Vegetation communities on commercial developments are heterogenous and determined by development and landscaping decisions, not socioeconomics
Autoři:
Karen Dyson aff001
Působiště autorů:
Research and Design for Integrated Ecology, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
aff001; Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
aff002
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222069
Souhrn
In urban ecosystems, woody vegetation communities and the ecosystem functions and habitat they provide are largely controlled by humans. These communities are assembled during development, landscaping, and maintenance processes according to decisions made by human actors. While vegetation communities on residential land uses are increasingly well studied, these efforts generally have not extended to other land uses, including commercial property. To fill this gap, I surveyed tree and shrub communities on office developments located in Redmond and Bellevue, Washington, USA, and explored whether aggregated neighborhood and parcel scale socio-economic variables or variables describing the outcome of development and landscaping actions better explained variation in vegetation communities. I found that both tree and shrub communities on office developments are heterogenous, with sites characterized by native or ornamental vegetation. The heterogeneity I observed in vegetation communities within one land use suggests that different ecosystem functions, habitat quality, and habitat quantities are provided on office developments. Greater provision of e.g. native conifer habitat is possible using currently existing developments as models. Additionally, the outcome of development and landscaping decisions explained more variation in community composition than the socio-economic factors found significant on residential property. Together with previous research showing that residential property owner attitudes and actions are more important than socio-economic descriptors, my results suggest that individual motivators, including intended audience, may be the primary determinant of urban vegetation communities. Future urban ecology research should consider sampling the vegetation gradient within land uses, better understanding individual motivation for vegetation management, and creating models of the urban ecosystems that account for alternate decision pathways on different land uses.
Klíčová slova:
Biology and life sciences – Organisms – Eukaryota – Plants – Shrubs – Trees – Conifers – Ecology – Community ecology – Community structure – Ecosystems – Urban ecosystems – Ecological metrics – Species diversity – Urban ecology – Earth sciences – Geography – Human geography – Land use – Social sciences – Ecology and environmental sciences
Zdroje
1. Faeth SH, Bang C, Saari S. Urban biodiversity: Patterns and mechanisms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2011;1223(1):69–81.
2. Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Trammell TL, Endter-Wada J. Biodiverse cities: The nursery industry, homeowners, and neighborhood differences drive urban tree composition. Ecological Monographs. 2018;88(2):259–76.
3. Pickett ST, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, et al. Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. In: Urban Ecology. Springer; 2008. pp. 99–122.
4. Gibb H, Hochuli DF. Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: Large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biological Conservation. 2002;106(1):91–100.
5. Mullaney J, Lucke T, Trueman SJ. A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015;134:157–66.
6. Peters DP, Lugo AE, Chapin FS, Pickett ST, Duniway M, Rocha AV, et al. Cross-system comparisons elucidate disturbance complexities and generalities. Ecosphere. 2011;2(7):1–26.
7. Sharpe DM, Stearns F, Leitner LA, Dorney JR. Fate of natural vegetation during urban development of rural landscapes in southeastern Wisconsin. Urban Ecology. 1986;9(3–4):267–87.
8. Byrne LB. Habitat structure: A fundamental concept and framework for urban soil ecology Urban Ecosystems. 2007 Sep;10(3):255–74.
9. Lehmann I, Mathey J, Rößler S, Bräuer A, Goldberg V. Urban vegetation structure types as a methodological approach for identifying ecosystem services–Application to the analysis of micro-climatic effects. Ecological Indicators. 2014;42:58–72.
10. Walcott CD. Nineteenth annual report of the united states geological survey to the secretary of the interior 1897–1898: Part v–forest reserves [Internet]. 1899. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ar19_5
11. Halpern CB, Spies TA. Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the pacific northwest. Ecological Applications. 1995;5(4):913–34.
12. Andres CK, Smith RC. Principles and practices of commercial construction. Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2004.
13. Dorney JR, Guntenspergen GR, Keough JR, Stearns F. Composition and structure of an urban woody plant community. Urban Ecology. 1984;8(1–2):69–90.
