1
|
Persson AS, Westman A, Smith TJ, Mayfield MM, Olsson P, Smith HG, Fuller R. Backyard buzz: human population density modifies the value of vegetation cover for insect pollinators in a subtropical city. Urban Ecosyst 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11252-022-01277-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
AbstractUrbanisation drives overall declines in insect pollinators. Although urban green spaces can provide suitable habitat for pollinators much remains to be learned about how urban landscapes either promote or negatively impact pollinators. We investigated how backyard design, local (100 m) and landscape (500 m) scale vegetation cover and human population density were associated with non-eusocial native bee species, eusocial bees (Apis mellifera and Tetragonula spp.), and hoverflies, in residential green spaces of the subtropical city Brisbane, Australia. We found that associations between bee abundance and vegetation cover were moderated by human density, but the direction of this effect differed for non-eusocial and eusocial species. Non-eusocial bee abundance was positively associated with tree cover at local and landscape scales when human densities were low, but negatively so at high human population densities. We suggest this may be because the quality of vegetation for non-eusocial bees deteriorates as human density increases. In contrast, abundance of eusocial bees was negatively associated with increasing local cover of grass and shrubs at low levels of human density, but positively associated at high densities. This affinity to humans could partly be explained by domesticated “kept” hives. We found no effect of urban gradients on bee species richness. Hoverfly abundance was negatively related to human density and positively related to vegetation cover at local and landscape scales. At the backyard scale, both bee species richness and bee and hoverfly abundances were positively associated to flower abundance. Backyards with more vegetation cover had higher densities of non-eusocial bees. Our results thus support the idea that urban greening in densely populated areas at multiple spatial scales can benefit a range of insect pollinators.
Collapse
|
3
|
Larson KL, Andrade R, Nelson KC, Wheeler MM, Engebreston JM, Hall SJ, Avolio ML, Groffman PM, Grove M, Heffernan JB, Hobbie SE, Lerman SB, Locke DH, Neill C, Chowdhury RR, Trammell TLE. Municipal regulation of residential landscapes across US cities: Patterns and implications for landscape sustainability. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2020; 275:111132. [PMID: 33002703 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2020] [Revised: 07/20/2020] [Accepted: 07/23/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Local regulations on residential landscapes (yards and gardens) can facilitate or constrain ecosystem services and disservices in cities. To our knowledge, no studies have undertaken a comprehensive look at how municipalities regulate residential landscapes to achieve particular goals and to control management practices. Across six U.S. cities, we analyzed 156 municipal ordinances to examine regional patterns in local landscape regulations and their implications for sustainability. Specifically, we conducted content analysis to capture regulations aimed at: 1) goals pertaining to conservation and environmental management, aesthetics and nuisance avoidance, and health and wellbeing, and 2) management actions including vegetation maintenance, water and waste management, food production, and chemical inputs. Our results reveal significant variation in local and regional regulations. While regulatory goals stress stormwater management and nuisance avoidance, relatively few municipalities explicitly regulate residential yards to maintain property values, mitigate heat, or avoid allergens. Meanwhile, biological conservation and water quality protection are common goals, yet regulations on yard management practices (e.g., non-native plants or chemical inputs) sometimes contradict these purposes. In addition, regulations emphasizing aesthetics and the maintenance of vegetation, mowing of grass and weeds, as well as the removal of dead wood, may inhibit wildlife-friendly yards. As a whole, landscaping ordinances largely ignore tradeoffs between interacting goals and outcomes, thereby limiting their potential to support landscape sustainability. Recommendations therefore include coordinated, multiobjective planning through partnerships among planners, developers, researchers, and non-government entities at multiple scales.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelli L Larson
- School of Geographical Science and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5302, USA.
| | - Riley Andrade
- School of Geographical Science and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5302, USA.
| | - Kristen C Nelson
- Department of Forest Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
| | - Megan M Wheeler
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
| | - Jesse M Engebreston
- Department of Recreation, Hospitality, and Parks Management, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA, 95929, USA.
| | - Sharon J Hall
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
| | - Meghan L Avolio
- Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
| | - Peter M Groffman
- City University of New York Advanced Science Research Center at the Graduate Center, New York, NY, 10031, USA; Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA.
| | - Morgan Grove
- Baltimore Field Station, Forest Service Northern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture, Baltimore, MD, 21228, USA.
| | - James B Heffernan
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
| | - Sarah E Hobbie
- Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
| | - Susannah B Lerman
- Forest Service Northern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture, Amherst, MA, USA, 01003.
| | - Dexter H Locke
- Baltimore Field Station, Forest Service Northern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture, Baltimore, MD, 21228, USA.
| | | | | | - Tara L E Trammell
- Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
| |
Collapse
|