Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether high plant species diversity could increase the landscape and ecological function of residential greening in a random selection of nine cities, Ningbo, Shaoxing, Jiaxing, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Zhenjiang, Changzhou, Wuxi and Suzhou, in the Yangtze River delta. A quantitative evaluation system was used to evaluate the landscape and ecological function of green space. The relationship between landscape/ecological function and species diversity was analyzed by linear regression. The results indicated that the average Simpson’s index of the 27 surveyed residential green spaces was 8.74 ± 0.60, while the score for landscape effect/ecological function was 6.25 ± 1.42 and 2.70 ± 0.90 respectively. There was a significant correlation between vegetation species diversity and landscape function, and further investigation indicated that more tree species could have a greater effect than more shrubs and herbs. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between vegetation species diversity and ecological function. Thus, the results suggested that high plant species diversity in the majority of residential areas would only improve landscape, and not ecological, function.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alberti M (2008) Advances in urban ecology: integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems. Springer, New York
Antrop M (2000) Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landsc Ecol 15:257–270
Bräuniger C, Knapp S, Kühn I, Klotz S (2010) Testing taxonomic and landscape surrogates for biodiversity in an urban setting. Landsc Urban Plan 97:283–295
Bryant MM (2006) Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales. LandscUrban Plan 76:23–44
Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992
CMA (2008) Chinese Mayor’s Association (CMA), The Report of 2008 Chinese Urban Development. Xiyuan Publishing House, Beijing
Crane P, Kinzig A (2005) Nature in the metropolis. Science 308:1225
Dvorak B, Volder A (2010) Green roof vegetation for North American ecoregions: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 96:197–213
Frondoni R, Mollo B, Capotorti G (2011) A landscape analysis of land cover change in the Municipality of Rome (Italy): spatio-temporal characteristics and ecological implications of land cover transitions from 1954 to 2001. Landsc Urban Plan 100:117–128
Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2005a) Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:395–413
Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM (2005b) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its features. Biodivers Conserv 14:3327–3349
Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landsc J 18:54–64
Gunnarsson B, Heyman E, Vowles T (2009) Bird predation effects on bush canopy arthropods in suburban forests. For Ecol Manag 257:619–627
Han J, Hayashia Y, Cao X, Imura H (2009) Application of an integrated system dynamics and cellular automata model for urban growth assessment: a case study of Shanghai, China. Landsc Urban Plan 91:133–141
Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (2005) Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Huang B, Shi XZ, Yu DS et al (2006) Environmental assessment of small-scale vegetable farming systems in peri-urban areas of the Yangtze River Delta Region, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:391–402
Kong F, Yin H, Nakagoshi N, Zong Y (2010) Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc Urban Plan 95:16–27
Kowarik I (1995) On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In: Pysek P (ed) Plant invasions: general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 85–103
Kühn I, Brandl R, Klotz S (2004) The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol Ecol Res 6:749–764
Kumar BM, Nair PKR (2004) The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agrofor Syst 61:135–152
Lang JD, Liu YH, Meng FG et al (2007) Community structure types and plants composition of residential greenbelts in Beijing. Hebei J For Orchard Res 22:324–328
Larsen L, Harlan SL (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 78:85–100
Li CS (2005) On ecological living surroundings construction. Chin Landsc Archit 9:22–24
Liu J, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Luck GW (2003) Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421:530–533
Loram A, Trátalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent and structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615
Louw E, Bruinsma F (2006) From mixed to multiple land use. J Hous Built Environ 21:1–13
Martinuzzi S, Gould WA, Gonzalez OMR (2007) Land development, land use, and urban sprawl in Puerto Rico integrating remote sensing and population census data. Landsc Urban Plan 79:288–297
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 Plan 81:179–192
McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260
Niemelä J (1999) Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosyst 3:57–65
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42:15–29
Peng Y, Liu XH (2007) Research progress in effects of urbanization on plant biodiversity). Biodivers Sci 15:558–562
Rauppl MJ, Shrewsbury PM, Holmes JJ, Davidson JA (2001) Plant species diversity and abundance affects the number of arthropod pests in residential landscapes. J Arboric 27:222–229
Roberts DG, Ayre DJ, Whelan RJ (2007) Urban plants as genetic reservoirs or threats to the integrity of bushland plant populations. Conserv Biol 21:842–852
Rohde CLE, Kendle AD (1994) Human well-being, natural landscapes and wildlife in urban areas: a review. English Nature Science 22:1–160
Running SW, Nemani RR, Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Reeves M, Hashimoto H (2004) A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54:547–560
Saaty TL (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur J Oper Res 145:85–91
Seto KC, Fragkias M (2005) Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land use change in four cities of China with time series landscape metrics. Landsc Ecol 20:871–888
Snep R, Ierland EV, Opdam P (2009) Enhancing biodiversity at business sites: What are the options, and which of these do stakeholders prefer? Landsc Urban Plan 91:26–35
Song K, Qin J, Gao K, Hu YH (2009) Homogenization of plant diversity in Shanghai residential areas. Chin J Appl Ecol 20:1603–1607
Thompson K, Austin KC, Smith RM, Warren PH, Angold P, Gaston KJ (2003) Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant diversity in context. J Veg Sci 14:71–78
Tian G, Liu J, Xie Y, Yang Z, Zhuang D, Niu Z (2005) Analysis of spatio-temporal dynamic pattern and driving forces of urban land in China in 1990s using TM images and GIS. Cities 22:400–410
Turner K, Lefler L, Freedman B (2005) Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landsc Urban Plan 71:191–206
Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For 1:135–149
UN-Habitat (2008) State of the word’s cities 2008/2009: harmonious cities. Earthscan, London
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Mellilo JM (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499
Von der Lippe M, Kowarik I (2008) Do cities export biodiversity? Traffic as dispersal vector across urban–rural gradients. Divers Distrib 14:18–25
Wang XR (1999) Thoughts and countermeasures facing to the development of 21st century urban greening: a case study of Shanghai. Urban Environ Ecol 12:60–63
Wang C, Peng ZH (2004) Discuss on increasing biodiversity in urban greening. Urban Stud 11:32–36
Wania A, Kuhn I, Klotz S (2006) Plant richness patterns in agricultural and urban landscapes in Central Germany: spatial gradients of species richness. Landsc Urban Plan 75:97–110
Ye QM (2004) The Reference from new urbanism to Chinese urban development: phone-interview with the founder of new urbanism, Peter Calthorpe. Urban Plan Overseas 19:37–40
Yuan XZ, Liu H (1994) Urban ecological landscape and biodiversity protection. Chin J Ecol 13:71–74
Zhang WJ, Qin J, Xu YY, Hu YH, Zhou ZX (2007) A quantitative evaluation system of outdoor afforestation for green construction in Shanghai city. J South China Agric Univ 28:17–23
Zhao SQ, Da LJ, Tang ZY, Fang HJ, Song K, Fang JY (2006) Ecological consequences of rapid urban expansion: Shanghai, China. Front Ecol Environ 4:341–346
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (grant no. 10DZ1200403) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41071275). We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Quantitative evaluation system of outdoor greening
Appendix: Quantitative evaluation system of outdoor greening
The quantitative evaluation system of outdoor greening is built to assess and compare the greening level of certain open space landscapes of residential areas. The system has two hierarchy levels based on the theory of the comprehensive evaluation method, which combined the Analytic Hierarchy Process (abbrev. AHP; Saaty 2003) and the Delphi method (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). The first level has five indicators of ecological function, landscape function, adaptability, green ratio and greening cost. The former two indicators have different weights and the latter three indicators are adjusted coefficients. The second level has eight indicators belonging to ecological function, and another eight indicators belonging to landscape function.
Then the evaluation model is built up as:
in which: K is the index of comprehensive evaluation; β is the weight of ecological function; F is the index value of evaluation function; γ is the weight of landscape function; H is the index value of landscape function; N, M, L are adjusted coefficient values of adaptability, green ratio (GR) and greening cost, respectively; i is the sequence number of second level of ecological function; A i is the index value of the i-th indicator of ecological function; V i is the weight of the i-th indicator; j is the sequence number of second level of landscape function; B i is the index value of the j-th indicator of landscape function; and W i is the weight of the j-th indicator.
The index value of ecological function of plant community follows the following steps: (1) to build the plant resource information bank that has been built up by Shanghai Botanical Garden. (2) To grade qualitatively ecological functions of individual plants based on the bank. (3) To quantify the qualitative indicators on a 10-point system with 6 grades: 10 (better), 8 (good), 6 (general), 4 (bad), 2 (worse) and 0 (zero). (4) To convert the individual plant values into community value by the following formula:
in which S is the value of community ecological function; i is the sequence number of community layers (1: tree layer, 2: shrub layer, 3: herb layer); E i is the means of ecological function of i-layer; G i is the cover value of i-layer; n is the number of plant species of i-layer; j is the sequence number of plant species of i-layer; E ij is the value of ecological function of j-species at i-layer; G ij is the relative cover value of j-species at i-layer.
Among the second level of landscape function, the former four indicators are quantitative, assigned with Simpson index and then multiplied by 10, while the latter four are qualitative to be assigned by the 10-point system by experts.
The three adjusted coefficient indicators are all assigned as 0–1. Specifically, N = 1 when all surveyed plants show fine adaptability; N = 1 − percentage of general plants when partly plants show general adaptability; N = 1 − 3 × percentage of bad plants when partly plants show bad adaptability. M = 1 when GR ≥ 35 %; M = GR/0.35 when GR 30–35 %; M = 0 when GR <30 %. L is ratio of benchmark cost/actual cost, except it is 1 when the ratio >1. Benchmark cost means construction cost and annual maintenance cost of local standard green space, while actual cost means construction cost and annual maintenance cost of the green space of the object being evaluated.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qin, J., You, W., Song, K. et al. Does species diversity affect the function of residential greening in the Yangtze River Delta. Landscape Ecol Eng 11, 129–137 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-014-0249-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-014-0249-8