| Literature DB >> 23142878 |
Piotr Sikorski1, Iwona Szumacher, Daria Sikorska, Marcin Kozak, Marek Wierzba.
Abstract
Visitor's access to understorey vegetation in park forest stands results in the impoverishment of plant species composition and a reduction in habitat quality. The phenomenon of biotic homogenisation is typical in urban landscapes, but it can proceed differently depending on the scale, a detail that has not been observed in previous studies. This research was carried out in seven Warsaw parks (both public and restricted access). Thirty-four forested areas were randomly selected, some subjected to strong visitors' pressure and some within restricted access areas, free of such impacts. The latter category included woodlands growing in old forest and secondary habitats. Public access to the study areas contributed to the disappearance of some forest species and their replacement by cosmopolitan non-forest species, leading to loss of floristic biodiversity in areas of high ecological importance at the city scale. Some human-induced factors, including soil compaction and changes in soil pH, moisture and capillary volume, were found to cause habitat changes that favoured native non-forest plants. Despite changes in species composition, the taxonomic similarity of understorey vegetation in both categories--public access and restricted access--was comparable. In a distance gradient of measurements taken around selected individual trees, there was found to be significant variation (in light, soil pH and compaction) affecting the quality and quantity of understorey vegetation (including rare species). In conclusion, the protection of rare forest species could be achieved by limiting access to forested areas, particularly in old forest fragments, and we highly recommend its consideration in the proposal of future park restoration plans.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23142878 PMCID: PMC3667376 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2987-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Monit Assess ISSN: 0167-6369 Impact factor: 2.513
Fig. 1Location of the studied urban parks within city limits with public access to undergrowth (PR) and restricted access to undergrowth vegetation (RR and RO), the numbers of the objects are as in Table 1
Characteristics of the studied urban parks and physical, chemical soil properties of in the selected forest stands (values averaged for analysed sites)
| Park ID | Park name | Established | Area (ha) | % forest cover | Access to undergrowth | Forest stand continuity in parka | Forest stand typeb | Number of analysed forest stand/sample plots | Humus (%) | Compaction (N/cm2) | Sand in % | Silt in % | Clay in % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Arkadia Górna | 1973 | 6.4 | 72 | Yes (P) | Recent (R) | PR | 2/24 | 1.80 | 362 | 67 | 31 | 2 |
| (2) | Morskie Oko (Dolne) | 1774 | 17.9 | 63 | Yes (P) | Recent (R) | PR | 7/84 | 4.32 | 269 | 60 | 38 | 2 |
| (3) | Skaryszewski | 1906 | 49.6 | 62 | Yes (P) | Recent (R) | PR | 2/24 | 3.70 | 289 | 23 | 76 | 1 |
| (4) | Sowińskiego | 1936 | 8.3 | 73 | Yes (P) | Recent (R) | PR | 2/24 | 4.25 | 344 | 60 | 38 | 2 |
| (5) | Arkadia Dolna | 1973 | 9.7 | 54 | Yes (P) | Recent (R) | PR | 3/36 | 3.30 | 185 | – | – | – |
| (6) | Park Natolin (Górny) | 1780 | 26.0 | 75 | No (R) | Recent (R)/old (O) | RR/RO | 2/24 | 2.45 | 162 | 81 | 18 | 1 |
| (7) | Park Natolin (Dolny) | 1780 | 79.0 | 98 | No (R) | Recent (R)/old (O) | RR/RO | 16/192 | 3.72 | 173 | 74 | 25 | 1 |
aRecent (R)—ca 60 years old, old (O)—over 150 years
bRO—old (ancient) forest stand with restricted access to undergrowth vegetation, RR—recent forest stand with restricted access to undergrowth vegetation, PR—recent forest stand with public access
Mean values of understorey vegetation and soil characteristics in different forested areas, different letters in the row indicate a significant difference between the two corresponding means, significant differences at p < 0.05, according to the asymptotic z test used for multiple comparisons in linear and generalized linear mixed effects models, different letters in a row indicate a significant difference between the two corresponding means
| PR | RR | RO | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation characteristics | |||
| Species richness ( | 5.79 a | 8.03 b | 8.17 b |
| Native species ( | 5.44 a | 7.88 b | 7.84 b |
| Native non-forest species (%) | 40.32 a | 8.30 b | 0.91 b |
| Native forest species (%) | 1.40 a | 46.9 b | 58.5 c |
| Alien species ( | 0.35 a | 0.14 a | 0.32 a |
| Ancient forest species ( | 1.16 a | 6.19 b | 6.46 b |
| Spring geophytes ( | 0.99 a | 3.42 b | 3.57 b |
| Diversity index | 1.13 a | 1.16 a | 1.18 a |
| Plant height (cm) | 13.65 a | 31.23 b | 31.82 b |
| Plant cover (%) | 42.94 a | 55.45 b | 59.84 b |
| Soil characteristics | |||
| Salinity (mS/cm) | 0.83 a | 0.67 ab | 0.59 b |
| pH (H2O) | 7.01 a | 5.28 b | 4.77 b |
| Temperature difference (°C) | 3.36 a | 5.24 a | 3.17 a |
| Soil compaction (N/cm2) | 323 a | 76 b | 89 b |
| Light 0.1 m above ground (%) | 14.03 a | 2.85 b | 4.37 b |
| Light 1 m above ground (%) | 14.10 a | 2.93 b | 10.26 ab |
| Bulk density (g·cm−3) | 1.22 a | 1.03 b | 0.96 b |
| Moist bulk density (g·cm−3) | 1.46 a | 1.27 b | 1.13 c |
| Difference in moisture (%) | 12.52 a | 5.92 b | 8.70 ab |
| Capillary water capacity (% volume) | 35.90 a | 36.60 a | – |
| Capillary water capacity (% weight) | 29.80 a | 36.10 b | – |
Fig. 2CCA diagram for all samples with habitat variables; light—light 1 m above ground, moisture diff.—moisture differences in hot days, compaction—soil compaction at a depth of 5 cm, pH , salinity, temperature diff.—temperature differences in hot days
Fig. 3CCA diagram for plant species and habitat variables, plant names are presented in Appendix 1
The effects of woodland type, gradient and direction and their second-order interactions on soil characteristics (values significant at p < 0.05 are presented in bold)
| Salinity (mS/cm) | pH (H2O) | Temperature difference (°C) | Soil compaction (MPa) | Light 0.1 m above (%) | Light 1 m above (%) | Bulk density (g·cm−3) | Capillary water capacity (% volume) | Capillary water capacity (% weight) | Difference in moisture content (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type |
|
| 0.287 |
|
|
|
| 0.704 |
|
|
| Gradient | 0.708 |
|
| 0.943 |
|
|
| 0.700 | 0.107 | 0.548 |
| Direction | 0.174 | 0.643 |
|
|
|
| 0.927 | 0.387 | 0.365 | 0.104 |
| Tree species | 0.235 | 0.553 | 0.796 | 0.396 | 0.524 | 0.833 | 0.804 | 0.858 | 0.936 | 0.557 |
| Type × gradient | 0.059 |
| 0.980 |
|
|
| 0.330 | 0.067 |
| 0.636 |
| Type × direction |
| 0.391 | 0.050 |
|
|
| 0.409 | 0.460 | 0.441 | 0.125 |
| Gradient × direction | 0.997 | 0.923 |
| 0.792 | 0.847 | 0.845 | 0.748 | 0.458 | 0.256 | 0.473 |
| Gradient × tree species | 0.150 | 0.444 | 0.322 | 0.737 |
| 0.415 | 0.437 | 0.638 | 0.315 | 0.254 |
| Direction × tree species | 0.866 |
| 0.929 | 0.773 |
|
| 0.536 | 0.308 | 0.359 | 0.696 |
The effect of forest stand type, gradient and direction and their second-order interactions on the mean number and percentage cover of plant species and their diversity (values significant at p < 0.05 are presented in bold)
| Floristic richness ( | Native species ( | Native forest species (%) | Native non-forest species (%) | Alien species ( | Spring geophytes ( | Ancient forest species ( | Diversity index | Plant height (cm) | Plant cover (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type |
|
|
|
| 0.060 |
|
| 0.837 |
|
|
| Gradient |
|
|
|
| 0.216 | 0.677 |
|
|
|
|
| Direction |
|
|
|
| 0.092 | 0.604 | 0.189 | 0.467 | 0.363 | 0.485 |
| Tree species | 0.100 |
|
|
| 0.063 | 0.194 | 0.170 | 0.507 | 0.389 |
|
| Type × gradient |
|
|
|
| 0.098 | 0.312 |
| 0.096 |
|
|
| Type × direction |
|
|
| 0.462 |
| 0.110 | 0.282 | 0.625 | 0.386 |
|
| Gradient × direction | 0.151 |
|
| 0.821 | 0.100 | 0.281 |
| 0.831 | 0.851 | 0.608 |
| Gradient × tree species |
|
|
|
| 0.076 | 0.280 | 0.095 | 0.064 | 0.175 |
|
| Direction × tree species | 0.117 |
|
| 0.275 | 0.066 |
|
| 0.082 | 0.566 | 0.878 |
Fig. 4Differentiation of selected vegetation and habitat conditions in the gradient of single tree crowns