14. McKinney ML. 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. 2002;52(10):883–90.
15. Grimm NB, Pickett ST, Hale RL, Cadenasso ML. Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban social–ecological–technological systems? Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2017;3(1):e01255.
16. Turner MG. Landscape ecology: What is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:319–44.
17. Zipperer WC. The process of natural succession in urban areas. The Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology. 2010;187.
18. Widrlechner MP. Trends influencing the introduction of new landscape plants. Advances in new crops Timber Press, Portland, OR. 1990;460–7.
19. van Heezik YM, Freeman C, Porter S, Dickinson KJ, others. Native and exotic woody vegetation communities in domestic gardens in relation to social and environmental factors. Ecology and Society. 2014;19(4):17.
20. Goodness J. Urban landscaping choices and people’s selection of plant traits in cape town, south africa. Environmental Science & Policy. 2018;85:182–92.
21. Kendal D, Williams KJ, Williams NS. Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2012;105(1–2):34–42.
22. Germaine SS, Rosenstock SS, Schweinsburg RE, Richardson WS. Relationships among breeding birds, habitat, and residential development in greater Tucson, Arizona. Ecological applications. 1998;8(3):680–91.
23. Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Gregory Shriver W. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology. 2009;23(1):219–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01076.x 18950471
24. Blair RB. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications [Internet]. 1996;6(2):506–19. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2269387
25. LeBauer DS, Treseder KK. Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology. 2008;89(2):371–9. doi: 10.1890/06-2057.1 18409427
26. Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu J. Assessing landowner activities related to birds across rural-to-urban landscapes. Environmental Management. 2004;33(1):110–25. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0036-z 14749899
27. Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL. Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: A synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosystems. 2012;15(1):19–52.
28. Young RF. Planting the living city: Best practices in planning green infrastructure—Results from major US cities. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2011;77(4):368–81.
29. Environmental Protection Agency. Assessing street and parking design standards to reduce excess impervious cover in new hampshire and massachusetts. 2011.
30. DeLaria M. Low impact development as a stormwater management technique. The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute; 2008.
31. Wolf KL. Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry. 2005;103(8):396–400.
32. Collins SL, Carpenter SR, Swinton SM, Orenstein DE, Childers DL, Gragson TL, et al. An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2011;9(6):351–7.
33. Elmendorf W. The importance of trees and nature in community: A review of the relative literature. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 2008;34(3):152.
34. Conway TM. Tending their urban forest: Residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban forestry & urban greening. 2016;17:23–32.
35. Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2009;92(3–4):282–92.
36. Peterson MN, Thurmond B, Mchale M, Rodriguez S, Bondell HD, Cook M. Predicting native plant landscaping preferences in urban areas. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2012;5:70–6.
37. Laverne RJ, Winson-Geideman K, others. The influence of trees and landscaping on rental rates at office buildings. Journal of Arboriculture. 2003;29(5):281–90.
38. Levy D, Peterson G. The effect of sustainability on commercial occupiers’ building choice. Journal of Property Investment & Finance. 2013;31(3):267–84.
39. Heynen N, Perkins HA, Roy P. The political ecology of uneven urban green space: The impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review. 2006;42(1):3–25.
40. Schell CJ, Dyson K, Fuentes TL, Lambert MR. The ecological consequences of social inequality. 2019.
41. Leong M, Dunn RR, Trautwein MD. Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: A review of the luxury effect. Biology Letters. 2018;14(5):20180082. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0082 29743266
42. Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan WF, Redman CL, Grimm NB, et al. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2003;100(15):8788–92.
43. Larsen L, Harlan SL. Desert dreamscapes: Residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape and urban planning. 2006;78(1–2):85–100.
44. Boone CG, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Schwarz K, Buckley GL. Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: Why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosystems. 2010;13(3):255–71.
45. Krafft J, Fryd O. Spatiotemporal patterns of tree canopy cover and socioeconomics in Melbourne. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2016;15:45–52.
46. Sierra-Guerrero MC, Amarillo-Suárez AR. Socioecological features of plant diversity in domestic gardens in the city of Bogotá, Colombia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;28:54–62.
