009
  12. Crosby A (1986) Ecological Imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniels GD, Kirkpatrick JB (2006) Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc Urban Plann 78(4):344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de la Maza CL, Hernández J, Bown H, Rodríguez M, Escobedo F (2002) Vegetation diversity in the Santiago de Chile Urban Ecosystem. Arboricultural J 26:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faith D, Minchin P, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69(1/3):57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox P (2004) Clearings: six colonial gardeners and their landscapes. Miegunyah, CarltonGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank S, Waters G, Beer R, May P (2006) An analysis if the street tree population of greater Melbourne at the beginning of the 21st century. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(4):155–162Google Scholar
  18. Fraser E, Kenney A (2000) Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J Arboriculture 26(2):106–112Google Scholar
  19. Gebauer J (2005) Plant species diversity of home gardens in El Obeid, Central Sudan. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 106(2):97–103Google Scholar
  20. Goddard M, Dougill A, Benton T (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):90–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grove J, Troy A, O’neil-Dunne J, Burch WR, Cadenasso M, Pickett STA (2006) Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9(4):578–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Head L, Atchison J (2009) Cultural ecology: emerging human-plant geographies. Prog Hum Geogr 33(2):236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Head L, Muir P, Hampel E (2004) Australian backyard gardens and the journey of migration. Geogr Rev 94(3):326–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan W, Redman C, Grimm N, Nelson A, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(15):8788–8792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ignatieva M, Stewart G (2009) Homogeneity of urban biotopes and similarity of landscape design language in former colonial cities. Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach:399–421. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609763.024
  26. Iverson L, Cook E (2000) Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst 4(2):105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jim CY, Chen W (2008) Pattern and divergence of tree communities in Taipei’s main urban green spaces. Landsc Urban Plann 84(3–4):312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jim CY, Liu HT (2001) Patterns and dynamics of urban forests in relation to land use and development history in Guangzhou City, China. Geogr J 167(4):358–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson O (2005) A study of biodiversity in UK urban tree populations. Arboricultural J 29:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones P (1981) The geography of dutch elm disease in Britain. Trans Inst Br Geogr 6(3):324–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan R (2001) The nature of the view from home. Environ Behav 33(4):507–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaye J, Groffman P, Grimm N, Baker L, Pouyat R (2006) A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends Ecol Evol 21(4):192–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirkpatrick JB, Daniels GD, Zagorski T (2007) Explaining variation in front gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc Urban Plann 79(3–4):314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krebs C (1999) Ecological methodology. Addison Wesley Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Kueffer C (2010) Transdisciplinary research is needed to predict plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol 25(11):619–620, 10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kull C, Rangan H (2008) Acacia exchanges: wattles, thorn trees, and the study of plant movements. Geoforum 39(3):1258–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kunick W (1987) Woody vegetation in settlements. Landsc Urban Plann 14:47–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. La Sorte F, McKinney M, Pyšek P (2007) Compositional similarity among urban floras within and across continents: biogeographical consequences of human-mediated biotic interchange. Glob Chang Biol 13(4):913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. La Sorte F, McKinney M, Pyšek P, Klotz S, Rapson GL, Celesti-Grapow L, Thompson K (2008) Distance decay of similarity among European urban floras: the impact of anthropogenic activities on diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17(3):363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74(6):1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesser L (1996) Street tree diversity and dbh in Southern California. J Arboriculture 22(4):180–186Google Scholar
  42. Lewis MP (ed) (2009) Ethnologue: languages of the World, vol 2009. vol 20th July 2009, Sixteenth edn. SIL International, DallasGoogle Scholar
  43. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Shriner SA, Franzreb KE (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr 72(3):445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loeb R (2006) A comparative flora of large urban parks: intraurban and interurban similarity in the megalopolis of the northeastern United States. J Torrey Bot Soc 133(4):601–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren P, Gaston K (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22(4):601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Loram A, Thompson K, Warren P, Gaston K (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XII): The richness and composition of the flora in five UK cities. J Veg Sci 19(3):321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lubbe CS, Siebert SJ, Cilliers SS (2010) Political legacy of South Africa affects the plant diversity patterns of urban domestic gardens along a socio-economic gradient. Scientific Research and Essays 19:2900–2910Google Scholar
  48. Maas J, Verheij RA, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P, Schellevis FG, Groenewegen PP (2009) Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J Epidemiol Community Health 63(12):967–973. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.079038 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mack R, Lonsdale M (2001) Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. BioScience 51(2):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martin C, Warren P, Kinzig A (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc Urban Plann 69(4):355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mathieu R, Freeman C, Aryal J (2007) Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very high-resolution satellite imagery. Landsc Urban Plann 81(3):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McKinney M (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127(3):247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller P, Winer A (1984) Composition and dominance in Los Angeles Basin urban vegetation. Urban Ecol 8(1–2):29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mitchell R, Popham F (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372(9650):1655–1660. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nassauer J, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban PlannGoogle Scholar
  56. Niinemets Ü, Peñuelas J (2008) Gardening and urban landscaping: significant players in global change. Trends Plant Sci 13(2):60–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oh K, Jeong S (2007) Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landsc Urban Plann 82(1–2):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pautasso M, Parmentier I (2007) Are the living collections of the world’s botanical gardens following species-richness patterns observed in natural ecosystems? Bot Helv 117(1):15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pawson E (2008) Plants, mobilities and landscapes: environmental histories of botanical exchange. Geography Compass 2(5):1464–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pearson R, Dawson T (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12(5):361–371. doi:10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00042.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pouyat R, Yesilonis I, Golubiewski N (2009) A comparison of soil organic carbon stocks between residential turf grass and native soil. Urban Ecosyst 12(1):1573–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ramanathan V, Feng Y (2008) On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(38):14245–14250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raven PH, Axelrod DI (1974) Angiosperm biogeography and past continental movements. Ann Mo Bot Gard 61:539–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmid JA (1975) Urban vegetation: a review and Chicago case study. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith RM, Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2006) Urban domestic gardens (IX): composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biol Conserv 129(3):312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spencer R (1995) Horticultural flora of south-eastern Australia. UNSW PressGoogle Scholar
  67. Sukopp H, Wurzel A (2003) The effects of climate change on the vegetation of Central European Cities. Urban Habitats 1(1)Google Scholar
  68. Talarchek GM (1990) The urban forest of New Orleans: an exploratory analysis of relationships. Urban Geogr 11:65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tateishi R, Ahn CH (1996) Mapping evapotranspiration and water balance for global land surfaces. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 51(4):209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Taylor L (2002) From ways of life to lifestyle: the ‘Ordinari-ization’ of British gardening lifestyle television. Eur J Commun 17(4):479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thompson K, Austin K, Smith R, Warren P, Angold P, Gaston K (2003) Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant diversity in context. J Veg Sci 14(1):71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tyrrell I (1999) True gardens of the Gods: Californian-Australian environmental reform, 1860–1930. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  73. Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647):420–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. United Nations (2010) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm. Accessed 20th July 2009
  75. Welch J (1994) Street and park trees of Boston: a comparison of urban forest structure. Landsc Urban Plann 29(2–3):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilby R, Perry G (2006) Climate change, biodiversity and the urban environment: a critical review based on London, UK. Prog Phys Geogr 30(1):73–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams N, Schwartz M, Vesk P, McCarthy M, Hahs A, Clemants S, Corlett R, Duncan R, Norton B, Thompson K, McDonnell M (2009) A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. J Ecol 94:4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woodward FI, Williams BG (1987) Climate and plant distribution at global and local scales. Plant Ecol 69(1):189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. World Meteorological Organization (2009) World Weather Information Service United Nations. http://www.worldweather.org. Accessed 20 July 2009
  80. Zmyslony J, Gagnon D (1998) Residential management of urban front-yard landscape: a random process? Landsc Urban Plann 40(4):295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Kendal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicholas S. G. Williams
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kathryn J. H. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Melbourne School of Land & EnvironmentUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, c/o School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations