Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 1735–1748 | Cite as

Diversity in flowering plants and their characteristics: integrating humans as a driver of urban floral resources

  • David M. Lowenstein
  • Emily S. MinorEmail author
Article

Abstract

Urban neighborhoods vary in development intensity and in the life style and demographics of their residents. Decisions made by urban residents affect plant communities, their functional characteristics, and the floral resources they provide. We recorded flowers in front-facing yards in 58 neighborhoods in Chicago, IL (USA) and examined patterns in community composition and species turnover between neighborhoods. We investigated how species richness and plant characteristics, including origin, cultivation intent, and life cycle, are affected by neighborhood socioeconomic factors. Urban plant species tended to be perennial, ornamental, and non-native. White clover had the broadest distribution and the highest floral abundance but was not present in several of the highest-income neighborhoods. Although we found 144 morpho-species across neighborhoods, most occurred infrequently. Species turnover was highest for ornamental species and lowest for weedy species, suggesting that intentional plantings are driving beta diversity across the landscape. We found the highest species richness in neighborhoods with intermediate numbers of Hispanic and white residents and with intermediate number of residential lots; neighborhoods with racially or ethnically homogenous populations had fewer plant species. The high frequency of weeds in low-income neighborhoods, the occurrence of certain ornamental plant species in whiter, wealthier communities, and high turnover of species from one neighborhood to another, all suggest a disparity in plant-related ecosystem services across cities. Complexity in urban plantings may be influenced by the suite of perspectives that residents bring towards habitat management. Cultivation sustains a diversity of plants and creates a disparity in plant traits by neighborhood socioeconomics.

Keywords

City Gardens Non-native Socio-ecological systems Human-environment interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dragan Dragas, Sophie Huang, and Tabitha Paroongsup for assistance in data collection and plant identification. This work was funded by NSF Proposal Number: DEB-1120376.

Supplementary material

11252_2016_563_MOESM1_ESM.docx (602 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 601 kb)