47. Clarke LW, Jenerette GD, Davila A. The luxury of vegetation and the legacy of tree biodiversity in Los Angeles, ca. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2013;116:48–59.
48. Luck GW, Smallbone LT, O’Brien R. Socio-economics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: Patterns in space and time. Ecosystems. 2009;12(4):604.
49. Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Pincetl S, Gillespie TW, Jenerette GD, McCarthy HR. Understanding preferences for tree attributes: The relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors. Urban Ecosystems. 2015;18(1):73–86.
50. Grove JM, Cadenasso ML, Burch WR Jr, Pickett ST, Schwarz K, O’Neil-Dunne J, et al. Data and methods comparing social structure and vegetation structure of urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Society and Natural Resources. 2006;19(2):117–36.
51. Mills JR, Cunningham P, Donovan GH. Urban forests and social inequality in the pacific northwest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2016;16:188–96.
52. Jim CY. Trees and landscape of a suburban residential neighbourhood in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1993;23(2):119–43.
53. Shakeel T, Conway TM. Individual households and their trees: Fine-scale characteristics shaping urban forests. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2014;13(1):136–44.
54. Martin CA, Warren PS, Kinzig AP. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004;69(4):355–68.
55. Rigolon A, Browning M, Jennings V. Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the united states. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2018;178:156–69.
56. Almagor J. Possible urban futures: The impact of planners and developers on urban dynamics [PhD thesis]. Tel Aviv University; 2017.
57. Faeth SH, Warren PS, Shochat E, Marussich WA. Trophic dynamics in urban communities. BioScience. 2005;55(5):399–407.
58. Wittig R. Biodiversity of urban-industrial areas and its evaluation–a critical review. Urban biodiversity and design. 2010;37–55.
59. Tenneson K. The residential urban forest: Linking structure, function and management [PhD thesis]. University of Washington; 2013.
60. Tang Y, Chen A, Zhao S. Carbon storage and sequestration of urban street trees in Beijing, China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2016;4:53.
61. Crisp PN, Dickinson K, Gibbs G. Does native invertebrate diversity reflect native plant diversity? A case study from New Zealand and implications for conservation. Biological Conservation. 1998;83(2):209–20.
62. Rebele F. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Global ecology and biogeography letters. 1994;173–87.
63. Mach BM, Potter DA. Quantifying bee assemblages and attractiveness of flowering woody landscape plants for urban pollinator conservation. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0208428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208428 30586408
64. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R. A historical perspective on urban bird research: Trends, terms, and approaches. In: Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Springer; 2001. pp. 1–17.
65. Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C. Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. AIBS Bulletin. 2003;53(12):1169–79.
66. Alberti M. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International Regional Science Review. 2005;28(2):168–92.
67. Polasky S, Nelson E, Lonsdorf E, Fackler P, Starfield A. Conserving species in a working landscape: Land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecological applications. 2005;15(4):1387–401.
68. Rosenzweig ML. Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx. 2003;37(2):194–205.
69. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG. Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2010;25(2):90–8.
70. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ. Conservation where people live and work. Conservation biology. 2002;16(2):330–7.
71. Snep RP, Wallis DeVries MF, Opdam P. Conservation where people work: A role for business districts and industrial areas in enhancing endangered butterfly populations? Landscape and Urban Planning. 2011;103(1):94–101.
72. Bourne KS, Conway TM. The influence of land use type and municipal context on urban tree species diversity. Urban ecosystems. 2014;17(1):329–48.
73. Fan C, Johnston M, Darling L, Scott L, Liao FH. Land use and socio-economic determinants of urban forest structure and diversity. Landscape and urban planning. 2019;181:10–21.
74. United States Census Bureau. Population and housing unit estimates [Internet]. 2017. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html?intcmp=serp
75. Dyson K. Parcel-scale development and landscaping actions affect vegetation, bird, and fungal communities on office developments [PhD thesis]. 2019.
76. Dyson K, Ziter C, Fuentes TL, Patterson M. Conducting urban ecology research on private property: Advice for new urban ecologists. Journal of Urban Ecology. 2019;5(1):juz001.
77. United States Census Bureau. American community survey 5yr block group [Internet]. 2016. http://census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html
78. King County Department of Assessments. King county assessments data [Internet]. 2014. http://info.kingcounty.gov/assessor/DataDownload/default.aspx
79. King County GIS Center. King county gis data portal [Internet]. 2014. http://www5.kingcounty.gov/gisdataportal/Default.aspx
80. Xian G, Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Hossain N, Wickham J. Change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous united states. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 2011;77(8):758–62.
81. Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, et al. Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous united states-representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 2015;81(5):345–54.
82. Walker JS, Grimm NB, Briggs JM, Gries C, Dugan L. Effects of urbanization on plant species diversity in central Arizona. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2009;7(9):465–70.
83. Dana E, Vivas S, Mota J. Urban vegetation of almeria city—a contribution to urban ecology in spain. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002;59(4):203–16.
84. Grove JM, Locke DH, O’Neil-Dunne JP. An ecology of prestige in new york city: Examining the relationships among population density, socio-economic status, group identity, and residential canopy cover. Environmental management. 2014;54(3):402–19. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0310-2 25034751
85. QGIS Development Team. QGIS geographic information system [Internet]. Open Source Geospatial Foundation; 2016. http://qgis.osgeo.org
86. Dexter L. Elite and specialized interviewing. 1970;
87. Harvey WS. Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research. 2011 Aug;11(4):431–41.
88. Sibley D, others. Sibley guide to trees. Alfred A. Knopf; Distributed by Random House; 2009.
89. Dirr M. Dirr’s hardy trees and shrubs: An illustrated encyclopedia. Timber Press, Inc. 1997.
90. Dirr M. Manual of woody landscape plants: Their identification, ornamental characteristics, culture, propagation and uses. Stipes Publishing LLC; 2009.
91. Daniels G, Kirkpatrick J. Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006;78(4):344–52.
92. U.S. Geological Survey. Digital representation of “Atlas of United States trees” by Elbert L. Little, Jr. [Internet]. 1999. http://gec.cr.usgs.gov/data/little/
93. USDA. The plants database [Internet]. 2016. http://plants.usda.gov/java/
94. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019. https://www.R-project.org
95. McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL. Analysis of ecological communities. Vol. 28. MjM software design Gleneden Beach, OR; 2002.
96. Dufrêne M, Legendre P. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological monographs. 1997;67(3):345–66.
97. Milligan GW. A Study of the Beta-Flexible Clustering Method. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1989 Apr;24(2):163–76. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2402_2 26755277
98. Breckenridge JN. Validating cluster analysis: Consistent replication and symmetry. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2000;35(2):261–85. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3502_5 26754085
99. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. Vegan: Community ecology package [Internet]. 2017. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
100. De Cáceres M, Legendre P, Moretti M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos. 2010;119(10):1674–84.
101. De Cáceres M, Legendre P. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference [Internet]. Ecology. 2009. http://sites.google.com/site/miqueldecaceres/
102. De Cáceres M. How to use the indicspecies package (ver 1.7.1). Catalonia, Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya. 2013;
103. Dyson K. Custom community ecology helper R scripts [Internet]. 2018. https://github.com/kdyson/R_Scripts
104. Anderson MJ. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology. 2001;26(1):32–46.
105. Shannon CE, Weaver W. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL; 1949.
106. Jost L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos. 2006;113(2):363–75.
107. Karlik JF, Winer AM. Plant species composition, calculated leaf masses and estimated biogenic emissions of urban landscape types from a field survey in Phoenix, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001;53(1–4):123–34.
108. Grimes A, Mitchell I. Impacts of planning rules, regulations, uncertainty and delay on residential property development. 2015;
109. Häkkinen T, Belloni K. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research & Information. 2011;39(3):239–55.
110. Nappi-Choulet I. The role and behaviour of commercial property investors and developers in French urban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region. Urban Studies. 2006;43(9):1511–35.
111. Mohamed R. Why do residential developers prefer large exurban lots? Infrastructure costs and exurban development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2009;36(1):12–29.
112. Belaire JA, Whelan CJ, Minor ES. Having our yards and sharing them too: The collective effects of yards on native bird species in an urban landscape. Ecological Applications. 2014;24(8):2132–43. 29188686
113. Chong KY, Teo S, Kurukulasuriya B, Chung YF, Rajathurai S, Tan HTW. Not all green is as good: Different effects of the natural and cultivated components of urban vegetation on bird and butterfly diversity. Biological Conservation. 2014;171:299–309.
114. Pennington DN, Blair RB. Habitat selection of breeding riparian birds in an urban environment: Untangling the relative importance of biophysical elements and spatial scale. Diversity and Distributions. 2011;17(3):506–18.
115. Paker Y, Yom-Tov Y, Alon-Mozes T, Barnea A. The effect of plant richness and urban garden structure on bird species richness, diversity and community structure. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;122:186–95.
116. Narango DL, Tallamy DW, Marra PP. Nonnative plants reduce population growth of an insectivorous bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(45):11549–54.
117. Threlfall CG, Williams NS, Hahs AK, Livesley SJ. Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016;153:28–39.
118. Le Roux DS, Ikin K, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Gibbons P. The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099403 24941258
119. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG. Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecological Economics. 2013;86:258–73.
120. Nassauer JI. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes. Managing Urban and High Use Recreation Settings General Technical Report, USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, St Paul, MN. 1993;98–103.
121. Kiesling FM, Manning CM. How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2010;30(3):315–27.
122. Beumer C. Show me your garden and I will tell you how sustainable you are: Dutch citizens’ perspectives on conserving biodiversity and promoting a sustainable urban living environment through domestic gardening. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2018;30:260–79.
123. Helfand GE, Park JS, Nassauer JI, Kosek S. The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006;78(3):229–40.
124. McIntyre NE, Knowles-Yánez K, Hope D. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: Differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban ecosystems. 2000;4(1):5–24.
125. De Winter JC. Using the student’s t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2013;18(10).
126. Ellis JI, Schneider DC. Evaluation of a gradient sampling design for environmental impact assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1997;48(2):157–72.
127. Telford RJ, Birks HJB. Effect of uneven sampling along an environmental gradient on transfer-function performance. Journal of Paleolimnology. 2011;46(1):99.
128. Lerman SB, Warren PS. The conservation value of residential yards: Linking birds and people. Ecological Applications. 2011;21(4):1327–39. 21774433
129. Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST. Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: Social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environmental management. 2009;44(5):921. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1 19777295
130. Harris EM, Polsky C, Larson KL, Garvoille R, Martin DG, Brumand J, et al. Heterogeneity in residential yard care: Evidence from Boston, Miami, and Phoenix. Human Ecology. 2012;40(5):735–49.
131. Yang J, Yan P, He R, Song X. Exploring land-use legacy effects on taxonomic and functional diversity of woody plants in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2017;162:92–103.
132. Uren HV, Dzidic PL, Bishop BJ. Exploring social and cultural norms to promote ecologically sensitive residential garden design. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015;137:76–84.
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 9
- Tisícileté topoly, mokří psi, stárnoucí kočky a ospalé octomilky – „jednohubky“ z výzkumu 2024/41
- Jaké jsou aktuální trendy v léčbě karcinomu slinivky?
- Může hubnutí souviset s vyšším rizikem nádorových onemocnění?
- Menstruační krev má značný diagnostický potenciál, mimo jiné u diabetu
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Graviola (Annona muricata) attenuates behavioural alterations and testicular oxidative stress induced by streptozotocin in diabetic rats
- CH(II), a cerebroprotein hydrolysate, exhibits potential neuro-protective effect on Alzheimer’s disease
- Comparison between Aptima Assays (Hologic) and the Allplex STI Essential Assay (Seegene) for the diagnosis of Sexually transmitted infections
- Assessment of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity using CareStart G6PD rapid diagnostic test and associated genetic variants in Plasmodium vivax malaria endemic setting in Mauritania