References

  1. Aronson MFJ, Handel SN, La Puma IP, Clemants SE (2015) Urbanization promotes non-native woody species and diverse plant assemblages in the New York metropolitan region. Urban Ecosyst 18:31–45. doi: 10.1007/s11252-014-0382-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldock KCR et al (2015) Where is the UK’s pollinator biodiversity? the importance of urban areas for flower visiting insects. P R Soc B 282:20142849. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belaire JA, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2014) Having our yards and sharing them too: the collective effects of yards on native bird species in an urban landscape. Ecol Appl 24:2132–2143. doi: 10.1890/13-2259.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertoncini AP, Machon N, Pavoine S, Muratet A (2012) Local gardening practices shape urban lawn floristic communities. Landscape Urban Plan 105:53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–88. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[80:SHIUER]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clemants S, Moore G (2001) Urban habitats: patterns of species diversity in eight northeastern United States cities. Urban Habit 1:4–16Google Scholar
  7. Comba L, Corbet SA, Hunt L, Warren B (1999) Flowers, nectar and insect visits: evaluating British plant species for pollinator-friendly gardens. Ann Bot London 83:369–383. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1998.0835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 15:19–52. doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-0197-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowe TM (1979) Lots of weeds: insular phytogeography of vacant urban lots. J Biogeogr 6:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrings C, Williamson M (2007) The horticultural trade and ornamental plant invasions in Britain. Conserv Biol 21:224–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00538.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis J, Behe BK (2007) Evaluating the role of ethnicity on gardening purchases and satisfaction. HortSci 42:262–267Google Scholar
  12. Duncan RP et al (2011) Plant traits and extinction in urban areas: a meta-analysis of 11 cities. Global Ecol Biogeogr 20:509–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00633.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Garbuzov M, Ratnieks FLW (2014) Quantifying variation among garden plants in attractiveness to bees and other flower-visiting insects. Funct Ecol 28:364–374. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodivers Conserv 14:3327–3349. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-9513-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2013) Why garden for wildlife? social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecol Econ 86:258–273. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godefroid S, Koedam N (2007) Urban plant species patterns are highly driven by density and function of built-up areas. Landscape Ecol 22:1227–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grove JM, Troy AR, O’Neil-Dunne JOM, Burch WR Jr, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2006) Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9:578–597. doi: 10.1007/s10021-006-0116-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grove JM, Locke DH, O’Neil-Dunne JPM (2014) An ecology of prestige in New York City: examining the relationships among population density, socio-economic status, group identity, and residential canopy cover. Environ Manag 54:402–419. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0310-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hahs AK, Evans KL (2015) Expanding fundamental ecological knowledge by studying urban ecosystems. Funct Ecol 29:863–867. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig A (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8788–8792. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1537557100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kendal D, Williams KJH, Williams NSG (2012) Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the compositions of their gardens. Landscape Urban Plan 105:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kent RB, Gandia-Ojeda AF (1999) The Puerto Rican Yard-Complex of Lorain, Ohio. In Yearbook. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers, 45–60. Conference of Latin Americanist GeographersGoogle Scholar
  24. Knapp S, Dinsmore L, Fissore C, Hobbie SE, Jakobsdottir I, Kattge J, King JY, Klotz S, McFadden JP, Cavender-Bares J (2012) Phylogenetic and functional characteristics of household yard floras and their changes along an urbanization gradient. Ecology 93:S83–S98. doi: 10.1890/11-0392.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. La Sorte FA et al (2014) Beta diversity of urban floras among European and non-European cities. Global Ecol Biogeogr 23:769–779. doi: 10.1111/geb.12159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larson JL, Kesheimer AK, Potter DA (2014) Pollinator assemblages on dandelions and white clover in urban and suburban lawns. J Insect Conserv 18:863–873. doi: 10.1007/s10841-014-9694-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leong M, Kremen C, Roderick GK (2014) Pollinator Interactions with Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) across urban, agricultural, and natural landscapes. PLoS ONE 9:e86357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086357 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Lerman SB, Warren PS (2011) The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecol Appl 21:1327–1339. doi: 10.1890/10-0423.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent and structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape Ecol 22:601–615. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-9051-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowenstein DM, Matteson KC, Xiao I, Silva AM, Minor ES (2014) Human, bees, and pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodivers Conserv 23:2857–2874. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0752-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowenstein DM, Matteson KC, Minor ES (2015) Diversity of wild bees supports pollination services in an urbanized landscape. Oecologia 179:811–821. doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3389-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Luck GW, Davidson P, Boxall D, Smallbone L (2011) Relations between urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conserv Biol 25:816–826. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01685.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lumley T. using Fortran code by Alan Miller (2009) leaps: regression subset selection. R package version 2.9. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=leaps
  34. MacIvor JS, Cabral JM, Packer L (2014) Pollen specialization by solitary bees in an urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 17:139–147. doi: 10.1007/s11252-013-0321-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mathieu R, Freeman C, Aryal J (2007) Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very high-resolution imagery. Landscape Urban Plan 81:179–192. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2010) Determinates of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosyst 13:333–347. doi: 10.1007/s11252-010-0122-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matteson KC, Grace JB, Minor ES (2013) Direct and indirect effects of land use on floral resources and flower-visiting insects across an urban landscape. Oikos 122:682–694. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20229.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mennis J (2006) Socioeconomic-vegetation relationships in urban, residential land: the case of Denver, Colorado. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 72(8):911–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minor ES, Belaire JA, Davis A, Franco M, Lin M (2016) Socioeconomics and neighbor mimicry drive yard and neighborhood vegetation patterns. In: Francis RA, Millington JDA, Chadwick MA (eds) Urban landscape ecology: science, policy and practice. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Pyšek P (1998) Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J Biogeogr 25:155–163. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.251177.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103–112. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0103:H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith RM, Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K (2005) Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecol 20:235–253. doi: 10.1007/s10980-004-3160-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 Cons 129:312–322. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor JR, Lovell ST (2015) Urban home gardens in the Global North: a mixed methods study of ethnic and migrant home gardens in Chicago, IL. Renew Agr Food Syst 30:22–32. doi: 10.1017/S1742170514000180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tuomisto H (2010) A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. part 1. defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography 33:2–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05880.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams NSG et al (2009) A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. J Ecol 97:4–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01460.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations